Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 31 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 31, 1988 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum of nine was present. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were read and approved. III. Members present: David Jones, Chairman John Schlereth Martha Miller Bill Rector, Jr. Jerilyn Nicholson Rose Collins Stephen Leek Walter Riddick Fred Perkins Members absent: T. Grace Jones Richard Massie City Attorney Present: Pat Benton May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISION HEARING Discussion on April 19th Minutes Chairman Jones had a problem with the way Item No. 19 on the April 19th Agenda was interpreted. Mr. Lou Schickel asked that he ask for a clarification of the agreement from the Commission on Staff's interpretation of the outcome of the discussion regarding the curb cut between Danny Thomas' and Lou Schickel's property. Chairman Jones read Staff's conclusion. A lengthy discussion followed involving all parties. The Commission determined that the request was warranted, but that some change to accommodate the Bowman Road turning movement problem was appropriate. A motion was made to approve the site plan layout including the driveways and a second building on lot 5 for a financial institution. This motion was subject to: (1) the Applicant, at his cost, providing for additional length of the southbound, left turn lane equal in length to that existing, (2) only one access onto Bowman Road to serve all of the three lots (5, 10, 11), and (3) The Danny Thomas Co. to ensure that all other owners comply with #2 which is the only one access. The motion passed by a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. Chairman Jones identified the question as whether or not the agreement was for one curb cut if Mr. Schickel agreed with the Developer, or did the Commission agree on one curb cut with it being Mr. Schickel's responsibility to sue if he did not agree with Mr. Thomas' interpretation of whether the curb cut could be forced. Staff said that the Applicant gave the Commission assurance that he had Site Plan Review authority over any development and assured the Commission that they could make Mr. Schickel comply with the action being taken. It was determined that only four of the Commissioners that voted were in attendance (Mr. Riddick abstained). Mr. Don Bailey of Danny Thomas Co. said that they felt they had the authority, but were still working on an agreement with Mr. Schickel. Chairman Jones said he understood that it was not an absolute requirement on behalf of the Commission that Mr. Schickel be forced to adhere to this situation, but more that the Commission was urging the parties to reach an agreement. Commissioner Rector interpreted it differently. He felt that the approval was conditioned on the placement of the May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISION HEARING Discussion (Continued) one curb cut. If there is not one, then it is not approved. The Preliminary Plat showed the curb cut. Mr. Don Bailey explained that City Engineering had denied a curb cut in writing prior to this coming to the Commission. Chairman Jones point out that curb cuts were approved prior to Mr. Schickel's owning the property. Mr. Bailey explained that no access to Tract A was desired at that time. It was determined that the approval was conditioned on that curb cut and the Site Plan Authority of The Danny Thomas Co. If no agreement is reached, then the original curb cuts apply. The Commission also agreed to amend the previous Minute Record to include the new policy for accepting late applications. A motion to approve the minutes was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Walter Riddick). LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES MAY 31, 1988 Deferred Items: A. Oxford Valley B. Flintridge Business Addition C. Bill R & Jo Lusk "Short- Form" PCD (Z-5008) D. Polk & Kavanaugh "Short -Form "PCD (Z-5004) E. Village Shopping Center Addition F. Z-4470-A - Rock Creek Parkway (MF-18 & O-3 to C-3 & O-3) Preliminary /Replats: 1. Trigon Addition 2. Woodcreek Revised Preliminary 3. Davis Replat 4. Sumit Ridge Revised Preliminary 5. University Office Park 6. Riverfront Addition Tract A -2R & Tract A-3 Site Plan Review: 7. Markham Commercial Center Conditional Use Permits: 8. E.R.J. (Z-3740-B) 9. Mt. St. Mary's Academy (Z-4100-A) 10. Rudy's Farm (Z-4413-C) 11. Smith C.U.P. (Z-5019) May 31, 1988 Right -of -Way Abandonments: 12. Alley Abandonment Block 131, Original Street 13. Alley Abandonment - Block 131, Block 23 - Gibralter Heights Other Matters: 14. Maury Mitchell PCD Revision 15. Whitewater Tavern PCD Revocation 16. Water and Sewer Improvement District No. 141 of Little Rock, AR 17. Grainte.Heights Area Review of the College Station /Sweet Home Plan 18. Right-of-Way Abandonment on Frozen Road SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Oxford Valley "Short- Form" "PRD" (Z-4965) LOCATION: South end of Oxford Valley Drive DEVELOPER: General Properties, Inc. c/o Thomas Engineering ENGINEER: Thomas Engineering Company 3810 Lookout Road North Little Rock, AR Phone: 753 -4463 AREA: 5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Proposal/Request: 1. To plat five acres in the 23 lots for single family development according to the "affordable housing" concept. 2. Lots will be 50 to 60 feet wide. Structures will be 800 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. 3. Each unit will have a single-car driveway and garage or a two-car parking pad. 4. Construction will begin immediately after final plat approval and will be sold out within a year. B. Existing Conditions: This area is located at the eastern edge of a single family subdivision with lots consisting of 65 feet to 75 feet. A mobile home subdivision abuts on the north. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Transition area should be provided between smallest proposed lots and existing platted lots. Remove Lots 6 -8 and Lots 28 -32 from the plat boundary. Lots 4, 5 and 33 -36 should have homes consisting of larger structures, so that the smaller lots would not be directly across the street from existing larger ones and negatively impact their value. 2. Provide. D. Engineerinq Comments: None. E. Staff Recommendation: Reserve, until comments addressed. Staff has received many calls and some letters of opposition regarding the small home nature of this proposal in an area of homes with 1,200 sq. ft. or more. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The Committee felt very strongly that the Applicant should show plans for the remainder of the property, since the intention is to continue this type of development throughout the remainder of the unplatted land. He was asked to provide a revised plan for the entire ownership, showing sidewalks throughout the whole Subdivision. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The application was represented Mr. Larry Shelton of Premiere Homes. Approximately 14 persons were present in opposition. A petition with 200 names in opposition was submitted. Staff_ recommended the item be approved, provided the applicant presented some plan for the remainder of the ownership, and identifies the recreation area, and plans for the transition area between the existing and proposed development. Mr. Shelton felt that affordable housing is needed in Little Rock and that southwest Little Rock is the best choice due to the value of the property. He felt that affordable home developers /builders were "locked in" as to where they could go to do such development since land was difficult to find in the Little Rock area for such development. His goal was to build a few units at this time to test the market. There was discussion of providing a plan for all of the ownership and whether or not the smaller lot subdivision was compatible with the existing developments in the area. It was decided that a precedent for considering compatibility had been established with the denial of a single family subdivision on Highway 10 that met all the technical requirements. The Commission asked that the applicant consider committing to a minimum square footage. There was concern over the proposal of 800 square foot houses in an area where many homes were composed of 1,200 square feet. He would not commit to a minimum house size because he felt that a larger house did not mean a better physical design. He did agree to consider the request. The specific concerns of the staff and Commission that the applicant was asked to resolve included: (1) considering a minimum house size that is over 800 square feet; (2) open space allocation of entire ownership; (3) submit overall development plan on entire ownership; (4) defined "affordable housing" by specifying lot yield; (5) deal with compatibility question through transition zone; and (6) work with the neighborhood. A motion for deferral until March 8 was made and passed, subject to the concerns stated above. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Due to a request by the applicant, the item was deferred to the May 31st agenda. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 Item No. A Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Flintridge Business Addition LOCATION: Flintridge Drive and I-430 DEVELOPER: Lewis Realty & Assoc. 6701 West 12th Little Rock, AR Phone: 666-4455 NGINEER: White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 32 acres NO. OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW ST.: 1150 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: A. Proposal/Request 1. Replat 32 acres into 12 lots for an unspecified use. 2. Waivers include length of cul-de-sac and sidewalk construction on Flintridge Court. B. Existing Conditions This property is bordered by I-430 on the south. Single family homes are located to the north, across Flintridge Drive. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Submit information on plans for development and purpose for plat. D. Engineering Comments 1. Inadequate access and terrain for this development. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued E. Staff Recommendation Deferral until rezoning filed. Plat is premature until zoning is established. Staff is reluctant to support this plat with the "I-2" designation. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that his purpose for filing this plat was to identify any issues that staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighborhood might have regarding the plat. Some Committee members agreed that the plat was premature. Staff was concerned about the proposed industrial use in close proximity to the existing residential area. The applicant was instructed to work with Engineering regarding revisions to the street and their comments regarding access. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were no objectors present. The Commission briefly discussed the issue and placed it on the consent agenda. The Commission voted to defer the application to the May 31 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was no added discussion of this item. May 31, 1988 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: Bill R. and Joe Lusk "Short-Form" PCD (Z-5008) LOCATION: 100' north of Cantrell on west side of Pinnacle Valley DEVELOPER: Bill R. Lusk #7 Berwyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: Sam L. Davis 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0324 AREA: .92 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USE: Car Wash /Retail /Office A. Proposal /Request 1. To develop .92 acre into a commercial development. 2. The existing frame building of 2,393 square feet which will be used as an antique shop (80 %) and office space (20 %). 3. A self-service car wash is proposed with 1' of the floor elevation below the 100-year flood. All mechanical and electrical services will be above flood level. 4. Parking area will be asphalt with 19 spaces. 5. Dedication of floodway for Isom Creek. 6. Twenty-foot additional right-of-way dedication for Pinnacle Valley Road. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued B. Existinq Conditions The area is generally developed as single family. There are currently an existing building and a mobile home on the site. The floodway cuts across the southwestern portion of this property. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Corner of existing building and parking in floodway. 2. Proposed use is contrary to the Land Use Plan. 3. Applicant should address traffic impact. 4. Submit landscaping plan. D. Engineering Comments 1. Street improvements on Pinnacle Valley Road. 2. Meet Floodplain Ordinance. 3. Circulation needs to be reviewed with Engineering. 4. Responsible for street improvements. Liability not to exceed 15 percent of cost of project, defer improvement issue to building permit. E. Staff Recommendation Denial based on traffic impact and departure from Land Use Plan. F. Subdivision Committee Review Wastewater stated that the car wash needed to be above floodplain level. Public Works felt that the driveway needed to be widened. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There are no objectors present. The petition was represented by Mr. Randy Treece. Mr. Don McChesney, City Engineer, presented comments on the street improvements associated with Pinnacle Valley Road. He indicated that the County Judge was involved in discussion with the Highway Department and others relative to widening and straightening the curves. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated that 20' of right -of -way was being dedicated to Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Jim Lawson offered a response to questions about the Highway 10 Plan and floodplain. Gary Greeson discussed the plan affects on this site. A general discussion followed involving the plan content, interpretation of lines for transition zones and site buildability. The owner went on record as offering to dedicate the floodway. The Chairman asked the owner if a deferral would be in order. Mr. Treece indicated his client needed some action at this meeting. He further discussed the mix of uses proposed and existing, stating some retail was involved in the new car wash and existing antique sales. The Commission explained that commercial use was not desirable, especially within the transition zones. After a brief discussion of deferral, a motion was made to defer the request until May 31. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) The Applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D NAME: Polk and Kavanaugh "Short-Form" PCD (Z-5004) LOCATION: 5419 and 5421 Kavanaugh DEVELOPER: Ben McMinn P.O. Box 2438 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 372-5007 ENGINEER: Dan Stowers, Architect 1516 West 3rd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-3271 AREA: 21,000 sq.ft. NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Office A. Proposal /Request 1. To develop a 5,000 square foot, two-story building on 21,000 square feet for use as a financial institution. 2. Parking will consist of 14 spaces. 3. Landscaping will be heavy on the southern and eastern portions of the property. The northern and western sides will also have landscaping. B. Existinq Conditions This property is located on the corner of Kavanaugh and Polk. The surrounding uses includes a U.S. Post Office to the north, residential to the south and east, and a Safeway Emporium Grocery to the west. An alley borders the property on the east. On-site are an existing brick and frame building and a two-story abandoned apartment building. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Use not in conformance with plans for the area. 2. Meet with Engineering regarding their comments. D. Engineering Comments 1. Left turn on Polk may conflict with exit at Post office. E. Staff Recommendation Denial, based on potential adverse effects to residential area to the east, and departure from Land Use Plan. There have been several efforts on the last 15 years to rezone a portion of this site to several uses, such as quiet business, a Montessorri School, and apartment building. The request for use as a school was denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Staff has been consistent in its efforts to contain nonresidential development to the area west of Polk Street and south of Kavanaugh Boulevard. Staff fears that encroachment into the residential area would create an adverse domino effect. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The main issue was identified as the proposed use of the property. The site plan was observed as technical issues that could be worked out. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were several persons present objecting. Three persons spoke against the request, and one petition was filed with over 60 signatures. The application was represented by Mr. Ben McMinn, one of the owners. The staff recommendation was read as written in the agenda. Mr. McMinn made a presentation of his case, history of the site, and corrections of history stated in the staff recommendation. The Commission and Mr. McMinn discussed the development, the design, and possible alternate uses. The opponents made a presentation. Mr. Steve Nipper stated his concerns as being: (1) zoning of any kind except "R -2," (2) traffic, (3) strip zoning to the east. Mr. Don Barnes, an opponent, stated basically the same concerns plus the effect on parking which is now deficient. Mr. Maury Mitchell echoed the previous concerns and gave the history of former Planning Director's plans for condominiums that he would have supported. Mr. Jim Lawson of the staff presented the Heights-Hillcrest Plan and offered his opinion on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Plan differences. Mr. McMinn then offered history of the 1981 attempt at rezoning to multifamily. The Commission asked the applicant and neighbors if use was acceptable instead of a bank or savings and loan office. Mr. McMinn indicated he would like the bank but might consider another use. Mr. Nipper said he didn't speak for the neighborhood as he was new to the area and couldn't commit. A discussion of deferral, in which Commissioners expressed concerns about traffic, access, and the area land use plan. A motion was made to defer the PUD application until May 31. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5-19-88) No additional information was discussed. May 31, 1988 Item No. D o Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) Staff recommended denial based potential adverse effects to the residential area to the east and departure from the Land Use Plan. The Applicant was asked to report on the neighborhood meeting. The Applicant was present in support of the Application. He offered the neighborhood a Bill of Assurance restricting his other properties. No final conclusion was reached. They said they would not object to low- density apartments, but he did not agree that use was feasible because of the existing heavy commercial across the street on three sides. He stated that he had a petition indicating some neighborhood support. He was unable to reach an agreement with those present at the meeting. Mr. Don Barnes and Mr. Steve Nipper of 1906 North Taylor represented neighbors within a two-block area who were in opposition. They stated that the group would not oppose apartment zoning. They felt that a residential use was better and they were not sure whether the Bill of Assurance would adequately assure against a future rezoning of the property. Mr. George Wells, resident at 5009 East Crescent, represented property- owners to the west, across from the Safeway store. He agreed that the property was an eyesore. His main concern was with parking, however, he was not opposed to the project. He felt that many persons currently thought of Safeway as a "community parking lot" and some businesses to the north did not have parking. Chairman Jones felt that a quiet office without the drive-in facilities generates less traffic than one with the drive-in, and was preferable to multifamily usage. He thought that traffic would have been a major concern of the neighborhood, and thought this would be important in reaching a compromise. He asked the neighborhood representatives to respond to their desire. They stated a preference for residential as shown on the Heights-Hillcrest Plan. They felt that a density of eight to ten units of multifamily was also preferable. Other Commission members explained to them that many neighborhoods preferred quiet office developments to multifamily. Mr. McMinn stated that he had met with Mr. Leland Gunn, the other owner of property in this proposal, and said that both did not want apartments, and it was not feasible at this time to build residential on this site. May 31, 1988 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) He was asked if he would be willing to revise the plan and submit it as quiet office without the drive-through facility. He stated that he would be willing to. Finally a vote was called on this item. A motion for approval of the proposal as filed was made but failed to pass by a vote of: 1 aye, 7 noes, 1 abstention, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: Village Shopping Center Addition LOCATION: University and Asher DEVELOPERL Rector-Phillips-Morse/ United Artists' Communications P.O. Box 7300 Little Rock, AR 72217 Phone: 664-7807 ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Townley, Williams, Blair and Associates 18 Corporate Hill Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 224-1900 AREA: 29.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Proposed "C-3" Existing "I-2 " / "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Proposal/Request 1. To add square footage to an existing shopping center on 29.8 acres. 2. Development Data Existing: Main Center 79,850 square feet 65,115 square feet Union Bank 2,155 square feet Cinema 150 12,800 square feet 159,909 square feet Mew: Theatre 40,000 square feet Option A 22,200 square feet 26,200 square feet Option-'B 15,000 square feet 103,400 square feet Total Building Square Footage ... 263,309 sq.ft. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued Parking ............ 298 cars Parking Ratio ...... 4.93/1,000 sq. ft. B. Existinq Conditions This site is located at the intersection of two major arterials. The area is developed as commercial and has very heavy traffic. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Indicate parking layout. 2. Clarify Options A and B. 3. Meet with Engineering and Parks regarding any floodway issues. 4. Traffic is a major concern of the area. D. Engineering Comments 1. Coordination of approval with the State Highway Department. 2. Address detention concerns with City Engineering. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved, until further information is available since traffic is major concern in this area. Staff cannot lean support to this item until it is coordinated with State Highway Department and City Engineer gives his report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was informed that the Option A Building at the rear of the existing shopping center was shown over an existing easement and contained a main feeder and branch service to telephone cable; and that Wastewater and Water Works also had concerns about the building in this area. He was asked to work with the utility companies to resolve the issues. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued The main issue was identified as traffic. Comments were needed from both City Engineering and the State Highway Department. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings of Rector, Phillips, Morse and Mr. Joe White, engineer. Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to resolution of the traffic issue on Asher Avenue. There was a lengthy discussion on whether or not the site plan should be approved, since there were no technical issues to be resolved, subject to negotiations with the State Highway Department and the City Engineer regarding access onto Asher Avenue. Mr. Coleman of Coleman Dairy stated concerns about access to Asher from his property. He had no problems with the site plan. A motion for deferral of the site plan was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-19-88) The Planning staff reported that the site plan was in good shape except for some utility issues but that the plan is affected by the unresolved traffic issues. Staff recommends approval of the plan subject to resolution of the traffic access problem. There was one objector present, Mr. Buddy Coleman. The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings and Joe White of White - Daters Engineers. Mr. Hastings offered a brief statement on the need to progress with the project. He stated that Mr. Peters, the traffic engineer he had retained, was present to answer any questions. Mr. White, the project engineer, offered comments on the need to May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued defer the matter as suggested by several persons pending the Highway Department and City Engineer working out access issues. Mr. Coleman, an adjacent property owner on the east, stated his concerns as being associated with the access to his dairy facilities and the present plan's impact. He stated that he had no objection to the site plan. Don McChesney, the City Engineer, offered comments on the traffic issue. The design and effect are all associated. He indicated that the layout of the project could be affected by the final resolution of access. He said he believed that the questions associated with the Highway Department's concerns could be worked out within 90 days. The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons of deferral and the appropriate time period. A motion was made to defer the plan for a period of six weeks to permit the various parties sufficient time to resolve the concerns of all involved. The motion included a provision for additional deferrals without Commission involvement and as needed to obtain resolution. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The City Engineer, Don McChesney, reported his department has had meetings with the State Highway Department. The major concern regarded spacing between what has been proposed and the existing status of University Avenue. An even greater concern is congestion. He explained that he was now waiting for final comments from the State. May 31, 1988 Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for a thirty -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Z-4470-A Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr. Location: Rock Creek Parkway Request: Rezone from "MF-18" and "O-3" to "O-3" and "C-3" Purpose: Mixed Use Size: 19.0 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified, Zoned "MF-18" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF-18" and PRD West - Vacant, Zoned "O-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The site under consideration is at the west end of the Rock Creek Parkway and involves approximately 19 acres. The request is to rezone the property from "MF-18" and "O-3" to "O-3" and "C-3." The proposal will add some commercial zoning, increase the amount of office land, and decrease the multifamily area. How the property will be developed or subdivided is unknown because only a rezoning concept is shown on the survey. In addition to the use areas, two proposed streets are also identified on the survey with one road being a north/south arterial as shown on the new Extraterritorial Land Use Plan /Upper Rock Creek District Plan. The entire site, a total of 40 acres, was originally rezoned to "MF-18" and "O-3" in 1985. (At the time of filing the first rezoning action, the land was outside the City and was annexed during the rezoning process.) The previous rezoning was delayed on several occasions to allow for additional study of the area because the Suburban Development Plan showed a single family residential development pattern. It was finally determined that a zoning configuration as proposed was a reasonable option for the 40-acre tract. The Upper Rock Creek District Plan recommends a mix of multifamily, office, and commercial uses for the site, so the proposal basically follows the plan's concept. There are two discrepancies between the plan and the proposed rezonings. On the plan, commercial property is shown May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued on both sides of the proposed arterial. With this request, the commercial area is all east of the north/south arterial, and staff feels that is a reasonable variation from the plan. The other difference involves the proposed office area between the commercial and multifamily tracts. There is a major drainage/utility easement through the property, and the plan shows the easement functioning as the break between the residential and nonresidential uses. In this area, the plan should be maintained and that would result in only a minor increase in the office land. As has been previously mentioned, there is a proposed north /south arterial shown on the plan that impacts the property. (This arterial is not identified on the current Master Street Plan, but it is included in the revised street plan that is currently being reviewed.) On the survey, the western boundary of the "C -3" tract is also alignment for the north /south road which staff is assuming is the new arterial. At this time, the City has not determined the exact location for the arterial and feels that cannot be done until a thorough traffic impact study is undertaken for the area. City staff feels that a comprehensive study is needed because of potential problems, and until one is completed, action on the rezoning request should be delayed. A study is needed because of the arterial and potential changes in traffic movement due to the proposed reclassifications. It is possible that the study could recommend a different location for the arterial and that would affect the requested rezonings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an indefinite deferral until the traffic impact study is completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) Staff reported that the applicant agreed with deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 23, 1988) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the issue to the April 5, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 5, 1988) Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the request needed to be deferred again and that all parties agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the May 17, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. NOTE: Prior to the May 17, 1988, meeting J.E. Hathaway, the applicant, submitted a modified rezoning configuration for the property in question. The amended request increased the amount of "C -3" land to 15 acres and made some other minor changes. The following is a breakdown of the proposed reclassifications: "O-3" - 13.25 acres "MF-18" - 11.26 acres "C-3" - 15.76 acres Because of the revised request, additional notification of the property owners was completed by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 17, 1988) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were no objectors. Staff addressed the amended request as submitted by Mr. Hathaway prior to the meeting and recommended that the Upper Rock Creek District Plan be maintained which shows commercial areas to be located on both sides of the proposed north/south arterial and to be approximately 10 to 12 acres in size. (Mr. Hathaway's proposal designates a 15-acre tract on the east side of the future arterial as a commercial tract with a nine acre office parcel on the west side). Also, staff suggested that the land be reclassified to "C-2" and "O-2" and not "C-3" and "O-3" as proposed by Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Hathaway then spoke and said he was representing the owners of the 40 -acre tract. He went on to discuss the amount of time that had been involved with the rezoning and a traffic impact study that had been requested by the City staff. Mr. Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the amended request and said it was providing adequate buffers for the retirement community to May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued the east and a church situated to the west. He also discussed the Upper Rock Creek District Plan and told the Commission that the staff had indicated to him in a previous meeting that locating a commercial area on the east side of the arterial appeared to be a reasonable option. Mr. Hathaway then said the church was comfortable with the existing "O-3" and that there was no public opposition. There was a long discussion about the site and trying to develop it. Mr. Hathaway said there were some problems because of the existing easements and the proposed arterial. He reviewed certain development standards and said that he was trying to have one major retail site, 15 acres, and this represented good planning. He also said this was only a five -acre difference from what was recommended on the plan. Mr. Hathaway said the proposed rezoning was basically in conformance with the adopted plan. Some questions were then asked about the traffic study and the construction of the proposed intersection. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff responded to several of the questions and said some of the construction could be through a private/public arrangement. Mr. Hathaway made some additional comments and said the proposal made good planning sense because of being located at a key intersection with the parkway. He also said removing the commercial area from the west side as shown on the plan was desirable because of the future street system. Greg Simmons of the Mehlburger Firm reviewed the traffic study. He discussed specific numbers in detail and what improvements would be needed to make the intersection work. Mr. Simmons said the findings of the report indicated that off -site improvements would be appropriate and the new arterial should be a standard five -lane section. There was a long discussion about the proposed improvements. L.K. Moore then spoke and said he was representing Darbe Development and Melvyn Bell. He said the two property owners were involved with land to the north and were proposing some major developments in the area. Mr. Moore expressed some concerns about future improvements and that a general improvement district was trying to be formed. He said that land use did not appear to be the major issue and informed the Commission that Mr. Bell's attorney had been unable to meet with Mr. Hathaway to discuss their concerns. Mr. Hathaway then responded to Mr. Moore's comments about trying to set up a meeting. May 31, 1988 Item No. F - Continued Staff made some comments about the north/south arterial and several questions were asked about the alignment. Mr. Hathaway said there was very little flexibility in the alignment because of some design problems created by property ownerships. Mr. Moore said there should be more discussion between the property owners about the arterial and other improvements. Mr. Hathaway told the Commission that land use was the issue and he was willing to meet with the interested parties to work out the alignment of the arterial. Additional comments were offered by various individuals, including several Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hathaway then stated for the record that the current owners, CCMN Joint Venture II, will not request commercial rezoning for the area on the west side of the proposed arterial. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks to the May 31, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-31-88) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred and all interested parties were in agreement with the deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 28, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: Trigon Addition LOCATION: Baseline Road APPLICANT: Andy Hicks and Associates DEVELOPER: Jim Rhodes, Dean Roberts, Gary Lee Suite 301 Evergreen Business Ctr. 69th Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 562-6064 ENGINEER: Anderson Engineering and Testing 10205 Rockwood Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-4545 AREA: 4.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 225.4' ZONING: "I-2 "/ "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Use is commensurate with "I-2" zoning. A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 4.42 acres into one lot and 225.4' of new street for industrial use. B. Existing Conditions The site is currently vacant with existing mature vegetation. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Tract 2 needs to be rezoned. 2. Tract 2 is inadequate for "I-2" zoning. 3. Balance of ownership needs to be reflected with signature of owner who is selling his property. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued C. Engineering Comments 1. Thirty-six foot and 60 foot right-of-way on Sibley Hole and Baseline Roads. 2. Is 30' shown one-half of existing right-of-way or all that there is? D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. She explained that they were in the process of rezoning this parcel from "R-2" to "I-2," and agreed to comply with the comments made. The Committee pointed out that industrial street standards could possibly be used depending upon the opinion from the City Attorney regarding waivers. May 31, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) As requested by the Applicant, a motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: Wood Creek Revised Preliminary LOCATION: South of Rock Creek Parkway, north and east of Kanis and west of Parkway Place DEVELOPER: Winrock Development Co. 2101 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 663-5340 ENGINEER: White - Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 21.71 acres NO. OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW ST.: 2,150' ZONING: "R-2" Residential PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request 1. To revise an approved preliminary of 12.31 acres, 13 lots, and 2,150 feet of new street. 2. To modify the plat by the following: Original Approval Modification Area 21.71 acres 12.31 acres No. of Lots 49 39 New Street 2,700' 2,150' Variances Waiver of Sidewalks as intersection shown on distance (not plat needed on modification) May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that consists of new and existing single family development. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Explain note on application that reflects sidewalk variances. 2. Provide sidewalks all around Wood Creek. 3. Give notice to abutting property owners. 4. Submit sketch grading plan. D. Engineering Comments 1. Redesign Post Oak at Parkway. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to comply with staff comments. May 31, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (May 31, 1988) The Applicants were present. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Davis Replat LOCATION: Gamble Road and Lorena Avenue DEVELOPER: Joe Davis P.O. Box 23640 Little Rock, AR Phone: 223-2243 ENGINEER: Laha Engineers P.O. Box 9251 Little Rock, AR 72219 Phone: 565-7384 AREA: 245.05' x 75' NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Building A. Proposal /Request 1. To replat 245.05' x 75.0' into one lot for use as an office building. B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area composed of single family and quiet office uses. C. Issues/Discussion/Technical/Design 1. Show remainder of ownership and have owner participate in plat. 2. Resolve question of survey/legal description accuracy since it is not tied to two land corners. D. Engineering Comments 1. Five-foot additional right-of-way dedication required. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 2. Street improvements required. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of issues. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to show the dedication of right -of -way and the balance of the ownership. There was discussion regarding the conformity of the proposal to "O-3" requirements for lot width. May 31, 1988 Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) Since the Applicant was not present, a motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: Summit Ridge Revised Preliminary LOCATION: South of Parkway Place east of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: Winrock Development Co. 2101 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 663-5340 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 15.4519 acres NO. OF LOTS: 53 FT. NEW ST.: 2,000 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request 1. To revise an approved preliminary of 15.4619 acres, 53 lots, and 2,000 feet of new street. 2. Revisions are as follows: Original Approval Modification Area 25.63 acres 15.4619 acres No. of Lots 86 53 New Street 3,500' 2,000' Variances 15' building None line as shown B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that is developing as single family. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Vicinity map is inaccurate. 2. Tract A - Note right-of-way dedication, setbacks, use of tract, and centerline on Kanis. 3. Give notice to abutting property owners. 4. Submit sketch grading plan. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolutions of comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to show right-of-way dedication and a 35' building setback on Kanis. Since the status of Kanis Road requirements would be changing in the near future, the Committee decided that the applicant could request that Tract A be Phase 2 and that right-of-way and improvements be deferred until that time. May 31, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) The applicant was present. Staff reported that the Applicant had submitted a revised plan that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, and that there was a property-owner to the south that is concerned about access. This item spurred more discussion from the Agenda meeting regarding amending the By-Laws to reflect that Applicants submit all items to be revised the Tuesday before the Public Hearing. If the Applicant can't make the deadline, then he should request more time. A motion was made to waive action on this issue taken on July 12, 1988 and staff was instructed to compose a definite amendment. The motion was seconded. A motion was made to withdraw the latter part of this motion regarding the amendment and discuss it at the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. Mr. Joe White then continued his discussion. He requested termination of Summit Ridge as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Emile Reichstadt represented his mother, Mrs. Macie Reichstadt, of 219 N. Palm. He stated no opposition to the proposal, but was concerned that drainage be handled equitably and that access be provided to the back portion of their property even though his land had frontage on Kanis Road. He felt that this was necessary since their plans were to develop the property from back to front. It can't be accessed from Kanis due to the topography. Mr. Ron Tyne, the Developer, stated that they are only one abutting property-owner and that access is available on Kanis and on his property through the south and east. He noted that the terrain on this property is rather steep and that there is currently no means for sewer service. It was decided that the item should be deferred until more information was received from the City Attorney regarding the granting of variances. Mr. Tyne was asked to work with the abutting property-owner regarding the provision of a stub-out to the south, instead of a cul-de-sac. It was explained that absent an interpretation from the City Attorney, the stub-out issued would not have been considered by the Commission since access was available to the Reichstadt property. The City Attorney was requested to submit an opinion at the July 12th meeting on whether or not a waiver of the 750 foot cul-de-sac rule can be waived. If it can't, does that constitute land-locking the back half of this property. Also, the opinion should determine if the Commission is required to grant access to this property. A motion for a thirty-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: University Office Park LOCATION: South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives DEVELOPER: University Partners c/o Rector-Phillips- Morse 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-7807 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 12.96 acres NO. OF LOTS: 26 FT. NEW ST.: ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Park A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 12.96 acres into 26 lots for general office use. B. Existing Conditions This site is located just north of the Broadmoor South Subdivision. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Give notice to all abutting property owners. 2. Identify points and lines to be moved. 3. Provide 40' buffer and 6' opaque fence adjacent to residential areas. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Submit phasing scheme. 5. Staff is concerned with the location of office buildings which will be facing existing houses. Developers should present ideas for lessening the impact. 6. Staff suggests fewer lots to help alleviate problems with drainage system. During rezoning, developer promised 20 lots. 7. Revised cul-de-sac to be less than 750'. 8. Twenty-five-foot building lines required. 9. All widening of streets to be completed with sale of first lot. D. Engineering Comments 1. Upgrade drainage system since it is currently designed for residential property. It must be designed to handle the commercial office uses. 2. Thirty-six-foot/60-foot wide commercial streets required. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The comments were discussed. Some major problems were identified, such as protection for the existing residential uses and the drainage system, which is currently designed for residential use. It was indicated that Lots 23-26, Lot 22 and Lots 26 and 27 abut existing residential uses. The applicant agreed to look into such devices as a berm to soften the impact of the proposed uses, and to work with Engineering to devise acceptable plans for storm drainage. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Other issues discussed included the inability of the Commission to grant waivers at this point. The cul-de-sac is in excess of 750' and the street should be built to commercial standards. Staff agreed to research whether Board action on rezoning could exempt the cul-de-sac. May 31, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) It was decided that this item should be deferred until further information regarding the granting of variances was received from the City Attorney. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Riverfront Addition, Tract 8-2R and Tract A-3 LOCATION: South end of Cottondale Lane, immediately west of the Tipton Hurst Warehouse DEVELOPER: Mike Berg - Riverfront Warehouse 800 Prospect Building P.O. Box 7300 Little Rock, AR 72217 ENGINEER: Steven Haynes/Ronnie Hall Garver and Garver 11th and Battery Streets P.O. Box C-50 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376-3633 AREA: 2.21 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: None ZONING: PROPOSED USE: Warehouse VARIANCES REQUESTED: Zero Building setback on common line of Tracts A-2R and A3. A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 2.21 acres into two lots for industrial use. 2. To allow a zero building setback on common lot line of Tracts A-2R and A-3. 3. The applicant will construct an additional warehouse on the property which will be sold. B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an industrial area that is constructed with warehouses uses. A warehouse exists on the property. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design None. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to work out a location of the sewer line with Wastewater Utility. Staff agreed to research some history on this case. May 31, 1988 Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 7 NAME: Markham Comercial center LOCATION: West Markham St. (West of Quality Ford & East of McDonald's DEVELOPER: Attn: George Wells Flake & Company 425 W. Capitol, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 TELEPHONE NO. 376-8005 ENGINEER: Robert M. Brown Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 375-5331 AREA 17.647 Acres± NO. OF LOTS FT. OF NEW STREET ZONING C-3 PROPOSED USES General Commercial: Restaurants and Retail A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: 1. Approval of multiple building site plan review on 17.647 acres for use as a shopping center. 2. Submission of typicals regarding buildings, parking, and drive-through arrangements. Final layout approval will be given by the City Engineer prior to construction of restaurant buildings. 3. Development Proposal: Primary Tenants - - - - - - - - - - 169,815 Restaurant Tenants - - - -- - - - - 13,396 Total Building Area 183,271 sq. ft. Total Parking - - - - -- - - - - - 971 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This site is located in an area that is developing as commercial. It is bounded on the west by a McDonald's Restaurant and on the east by a ford dealership. Multi-family uses are to the north. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area that is developing as commercial. It is bounded on the west side of McDonald's Restaurant and on the east by a Ford dealership. Multifamily uses are to the north. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Specify planting to occur in the terraced area. 2. Future sale of freestanding buildings will require platting. 3. Provide more variety in setbacks of fast food restaurants. 4. Provide more green space/berm along Markham. 5. Reduce number of fast food establishments. 6. Provide pedestrian access to restaurants. 7. Show dumpsters. D. Engineering Comments Contact City Engineer about transition lane on the west end. See Don McChesney. E. Staff Recommendation Defer until issues addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agree to address the provision of directed lighting before the meeting and provide a berm along Markham. He explained the plantings to be used, including trees in the upper level. He would meet with the developer regarding other comments. May 31, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) The application was represented by Mr. George Wells of Flake and Company and Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Wes Lowder of Melberger, Tanner, Robinson and Associates. The issues were discussed. Mr. Robert Brown explained that: (1) the Applicant desired flexibility, with 15 feet to 25 feet variation in set-backs until the final tenants are confirmed; (2) they will develop a low berm along Markham with a 12" rise; (3) they couldn't reduce the number of fast food restaurants. Mr. Wes Lowder explained that they were working with Capital Public Works to convert the northern most excel, decel lane to serve this property. He agreed to look into the alignment of curb cuts for the property south of Markham. One of the major concerns was the effect of traffic that is generated by such a large amount of commercial and fast food uses on this rapidly developing commercial area. The Applicant was asked to submit a traffic study. Chairman Jones summed up the staff concerns; (1) one too many fast food sites, (2) pedestrian trafficways between parking areas, (3) variety in set-backs. A motion for deferral of this item, subject to submission of a traffic study, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: E.R.J. Conditional Use Permit (Z-3740-B) LOCATION: South side of State Highway No. 10 approximately 50 feet west of the east leg of Taylor Loop Road (14,825 Cantrell Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: E.R.J. Trust/Frank Whitbeck PROPOSAL: To use an existing one -story structure (2276 ± square feet) for a retail plant nursery with limited outside plant storage (rear of structure) on 0.76 ± acres of land that is zoned "C-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a principal arterial (State Highway No. 10). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property abuts a principal arterial (Highway No. 10) on the north and lies just west of a proposed minor arterial (Taylor Loop Road). The property is abutted by commercial on the north, commercial and single family located to the west, and single family located to the south and east. The Highway 10 Plan calls for commercial at this location. The proposal is compatible with the plan and the surrounding area. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to retain the use of the existing gravel access drive (on Highway 10 and its associated parking area). 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant plans on using the existing trees and shrubs as landscaping. 5. Analysis The applicant sees this proposal as a transitional use until the completion of Highway No. 10 widening and Taylor Loop arterial when the property would likely be assembled as a part of a larger commercial redevelopment. The applicant is, therefore, asking that the existing gravel drive and parking area be retained until such development occurs. The staff feels that the proposal is compatible with the Land Use Plan and the area (see Note No. 2). Staff also feels that the applicant should be allowed to refrain from paving the parking for only two years and limited to only one access to Highway No 10 as shown. Finally, the outside storage of plants should be limited to the area designated on the site plan. 6. City Engineer Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) pave the drive and parking after two years from the date of approval if the plant nursery is still in operation; (2) limit access only to Highway No. 10 as shown; and (3) limit outside plant storage to the rear of the structure as shown. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to limit outside storage to the rear of the structure as shown on the site plan. The applicant also stated that four years would be a more appropriate length of time for deferral of the required parking and drive improvements. A general discussion ensued over what would be an appropriate length of time for the deferral of the parking and drive improvements. Finally, the applicant stated that he had no problem with limiting the access to Highway 10 to one drive but that the exact location of the drive may be somewhat different due to the State Highway Department's road construction. The staff stated that they had no problem with the possible alteration of drive location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The staff reiterated its position of requiring the paving of the drives and parking in two years. The applicant again asked for a four -year deferral on the paving requirements but stated that three years would do. A brief discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Rector) to approve the application as recommended by the staff with the stipulation that the applicant could come back before the Commission in two years to ask for further deferrals of the paving of the access drive and parking area. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Mount St. Mary's Conditional Use Permit (Z-4100-A) LOCATION: The southeast corner of Hillcrest and Kavanaugh (3224 Kavanaugh Boulevard) OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Catholic Diocese/Cromwell Firm, George R. Toombs II PROPOSAL: To construct a 3,416 square feet addition to the north side of an existing gymnasium (17,638 existing square feet - two-level - swimming pool on Level 1 and basketball court on Level 2) which allow the court to be expanded to regulation size and a seating capacity of 485 persons on land that is zoned "R-2" /Conditional Use Permit. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a minor arterial/collector (Kavanaugh Boulevard) and two residential streets (Jackson and Hillcrest). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The use is existing and is compatible with the surrounding area which includes church/single family located to the north, single family commercial located to the south, single family to the east, and duplex/single family located to the west. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The site contains five points of access (one on Kavanaugh, one on Hillcrest, and three on Jackson Street) and 200 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The site has existing landscaping. 5. Analysis The staff does not have any problem with the proposal. The addition to the existing gymnasium is relatively small and 200 existing parking spaces are more than adequate to accommodate 485 persons. 6. City Engineer Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Rudy's Farm Conditional Use Permit (Z-4413-C) LOCATION: The southwest corner of 33rd and Polk Streets) OWNER/APPLICANT: Sarah Lee Corporation/Robert J. Richardson PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit to incorporate revisions and in order to bring the property into compliance with Little Rock regulations. The request is to: (1) bring landscaping into compliance; (2) obtain a height variance for the existing storage tank (47.1 feet constructed, 45 feet allowed in "I-2"); (3) add Block 10, Ruebel and Leymer's Addition to the site; (4) revise floodway and associated dedication; and (5) to petition for the abandonment of right-of-way on Polk Street south of West 35th Street, Taylor Street south of West 35th, a 20 feet wide unnamed right-of-way on the south property line, a 10 feet wide unnamed right-of-way on the west property line, a 20 feet wide alley in the aforementioned Block 10 and West 35th Street from Polk to Taylor Streets all on land that is zoned "I-2"/Conditional Use Permit. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to one arterial residential standard street (Polk Street), one collector standard street (West 33rd Street), and one residential standard street (West 35th Street - to be closed). May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The use has been established and has received the proper zoning ( "I-2" /conditional use permit). The proposal will not materially change the existing use. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking Two access drives exist on Polk Street to serve this site. Eighty-six paved parking spaces are provided with an additional 113 proposed spaces to be constructed with future expansion. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. 5. Analysis The staff has no problem with the proposal. Basically, this filing is to bring the project into compliance with the previously approved conditional use permit. The applicant is required to: (1) provide on-site fire protection; (2) close and/or dedicate all rights-of-way as outlined in the proposal section; (3) add Block No. 10 into the revised site plan (already accomplished); (4) obtain a 2.1 feet height variance for the storage tank (requested this proposal); and (5) complete landscaping as required. 6. City Engineer Comments Staff recommendation. Approval provided the applicant completes the requirements as outlined in the analysis section within 90 days of Planning Commission approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant stated that the proposed water main extensions and fire hydrants shown on the site plan have already constructed. The staff asked that the applicant submit a revised site plan containing the on-site fire protection as constructed. The applicant agreed to comply. There were no unresolved issues. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: Smith Conditional Use Permit (Z-5019) LOCATION: The south side of West 65th Street approximately 200 feet east of Duff Lane (6823 1/2 West 65th Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Edward D. Smith /Carroll Smith PROPOSAL: To locate a multisectional manufactured home (1,076 square feet) on 1.93 ± acres of land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Site Location This property abuts West 65th Street which is currently shown as a minor arterial but is in the process of being reduced to a collector standard (6-7-88 projected Board of Directors action). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed structure is to be placed approximately 300 feet from West 65th Street on a parcel that is 636.5 feet in depth. The proposed site is surrounded on three sides by vacant land (woods) and by single family located to the north. The use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking Access is to be taken from a 20 feet (width) drive located on West 65th Street. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued 4. Screening and Buffers The site is surrounded on three sides by vacant land and woods (single family located to the north). 5. Analysis The proposed site of the manufactured home is compatible with the surrounding area (see Note No. 2). The unit is a 1988 model with masonite siding and pitched roof. The applicant has agreed to remove all transport elements and to construct a permanent foundation. The applicant does need, however, to specify the type of foundation proposed. The applicant will also need to file a three-lot combined preliminary /final plat (including parcel located to the west) which would allow 65 feet frontage on Lot No. 1, 20 feet stem for Lot No. 2, and 65 feet frontage for Lot No. 3. (minimum 60 feet lot frontage required.) Dedication of right-of-way on West 65th Street will also be required. (Collector street standard after 6-7-88 /see Note No. 1). Construction of West 65th Street is required unless eliminated by Planning Commission. 6. City Engineer Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) specify type of permanent foundation to be used; and (2) file a three-lot combined preliminary/final plat as outlined in the analysis section above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that the foundation would be brick or concrete blocks. A lengthy discussion ensued over the required plat. The applicant was informed that he needed to get 5' from the east property line of the out parcel located in the northwest corner of the proposed plat (out parcel was taken prior to Little Rock subdivision regulations and is not owned any longer by family members) to ensure that all lots would meet ordinance requirements. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The applicant stated that he would be able to obtain the additional five feet from the property owner to the west and that he would replat the property. The staff stated, that according to the City Attorney's opinion, the applicant would be required to construct West 65th Street along the entire 150 feet frontage to the street standard in effect at the time of the replat. The City Engineer stated that an in-lieu contribution would be required rather than the construction of the street. The staff also stated that they had received two letters of opposition. The letters of opposition were from Ms. Dapha Bickerstaff and Mrs. Laphelia Moreland, owners of Tracts 32 and 31, Graceland Acres respectively. The primary concern was the location of manufactured housing in the area, access, and possible violation of City ordinances. A lengthy discussion ensued over the requirement of street construction due to the recent City Attorney's opinion. The Commission informed the applicant that he might consider appealing the street construction requirement to the Board of Directors. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Alley Abandonment - Block 131 NAME: N 1/2 of the Alley in Block 131, Original City of Little Rock LOCATION: Running south off West 9th Street between Gaines Street and Arch Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Leon Adams by Nolan Rushing REQUEST: To abandon and reuse the right-of-way for redevelopment of the block. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way There are no public needs inasmuch as the alley is not in use, and there is no plan to access adjacent properties. 2. Master Street Plann There are no issues. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets None is evidenced by this review. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain A gentle grade rising from West 9th Street toward the freeway frontage road. 5. Development Potential None except as part of the redevelopment of the adjacent lots. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The area is a mix of abandoned commercial structures and warehouses. There are several new buildings in the immediate area occupied by storage and retail operation. This action should not have an adverse effect on adjacent activity. 7. Neiqhborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities All utilities report that easements will not be required. No effect on public services has been noted. 9. Reversionary Rights One-half of the dedicated alley will transfer to each abutting owner. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The following public welfare and safety issues were noted by staff in review of this item. (1) The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of alley right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. (2) The abandonment will eliminate the potential for the extension of an alley to the I-630 Frontage Road which could prove hazardous to vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the petition as filed and suggests that the Abandonment Ordinance delete the standard clause for retention of utility easements. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Alley Abandonment in Block 23, Gibraltar Heights Addition NAME: All of the Alley in Block 23 of Gibraltar Heights Addition LOCATION: Running north off Kanis Road between Gamble Road and Truempler Road OWNER/APPLICANT: VFW Post 9095 REQUEST: To abandon and use as yard area for building construction on adjacent lots on the west. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way None evidenced by our review. The alley is not now in use and has never been in use. 2. Master Street Plan Two streets abut the block involved. These streets are Kanis Road as an arterial and Gamble Road as a collector street. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets The two adjacent streets referenced in No. 2 above represent 300 feet of street frontage on Kanis Road requiring 45 feet of dedication from the centerline of the roadway and 200 feet of frontage on Gamble Road at 30 feet from the centerline. The exact dimension for dedication is to be determined by the City Engineer. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain The land area is rough, undeveloped with a steep grade on the north end of the block, which apparently is the result of excavation. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 5. Development Potential None except as proposed by the applicant as yard area to allow expansion of existing structural involvement. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The adjacent lots are vacant or occupied by scattered residential. The lots immediately across Kanis Road and Gamble are commercial and automobile salvage. 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities All utilities report that no problems are posed by this request and abandonment is recommended. 9. Reversionary Rights The right-of-way will be equally divided between the two owners in this block. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The following public welfare and safety issues were noted by staff in its review of this item. (1) The abandonment of this unopened and unused segment of alley right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. (2) The abandonment will eliminate the potential for the extension of an alley to Kanis Road which could prove hazardous to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to the dedication of right-of-way for both Kanis Road and Gamble as determined by the City Engineer. Utility easement provisions are not required within the abandonment ordinance by the utility contacts; therefore, we recommend excluding that provision from the standard ordinance. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS ITEM NO. 14 NAME: Maury Mitchell Revised PCD LOCATION: Alamo and West Markham APPLICANT: Maury Mitchell REQUEST: To revise an approved PCD by the addition of a canvas awning A. Staff Report: The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to provide a canvas awning that extends 13.5' into a 15' drive on the southern side of the site. He has been informed by Enforcement that the canvas awning is viewed as an extension of the building into the side yard area. Staff is very opposed to this request due to: (1) its close proximity to the single family use, (2) location near Bowman Road entrance that could cause stacking problems to the west, (3) the fact that it was built illegally, staff does not want to condone illegal c.anstruction of any type. The minutes to the original PCD approval on August 11, 1987 are attached. Engineering pointed out that there were "traffic circulation problems with respect to a drive-through on the rear of this structure." The Traffic Engineer and Planning Staff agreed a drive- through drop off was inappropriate due to design constraints. After the approval of the PCD, subject to no drive-through, the Applicant still constructed the awning without consulting staff. For the protection of light and air, the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance defines an awning as being a struc- ture or the equivalent of a roof type structure. Staff Recommendations: Denial. May 31, 1988 Item No. 14 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) This request was represented by Mr. Don Dailey and Mr. Maury Mitchell. Staff reported that a letter in opposition was received from a neighborhood resident, Ms. Agnes Bell. Staff explained that the previous Traffic Engineer recommended against a drive-through, due to the narrow width of the drive, parking spaces to the east which would interfere with stacking space, and the blind corners. The Applicants argued that this was a different issue and that they did not realize they were in violation of the PUD process. Finally, a motion for approval of the request was made and passed, but subject to a deed restriction in the Bill of Assurance that prohibits enclosure of a drive- through. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS ITEM NO. 15 NAME: Whitewater Tavern PCD Revocation (Z-4704) LOCATION: 7th and Thayer Streets APPLICANT: Geoff Treece 374-9977 STAFF REPORT: Staff has placed this item on the agenda for discussion of revocation due to the applicant's failure to comply with the PCD condition to construct the parking lot within the required amount of time. The original approval was received on September 9, 1986. The approval was subject to: (1) providing fencing and landscaping in 30 days, and (2) providing improvement of the parking lot within one year. The CBD Committee has expressed concern over the failure of the Applicant to comply with the conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Revocation of the PCD, if the Applicant does not comply. May 31, 1988 Item No.15 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) Attorney Geoff Treece represented the White Water Tavern. Ms. Dorothy Pilachowski represented the CDGB Committee from the neighborhood. It was decided that the Applicant had until the end of 1988 to complete the parking lot improvements. The item would be deferred until the December 13th meeting. If the improvements are not done, the PCD would be revoked and go back to a non-conforming use. This would require removal of the additions made. If the business is sold, the conditions run with the land. If the Tavern is not able to comply and is revoked or shut-down, then it would not be able to be reopened. A motion was made to approve this agreement, subject to the comments made. It was passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. May 31, 1988 Item No. 16 - Improvement District Formation NAME: Water and Sewer Improvement District No. 141 of Little Rock, Arkansas LOCATION: Generally along both sides of Bowman Road for a distance of one-mile ± running north and south of Kanis OWNER/APPLICANT: Various owners by J. Mark Spradley, Attorney for the District REQUEST: To establish an Improvement District for purposes of extending mains and providing service to an area inside the City limits. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need The need is expressed by the submittal of a petition involving the existing owners of land representing 64 percent of the assessed valuation of properties in the district. 2. Master Street Plan No issues attendant to this petition. 3. Characteristics of the District The land is hilly with several drainageways, two arterial streets bisect the district, Kanis Road running east to west and Bowman Road running north to south. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 4. Development Potential The neighborhood development plan reflects primarily residential being a mix of single family and medium density multifamily. There is a commercial corner at the intersection of Bowman Road at Kanis Road with several commercial uses in place. There currently exists some vacant commercial land in the immediate vicinity of this intersection with development potential. 5. Neighborhood Land Use Most of the area within the district is residential except adjacent to the arterials. The arterials currently have a range of uses from plant nurseries and miniwarehouses to an X-ray company office. The single family development within the immediate area is somewhat sparsel however, adjacent properties to the district boundary have built out single family neighborhoods. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION: This district is entirely within the City limits thereby exempting the lands from normal growth policy restrictions. The corridor along Bowman Road is developing as an important future thoroughfare with a number of projects completed or beginning. There are several significant developments at the north end of Bowman Road under construction and completed. To the south of this district lies a large area of land with significant development potential which may be stimulated by the development of the Summit Mall. There are several successful single family subdivisions adjacent to the distict boundary to the east and to the west. The natural growth patterns of these areas are into and around this district. Water and sewer service is available on three sides and this district will close those service areas. The creation of this district should encourage in -fill of this area so that it grows and develops properly. The staff recommends approval of the district as filed. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 NAME: Granite Heights Area Review of the College Station/Sweet Home Plan LOCATION: South of I-440 to State Highway 365 east of Granite Heights Subdivision to College Station STAFF REPORT: Strong concerns have arisen over the proposed land use for the area east of Granite Heights extending to College Station. During the last few months, staff met with the Granite Heights residents and representatives of the 3-M Company concerning this issue. Also, further reviews of the existing ownerships and the Airport Master Plan were conducted to help determine the appropriate future land use for the area. The Airport Plan recommends the area be zoned mining. The result of the neighborhood meetings and staff investigations is disagreement between 3-M, Granite Heights residents, and staff as to what the future land use should be. The neighbohood residents want the area to be shown for residential use. The neighbors feel that any other use would be detrimental to their homes and further that the City has an obligation to support the investment already made in the area. Staff has requested a letter from the neighborhood stating their position which is included for your review. On the other side, 3-M Company has a large mining operation on the west side of College Station, and there is one 1400' to 1500' undeveloped, basically, area west of the mining area to the residential subdivision. The company would like for the land use plan to allow the continued use of their property. They would want a compatible use, to mining, on the 1400' to 1500' wide strip to their west so that no more opposition to their continued operation would be generated. Staff requested a letter stating 3-M's position which is included for your review. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued Staff continues to recommend mining for the existing mining area and industrial use for the 1400' to 1500' strip with a 100' vegetation barrier between the residential and industrial use area. However, the inclusion of a PUD requirement is also recommended for this area. Since 3-M Company owns over half of this land west of their mine, the Airport noise levels are and will continue to be high, and there is an existing working mine. Staff does not believe that residential use is appropriate. A clean industrial area with no access through or to the existing residential area appears to be the most appropriate use. The neighbors' concern would be recognized by limiting traffic circulation control of the industrial use through the Planned Unit Development process and providing a 100' vegetation barrier. These provisions should prevent negative impacts on the existing residential area. Staff holds the position stated in the text that due to the existing conditions no new residential uses should be encouraged in the northern half of this district. 3-M's desires would be partially satisfied in that the industrial use would be allowed. However, the plan not recommend extending mining activities closer to the Granite Heights Subdivision because of the detrimental effect to the existing homes. Staff knows of no other remaining issues concerning the College Station /Sweet Home Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the plan be sent to the City Board with the PUD requirement added on the area between Granite Heights Park and the 3-M mining pit. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS ITEM NO. 18 Right-of-Way Abandonment on Frozen Road NAME: All of that right-of-way entitled Frozen Road in Leigh - Butler Acres LOCATION: Running east off Geyer Spring Road OWNER /APPLICANT: Vogels Sysco/Steve Smith REQUEST: To abandon 50' x 400' of right-of-way for use in conjuction with a food service distribution center. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Way None evidenced by our review. 2. Master Street Plan This right-of-way abuts Geyer Springs, which is an arterial. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets None. 4. Characteristice of Right-of-Way Terrain The land is flat and the street is well maintained with a few potholes. 5. Development Potential None expect as proposed by the applicant. He would like the street closed so that traffic to the food distribution center can be controlled. Their new facility will employ 250 persons. This street will be used for employees and service vehicle traffic. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS ITEM NO. 18 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effects The abutting lots are developed as mobile home and commercial uses. 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities All utilities report that no problems are posed by this request. 9. Reversionary Rights Both of this abutting owners have quite claimed their portion of the R/W to the Developer, Vogels Systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to: (1) no gate barring access, (2) easement for emergency and City vehicles, and (3) retaining all utility easements. May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Date: Secretary Chairman