HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 06 2000subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 6,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven in number.
II.Members Present:Hugh EarnestBillRector
Pam Adcock
Judith Faust
Richard Downing
Bob Lowry
Herb Hawn
Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley
Craig Berry
Rohn Muse
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 6,2000
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Lindsey —Short-Form PD-R (Z-6766)
B.Bussell —Short-Form PCD (Z-6719)
C.Alltel Collocation —Tower Use Permit (Z-6560-A)
D.Z-5057-A 4721 Confederate C-3 to R-3
E.Z-5057-B Porter Accessory Dwelling C.U.P.
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Commerce Square —Preliminary Plat (S-1115-A)
2.Integra Addition —Preliminary Plat (S-1268)
3.Priest Subdivision —Preliminary Plat (S-1269)
4.C and S Estates —Preliminary Plat (S-1270)
5.Claremore Court —Preliminary Plat (S-1272)
III.PL2&lHED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
6.Hillcrest Square —Revised PCD (Z-4251-A)
7.Kanis Road Mini-Storage —Revised PCD (Z-4653-F)
8.Summit Mall —Revised PCD (Z-4923-A)
9.Accessibility Specialties —Short-Form PD-C (Z-5709-A)
10.GMAC —Long-Form POD (Z-6019-B)
11.Dicker —Short-Form POD (Z-6778)
12.Williford —Long-Form PCD (Z-6783)
13.Childers —Short-Form POD (Z-6786)
14.Southridge Office Park —Long-Form POD (Z-6787)
Agenda,Page Two
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:(Cont.)
15.Bryels —Revised PCD (Z-6788)
16.Hyde Park —Short-Form PRD (Z-6789)
16.1.LU99-18-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis
Mountain Planning District —Single Family to Low
Density Residential
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
17.Reyna —Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1267)
18.Parkway Center —Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1271)
19.Dillards —Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-5098-B)
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
20.Waters Temple Church of God —Revised Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4101-A)
21.Fellowship Bible Church —Revised Conditional Use Permit(Z-6149-A)
22.Bobby Zimmerebner —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6779)
23.Southwestern Bell Telephone Exchange —Conditional Use
Permit (Z-6780)
24.Second Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6782)
25.Immanuel Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6784)
26.Chenal Valley Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6785)
VI .OTHER MATTERS:
27.Telecorp —Tower Use Permit (Z-6781)
28.Z-5889 —7715 Geyer Springs Road;Amended rezoning from C-4
with conditions to C-4 with conditions
29.Crackerbox —Street Improvement Waiver Request
14
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
te
m
s
1-
4
5
9
6
19
18
RI
V
E
R
A
QT
Y
UM
I
T
S
CI
1-
6
5
9
12
16
KA
N
I
S
MB
S
12
T
H
12
T
H
9
E.
6
T
H
WR
I
G
H
T
TI
P
'
4
I
0
4
DA
M
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
Q
I
7
1-
4
5
9
M
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
5
1-
4
4
0
LA
W
S
O
N
+
9
FR
A
l
l
E
R
PI
K
E
B
LA
R
S
O
N
25
1
5
ZE
U
B
E
R
7
DA
V
I
D
BI
1
I-
g)
O'
D
CO
D
65
T
H
65
T
H
iR
4
RA
I
N
E
S
+
VA
L
L
E
Y
TY
UM
I
T
S
Vl
BT
15
g
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
U
N
E
8
Y
9
2
DI
X
O
N
36
5
HA
R
P
E
R
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
C
'T
O
F
F
I
BL
I
N
K
E
R
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
5C
K
5
VI
N
S
O
N
8
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
5
GE
Y
E
R
SP
G
S
.
C
OF
F
C
CU
T
O
F
F
CX
S
'
l
TO
F
F
44
;
EL
6
AS
H
E
R
QT
Y
UM
I
T
S
16
PR
A
T
T
14
5
1
M
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
6,
20
0
0
January 6,~F00
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6766
NAME:Lindsey —Short-Form PD-R
LOCATION:3524 W.Capital Avenue
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Jeffrey Lindsey Donald W.Brooks
3524 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72205
AREA:0.15 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-3 ALLOWED USES:Single Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Rooming,lodging and boardingfacility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 3524 WestCapitolAvenuefromR-3 to PD-R to allow for the use of theexisting2,600 square foot,two story structure as arooming,lodging and boarding facility for a total of five(5)persons.The property owner will live in the residenceandrentroomstoamaximumoffour(4)individuals.Theresidentswillshareasinglekitchenfacilityandtwo(2)bathrooms.The applicant has noted that there will be nophysicalchangesintheexistingstructurebeyondtherepairandcleaningthathasbeenunderwaysincethepropertywaspurchased.
The applicant proposes to maintain the single familyappearanceandfunction(single kitchen,etc.)of theexistingresidentialstructureandwouldliketomaintainthepossibilityofsellingthestructureatsomefuturepointtoasinglefamily.Therefore,the applicant isrequestingsinglefamilyresidentialinadditiontothe
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6766
proposed rooming,lodging and boarding facility as a
permitted use under the requested PD-R.
The zoning ordinance definition of a single family is asfollows:
"Family means,in addition to customary
domestic servants,either:
(1)An individual or two (2)or more personsrelatedbyblood,marriage or adoption,
maintaining a common household in a
dwelling unit;or
(2)A group of not more than four (4)persons
who are not related by blood,marriage or
adoption,living together as a common
household in a dwelling unit."
Due to the fact that the applicant is proposing to utilizethestructureasaresidenceforfive(5)unrelatedpersons,a rezoning is requested for his specific rooming,lodging and boarding facility use.
The Zoning Ordinance definition of a rooming,lodging andboardingfacilityisasfollows:
"Rooming,lodging and boarding facility means abuildingorestablishmentwhichprovidesfor
more than four (4)but fewer than sixteen (16)persons and may provide meal service.Thebuildingorfacilityshallbesoarranged as topermitpassagebetweenalllivingelementssuchasdining,kitchen and bathrooms.Detachedunitsorprivateaccessaccommodationsare notpermitted."
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains an existing two-story rock,frame andstuccostructure.There is an existing access drive fromValentineStreetandasmallareaofparking(not paved)within the north one-half of the property.
The general area contains a number of single familyresidenceswithascatteringoftwofamilyresidentialuses.The property at the southwest corner of West Capitol
Avenue and Valentine Street is zoned PD-R and was approvedin1997toconvertthesinglefamilystructureintoatriplex.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6766
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Capitol View Stifft Station andHillcrestNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotified of thepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Location of sewer service for this property
unknown.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility fordetails.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by CATA Route ¹5;approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-630 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Single Family for this location.
The proposed residential use is consistent with the currentlandusecategory.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The WoodruffNeighborhoodAreaPlanrecommendspreservationofSingleFamilyresidentialusesintheneighborhood.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6766
Landsca e Issues:No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
proposing to rezone the property to PD-R in order to allowfive(5)unrelated persons to reside in the existing singlefamilystructure,functioning as a common household.ThereisanexistingdrivefromValentineStreetwithanareaofexistingnon-paved parking at the rear of the building
where a carport structure once stood.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issuesassociatedwiththeproposedrezoning.Based on the factthattherooming,lodging and boarding facility is for a
maximum of only five (5)persons and that the owner
proposes to maintain the single family residentialcharacteristicoftheproperty,staff feels that the
proposed PD-R will have no adverse effect on the generalarea.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-R zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the Public Works Conditions.2.The rooming,lodging and boarding facility use will beforamaximumoffive(5)persons.3.Single family residential will be a permitted use underthePD-R zoning.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 21 1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff gave a brief descriptionoftheproposedPD-R.The Committee briefly discussed theproposal.
There being no outstanding issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the PD-R to the full Commission for final action.
4
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6766
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Jeffrey Lindsey was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed PD-R rezoning.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that aletterofoppositionwassenttostaffbyRobertHamiltonofthe
Capital View —Stifft Station Neighborhood Association.
Mr.Lindsey addressed the Commission in support of the
application and discussed the proposed use of the property.He
noted that he screens all proposed renters.
Commissioner Hawn noted that the PD-R should be approved only if
the property owner lived in the structure.He asked Mr.Lindseyifhewouldagreetothisconditionbeingplacedonthe
application.
Mr.Lindsey stated that he would prefer not to have that
condition placed on the PD-R.He stated that he would establish
a live-in manager for the property if he moves out.
Commissioner Hawn stated that a deferral would be in order and
would allow Mr.Lindsey an opportunity to meet with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Nunnley objected to the possibility of a deferral.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that a previous developer was not
required to go back to the neighborhood (referring to Item 12
Union Rescue Mission —Short-Form POD),and this developer
should not be required to either.He stated that this appearstobealegitimatedevelopmentandshouldbeapproved.
Mr.Lindsey stated that he had spoken with the neighbors in the
area and that none of them expressed a concern with the proposeduse.He stated that he could not afford to take additional timeoffworktoattendadditionalmeetings.
Commissioner Nunnley again objected to the possibility of adeferral,referring to the Union Rescue Mission item.
Commissioner Hawn noted that the applicant for Item 12 did meet
with the neighborhood.
5
January 6,=~00
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6766
Commissioner Nunnley stated that considering a deferral on this
item was a "double standard."
There was discussion regarding conditioning the application on
having the property owner or manager live in the residentialstructure.
There was a motion to defer the application to the January 6,2000
agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,4 nays,1 absent
and 1 open position.
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,
as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
Staff added the following conditions to the PD-R (in addition totheconditionsnotedinparagraphH.):
1.The PD-R zoning will run with Jeffery Lindsey as property
owner only.
2.Mr.Lindsey,the property owner,or a property manager willresideinoneofthefive(5)bedrooms.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
6
January 6,~F00
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6719
NAME:Bussell —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:17201 Lawson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Stan Bussell None
5204 Sullivan Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:0.9 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-1 ALLOWED USES:Neighborhood Commercial
PROPOSED USE:C-1 permitted uses and a
furniture upholstery shop
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of the required right-of-way dedication to Lawson and
Sullivan Roads.
2.Waiver of the required street improvements to Lawson and
Sullivan Roads.
3.Waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws to accept notification
without an abstract list.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at the
southwest corner of Lawson and Sullivan Roads from C-1 to
PCD to allow for the current uses located on this site.
There is a commercial building (3,330 sq.ft.),a double-
wide manufactured home (28 X 60)and a garage structure
(under construction)currently on the property as noted ontheattachedsiteplan.There is a flea market (1,800 sq.ft.)and a furniture upholstery business (1,200 sq.ft.)located in the commercial building.The typical hours ofoperationwillbefrom8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
through Friday.The property owners live in the existingmanufacturedhome.
The furniture upholstery use is not a permitted "by right"use in C-1 zoning.Therefore the applicant is proposingtherezoningtoallowallC-1 permitted uses and thefurnitureupholsteryuseforthecommercialbuilding.
The only physical change to the property is a second 28footby60footmanufacturedhomewhichtheapplicantproposestoplaceneartheproperty's southwest corner.
The manufactured home will be a residence for the propertyowners'aughter so that she can help care for one of theownerswhoisinillhealth.The daughter will alsooperateasmallbeautyshopwithinthecommercialbuildingwhichwilloccupyapproximately330squarefeet.
Access to the residences will be from an existing graveldrivefromSullivanRoad.Access to the commercialbuildingisgainedfromSullivanandLawsonRoads,near thecorner,as there is no street curb and gutter in this area.
The applicant is requesting three (3)waivers with thisapplication.The first two are waivers of Public Worksrequirements.The applicant requests a waiver of therequiredright-of-way dedication for Lawson and SullivanRoadsandawaiveroftherequired'c street improvementsforthesestreets.As of this writing,Public Works hasnotmadearecommendationontheserequests.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the PlanningCommissionbylaws,Article IV.A.4.b.,which requires thatanapplicantobtainanabstractlistofpropertyownerswithin200feetofthetractforwhichrezoninghasbeenpetitioned,and notify said owners.In this case theapplicant,on his own,determined the property ownerswithin200feetofthepropertyandmailed(certified)notices of the public hearing.The notices were mailed onJuly17,1999.A total of five (5)property owners werenotified.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains a commercial building,a double-widemanufacturedhomeandagaragestructure,as noted on theattachedsiteplan.
There is a car wash and a contractor's maintenance yard tothenorthacrossLawsonRoad,with single-family residencesonlargelotstothenortheast.There is vacant propertyimmediatelywestofthissite.There are also single-family residences on large lots to the east across Sullivan
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
Road and to the south along Sullivan Road.There is alargeamountofmanufacturedhomesofvarioussizesin thisgeneralarea.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood,with the exception of one (1)informational
phone call.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Lawson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
will be required (includes 10 feet additional feet for
right turn lane).Clearance of soils from APCE required
prior to dedication.
2.Sullivan Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofLawsonRoadandSullivanRoad.4.Public Works do not support building expansion at thecloseproximityoftheintersection.
5.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.One driveway (36 feet wide)is recommended for center of
property versus two shown on plan.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
Fire Department:Outside city limits.If this property is
ever annexed,access to residential structures will needtobeprovided.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA,approved fortransitpurposesassubmitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Crystal Valley Planning District andisshownasNeighborhoodCommercialontheLandUsePlan.
The current uses in the commercial building are consistent
with the Land Use Plan.The request for two manufactured
homes on the site could be compatible since Single FamilyisshownonthePlanimmediatelytothesouthofthesite.
Concerns which should be addressed are no outside storageordisplayofgoodsandlistusesofmanufacturedhomesasresidentialuseonly.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:There is not aneighborhoodplanforthisareaatthistime.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 2,1999.The revised plan eliminates the proposedadditiontothecommercialbuildingasrequestedbystaff.Staff feels that there are no outstanding issues associated
with the site plan,other than the requested waivers of
Public Works requirements.Staff is comfortable with
proposed uses of the property.
The ordinance would typically require eleven (11)parking
spaces for a commercial building of this size.There is anexistingpavedareainfront(north side)of the commercial
build which will accommodate 6 to 8 vehicles.Given thefactthatnonewcommercialbuildingareawillbeadded,staff has no problem with the existing parking situation.
4
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting waivers of right-of-way dedication and c street
improvements for Lawson and Sullivan Roads.Public Workswillmakearecommendationonthesewaiverrequestspriortothepublichearing.
Also explained in paragraph A.is the applicant's requested
waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws,ArticleIV.A.4.b.,which requires that the applicant obtain anabstractlistfornotification.The Commission will needtohearfromtheapplicantanddetermineifthisbylaw
waiver is appropriate,or if a deferral is warranted,priortothepublichearingonthisrezoningcase.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD rezoning subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs DandEofthisreport.2.The issue of waivers of right-of-way dedication and 4streetimprovementsmustberesolved.Public Works willmakearecommendationpriortothepublichearing.3.The uses of the property will be limited to C-1 permittedusesandafurnitureupholsteryshop.4.No outside storage of merchandise will be permitted.5.The manufactured homes must be used as residences only.6.The septic system must be approved by the Pulaski CountyHealthDepartment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff gave a brief descriptionoftheproposedPCDsiteplan,noting that additional
information was needed from the applicant.
It was noted that staff would attempt to meet with the applicant
and work out Planning and Public Works issues prior to thepublichearing.The Committee forwarded the application to thefullCommissionforresolution.
5
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The Commission informed the staff that a waiver of the Planning
Commission bylaws would not be supported and that the item
needed to be deferred to the September 30,1999 agenda to allow
time for proper notification.Staff informed the applicant,
Stan Bussell,of this situation.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 30,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof6ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on September 14,1999
requesting that this item be deferred to the November 11,1999
agenda due to a family illness.The applicant states that hewillneedtheadditionaltimetoobtainanabstractlistand
complete the required notification.Staff supports the deferralrequest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 30,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronSeptember14,1999 requesting that this item bedeferredtotheNovember11,1999 agenda.Staff supported thedeferralrequest.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the November 11,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof11ayesand0nays.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant,Stan Bussell,submitted a letter to staff on
October 28,1999 requesting that this item be deferred to the
January 6,2000 agenda.Mr.Bussell notes that a serious
family illness has prevented him from completing the requirednotification.He informs staff that an abstract list has been
6
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
requested and that the notification will be done for the
January 6,2000 meeting.Staff supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronOctober28,1999 requesting that this item be deferredtotheJanuary6,2000 agenda.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 6,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof9ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Stan Bussell was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedthePCD,noting that the issues relating to
the waiver requests for right-of-way dedication and 'c street
improvements to Lawson and Sullivan Roads needed to be resolved.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,addressed the Commission.He notedthatPublicWorkswouldsupportaconditionalwaiverofthestreetimprovementstoLawsonandSullivanRoads.Mr.TurnerstatedthatPublicWorksrecommendeddenialoftherequested
waiver of right-of-way dedication.
Mr.Bussell noted that he did not wish to dedicate the right-of-
way.
Commissioner Rahman asked how much additional right-of-way wasrequired.
Mr.Turner noted that 30 feet of right-of-way existed on bothstreets.He stated that an additional 15 feet was required onSullivanRoadand25feetonLawsonRoad.
There was a brief discussion of the waiver requests.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the right-of-way dedication wouldseverelyimpactthepropertyowner.
7
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
Mr.Turner stated that the existing roadways would be left asis,with the possibility of a franchise if the owner wished to
use any of the dedicated area.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,explained the requirement for
right-of-way dedication and noted that the only difference
between this case and the Martindale Baptist Church case
(conditional use permit)was the type of application.Mr.GilesalsoexplainedtheCityAttorney's opinion regarding MartindaleBaptistChurch.
There was additional discussion regarding the right-of-way
dedication issue.
There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17,
2000 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
The Commission asked Public Works or the City Attorney to meet
with Mr.Bussell and attempt to resolve the right-of-way
dedication issue prior to the February meeting.
8
January t,2000
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO:Z-6560-A
NAME:ALLTEL Collocation —Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:10500 Chicot Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:William R.Butler Revocable Trust/ALLTEL
PROPOSAL:To obtain a tower use permit to add 10feettotheheightandasmallequipment
building on the ground at the existing
Wireless Communication Facility at
10,500 Chicot Road on property Zoned
C-3,General Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is an existing tower located near the
southwest corner of the intersection of Chicot Road and
Mabelvale Cutoff.
7.STAFF REPORT:Staff received a written request from
the applicant on October 14,1999,to defer this item
one full cycle.Because of the early timing of thisdeferralrequest,no further Staff analysis was
included in this report.The item would be reviewed at
the Subdivision Committee on December 9,1999,and comebeforethefullCommissiononJanuary6,2000,ifdeferralisapproved.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Staff informed the Committee that the applicant had
requested in writing October 14,1999,that this item bedeferreduntilthenextscheduledmeeting,including the
Committee's review.Since Staff had no objection to thedeferralandtheCommitteehadnoquestionsorobjections,
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6560-A
there was no discussion of the item.The Committee supported
accepting the requested deferral.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted and
supported the deferral request and forwarded the item to thefullCommissionforfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no registered supporters or objectozs present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval of theapplicant's requested deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved fozdeferraltotheJanuary6,2000,public hearing.The vote
was 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent,and'1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Staff informed the Committee that the applicant had
requested in writing November 29,1999,that this item bedeferreduntilthenextscheduledmeeting,and not be
reviewed by the Committee at this time.Staff had noobjectiontothedeferralandtheCommitteehadnoquestionsorobjections,so there was no discussion of the item.The
Committee supported accepting the requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no registered supporters or objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval of theapplicant's requested deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved fordeferraltotheFebruary17,2000,public hearing.The vote
was 11 ayes,0 nays,0 absent.
2
January 6,2000
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
Owner:Olivia Porter
Applicant:Rolanda Porter
Location:4721 Confederate Blvd.
Request:Rezone from C-3 to R-2
Purpose:To continue to use the existing
residence and to add a
multisectional manufactured home
as an accessory dwelling
Size:1.34+acres
Existing Use:Single Family;one site built
home and one recently added
multisectional manufactured home
(accessory dwelling)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
South —Single Family and Nonconforming barbershop;
zoned R-2
East —Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
No Comment.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA bus route is located at Springer Blvd.and Gilliam
Park Road,two blocks west of this site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the Granite Mountain
Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning
request.
January 6,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the College Station/Sweet Home
Planning District.The adopted Plan currently recommends
Mining (M)for the majority of the site and Park/Open Space
(PK/OS)for that portion of the site nearest the street.
Insomuch as the property is reverting to single family,
which it has always been used for and which is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area,staff feels that no changetothePlaniswarranted.A thorough review of the area's
land use plan through a neighborhood action plan is
anticipated in the not-too-distant future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The recpxest before the Commission is to rezone this 1.34+
acre tract from "C-3"General Commercial to "R-2"Single
Family.The property is occupied by an older one story,
frame,single family residence and a new,multisectional
manufactured home which has recently been placed on the
property.A conditional use permit application has beenfiledinconjunctionwiththisrezoningrecpxesttoallow
the manufactured home to serve as an accessory dwelling
(Z-5057-A,item no.1.1 on this agenda).
On October 18,1988,the property was rezoned from R-2 toC-3 on behalf of a previous owner to allow for constructionofausedfurniturestoreontherearportionofthesite.
That development never occurred and the property has
continued to be used only as a single family residence.
The property is located near the city limits in the extreme
southeast part of the City.The predominant land use in the
area is single family homes on R-2 zoned lots.The
properties adjacent to the east,west and across Confederate
Blvd.to the south are occupied by single family homes.A
nonconforming barber shop is located on R-2 zoned propertytothesouthwest.Two small nonresidential uses are located
on I-2 and C-3 zoned properties southeast of the site.A
large area of mining property is located farther to theeast.Staff believes the recpxested R-2 zoning is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area and is appropriate for the
continued residential use of this property.
2
January 6,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-A
The College Station/Sweet Home District Land Use Plan does
not currently recognize this residential use.The Plan
proposes mining for a large area north and east and
Park/Open Space along Confederate and as a buffer to the
residential neighborhood farther to the west.Since the
property is being rezoned to its former residential
designation to accommodate its existing and continued
residential use,staff believes no plan change is needed at
this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-2 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had failed to complete the proper notification and the item
needed to be deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the January 6,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had again failed to complete proper notification and the
item needed to be deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the February 17,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
3
January ,2000
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
NAME:Porter Accessory Dwelling —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:4721 Confederate Boulevard
OWNER/APPLICANT:Olivia Porter/Gerald Porter
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
place a two-section manufactured home as
an accessory dwelling on this property
currently zoned C-3 at 4721 Confederate
Boulevard.There is an accompanying item
on this agenda to rezone the property
from C-3 to R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the north side of Confederate
Boulevard,approximately 0.2 mile east of the Granite
Mountain Community Center.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEGHBORHOOD:
This site is located in an area which is primarily
residential,but this property is zoned C-3,General
Commercial.There is an accompanying item on this
agenda to rezone the property to R-2,Single Family
Residential.It is surrounded by R-2 zoning.There is a
small area of I-2 and C-3 zoning a short distance to
the east and across Confederate Blvd.There is also a
small area of R-4 zoning,Two Family Residential,
directly to the south,but set off of Confederate about
150 feet.There is a single family house on both sides
of,as well as on,this site.A barber/beauty center
exists to the southwest.A few other single family
houses exist along the south side of Confederate
including directly across the street to the south.
Staff believes the proposed use should be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association was
notified of the Public Hearing.
January ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This property contains a gravel circle drive serving
the existing house.The proposal includes constructing
a gravel drive from the west side of the existing
drive,along the west side of the existing house,to
serve the proposed accessory dwelling in the rear.This
would adequately serve as access and parking.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
The driveways must meet residential ordinance standards
and one be added to serve the accessory dwelling.
Current access to the street can be left as it is,but
no additional access directly to Confederate should be
added.The driveway for the accessory dwelling should
branch off of the existing driveway as shown on the
proposed site plan.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Approved as submitted.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected by
the project.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AS%LA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
install a new 1,904 square foot two-section
2
January ,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
manufactured home as an accessory dwelling behind an
existing 1,974 square foot single family house.The
property is currently zoned C-3 which would not allow
Single Family residential use,but there is an
accompanying item on this agenda requesting rezoning to
R-2,Single Family Residential.The owner of this
property also owns the lot immediately to the west
which contains her residence.
The accessory dwelling is already in place,but does
not meet the City's standards for anchoring and setup.
Those discrepancies will have to be corrected.The
setback on the west side is only 1.8 feet compared to
the ordinance requirement of 3 feet.That side of the
site abuts the lot where the owner of both lots lives.
A variance for reduced setback would be required.The
proposal meets all other setback requirements.
The proposed site is 1.35 acres,and is 500 feet deep
and 118 feet wide.Therefore,there is plenty of room
for two dwellings.The owner of this property wants to
have her children and their families live in both the
house and the accessory dwelling.The 1,904 square feet
size of the accessory dwelling exceeds the ordinance
maximum of 700 square feet,so that size would also
require a variance.
The area surrounding the proposed site consists of a
variety of lot sizes and a mixture of zoning and uses.
Several of the lots are vacant,but most of the
occupied lots contain single family homes or duplexes,
with some commercial uses on the south side of
Confederate Boulevard across the street and to the
east.Staff believes this is a reasonable addition to
this property and would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with Public Works Comments.
3
January i,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
b.The manufactured home must be set up and anchored
in compliance with City standards including the
following:
1)A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
2)Removal of all transport elements.
3)Permanent foundation.
4)Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
5)Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
6)Underpinning with permanent materials.
7)All homes shall be multisectional.
8)Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
Staff also recommends approval of the reduced setback
variance of 1.8 feet on the west side,and a variance
allowing the larger square footage of 1,904 squarefeet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Gerald Porter was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff briefly reviewed with the applicant the general
requirements for setting up a manufactured home by City
standards and stated that more specifics would be provided
after someone from the City's building codes department made
an on site inspection.Staff also commented about the west
setback and overall size variances that would be required
with this proposal.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
January v,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5057-B
had failed to complete the required notices for the
accompanying rezoning application (item 1,Z-5057-A)and the
items should be deferred to the January 6,2000 meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the January 6,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
No one was present representing the application since it was
recommended for deferral.There were no registered
supporters or objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for deferral to the February 17,2000
public hearing due to a lack of notification for the
accompanying rezoning action,Item D on this same agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the February 17,2000 Planning Commission public hearing.
The vote was 11 ayes,0 nays,and 0 absent.
5
January 6,~00
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1115-A
NAME:Commerce Scpxare —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northeast corner of University Avenue and
West 65 Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Hathaway Group White-Daters and Associates
100 Morgan Keegan Dr.401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.60 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-4
PLANNING DISTRICT:13
CENSUS TRACT:20.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of curb and gutter improvements to University Avenue.2.Variance for reduced front yard setbacks —platted buildingline.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.60 acres into fourlots.The property is zoned C-4.The lots will be finalplattedoneatatimeastheyaresold.The applicantproposestoaccessthepropertybyutilizingthethree (3)existing drives (2 from University Avenue and 1 from West65"Street).
The applicant is recpxesting a waiver of curb and gutter
improvements to University Avenue as part of thisapplication.The applicant has noted that a sidewalk will
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1115-A
be constructed.The applicant is also requesting avarianceforareducedfrontplattedbuildingline alongUniversityAvenueandWest65Street.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing convenience store on Lot 2,withaccessfromUniversityAvenue(2 drives)and West 65Street(1 drive).The remainder of the property is vacantandgrasscovered.Commercial uses exist to the north,south (across West 65 "Street)and west (across UniversityAvenue).There is a mixture of commercial and industrialusesacrosstherailroadright-of-way to the east.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Geyer Springs,Wakefield,
Meadowcliff/Brookwood and South Brookwood NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West 65 Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofWest65andUniversityAvenue.3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and rampsbroughtuptothecurrentADAstandards.5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.University Avenue has an average daily traffic count of31,000.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
2
January 6,cu00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1115-A
Arkla:Existing gas easement not shown on property plat,located across strip approximately 50 feet southeast of
northeast corner.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments.
Water:Lot 2 is served off a private fire line.With an
easement platted and certification from the engineer the
existing water line was installed to LEQCWW specs,it can
be converted to a public main and extended to the otherlots.Fire Department approval is needed.An acreage
charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal
charges.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Route ¹17A.No Comment.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonDecember15,1999.The revised plat addresses
most of the comments and questions raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The applicant still needs to
provide the source of title for the property and a
preliminary Bill of Assurance.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting a waiver of curb and gutter improvements for the
University Avenue frontage.Public Works has indicated
support of the waiver request.The applicant has notedthatasidewalkwillbeconstructed.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting avarianceforareducedfrontplattedbuildinglinealong
University Avenue and West 65 Street.The ordinance
3
January 6,-00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1115-A
requires a 45 foot front building setback for C-4 zoned
property.The applicant is proposing a 40 foot front yardsetback(platted building line).Staff supports the
variance as requested.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstandingissueswiththeproposedpreliminaryplat.The plat should
have no adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs DandEofthisreport.2.Staff recommends approval of the waiver of curb andgutterimprovementstoUniversityAvenue.3.Staff recommends approval of the variance for a reducedfrontplattedbuildingline.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Joe White and Jim Hathaway were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the preliminary plat.
Mr.Hathaway noted that a 40 foot building line was previously
approved with a plat for this property.He noted that avariancewouldberequestedtoallowa40footbuilding line
with this proposed plat.This issue was briefly discussed.
There was also a brief discussion relating to the required
sidewalk construction along University Avenue.Public Worksrepresentativesnotedthatthesidewalkcouldbeconstructed
with building construction and not the final plat.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for finalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
4
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1115-A
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
January 6,c.F00
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1268
NAME:Integra Addition —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Integra Group Garver Engineers
565 U.S.Hwy.5 South 1010 Battery Street
Pinehurst,NC 28374 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:6.679 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
'.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.679 acres into two
(2)lots.The property is zoned C-3.The property isbeingsubdividedinordertoallowconstructionofan autopartsstoreontheproposedLot1.The lots will be finalplattedindividually.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a vacant commercial building (previously HarvestFoodsstore)on the property,with the remainder of thepropertybeingconcreteparking.There are commercial usesandzoningtothenorthacrossBaselineRoadandtotheeastacrossGeyerSpringsRoad.There are also commercial
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268
uses adjacent to this property to the north.There aresinglefamilyresidencestothesouthandaschoolimmediatelywestofthisproperty.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)lettersupportingthisapplication.The Windamere,Allendale andCloverdaleNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as aprincipalarterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline will be required.(Includes 10 feet forrightturnlane.)
2.Geyer Springs Road is listed on the Master Street Plan asaminorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance¹18,031.Close driveways,which do not meet ordinance
requirements.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and rampsbroughtuptocurrentADAstandards.5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highwayright-of-way from AHTD,District VI.8.Baseline Road has an average daily traffic count of 28,000.9.Geyer Springs has an average daily traffic count of 32,000.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APGL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268
CATA:Site is served by CATA Routes ¹17 and 17A.
Approved for transit purposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonDecember15,1999.The revised plat shows alloftheadditionalnotesasrequired.
To staff'knowledge,the only outstanding issue relates to
the number of existing drives along Geyer Springs Road.
Public Works has noted that one of the two drives (for Lot
2)which access Geyer Springs Road needs to be closed.
This issue needs to be discussed and resolved by the full
Commission.Otherwise,the plat conforms to ordinance
standards.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttocompliancewiththePublicWorksrequirements.TheissueofnumberofdrivewaysalongGeyerSpringsRoad needstobediscussedandresolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff briefly described the
preliminary plat.
Staff noted that there were several items which needed to be
shown on a revised plat drawing.Staff also noted that the
applicant had met with Public Works regarding their
requirements.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
3
January 6,c.000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,
as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed toeliminateone(1)of the existing driveways along Geyer SpringsRoad.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
4
-~+Z-
&-
Iz(.g'ROY
D.LAHA
7 Althea Circle
Little Rock,Arkansas 72209
November 29,1999
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Re:Southwest corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads (old harvest Foods Store site)
Gentlemen:
I am happy that some one is finally taking advantage of this prime location.It is my
understanding that Advance Auto parts will be the occupant of part of this property.
This is one site that we neighborhood people have been tying to have code enforcement do
something about.
I would request that the occupant and owner of this property agree to NOT having vehicles
parked on this property overnight or when the business is closed as part of the requirements for
this Preliminary plat being approved.
I further request that the occupant and owner agree to maintain the wood privacy fence along the
south boundary of this property.
Hopefully,the occupant and owner will be happy to comply with the landscape ordinance and
the buffer requirements and that no waivers be requested or given.
Sincerely,
Troy D.Laha
Advancell]2799
RKCKIVKD
BEC ."1qq9
BY:
January 6,c~00
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1269
NAME:Priest Subdivision —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:2519 Willow Springs Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Wandene Priest Laha Engineers
2519 Willow Springs Rd.P.O.Box 190251LittleRock,AR 72206 Little Rock,AR 72219-0251
AREA:Approx.4.04 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:Not Zoned
PLANNING DISTRICT:28
CENSUS TRACT:40.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Waiver of street improvements to Willow Springs Road.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 4.04acresintotwo(2)lots to allow a second single familyresidencetobeconstructedontheproperty.The propertyislocatedoutsidethecitylimits,but within the City'extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction.The property isnotzoned.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvementstoWillowSpringsRoadaspartofthisapplication.PublicWorkshasindicatedsupportofaconditionalwaiverofstreetimprovements.
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1269
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains a one-story single family residence
on the proposed Lot 2.The remainder of the property isvacantandgrass-covered,with some trees along the easternportionoftheproperty.The general area is composed ofsinglefamilyresidencesonlargelots.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theadjacentpropertyowners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Willow Springs Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromnorthpartisrequired.
2.Willow Springs Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Contact,Pulaski County Road Department for approval.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
APSL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:If additional water service is needed,executionofapreannexationagreementandapprovaloftheCitywillberequired.An acreage charge of $100 per acreappliesinadditiontonormalcharges.Fire Department:No Comment.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1269
Count Plannin :Pulaski County Planning notes that the
following information needs to be shown on the plat drawing
as provided:
a.Contours
b.Drainagec.Willow Springs Road —80 foot right-of-way
d.Existing structurese.Land usagef.Identify all corners
g.Two land ties
h.Letters from water and sewagei.Street plans —improvementsj.Owners certificate
k.Point of beginning identifiedl.Wrong corner identification (northeast corner
should be northwest corner)
Contact Jim Narey at 340-8260 for details.
CATA:No Comment.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonDecember15,1999.The revised plat addressesthecommentsmadebystaffattheSubdivisionCommittee
meeting.The legal description to the nearest 1/10 of anacreandthenamesofallabuttingpropertyownershave
been shown.The applicant also delivered copies of arevisedplattothePulaskiCountyPlanningOffice,which
addresses their requirements.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant isrequestingawaiverofstreetimprovementstoWillow
Springs Road.Public Works supports a conditional waiver
3
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1269
of the street improvements,based on the fact that this is
a two-lot single family residential plat.This means that
the improvements to Willow Springs Road would be waiveduntilsuchatimethatthepropertyiseverfurther
subdivided.
Otherwise,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the preliminary plat.The proposed plat should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.2.Staff recommends approval of a conditional waiver ofstreetimprovementstoWillowSpringsRoad.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Wandene Priest and Troy Laha were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposedplat.
Staff noted that the applicant had requested a waiver of street
improvements to Willow Springs Road.Bob Turner,of Public
Works,indicated that Public Works would support a conditional
.waiver of the required improvements.
Mr.Laha asked about the Pulaski County Planning Comments.Staff informed him to contact the County Planning Office for
more information.
After the presentation,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,
as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
4
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1269
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
5
January 6,~~00
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-1270
NAME:C and S Estates —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Tall Timber Blvd.and Tall
Pine Blvd.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Arkansas Housing &Developers,Inc.McGetrick &McGetrick14711RidgewoodDr.319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.05 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:12 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.05 acres into 12 lotsforthedevelopmentofsinglefamilyresidentialhomes.The property is zoned R-2.The applicant proposes to finalplatallofthelotsatthesametime.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently vacant and mostly wooded.Therearetwo(2)single family residences under constructionacrossTallPineBlvd.to the west.Brodie Creek Park islocatedacrossTallTimberBlvd.to the north.There areexistingsinglefamilyresidencestotheeastandsouth.
January 6,c ~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1270
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Pecan Lake,Westwood and Stagecoach-Dodd
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Tall Timber Blvd.is listed on the Master Street Plan ascollector.A dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterlineisrequired.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5.plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely af fected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is near CATA Route ¹14.Approved for transitpurposes.
2
January 6,A&00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1270
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonDecember14,1999.The revised plat addressestheconcernsasraisedbystaffattheSubdivision
Committee meeting.The revised plat notes the source of
water supply,means of wastewater disposal,zoning of the
property and makes provisions for storm drainage.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththepreliminaryplat.The proposedplatshouldhavenoadverseeffectsonthegeneralarea.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttocompliancewiththerequirementsasnotedinparagraphD.of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflydescribedtheproposedpreliminaryplat,noting a few
items which needed to be shown on a revised plat drawing.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted thatallofthelotswouldbefinalplattedatthesametime.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the preliminaryplattothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
3
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1270
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflydescribedtheproposedpreliminaryplat,noting thattherewerenooutstandingissues.
Lloyd Black addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposed plat.He noted that there were Bill of Assuranceissuesofconcern.He requested that the item be deferred sothathecouldmeetwiththedeveloper.
Albert Hudson also addressed the Commission.He concurred with
Mr.Black's concerns.He noted that he did not have enough timetostudytheproposedBillofAssurance.He also requested thattheitembedeferred.
Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He stated that the residential structures whichwillbebuiltontheproposedlotswillbelargerthanthehomesinPecanLake.He noted that he would work with the Pecan Lake
Neighborhood Association regarding the proposed Bill of
Assurance.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,explained the Bill of AssuranceprocesstotheCommission.He noted that the Planning
Commission does not have the authority to regulate Bills ofAssurance.
Mr.Hudson asked why a bill of assurance was filed with a
preliminary plat.
There was a brief discussion of this issue.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,and Mr.Giles explainedthattheCitynorthePlanningCommissioncouldregulatethecontentofabillofassurance,only the format.
There was a motion to approve the preliminary plat as
recommended by staff.The motion passed with a vote of 11 ayes
and 0 nays.
4
January 6,c.+00
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1272
NAME:Claremore Court —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:West end of Claremore Court,at Beasley Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Norman Holcomb McGetrick &McGetrick
2311 Biscayne Dr.319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72227 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-6
PLANNING DISTRICT:2
CENSUS TRACT:22.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 1.23 acres into seven(7)lots to allow for the development of single familyresidences.The applicant proposes to access the lots byutilizinganexistingpavedaccesseasementfromClaremoreDrive.All of the lots will be final platted at the sametime.
The property is zoned MF-6,which does not allow single-family residential development.The applicant will need torezonethepropertytoR-2.
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and mostly wooded.ThepropertygenerallyslopesdownwardfromClaremoreDrive tothenorth.There are single family residences to thesouth,west and northwest,with a multifamily developmenttothenortheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Echo Valley,Sturbridge and RobinwoodNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Developer will be responsible for all adjacent street
improvements,which includes Claremore Drive frontage.2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetsincluding4-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A water main extension and private fire hydrantwillberequired.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrant per city code.Provide 50 foot turning radius for cul-de-sac with noparking.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Route ¹22 .Approved for transitpurposes.
2
January 6,'cv00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on December 14,1999.The revised plan shows many of the
additional notations as required.The following items needtobeshownonarevisedpreliminaryplatdrawing:
1.Source of title.
2.Sources of title for abutting recorded subdivisions.3.Move building lines to provide 60 foot lot width (chorddistance)for Lots 14 and 15.
As noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting,the
remainder of the property that this 1.23 acres came from
must be part of this plat,or the applicant must provide
deed information (history)showing that this parcel has
been separately owned for at least ten (10)years.The
applicant must also provide access easement deed
documentation for the access to the condo development tothenorth.These issues must be resolved prior to the
Commission taking action on this application.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,this property is
zoned MF-6,which does not allow single-family residential
development.The applicant will need to rezone the
property to R-2 as a condition of the plat approval.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph DandEofthisreport.2.The property must be rezoned to R-2 prior to a final platbeingsignedbystaff.
3
January 6,-~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
3.A revised preliminary plat with the additional notations,as requested in paragraph G.of this report,must besubmittedtostaff.4.The issues relating to property ownership and accesseasementtothecondodevelopmentmustberesolvedpriortotheCommissionactingonthisapplication.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Norman Holcomb were present,representing theapplication.Staff described the proposed preliminary plat,noting several items which needed to be shown on a revised plat
drawing.Staff also noted that easement deed and ownership
documentation needed to be provided by the applicant.Staff
noted that the property was zoned MF-6,which did not allowsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopment.Staff informed the
Committee that the preliminary plat application needed to bedeferredsothattheapplicantcouldfilearezoningapplication(R-2)for this property.It was determined that the rezoningcouldbemadeaconditionoftheplatapproval.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted thatallofthelotswouldbefinalplattedatthesametime.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.The
primary focus of the discussion related to the proposed accesstothelots.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that this item needed to be
deferred due to the fact that there was an outstanding issuerelatingtotheproperty'ownership which needed to be
resolved.Staff recommended that this item be deferred to the
February 17,2000 agenda.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 17,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof11ayesand0nays.
4
January 6,~00
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:S-4251-A
NAME:Hillcrest Square —Revised PCD
LOCATION:3000 Kavanaugh Blvd.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
D.R.B.Enterprises,Inc.Stephen J.Barker
1325 East 9 Street 6137 Getty Dr.Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:Approx.0.435 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Office/Commercial Mix
PROPOSED USE:Expansion of existing
restaurant
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On October 2,1984,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.14,747 rezoning this property from 0-3 to PCD to allow a mixedoffice/commercial development.There was an existing 14,647
square foot (net area)building on the site which had previouslybeenutilizedasachurch.The PCD was approved for 6,407
square feet of commercial/retail space (44%)and 8,240 squarefeetofofficespace(56%).
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD site plan by adding approximately 900 square feet ofdeckandpatioareatotheeastsideofthebuildingtoservetheexistingrestaurantuse.The proposed deckheightswillrangefrom3to8feetabovetheexistinggrade.The deck area will be used for a dining and waitingarea.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
The applicant is also proposing to enclose a existing porchforuseasadditionalwaitingarea.A new building service
ramp is also proposed.
The existing hours of operation for the Acadia Restaurantareasfollows:
11:00 —2:00 p.m.,5:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m.—Monday-Friday5:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m.—Saturday,closed —Sunday
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office/commercial building on thesite,with a parking lot across the alley to the west.There are single family and multifamily residences to thenorthandnortheast,with additional single familyresidencesthesouthwest(across Kavanaugh Blvd.).ThereisamixtureofofficeandcommercialusestotheeastandsoutheastalongKavanaughBlvd.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone callfromaperson(with the Hillcrest N.A.)expressing concernswiththeproposeddeckadditions.The Hillcrest
Neighborhood Association was notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofSpruceandKavanaugh.2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.4.Improve corner curb radius to 25 foot radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 15 feet).5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Kavanaugh Blvd.has average daily traffic count of 8,000.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APRL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrant per city code.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Routes ¹21 and ¹1.Approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Heights Hillcrest District.The
Land Use Plan currently shows Office for this location.
The expansion of an existing PCD is consistent with thecurrentlandusecategory.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant did a good job of addressing staff questions
and concerns at the Subdivision Committee meeting (see"Subdivision Committee Review"paragraph).However,a copyoftheexistingleaseagreementfortheparkingarea,across the alley west of the existing building,notes thattheleasewillexpireonMarch31,2001.Staff feels thattheapplicantneedstoenterintoanextendedleasefortheparkingareaorprovideanalternateparkingplan.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeapplication.The proposedadditionofdeckandpatioareas,operated under theconditionsassetforthinthenextparagraph,should have
no adverse effect on the general area.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD zoning subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs DandEofthisreport.
2 .There is to be no cabaret/nightclub with dance floor onthisproperty(condition of previous approval).3.Submission in writing of a full agreement to extend theleaseoftheadjacentparkingareatothewest.4.No outdoor speakers,entertainment,etc.5.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty/street.6.None of the deck area will be covered/enclosed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Bill Baxter was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflyreviewedtherevisedsiteplan.
In response to questions from staff,Mr.Baxter noted the
following items:
1.Hours of operation —11:00 a.m.—2:00 p.m.,
5:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m.—Monday-Friday5:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m.—Saturday,
closed Sunday2.None of the deck area will be covered.3.There will be no outdoor speakers,entertainment,etc.4.Any future site lighting will be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property/street.5.The exterior walls of the waiting area will be glass.
Mr.Baxter also provided staff with the proposed deck heights.
He noted that the ramp on the north side of the building wouldnotbeusedforhandicapaccess.He stated that there was a
handicap access on the west side of the building.
In response to a question from staff,the applicant noted thattherewasanexistingleasewith5yearoptionsfortheparkingareawestofthebuilding.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.Baxter noted that the sidewalks adjacent to this property wouldberepaired.
4
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised PCD to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Bill Baxter was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedtherevisedPCDwitharecommendationof
approval with conditions.
Mr.Baxter addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He noted that he would comply with the staff
requirements.He noted that the lease for the parking lot was
automatically extended.He also noted that the restaurant would
only be open in the evenings,no lunch hours.
Dennis Mills addressed the Commission in opposition to the
revised PCD.He noted that his parents'ouse was approximately
100 feet from the proposed deck addition.He stated that he was
not concerned with the existing restaurant's use of the deck
area,but the possible future use.
Cynthia Hodnett also addressed the Commission with opposition.
She noted that the proposed deck addition would be along SpruceStreet,which is a residential street.She noted that theexistingrestaurantdoesnothavetheabilitytoservemore
people.She stated that the neighborhood was concerned with theadditionofabartotherestaurant.She also noted that it was
rumored that a bed and breakfast would be put on the secondlevelofthebuilding.She also noted that parking was an issuetotheneighborhood.
Mr.Baxter stated that the proposed deck addition was not
designed or intended for restaurant seating.He explained the
surrounding uses in the area and the parking situation.Hestatedthatotherbusinessesintheareausehisparkingarea.
He also noted that a bed and breakfast was not part of this
application.
Commissioner Rector asked if a condition to prohibit outdoor
dining could be made part of the application.This was brieflydiscussed.
Ms.Hodnett explained the neighborhood's concern with the deckaddition.
5
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
Mr.Baxter noted that the proposed deck additions were primarilytoenhancethevisualappearanceofthebuildingandforadditionalwaitingarea.There was additional discussion ofthisissue.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about staff's condition to prohibit
outdoor "entertainment."
Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,noted that staff wasreferringtolivebands,music,etc.Jim Lawson further
explained the condition.
Commissioner Nunnley also asked about the hours of operation.
Mr.Lawson noted that the hours could be made a condition of
approval.
Commissioner Berry asked if the neighborhood had contacted theHillcrestMerchant's Association regarding this application.
Ms.Hodnett stated that the Hillcrest Merchant's Association was
opposed to the application.
Commissioner Berry noted support of the application.
Commissioner Hawn noted that he was very familiar with thisgeneralcommercialareaandthatheconcurredwithCommissionerBerry.
Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the application as
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Earnest asked Public Works about the requiredcornerradiusatKavanaughBlvd.and Spruce Street.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the corner radius was toallowforthesafemovementsofvehicles.He noted that theangleoftheintersectionalsohadaneffectontherequiredradiusandexplained.He noted that it was difficult forvehiclestomakealeftturnattheintersection.He presentedagraphictoaddresstherequirementfortheturnradius.Henotedthata20footradiuswouldworkforUPS-type trucks.
There was additional discussion of this issue.
6
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4251-A
Commissioner Berry noted concern with suburban standards for
street construction in this area.Commissioner Hawn concurred
with Berry's concern.
Commissioner Hawn amended his previous motion.The new motion
was to approve the revised PCD subject to the staff conditions,
with the exception of the required 20 foot radial dedication of
right-of-way at the corner of Kavanaugh Blvd.and Spruce Street.
The motion was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,1 nays and 1
abstention (Downing).
7
January 6,.00
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
NAME:Kanis Road Mini-Storage —Revised PCD
LOCATION:West side of Bowman Road,700 feet south of Kanis
Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Barnes Quinn Flake and Anderson White-Daters and Associates
400 West Capitol Avenue 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Single Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Expansion of existing mini-
warehouse business
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 3,1986,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.15,105 establishing the Kanis Road Mini-storage PCD.Thisactionresultedfromarequesttoaddbuildingstoanalreadyexistingmini-warehouse facility.The facility had been inexistencepriortobeingannexedintotheCity,and was a
nonconforming use.The total building area approved at thattimewas53,415 square feet.
On April 7,1992 (Ordinance 16,204)an amendment to the 1986 PCD
was approved.This added buildings totaling 31,620 square feettothepreviousplan.
On June 4,1996,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,204 approving another modification to the site plan.Thisrevisionincludedaddingone(1)building with 11,900 squarefeettothesite.This brought the total number of buildings to13andthetotalbuildingareato96,935 square feet.Access tothesiteiscurrentlygainedfromKanisRoad.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
On February 18,1997,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.17,403 which rezoned this 2.17 acre property to PCD for amini-warehouse development (separate owner and developer fromtheKanismini-warehouse project).The approved site planincludedsix(6)mini-warehouse buildings totaling 30,495 squareFeet.However,because of an ownership controversy involvingtheproperty,the development was dropped.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD site plan by adding 2.17 acres to the existing
development,along its south side.The applicant proposestoexpandthemini-warehouse development by adding four (4)buildings totaling 32,755 square feet on this property.The expanded area will be accessed through the existingmini-warehouse development from the north and from BowmanRoad.A 1,518 square foot office/apartment for thepropertymanagerisproposedattheeastendofBuilding¹2.
The proposed building locations,access drives andlandscapeareasarenotedontheattachedsiteplan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property proposed to be added to the existing mini-
warehouse development contains a single family residentialstructure.The remainder of the property is grass-coveredwithfewexistingtrees.
There is a mixture of residential,office and commercialusesalongBowmanRoadinthisimmediatearea,with singlefamilyresidencesimmediatelysouthalongthewestsideof
Bowman Road.The Cherry Creek single family subdivision islocatedimmediatelywestofthissite.There is one (1)single family residential structure immediately north,
between this property and a retail strip center.There isalsoamixtureofofficeandcommercialusesalongKanis
Road in the general area.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber
Ridge Neighborhood Association was notified of the publichearing.
2
January 6,.00
SUBD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Share driveway with adjacent development.4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Easements for proposed stozmwater detention facilities
are required.
7.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
9.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
10.Bowman Road has daily average traffic count of 10,000.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A development fee based on the size of the
connection applies in addition to normal charges.On-site fire protection will be required.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
information on turning radii around the buildings.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved fortransitpurposes.
3
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Ellis Mountain District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Service Trades District for thislocation.The expansion of existing PCD is consistent withthecurrentlandusecategory.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is notcoveredbyacityrecognizedneighborhoodplan.
Landsca e Issues:
Proposed areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
with ordinance requirements.However,it is recommendedthewesternlandusebufferbemaintainedatthesamewidthof50feetasistrueoftheexistingdevelopmenttothenorth.
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required to screen this
property from the residential properties to the south,north and west.This screen may be a 6 foot high woodfencewithitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordense
evergreen plantings that will grow to a minimum height of 6feetwithinthreeyears.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additionalinformationtostaffonDecember15,1999.The revisions
and information provided address the staff and Subdivision
Committee Comments.The applicant also submitted
north/south and east/west sections through the property.
The sections reveal that the proposed grading and fillingwithinthepropertywillnotbeexcessive.The proposedretainingwallalongaportionofthesouthpropertylinewillbeapproximately4feettallatitshighestpoint.
The revised site plan shows a 30 foot undisturbed buffer
along the west property line with an additional 20 feet
which will be a rip-rap slope planted with evergreen trees.This provides a total buffer along the western boundary of
50 feet.The screening fences and landscaped areas havealsobeenshownasrequired.
4
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
The revised plan also shows dumpster and sign locations.
The dumpster location must be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot wood fence or wall.The applicant notesthattheground-mounted sign will be monument-type with a
maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100 squarefeet.This falls well within the typical ordinance
allowances for commercial signage.
The applicant has done an adequate job in addressing the
concerns and comments as raised by the Subdivision
Committee and staff.The proposed revision to the existing
mini-warehouse development should have no adverse effect onthesurroundingproperty.The applicant will be providingscreeningandbuffers(greater than the typical minimum
ordinance requirements)where adjacent to residential zoned
property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.3.The mini-warehouse buildings should be constructed of anon-reflective material and be an earthtone color,exterior sides and roofs.4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footwoodfenceorwall.5.A construction fence must be installed to protect the 30footundisturbedbufferalongthewestpropertylinepriortoanysitework.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Joe White,Melanic Gibson,Kevin Hutchinson and Jim Wood werepresent,representing the application.Staff briefly described
the revised PCD,noting that sections needed to be provided.
The issues associated with the western buffer were brieflydiscussed.Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that ascreeningfencewasrequiredalongthewestpropertyline.Healsonotedthatatleast60percentofthewest50feetofthe
property (approximately 30 feet)needed to be left undisturbed.
5
January 6,JOO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4653-F
He noted that additional plantings would be required within thisarea.Mr.White noted that the remainder of the west 50 feet oftheproperty(east portion)would be sloped with rip-rap and
have additional landscape plantings.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.The
primary focus of the discussion related to the proposed driveway
from Bowman Road.Mr.White noted that the drive could not besharedwiththeadjacentpropertybecausethisisasecurefacility.He noted that the business would only generate
approximately 15 vehicle trips per day from Bowman Road.Bob
Turner,of Public Works,indicated that the proposed drivewaylocationwouldbesupported.
Mr.White noted that he would meet with the fire department
regarding the turning radii around the buildings.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommendedbystaff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
6
January 6,~00
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
NAME:Summit Mall —Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Shackleford Road andInterstate430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Summit Mall Co.,LLC McGetrick and McGetrick
&Construction Developers,Inc.219 East Markham St.,Ste.202
c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock,AR 72201
115 West Washington Street
Indianapolis,IN 46204
AREA:97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Commercial/Office Mixed
Development
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 1,1987,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD,establishing the Summit Mall —Long-Form PCD.The approved siteplanincludeda975,000 square foot shopping mall,three (3)office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet,a 190,000 squarefoothotel(250 rooms)and two (2)restaurant lease parcelstotaling20,000 square feet.A total of 5,945 parking spaces
was proposed,some of which were located in a parking deck fortheproposedofficebuildings.
The previously approved PCD has received several time extensionsovertheyearsandcurrentlyexpiresonMarch18,2000.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD with an entirely new site development plan.The new
proposed site plan consists of the following:
1.An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one-half of the property.2.An 85,700 square foot,4,238 seat movie theatre locatednearthesouthwestcorneroftheproperty.3.Three (3)retail/office buildings with a total area of77,400 square feet,located between the mall building andthetheatre.4.Four (4)lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 squarefeettotal)at the southeast corner of the property.5.A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the
property labeled as office/hotel/retail.6.4,734 parking spaces.7.Three (3)access points from Shackleford Road.
The proposed buildings,parking areas,drives and
landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded,withvaryingdegreesofslopethroughouttheproperty.Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of theproperty,with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary.
Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to theeast.The property immediately south is also vacant and
wooded.
There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower alongthewestsideofShacklefordRoadwhichissurroundedbytheproposedmallsite.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received comments andconcernsfromtheCampAldersgaterepresentatives.TheJohnBarrow,Sandpiper and Sewer District f147 NeighborhoodAssociationshavebeennotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis.
2.Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial
2
January 6,i'00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
street standards for access to commercial activity
around the site.This road should have access points
designed along the route with drive spacing at not less
than 250 feet on center.3.Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with
and without development traffic to verify adequacy of
the interchange and recommend improvements due to
development.
4.Verify with plan and profile that adequate sightdistanceisprovidedatallpointsofaccess.5.Verify with capacity analysis that all siteintersectionswilloperateataminimumlevel of serviceof"D"during the peak hour of the generator.6.Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for
Shackleford Road adjacent to site.7.NPDES permit from ADEQ,including Wetland Clearance will
be required.
8.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan asaminorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.9.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
10.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetincluding5footsidewalkswithplanned
development.11.All internal streets must be designed to commercialstreetstandards.
12.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.13.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.14.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilitiesarerequired.
15.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
16.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highwayright-of-way from AHTD,District VI.17.Existing topographic information at maximum five footcontourinterval100basefloodelevationisrequired.18.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)isrequired.
19.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)isrequired.
20.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
8-283 is required.
21.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-
283 is required.
22.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work isrequired.
23.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work is required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main relocation and extension required
with easements.
AP&L:Underground easements will have to be negotiated at
a later date when transformers are located to make a loop
through the shopping center.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.An
acreage charge of $150/acre,plus a development fee based
on the size of connections,will apply in addition to the
normal connection charges.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for
information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant
placement.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:CATA Route ¹3 serves very near this site.Thislocationisinakeyareafortransit.CATA would like todiscussopportunitieswiththedevelopertoincorporatea
bus pullout(s)on the periphery of the site.Betterpedestrianlinks/stronger connections within the site needtobeestablished.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-430 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial.TherevisionofanexistingPCDisconsistentwiththecurrentlandusecategory.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is notcoveredbyacityrecognizedneighborhoodplan.
4
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance recpxirements.
Because this property has significant variations in its
grade elevations,cross sections showing the proposed
method of treatment will be necessary.
Since this site is currently covered in trees,the CityBeautifulCommissionrecommendspreservingasmanyoftheexistingtreesasfeasible.This includes preserving treeswithinthestreetbuffers.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance recpxirements can be given when
preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger.
G.ANALYSIS:
As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments,a greatdealofinformationregardingthisapplicationisneeded bystaff.Some of the additional information recpxested bystaffattheSubdivisionCommitteemeetingisasfollows:
1.Discuss phasing plan.Show proposed phasing on siteplan.
2.Provide grading plan with respect to the proposedphases.Note areas within the site where existing treeswillbepreserved.3.Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and
Shackleford Road.
4.Note proposed sign location(s)and provide details.5.Show dumpster locations.
6.Provide north/south and east/west sections andelevations.
7.Show retaining walls on the site plan and providedetails.
8.There should be no grading or site work prior to
obtaining a building permit.9.Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels atthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.The previously
approved site plan included only two (2)lease
parcels/restaurant sites,one (1)on each side of theComcastproperty.Provide proposed uses for the leaseparcels.
10.Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel atthenortheastcorneroftheproperty.
5
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
11.Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this
project (phases,proposed uses,etc.)and addressing the
design features as offered by the previous developer and
the conditions agreed to with the previous approval.12.Define proposal.Is the proposed revised PCD site plan
requested for a three (3)year approval?Include this
information in the cover letter.
These are issues which need to be addressed by the
applicant in addition to the Public Works,Utility,Fire
Department,CATA and Landscape requirements and comments.
One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposedprojectrelatestothephasingoftheplanwithrespecttotheoverallsitegrading(cuts and fill,etc.).Theexistingcontourplanassubmittedbytheapplicant notesthattheexistinghighpointofthepropertyislocated
within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the
lowest point within the site is near the southwest corneroftheproperty.The proposed contour plan shows that the
high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75to80feetandthelowpoint(location of theatre building)will be raised approximately 60 feet.An overall plan forthesitephasingandgradingneedstoberesolved,to
include information on street buffer treatment and treepreservation.The effect of the proposed development ontheadjacentpropertytothesouthandtheCampAldersgate
property across Shackleford Road to the east should also bediscussedandresolved.
The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on
December 9,1999 that the applicant should make a
preliminary presentation of this item to the full
Commission on January 6,2000.This will allow the other
commissioners to express concerns that they might have withthisproposeddevelopment.Then the item would need to bedeferredtotheFebruary17,2000 agenda to allow the
applicant to respond to the issues and concerns,and
present additional information to staff and the Subdivision
Committee (January 27,2000).It was also discussed by the
Subdivision Committee that a six (6)month time extensionofthepreviouslyapprovedPCDwouldbereasonable.Thisisbasedonthefactthatadeferralasrequestedbystaff
and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to
extend beyond the March 18,2000 expiration date.
6
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this application to theFebruary17,2000 Planning Commission agenda.
Staff also recommends that the expiration date of thepreviouslyapprovedPCDbeextendedsix(6)months to
September 18,2000.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing theapplication.Staff described the proposed revised PCD site
plan,noting that a great deal of additional information was
needed.Staff noted that this item was a candidate fordeferral.
There was a discussion of the project which included topicsrelatingtophasing,grading,parking standards and theconditionsapprovedwiththeprevioussiteplan.It was notedthatbetterpedestriancirculationneededtobeprovidedbetweenthemallbuildingandtheleaseparcelatthenortheastcorneroftheproperty.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It was
noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed.Phasing ofstreetimprovementswasalsodiscussed.Public Works
representatives noted phased development to include street
improvements could be supported.The grading of the site andcutsintothehillsidewerealsodiscussed.
The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should makeapreliminarypresentationtothefullCommissiononJanuary6,2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners mighthave.Then the item would be deferred to the February 17,2000
agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and
Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision
Committee on January 27,2000.
It was also determined that a six (6)month time extension onthepreviouslyapprovedPCDwouldbeappropriate,given the factthatadeferralwouldcausethisissuetoextendbeyondthe
March 18,2000 expiration date.The Committee then forwardedtherevisedPCDtothefullCommissionforpreliminary
d3.scussl.on.
7
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing the
application.Staff explained that as a result of the
Subdivision Committee review of this item,the applicant was to
make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this
meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17,
2000 agenda.Staff noted that there was much additional
information which was needed.Staff also noted that since the
application needed to be deferred,an extension of time for the
previously approved PCD was in order.The previously approved
PCD expires on March 18,2000.
Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be consideredfirst.There was a brief discussion regarding the time
extension issue.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,explained the
time extension issue.There was a motion to grant a six (6)
month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration
date-September 18,2000).The motion passed with a vote of 9
ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary
presentation.
Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to
determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that
have not been addressed by staff.
Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary
presentation at this time.
Mr.Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had
concerns with the proposed development that needed to be workedout.
Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with
Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns.
There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17,
2000 agenda.There was a brief discussion of the deferral.The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
8
January 6,F00
ZTEM NO.:9 FZLE NO.:Z-5709-A
NAME:Accessibility Specialties —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATZON:West side of Barrow road,approximately 300 feet
south of Labette Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGZNEER:
Accessibility Specialties,Znc.Clayton Engineering,Znc.
3200 S.Shackleford Rd.,Ste.1 4 Putter CoveLittleRock,AR 72205 Sherwood,AR 72120
AREA:1.30 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONZNG:0-3 ALLOWED USES:General Office
PROPOSED USE:Office-Showroom/Warehouse
VARZANCES/WAZVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant,Accessibility Specialties,proposes torezonethepropertyfrom0-3 to PD-C to allow for theconstructionofa10,000 square foot building (18 feet inheight);2,500 square feet of which will be office and
showroom space with the remaining 7,500 square feet beingwarehouseandservicearea.Accessibility Specialties is aretailandwholesalebusinessthatprovidesmobilityandaccessibilityproductsforthephysicallychallenged.Aspartoftheoperation,equipment such as small liftingdevicesaresoldandinstalledincars,vans and passengertruckstoenablewheelchairaccesstothevehicleormakeitpossibleforaphysicallydisabledpersontodrivethevehicle.Occasionally,handicap accessories will beinstalledonabus.All vehicle service will be conductedwithintheenclosedbuilding.There will be two (2)garagedoorsonthesouthsideofthebuildingandone(1)garagedooronthenorthside.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5709-A
The following are the proposed hours of operation:
8:00 a.m.—5:30 p.m.,Monday —Friday9:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m.,Saturday
The applicant is proposing 40 foot drives along the north,south and west sides of the building to allow adequateturningmovementsbyeighteenwheelvehiclesfordeliveryofpartsandmaterials.The proposed building,parking,drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached siteplan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is vacant and wooded,as is the propertysouth,west and east (across Barrow Road).There aresinglefamilyandmultifamilyresidencesfurtherwest.There is a medical supply business immediately north ofthissite,with a multifamily development further northalongthewestsideofBarrowRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)informational phone call regarding this item.The JohnBarrow,Brownwood Terrace and Twin Lakes B NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.John Barrow Road is listed on the Master Street Plan asaminorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and rampsbroughtuptothecurrentADAstandards.4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submittedforapprovalpriortostartofwork.6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
2
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5709-A
7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
8.Maximum allowed driveway width is 36 feet.9.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Meter location may be different than that shown on
the plans.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:CATA Route ¹3 serves near this site.Approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-430 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial.The
proposed PD-C is consistent with the current land use
category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is
covered by John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan did not list
goals or objectives pertaining to this action.
Landsca e Issues:
The on-site street full buffer width required along Barrow
Road is 11 feet.The minimum width with transfers is 7 'c
feet but at no point less than 6 feet.The proposed streetbufferwidthisonly4feet.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wood fence with itsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings
which grow to a height of 6 feet within three years,is
required along the western and southern perimeters of thesite.
3
January 6,JOO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5709-A
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on December 15,1999.The revised
plan provides for the 7.5 foot street buffer as required.
The revised plan also adds five (5)parking spaces on the
west side of the building and notes a dumpster location.
The dumpster will need to be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot wood fence or wall.The revised plan also
shows an area along the south property line and at the
southwest corner of the property where trees will be
preserved.The applicant has noted that no grading workwillbedoneuntilabuildingpermithasbeenissuedby theCity.
The ordinance would typically require 14 parking spaces forthisdevelopment.The revised plan provides for the 14
parking spaces.
The applicant has noted that there will be no ground-
mounted sign on the property.There will be a wall-mounted
sign which will conform to typical ordinance requirements.
The sign must be on the east (Barrow Road)side of the
building and occupy no more than 10 percent of the east
building facade.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the PD-C site plan.Staff feels that the applicant
has done a good job in addressing the staff and subdivision
committee concerns and questions.The proposed development
should have no adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PD-C subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.3.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footwoodfenceorwall.4.All vehicles must be serviced within the enclosedbuilding.5.The proposed wall signage must conform to typicalordinancestandards(located on east side of building
4
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5709-A
and occupy no more than 10 percent of the buildingfacade).6.There is to be no grading or site work on the propertyuntilabuildingpermithasbeenissuedbytheCity.This is due to the fact that this is a tree-coveredlot.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Michael Clayton was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the PD-C site plan,noting that someadditionalinformationwasneeded.Mr.Clayton stated that theadditionalinformationwouldbeprovidedtostaff.
Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that the street
landscape buffer should be a minimum of 7.3 feet.Mr.Claytonnotedthatthesiteplanwouldberevisedtoprovidethe
appropriate buffer.Mr.Brown also noted that screening wouldberequiredalongthewestandsouthpropertylines.
The need for the 40 foot wide access drives on the north,south
and west sides of the building was briefly discussed.Bob
Turner,of Public Works,noted that any additional pavementincreasedthestormwaterdetentionrequirements.Dennis Free,Fire Marshall,noted that the drives needed to be a minimum of
20 feet wide.Mr.Clayton stated that he would look into
reducing the driveway width.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
5
January 6,~00
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6019-B
NAME:GMAC —Long-Form POD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and LaGrande Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Barnes Quinn Flake &Anderson White-Daters and Associates
400 W.Capitol Avenue 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:33.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:550 lf
ZONING:0-2/R-2/PCD ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The majority of this property is zoned 0-2,with a small portionofR-2 and PCD (part of the large PCD on the north side of
LaGrande Dr.).The existing GMAC office building (27,000 squarefeet,30 feet in height)and associated parking areas arelocatedwithinthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.Access tothesiteisgainedbyutilizinganexistingdrivefromLaGrandeDrive,with a future access point shown to Chenal Parkway.
There are currently 268 parking spaces on the site.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property to POD toallowforadditionalofficedevelopmentintwo(2)phases.Phase I of the project includes construction of a 73,500squarefoot(60 foot tall)office building and 402 parkingspaceswithinthenortheastportionoftheproperty.Access to this phase will be gained by utilizing theexistingdrivefromLaGrandeDrive.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6019-B
Phase II of the proposed development includes constructionofa96,500 square foot office building (60 feet in height)and 783 additional parking spaces within the west one-halfoftheproperty.This phase will also be accessed from theexistingdrivefromLaGrandeDriveaswellasaseconddrivefromLaGrandeDrivewiththestreet's extension.AsmallportionofthepropertywithinPhaseIIisoutsidethecitylimits.The proposed building locations,parkingareas,drives and landscape areas are noted on the attachedsiteplan.
The applicant has noted that the hours of operation for theofficedevelopmentwillbe7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday-Saturday.The applicant has shown two (2)ground-mountedsignsonthesiteplan,one on each side of the main entrydrivefromLaGrandeDrive.It is noted that the signs willnotexceedthemaximumordinanceallowances.The ordinancewouldtypicallyallowsignsinofficezoningtohaveamaximumheightofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64squarefeet.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing two-story office building and parkingareasonthesite.The remainder of the property isundeveloped,with the western portion being wooded.
There is undeveloped property immediately west of this siteandtothenorthacrossLaGrandeDrive.There is a mixtureofofficeandcommercialusestotheeastacrossChenalParkway.An AP&L substation and single family residencesonlargelotsarelocatedtothesouthalongthenorthsideofKanisRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from thesurroundingpropertyowners.There was no establishedneighborhoodassociationtonotifyofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of Chenal entrance to standards approvedforChenal.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted forapprovalpriortostartofwork.3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
2
January 6,-~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6019-B
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
6.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City ofLittleRock.
7.Chenal Parkway has an average daily traffic count of
11,000.
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
9.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.10.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
11.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Secs.29-186(c)
and (d)is required.
12.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
13.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-
283 is required.
14.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APEL:A 10 foot utility easement is requested along the
south and west property lines.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
information on fire hydrant placement and turning radii.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved fortransitpurposes.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6019-B
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Chenal Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Office.The change to POD isconsistentwiththecurrentlandusecategory.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is notcoveredbyacityneighborhoodplan.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet withordinancerequirements.
A 6 feet high opaque screen is required along the southern
and a portion of the western perimeter which abutresidentialproperty.This screen may be a wooden fencewithitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantingswhichgrowtoaheightof6feetwithinthreeyears.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
December 15,1999.The revised plan provides theadditionalnotationsasrequired.The hours of operation,sign and dumpster locations have been shown on the revisedplan.The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3)sides with an 8 foot wood fence or wall.The applicant
must also provide screening of the project from the
property along the southern boundary and a portion of thewesternboundary.This screen can be a six (6)foot woodfenceordenseevergreenplantingswhichwillgrowtoaheightofsix(6)feet in three (3)years.
The ordinance would typically require a minimum of 405parkingspacesforanofficedevelopmentofthissize.There is a total of 1,453 spaces proposed for this entiredevelopment.The applicant noted at the Subdivision
Committee meeting that the industry standard for an office
development was five (5)parking spaces per 1,000 squarefeetoffloorarea.He explained that the number of
parking spaces proposed for this development was based on
4
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6019-B
the needs of this particular tenant.It was noted thatthisparticulartenantrequired6.5 spaces per 1,000 squarefeetoffloorarea.This is based on the tenant being aservice-type company involving heavy telephone usage and
small work stations.
The 6.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor areaisequivalenttoone(1)space per 154 square feet of floorarea.This would calculate to 1,279 spaces for the entire
development which has a total building area of 197,000
square feet.Staff has no problem with the parking designasproposed,based on adequate buffer/landscape areas and
screening being provided.
As noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting,the
applicant will be given extra credit (toward meeting
landscape ordinance requirements)for portions of the site
where existing trees are preserved.Staff recommends
preserving as many trees as possible within the exteriorbuffer(60%of which must remain undisturbed)and interior
landscape areas.Based on the fact that the western one-half of this property is wooded,staff will recommend that
no additional site work be done until a building permit forthatparticularphaseisissued.
As noted in paragraph A.,a small portion of the propertywithinPhaseIIislocatedoutsidethecitylimits.This
small portion must be annexed prior to a building permit
being issued for Phase II.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedsiteplan.The
proposed development should have no adverse effect on the
surrounding property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed POD subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The small portion of the property located outside thecitylimitsmustbeannexedpriortoabuildingpermitbeingissuedforPhaseII.
5
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6019-B
3.There is to be no additional site work within the phaseareasuntilabuildingpermitisissuedfortheparticularphase.4.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.5.The site must comply with the Chenal/Financial CenterDesignOverlayDistrictwithrespecttoutilities.AnyutilitiesbetweentherearlinesofthebuildingsandChenalParkwaymustbeunderground.6.The dumpster areas must be enclosed on three (3)sideswithan8footwoodfenceorwall.7.Based on the fact that the majority of the property iscurrentlyzoned0-2,staff will recommend 0-2 permittedusesasausemixforthedevelopment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Joe White,Dickson Flake and Kevin Hutchinson were present,
representing the application.Staff described the proposed PODsiteplan,noting that some additional information was needed.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.WhitenotedthathewouldmeetwithDennisFreeregardingtheFire
Department comment.
The primary topic of discussion regarded the proposed number of
parking spaces for this project.Mr.Flake noted that the
industry standard for an office development was five (5)parkingspacesper1,000 square feet of floor area.He stated that the
proposed number of parking spaces for this development was based
on the needs of a particular tenant.He noted that theparticulartenantrequired6.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet offloorarea,based on the fact that it is a servicing company
with heavy telephone usage and small work stations.There wasadditionaldiscussiononthistopic.
The landscape requirements for this project were brieflydiscussed.Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that
the applicant would be given extra credit for portions of thesitewhereexistingtreesarepreserved.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the item to thefullCommissionforresolution.
6
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6019-B
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
7
January 6,cu00
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-6778
NAME:Dicker —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:57 White Oak Lane
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
David and Marinetta Dicker White-Daters and Associates
57 White Oak Lane 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72227 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.0.19 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Single-Family residential
&Massage Therapy Clinic
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicants propose to rezone the property at 57 White
Oak Lane from R-2 to POD to allow for the operation of a
massage therapy clinic within a portion of the existingsinglefamilyresidentialstructure.The property owners,David and Marinetta Dicker,who are licensed massagetherapistswillalsomaintainaresidenceatthislocation.
The proposed hours of operation for the massage therapybusinessareasfollows:
9:00 a.m.to 8:30 p.m.,Monday-Thursday9:00 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,Friday
The applicants have noted that patients are seen every 1 'c
hours,with approximately 12 total patients per day.Asmallconcreteparkingareahasrecentlybeenconstructed
on the west side of the existing residential structure to
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6778
be utilized for patient parking.The Dickers have notedthattheyhaveadministeredprofessionalmassagetherapy attheirresidenceforthepastfive(5)years.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing two-story single family residence ontheproperty,with a small concrete parking area along thestructure's north side.The property is located within asinglefamilyresidentialneighborhood.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several phone callsfrompersonsexpressingconcernsandoppositiontotherezoningofthisproperty.The Overlook,Meriwether andAndoverScpxareNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and rampsbroughtuptothecurrentADAstandards.2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submittedforapprovalpriortostartofwork.4.Maximum residential driveway width is 20 feet.5.Show parking arrangement.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by CATA Route ¹1.Approved fortransitpurposes.
2
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6778
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the West Little Rock Planning District.
The Land Use Plan currently shows Single Family.The useofanat-home occupation is consistent with the current
land use category with no signage.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area isnotcoveredbyacityrecognizedneighborhoodplan.
Landsca e Issues:
Since a new parking area has been developed for this
business activity,shrubs should be planted around this new
parking area to help screen this site from adjacentresidentialpropertiesifapproved.
G.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicants
propose to operate a massage therapy clinic from theirresidenceat57WhiteOakLane.Although the applicants
have filed for a rezoning of the property,and not a homeoccupation,staff reviewed the home occupation standardswithintheZoningOrdinanceasabasistodeterminethecompatibilityofthisproposal.Staff used the home
occupation standards as a basis for review based on thefactthatthispropertyiszonedR-2,entirely surrounded
by existing single family residences and located on aresidentialstreet.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-253(b)(6)a.,"Home Occupations shall be permitted that willnot:"
"2.Generate traffic,parking,sewage or water
use in excess of what is normal in theresidentialneighborhood."
"11.Provide medical treatment,therapeutic
massage or similar activities."
Based on the fact that the proposed massage therapybusinesswillgenerateseveralmorevehiculartrips per day
3
January 6,.~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6778
than would be normally generated by a single family
residence and the fact that massage therapy is typicallyprohibitedasahomeoccupation,staff feels that the
proposed use of the property will not be compatible with
the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed POD rezoning.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
David and Marinetta Dicker and Joe Bell were present
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed POD.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Dicker noted that the
hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m.to 8:30 p.m.,Monday-
Thursday and 9:00 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,Friday.He noted thatpatientsareseenevery1'c hours with approximately 12 totalpatientsperday.
Mr.Dickers noted that there would be no signage associated withthebusiness.He stated that he does not advertise.He alsostatedthattherewouldbenobuildingadditionsmadeto
accommodate the business.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Public
Works noted concern with the driveway width as shown on the siteplan.It was noted that the applicant would meet with Public
Works to discuss this issue.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJanuary6,2000 requesting that this item be
withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request.With a voteof11ayesand0nays,the Commission voted to waive their
bylaws and accept the withdrawal request being made less thanfive(5)working days prior to the public hearing.
4
January 6,80
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6778
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion to thateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and
0 nays.
5
I -C~~I(
77/
December 15,1999
Chairman and Planning Commission Members
c/o Department of Planning and Development
723 W.MarkhamLittleRock,AR 72201
Attn:Mr.Richard Wood
Dear Mr.Chairman and Planning Commission Members:
I found the attached letter in my mailbox last week and later foundthatithadbeenleftinmanymailboxesintheneighborhood.NoneofushadaclueastowhatitmeantaswewerenotawareoftheDickers'equest to your department for their business to take
place in their home.Some of the neighbors had noticed that they
had paved a great deal of their yard and thought it was unusual andunattractive,hut the sign in their window "Planned Development"didn't reveal what they had in mind.
I live at 33 White Oak Lane and do not personally know the Dickers,
however,our area is a very quiet,residential area and we do not
wish it to he rezoned as a business area.The neighbors I have
spoken with are surprised that they would think of requesting this
rezoning without regard to the wishes of the rest of the
neighborhood.
I understand that there will he a hearing at City Hall on January
6,2000 and I would like to voice my opposition to such a rezoningrequest.Once a precedent is set,there may he other such requests
and I believe it has to have a direct and unfavorable effect on
property owners of the area.
I hope that you will carefully consider the wishes of other
property owners in the area before granting their request.
Sincerely,
Mary acks
33 White 0 LaLittleRock,Ar 72227 RECnVED
DEC 18 1995
BY:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Marinetta and I would like to invite you to our home on
December 18,1999 at one thirty P.M.We would like the
opportunity to explain the Planned Development we have to
go through.
There is erroneous information going around and after
speaking with the sub-committee last Thursday we have the
information to set matters straight.
Thank You,
David &Marinetta Dicker
57 White Oak Lane
225-8472
P.S.Please come or give us a call we will be happy to answer
all questions to the best of our ability.
-~&I (2-(v7/
/sJ/dY~
A 8~~~~g
l
4)6 ~
A6 ~~
~.~Le
l
/
E.
cgzk a
~m~Wack,CA,~SN4 7
~CKIVKA
DEC 16 1999
av':
Z&~~I(
ko~~.
(
:,-;-,~-p
i~~
P.
.g AJ C
~Z~-g &-&~-y
A.~
+"+u.~~
c
pEp g g ~ggg
Qn
BY:
January 6,~~00
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-6783
NAME:Williford —Long-Form PCD
LOCATION:15723 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
W.Douglas Williford None
64 Norfork Dr.
Maumelle,AR 72113
AREA:Approx.8.02 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Plant Nursery
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of right-of-way dedication for Kanis Road.
Deferral of floodway easement dedication.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
PCD to allow for a plant nursery to be operated at thislocationasatemporaryuse.The applicant proposes tooperatetheplantnurseryforamaximumoffive(5)years.The nursery will offer wholesale and retail plants,shrubsandotherrelatednurseryitems.The hours of operationareproposedasfollows:
8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.—winter months8:00 a.m.—8:00 p.m.—balance of the year
The project includes construction of two (2)greenhousestructures.These structures will be constructed of 1 '&inch tubing and covered with plastic film.No permanentfoundationwillbeconstructedforthestructures.The
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6783
applicant is also proposing areas for outside display ofplants,shrubs and trees and areas for the bulk storage ofbarkandrock.
The existing single family structure will be used for thedisplayandsaleofothernurseryrelateditems(flowerpots,fertilizer,etc.)as well as an office for thebusiness.The existing accessory building on the site willbeusedforstorage.
The property will be accessed by utilizing an existing
driveway from Kanis Road.A small gravel parking area willbeprovidedalongtheeastsideoftheexistingsinglefamilystructure.The existing structures,proposedgreenhouses,outside display areas,bulk storage areas and
proposed gravel parking are noted on the attached siteplan.
As part of this application,the applicant is recpxesting adeferralofright-of-way dedication for Kanis Road and adeferraloffloodwayeasementdedication.This is due tothefactthattheuseproposedistobetemporary.Theapplicanthasstatedthata15percentin-lieu contributionwillbemadeforthestreetimprovementstoKanisRoad.
The in-lieu contribution will be used toward theconstructionofanasphaltorconcreteentryto theproperty.
According to the applicant,the purpose of the temporaryrezoningrecpxestisasfollows:
"The intent of this operation is meant toutilizethispropertytoitsbestuseuntil
someone decides to develop it on a more
permanent basis.The increasing traffic on
Kanis,combined with being directly across from
One Source and Kinco Construction Company'strailers,has made it more difficult to rentthishousetofamilieswithchildrenforresidentialuse."
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one-story single family structure andaccessorybuildingonthesite.Rock Creek runs throughthecenterofthisproperty(as noted on the attached siteplan).The area where the greenhouses are proposed isgrass-covered.
The One Source home center is located across Kanis Road tothenorthwest,with Kinco Construction Company to thenortheast.There is one (1)single family residence to the
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6783
west along Kanis Road,with the new Kroger store
development further west at the southwest corner of Kanis
Road and Chenal Parkway.There is one (1)single familyresidenceandalargeamountofundevelopedpropertyto theeastacrossRockCreek.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Parkway Place Neighborhood Association
was notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.
2 .Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvementstothesestreetsincluding5footsidewalkswith
planned development.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submittedforapprovalpriortostartofwork.
4.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City.5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer line located on site.ContactLittleRockWastewaterUtilitypriortostartofconstruction.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:If water service is needed,execution of a
preannexation agreement and approval of the City will berequired.An acreage charge of $600 per acre and a
development fee based on the size of the connection applyinadditiontonormalcharges.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Maintain 20 foot access to new buildings.Contact DennisFreeat918-3752 for details.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6783
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The current Land Use Plan shows Park/Open Space in the
floodway of the property and Mixed Office Commercial
outside the floodway.A temporary plant nursery is
consistent with the current land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is not
covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on December 15,1999.The revised
plan shows the additional items as requested by staff at
the Subdivision Committee meeting.The revised plan shows
the gravel parking area and the proposed area of outside
display of plants and bulk storage of bark and rock.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant has
requested a deferral of right-of-way dedication for Kanis
Road and a deferral of the floodway easement for Rock
Creek.Public Works supports the deferral requests for a
maximum of five (5)years,until adjacent development
occurs or until re-development of this property.The
deferrals are supported based on the fact that it is alight,temporary use that is proposed with no significant
construction.There is to be no permanent foundation
constructed for the greenhouse structures.
The applicant also noted that a 15 percent in-lieu
contribution will be made for the street improvements to
Kanis Road.The contribution will be applied toward the
4
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6783
construction of an asphalt or concrete apron for the
existing driveway from Kanis Road.This will help prevent
gravel from being pulled out onto Kanis Road.Public Worksalsosupportsthein-lieu contribution.
The only point of concern that staff has regarding this
application is the proposed bulk storage of bark and rock
as noted on the attached site plan.Staff is supportive of
the retail use as proposed for the property,but does not
support the outside bulk storage areas.Staff feels thatifthebulkstorageofmaterialsisrequiredforthis
business,the applicant should make an effort to store thematerialsinsidethegreenhousestructures.
To staff'knowledge,this is the only outstanding issueassociatedwiththisapplication.This proposed temporary
use of the property should have no adverse effect on the
general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.2.The PCD is to be granted (for the temporary use of thepropertyasawholesale/retail plant nursery)for a
maximum of five (5)years.3.Staff recommends approval of the deferral of right-of-
way dedication for Kanis Road and a deferral of
floodway easement dedication for Rock Creek for a
maximum of five (5)years,until development ofadjacentpropertyoruntilre-development of thisproperty,whichever occurs first.4.There is to be no outside bulk storage of materials ontheproperty.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9 ~1 999)
Doug Williford was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedtheproposedPCD,and noted that a small
amount of additional information was needed.Mr.Williford gave
an explanation of the project.
The Public Works requirements were the primary topic of
discussion.Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the right-
5
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6783
of-way dedication would be required.He noted that Public Works
could support a deferral of street improvements to Kanis Road or
a 15 percent in-lieu contribution for the improvements.He
noted that the in-lieu contribution could be used toward pavingtheexistingdrivewayapron.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the floodway dedicationissue.Mr.Williford expressed concern with dedicating the
floodway at this time,not knowing what a future developer of
the property might propose.It was noted that he should meet
with staff regarding this issue.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Doug Williford and Bob Hardin were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD,notingthattheonlyoutstandingissuerelatedtotheoutsidebulk
storage landscape materials.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,asked the
applicant how he proposed to screen the outside bulk storageareas.
Doug Williford noted that the areas for outside bulk storagewillbelocatedbehindtheexistingbuildingandnotseenfrom
the street.He stated that a 6 to 8 foot fence could be
constructed around these areas.
Mr.Lawson noted that staff could support the bulk storage areas
with an 8 foot screening fence on three (3)sides.
There was a motion to approve the PCD subject to the outside
bulk storage areas being screened on three (3)sides with an
8 foot fence,in addition to the other staff conditions.The
motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
January 6,A@00
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6786
NAME:Childers —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:15000 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
John V.Childers Richburg and Rickett¹1 Seven Acres Dr.¹1 Seven Acres Dr.Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:Approx.1.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family residential
PROPOSED USE:0-1 permitted uses (office)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
BACKGROUND:
The site at 15000 Cantrell Road contains an existing 9,400
scpxare foot,two-story brick building.The property is zonedR-2 and the existing building was previously used as a
photography studio (nonconforming).The site is accessed byutilizinganexistinggraveldrivefromCantrellRoad.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
POD to allow for building and parking lot additions.Theapplicantisproposing0-1 (Quiet Office District)permitted uses for the property and the following hours ofoperation:
7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday-Saturday
The applicant is proposing the following two-phase
development for the property:
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6786
Phase I —Construction of an asphalt drive from Cantrell
Road,construction of 24 parking spaces on the southsideoftheexistingbuilding,dumpster location,useoftheexistingbuildingfor0-1 permitted uses.
Phase II —Construction of an 8,000 square foot addition totheexistingbuilding,extend driveway along east sideofbuilding,construction of 32 additional parkingspacesonthenorthsideofthebuilding,relocationofdumpsterarea.
The applicant has noted that a ground-mounted sign will beplacedneartheentrancetothepropertyandthatthesignwillconformtotheHighway10DesignOverlayDistrictStandards.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing two-story,9,400 square foot structure
on the site,with an existing gravel access drive fromCantrellRoad.There is an office immediately west of thesite,with two (2)single family residences further west.
There is undeveloped property immediately east,with singlefamilyresidencesfurthereast,along the north side ofCantrellRoad.There are single family residences to thesouthwestacrossCantrellRoad,with a pet groom/boardingbusinesstothesoutheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Pankey Community Improvement,SecludedHills,Westbury and Westchester/Heatherbrae NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
2.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
uMSP II
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
4.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is required.
2
January 6,-00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6786
6.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
7.Cantrell Road has average daily traffic count of17,000.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre and a
development fee (for connection larger than 4-inch)based
on the size of the connection apply in addition to normal
charges.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752
concerning north parking lot access.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Highway 10 Express ¹25.No
Comment.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the River Mountain Planning District.
The current Land Use Plan shows Transition.Development of
a POD is consistent with this land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is
covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan,
which calls for preservation of the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District.
Landsca e Issues:
The Highway 10 Design Overlay requires a forty foot deep
landscape buffer along Cantrell Road and an average
landscape buffer depth of 25 feet around the other three
perimeters of the site.The plan submitted is short of
these requirements along Cantrell Road and along the
northern and eastern perimeters of the site.
3
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6786
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or dense
evergreen plantings which grow to a height of 6 feet within
three years,is required along the northern perimeter of
the site.
A sprinkler system to water the landscaped areas is a
requirement of the Highway 10 Design Overlay.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
December 15,1999.The revised plan addresses most of the
concerns as raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff.
The applicant has decreased the amount of new building area
from 10,000 to 8,000 square feet,and the new building areaisintheformofabuildingadditionandnotaseparate
building.
The buffer along the east property line has been increased
by approximately three (3)feet at its narrowest point,and
the north buffer has been increased by six (6)feet.Stafffeelsthattheproposed24footwideaccessdrivealongtheeastsideofthebuildingshouldbereducedto20feet,
thereby adding four (4)additional feet to the easternbuffer.
The applicant notes on the revised site plan that the
retaining wall on the north side of the building will have
a height of approximately 12 feet at its highest point.
The revised plan also shows the six (6)foot wood screeningfencealongthenorthpropertylineasrequired.
The Ordinance would typically require 44 parking spaces for
an office development of this size.The applicant is
proposing a total of 56 spaces.Staff has no problem withtheproposedparkingplan.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-348
(Highway 10 DOD section),
"Property,due to topography,size,irregular
shapes or other constraints,such as adjacentstructuresorfeatureswhichsignificantlyaffectvisibility,and thus cannot be developed
without violating the standards of this article
4
January 6,JOO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6786
shall be reviewed through the planned unit
development (PUD)section of the zoning
ordinance,with the intent to devise a workable
development plan which is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the overlay standards."
The typical Highway 10 Design Overlay District standardsforbuildingsetbacksandbuffersareasfollows:
Front yard setback —100 feet
Side yard setback —30 feet
Rear yard setback —40 feet
Highway 10 Street Landscape Buffer —40 feet
Rear and side landscape buffer —25 feet (average)
Staff,feels that because of the property's size (1.53acres)and topography (sloping upward from Cantrell Road
approximately 35 to 40 feet),the site represents a good
example of the Planned Zoning Development process withintheHighway10DesignOverlayDistrict.Although the
proposed site plan does not completely conform to the
Highway 10 DOD standards,(with respect to landscapebuffers)the applicant has done an adequate job in
addressing the standards through the revised site plan.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The driveway along the east property line should bereducedto20feetwide,providing an additional 4 feetforthelandscapebufferalongthatpropertyline.3.The proposed ground-mounted sign must conform to the
Highway 10 DOD Standards (monument type,maximum area—
72 square feet,maximum height —6 feet,minimum five(5)feet back from any property line).4.Any site lighting must be directed to the parking areasandawayfromadjacentproperty.5.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footwoodfenceorwall,including the sidefacingthestreet.6.Staff recommends approval of 0-1 permitted uses for thesite.
5
January 6,-~'00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6786
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Barry Williams and John Childers,Jr.were present,representingtheapplication.Staff gave a description of the proposed PODsiteplanandnotedthatstaff's opinion was that the applicant
was attempting to overbuild the site.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the Highway 10 DesignOverlayDistrictstandardswithrespecttothissite.Mr.Williams noted that the site plan would be revised in an attempttobringtheprojectmoreinlinewiththetypicalHighway10requirements.
The landscape and fire department requirements were also brieflydiscussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application tothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommendedbystaff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
6
January 6,~~00
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-6787
NAME:Southridge Office Park —Long-Form POD
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Southridge
Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Barnes Quinn Flake and Anderson White-Daters and Associates
400 W.Capitol Avenue 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:7.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
POD to allow for the development of an office building.The project consists of construction of a 20,200 squarefootofficebuilding(20 feet in height)within the eastone-half of the property.The proposed building will haveadrive-thru branch bank facility within the east portionofthebuilding.A parking area is proposed along thesouthsideoftheproposedbuildingcontaining88parkingspaces.Two (2)access points are proposed,one fromCantrellRoadandonefromSouthridgeDr.The applicanthasnotedthatthewestone-half of the property will notbedevelopedandwillremainundisturbed.
The applicant is requesting 0-3 permitted and accessoryusesforthesite.The proposed hours of operation will beasfollows:
January 6,-~00
SUBD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
Bank —8:30 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday —Friday9:00 a.m.—12:00 noon,Saturday
Remaining Offices —8:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday —Saturday
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded.The property slopes
upward from Cantrell Road to the north.
The Walton Heights Neighborhood is located immediatelynorthofthesite.There is a Little Rock Fire Station totheeastacrossSouthridgeDr.,with 0-2 zoned property andachurchfurthereast.Undeveloped R-2 zoned property islocatedimmediatelywestofthissite,on the north side ofCantrellRoad.There is a mixture of commercial uses andzoningtothesouthacrossCantrellRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a person expressing concerns about this proposeddevelopment.The Walton Heights/Candlewood and Piedmont
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55
feet from centerline will be required.
2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
2
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
7.Bank drive does not have sufficient vehicle storage.
Redesign and resubmit.
8.Recommend acceleration lane from Southridge Drive to
Cantrell Road.
9.Provide cross-sections and elevation for proposed
development.
10.Construct siltation pond during construction for run-off.
11.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.12.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
13.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
14.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.15.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
16.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
17.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work.18.Cantrell Road has average daily traffic count of 25,000.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APEL:If a 30 foot overhead power line is required,a 30footeasementwillberequired.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection may be required.A
development fee based on the size of the connection may
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.A sidewalk
should be provided from the Cantrell entrance to the
proposed building.
3
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the River Mountain Planning District.
The current Land Use Plan shows Transition.Development of
a POD is consistent with this land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area iscoveredbytheRiverMountainNeighborhoodActionPlan,which calls for preservation of the Highway 10 DesignOverlayDistrict.
Landsca e Issues:
The plan submitted does not appear to provide for the threefootdeepbuildinglandscapingrequiredbetweenthepublic
parking areas and building.Some flexibility with this
requirement is allowed.
Because of the grade elevation changes,cross sections oftheproposedprojectwillberequiredalongwithproposedtreatmentofthechangesingrade.
This development is required to be screened to a height of
6 feet from the adjacent residential properties to the
north,east and west.This screen may be an opaque woodenfencewithitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordense
evergreen plantings with growth to 6 feet within threeyears.Credit toward satisfying this requirement can be
given for existing vegetation which provides the year-round
required screening.
This is a wooded site and the City Beautiful Commission
recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inchcaliperorlarger.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and a propertynorth/south section to staff on December 6,1999.Therevisedplanaddressessomeoftheconcernsasraised bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The revised plannotesthedumpsterlocation,building height and reduces
4
January 6,~~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
the number of parking spaces from 105 to 88 spaces.The
ordinance would typically require 49 parking spaces for anofficedevelopmentofthissize.Staff supports the
parking plan as proposed.
The north/south section provided by the applicant notesthattheverticalcutwillbeapproximately26feetat therearofthebuilding.Two (2)retaining walls are proposedinthisarea.The applicant has noted that the maximumverticalcutwillbeapproximately30feetatthenorthwestcornerofthebuilding.Any vertical cut over 30 feet
requires Planning commission approval.Public Works hasindicatedsupportfortheverticalcutandretainingwallconstructionasproposed.
The revised site plan does not show a sign location.Any
ground-mounted sign must conform to the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District Standards (monument-type,maximum heightsix(6)feet,maximum area —72 square feet,setback atleastfive(5)feet from any property line).
The site must also conform to the Highway 10 DOD withrespecttositelighting.Any site lighting must bedirectedtotheparkingareasandawayfromadjacent
property.The proposed site plan conforms to the Highway10DODstandardsrelatingtobuildingsetbackand
buffer/landscape areas.
Public Works and staff have indicated concern with the
proposed drive location on Southridge Drive.It is feltthatthedrivelocationwithrespecttothebranchbanklocationwillcausevehicularcirculationandstacking
problems.Public Works notes that there is not adequateareatoprovidepropervehicularmaneuveringandstackinginthisarea.Public Works has noted that the proposeddrivefromSouthridgeDr.could be supported as a right-in/right-out drive if the branch bank facility is moved toprovidefortheincreasedvehicularcirculationand
stacking area as needed.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing 0-3
permitted and accessory uses for the property.The
Ordinance allows accessory uses in the 0-3 district to
occupy up to ten (10)percent of the total floor area on asite.The list of accessory uses includes such commercialusesonarestaurant,barber/beauty shop,clothing store,
5
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
drugstore,and other similar uses.Staff feels that 0-1
(Quiet Office district)permitted uses would be more
appropriate for the site,given the site'close proximitytotheWaltonHeightssinglefamilyneighborhood.
The issues relating to the proposed use mix and the
driveway/branch bank location along Southridge Dr.need to
be discussed and resolved by the full Commission.Withtheseissuesbeingresolved,staff is comfortable with the
proposed development of this property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Staff suggests 0-1 permitted uses for the property.3.The issue relating to driveway/branch bank location alongSouthridgeDriveneedstoberesolved.4.Any site lighting shall be directed to the parking areasandawayfromadjacentproperty.5.Any ground-mounted signage must conform to the Highway 10
DOD as noted in paragraph G.of this report.6.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footwoodfenceorwall.7.The west one-half of the property must remain undisturbedasnotedonthesiteplan.8.Based on the fact that this is a wooded site,there is tobenogradingorsiteworkuntilabuildingpermitisobtained.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(December 9,1999)
Joe White,Dickson Flake and Kevin Hutchinson were present,representing the application.Staff gave a brief description ofthePODsiteplan.Staff noted that some additional information
was needed pertaining to the site plan.
There was a detailed discussion relating to the proposed accessdrivefromSouthridgeDrive.Vehicular circulation and stackingfortheproposedbranchbankwerediscussedinrelationtothedrivelocation.
The grade elevation changes were also discussed.Staff notedthatcrosssectionsandretainingwalldetailswereneeded.
6
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Dickson Flake,Russ McDonough and Joe White were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the POD
rezoning request,with a recommendation of approval withconditions.Staff noted that several phone calls and letters
had been received from persons expressing concern with the
proposed development.Staff noted that the applicant had agreedto0-1 permitted uses for the site.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that theLittleRockFireChiefhadreviewedthesiteplanandhadno
problem with the proposed Southridge Drive driveway location.
Dickson Flake described the proposed POD site plan.He notedthatthedrivewayfromSouthridgeDrivewasanimportantpart oftheproposeddevelopment.He described the projected trafficthatwouldbegeneratedbytheproposeduseandnotedthattheinformationhadbeenprovidedtoPublicWorks.Mr.Flake
explained the proposed retaining wall construction along the
north side of the building,noting that the maximum cut would be
approximately 30 feet at the northwest corner of the building
and 15 to 20 feet elsewhere.He also noted that the proposedbuildingheightwouldbeapproximately25feet.
Russ McDonough also spoke in favor of the application.He notedthatthisproposedsiteplanconformedtomostofthe
requirements of the new landscape and tree preservation
ordinance which is being proposed by the Land Alteration TaskForce.Mr.McDonough provided a north/south section to the
Commission,noting that the houses to the north will not be abletoseetheproposedofficebuilding.
Mr.Flake explained that there were undisturbed buffers providedforonthesiteplan.
Bill Mauldin,president of the Walton Heights/Candlewood
Neighborhood Association,addressed the Commission in oppositiontotheapplication.He stated that the neighborhood association
was not notified of the public hearing.He noted that he hadreceivedapproximately50phonecallsfromconcernedneighbors.
7
January 6,c~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
He noted that he was opposed to the curb cut along Southridge
Drive.He expressed public safety issues with regards to the
curb cut and its location to the fire department driveway.He
stated that the proposed development was not consistent with the
Walton Heights neighborhood,and expressed concerns with traffic
in the area and environmental issues.Mr.Mauldin also stated
that the new regulations that result from the Land Alteration
Task Force should be applied to this property,and that there
should be a comprehensive plan for the Highway 10 area.He
closed by stating that the proposed use of the property is not
in the best interest of the neighborhood.
Gary Liles also addressed the Commission with concerns.He
noted that he did not oppose an office development on the site.
He stated that he had concern with the proposed curb cut on
Southridge Drive and explained.
Jeannette Straub also addressed the Commission in opposition to
the application.She stated that she had received approximately
25 phone calls from concerned neighbors.She also stated that
she was opposed to the curb cut on Southridge Drive,with thecloseproximitytothefiredepartment.She also expressed
concerns with traffic and site grading.
Deanna Bushman,President of the Piedmont Neighborhood
Association,also addressed the Commission in opposition.She
expressed concerns with the impact of the proposed development
on the three lakes in the Piedmont Neighborhood.She explained
the stormwater discharge in the general area of the Piedmont
neighborhood.
Jerome Grismer also spoke in opposition.He stated that he was
opposed to the curb cut along Southridge Drive,being too closetothefiredepartment.
Mr.Flake recognized that Highway 10 is a scenic corridor and
noted that the proposed development conforms to the intent of
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District standards.He noted that
the Southridge Drive curb cut was essential to the development.
He also noted that the proposed building covered only 7 percentofthesite,which was a very low density.He stated that a
property owner is entitled to the reasonable development of
land,and that the proposed development is reasonable.
8
January 6,cv00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
Commissioner Lowry asked about the safety issue regarding the
location of the Southridge Drive curb cut and the fire
depar tment .
Dennis Free,of the Little Rock Fire Department,explained thefiredepartment's policy regarding department vehicle safety at
intersections.He noted that the proposed curb cut will not
adversely impact the fire department access to Southridge Drive.
Commissioner Lowry asked if Public Works was satisfied with the
curb cut from a safety standpoint.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the department issatisfiedwiththedrivelocation.He discussed the issue with
respect to the proposed uses and traffic generation.
Commissioner Muse asked about the past discussion regarding the
alignment of Southridge Drive and Pleasant Ridge Road.
Mr.Lawson explained that as a result of previous meetings,
there would be an alignment of an internal street within the
Schickel development to the south with Southridge Drive.
Commissioner Muse noted agreement with the low intensity of the
proposed development.He expressed concerns with the curb cut
on Southridge Drive and stormwater detention.He asked if thesitecouldberedesignedtoplacethebranchbankonthewest
side of the building.
Mr.Flake stated that alternate site designs were explored,but,
determined not to be workable.
Joe White explained that the stormwater detention would be
underground and would comply with city and state regulations
during and after construction.Mr.White explained the
stormwater detention requirements to the neighbors present.
Mr.Turner also explained the stormwater detention requirements,
including the siltation basin requirement.He stated that he is
comfortable with the erosion control measures proposed with this
development,and that Public Works would monitor the site.
Commissioner Rahman asked about driveway spacing.
9
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
Mr.Turner noted that the curb cut on Southridge Drive is
approximately 300 feet back from the intersection,which
conforms to ordinance standards.
There was a discussion of the traffic in this general area.
Commissioner Rahman expressed concern with the curb cut on
Southridge Drive.He asked if the west portion of the property
would be developed.
Mr.Flake responded that the western portion of the property
would remain undeveloped.
Commissioner Faust asked about the curb cut on Southridge Drive
with respect to the Public Works requirements.
Mr.Turner concluded that,based on the projected traffic
numbers,the curb cut could be supported.
Commissioner Faust asked about the required siltation pond.
Mr.Turner responded that the siltation pond is an extraordinary
requirement,which is not used very often.
Commissioner Downing asked about the standard for calculatingtrafficnumbersforabankfacility.
Mr.Turner explained the standards.
Commissioner Faust asked about the driveway and parking designs.
Mr.Flake briefly described the design issues.
Commissioner Hawn asked if an acceleration lane was needed for
the westernmost drive,along Cantrell Road.
Mr.Turner explained that most of the traffic would be coming
from the east.This issue was briefly discussed.
Commissioner Rahman asked about a traffic signal at Pleasant
Ridge Road.
Mr.Turner explained that a signal was currently warranted atthatintersection.The issue was briefly discussed.
10
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr.Mauldin and Ms.Bushman what
concerns they had after hearing the presentations.
Mr.Mauldin expressed concerns with the traffic on Southridge.
Ms.Bushman noted that there was concern with water run-off
during construction.
Mr.Lawson noted that part of staff's recommendation was that no
grading or site work be done until a building permit is issued.
Mr.McDonough stated that the developer will not excavate thesiteuntilabuildingpermitisobtained.
Commissioner Hawn noted that if the site is cleared and remains
undeveloped for 90 days it should be sodded.
Commissioner Berry noted that the Walton Heights Neighborhoodrejectedasecondaccesspointintotheneighborhood.He askediftheneighborhoodwouldbesatisfiedwiththedevelopment,ifthecurbcutonSouthridgeDrivewaseliminated.
Mr.Mauldin stated that the neighborhood would not be satisfied.
There was additional discussion regarding a possibleaccelerationlanefortheCantrellRoadentranceand the futuretrafficsignalatthePleasantRidgeRoadintersection.
Mr.Flake noted that this developer would participate in thetrafficsignalconstruction.This issue was briefly discussed.
Ms.Straub asked about the alignment of Pleasant Ridge Road andSouthridgeDr.
Mr.Lawson stated that the alignment had nothing to do with thisapplication.
Chair Adcock asked when the project construction would begin and
when the traffic signal would be installed.
Mr.Flake stated that construction would begin in June or Julyofthisyear.He stated that he could not give specific timingofthetrafficsignalinstallation.
11
January 6,.00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6787
There was a motion to approve the POD rezoning as recommended
by staff.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,2 nays and
1 absent.
12
2.'$'7
4+/f
11780 Southridge Drive
Little Rock,Arkansas
December 22,1999
Planning Commissioners
and
City of Little Rock
Planning &Development Staff
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Attn:Mr.Jim Lawson
Re:Request to defer consideration of proposal to rezone NW corner ofCantrell&Southridge Drive from R-2 to POD at January 6,2000
Planning Commission meeting
Dear Commissioners and Staff:
The Board of Directors of the Walton Heights/Candlewood Homeowner'
Association respectfully request deferment the above agenda item on January 6,2000 to a subsequent meeting.We have several areas of critical concern on which
we base this request.
First,we would like to have a reasonable amount of time in which we could
meet with the applicants to be thoroughly briefed on all aspects of this request tohaveacompleteandfirst-hand understanding of all facts.We would also like tohavesufficientopportunitytodisseminatethisinformationtoourresidentsfortheirinput.With approximately 500 homes in our neighborhood and the holidayseasoninvolved,this would not be possible to accomplish by January 6,2000.
Secondly,we believe a deferment would be appropriate because of otherissuesandconcernswethinkshouldberesolvedbeforethisrequestis
considered.Specifically,the Land Alteration Task Force proposals have been
completed and are ready for review and approval as city ordinances.Since this
would greatly impact and improve development guidelines/standards in this area,
we believe it would be prudent to delay consideration of this rezoning requestuntilthenewordinancesarefinalized.
We also have a grave concern about the additional burden a POD at this
location would have in compounding the existing problems we have with traffic
flow and signalization in this specified area on Highway 10 ~A curb cut onto
Southridge would only exacerbate an already difficult situation for
egress/ingress of our residents.
One final unresolved issue relative to this rezoning proposal is the curb cutthatintersectswithCantrellandPleasantRidge.Previously,the River MountainTaskForceproposedandtheCityadoptedarecommendationtohavePleasant
Ridge intersect Cantrell and Southridge Drive.Somehow,during the
development process in recent years that did not occur.Another major
intersection this close together will further impede traffic flows.
Planning Commissioners
and
City of Little Rock
Planning &Development Staff
December 22,1999
Page Two
We believe it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned to deferconsiderationofthisagendaitemuntQtheunresolvedissuesandconcernspreviouslyoutlinedarereviewedandresolved.We would appreciate youprovidingacopyofthislettertoeachCommissionerinadvanceofthescheduledmeeting.Your understanding and careful consideration of our concerns for thisrequestisgreatlyappreciated.
Sincerely,
C
Bill G.Maul
President,on Heights/
Candlewood Homeowners Association
cc:Piedmont Neighborhood Association
January 6,~~00
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-6788
NAME:Bryels —Revised PCD
LOCATION:8510 Colonel Miller Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Clarence E.Bryels McGetrick &McGetrick
8510 Colonel Miller Road 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:5.86 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Mini-warehouse business
PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse,U-Haul truck
and trailer rental,Fed Ex/UPS
drop-off and pickup station
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.16,161 on February 4,1992,rezoning this property to PCD for a mini-warehouse
development.The approved site plan included eight (8)mini-
warehouse buildings (52,593 square feet total),a 729 square footofficebuilding,a 100 square foot portable building and a 936
square foot residential structure (manager's quarters).The
approved plan included a gravel access drive from Colonel Miller
Road and gravel drives around the mini-warehouse buildings.
The following structures currently exist on the property:
1.Three (3)mini-warehouse buildings.
2.The 729 square foot office building.
3.The 100 square foot portable building.
4.The 936 square foot manager's residence.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD by adding three (3)mini-warehouse buildings to thesiteplanandrearrangingthebuildingslayout;and byaddingU-Haul truck/trailer rental and Fed Ex/UPS drop-off/pickup service as permitted uses.
The applicant proposes to add three (3)mini-warehousebuildingstothesite.The total area will increase from52,593 square feet to 63,960 square feet.The arrangementofthemini-warehouse buildings is also being revised.Therevisedlayoutprovidesbettermaneuveringareabetweenthebuildingsandincreasedbuildingsetbacksfromthenorthandwestpropertylines,where adjacent to R-2 zonedproperty.
The applicant also proposes to add U-Haul truck/trailerrentalandFedEx/UPS drop-off/pickup service as permittedusesontheproperty.The applicant has shown an area onthesiteplan,within the southeast one-quarter of theproperty,to be used as U-Haul truck and trailer display.The applicant notes that only rental service will be doneonthesiteandthatnotruckservice/repair,trailer hitchinstallation,etc.will be done.The applicant proposes toprovideaFedExandUPSdrop-off/pickup service within theexistingofficebuildingonthesite.
Existing and proposed buildings and drives,landscapedareasandtheproposedU-Haul display areas are noted ontheattachedsiteplan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing mini-warehouse business on the site,which includes three (3)mini-warehouse buildings,anofficebuildingandamanager's residence.There is achurchimmediatelyeastofthissite,with a largermultifamilydevelopmentandgolfcoursefurthereast acrossColonelMillerRoad.There is vacant undeveloped propertytothenorthandwest,with three (3)single familyresidencestothesouthalongthewestsideofColonelMillerRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Otter Creek and Crystal ValleyNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to
45 feet from centerline is required.2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvementstothesestreetsincluding5footsidewalkswith
planned development.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submittedforapprovalpriortostartofwork.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilitiesarerequired.
6.Colonel Glenn Road has a 1996 average daily traffic
count of 5,400.
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
8.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.9.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is required.
10.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
11.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:If additional water service is needed,executionofapreannexationagreementandapprovaloftheCitywillberequired.A development fee based on the size ofconnectionappliesinadditiontonormalcharges.Onsitefireprotectionwillberequireduponannexation totheCity.
3
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
Fire Department:Maintain 20 foot access around all
buildings.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for
information on fire hydrant placement and turning radii.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The current Land Use Plan shows Existing Condition Planned
Commercial Development.Development of a PCD is consistent
with this land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area isnotcoveredbyacityrecognizedneighborhoodplan.
Landsca e Issues:
If this site were to be viewed as a typical "C-4"Outdoor
Display District no display would be allowed within thefront20feetoftheproperty.
The proposed wash rack projects 22 feet into the land usefulldepthrequirementof27feet.The minimum depth
requirement at any given point is 6 feet.The proposedbufferbehindthewashrackappearstobe5feetindepth.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with itsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantingsthatgrowtoaheightof6feetwithinthreeyears,is
required north,south and west of this site.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
December 14,1999.The revised plan addresses some of the
concerns expressed by staff,however,there is additional
information which was requested at the Subdivision
Committee meeting which has not been provided.The revised
plan shows an existing dumpster location,eliminates the
4
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
truck wash rack from the property,moves the U-Haul display
area 20 feet back from the front property line and providesforlandscapescreeningalongallpropertylines.The
revised plan also shows a concrete apron for the existing
drive from Colonel Miller Road,pavement of the drive for
approximately 80 feet and a stormwater detention area.
The additional information which has not been provided is
as follows:
1.Hours of operation.
2.Existing and/or proposed signage with details.3.The dumpster area should be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot wood fence.
4.Provide legal right of access to this property.5.Provide proof of ownership history for the church
property (deed records)to show that it has been a
separately owned piece of property for at least ten
(10)years.
6.Proposed treatment of the U-Haul display area
(pavement,gravel?).
If the church owned property immediately east of this site
has not been a separately owned piece of property for atleast10years,a possible subdivision issue will exist.
This issue along with the right of access issue needs to be
resolved prior to the Commission taking action on this
application.
Staff feels that the revised site plan for the mini-
warehouse development is a better plan than was previously
approved.The plan provides for better vehicular
circulation around the buildings and increased setbacks
from the north and west residential property lines.The
revised plan also makes provisions for landscape screening
along all property lines.
Staff also feels that the proposed U-Haul truck and trailer
rental use will not greatly increase the intensity of the
property's use,given the fact that both the mini-warehouse
and truck/trailer rental uses are C-4 type uses.However,staff feels that the U-Haul display area should be paved.
5
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the recpxirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Hours of operation should be provided.3.Existing and/or proposed signage should shown on thesiteplanwithdetails.4.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.5.The existing dumpster should be screened on three (3)side with an 8 foot wood fence.6.The U-Haul display area should be paved.7.The issues relating to legal right of access to this
property and the proof of ownership for the church
property need to be resolved prior to the Commissionactingonthisapplication.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Bob Lowe and Pat McGetrick were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the revised PCD site plan.Staff noted that information was needed showing legal right of
access to this property and ownership history for the adjacent
church property.Staff also noted concerns with the proposedlocationoftheU-Haul display area and the wash rack.These
issues were briefly discussed.
The Public Works recpxirements were briefly discussed.It was
noted that improved driveway access needed to be provided to
this property.
It was noted that the applicant needed to contact the fire
department regarding fire hydrant information and to discuss
turning radii between the buildings.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedtherevisedPCDsiteplan.
6
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6788
In response to questions from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted the
following:
1.The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,daily.
2.There is an existing 16 square foot sign on the property.
No additional signs are proposed.3.The dumpster area will be screened as required.4.The U-Haul display area will be paved as requested by staff.
Commissioner Berry asked why the U-Haul display area needed to
be paved.
Staff explained that it was a typical ordinance requirement to
pave vehicular use areas.Staff further explained that gravelvehicularuseareasthataresubjecttotrucktrafficcan
generate a large amount of dust.This issue was briefly
discussed with regards to paving the vehicular use area toeliminatedustandaidinanyvehicularfluidleakage.
There was a motion to approve the revised PCD as recommended
by staff,with the additional information as provided by
Mr.McGetrick.The motion was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
7
January 6,~00
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-6789
NAME:Hyde Park —Short-Form PRD
LOCATION:Northwest and southwest corners of Gamble Road and
West Glen Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Chandler Properties,Inc.The Mehlburger Firm
P.O.Box 22021 201 S.Izard StreetLittleRock,AR 72221 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.603 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:6 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Patio homes
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSED/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
PRD to allow for a 16-unit patio home (condo-type)
development.The proposed development consists of seven
(7)buildings,five (5)of the buildings will be two-unit
building with one (1)five-unit structure and one (1)single unit structure.
Phase I of the proposed development will consist of the
property on the north side of West Glen Drive.There will
be four (4)buildings constructed in this phase,the five-unit structure and three (3)two-unit buildings.Theseunitswillhaverearloadinggarageswhichwillbeaccessed
by an alley,with one (1)drive onto Gamble Road and one
(1)from West Glen Drive.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6789
Phase II will consist of the two (2)two-unit structures
and the single unit structure on the south side of West
Glen Drive.The individual units will have front loading
garages with access to West Glen Drive.The applicant has
noted that the units will be sold individually,with the
land remaining as common ownership.The proposed buildings
and drives are noted on the attached site plan.
The property involved in this proposed development includes
Lots 20,21,40 and 64-68 of the West Hampton Subdivision.
The applicant will replat Lots 64-67 into two (2)lots as
part of this application.
The applicant is also proposing two (2)ground-mounted
signs for this development,one at each the northwest and
southwest corners of West Glen Drive and Gamble Road.Each
sign will be 1 foot by 5 feet in size and placed on a brick
wall which will be 4 feet high by 5 feet long.
The applicant has also filed a Land Use Plan amendment forthisproperty(Item 16.1)on this agenda.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is vacant and mostly clear of trees.There is
an auto towing business and two single family residences
immediately north of this site,along the south side of
Kanis Road.There are single family residences to the eastacrossGambleRoad.Undeveloped property is located
immediately south of this site,with single familyresidencesfurthersouth.There is undeveloped property
immediately west of this site,a portion of which appearstobeoccupiedbyanautosalvageoperation.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber
Ridge and Parkway Place Neighborhood Associations werenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Redesign entrance to proposed homes.Rear access from
alley to majority homes will be required.
2
January 6,-~00
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6789
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is recgxired.
6.A Sketch Grading and Draining Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
recgxired.
7.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is recgxired.
E.UTZLZTZES AND FZRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNZNG:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA though Route
g5 is near.Approved for transit purposes.
F.ZSSUES/TECHNZCAL/DESZGN:
Plannin Division:
This recgxest is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The current Land Use Plan shows Single Family.The
proposed PRD would be an intensity change.Low Density
Residential would be more appropriate for this recgxest.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is not
covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan.
Landsca e Zssues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSZS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
December 15,1999.The revised site plan addresses the
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6789
concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The applicant has noted sign locations and an 8 foot
screening fence (along the north and west property lines to
screen a towing business and auto salvage)on the revised
plan as requested by staff.The applicant has also shown a
rear alley access to the 11 units on the north side of West
Glen Drive as requested by Public Works.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with this application.Staff feels that
the proposed PRD will have no adverse effects on the
surrounding property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD zoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.A replat for Lots 64-67 must be filed and recorded priortoabuildingpermitbeingissued.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Frank Riggins,Michael Watson and Rodney Coleman were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed PRD.
The primary topic of discussion was the proposed access to the
individual units.Public Works expressed concern with having a
separate drive access for each unit.It was suggested to the
applicant to have a rear alley-type access for the units on the
north side of West Glen Dr.This issue was briefly discussed.
Mr.Coleman noted that a small rear yard was desired for each
unit,and providing a rear access would take away from the rear
yard.Staff suggested pulling the buildings forward,toward the
street,with a 15 foot setback.Mr.Coleman noted that he would
explore having a shared drive arrangement in front of the units.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforfinalaction.
4
January 6,00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6789
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a
letter on January 6,2000 requesting that this item be deferred
to the January 20,2000 agenda.Staff supported the deferral
request.With a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays,the Commission
voted to waive the bylaws and accept the deferral request being
made less than five (5)working days prior to the public
hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 20,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
January 6,F00
ITEM NO.:16.1 FILE NO.:LU 99-18-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain
Planning District
Location:Northwest and Southwest corners of Gamble Rd.and
West Glen Dr.
~Re est:Single Family to Low Density Residential
Source:Frank Riggins,The Mehlburger Firm
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Single Family to Low Density Residential.Low Density
Residential accommodates a broad range of housing types including
single family attached,single family detached,duplex,town
homes,multi-family and patio or garden homes.Any combination
of these and possibly other housing types may fall in this
category provided that the density is between six (6)and ten
(10)dwelling units per acre.
The applicant wishes to build single level patio homes.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property under review is currently vacant and zoned R-2
residential and is approximately 1.60+acres in size.The
neighboring property to the north is zoned 0-3 General Office and
occupied by an auto salvage lot.The rest of the neighboring
property consists of vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family
Residential.Single family residences occupy the property to the
east and south.The property to the west remains largely vacant.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 2,1999 a various changes were made along the Kanis Road
corridor north of the applicant's property.
On December 15,1998 a change was made from Single Family to
Public Institutional at 600 Kirby Road about three fourths of a
mile northwest of the amendment area.
On December 15,1998 a change was made from Office to Commercial
and Park/Open Space at Timber Ridge and Chenal Parkway about
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-18-03
1000'ortheast of the site in question.
On November 19,1996 a change was made from Office to Commercial
and Park/Open Space at Timber Ridge and Chenal Parkway about a
three fourths of a mile northeast of the area under review.
On November 7,1996 a change was made form Single Family to Low
Density Residential west of Cooper Orbit and Spring Valley about
a mile west of the applicant's property.
The area under review is shown as Single Family and Low Density
Residential on the Land Use Plan.The property to the north is
shown as Low Density Residential,to the north east is Suburban
,Office,while the rest of the surrounding property is shown as
Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Gamble Road,West Glen Drive,and West Hampton Drive are shown on
the Master Street Plan as residential streets.
PARKS:
There are no parks shown on the Park System Master Plan effected
by this action.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This property sits in an area not covered by a city recognized
neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The neighboring property to the north was part of the Kanis
Corridor Study and subsequently changed from Transition to Low
Density Residential on the Land Use Plan.This amendment would
extend the Low Density Residential further to the south to
include all of the applicant's property.The applicant's request
resulted from a replat of lots originally platted for single
family residences.The replat resulted in an increase of
residential density from eight units to sixteen units.The
increase in density is within the limits of Low Density
Residential.The units are single family detached dwellings,
more specifically,patio homes.
2
January 6,000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-18-03
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar /Pt.West /Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association,Parkway Place Property owners Association,and Spring ValleyPropertyOwnersAssociation.Staff has received no comments fromarearesidents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.This change to LowDensityResidentialwouldslightlyexpandtheareaalreadydesignatedasLowDensityResidentialalongWestGlen.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 6,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral totheJanuary20,2000 meeting.A waiver of the bylaws wasnecessarysincetherequestfromtheapplicantfordeferralwasreceivedonthedayofthePlanningCommissionmeeting.The consent agenda was approved with a vote of11-0-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 20,2000)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 7 ayes,0 noes and'
absent.
3
January 6,~F00
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:S-1267
NAME:Reyna —Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:15500 Lawson Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Terry and Juanita Reyna Donald W.Brooks
15500 Lawson Road 1611 Main Street
Little Rock,AR 72210 North Little Rock,AR 72114
AREA:5.61 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-3 ALLOWED USES:Industrial
PROPOSED USE:Industrial —welding shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The property at 15500 Lawson Road is zoned I-3 Heavy Industrial.
There is an existing welding shop on the property which consistsoftwo(2)buildings.There is an existing 3,479 square foot (1story)shop building and a 2,064 square foot (2 story)building
which contains the welding shop office.Based on the fact thatthisisamultiplebuildingsiteplan,any alterations to the
plan will require Planning Commission approval.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the existing site plan forthepropertybymakingbuildingadditionstothetwoexistingbuildings.The applicant proposes a 20 foot by 25foot(1 story)addition on the north side of the office
building,to be used as storage.The applicant will also
add small metal awnings over the entry doors on the south
and east sides of the office building.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1267
The applicant also proposes to make a 30 foot by 70 foot
addition to the north side of the shop building and a 40footby70footadditiononthesouthside.There will be
three (3)garage doors on each of these sides.A 20 foot
by 50 foot metal awning is proposed for the east and west
sides of the shop building over the existing garage doors.
All of the buildings proposed will be constructed of
colored galvanized metal and will match the existing
buildings.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing welding business on the site,whichconsistsoftwo(2)buildings,a small area of concrete
parking and a large gravel covered area.There is a
concrete mixing plant immediately east of this property,
with another welding business to the southeast across
Lawson Road.There is a rock quarry to the north,with
undeveloped property to the west and south across Lawson
Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
surrounding property owners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Lawson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline is required.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements
to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
5.Contact Pulaski County Road Department for approval
(Sherman Smith,Public Works Director).
2
January 6,~'00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1267
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
APSL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water
service is desired.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrant per city code,if
property is ever annexed.Contact Dennis Free at
918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved fortransitpurposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Based on there being no paved area and the location of this
use,no screening or landscaping would be recommended.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
December 15,1999.The revised site plan shows the
existing sign location and sign details have been provided.
The existing sign height,area and setback conform to
ordinance standards.
The applicant also submitted information showing that the
right-of-way for Lawson Road was dedicated with the
rezoning of the property in 1991.The applicant has also
noted that a 15 percent in-lieu contribution will be madeforstreetimprovementstoLawsonRoadwitheachbuilding
addition.The applicant notes that part of the
contribution could be used to provide a concrete apron for
the existing driveway from Lawson Road.This will help
eliminate gravel from being pulled out onto Lawson Road.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1267
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with this site plan.The proposed
building additions should have no adverse effect on the
general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject tocompliancewiththerequirementsasnotedinparagraph D.
and E.of this agenda report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Juanita Reyna was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflydescribedtheproposedsiteplan.Staff noted that the
proposed building setbacks and height conformed to ordinance
standards.Staff also noted that information on signage neededtobeprovided.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Bob
Turner,of Public Works,explained the right-of-way dedication
and street improvement issues.
There being no further issues for discussions,the Committee
forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,
as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof11ayesand0nays.
4
January 6,JOO
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:S-1271
NAME:Parkway Center —Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Oak
Meadow Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ashley Company The Mehlburger Firm
2851 Lakewood Village Dr.201 S.Izard Street
No.Little Rock,AR 72116 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.12.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3 ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for a reduced number of parking spaces.
BACKGROUND:
The property at the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Oak
Meadow Drive is zoned C-3 commercial and the applicant is
proposing to utilize the property for C-3 permitted uses.
However,based on the fact that the applicant is proposing a two
(2)building site plan,the plan requires review and approval bythePlanningCommission.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct two (2)buildings onthesitewithatotalbuildingareaof128,500 square feet.
The larger building which will contain a mixture of
commercial uses will face Chenal Parkway,with parkingbetweenthebuildingandthestreet.The smaller buildingwillcontainamixtureofofficeandcommercialspaceandwillfrontWestMarkhamStreetandOakMeadowDr.Therewillalsobeparkingbetweenthisbuildingandthestreets.
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
The applicant has noted that the buildings will not exceed
a height of 30 feet.There is a service court proposed
between the two buildings for deliveries,employee parking,
dumpsters,etc.
Seven (7)access points are proposed to serve the
development (two from Chenal Parkway,two from Oak Meadow
Dr.,two from West Markham Street and one from Parkway
Place Dr.A total of 556 parking spaces is proposed for
the development.The Ordinance requires a total of 571
spaces for a shopping center development of this size.The
applicant is requesting a variance for the reduced number
of spaces.The applicant has noted that additional
landscaping will be installed along Chenal Parkway where
head-in parking is proposed.
A ground-mounted sign is proposed at the main entrance from
Chenal Parkway.The applicant notes that the sign will
conform to the Chenal/Financial Center Design OverlayDistrict(monument type,maximum area —100 square feet,
maximum height —8 feet,set back at least 5 feet from any
property line).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and partially wooded.There is
a Little Rock Fire Station and undeveloped 0-3 zoned
property to the west and southwest across Oak Meadow Drive,
with single family residences further west and southwest.
There is a church located across West Markham Street to the
south,with additional single family residences further
south.There is a convenience store and carwash
immediately east of this site,with a funeral home further
east across Parkway Place Drive.There is a retirement
village located across Chenal Parkway to the north.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)phones calls
from persons expressing concerns with the proposed
development.The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Oak Meadow Drive is commercial street.A dedication of
right-of-way 30 feet from centerline is required.
2
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
2.Construct all improvements on Chenal Parkway to Chenal
standards.
3.Driveway shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031 or eliminate driveways.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned.
development.
5.Redesign main entrance on Chenal for adequate stacking
and.eliminate cross traffic.
6.Out parcels on Chenal and.Oak Meadow Drive should.have
internal access.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Easements for proposed.stormwater detention facilities
are required..
9.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required.by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code.All requests should.be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
10.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood.elevation is required..
11.A Sketch Grading and.Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
12.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and.(d)is
required.
13.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work
is required..
14.Chenal Parkway has average daily traffic count of
17,000.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:If a 30 foot overhead power line is required,a 30
foot easement will be required.(15 feet plus street
ROW).
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for
details on fire hydrant placement and turning radii.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
CATA:Site is very near CATA Route ¹5.Approved for
transit purposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No provision has been made for building landscaping between
the public parking areas and building they serve.
Normally,this would be a 3 foot deep landscape strip.
Considerable flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
The proposed street buffer depth along Chenal Parkway drops
below the full average requirement of 30 feet but meets the
minimum requirement average of 20 feet when the allowed
transfers are figured in.The proposed street buffer depth
along West Markham meets and exceeds the full requirement
of 26 feet when averaged out though it drops to as low as 9feetfor153feet.
This property is tree covered.The City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible.
This would include those on the street side.Extra credit
can be given toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or
larger.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on December 16,1999.The revised
plan addresses some of the staff concerns.A sign location
has been shown on the plan,which will conform to the
Chenal/Financial Center DOD standards as noted in paragraph
A.One of the proposed driveways from Oak Meadow Drive has
been eliminated (reduced from 3 to 2 drives).
The revised plan shows that the building area has been
reduced to 128,500 square feet and that parking has been
added,primarily within the service court area.The total
number of parking spaces proposed is 556 spaces.The
4
January 6,-~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
Ordinance requires a total of 571 spaces for this
development.The applicant is requesting a variance for
the reduced number of spaces.Staff supports the variance
request.
Based on the fact that the property is located within the
Chenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District,the
property must conform to the site lighting and utility
standards as set forth in the DOD.Any site lighting must
be directed to the parking areas and away from adjacent
property.All utilities located between the rear line of
the building and Chenal Parkway must be underground.The
building setbacks and height as proposed conform to
ordinance standards.
At this time,there are two (2)Public Works issues which
have not been resolved.The outstanding issues,involve
the design of the main entry drive from Chenal Parkway and
the total number of drives.The proposed site plan shows acrossdriveapproximately40feetbackfromthemain
entrance from Chenal Parkway.The ordinance requires that
a cross drive be located at least 75 feet back from astreetright-of-way line.This issue must be discussed and
resolved.
The other outstanding issue relates to the total number ofdrives.Public Works recommends that the easternmost drive
along Chenal Parkway and the easternmost drive along West
Markham Street be eliminated,as these drives do not
conform to the minimum spacing requirements.The drives
are too close to the side property lines.This issue must
also be discussed by the full Commission.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no additional
issues to be resolved.With the Public Works issues being
resolved,staff is comfortable with the proposed site
design plan.Staff feels that the applicant has done an
adequate job in designing a two-building development plan
with the building service area between the two buildings,
shielded from the adjacent streets.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to thefollowingconditions:
5
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The issue relating to driveway design (main entry drive
from Chenal Parkway)and number of driveways needs to bediscussedandresolved.3.The proposed ground-mounted sign must conform to theChenal/Financial Center DOD standards (monument-type,
maximum height —8 feet,maximum area —100 square feet,set back at least 5 feet from any property line).4.The site lighting and utilities must conform to theChenal/Financial Center DOD standards as noted in
paragraph G.5.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow areducednumberofparkingspaces.6.Based on the fact that a portion of the property is
wooded,there should be no grading or site work prior toabuildingpermitbeingissued.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Frank Riggins was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflydescribedtheproposedsiteplan,noting that the
applicant needed to request a variance for a reduced number of
parking spaces.The parking issue was briefly discussed.
The issue relating to driveway locations was briefly discussed.Staff noted that the number of proposed driveways needed to be
reduced in order to conform to ordinance standards.
Mr.Riggins noted that he had no problems with the additionalstafforPublicWorkscomments/requirements.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJanuary4,2000 requesting that this item be deferredtotheFebruary17,2000 agenda.Staff supported the deferral
request.With a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays,the Commission
voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request
being made less than five (5)working days prior to the public
hearing.
6
January 6,-00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1271
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 17,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
7
January 6,~'00
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:Z-5098-B
NAME:Dillards —Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION:1600 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Dillard's,Inc.Architecture Plus
1600 Cantrell Road Washington Plaza,Suite 400LittleRock,AR 72201 Monroe,LA 71201
AREA:Approx.14.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-2/I-3 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The majority of the property at 1600 Cantrell Road is zoned 0-2
and contains the existing Dillards office building.Based on
the fact that the property is zoned 0-2,the site plan review
process applies for any development.
The 124,155 square foot,5-story Dillard's office building is
located within the east one-half of the property,with parking
along its south,east and west sides.A total of 541 parking
spaces exists on the site.The site is heavily landscaped.
Access to the property is gained by utilizing two (2)existingdrivesfromCantrellRoad.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to add 181,858 square feet of
building space to the existing office building,along its
west side.A portion of the addition will be four (4)stories in height with the remainder being five (5)levels,
which will be approximately the same height as the existingbuilding.
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5098-B
The applicant is also proposing to construct a separate
30,000 square foot building within the west one-quarter of
the property.The building will be constructed into theexistinghillsidewithparkingontop.This building will
house the computer equipment for the Dillard's operation.
There are currently 541 parking spaces on the site.The
applicant proposes to add 316 spaces for a total of 857
parking spaces.The additional parking spaces will be
constructed within the eastern and western portions of the
property.The applicant proposes to utilize the twoexistingdrivesfromCantrellRoadasaccesstothe
property.The proposed building and parking expansions are
noted on the attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains the existing Dillards office building and
parking areas.There is a mixture of commercial andindustrialusestothewestalongthenorthsideofCantrellRoad.The Cathedral School development (currently
under construction)is located to the south across Cantrell
Road,with 0-3 zoned property to the east.The Arkansas
River is located immediately north of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)informational phone calls regarding this development.The
Downtown and Capitol View-Stifft Station NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide site traffic impact analysis.Verify with plan
and profile that adequate sight distance is provided atallpointsofaccess.
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
2
January 6,@00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5098-B
6.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation.
7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
8.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
9.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work
is required.ll.Cantrell Road has average daily traffic of 15,000.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Additional on-site fire protection will be
required.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
turning radii.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Route ¹21.Approved for transit
purposes.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan,south building
elevation and additional information to staff at the
Subdivision Committee meeting.The revised plan and
information addresses most of the staff concerns.The
3
January 6,~00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5098-B
revised plan notes the property lines and building heights.
The proposed building setbacks and heights conform to
ordinance standards.
The applicant also included a south elevation of the
property,showing the proposed building and building
additions.The elevation is included on the attached site
plan.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to add 316
parking spaces to the site for a total of 857 spaces.The
ordinance recgxires a minimum of 683 spaces for an office
development of this size.As justification for the number
of parking spaces,the applicant has noted that there will
be a total of 987 employees after the proposed building
expansion.Although rarely,if ever,are all of the
employees at the site at any given time.Staff supports
the parking plan as proposed.
As noted in paragraph D.of this report,Public Works is
recgxiring a site traffic impact analysis to verify that
adecgxate sight distance is provided at all points of
access.Public Works had noted concern with the left turn
lane into this site from Cantrell Road (east bound traffic)
being adecgxate.In a letter to staff,the applicant notes
that Peters and Associates is currently collecting data for
the traffic impact study and will have the information to
present to the Commission at the public hearing.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the site plan.The proposed building addition,new
building and parking additions conform to ordinance
standards,and should have no adverse impact on the generalarea.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the recgxirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The issue related to the traffic impact analysis need toberesolved.
4
January 6,F00
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5098-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Joe Story and Michael Kemp were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed site plan.Staff noted that the applicant had submitted a revised site plantostaffwithmuchoftheadditionalinformationrequested,
including a building elevation and section.
In response to a question,the applicant noted that there would
be a parapet wall around the parking area on top of the smaller
building for safety purposes.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that a traffic impact
analysis was needed.He noted that the existing left turn lane
on Cantrell Road into this site (east bound traffic)was
probably not adequate.This issue was discussed.
Staff requested that the applicant submit
information/justification (number of employees,etc.)for thetotalnumberofproposedparkingspaces.This issue was alsobrieflydiscussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronDecember30,1999 requesting that this item be
deferred to the February 17,2000 agenda.The applicant failedtosendtherequirednoticestopropertyownerswithin200feetofthesite.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 17,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof11ayesand0nays.
5
January t,.2000
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
NAME:Waters Temple Church of God-
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2615 Cumberland Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Waters Temple Church of God In
Christ/Pastor Vernon Briscoe
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
replace an existing church facility with
a new,larger structure with
accompanying parking on property whichiszonedR-3,Single Family Residential
at 2615 Cumberland Street.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located one block south of Roosevelt Road,
on the East side of Cumberland Street between 26th and
27th Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-3,Single Family Residential,andissurroundedbyamixofmostlyresidentialzoningto
the east,south and west,with some commercial to the
north and northwest along Roosevelt.The residential
zoned properties contain a mix of single family and
duplex houses.
Staff believes the continued use of this site as a
church would continue to be compatible with the
neighborhood,however there are concerns about the lack
of proposed parking.
The Community Outreach Neighborhood Organization and
the Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association were notified
of the public hearing.
January ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Two driveways enter the existing south parking lot and
will remain as the access to the expanded south parkinglot.A new parking area adjacent to the east side of
the new church building would be accessed from 26th
Street through the alley right-of-way.The south
driveway turning radii and driveway width along the
parking area adjacent to 27 Street are not adequate.
The proposal states that the church seating capacity
would be 360.That would generate a requirement for 90
parking spaces at the ordinance rate of 1 space for
every 4 seats.The proposal shows only 36 total spaces.
A variance would be required for the reduced number of
parking spaces.No off-site parking was proposed.Staff
has concerns over this great a variance with only 40%
of the required parking shown on the plan.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed street buffers along East 27 and 26 "
Streets drop below the full average depth requirements
of 12 'c feet but meet ordinance requirements with the
transfers allowed.
The proposed plan does not allow for the 3 foot wide
landscape strip on the south side between the public
parking area and the building,but since it does
provide one on the east side,and because of ordinanceflexibility,the revised proposed plan would be
satisfactory.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings with growth to 6 feet within three years,is
required where adjacent to residential properties to
the southeast.
2
January c,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the corner of Cumberland and East 26
Street.
b.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5 foot
sidewalks with planned development.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.
d.Relocate proposed church to provide for 50 feet
sight distance triangle at the corner of East 26
and Cumberland.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.f.Easements for proposed stormwater detentionfacilitiesarerequired.
g.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be
forwarded to Traffic Engineering.
h.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-
186(e)is required.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water serviceisrequired.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at thefiredepartmentconcerningfirehydrantsandturningradiiforparkingareaspriortofinalizingdesign.
3
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
CATA:Routes ¹2 and ¹15 serve this site.Approved for
transit purposes.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
build a new church replacing the current structure
which has been at this location since at least 1982,
and increasing the size of the parking areas.The
property is Zoned R-3,Single Family Residential.
The new 9,864 square foot church would be located on
the north half of the church's property and seat 360
people in the main sanctuary.The building will also
contain a small fellowship hall with a kitchen,and
five small classrooms for Sunday School and bible
study.These facilities would be used as normal churchactivities.There would not be a day care center or
separate school use.Parking would be added to the
existing south parking area and along the east side of
the new church.The existing church would be removed
and replaced with additional parking spaces.
The proposed building would be located 8 feet less than
the required 25 feet from the front property line.All
other setbacks and the height would meet ordinance
requirements.However,the proposed location would fall
within an area required by ordinance to be left
unobstructed to allow a clear view 50 feet along each
street from the intersection of 26th and Cumberland.
Public Works does recommend the building be moved back
to the east 20 feet to allow the full sight distance at
the corner of 26th and Cumberland.The church building
could be moved 20 feet to the east and meet the front
setback and the open sight distance at the corner
without any decrease in building size or loss of
parking area.That would result in the rear setback
being about 2 feet less than the required 25 feet,but
that small variance would be preferred over the two
variances caused by the applicant's proposed location.
The proposed parking would be 54 spaces less than the
required 90 spaces based on 1 space required for every
4 seats in the main assembly area.No off-site parking
4
January t,,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
was proposed,however,the church has future plans
according to Pastor Briscoe to acquire a nearby lot at
the corner of 26th and Rock.In addition,he stated the
resident of the house located just to the southeast of
the church property has willed that property to the
church.The church would use that lot for parking when
acquired.The applicant states that many of their
members walk or ride the church bus now,and so theyfeelthereducedparkingwouldbeadequatefornow.
Staff is not comfortable with the proposed amount of
parking.The existing church has a seating capacity of
about 200 and Pastor Briscoe stated that the attendance
averages about 130.Staff's position is that the 36
proposed parking spaces would only support a seating
capacity of 200 and until additional spaces can be
provided,the new church should be limited to that
capacity.The proposed 36 parking spaces provide only
72%of the normal required parking spaces for a
capacity of 200,but 110%of the parking required for
the average 130 attendance that Pastor Briscoe stated
he averages.Staff believes that for a seating capacity
of 360 as proposed,a minimum of 75%of the required 90
spaces,or 67 spaces,would be reasonable for the
amount of driving attendees as described by Pastor
Briscoe.Until 67 spaces can be provided,staff
recommends that the full 360 seat capacity not be
allowed.
Screening would be required along property lines that
abut residential areas to the east.Existing signage
would be used.The applicant proposes to place area
lighting on existing power poles and direct it inward
to the sight.Staff doubts that would meet ordinance
requirements of low intensity lighting whose cone of
coverage is contained primarily on the site with verylittleoverspillontoanyresidentialarea.In order to
meet ordinance standards,the lighting design will most
likely have to place the lighting on poles placed on
the parking areas.However,the details for that can be
examined during the review for a building permit.
5
January t.,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of the
site only when properly screened and the above comments
incorporated in the design for the proposal.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department requirements.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and
not towards,or overlap into,any residential
area.
e.Relocate the building 20 feet to the east while
maintaining the north setback as proposed.
Staff also recommends approval of two variances,one
for reduced parking to 36 spaces only if the seating
capacity is reduced to 200.The second variance being a
reduced rear setback of three feet caused by relocating
the building 20 feet to the east placing it 45 feet
from the west property line.Staff is not comfortable
with the applicant's proposed location which does not
meet the front setback or,even more importantly,the
corner unobstructed sight distance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pastor Vernon Briscoe was present representing his
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff highlighted the issues regarding the reduced setback
in the front,site distance requirements for the corner of
Cumberland and 26th Street,the parking deficiency of 54
parking spaces,and the need to provide staff with the
height of the building and steeple.
The applicant questioned the sight distance issue on the
corner of 26th and Cumberland.He did not believe that would
6
January &,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4101-A
be a problem due to the nature of these streets,low traffic
volume,and the existence of a large tree near this same
corner that "everyone wants to leave in place."
Staff reiterated that this proposal would require variances
for reduced front setback,reduced sight distance on the
corner of 26th and Cumberland,and major reduced parking.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pastor Vernon Briscoe was present representing his
application.There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above less item Se.
Item 5d under "Public Works Comments"was also deleted.
Pastor Briscoe explained his current attendance averaged
about 130 and that he felt the amount of walk-in and bus-in
membership reduced the need for parking.He also felt the
proposed location of the building was the best fit and would
not cause any problem at the corner.He also explained hiseffortstoobtainadditionalpropertytouseforparking.
Discussion took place regarding the location of the church
and the amount of parking.Public Works considered all
factors relating to the proposed location of the church in
relation to the site distance criteria in the ordinance,and
the actual traffic flow at the corner of 26 Street and
Cumberland.They decided the proposed location would be
satisfactory.
The Commissioners considered Pastor Briscoe's reasoning
regarding the reduced parking,his efforts to obtain nearby
property for additional parking,and his current attendance
of about 130.The general consensus was that the proposed
parking would be satisfactory now but the church should
pursue obtaining additional property to accommodate more
7
January i,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4101-A
parking as they grow into the 360 seat capacity.Pastor
Briscoe was reminded that when he was ready to add more
parking areas.He would need to come back before the
Commission to revise his site plan.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations as amended.The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
8
January ~.-2000
ITEM NO.:21 FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
NAME:Fellowship Bible Church —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1801 and 1811 Napa Valley Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Lot 2,Charles &Mary Stein,Lot 3,Ray
Dean &Ardyce Rainey/Fellowship Bible
Church
PROPOSAL:To revise a conditional use permit to
increase an existing parking area by
removing two existing single-family
residential houses and expanding the
parking area to property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential,at 1801 and
1811 Napa Valley Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the east side of Napa Valley
Drive between Hinson Road and Rainwood Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,andistotallysurroundedbyresidentialproperty.The area
to the east is a Planned Residential District (PRD)
containing single family residences,and across Napa
Valley to the west are two churches.The applicant
already has an "L"shaped parking area around the
northwest corner of the PRD to the east.This proposal
would enlarge the existing parking area.To the southisasinglefamilyhouseonalargelot.
Staff believes this proposal could be compatible with
the neighborhood with proper shielding of the low
intensity lighting,limiting the time full lighting is
on,and with a privacy fence screen around the
perimeter abutting the residential property.
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
The Rainwood Cove Property Owners Association was
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed additional parking area would be accessed
from the north through the existing parking area which
has one driveway onto Napa Valley.An additional
driveway is proposed from Napa Valley into the south
end of the new parking area.
This proposal would add 173 parking spaces for church
use.The area would be gated and locked after 10 p.m.
every evening.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The revised plan submitted meets the 20 foot full
average buffer depth requirement along the southern
perimeters.The proposed land use buffer along the
eastern perimeter meets the 15 feet depth requirement
when averaged out.Staff recommends the full 20 and 15
foot buffers be met due to the residential houses on
adjoining properties.
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the
eastern and southern perimeters.This screen may
normally be a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings which grow to 6
feet in height within three years.However,staff
feels the wooden privacy fence should be used in this
case.
The proposed revised plan does meet the 6%(4,775 sq.ft.)interior landscaping required within the vehicular
use area by the Landscape Ordinance.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Plan elevation work with proposed Napa Valley
Street Plan.
b.Napa Valley Drive is listed on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-
of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required.
2
January &,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
c.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or
Ordinance 18,031.
d.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5 foot
sidewalks with planned development in-lieu for
improvements.Requested due to pending City
project.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.f.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be
forwarded to Traffic Engineering.
g.Provide existing topographic information at
maximum five foot contour intervals and 100 year
flood elevation.
h.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.
29-186(e)is required.i.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.j.Napa Valley has average daily traffic count of
11,000.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:No sewer service required for this
project.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AEKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at thefiredepartmentconcerningturningradii.
CATA:This site is near Route ¹8.Approved for transit
purposes.
3
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
remove two existing residential houses and expand their
existing parking by 173 spaces into the two adjacent
lots south of their current parking area along Napa
Valley Drive.The property is Zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
The applicant has agreed to a revised site plan which
meets ordinance requirements,and stated that the
proposed lighting would match the existing lighting in
the northern most lot.The applicant may phase the
construction to correspond to when the current
residences would be vacated and to work with the City'
project to widen Napa Valley Drive.The lot adjacent
to the existing parking area would be available right
away,but the rest of the time schedule for the secondlotandtheCity's street project has not been
specifically determined.Therefore,a detailed
explanation of how the construction will proceed is not
available.
Staff recognizes that the proposed parking areas will
have some impact on the abutting residential
properties.We have worked with the applicant to
incorporate in the design ways to mitigate the impact.
The steps taken by the applicant include decreasing the
number of parking spaces to allow for more green buffer
on the south side of the property,agreeing to leave a
full 25 feet on the south side and 15 feet on the east
side.
Therefore,considering what the applicant has done to
mitigate the negative impact,and the benefit to the
area to get traffic off the street and parked,Staff
believes this is a reasonable use of this property.
Proper use control,reduction in full time lighting,
and buffering and screening should make this proposed
parking area compatible with the neighborhood.
4
January t.,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department requirements.
d.Lock the southern entrance gate except for when
the parking space is required.e.Install a mechanism to reduce the lighting in the
new area to the absolute minimum to provide only
security when the area is not needed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Randy Frazier and Mike Cruse were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff had previously met with the applicant and discussed at
length what was required to meet ordinance requirements.A
revised plan was shown to the Committee which met most of
those requirements.Staff explained that some additional
buffer was required along the east side and that more
interior landscaping would be required.Staff also noted
that a minimum 6 foot high wood fence was preferred over a
planted screening fence.The applicant stated that they plan
to install dense vegetation,and added that they plan to use
low intensity lighting which would match the existing
lighting.Staff reiterated the need for a fence because it
would be immediate and consistent.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
5
January t,,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Randy Frazier,Attorney for Fellowship Bible Church,Mr.Dan
Clinton,engineer for the project,and Mike Cruse,Campus
Director for the church,were present representing the
application.There were two people registered in favor of
the item and four registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director,began the
discussion with two main planning issues.The first being
what is the long term viability of the four houses left
along Napa Valley Road north of Rainwood along this arterial
roadway which is being widened to four lanes?The second
issue would be what impact this parking lot development
would have on the Rainwood Subdivision?
Randy Frazier began the comments in favor of the
application.He explained that the need for the parking was
based on a Sunday attendance of 3200-3500 adults,with a
parking capacity of only 1100 spaces,250 which were on
Pulaski Academy property and 50 on Smith Capital Management
property.He stated that the result was that people were
leaving and not attending services because they couldn'
find a parking place.He mentioned that the church had
signed a tentative contract to purchase lot 4,the next lot
to the south,not with a plan to further extend the parking,
but to have a built in buffer on church property with the
next house to the south.
Mr.Frazier and Mr.Cruse addressed other options they had
explored.One was to build a parking garage on church
property on the southeast corner of Hinson and Napa Valley,
or on the main church property southwest of the existing
church building.They didn't believe that type of building
and concentration of vehicles would be the best for the
neighborhood or the church.They also looked at going to
three services on Sunday,and while a possibility,it
wouldn't help parking when there were special functions.The
church had already arranged through purchase or lease to use
all available parking around the church campus.The church
6
January c,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
had established five other churches in other areas and moved
some of its membership to some of them.The church does not
intend to ask to increase its seating capacity,but they
need more parking for the existing seating.The church
leadership came to the conclusion that the expanded lot
would be the less intrusive and offensive to the
neighborhood.They would keep the new area locked except on
Sunday morning and for special events.To mitigate the
impact on Rainwood residents they would install thick
landscape screening and fencing,and work with the neighbors
and Staff to mitigate the impact of lighting.
Charles Stein,owner of lot 2,the closest to the existing
parking area,spoke in favor.He stated that his experience
with the current parking lot had been good.He said that
there had been no noise,the church kept the area maintained
very well,and lighting had been no problem.He continued
that the street widening project on Napa would have a much
worse impact on him than the existing parking area had.
Ray Rainey,owner of lot 3,also spoke in favor of the
proposal.He felt that the street widening would greatly
reduce his property value and cause him other problems,and
the parking lot would be the best use of this land when
considering what will happen when Napa Valley is widened.
Mr.Mel Amrine began the discussion in opposition.He asked
the other residents of Rainwood who were present to stand up
to show the Commission how much opposition there was.About
17 people stood up.He stated that the concerns of the
neighborhood were as follows:increased traffic;unwanted
noise from the lot and from Napa Valley Road;negative
impact from lighting;view of an opaque fence and a parkinglotwouldbevisuallyunappealing;destruction of 80 trees
and 2 beautiful homes;increased drainage problems;loss of
privacy in and around their homes;diminished intrinsic
value of residences to their owners;decreased property
value because of the above impacts;and,they would suffer
these impacts 365 days a year for the church to use a
parking lot once or twice a week.He finished by suggesting
several alternatives,most of which the church already
considered and decided against.Mr.Amrine commented that hefeltthattheparkinggarageonthesouthsideofthe
existing church would be comparable in cost to this
7
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
proposal.He added that the church should also look into
property for sale about one block west of the church on the
north side of Hinson,and consider satellite churches.
Laurie Lee spoke in opposition.She passed out pictures
showing the existing homes and view from the Rainwood Cove
homes.She emphasized the unappealing view,inadequate
screening of the neighborhood,noise,loss of privacy,and
the idea that removing the houses would make it easier for
intruders to get into back yards of abutting properties.She
finished by stating that this proposal raised an issue of
development aggressively taking over neighborhoods,and that
the integrity,safety,and feeling of security of every
neighborhood is at risk and at the mercy of whoever has the
most money,influence,or power if this passes.
Commissioner Lowry asked if the church had considered
arranging to use existing parking spaces at other lots and
shuttling people to the church.A church representative said
they had,but they didn't have that kind of shuttle
capability,nor did they feel that would be a reasonable
solution.Commissioner Lowry stated he questioned whether
the cost and effort for the church to use shuttling
occasionally should override the damage this would do to the
neighbors.
Commissioner Hawn pointed out some design flaws he saw in
the proposed parking lot regarding buffering,preservation
of trees,and planting trees within the lot.He also favored
busing from other parking areas.He added that he was also
concerned about "cancerous growth"such as this into
residential neighborhoods,and that other alternatives
should be used.
Commissioner Nunnley stated a concern and directed a
question to Mr.Lawson,whether limits were considered and
stated in the conditions when the last request came in.HefeltthattheCitymaybegivingchurchestheimpression
that they can continue to grow and take up more surrounding
area irrespective of the rights of the neighbors.Mr.Lawson
responded that future needs or impacts are difficult to
project,and the Commission should not feel any obligation
to approve this request just because they approved a
previous request.The Commission should judge each request
8
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-A
on its own merits at the time it is submitted and decide if
they feel a particular request is appropriate or not.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that growth of neighborhood
churches may have to be weighed against neighborhood impact,
and eventually a church may outgrow a particular location
and need to look for another location.Mr.Lawson commented
that we need to be careful in that evaluation that we don'
force them to leave neighborhoods because of growth and move
west for instance.
Commissioner Rahman questioned the doubt that the four
existing homes would survive after Napa Valley Road is
widened since similar situations have occurred elsewhere and
the houses survived.He felt that other alternatives should
be used by the church to resolve their parking problem.
Commissioner Rector asked if consideration had been given to
using three lots to accommodate the same size parking area.
He thought maybe up to 100 feet of buffer might be possible
on the east side towards Rainwood Cove by making the new
parking lot longer and more narrow.Mr.Frazier responded,
that had not been considered.
Commissioners Downing,Nunnley,and Berry made additional
comments showing that they all felt that the church should
pursue other alternatives before this one.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations.The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes,10 nays and 1 absent.
9
3I puxwp 7g
WX/
December 20,1999 ~+-k/V 1-wj
Mrs.Laurie A.Lee
Secretary
Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association
1721 Rainwood Cove Drive
Little Rock,AR 72212
Mr.Jim Lawson
Director
Department of Planning and Development
723 W.Markham Street
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr.Lawson,
It has come to our attention through the posting of a conditional use permit that
Fellowship Bible Church (FBC)would like to build an additional parking lot of
approximately 168 spaces on Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the Rainwood Subdivision.At this time,
private citizens have homes on these properties.The City of Little Rock,Department of
Planning and Development,sent out a notice of public hearing last week and erroneously
stated that the lots were owned by Fellowship Bible Church.This misinformation has
caused confusion for the residents who are impacted by this issue.We hope this has
already been corrected for the actual Planning Commission hearing planned for
January 6,2000.
We recognize the FBC's need for additional parking since the church is continuing to
grow.However,we are very concerned about the integrity of our neighborhood which
has been encroached upon over the past few years.Initially,the 8.5 acres of wooded area
on the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road was developed into a
large apartment community.Later,the building of the Fellowship Student Ministry
Center (FSMC)and parking lot.Most recently,Asbury United Methodist Church also
expanded their facilities and parking lot.The current proposal would bring yet another
large parking lot into the area which would locate directly behind our homes and would
remove several of our neighbors'omes along with any natural buffer for the
neighborhood.
Residents who already live next to the current FBC parking lots must repeatedly tolerate
much car related noise,increased traffic congestion,bright security night lighting,and
late night jubilations,exclamations and conversations on the parking lots.The additional
traffic from this proposed parking lot would flow onto Napa Valley Drive and/or Hinson
Road and further congest the neighborhood's access roads making it even more difficult
for our residents to safely get in and out of the neighborhood.The proposed lot expansion
would also increase the additional security night lighting spilling over into the
neighborhood from dusk to dawn.We feel there is currently more than enough light
pollution surrounding our neighborhood from the multiple apartment complexes,
commercial areas,and parking lots.The continued encroachment will result in a loss of
privacy for additional Rainwood Cove (RWC)residents.As a result,more than half of
the homes in RWC would be directly affected by various developments surrounding the
neighborhood.Many residents of the RWC neighborhood purchased their properties with
the thought in mind that this would be a peaceful and quiet neighborhood in which to
retire.By allowing continued development of surrounding properties for anything other
than single family residential use,the integrity of the neighborhood will continue to
slowly be destroyed The property values will then be diminished.Our neighborhood will
no longer be our quiet and peaceful retreat from the ever demanding world around us.
We the Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Associatioh and the majority of the RWC
residents oppose the conditional use permit to expand an existing parking area on the east
side of Napa Valley Drive on Lots 2 and 3 of the Rainwood subdivision.We have
attached a copy of a petition that has been signed by residents of the Rainwood edition.
The original copy will be presented at the Planning Commission Hearing on January 6,
2000.
Respectfully,
gg4wQ
Laurie A.Lee
Secretary,Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association
Attachment
cc:Jim Connell,Planner I
Dept.of Zoning k Planning
Hugh Earnest,Chairman
City of Little Rock Planning Commission (LRPC)
Pam Adcock,Vice Chairperson LRPC
Craig Berry,LRPC
Richard Downing,LRPC
Judith Faust,LRPC
Herb Hawn,LRPC
Bob Lowry,LRPC
Rohn Muse,LRPC
Obray Nunnley,Jr.,LRPC
Mizan Rahman,LRPC
Bill Rector,LRPC
P ETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE OF RAINWOOD LOT 2 AND 3 FOR A
PARKING LOT
To:Chairman,Vice Chairperson and Board Members of the City of Little Rock Planning
Commission
We,the undersigned residents of the Rainwood Subdivision respectfully request that the
Conditional Use Permit for the development of a parking lot on Lots 2 and 3 in the
Rainwood Subdivision,which is located at 1801 and 1811 Napa Valley Drive,be denied.
The proposed development of 168 additional parking spaces which would be located
directly next to the Rainwood Cove subdivision,will negatively impact our existing
residential area for the following reasons:
1.This parking lot will increase traffic on Napa Valley Drive and /or on Hinson
Road and on existing residential arterial streets.
2.The parking lot will be a source of unwanted noise to residents adjacent to this
proposed parking lot.
3.The parking lot will be a source of continuous bright lighting at night from
proposed security lighting.
4.The view of the expansive parking lot and 6 foot security fencing from residences
will be visually unappealing.
5.Construction of the parking lot will significantly diminish and destroy existing
trees and vegetation acting as a natural buffer for the Rainwood subdivision.
6.Construction of the parking lot will impact existing storm water drainage into the
Rainwood subdivision.
7.Rainwood subdivision residents will experience a loss of privacy in and around
their homes near the proposed parking lot.
8.The intrinsic value of the residences to their owners will be diminished by the
proposed parking lot.
9.The extremely close proximity of the parking lot to the Rainwood Cove
subdivision will decrease our property values due to the reasons listed above.
Date Signature Printed Name Address
e.,
z,~)~&g&&~g~.u=g ly/ii op~a~/'///&4»~'pg(
A'ai»wocu'»t
Dr.'/gq~m /Pgij~pp8 Mo4/&IWD'P /~'~"'~~'~~
5.(4/i7/0 i
r /~y/y /Jg~g4»k'/++~/8 /~448ckfg/
p~~~p»Q8A'&Fo8~/J~5'8'8/~+~&~~"~
s ~»ya0Rd~F'~~»~~
Date Signature Printed Name Address
8 /p/yg y/y ~~+44&MyyII~jj8'&7~"
9 /~//Q j ~r3J ~~@g~A ~(F Y ~F3'y'/'"'
a~xj=1 Kr/ga&/J 4yzg
/gC'zid8cud cd&~s
pl&'(4'I4y~vly
/$I/'y vyy4j &.~
13 ()(+PE'~P(0 g O I wL/1/'q /g'O /~'N~'0
14 J3 I ~q~~g,J ~qgg gg yjy kI4g j /g'I /I 444)4u/OC'4/CdJQ
jpvu ~;ckJgrvf IB'+ka ~cd Co'w l3y.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27,
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE OF RAINWOOD LOT 2 AND 3 FOR A
PARKING LOT
To:Chairman,Vice Chairperson and Board Members of the City of Little Rock Planning
Commission
We,the undersigned residents of the Rainwood Subdivision respectfully request that the
Conditional Use Permit for the development of a parking lot on Lots 2 and 3 in the
Rainwood Subdivision,which is located at 1801 and 1811 Napa Valley Drive,be denied.
The proposed development of 168 additional parking spaces which would be located
directly next to the Rainwood Cove subdivision,will negatively impact our existing
residential area for the following reasons:
1.This parking lot will increase traffic on Napa Valley Drive and /or on Hinson
Road and on existing residential arterial streets.
2.The parking lot will be a source of unwanted noise to residents adjacent to this
proposed parking lot.
3.The parking lot will be a source of continuous bright lighting at night from
proposed security lighting.
4.The view of the expansive parking lot and 6 foot security fencing from residences
will be visually unappealing.
5.Construction of the parking lot will significantly diminish and destroy existing
trees and vegetation acting as a natural buffer for the Rainwood subdivision.
6.Construction of the parking lot will impact existing storm water drainage into the
Rainwood subdivision.
7.Rainwood subdivision residents will experience a loss of privacy in and around
their homes near the proposed parking lot.
8.The intrinsic value of the residences to their owners will be diminished by the
proposed parking lot.
9.The extremely close proximity of the parking lot to the Rainwood Cove
subdivision will decrease our property values due to the reasons listed above.
Date Signature Printed Name Address
fz-($-gq ~i~Km7 ~i~vugg c &l5'~3 Pc,i'&mo&5v'e
/p fg f c fp/s &py .~
&~~pb~'~""'~"""
o'gp rw Uv ~
5,/a j~cg~&W a
))/1 (&/a,+~ARQ MR~gR.,~i '7ow P-&i~~~~C ~gD
ri Q~~~,A&Ch~a&a..Ga «~5 ))~P&)&~&&
~u&&~'~'ijIM
Y ~'SAQ &&p f Spy p9llct/wc!Cvc".~d-A-~g &Q.-l(--i 1
q&P~gy (7&~~~~@iVVP/iq /Pl ZWuM'
0,t2(ig(qq [g ~'L(4~PAWL Ai.GuAiiAH,HGl @«&~+&~D'
Date Signature Printed arne Address~~~~/&~~~~(~&p~,Iii ~p/~~I/o~yp ///i '4/".
'|iI'Le QM l.l (2cZ c('L~W
1Q,~Q-/P-5'g P +p p'++P g~&'~~mc rj &Wry ~
11.IG-Ir -99 ~&9«&~ca-O'A4in~eeP Cd/(w-
12./
w.R~L-aa N~~e e.~T~~+II
13 l'g /C f +,5)C.rii.ii/i gR&'V(V &cL E~
g p pc~+lp +w~C//XDJ/I/1 fl ii~&&d-
r~
//g /+~J eu~i'/.8 Qe7ig.
i7 v 6'~/v~~D 2~~~&/I/y /-&
,g /g cj g,//f +Q +~gj~,;;/ci'iy~~ii'-"--pi:
(y Pgf/Pll l '5~//i -i
21 /Q-I'7-0 go i~~P 1''4 ~~'~~
/7-9 0 ply 8 i=Wc-L=fr=~~pi'S
ppioii~,8,ii ~pig l~lh (1~&—
~gpy)~gg ~vE'R/u6
/&~&r6 w n~@
i'gal(lQjp~,Qq)yp ~ppQ f+[Ptll'U35DQ m +
27.i-'C-~+~r =T~lg$gc-Pg jg7,+P K~wA.'~P,',&ii i/(a
pg
'"~~q M/iii~i ~Li'
3Q /Q ($-$)S 4''~6 E.DrM;,P 4i/)/hid,"r~
3 f /g /p gf ~/~i pal fDIAI Hill 1J'l 5 %Llll1.~2 J1.
32./g —i g-pg p~CAcf C//poLgp/pdgy f prl~~LQ
;~,z"./g -y~,~h.icT Q.L fQ'gai4ii:&3~lv
~4 I)«/E'-i'P j3'cPygpgE@f 7iIzuu-.
liiun i'&~/qy~/~i~~MC=
Date Signature Printed Name Address
6~Pc'»~~"""
X~W47 A Jwr J ~~f EWw'W~+~
39.l3--|~i-'1'1 go&~J&~~If'i~wrvg C c e )I
40 /L It(
Q~o ~p tm8}»/~a (~wyvA
S~~~~I&IZ A ~~o~~~~-""~~
41.I~4 IH/15
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
January t,.-2000
ITEM NO.:22 FILE NO.:Z-6779
NAME:Bobby Zimmerebner —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:14200 Alexander Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Bobby Zimmerebner
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
replace an existing single family
residential house with a two-section
manufactured home on property Zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential,at 14,200
Alexander Road.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the north side of Alexander
Road at the intersection with Savannah Road,
approximately one mile west from Vimy Ridge Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site and all surrounding property is Zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential.This area in general
along Alexander consists of site built homes on largelots.There are existing site-built houses directly
across Alexander,but there are none adjacent to the
other three sides of the proposed site.There are two
other single-section manufactured homes between this
site and Vimy Ridge,the first being about 0.6 miles
east.
Staff believes this proposal would be compatible with
the neighborhood when properly installed according to
City standards.
Norman Floyd was notified of the public hearing.
January e,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6779
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There are two existing drives onto the property.One is
concrete up to the eastern front of the existing house.
The other is gravel which lies along the east side of
the property up to a garage that exists just to the
northeast of the existing house.One on-site parking
space is required for residential property.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Relocate proposed manufactured home to allow for future
Alexander Road widening to minor arterial standards.
Recommend moving proposed structure an additional 20feetinnorthwesterndirectiontokeepitoutofthe
future right-of-way.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:This site is not currently served by CATA.
Approved for transit purposes.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
replace a partially burned out house with a two-section
2
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6779
manufactured house,on property Zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential.
The proposed area in general along Alexander Road is
mostly rural,consisting of site built homes on largelots.There are existing site-built houses directly
across Alexander,but there are none adjacent to the
other three sides of the proposed site.There are two
other single-section manufactured homes between thissiteandVimyRidge,the first being about 0.6 miles
east.
This site currently has a platted 40 foot building
line.The current proposal includes replatting this
single lot,moving the building line forward to a
standard 25 feet from the existing front property line.
The current proposal would then meet all setbacks.
However,in anticipation of future widening of
Alexander Road,Public Works has recommended the house
be moved back 20 feet further from the front propertyline.That would maintain the front setback at about 25feetfromthefutureimprovedAlexanderRoadright-of-
way.There is room on this site to do that,but that
will cause the rear setback at the northwest corner of
the house to drop 2 to 5 feet below the required 25
feet because of the triangular shape of the lot and the
location of the existing unattached garage.Staff
believes that would be better than dropping below the
required 25 feet in the front.
The applicant wishes to place the manufactured home on
the existing slab to reduce the cost of installation,
to provide a solid setup foundation,and to maintain
the same relationship with the existing wood privacy
fence and unattached garage.There is also a large tree
just behind the rear of the existing house that the
applicant wishes to preserve.
Staff believes this is a reasonable proposal and when
set up according to City standards for manufactured
homes,it should be compatible with the neighborhood.
However,the issue regarding the location needs to be
worked out with Public Works.
3
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6779
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
with the actual location of the manufactured house
being subject to satisfying Public Works comment and
the anticipated future right-of-way.In addition,the
manufactured home must meet the following siting
standards as stated in Section 36-254(d)(5):
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with
the neighborhood.
e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.All homes shall be multisectional.
h.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(December 9,1999)
Bobby Zimmerebner and Troy Laha were present representing
the application.Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Public Works explained their concerns with the proposed
location of the home being too close to the future right-of-
way.The applicant explained why he wanted to place it as
shown in the site plan to use the existing slab and maintain
the orientation with the existing privacy fence and garage.
The impacts of moving the location,rear yard setback
variance and removal of large mature trees,were briefly
reviewed.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
4
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6779
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 6,2000)
Bobby Zimmerebner was present representing his application.
There were eight registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under
"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
Mr.Zimmerebner explained that he had a potential buyer for
this property that wanted to use a manufactured home to
replace the partially burned out house that was there now.
The buyer felt that was their only feasible way economically
to replace the house rather than rebuild the site-built
house.In response to Public Works'ssue regarding the
location of the new house,Mr.Zimmerebner passed out to the
Commissioners a handout which was a copy of the site plan
with a scaled cutout attached to show that there was not
much room to change the location of the home without causing
other problems in relation to the existing garage/shop.He
stated that he felt the current location was the best,but
that he could move it straight back from the road an
additional eight feet if he had to.
Mr.Turner,acting Public Works Director,explained that
their concern was that when Alexander Road is eventually
widened,it would greatly impact a house located as shown
because the required 45 foot from centerline right-of-way
would be within about 6-10 feet of the house.Any additional
distance back that the house could be set would improve that
situation.He added that there is no schedule for any street
improvements at this time.
Sharon Ussery,Homer Ellis,Reggie Crouse,Don Robbins,and
Shirley Eslick spoke in opposition.Elaine Crouse,Mary
Robbins,and Robert Eslick were also registered as
objectors,but did not speak.A petition was also submitted
which listed 33 addresses,including the above individuals,
that were opposed to the proposal.The listed addresses on
the petition were all to the east along Natchez Lane and
other streets in the Southern Hills Subdivision.None of
the listed objectors own property abutting the proposedsite.
5
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6779
The objector's statements reflected that their main
objections concerned the following issues:statements in
their bills of assurance which did not allow "trailers"to
be placed on their properties or in their neighborhood;
concern about a decrease in property values if "trailers"
were located near them or in the area;and,starting a
precedence or trend of letting "trailers"or "mobile homes"
in the area which they don't want because they feel that
would result in a deterioration of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Faust asked about the closeness of other
houses.Staff responded that the map provided in the write-
up is accurate,that there are vacant lots around this
proposed site as shown.When Staff researched
residents'ddressestomakenoticetoallresidentswithin 300 feet,
the only ones found within that distance were across
Alexander on Savannah Lane and three lots to the east at
14006 Alexander Road.That finding matches the structures
shown on the map.
Mr.Zimmerebner responded to Chairperson Adcock that he
understood their concern about keeping up the neighborhood
and agrees,he lived there for six years before the fire.He
wants to assure people that what is proposed to be put thereisnota"trailer"as they are thinking.He stated it would
be better than the house that's there now,it would look
like a house on a permanent foundation and be bricked around
the lower area with vinyl siding above,not skirted with any
cheap material like they are thinking is usually put around
manufactured homes.The installation would exceed the City'
standards for installation of manufactured homes.He feelsitwouldupgradethearea.He showed the Commissioners
pictures of the proposed manufactured home,the existing
home,and other manufactured homes that already exist in the
area,along with a map showing where other manufactured
homes are located.He added that he doesn't believe the City
would allow a mobile home park in the area and that
certainly isn't what he is proposing or leading to.
Commissioner Downing asked Stephen Giles,City Attorney,to
update them on the current case in the courts regarding
manufactured homes.Briefly he stated the judge upheld the
City's decision of denial for a permit for 9 manufactured
homes on one street in an existing single family
6
January b,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:22 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6779
neighborhood.The judge determined the 9 manufactured homes
in that case would be substantially different from the
existing single family homes because there would be less
options for variables with 9 on one street.Mr.Giles added
that the finding of adverse impact of locating manufactured
homes in a neighborhood had to be based on a finding that
the proposed home differed substantially from other homes in
the area together with a finding of adverse economic impact
on the value of the other properties.Zn response to a
follow-on cpxestion by Commissioner Downing,Mr.Giles
commented that the Commissioners must base their decision in
this situation on a finding that the proposed manufactured
home in this location would be incompatible with this
particular existing surrounding neighborhood,and cause an
adverse economic impact on the value of properties in this
area.Commissioner Nunnley,as confirmed by Mr.Giles,
brought out the point that in the previous case there were
no other manufactured homes in that neighborhood.Mr.Giles
added that case was being appealed to the Arkansas Supreme
Court and is still pending.That case was for a location in
a different part of the City.
Commissioner Rector asked about the Bill of Assurance issue.
Mr.Giles responded that the City does not enforce Bills of
Assurance,that is a private matter between property owners,
neighbors and developers.He added that Bill of Assurance
items are not binding on the Commissioners,they are only
one point to consider in the overall review.Mr.
Zimmerebner commented that his property had no such
stipulations or limitations as were brought up by the
objectors.
Staff added to the discussion one bit of information,that
they had received one phone call from the property owner
directly across Alexander Road and she favored the proposal.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,to include
moving the house back from Alexander Road eight additional
feet from where originally proposed,keep it six feet from
the garage,and accomplish the one lot replat to change the
building line to 33 feet in front.The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes,4 nays and 1 absent.
7
January ~,2000
ITEM NO.:23 FILE NO.:Z-6780
NAME:Southwestern Bell Telephone Exchange
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:6410 Highway 300
OWNER/APPLICANT:Southwestern Bell Telephone
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
enlarge an existing telephone exchange
facility on property Zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential,at 6410 Highway 300.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWBT)site is located
on the east side of Highway 300,just north of the
intersection with Highway 10.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,andissurroundedbythesamezoning.Church property
surrounds the site to the north,east,and south.The
property across Highway 300 is currently undeveloped.
The property adjacent to the north of the church is
Zoned MF 18,Multi-family Residential.The church is
the only structure near the existing telephone exchange
building.
Staff believes the proposed expansion will not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area when properly
screened from the church.
The Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association was
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
An access drive to the church abuts the SWBT property
along its entire north property line.SWBT has a an
access easement from that drive and proposes to
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6780
continue to take access from it.They propose five
head-in parking spaces adjacent but perpendicular to
the drive in the northeast corner of their property.
That would result in asphalt covering the area between
the new building and the driveway for about 76%of the
north side of the SWBT property.That should adequately
serve the site.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A screen consisting of either a 6 foot high opaque wood
fence with its face side directed outward,or dense
evergreen plantings which grow to 6 feet within three
years,is required along the eastern side of the
property.Save any trees possible on the site.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Hwy.300 is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector.A dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline is required.
b.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.
d.Show access easements and construct improvements to
access easement per City standards.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.f.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.
29-186(e)is required.
g.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Execution of a pre-annexation agreement is
required if water service is desired.An acreage charge
of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges.
2
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6780
Wastewater:No sewer service appears to be required
for this project.Contact the Wastewater Utility if
service is desired.
Southwestern Bell:Applicant for this submittal.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at thefiredepartmentconcerningfireprotection.
CATA:No comment.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
add 5300 square feet to an existing exchange buildingthathasexistedatthissitesince1958.The applicant
has stated that the expansion is needed to provide roomforequipmenttoservicethegrowingpopulationinWestLittleRock,and to provide federally mandated spaceforcompetitorstolocateequipmentinthefacility.
The addition would be one story,approximately 17 feet
high.SWBT planners estimate that this addition wouldsatisfytheirneedsforatleastfiveyears.They have
included a proposed future addition up to 3026 squarefeetontheeastsideofthisadditiontomeetfuture
growth as it occurs.The final proposed building would
require setback variances on all four sides as follows:front 22 feet,rear 2 feet,north side 3 feet,and
south side 2 feet.Other siting requirements aresatisfied.Standard setbacks are 25 feet front andrear,and 8 feet on the sides.
The applicant has stated that they have met with the
Winfield United Methodist Church leaders,the neighbortotheeast,and incorporated design features into the
new building to help lesson the impact on the church
such as:using a brick exterior to match the churchexterior,lowering the site into the ground on the side
adjacent to the church so that the building and
3
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6780
equipment will be less imposing,agreeing to install a
6 foot decorative wood fence above the retaining wall
on the east to further lesson that impact,and instal-
ling an emergency generator designed for maximum quiet
operation.
Staff believes SWBT has proposed to do as much as they
can to make this proposal compatible with the
neighborhood for a site that is critical to current and
future growth of phone service in West Little Rock.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and
not towards any residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of the reduced setback
variance on all four sides of the expanded building as
shown on the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(December 9,1999)
Don Walker of SWBT and Bill Canino of Canino/Peckham
Architects were present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
The areas reviewed concentrated on Public Works Comments,
Screening and Buffer requirements,setback requirements
versus proposed setbacks,and site lighting requirements if
exterior lighting is installed.The applicant reviewed the
steps they planned to take to lesson the impact on the
church and what was driving the need for expansion.
4
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6780
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 6,2000)
Don Walker was present representing the application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the
item with a recommendation for approval subject to
compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff
Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
After the Consent Agenda had been passed and the people
whose items had been approved had left,Mr.Lawson brought
to the attention of the Chairperson that Mr.Charles Randel
wanted to make a comment about the item.He had completed a
card marking that he was in support of the item,and so he
hadn't been recognized earlier since the item was listed for
consent approval.The Chair recognized Mr.Randel.
Mr.Randel commented that the Winfield United Methodist
Church would like some additional shrubbery placed along
the area shown to be a privacy fence on the site plan to
break up the austerity of the fence.They also wanted some
sod placed on a bare area along the south side of SWBT's
property near the church's parking lot.
The item had been approved so it was too late to add any
more conditions,but Mr.Lawson suggested to the Chair that
Staff pass on the desires to SWBT and let the two parties
work it out.The Chair agreed.
5
January t,2000
ITEM NO.:24 FILE NO.:Z-6782
NAME:Second Baptist Church
LOCATION:1709 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Second Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
use approximately 4800 square feet of
the existing church facility as a child
care facility on property Zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential,at 1709 John
Barrow Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the east side of John Barrow
Road,south of Kanis Road,and just north of the
intersection of John Barrow with Labette Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,andliesinamixtureofofficeandvarioustypesof
residential zoning.The property to the north and to
the southwest is Zoned 0-3,General Office,to the eastisZonedMF12,Multi-family Residential,to the westisZonedR-5,Urban Residence for apartments,and to
the south is a mix of 0-1,Quiet Office,and R-2.
Staff believes this proposed added use to the existing
church structure should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
The John Barrow Road Neighborhood Association and the
Brownwood Terrace Property Owners Association were
notified of the public hearing.
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The church has three existing drives accessing their
property.One drive is on the southwest corner into a
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6782
front parking area and also provides access to the rear
parking area.A second drive lies along the north side
of the building providing access to additional front
parking and also to the rear parking area.A third
drive accesses only an isolated parking area on the
northwest part of the property that is at a higher
level than the center parking area.
The southern existing driveway and primarily the
southwest front parking area will serve to meet the
required drop-off and 16 parking spaces for the 80
capacity day care center with 8 employees.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A 6 foot high wood privacy fence would be required to
screen the proposed playground area from nearby
residences.The fence should be placed on the south
property line with the finished face directed outward
toward the residences.No construction is proposed,
therefore no additional buffers would be required.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.John Barrow Road is listed on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-
of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required and
is shown to already exist.
b.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.c.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
d.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.
e.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.f.John Barrow Road has daily average traffic count of
15,000.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
2
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6782
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at thefiredepartmentconcerningplacementoffirehydrants
and fire protection requirements.
CATA:Approved for transit purposes.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
add a secondary use to the church for a day care center
with a capacity of 80 children with 8 employees.The
4800 square foot day care center would be placed within
existing two story space,no exterior construction
would be required.
The day care would operate between the hours of 6:30
a.m.and 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Existing
parking and drives would meet the needs of the day
care.The playground would be located in an existing
fenced area behind the rear parking area.Since the
playground would be near a residential area to the
south,a privacy fence would be required to screen the
activity from that direction.
The proposal also includes a request for a wall sign
larger than allowed in R-2 zoning which would require a
variance.It would be located on the southwest face of
the existing building and be five foot square,or 25
square feet.That size would fall within allowed signs
for churches.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable added use to
this site and should not cause an adverse affect as
long as the playground is properly screened.
3
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6782
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Install a 6 foot high wood privacy fence,finished
face outward,to screen the playground from the
residential area to the south.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pastor Kevin Kelly was present representing his application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments.Staff also
reminded the applicant that if he wanted to put up a sign
larger than one square foot,and/or have a playground for
the day care center,he needed to include them in the
proposal.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
The church had an individual present representing the
application.There were no registered objectors present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval
including the sign and playground location which had been
submitted to Staff since the Subdivision Committee,all
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under
"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
revised to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
4
January t,2000
ITEM NO.:25 FILE NO.:Z-6784
NAME:Immanuel Baptist Church
LOCATION:501 North Shackleford Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Immanuel Baptist,contract pending/
Pat McGetrick
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
new 19 acre church site on the northeast
corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford
Road consisting of one main worship
facility with expansion space and
accompanying parking,and a future
unspecified growth area in the southeast
part of the property which is zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the Northeast Corner of the
Intersection of Shackleford Road and Mara Lynn Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.It
is surrounded to the north,east and west by R-2
zoning.To the south the zoning is C-3,General Office,
and to the southwest the zoning is 0-1,Quiet Office.
There is a residential neighborhood to the north and
northwest,a school to the west,Interstate 430 to the
east,and a Kroger store to the south.
This proposal would be a drastic change to the area.
The site is currently a tree-covered 19 acre green
island surrounded by development and paved areas.A
church use would be compatible with the surrounding
zones,but the size of this facility and the
congregation raise concerns as to whether this
particular proposal is compatible with this particularsite.Staff has several questions regarding substantial
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
issues that must be resolved prior to being able to
determine compatibility in this instance.Those issues
are listed in the "Analysis."
The Walnut Valley and the Beverly Hills Property Owners
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes two driveways,one entering at
the southwest corner from Shackleford,the other
entering at the northeast corner from Breckenridge.
There are challenges in both instances which are
described in the "analysis".
The proposal is for a 2500 seat assembly area.That
would generate a parking requirement for 625 spaces,
based on a 1 for 4 ratio,including 13 handicap
accessible spaces,two of which must be van accessible.
The proposal shows 1112 parking spaces initially,
including 18 handicap accessible,and 240 additional
spaces in the future.That is more than double the
ordinance requirement and considered excessive byStaff.Part of the parking is shown to be provided by
two two-level parking garages,with access to each
level being at opposite ends of the parking structure
and at two different levels.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed areas set aside for buffers and
landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the
exception of the proposed street buffer along
Interstate 430.The average full buffer depth in this
area required by ordinance is 32 feet.The minimum
depth with transfers is 21 feet.The average buffer
depth shown in this area only averages about 8 feet and
in areas is below the 6 foot minimum allowed at any
given point.
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north
and northwest perimeters.This screen may be a wooden
fence with its face side directed outward or dense
2
January t,-2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
evergreen plantings that grow to a minimum height of 6
feet within three years.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many trees as feasible on this tree covered property.
Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6
inch caliper or larger.
Because of the changes in grade elevations,it will be
necessary to provide cross sections showing proposed
treatments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis.
b.Develop realignment of intersection (Mara Lynn and
Shackleford Road intersection)to facilitate
ingress and egress to the site.
c.Provide a schematic layout of the signals at the
intersection.
d.Verify with capacity analysis that all site
intersections will operate at a minimum level of
service of "D"during the peak hour of the
generator.
e.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street
Plan as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way
to 30 feet from centerline.f.Provide cross sections of site showing cuts,fills,
retaining walls,prior to Planning Commission.
g.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.
h.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.i.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.j.Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are required.
k.Private drive to Breckenridge must be approved by
Arkansas Highway Department and City of Little
Rock.(Has sign been posted on Breckenridge?Has
there been notification to Walnut Valley Church?)
3
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
1.Provide existing topographic information at maximum
five foot contour intervals,and 100 year flood
elevation is required.
m.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.
29-186(e)is required.
n.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
o.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per
Sec.29-186(b)is required.
p.Contact the ADPSE for approval prior to start of
work is required.
q.Contact the FEMA for conditional approval prior to
start of work is required.r.Drive across grassy flat to Breckenridge encroaches
on floodway.(140 feet wide floodway)
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.On site fire protection
will be required.Existing water line easements should
be shown on the plans.Any required relocation of
existing water facilities will be at the developer's
expense.
Wastewater:Sewer is available on site for this
project.Capacity Analysis required for this project,
contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
Any relocation of Utility mains required for this
project will be completed by the Developer at their
expense.Records show a sewer line through this
property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Right-of-way requested for 30 feet around the
entire perimeter of this property for possible 3 Phase
overhead lines.Contact Entergy for more details.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at the
fire department concerning placement of fire hydrants
and turning radii.
4
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
CATA:This site is near Route g5.Approved for transit
purposes.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner
of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of
one main worship facility with expansion space and
accompanying parking,and a future unspecified growth
area in the southeast part of the property.
The applicant has not stated what other activities will
occur in the facility besides worship services.
Information about other types of uses in the facility
besides worship are important,such as classrooms,a
fellowship hall,day care,private school,and
recreation.These activities would impact the
frequency and the hours of use of the site and are
important factors to consider in the evaluation of the
proposal.
The proposal would take up most of the site except for
a 50 foot buffer along the north and west sides,and
initially the area left open in the southeast corner
for future development.The proposal did not state if
the 50 foot buffer would be undisturbed.Further
conversations revealed that the design is not far
enough along to know if the buffer could be left
undisturbed.
All setback requirements appear to be met,but the
height would exceed standards.The maximum allowed
height in R-2 zoning is 35 feet and the proposed
building is about 83 feet tall with a height to the top
of the steeple proposed to be 145 feet.However,Staff
was told that these are preliminary estimated maximums.
Design is not far enough along to know for sure.The
site is currently rather hilly with contours ranging
from a low of 420 to a high of 537,with several hills
and valleys scattered throughout.Finished contours
range from 420 to 530.
5
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Staff needs to have some idea of how the engineers
propose to place the proposed development on this site
by having cut and fill profiles and cross sections,and
retaining wall descriptions to review.Information
provided shows walls ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall.
We need to see how the final structures will look to
people looking into the site when it's completed by
having elevations so the impact to the surrounding area
can be assessed.The applicant needs to show how
landscaping will blend in with the various grades,
walls,cuts and overall treatment across the site
through cross sections.The applicant should explain
how the traffic from a 2500 seat church will be managed
and what impact it will have on the surrounding area at
the end of services.
Access is another major issue that also currently has
many unanswered questions.The northeast driveway will
cross interstate highway right-of-way and require the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department's
approval.The southwest driveway must line up with Mara
Lynn entering the opposite side of the intersection.To
do that,some sort of a joint agreement will have to be
worked out with Kroger because to get the intersection
to match with what's already there,they will have to
use part of Kroger property.This site cannot work
without two separated access points to handle traffic
for church services or special events,and the ability
to provide two is not confirmed at this time.
Without answers to,and additional information for most
of the above issues,Staff cannot realistically
evaluate this proposal in order to provide well
developed recommendations to the Commission.These
evaluations and recommendations will be important to
the Commission as it attempts to weigh new development
against neighborhood opposition which we know exists.
8 .S TAFF RECOMMENDAT ION:
Staff believes consideration of the requested
conditional use permit to be premature at this time due
to the status of the applicant's design for this site.
Therefore,Staff recommends this application be
6
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
deferred until the applicant can answer the cpxestions
and provide the information recpxested by Staff.How
long a deferral depends on the applicant determining
when they can provide the information.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and reviewed
the issues of concern and information needed.
The review was fairly short since the cpxestions were
straight forward and the answers weren't readily available.
Besides the review of the issues as described in the Staff
Report,Staff emphasized that this proposal would cause a
major change to the area and the importance of firming up
the ability to provide two separated access points.Staff
also mentioned the idea of off site parking areas from which
to either bus members,or to be located close enough to
walk.The area at the east end of the I-430 pedestrian
bridge was mentioned.
There being no further points to make,the Committee
accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action pending the receipt of the
recpxested information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Dr.Rex Horn,Pat McGetrick,engineer for the project,and
Muriel Lewis,architect for the project were present
representing the application.There was one other person in
favor and nine persons opposed who registered at the
hearing.Staff presented the item with a revised
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with
certain conditions.
Staff received more information between the time the
original report above was written for the Commision and the
time of this meeting.The availability of this additional
information which Staff was ready to present to the
7
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Commission resulted in the change in Staff's recommendation
to one of approval with conditions.The conditions
recommended were as follows:1)Comply with the City'
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances;2)Comply with Public Works
Comments in the above report;3)All exterior lighting must
be low intensity,directed inward and downward to the
property and not towards any residential area;4)Maintain a
minimum 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the north and west
sides of the property except to the northeast and southwest
access points;5)No excavation permit nor building permit
would be issued for this site until all ordinance
requirements are met,until State Highway Department and the
City have approved the access road to Breckenridge,and
until City requirements for the access at the intersection
of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road are satisfied.Staff also
recommended approval of a variance to allow the proposed
height for the building and the steeple.
Mr.Lawson,Planning and Development Director,stated that
several people had suggested that the Commission delay its
consideration of this item until Highway Department approval
for the access to Breckenridge is obtained,until staff
receives complete detail finished drawings for the church
structure,and other detail information.He stated that
final approval and detail information is far off.He felt
that the question of use and appropriateness of the location
for this proposed church could be answered now,and the
other details could be dealt with through conditions placed
in the C.U.P.He added that one condition would certainly
be,and the church agrees,that this proposal cannot work
without the approved access to Breckenridge.So without that
road and meeting other conditions the Commission feels are
appropriate,there would be no C.U.P.,it would become void.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if any thought for limiting
future growth had been examined.He was concerned that the
church would soon be at capacity at this proposed location
and would be back in a year or two wanting to expand.
Mr.Lawson responded that this proposed church is much
larger than their existing church and it gives them a lot of
capacity.Additional services could be added to serve many
more people quickly without any building expansion.
8
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Dr.Rex Horn,the applicant and Pastor of Immanuel Baptist,
began by stating that the initial construction would not use
all the property and the proposed building would hold a lot
more people than the existing church.Currently their
services average 1200-1300 on Sunday and about half that on
Wednesday.Therefore,he felt the property would be adequate
into the foreseeable future,particularly since the church
membership growth is almost stagnant right now.He continued
with an explanation of factors considered in choosing a newsite,and in particular,this site,and that they were
working diligently to address all concerns with the intent
of being good neighbors in solving the issues.
Mr.William Sutton,a Trustee of the church,spoke in favor
of the proposal and stated he felt the church had taken
responsible steps in this process and that the proposal is
sensitive to the neighborhood and addresses their concerns.
He added that the church does not want to create enemies by
moving to this location.
Russell Lemond,President of the Walnut Valley Homes
Association,began the opposition presentation.He showed
several slides showing streets in the area covered withtraffic,and the proposed site as it is now.He touched on
several issues:existing traffic;size of the streets around
the site;the fact that this land is state owned and that
not developing it would not affect a developer's investment;
the huge size of a 20 acre church complex;and,how the area
had already been changed and affected in the past ten years
as shown by an aerial photo.In his view,the only "pro"for
this project is it would be better than a commercial site.
The "cons"included the following:the proposed church's
size would have a commercial type of impact on Walnut Valley
and West Little Rock;the nature and impact of the access
road to Breckenridge;the impact of decreasing options for
the Highway Department to use this area to help alleviate
the congestion at the intersection of I-630 &I-430;this
size of church would be beyond the scope envisioned when the
ordinance included a church as an allowed conditional use in
a residential zoned area;there is no room to expand
Shackleford north of this site and it already carries atrafficvolumedailythatislargerthanmany4-lane roads
in the City;and there are too many unanswered questions of
how this site would be developed at this point.He concluded
9
January t,,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
with the point that he felt this project would be like
trying to put a large square peg in a small round hole.
With a visual demonstration he showed how that doesn't work.
Patricia Keightley spoke in opposition mainly because shefelttheprojectwouldresultinadecreaseinproperty
values to all adjoining property.Jacqueline Wright was
opposed because she felt the access road to Breckenridge
would increase an existing traffic problem there.She felt
that problem results in part from the Bible Church which is
located close to where the access road would enter
Breckenridge.The two churches would have similar hightraffictimes.She also felt that the appropriate
development for the site is only single family which would
match its current zoning.Rich Livdahl spoke in opposition
because he felt it would have a negative impact on traffic,
health and safety.His issues included backup of water
which already occurs at the intersection of Mara Lynn and
Shackleford during storms,and the negative visual impact of
such a large building.Gary Barnett spoke in opposition
emphasizing the negative affects of noise,congestion,dirt,
run-off,etc.,he felt would occur during the construction
phase,in addition to the impacts of the finished church.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt he did not have all
the information he needed to make a decision.He wanted the
Commissioners to have a chance to review the traffic study,
and to receive an answer about the issue of approval of the
access road to Breckenridge which was such an integral part
of the project working.Mr.Lawson responded that all the
information won't be developed to the degree he was asking
for unless the City says the use is approved.Then the
church would still have to be able to meet all the
conditions the Commission included in the C.U.P.or it would
become void.
Commissioner Lowry stated that he was astounded that the
Commission was not asked to defer this item based on the
amount of missing information.He felt that since thetrafficstudy,which he sees as an important part of the
information needed to make a decision,was just received and
that the Commissioners hadn't had an opportunity to see it,
plus the amount of other missing information was reason to
defer.
10
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Mr.Lawson responded that much of the information the
Commissioners want is what Staff would like to present to
them tonight.
Commissioner Hawn commented that he preferred to have
reports given to him so he could read them himself,rather
than trying to have all the information presented during the
Commission hearing.He then made a motion to defer the item.
During discussion about the motion,Commissioner Downing had
several questions also about missing information that hefeltheneededtobeabletodecideifthisrequestwas
appropriate for this location.
Mr.Lawson responded that Staff was trying to answer many of
those questions,but the Commission wasn't allowing the
information available to be presented.
Dr.Horn responded,when asked by the Chair,that they were
not in favor of a deferral.He felt they had the people
present to respond to the questions the Commissioners were
asking,plus a deferral to February 17 would push them past
a deadline they had in regard to the contract to purchase.
A vote was taken on the motion to defer.It failed by a vote
of 2 ayes,8 nays,1 absent.Discussion continued.
Greg Simmons of Peters &Associates Engineers presented thetrafficstudy.They gathered their data on Sunday during
times they felt would be maximum peak times.He explained in
general the methodology they used to conduct their study,
and the recommendations to improve the flow.The resulting
conclusion was that the intersection at Mara Lynn and
Shackleford would operate at an acceptable level "C"with
the suggestions in place during the entering peak period on
Sunday morning.That would be a drop from level "B"that it
currently operates at during those times.The exiting peak
period would operate at level "D".He added that level "D"
is an accepted design level for traffic engineers at peak
periods.When looking at the other access from Breckenridge,
they assumed a 36 foot wide,three lane road,and that only
25%of the traffic would flow to and from that direction.
Their conclusion was that intersection would operate at,
11
January 6,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
level "B"with only "Stop Sign Control"at both the entering
and exiting peak periods on Sunday mornings.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the traffic analysis for the
access road to Breckenridge included the Bible Churchtraffic.The answer was yes.He added that when that churchisinsession,people park along the street to such a degree
that you have only one lane open.More traffic through
there would add to an existing problem.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the impact the church would
have on Wednesday night traffic.Mr.Simmons responded that
was not studied because it was considered to be less than on
Sunday.When asked to estimate the current level of service
on Wednesday evenings at Mara Lynn and Shackleford,Mr.
Simmons responded he would estimate it to be level "B"or at
worst a "C".
Commissioner Nunnley commented that he lives near the
current Immanuel Church site and that the impact of the
church traffic during week nights is negligible.
Commissioner Berry mentioned the point that he felt it would
be very helpful for the neighborhood to see for comparison
what the impact would be if a retail or some other
commercial development moved into this site.He felt the
state will sell this property and it could be to a
commercial developer.
Commissioner Lowry asked Dr.Horn what he would expect his
growth to be over the next ten years.He replied he would
hope it would grow to 2000.Then in reply to the
Commissioner's follow on question,Mr.Simmons replied that
their study was based on the traffic estimated to be
generated from the full 2500 seat capacity,not a smaller
number.
Commissioner Hawn asked Dr.Horn what efforts he had made to
be a good neighbor to Walnut Valley so far.His response was
that he had offered the following to the neighborhood:
children's summer programs and basketball leagues,making
the family life center available to the neighborhood,
including having one night a month when the neighborhood
association could use the facilities free of charge,making
12
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
a contribution to the Walnut Valley park,working with the
neighbors regarding buffers and the impact of the access
road to Breckenridge,self-defense classes for women,and
senior adult activities and lunches.
Commissioner Berry commented on what he saw as an excessive
amount of parking since they have proposed about twice the
amount required by City ordinance.He felt that should be
cut down and then provide more buffer between the
residential area.
Commissioner Faust pointed out that the ordinance states
that the Commission's charge is to review the compatibility
of a proposed conditional use with the area,and review the
measures being taken to protect the integrity of the
neighborhood.She continued that she had problems with the
compatibility that this large a church on this plot of land
would have in the close proximity with the established
neighborhood.She still had many questions before she could
decide.Her questions included how the church would look in
place,and what would King's Mountain look like after the
church was built.She felt elevations and cross-sections
could help answer those two questions.She also felt thesitewasoverparked.
Commissioner Rahman called upon Mark McGee to state his
concerns.He stated that he was concerned that the traffic
study data was gathered on December 19,1999,which was
during Christmas break when many people were out of town and
schools were not in session.Also he was concerned over the
church adding a school later which would increase traffic
every weekday that the school was in session.
Commissioner Berry called upon Lisa Ring to add her
comments.She was concerned that when the traffic data was
gathered,Terry School across the street from the proposedsitewasnotinsession,and she hadn't heard the school
mentioned during the discussion.She felt that some of the
school traffic would change the results because they have
after school programs that let out at the same times the
church would be having evening activities and Wednesday
evening services.She felt that this was not the place for
this big of a church,that there's too much in that area
already.
13
January t,,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Commissioner Berry made the point that if the church wanted
to add a school in the future,they would have to come back
before the Commission to modify their C.U.P..Mr.Lawson
added that the application does not ask for a school or any
day care,it's just for the church and "family life"
functions,and that would be all that would be allowed
without coming back before the Commission.
Mr.Lawson responded to the question of drainage by calling
upon Bob Turner,Acting Public Works Director.Mr.Turner
called up the project engineer,Pat McGetrick to review what
they would do to meet ordinance requirements.Mr.McGetrick
stated that in redoing the intersection at Mara Lynn and
Shackleford,they would be reworking the drainage to handle
the run-off from the church site,and thereby reducing
existing problems too.He added that they would meet City
requirements for on site water detention and discharge from
the site.He added that the worst cuts currently anticipated
were 25-30 feet in 10-15%of the site.
Commissioner Downing asked more questions of Mr.McGetrick
regarding the buffers to the residential areas north and
west.Mr.McGetrick replied that the buffer along the north
varies from 60 to 100 feet from the proposed paved area.
Muriel Lewis,architect for the project,added that along
the west side the buffer between the property line and the
paved area would be 40-45 feet.In both buffer areas they
plan to add additional evergreens before construction begins
to help provide a denser visual and sound buffer right from
the beginning.Mr.Lewis explained the concept of the
building and how it would fit in with the grades.The result
would be that there would be at most two floors above grade
and the parking areas would follow the grades as much as
possible.
Commissioner Rahman stated he still needed more information
before he could make a decision.He wanted to see a traffic
study that included the time frame when school is open,
including Wednesday nights,along with the "worse"
conditions,and what the traffic would be like with a
residential R-2 development on this site.He also wanted to
see cross-sections and elevations.
14
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
Commissioner Berry requested that traffic model impacts be
provided for other types of development on the site such as
office,commercial,and multifamily.
Commissioner Faust made the point that if the neighborhoods
want to preserve green space,probably a way to do it is
through City parks or through the neighborhood associations
themselves buying land in order to preserve it as green
space.
Commissioner Rector added that information needed for the
deferred meeting should include,besides traffic studies and
elevations,increased buffer considerations and why the
requested amount of parking is needed.
A motion was made to defer the application to a special
meeting to be held on February 3,2000.The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
A revised site plan for the proposed new Immanuel Baptist
Church was provided to Staff on January 24,2000.The
following information summarizes the major changes in that
plan.The green buffer area to the north and northwest would
be increased to a minimum of 100 feet,with 75 feet of the
northern buffer and about 30 feet of the northwestern buffer
remaining undisturbed.The building roof peak height above
grade would be about 90 feet on the north side and the
building would be approximately 130 feet further to the
south than originally proposed.The steeple height above
grade on the north side would be about 145 feet,or 55 feet
above the roof peak.The two-level parking deck would be
used only on the north side of the building,and one of
those levels would still be below grade.The south parking
area would be at grade and be sloped down to about the same
level as the Kroger parking lot on the south side.The
future additional building that had been shown in the
southeast portion of the property,has been removed and
replaced with at-grade parking.The proposed total parking
has been reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces.(The ordinance
minimum requirement is 625 spaces.)The long parking area
15
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:25 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6784
originally proposed along the entire Shackleford Road
frontage has been removed.There would be a few spaces in
the general area of the front entrance which still faces
Shackleford Road.The footprint of the building would be alittlelongerrunningeast/west,but smaller running
north/south.
16
Gd'pygmy t 7~
MT~~"»
homes (p-~~I+)
walnut valley association
1205 North Shackleford
Little Rock,Arkansas 72211
Mr.Jim Lawson and the Little Rock Planning Commission December 8,1999
723 W Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Mr.Lawson:
I'm writing to voice my concern regarding the conditional use permit applied for by Immanuel Baptist Church
that will be considered at the January 6,2000 meeting of the planning commission.
As President of the Walnut Valley Homeowners Association,there is a major concern that the development of
the property north of Kroger on Shackleford will dramatically impact the value of homes in the area and will no
doubt increase traffic on the two-lane section of Shackleford that runs through the heart of our neighborhood.
The planning commission has been supportive of our efforts in the past when commercial development has
been proposed for the land in question.Even though the zoning restrictions allow the development of a church
in R-2,the size of this proposed development for Immanuel is no doubt of commercial impact.
The issue of development in West Little Rock has been on the mind of many people recently as you'e aware.
The loss of hillsides,buffer zones and gridlocked traffic has quite a number of citizens concerned.Even though
a piece of land is available for development,the "best use"of that piece of land in many instances could be for
it to lay fallow.Both the City and State have recognized this need by making available land classifications that
preserve sections of land for that sole purpose.
I urge you and the Planning Commission to strongly consider the ramifications the approval of the conditional
use permit will have not only on Walnut Valley,but on the surrounding areas as well.A church of this size
with such a large ministry will have a 7 day a week impact in the area.For future consideration,everyone
should be thinking what will happen if and when Immanuel decides to open a private school.
The request on their part for a section of land that parallels I-430 from the Highway Department for a private
drive seems to be an admission that the site doesn't logistically lend itself to the development of this scope.If
their request is approved,it will severely limit the Highway Department's ability to address the concern of
moving traffic from I-430 to I-630 in the future.As you'e aware,Walnut Valley and Shackleford Road has
already suffered by the inability for traffic to access the I-430 and I-630 interchange from Rodney Parham.Mr.
Walters,Chief Engineer for the Highway Department stated to me that the issue of that interchange will be of
concern as growth in Little Rock proceeds westward.
Based on the facts on the preceeding page,I urge the Planning Commission to deny the request for the
development of the 19 plus acres in question.
Dr.Horne in our meeting of November 22 stated that they recognize the site is "already tight."
As their ministry grows and more demands are placed on Immanuel Baptist Church the gridlock already present
at'Shackleford and Markham will continue to grow.
Sincerely,
Russell Lemond,President
copy:Jim Dailey,Mayor and the Little Rock Board of Directors
file
Oppose-a
T4'z-
~~a~)
To:Whom it may concern Nov.26,I999
From:Theron and Andrea Hammer (residents of Walnut Valley)
Re;Needless development of GREEN AREA,between Walnut Valley and 430 Hwy.
The development of this GREEN AREA between Walnut Valley and 430
Highway raises several concerns and one important question!What possible benefit is to
The city of LittleRock and the residents of Walnut Valley could possibly out weigh the
Impacts /concerns?
--Environmental Impact,Wildhfe that is present and would certainly disappear!
Noise buffer from traffic on highway!
Oxygen vs.Fumes!
--Traffic Impact,The already overloaded Shackleford would not be able to
handle the added volume!
Residential Zoning may allow for a Church,but consider that years ago a Church was a
Different animal!Several Churches have evolved into Religious Organizations!,with
Thousands of members and hundreds of Events that require transportation,parking
Garage's etc..Is this what is trying to be crammed into a small residential piece of
property?
--Property Values?Not only in the dollar sense,We bought our house for many
reasons--one of which was the GREEN AREA behind us!
We were pleased that LittleRock had several GREEN AREAS!LittleRock will not be
Considered as a Beautiful city when all of the GREEN AREAS are gone!
I am sure that there are other more suitable sites for an Organization of this Size!That
Would have fewer concerns!
Please Do The Right Thing!Demonstrate "GOOD"Sense and Foresight!
This GREEN AREA could and should be set aside for the current and future generations
To enjoy!
Thank You,
Theron and Andrea Hammer
January t,2000
ITEM NO.:26 FILE NO.:Z-6785
NAME:Chenal Valley Baptist Church
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:Northwest Side of Rahling Road at
Champlin Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Chenal Valley Baptist Church,sale
contract pending /Pat McGetrick
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
new 5 acre church site on the northwest
side of Rahling Road at the intersection
with Champlin Drive,consisting of one
main worship facility with proposed
unspecified future buildings with
accompanying parking,and a future added
parking area in the northeast part of
the property which is Zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the northwest side of Rahling
Road at the intersection with Champlin Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.To
the northwest the zoning is MF 18,Multi-family
Residential.To the north,east and west the zoning is
R-2.The zoning to the south is a mix of C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial,PCD,Planned Commercial
District,and 0-3,General Office.However,at this
time all the land immediately surrounding this site is
undeveloped.
Staff believes this proposed use should be compatible
with this neighborhood.
The Saint Charles Property Owners Association was
notified of the public hearing.
January t.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:26 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6785
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This proposal includes one access point to Rahling Road
at the southwest corner of the property,and reasonable
on site flow.The proposed seating capacity of 225 for
the initial church would generate a parking requirement
of 56 spaces including 3 handicapped spaces.The
proposal shows 141 parking spaces initially,and an
added 145 spaces in the future.The proposed future
750 seat sanctuary in phase two would require 187
parking spaces which is still much less than the total
proposed.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The land use buffer required by ordinance along the
western perimeter is 19 feet full average depth with a
minimum of 12.6 feet.
The required northern land use buffer would be 28
feet full average depth with a minimum requirement of
19 feet.
The revised site plan does meet the above requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many trees as feasible.Extra credit can be given
toward fulfilling ordinance requirements when
preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
b.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.c.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
d.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded
to Traffic Engineering.
2
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:26 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6785
e.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-
186(e)is required.f.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
g.Rahling Road has average daily traffic count of
3,000.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.Contact the fire department
to evaluate the site for possible private or public
hydrants that may be required for this and future
phases.
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve this property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AEKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:If a 3-Phase overhead line is required to
serve this site then,30 foot right-of-way would be
requested around the sides and back of the site.
Contact Entergy for details.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at the
fire department,concerning fire hydrants.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA.Approved
for transit purposes.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a new church complex to be built on this 5 acre R-
2,Single Family Residential zoned property.It would
be a phased development.Initially one building with
141 parking spaces would be built as the main assembly
or worship area.In the future two more buildings would
be added with 145 spaces for additional parking,but.
not enough detail or timing regarding those future
plans is available now,so they are not part of this
3
January ~,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:26 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6785
C.U.P.The church does plan as phase two to move its
primary worship area into what they have labeled as
future building 41 on the site plan.The plan is for
that facility to have a capacity of 750 seats.There
is no explanation given for what future building 42
will be.
The proposal meets all siting requirements;however the
parking seems to be excessive to serve the 225 seating
capacity,especially for the initial phase.Staff
believes the parking should be limited to double the 56
space minimum requirement,or 112 spaces in the first
phase,and then increased to meet future growth as it
occurs.The church will need to come back to the
Commission when they have firmed up plans for the
future buildings.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this
property and should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATZON:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.Limit the parking in phase one to 112 spaces
including the appropriate number of handicapped
accessible spaces.
SUBDZVZSZON COMMZTTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff briefly reviewed the Public Works Comments,
emphasizing lining up the access with Champlin Drive,the
Screening and Buffer comments,emphasizing the buffer
shortages,the signage limitations in a R-2 Zone without
4
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:26 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6785
including signage in the proposal,and exterior lighting
recpxirements if installed.Mr.McGetrick agreed to work on
lining up the access road with the cross street and to
providing a proposal for a sign if the applicant wants one.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation for approval of the revised
site plan including the sign,subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.The conditions include aligning the access road with
Champlin Drive.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
revised to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was ll ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
5
January t,,2000
ITEM NO.:27 FILE NO.:Z-6781
NAME:Telecorp —Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:4500 Alpine Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT:Ralph and Melissa Farish
PROPOSAL:To obtain a tower use permit for a
Wireless Communication Facility with a
300 foot triangular self-supporting
lattice style tower on property zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential,located
south southwest from the current
terminus of Alpine Lane,south of
Colonel Glenn Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located south southwest from the current
terminus of Alpine Lane,south of Colonel Glenn Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,andissurroundedbyR-2 zoning.The area is rural
consisting of mostly large tracts of land which are
either still undeveloped,or contain site-built and/or
manufactured homes on them.There is currently no road
to the proposed site.
Staff believes that given the rural nature of the
proposed site,that even with the style and height of
the proposed tower,the proposal should not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area.
The Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association was
notified of the public hearing.
3 .ON S ITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
An unimproved 1647 linear foot access road would be
constructed to the site from the current terminus of
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:27 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781
Alpine Lane.Proposed parking for maintenance vehicles
would be adecpxate.The site would be unmanned.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No recpxirements at this time.However,should
development occur close to this site in the future,the
site would have to be brought up to the then current
ordinance standards.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comment.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:No sewer service repaired for this
project.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AM(LA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments recpxested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has recpxested a Tower Use Permit to
construct a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)with
a 300 foot triangular self-supporting lattice style
tower with supporting ecpxipment cabinets on a 100x100
foot leased area.
This proposed WCF would recpxire three variances to the
recpxirements in the ordinance development standard.
That is why it has to go before the Commission.Thefirstisforthestyleoftower.They are recpxesting to
use a triangular lattice type tower.The ordinance
2
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:27 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781
calls for monopole style towers.The applicant states
this is needed because of the required height to
provide the service required,and to still be able to
support multiple users.The proposed tower would be
able to hold at least three carriers.That ability
would of course help reduce the need for additional
towers in the area.The second variance is for the 300
foot height.The ordinance limits towers to 150 feet.
The applicant has provided justification from their
engineers that this is the height required to provide
the service needed from a single tower.The third
variance is for reduced setbacks to the west and south.
The ordinance requires the tower be setback from any
abutting residential property the height of the tower.
In this case the reduced setbacks would be 236 feet to
the west and 30 feet to the south.The applicant states
this variance is required to be able to provide the
service needed given the topography of the area and the
point at which the tower needs to be placed to provide
the widest coverage.The equipment location exceeds the
setbacks in all directions.
Staff believes this is a good location to set one tower
which can provide the widest coverage,support multiple
users,and be able to mitigate the impact of this style
and height on the surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances if development occurs adjacent to this
site within the next two years.(See note at end
of this section.)
b.Only sign allowed would be one with a small message
containing provider identification and emergency
telephone numbers.
c.Only lighting allowed would be that required byStateorFederallaw,and that required for safety
and security of equipment.Any lighting must be
down shielded and kept within the boundaries of thesite.
3
January t,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:27 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781
Staff also recommends approval of the three variances
for style,height,and reduced setbacks as proposed.
The applicant should be aware that a new ordinance
passed December 20,1999 will require them to add
fencing and landscaping as described in that ordinance
within the next two years unless they obtain a deferral
or waiver.The applicant has the option to comply now
or within the next two years,or apply now or no later
than in two years for a deferral or waiver.Requesting
a decision now would prevent having to go back through
the Commission at a later date.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Randy Frazier,attorney for Telecorp,was present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description
of the proposal.
The main issue discussed was the need for the variances.Mr.
Frazier explained the justification and stated he would have
that provided in writing to Staff from Telecorp engineers.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Randy Frazier was present representing the application.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff had
received one letter of objection from the property owner
immediately to the south.The Commissioners were given a
copy of the letter and weighed the concerns with the
benefits in making their decision.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under
"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
4
January b,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:27 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
12/17/1999 11:32 1-581-776-5619 TAX COLLECTOR PAGE 82
W TN pn ~2.Q
WwsTI 6~~
1)c«cinbcr 15,1999 /dc@,I(0 ~
('ity ol l.ittlc Rocl;
1'la»ning 4 Development
Attn:.li)n ('nnncll
723 W.Mt)rkht)m St.
l.ittlc R))ck,AR 72207
Nc»t vi;)I'))«simile:371-6863
1&«ur Ji)»:
Wu h')ve )'evicwcd our potential site (we refer to this site as the "Lawson Road"site)and
there nrc»«v«ral reasons why this site must be located where it is.This ridge is a fcw
)»i le»west of l.ittlc Rock's city limits but still remains in Little Rock planning
turi»di«tinn,tt was our intention to move the site as far away from thc metropolitan arcs;»w«c))uld while still serving a currently un-served area of west l.ittle Rock.
1))»)))vc this site any further to the west would create a gap in coverage between it and
&&ur»i to»along 1-430.We would have to Qll in this gap with a new tower located in a
high«r dc»»ity r«sidential area.Because we have stretched our system for this site,the
tow«r»)u»t hc located higher above ground level in order that the signal reach further
t))w:))ii'-430.The 300'all tower meets all needs for RF engineering and enah1es us to
build tl)i»»itc in a largely undeveloped area.
1 )nt'o)'tu»t)tely,the terrain immediately surrounding this site and the property linc running
the l«ng&th ol'thi»ridge require that we ask for a setback variance.'1'hc slope leading up
lo tl)i»»i to is very stccp,and any movement of the tower away from the property line
wot)ld rc»ult in a large drop off.We could move the site down the hill from the property
li»«.hut d&)ing such would require a much taller guyed tower as opposed to thc 300'e1f
»upport tower already proposed.The acreage drops off into a plane of land about 150-
~0(I I'c«t away 1'rom thc current proposal,but with about a 100'rop in elevation.Thus
))»r pn&po»t)1 wou1d have to be changed to a 400'uyed tower along with re-negotiation»
1'or lc:)»ed I;)nd and a much larger impacted area considering the guy wires.
W«loci tlntt the site wc've selected works well considering the area of Pulaski County
wq will hc»crving,and we would be appreciative of the Planning Commission's approval
))f our rc)luc»t.lf you have any additional questions or concerns,please call Chris
Villi))c»:)t 2)SH-S146.
'1)ri»V)linc Lenny Sh erd
/oil)))1!M)ulagcr Radio Frequency Engineer
January 6,2000
ITEM NO.:28 FILE NO.:Z-5889
@%—'on Anderson,Almost Everything
Car Audio
Address:7715 Geyer Springs Road
T e of Issue:Proposed amendment to C-4 zoning
of this tract which included
several conditions.The
applicant is requesting access to
Geyer Springs Road.
STAFF REPORT
On December 28,1994,the Board of Directors passed
Ordinance No.16,824 rezoning the property located at 7715
Geyer Springs Road from R-2 to C-4.The property had been
occupied by several nonconforming,C-3 commercial businesses
including a convenience store and liquor store.The
proposed use in 1994 was an automobile sales lot and it was
necessary to zone the property to C-4 to accommodate that
use.On November 1,1994,the Planning Commission voted 7
ayes,3 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the C-4
zoning.The issue was then forwarded to the Board of
Directors.At the Board level,concerns were raised by
neighborhood residents and some Board members about the
proposed use.In response to those concerns,the applicant
offered several conditions which were made part of the
rezoning ordinance as an attachment.Those conditions were
as follow:
~A new fence to be erected around the site was to be
wrought iron.
~Plant materials were to be added and planted along the
fence.
~There was to be no access from the site to Geyer Springs
Road (access was limited to Young Road).
~There was to be no vehicle display in the first 20 feet of
the required front yard setback.
~Vehicle display on the site was limited to approximately
30 cars.
Copies of the Commission minutes and the Rezoning Ordinance
are attached.
The conditions were met and the site was subsequently
occupied by the automobile sales business.That business
has now vacated the site.
January 6,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:28 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5889
Almost Everything Car Audio has now occupied the site.This
business sells and installs car stereos and truckaccessories.The new owner is now requesting that the
ordinance which rezoned this property be amended to allowdirectaccessontoGeyerSpringsRoad.All other provisionsoftheOrdinancewouldremain.
Staff does not support the proposed amendment.AdequateaccesstothesiteisprovidedfromYoungRoad.The close
proximity of the proposed driveway to the traffic signals at
Geyer Springs/Young Road and Geyer Springs/I-30 wouldobstructthetrafficflowandcouldcreateasafetyconcern.
The proposed new driveway location does not conform to therecentlyadopteddrivewayspacingstandardsofSection31-
210 of the Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested amendment to allow
access to Geyer Springs Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Barbara Thompson,of Almost Everything Car Audio,was
present representing the application.She left the meeting
prior to discussion of the item and did not return.There
were three objectors present.One letter of objection had
been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,explained staff's
concerns about allow access onto Geyer Springs at this
location.He stated that there were traffic safety issues
due to the congestion association with the site's proximity
to the I-30/Geyer Springs interchange.Mr.Carney informed
the Commission that he and Bob Turner and Tad Borkowski of
the Public Works Department had met with Ms.Thompson
earlier,during a break in the Commission meeting,and had
reiterated Staff's opposition to allowing the access to be
opened.
There was no further discussion of the issue.
A motion was made to approve the application,as filed.The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,10 noes and 1 absent.
2
November ,1994
I 4 Z-
Owner:EMRO Marketing Company
Applicant:Gary Johnson
Location:7715 Geyer Springs (at I-30)
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose:Auto Sales
Size:0.49 acres
Existing Use:Vacant building
I B ZO I
North —Commercial,zoned C-3
South —I-30 Right-of-Way,zoned R-2
East —Single-Pamily,zoned R-2
West —Vacant Commercial,zoned C-4
TAP P ANAL Y I
7715 Geyer Springs Road,the northeast corner of I-30 and
Geyer Springs,is zoned R-2.(The site can also be
described as the southeast corner of Young Road and Geyer
Springs Road.)The proposed use is auto sales and rezoningtoC-4 is needed to allow the car lot.The property has
frontage on Young and Geyer Springs and abuts the I-30 off-
ramp.The location has been used several commercial
ventures including a liquor store and a convenience store.
There is one vacant building on the site and the remaining
land area is paved.
Zoning in the area (both sides of the interstate)is R-2,
R-5,0-3,C-3,C-4,I-2 and PCD.The southwest and
northwest corners of the Geyer Springs/Young intersection
are zoned C-4,and the zoning across Young Road is C-3.
Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includessinglefamily,multifamily,office,various types of
commercial uses and industrial.
A C-4 reclassification of this site is compatible with theareaandwillnotaffectanyofthenearbyproperties.The
rezoning conforms to the adopted plan,and there are no
outstanding land use issues.
I
November x,1994
P
ITEM 4 Z-n
E PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the 65th Street East District.The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Commercial.The request is in
conformance with the plan.
E I ERI G MME T
Geyer Springs Road requires a right-of-way of 45 feet fromthecenterline.The existing right-of-way is deficient anddedicationwillberequired.
TAFP RECOMMENDATI
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning.
P ING MMI I A TI (NOVEMBER 1,1994)
The applicant,Gary Johnson,was present.There was oneobjectorinattendance.Mr.Johnson asked that the
opposition be allowed to address the Commission first.
Pam Adcock,Cloverdale Neighborhood Association,spoke andsaidtheresidentshaveproblemswiththeproposedC-4
rezoning and the used car lot.Ms.Adcock then made some
comments about the staff's position and the rezoningprocess.
Ms.Adcock said the neighborhoods did not want a car lot andsaidtheresidentshaveproblemswiththecommercial
development that has happened over the years.
Commissioner Putnam offered some history on the area and
acknowledged that there were some problems.
Pam Adcock spoke again and made some comments about thenotificationprocess.
Tim Polk,Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,offered some comments and said Cloverdale was a very active
neighborhood association.
Gary Johnson spoke and said he was in the process of buyingtheproperty.Mr.Johnson said the site has been vacant anditwasaneyesore.He told the Commission that he was
attempting to clean-up the property and plans to spend
$10,000 to $15,000 to improve it.Mr.Johnson told the
Commission that no auto repair work would take place and
2
November ~,1994
ITEM 4 Z-n
would use the same building.Mr.Johnson thought that he
would have 30 to 40 cars on the property.
Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,made some comments anddiscussedwhatquestionswereappropriate.
There was a lengthy discussion about a number of issues.
Gary Johnson spoke again and agreed to not having any autorepair.
Stephen Giles told the Commission that conditions could not
be placed in the rezoning ordinance because there was noauthoritytodoit.
There were a number of comments made about the proposed use
and other issues.
The Planning Commission then voted on the R-2 to C-4
rezoning request.The vote was 7 ayes,3 nays,0 absent and
1 abstention (R.Woods)to recommend approval of the C-4.
3
0
20
'
0
'
y
SC
A
L
E
IN
FE
E
T
oU
N
G
RO
A
D
NO
R
T
H
CO
»
c
R
E
jE
Z-
S
8
8
9
PL
A
N
T
E
R
S
CR
A
S
S
77
I
S
GE
Y
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
S
RO
A
D
I
~»
fR
k]
CR
A
S
S
R2
TO
C4
!
NE
W
FE
N
C
E
TO
I5
IL
O
W
NE
W
FE
N
C
E
CA
T
E
WR
O
U
G
H
T
IR
O
N
p!
Pg
'
PL
A
N
T
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
TO
BE
AD
D
E
D
8,
PL
A
N
T
E
D
AL
O
N
G
FE
N
C
E
c
',
'
A
U
T
O
DI
S
P
L
A
Y
ST
O
R
Y
!
o~
»
NO
AC
C
E
S
S
TO
NE
W
FE
N
C
E
BL
D
G
.
G
EY
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
S
RO
A
D
AD
D
2
BA
Y
(M
I
N
O
R
I
Do
o
k
s
DE
T
A
I
L
)
'
C4
P
RO
H
I
BI
T
S
OP
E
N
!
GR
A
S
S
DI
S
P
L
A
Y
OF
AN
Y
KI
N
D
PL
A
N
T
I
N
C
S
NE
W
FE
N
C
E
WH
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R
IN
TH
E
FI
R
S
T
20
FT
.
OF
TH
E
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
FR
O
N
T
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
%.
1-
3
0
EX
I
T
RA
M
P
0
30
CA
R
S
goo'g gaPD,HO %.%b ~'pl
C4
PCD ac Qd2
C CP
0 0
~g 0
;3%;
C C3
H H
a.,A
~it
C3
C3 ,qO
Rezoning Request
Z-5889
GEYER SPRINGS 4 I—30
N
T1N R12W 31 t''
pD
13'0.02
Vicinity Map Item No
ORDINANCE NO 16 '8 4
AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS AS C-4 WITH CONDITIONSI
AMENDING SECTION 36 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCKe
ARKANSAS;AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS f
SECTION 1.That the zone classif ication of the following
property be and is hereby changed as indicated:
~Z-~8 —Described as part of the SW 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of Section 31,T-1-N,R-12-W,City of Little
Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas,more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point which is the intersection of
the East right-of-way of Geyer Springs Road and
the South right-of-way of Young Road,and is 18.7
feet South and 30.0 feet East of the NW corner of
the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4,Section 31,T-1-N,R-12-
W;thence S87O11'47"E along the South right-of-way
of Young Road,181.0 feet to a found concrete
filled 2"pipe on the North right-of-way of
Interstate 30;thence N87 17'W,114.4 feet along
said North right-of-way;thence N41 51'W,94.38
feet to the intersection of the East right-of-way
of Geyer Springs Road,thence NO E along said East
right-of-way,64.0 feet to the Point of Beginning,
containing 0.49 acres more or less from R-2 Single
Family to C-4 Open Display.(7715 Geyer Springs).
SECTION 2.That the map referred in Section 36 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock and designated district
map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects
necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in
Section 1 hereof.The conditions are attached to the ordinance
as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3.That the ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED:December 28,1994
ATTEST:APPROVED:
C
City Clerk Rob ie Hancock Mayor J m Dailev
2-68'Z'f
TROY D.LAHA
7 Althea Circle
Little Rock,Arkansas 72209
November 29,1999
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Re:7715 Geyer Springs Road
Gentlemen:
I am opposed to this property being rezoned to C-4 to allow access onto Geyer Springs road.There is not enough distance between the service road for 1-30 and the intersection of GeyerSpringsandYoungRoadforasafeaccess.There is a signal light at the intersection of GeyerSpringsandYoungRoad.The only safe access to this property is from Young Road.
I further request that no vehicles be allowed to parked outside on this property overnight.
Require the parking lot to be stripped and all vehicles be parked in an designated parking space.
I further request that the occupant and owner be required to maintain the Wrought Iron fence
around this property.
Hopefully,the occupant and owner will be happy to comply with the landscape ordinance andthebufferrequirements.No waivers for landscape or buffers be given.
Sincerely,
A ~
Troy D.Laha
Caraudio1 1 I 2799
Item ¹29
Date:January 6,2000.
Name:Crackerbox —Street Improvements Waiver
Location:Northwest corner of West Baseline and Stagecoach Road.
Source:Public Works Staff
STAFFREPORT:
In 1997 applicant filed for building permit to construct Crackerbox Convenience store at
the corner of Baseline and Stagecoach Road.At that time Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department was working on widening Stagecoach Road to five line
arterial standards.Part of the project was to widen 140 feet of Baseline Road,but only
to collector standards (18 feet from centerline).Baseline Road is classified as a principal
arterial on the Master Street Plan.At the time of building permit applicant had the
obligation to widen all adjacent streets to Master Street Plan,construct sidewalk and
provide detention.Applicant for building permit agreed to comply but now has
submitted written request to waive street improvements on Baseline Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Public Works recommends denial of waiver request.There are already existing Master
Street Plan improvements on Baseline Road west of this site and there is need for
improvements with a new 1100 unit apartments and subdivision under construction.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:December 9,1999
Staff informed the Subdivision Committee that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on
December 7,1999 requesting that the item be withdrawn from January 6,2000 Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on December 7,1999
requesting that the item be withdrawn.The Chairman placed the item before the
Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawn.The motion passed
by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nayes.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
n
a
06
~
Co
N
5
K
N
T
PE
~
E
N
D
h
,
J5
Y
C
A
W
~
ME
M
B
E
R
i8
25
~
&
6
l'
I
l
2.
3
5
7A
5(
O
I&
l3
l
4
(C
o
.
l
t7
Z
Z+
Z~
ff
l(
n
lk
l
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
v
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
v
v
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
V'
V
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
v'
v'O
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
v
W
V'A
W
N
,
HE
R
B
v'
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
v
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
s
TI
M
E
IN
A
N
D
T
I
M
E
O
U
T
8
+e
S
C
i~
i
+
iS
Z
Z~
ZZ
.
25
Zg
z7
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
e«
v
v
'
«
~
&
v
~
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
&
~g
&
&~
«&
+
+
&
~
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v'
v
'
«
v
r
~
~
&
«0
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
v'
4
y
e
«v
'
g
~
0
V
v'
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
y'
v
~
«+
«
y
'
y
~
~
/~
4
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
.
&
«A
'L
Ff
6
T,
hl
-f
Q
A
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
~
&
&
+
«
~
&
o
&
~
«
-
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
v
v'
u
'
«
v
'
«
~
«+
0
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
~
Z
o
v'
4
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
w
«
~
«
~
"
««
~
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
v'
A
«
~
«v
«v
'
l
hm
Qc
M
s
K
4
OW
E
R
+o
f
6g
.
|,
7
'
O
~f
K
R
.
2N
D
DE
~
+
-
+o
FE
~
.
K
I
Z
P
,
O
O
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
1:
5
Q
P.
M
.
8
AY
E
~
NA
Y
E
~
AB
S
E
N
T
~A
B
S
T
A
I
N
January 6,2000
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 11:53 p.m.
Date
Chairman reta