Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0388 Staff AnalysisJune 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Flake & Co./Geo. P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-8005 The Heights Theatre "PCD" (Z-2827-A) ENGINEER: Wells Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker and Woodsmall 72203 #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 ZONING: Existing - "R-2" Proposed - "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Site History FT. NEW ST.: 0 The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed'in 1945 and an adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet, a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet. B. Development Proposal/Objectives 1. The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurant of 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet for a shopping mall with a possible office use upstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19 acres. 2. To provide a covered corridor separating the existing lobby area from the remainder of the building so that pedestrians from the parking lot can have better access to storefronts facing Kavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a loss of 500 feet from the original square footage. 3. To provide a potential office or restaurant upstairs with access from a stairway off the parking lot and to increase this area to 4,121 square feet. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 4. Parking will consist of 66 spaces on -site. 5. The tenant mix will be comparable to the existing neighborhood. The proposed uses will conform to the "C-1" and 110-3" Districts. 6. Time frame for development: (1) October 1, 1985 - acquisition of title by Flake and Company stockholers; (2) Commencement of construction - immediately afterward; (3) Completion/opening by February 1, 1986. C. Engineering Comments Comments to be provided at the meeting. D. Analysis Staff is favorable to the concept presented. The proposed parking conforms to the required amount of spaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1 per 300 square feet for commercial; however, the requirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 square foot of space will not be met if the projection booth is converted to a restaurant. The applicant is also requested to explain the access to the rubbish. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The applicant was requested to provide staff with information regarding the maximum amount of square footage to be devoted to restaurant use before the public hearing. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. George Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neighborhood and merchants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their streets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from: (1) W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall - "in vehement opposition" to the change in use; and (2) Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that (a) notices were improper and untimely; and (b) the Bill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of Forest Heights Place to single family residential use only. Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall or Forest Heights, there be a suitable and properly maintained tree and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential streets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City. The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the applicant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking spaces were short nine spaces since the applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of restaurant space and 16,263 of retail. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant space would have to be reduced to approximately 1,880 square feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type space. However, he felt that persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights Merchants Association, offered to host the meeting. Finally, a motion for a two -week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the neighborhood, and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Henk Koornstra offered comments on his study of traffic generation and access. He answered several questions from the Commission concerning impact on adjacent streets, traffic volumes and parking. The City Attorney was requested to comment on the legal opinion request previously made by the Commission dealing with Bills of Assurance. Pat Benton of the City Attorney staff offered a response, first by saying that the issues were not allied; however, the interpretation provided by the City Attorney generally states that there are no legal ramifications for the Planning Commission in dealing with matters involving Bills of Assurance. The Planning Commission Chairman then asked for involvement by the neighborhood. There were several persons in attendance, approximately seven, represented primarily by Dorcy Kyle Corbin. Mrs. Corbin offered the neighborhood concerns which were the parking conflict between the proposed use and the neighborhood, the conflicts which would be created by the change in use from primarily nighttime activity to day users, the conflicts created by displacement of existing daytime parking and by existing commercial users in the area. She further offered that the Heights/Hillcrest plan effect was to improve .the quality of life and circumstances in the process of redevelopment or new developments. And finally, she offered that the neighborhood concern about the mix of uses primarily deals with the amount of office space. She felt that a reduction in the commercial and an increase in the percentage of office use would reduce traffic impact. A lengthy discussion then followed involving all"aparties. During the course of this discussion, Mr. Wells was queried concerning whether or not he would make a commitment to limiting the bank space to Space No. 9 as now indicated in the plan. He stated that was acceptable to him. However, he stated that a financial institution was not a sure user at this time. A motion was then made to approve the application as filed subject to the following considerations: 1. That access to the site be by way of the Taylor Street driveway. 2. That exit from the site be taken onto Kavanaugh Boulevard at the bank location. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-25-85) The Planning staff was requested to offer its comments relative to this case inasmuch as it is a deferred matter from the previous Planning Commission meeting on June 11. The staff offered a recommendation of approval of the Planned Commercial District as appropriate to the site. Staff stated that it felt the use was an appropriate continuation of the commercial building and uses. However, the approval should be granted after resolving issues which we feel are of significance. The first of these being parking controls related to land uses and provision of sufficient numbers of stalls. Secondly, access to the site, controlling the flow of automobiles between Taylor and Kavanaugh. The third being the use mix primarily as to the percentage of office or bank usage within the structure. Mr. George Wells was then requested to make a presentation. Mr. Wells commented on the neighborhood meetings that were held and his discussions with the City Traffic Engineering staff. He offered comments extracted from a letter to the Planning Office offering several amendments to his filing as follows: 1. He proposes that access to the site be off Taylor Street only with traffic exiting the site onto Kavanaugh only. Signage will be placed at both Taylor and Kavanaugh access points. 2. Four additional parking spaces are to be provided in a restricted parking area along Kavanaugh possibly as many as four. 3. Two southbound lanes be provided on Taylor Street at the intersection of Kavanaugh providing for movement in both directions so as to prevent blockage of traffic movement. 4. A revised parking/striping plan which will add two additional stalls providing a total of 86 parking spaces. 5. As the result of further analysis, the restaurant use is to be limited to the maximum of 2,550 square feet. 6. Elimination of the westernmost pedestrian entrance to the parking lot off Stonewall. This should help reduce off -site parking in that area. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 3. That the parking lot be striped and provided with the additional two stalls as indicated. 4. That the wall opening along Stonewall be closed to prohibit pedestrian access. 5. That the financial institution be limited to the area specified as No. 9 on the site plan. 6. That the maximum restaurant floor area within the total plan area be limited to 2,550 square feet in area. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: The Heights Theatre "PCD" (Z-2827-A) T.nrATTON! DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake & Co./Geo. Wells Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker P.O. Box 990 and Woodsmall Little Rock, AR 72203 #1 Spring Street Phone: 376-8005 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Existing - "R-2" Proposed - "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Site History , The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed in 1945 and an adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet, a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet. B. Development Proposal/Objectives 1. The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurant of 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet for a shopping mall with a possible office use upstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19 acres. 2. To provide a covered corridor separating the existing lobby area from the remainder of the building so that pedestrians from the parking lot can have better access to storefronts facing Kavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a loss of 500 feet from the original square footage. 3. To provide a potential office or restaurant upstairs with access from a stairway off the parking lot and to increase this area to 4,121 square feet. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 4. Parking will consist of 66 spaces on -site. 5. The tenant mix will be comparable to the existing neighborhood. The proposed uses will conform to the "C-l" and "0-3" Districts. 6. Time frame for development: (1) October 1, 1985 - acquisition of title by Flake and Company stockholers; (2) Commencement of.construction --- immediately afterward; (3) Completion/opening by February 1, 1986. C. Engineering Comments Comments to be provided at the meeting. D. Analysis Staff is favorable to the concept presented. The proposed parking conforms to the required amount of spaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1 per 300 square feet for commercial; however, the requirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 square foot of space will not be met if the projection booth is converted to a restaurant. The applicant is also requested to explain the access to the rubbish. E . . Staff - Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The applicant was requested to provide staff with information regarding the maximum amount of square footage to be devoted to restaurant use before the public hearing. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. George Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neighborhood and merchants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their streets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from: (1) W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall - "in vehement opposition" to the change in use; and (2) Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that (a) notices were improper and untimely; and (b) the Bill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of Forest Heights Place to single family residential use only. Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall or Forest Heights, there be a suitable and properly maintained tree and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential streets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City. The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the applicant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking spaces were short nine spaces since the applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of restaurant space and 16,263 of retail. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant space would have to be reduced to approximately 1,880 square feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type space. However, he felt that persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights Merchants Association, offered to host the meeting. Finally, a motion for a two -week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the neighborhood, and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: r nrnmTnN DEVELOPER: Flake &. Co./Geo. P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-8005 AREA: 1.19 acres The Heights Theatre "PCD" (Z-2827-A) ENGINEER: Wells Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker and Woodsmall 72203 #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 110. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Existing - "R-2" �— Proposed - "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Site Histo The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed in 1945 and an -adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet, a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet. B. Development Proposal/Objectives 1. The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurant of 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet for a shopping mall with a possible office use upstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19 acres. 2. To provide a covered corridor separating the existing lobby area from the remainder of the building so that pedestrians from the parking lot can have better access to storefronts facing Kavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a loss of 500 feet from'the original square footage. 3o To provide a potential office or restaurant upstairs with access from a stairway off the parking lot and to increase this area to 4,121 square feet. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 4. Parking will consist of 66 spaces on -site. 5. The tenant mix will be comparable to the existing neighborhood. The proposed uses will conform to the "C-l" and 110-3" Districts. 6. Time frame for development: (1) October 1, 1985 - acquisition of title by Flake and Company stockholers; (2) Commencement of.construction - immediately afterward; (3) Completion/opening by February 1, 1986. Ca Engineering Comments Comments to be provided at the meeting. D. Analysis Staff .is favorable to the concept presented. The proposed parking conforms to the required amount of spaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1 per 300 square feet for commercial; however, the requirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 square foot of space will not be met if the projection booth is converted to a restaurant. The applicant is also requested to explain the access to the rubbish. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The applicant was requested to provide staff with i nformationing toemaximum restaurantmousetbeforeuare the foo g public hearing. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. George.Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neighborhood and merchants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their streets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from: (1) W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall - "in vehement opposition" to the change in bse; and (2) Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that (a) notices were improper and untimely; and (b) the Bill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of Forest Heights Place to single family residential use only. Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall yr Forest Heights, there be a suitable and properly maintained '�_ ree and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential streets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City. The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the applicant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking spaces were short nine spaces since the -applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of restaurant space and 16,263 of retail.. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant space would have to be reduced to approximately 1,880 square feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type space. However, he felt that Persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights merchants Association, offered to host the meeting. Finally, a motion for a two -week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the neighborhood, and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Henk Koornstra offered comments on his study of traffic generation and access. He answered several questions -from the Commission concerning impact on adjacent streets, traffic volumes and parking. The City Attorney was requested to comment on the legal opinion request previously made by the Commission dealing with Bills of Assurance. Pat Benton of the City Attorney staff offered a response, first by saying.that the issues were not allied; however, the interpretation provided by the City Attorney generally states that there are no legal ramifications for the Planning Commission in dealing with matters involving Bills of Assurance. The Planning Commission Chairman then asked for involvement by the neighborhood. There were several persons in attendance, approximately seven, represented primarily by Dorcy Kyle Corbin. Mrs. Corbin offered the neighborhood concerns which were the parking conflict between the proposed use and the neighborhood, the conflicts which would be created by the change in use from primarily nighttime activity to day users, the conflicts created by displacement of existing daytime parking and by existing commercial users in the area. She further offered that the Heights/Hillcrest plan effect was to improve the quality of life and circumstances in the process of redevelopment or'new developments. And finally, she offered that the neighborhood concern about the mix of uses primarily deals with the amount of office space. She felt that a reduction in the commercial and an increase in the percentage of office use would reduce traffic impact. A lengthy discussion then followed involving all parties. During the course of this discussion, Mr. Wells was queried concerning whether or not he would make a commitment to limiting -the bank space to Space No. 9 as now indicated in the plan. He stated that was acceptable to him. However, he stated that a financial institution was not a sure user at this time. A motion was then made to approve the application as filed subject to the following considerations: 1. That access to the site be by way of the Taylor Street driveway. 2. That exit from the site be taken onto Kavanaugh Boulevard at the bank location. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-25-85) The Planning•staff was requested to offer its comments relative to this case inasmuch, as it is a deferred matter from the previous Planning Commission meeting on June 11. The staff offered a recommendation of approval of the Planned Commercial District as appropriate to the site. Staff stated that it felt the use was an appropriate continuation.of the commercial building and uses. However, the approval should be granted after resolving issues which we feel are of significance. The first of these being parking controls related to land uses and provision of sufficient numbers of stalls. Secondly, access to the site, controlling the flow of automobiles between Taylor and Kavanaugh. The third being the use mix primarily as to the percentage of office or bank usage within the structure. Mr. George Wells was then requested to make a presentation. Mr. Wells commented on the neighborhood meetings that were held and his discussions with the City Traffic Engineering staff. He offered comments extracted from a letter to the Planning Office offering several amendments to his filing as follows: 1. He proposes that access to the site be off Taylor Street only with traffic exiting the site onto Kavanaugh only. Signage will be placed at both Taylor and Kavanaugh access points. 2. Four additional parking spaces are to be provided in a restricted parking area along Kavanaugh possibly as many as four. 3. Two southbound lanes be provided on Taylor Street at the intersection of Kavanaugh providing for movement in both directions so -as to prevent blockage of traffic movement. 4. A revised parking/striping plan which will add two additional stalls providing a total of 86 parking spaces. 5. As the result of further analysis, the restaurant use is to be limited to the maximum of 2,550 square feet. 6. Elimination of the westernmost pedestrian entrance to the parking lot off Stonewall. This should help reduce off -site parking in that area. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 3. That the parking lot be striped and provided with the additional two stalls as indicated. 4. That the wall opening along Stonewall be closed to prohibit pedestrian access. 5. That the financial institution be limited to the area specified as No. 9 on the site plan. 6. That the maximum restaurant floor area within the total plan area be limited to 2,550 square feet in area. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A IkNF-MMF T.nrATTOM The Heights Theatre "PCD" (Z-2827-A) DPVFT.0PFR: ENGINEER: Flake & Co./Geo. Wells Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker P.O. Box 990 and Woodsmall Little Rock, AR 72203 #1 Spring Street Phone: 376-8005 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 1.19 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Existing - "R-2" Proposed - "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Site Histo The current development consists of a theatre originally constructed in 1945 and an adjacent restaurant. The theatre consists of a projection booth on the second level of 1,371 square feet, a theatre area of 9,759 square feet and the restaurant on the ground floor consists of 4,254 square feet. B. Development Proposal/Objectives 1. The renovation of an existing theatre/restaurant of 15,384 square feet into 16,263 square feet for a shopping mall with a possible office use upstairs and retail shops downstairs, all on 1.19 acres. 2. To provide a covered corridor separating the existing lobby area from the remainder of the building so that pedestrians from the parking lot can have better access to storefronts facing Kavanaugh Boulevard, which will result in a loss of 500 feet from the original square footage. 3. To provide a potential office or restaurant upstairs with access from a stairway off the parking lot and to increase this area to 4,121 square feet. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 4. Parking will consist of 66 spaces on -site. 5. The tenant mix will be comparable to the existing neighborhood. The proposed uses will conform to the "C-l" and "0-3" Districts. 6. Time frame for development: (1) October 1, 1985 - acquisition of title by Flake and Company stockholers; (2) Commencement of.construction - immediately afterward;, (3) Completion/opening by February 1, 1986. C. Engineering Comments Comments to be provided at the meeting. D. Analysis Staff is favorable to the concept presented. The proposed parking conforms to the required amount of spaces, namely 1 per 400 square feet for office and 1 per 300 square feet for commercial; however, the requirement for restaurants is 1 per every 100 square foot of space will not be met if the projection booth is converted to a restaurant. The applicant is also requested to explain the access to the rubbish. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review: The applicant was requested to provide staff with information regarding the maximum amount of square footage to be devoted to restaurant use before the public hearing. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. George Wells represented the developer. Numerous residents from the neighborhood and merchants of the area were present. The main concerns of the residents were possible adverse impacts to their property values and fear of an increase in traffic along their streets due to a shortage of parking. The merchants were also concerned about the lack of parking. Staff reported that letters of opposition had been received from: (1) W.W. and Vera Pate of 5722 Stonewall - "in vehement opposition" to the change in use; and (2) Mr. Lawrence A. Parker of 5723 Stonewall, who felt that (a) notices were improper and untimely; and (b) the Bill of Assurance restricted Lots 134 and 135 of Forest Heights Place to single family residential use only. Mr. Parker requested that there be no exit onto Stonewall or Forest Heights, there be a suitable and properly maintained free and shrub buffer strip and that some consideration be made to prohibit the parking of commercial, employee and customer autos in and along the residential streets in this area, as well as all other residential areas of the City. The Commission felt that proper notice had been given since the intent of the notice requirement was to inform the public even though the applicant had failed to get the notice receipt stamped with a date indicating mailing 10 days before the public hearing. Staff determined that the amount of parking spaces were short nine spaces since the -applicant was now proposing 4,254 square feet of restaurant space and 16,263 of retail. It was determined that to conform to requirements the restaurant space would have to be reduced to approximately 1,880 square feet. The applicant agreed to reduce this type space. However, he felt that persons concerned were trying to penalize him for the lack of parking, which is an existing and widespread problem through the area. He was also concerned that any meeting with the residents be productive. The residents gave him this assurance. Theresa Elkins, Director of the Heights Merchants Association, offered to host the meeting. Finally, a motion for a two -week deferral was made and passed, subject to: (1) a meeting with the neighborhood, and (2) a meeting with the Traffic Engineer. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Henk Koornstra offered comments on his study of traffic generation and access. He answered several questions from the Commission concerning impact on adjacent streets, traffic volumes and parking. The City Attorney was requested to comment on the legal opinion request previously made by the Commission dealing with Bills of Assurance. Pat Benton of the City Attorney staff offered a response, first by saying that the issues were not allied; however, the interpretation provided by the City Attorney generally states that there are no legal ramifications for the Planning Commission in dealing with matters involving Bills of Assurance. The Planning Commission Chairman then asked for involvement by the neighborhood. There were several persons in attendance. approximately seven, represented primarily by Dorcy Kyle Corbin. Mrs. Corbin offered the neighborhood concerns which were the parking conflict between the proposed use and the neighborhood, the conflicts which would be created by the change in use from primarily nighttiime activity to day users, the conflicts created by displacement of existing daytime parking and by existing commercial users in the area. She further offered that the Heights/Hillcrest plan effect was to improve the quality of life and circumstances in the process of redevelopment or new developments. And finally, she offered that the neighborhood concern about the mix of uses primarily deals with the amount of Office an increase in thelt that a percentageeofct�'on in the commercial a office use would reduce traffic impact. A lengthy discussion then followed involving all parties. During the course of this discussion, Mr. Wells was queried concerning whether or not he would make a commitment to liiniting-the bank space to Space No. 9 as now indicated in the plan. He stated that was acceptable to him. However, he stated that a financial institution was not a sure user at this time. A motion was then made to approve the application as filed subject to the following considerations: 1. That access to the site be by way of the Taylor Street driveway. 2. That exit from the site be taken onto Kavanaugh Boulevard at the bank location. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-25-85) The Planning staff was requested to offer its comments relative to this case inasmuch as it is a deferred matter from the previous Planning Commission meeting on June 11. The staff offered a recommendation of approval of the Planned Commercial District as appropriate to the site. Staff stated that it felt the use was an appropriate continuation of the commercial building and uses. However, the approval should be granted after resolving issues which we feel are of significance. The first of these being parking controls related to land uses and provision of sufficient numbers of stalls. Secondly, access to the site, controlling the flow of automobiles between Taylor and Kavanaugh. The third being the use mix primarily as to the percentage of office or bank usage within the structure. Mr. George Wells was then requested to make a presentation. Mr. Wells commented on the neighborhood meetings that were held and his discussions with the City Traffic Engineering staff. He offered comments extracted from a letter to the Planning Office offering several amendments to his filing as follows: 1. He proposes that access to the site be off Taylor Street only with traffic exiting the site onto Kavanaugh only. Signage will be placed at both Taylor and Kavanaugh access points. 2. Four additional parking spaces are to be provided in a restricted parking area along Kavanaugh possibly as many as four. 3. Two southbound lanes be provided on Taylor Street at the intersection of Kavanaugh providing for movement in both directions so'as to prevent blockage of traffic movement. 4. A revised parking/striping plan which w; add two additional stalls providing a total of 86 arking spaces. 68 5. As the result of further analysis, the restaurant use is to be limited to the maximum of 2,550 square feet. 6. Elimination of the westernmost pedestrian entrance to the parking lot off Stonewall. This should help reduce off -site parking in that area. June 25, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 3. That the parking lot be striped and provided with the additional two stalls as indicated. 4. That the wall opening along Stonewall be closed to prohibit pedestrian access. 5. That the financial institution be limited to the area specified as No. 9 on the site plan. 6. That the maximum restaurant floor area within the total plan area be limited to 2,550 square feet in area. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.