HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 24 1993subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION NEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 24,1993
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the July 13,1993 meeting were approved
as mailed.
III.Members Present:Brad Walker,Chairman
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ramsay BallBillPutnam
Ronald Woods
Jim VonTungeln
Joe Selz
Diane Chachere
John McDaniel
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 24,1993
A.Burch and Railey Addition —Preliminary Plat (S-985)
B.Buie Subdivision -Preliminary Plat (8-984)
C.Buie Mini-Storage —Short-form PCD (Z-5703)
D.Springtree village —Amended Short Form PRD (Z-4969-A)
E.Country Club of Little Rock —Conditional Use permit
(Z-5682)
F.pankey New Life Support center —conditional Use permit
(Z-5702)
IT
1.Fellowship Bible Church Offices a Classroom Building —Site
Plan Review (Z-4550-B)
PRE
2.Cherry Creek,Lots 23-26,Block 1 &Lots 70-73,Block 4
Preliminary Plat (S-722-F)
3.David Wilkerson Subdivision —Preliminary Plat (8-987)
4.The Oasis —Preliminary Plat (8-988)
5.Fairview park —preliminary Plat (S-989)
6.Chamonix Sguare —Preliminary Plat and Abandonment of Wilson
Street,Henderson Street,Rodgers Steet,and Anglin Street
(S-990)
T
7.6420 Mabelvale Cut-off —Short-form POD (z-5715)
8.6300 Forbing Road —Long-form PID (Z-5718)
9.4607 Hoffman Road —Short-form PCD (Z-5720)
Agenda,8/24/93,Continued
10.10825 Hermitage Road —Short-form PCD (Z-5722)
11.Woodlake village Apartments —Long-form pRD and Exclusive
Abandonment of a portion of Caulden Drive and of North Drive
(Z-2729-E)
12.Iowe's Home Center —Iong-form PCD and Exclusive Abandonment of
Alhambra Drive,Bristol Drive,Shadecrest Drive,a portion of
Alamo Circle,and a portion of Chenal Parkway (Z-5719)
P
13.Steve's Speed and Truck Accessories —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-2477-B)
14.Victory Fellowship Church —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3150-F)
15.Arch Street Church of Christ —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3844-A)
16.Fellowship Bible Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5403-B)
17.Fellowship Bible Church Parking Lot —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5713)
18.old Land Mark House of prayer —conditional Use Permit
(Z-5714)
19.Circuit City —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5716)
20.Caulder Manufactured Home —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5717)
21.Caradine Accessory Dwelling -Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5721)
22.Unnamed Arterial —Exclusive Right-of-way Abandonment(0-23-191)
August 24,1993
KQR -RAILEY 'ADDITION —PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION:The north-east corner of Stagecoach Road and SusieLane
QIKLRQPJK:RIQXHIII:
J.D.RAILEY CHARLIB MILLER ENQINBBRINQ5915PaloAltoDr.1500 Aldersgate Rd.Little Rock,AR 72209 little Rock,AR 72205565-5374 225-7106
.0432 ACRBS :1 :None
R-2 ZRQRQSRKJINI:Single-familY Residential
P 10
Qmam CBAQX:24.06v:Relief from the requirement to makeimprovementstoSusieLaneandtoconstructasidewalkalong theSusieLanefrontage.
The applicant proposes a one-lot subdivision in order toconstructaresidenceonlandhepurchasedinMarch,1993.NoimprovementstothestreetorconstructionofasidewalkalongtheSusieLanefrontageareproposed.Approval of the Board ofDirectorsforawaiverofstreetimprovementsandsidewalkconstructiononSusieLaneissought.
A.
Approval by the planning Commission is requested for aone-lot subdivision in order for the applicant to constructaresidence.Approval of the Board of Directors for awaiverofstreetimprovementsandsidewalkconstruction ofSusieLaneisrequested.
B.
The existing site is undeveloped and overgrown with treesandnaturalvegetation.The site is currently zoned "R-2",as is all the surrounding area.Susie Lane is an open ditchrural-type "chip seal"street which dead-ends at the westedgeofthesubjectproperty.
August 24,1993
KlRDXXXSLQH
C.
The Engineering Division comments that the right-of-way forSusieLaneneedstobededicated.One half of Susie Laneneedstobeimprovedtostandard,and a sidewalk needs to beconstructed.
Water Works reports that a water main extension will herequiredwithanacreagechargeof$1S0.00 per acre heingapplicable.
Wastewater Utility reports that sewer ie available.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.and the Fire Department have
approved the submittal without comment.
D.
The tract represented hy the application was created hy asalewhichtookplaceinMarchof1993.This division ofthepropertyconstitutedanillegalsuMivision.The oneloteuMivisionassubmitted,then,is not appropriate.Thelargertractfromwhichthistractwasderivedistobeincludedinaplat,with the property shown in the currentapplicationheingoneofthelots.
The plat,as submitted,is incomplete:the PreliminaryCertificateofSurveyingACCuracyisinCOmylete;theVicinityMayisinsufficient;adjacent subdivisions,withthebookandpagenumberoftheirrecording,or,when thepropertyhasnotbeensubdivided,the names of adjacentpropertyownersmustbeshownontheplat;the width of thestreetright-of-way and width of the pavement are to be
shown;and,the zoning classification of the site is to beshown.
hEALXQIak:
The item hae major deficiencies.The applicant is the owneroftheonelot.The yerson from whom this applicant broughtthetractneedstocorrectthematteroftheillegalsuMivisionofhispropertyyriortoactionheingtakenonthesubjecttract.
Susie Lane ie a dead-end short section of street.It isreasonable,then,to give the recreated relief from therequirementtoconstructthestreetandbuildasidewalk.
a
August 24,1993
KRlKYZRZQH
F.
Staff recommends deferral of this item pending anapplicationforapreliminaryplatontheentire tract from
which this item was taken.Staff recommends approval of thewaiverfromtherequirementstoconstructthestreetandthesidewalk.
(June 24,1993)
Mr.charlie Miller,the project engineer,was present.Staffoutlinedtheconcernsregardingtheillegalsubdivisionoflandwhichoccurredandwhichproducedthesubjectproperty.
Mr.Miller responded that he had met with the owner of theoriginaltract,and that he would attempt to complete documentstoamendtheapplicationbythedateoftheCommissionhearing.
The Committee reviewed the deficiencies noted in the discussionoutline,and Mr.Miller indicated that he would make the neededcorrections.The Committee forwarded the item to the PlanningCommissionforfinalresolutionwiththeunderstandingthat
amended drawings and an amended application would be furnished atthattime.
(JULY 13,1993)
Mr.Charles Miller,the engineer for this item,waspresent.Staff indicated that there had been noresolutionofthedeficienciesnotedinparagraph -D-,
"ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN",AND "E ,"ANAIYSIS"above,
and discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting.Mr.Millerreportedthathehadgainedapprovaltoincludethetractfromwhichthesinglelothadbeenderivedinthesubdivisionplat,and would present a revised plat as required.Mr.Miller askedthattheitembedeferredtoallowhimtimetocompletethedrawings.The deferral was approved by the commission with10eyesandnonays.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant has amended the request to include the tract fromwhichtheoriginallysubmittedlotwasderived,and has changedthenamefromthe"Railey's Addition"to the "Burch and RaileyAddition".The lot on Stagecoach Road,owned by Mr.Burch,willrequirethededicationofanadditional15feetofright-of-wayforStagecoachandmakingan"in-lieu"payment for futureimprovementstoStagecoach.Mr.Burch requests a waiver from therequirementtodedicateright-of-way and the imposition of the
3
August a4,1993
KQRXXXRZQH
"in-lieu"payment,since,he reports,the State is planning to
buy the right-of-way and reconstruct Stagecoach Road in the nearfuture.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval of thePreliminaryPlat.Staff reported that the applicant had
submitted all exhibit requirements,but has indicated that he isunwillingtodedicateright-of-way on Shackleford Road or to make
an "in-lieu"payment for future Shackleford Road improvements.Staff also reported that approval of the Preliminary Plat would
need to be contingent on approval by the Board of Directors of awaiveroftherequirementsforstreetimprovementsandsidewalkconstructiononSusieLaneandawaiveroftherequirementsforright-of-way dedication,street improvements,and sidewalkconstructiononShacklefordRoad.Commissioners wanted to verifythatanaffirmativevoteforthepreliminaryplatdidnotconstitutearecommendationofapprovalofthewaivers;Staffindicatedthatitdidnot.The preliminary plat was approved intheapprovaloftheConsentAgendawiththevoteof11eyesandnonays.
4
August 24,1993
4
gggg:BUIE SUBDIVISION —PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION:The southeast corner of Shackleford Road and Colonel
Glenn Road
QE)gg ~g:3%9IHIER:
CHARLBS BUIB PAT MCGBTRICR¹5Wingate Drive 11225 Huron LaneLittleRock,AR 72205 Little Rock,AR 72211
225-0765 223-9900
11.42 ACRBS :2 :111
~I :R-2 &C-3 on entire ZKQPQQ5~55:Bxisting use totract.Bxisting zoning to remain on Tract 1.Lot 2 use
remain on Tract 1.Lot 2 zoning is proposed to be a mini-
reguest for PCD pending.storage facility.
I TRI T:12
MKQQ~R~A T:24.05
None
The applicant proposes the platting and subdivision of his
property in order to sell the south Lot 1 tract for development
of a mini-storage facility.The larger "Tract A"is proposed to
be retained for future development.
A.T:
Approval of the Planning Commission is reguested for the
proposed Buie Subdivision preliminary plat.The larger"Tract A"consists of 8.061 acres and is to be retained bytheapplicantforfuturedevelopment;the smaller Lot 1,a3.359 acre tract,is proposed to be sold for development as
a mini-storage facility.No variances are requested.
B.
The entire tract is currently being used as a junk yard.Itisunfencedandisaneyesore.Car,truck,and bus shells
and parts litter the site.The site is overgrown with
weeds.There are a great many trees on the site.
August 24,1993
9gg~vgg
The tract is currently zoned "C-3"for most of the frontage
along Colonel Glenn Road.The tract along Shackleford is
zoned "R-2".Immediately to the north and west are "R-2"
zoned parcels.To the north is also "I-2"lands to the ease
and south is all "I-2".
C.I
Little Rock Engineering commenta that the Master Street Planwillrequirethededicationof30feetforright-of-way on
Colonel Glenn Road and 5 feet on Shackleford Road.Street
improvements will be required along both streets for PinalPlatapproval.Engineering also notes that the location ofthePAQISmonumentsisrequiredtobeshownontheplat.
Water Works reports that a pro-rata charge for water servicewillbeapplicable.Charges are $15.00 per foot for Lot 1;
$2.50 per foot for property that has frontage exclusively on
Colonel Glenn Road.Tract "A"charges for property with
frontage on Shackleford or Colonel Qlenn are $2.50,$9.00,
and/or $15.00 per foot.On-site fire protection will berequired.
wastewater Utility relates that the 8"sewer main shown ontheplatisnotpartoftheLittleRockwastewaterSystem
and cannot be used for sewer service.A sewer mainextensionwillberequiredwitheasements.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.reports that additional
easements are required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.,ARKLA,and the Pire
Department have approved the submittal without comment.
D.
The preliminary plat,as submitted,is incomplete.Theborderofthedesignated"Tract A"is not indicated with therequiredheavyholdline.Ownership information of theadjacentland,or,where appropriate,any plattedsubdivisionswhichadjointheparcel,along with the book
and page number of their recording,are not shown.Theexistingzoningclassificationofthetractisnotshown.
The location of the edge of the existing street pavement isnotshown.
E.AEELXQXR:
The junk yard and storage of wrecked vehicles and parts is anon-conforming use which was in existence when the area wasannexed.soning Enforcement has been seeking to abate the
2
August 24,1993
KlRQZYZSXQH
unsightly conditions.The owner of the land,in making thisapplication,is beginning the first step in ending this junkyarduseoftheproperty.The subdivision is made necessaryinordertosellthepropertyalongShacklefordRoadfor
development as a mini-storage facility.
F.
Staff recommends approval of the application.Staff iseagertohavethispropertydevelopedandcleanedup.
B VI T MMB (June 24,1993)
Mr.Bob McFarlane,the owner's representative,and Mr.patMcQetrick,the engineer of this project,were present.StaffpresentedtheitemandMr.McFarlane and Mr.McQetrick presentedtheowner's proposal.Mr.McFarlane indicated that he had metwithwastewaterUtilitypersonnelatthesiteandtheyhadinvestigatedthesewerwhichWastewaterUtilityindicatesisnottheirs.Mr.McFarlane reported that,indeed,the sewer main andmanholeareinplaceandthatwastewaterUtilityhasacknowledgedthatthesewerwillbeaccepted.The Committee reviewed the platandthediscussionoutlinecommentsandQuestionedtheapplicant's representatives.The Committee then forwarded theitemtotheCommissionforfinalresolution.
P I I A (JULY 13,1993)
This item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to theAugust24,1993 hearing date.The applicant had submitted aletteraskingforthedeferral,and this letter had been receivebystaffinsufficienttimetomeettheBylawsreguirementforinclusionontheConsentAgendafordeferral.The deferral waspassedbytheCommissionintheapprovaloftheConsentAgendawiththevoteof10ayesandnonays.
P T (AUQUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval,andthePreliminaryPlatwasapprovedwiththevoteforapprovaloftheConsentAgendawiththevoteof11ayesandnonays.
3
August 24,1993
IT 7
5ggE:BUIE MINI-STORAGE -SHORT FORM PCD
LOCATION:The east side of Shackleford Road,500 feet south of
Colonel Glenn Road
UDKRLQRKE:RKQZHIKR:
CHARLES BUIE PAT MCGETRICK¹5Wingate Dr.McGetrick EngineeringLittleRock,AR 72205 11225 Huron Lane
225-0765 Little Rock,AR 72211
223-9900
~AR :3.359 ACRES :1 :None
R-2 &ZRQPQQIIL3gR:Mini-storage facilityc-3 to PcD
D RI T:12
QEm~aaCX:a4.0s
I RE E TED:None
T F
The applicant proposes to develop a mini-storage facility on a
3.359 acre tract to be constructed in two phases.The first
phase is proposed to include three mini-storage buildings and a
temporary office building.The second phase is to involve the
construction of three additional mini-storage buildings.As part
of the Phase II development,a permanent office/manager'8
apartment is proposed to be constructed as an addition to one of
the mini-storage Phase I buildings and the removal of the
temporary office building.It is proposed that the temporaryofficebuildinghaveaself-contained chemical-type toiletfacilityinlieuofbeingconnectedtoasewerline.
A.E T:
Review by the planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is reguested for the establishment of a short-
form pcD for the Buie Mini-Storage facility.The applicant
proposes the development of the facility in two phases over
an approximate two-year time period.The first phase is
proposed to commence this calendar year and is to entail the
construction of three storage buildings and a temporaryofficebuilding.The second phase is to involve the
construction of three additional buildings and the
construction of the permanent office/manager'8 apartment
August 24,1993
K/RDXVVXQH
facility.The applicant proposes to utilize a self-
contained chemical toilet facility in the temporary office
building during this first.year of the Phase I occupancy and
remove the temporary office when the permanent
office/manager's apartment is constructed as part of PhaseII.
B.
The site is presently a non-conforming junk yard,withvehiclesandvehiclepartsscatteredoverthesite.Therearetreesandhighgrassoverthesite.The west 110 feet(+/-)is zoned R-2.The east part of the tract is zonedC-3.Property to the north,east,and south is zoned I-2.
Part of the property to the north,and property to the westiszonedR-2.
C.I I T
The Engineering Division reports that improvements to
Shackleford Road will be required.Engineering notes that
the Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply.
water works indicates that a pro-rata charge of 815.00 perfootisapplicable.On site fire protection is required for
Phase II.
Wastewater Utility reports that the 8"sewer main which is
shown on the site plan is not part of the I ittle Rock
Wastewater System and cannot be used for sewer service.A
sewer main extension,with easement,will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.will reguire additional
easements.
ARKLA and the pire Department have approved the submittalwithoutcomment.
D.8 I
The application is incomplete:the required narrative hasnotbeenfurnished.
The site plan is incomplete:the topographic cross section
map is not furnished;the landscape plan/buffer plan isomitted;the source of title is missing;the vicinity map isomitted;the certifications by the surveyor and engineer areomitted;the pAGIS monuments are not shown;and the existing
zoning classifications are not indicated.
2
August 24,1993
RRDZKKZQH
E hHhhXSXR:
Completed drawings and a comprehensive narrative need to be
furnished.The deficiencies noted are not so substantial
that they cannot be furnished within the time frame allowed.
The applicant requests approval to utilize a chemical-typetoiletinthetemporaryoffice.It is anticipated that the
second phase of the project will be constructed one yearafterthefirstphaseisdeveloped,and the temporary office
and toilet facility will be replaced with permanentfacilitiesatthattime.
F.T
Staff recommends approval of the PCD application,contingent
upon the applicant correcting the deficiencies noted.A one
year limit for use of the temporary toilet facility should
be set.
EE (June 24,1993)
Mr.Bob McParlane,representing the applicant,and Mr.Pat
McGetrick,engineer on the project,were present.Staff
presented the item and Mr.McParlane outlined the proposal.
Mr.McParlane indicated that he had met with Wastewater personnelatthesiteandhadreviewedwiththemthestatusofthesewer
main at the southwest corner of the property.Mr.McParlane
indicated that Wastewater was accepting the sewer as one that
they would maintain and permit the development to tie onto.
Mr.McFarlane presented the request to utilize the temporary
chemical toilet for the duration of the first phase of theproject.The Committee reviewed with the applicant's
representative and with the engineer the deficiencies cited in
the discussion outline.It was agreed by Mr.McFarlane and
Mr.McOetrick that these deficiencies would me corrected.The
Committee referred the item to the Commission for a recommenda-
tion to the Board of Directors.
MMI I (JULY 13,1993)
This item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
August 24,1993 hearing date.The applicant had submitted aletteraskingforthedeferral,and this letter had been receive
by staff in sufficient time to meet the Bylaws requirement for
inclusion on the Consent Agenda tor deferral.The deferral was
passed by the Commission in the approval of the Consent Agenda
with the vote of 10 eyes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
KIRRXYXRXQH
SXhZL3lH2hTX:
The applicant has determined that sewer service is not readily
available to the site,that the nearest main is over 300 feet
away.When sewer service is further away than 300 feet,a
property owner can elect to utilise a private sewage disposal
system.and this developer has chosen to pursue this course.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval,and
the establishment of the Short-form PCD was recommended to the
Board of Directors for approval with the vote to approve the
Consent Agenda of 11 ayes and no nays.
4
August 24,1993
-A
5ggg:SPRINGTREE VILLAGB —AMBNDBD SHORT-PORN PRD
LOCATION:11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive
2KYRLQPIR:
ROBBRT A.AND M.SUB PURIPOY
11701 Springtree DriveLittleRock,AR
562-1896
.165 and .118 ACRBS B 2:0~I:PRD ~R RQ~D Egg:Residential
DI TR :15
gEHKIS 'ZBhQX:41.06
V E :None
The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing PRD in ordertomakethefollowingmodificationstopropertiestheapplicant
has purchased:
1.At 11701 Springtree Drive,install a metal patio cover
over the existing concrete patio,fence the rear yard,
move the rear building line from the location platted
to coincide with the rear open space and utility
easement,and construct a metal storage building 3 feetofftherearandsouthpropertylines.
2.At 11711 Springtree Drive,install a metal patio cover
over the existing concrete patio and fence the rear
yard.
A.R
Review by the Planning Commission and a favorable
recommendation to the Board of Directors for an amendment to
the existing PRD is requested.The applicant requests
approval to cover existing concrete patio slabs with metalpatiocoversatthetworesidences,to fence the back yardsatbothresidences,and to relocate the rear building line
and construct a storage building at the rear of the property
on one of the residences.
August 24,1993
ZIRDZYZBZQH
B.I
Both sites are developed,with a single family residence
located on each.The sites are located within the
Springtree Village PRD.This PRD was established in 1988,
but only a few residences have been constructed in the area.
This applicant has purchased two of the existing residences,
one being the model home/sales office and has constructed
metal patio covers over the existing concrete patios.
Zoning Enforcement noted the illegal work and the applicantisattemptingtogainapprovalfortheworkanticipatedas
well as the work already done.
C.TI
Engineering made no comment on the reguest.
The Pire Department approved the request as submitted.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Arkansas louisiana
Gas Company approved the plate as submitted.
D.
On the site of 11701 Springtree Drive,the applicant
requests relocating the rear building line from the location
platted to coincide with the rear 30 foot open space andutilityeasement.At the same time,the applicant requeststobeabletoconstructastoragebuilding3feetoffthe
rear and south property lines,this within the 30 foot
easement.Either the storage building must be located
outside the 30 foot easement or the easement will have to be
abandoned at that location.
E-hHILXiRZR:
when a PUD site plan is approved,the features shown make upthescopeofwhatisallowedtobeconstructedorplacedon
the site.any modifications must be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the PUD must
be approved by the Board of Directors.The applicant
requests approval of a modification to the existing pRD.
P.
Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications totheexistingPRD,except to the placing of the storage
building in the open space and utility easement.Modifyingoforabandoningthiseasementisnotrecommended.
2
August 24,1993
RURDJZJJiXQH
T
(MAY 13,1993)
The applicant nor a representative was present at the Subdivision
Committee meeting.Staff presented the reguest and outlined the
desired modifications to the approved site plan.The Committee
noted that a 13.4 foot side yard on 11711 Springtree Drive and
with the "zero"lot line configuration of the PRD (meaning that
the house next door would be located just 10.3 feet from the
north side of this residence),the patio cover would be only3.4 feet from the next house.No recommendation was proposed,
and the Committee referred the item to the full Commission for
resolution.It was suggested,however,that a less cumbersome
means of allowing buyers to make minor changes to the existing
PRD should be implemented by the developer:possibly amending
the Bill of Assurance to that effect.
MM I (JUNE 1,1993)
Mrs.Sue Purifoy,the applicant,and Mr.Scot Goldsholl,her
attorney,were present to present the proposed amendments to the
PRD.Staff outlined the proposal and indicated that a letter had
been received from the developer,Winrock Development,indicatingtheirconcernsintheapplication;specifically,that theyobjectedtoanyencroachmentintothedesignatedopenspace,but
did not object to covering the concrete patios with metal patiocovers.Mr.Goldsholl presented the explanation that the
Purifoys had bought two homes in Springtree Village PRD
approximately one year ago:11701 Springtree Drive where the
Purifoys reside,and 11711 which they lease to a tenant.
Mrs.Purifoy explained that right after they had purchased theresidences,they began what they perceived to be the appropriate
means of gaining approval to make the modifications they wishedtomake.They contacted Winrock and talked with Rick Rogers of
Winrock who came to their home and reviewed with them their
reguested changes.They made numerous attempts to follow up with
Winrock on their reguest,Mrs.Puriofy reported,but to date,
nearly ten (10)months later,Winrock still has not responded.
According to the Bill of Assurance,Mrs.Purifoy explained,if
the developer does not respond within thirty (30)days,the
reguested changes are deemed to be approved and the property
owner may proceed.Therefore,the Purifoys added the metal
covers at the patios in November of 1992.Zoning Enforcement
personnel,however,noted the additions and have under taken
enforcement proceedings against the Purifoys.Gaining approvalofthemodificationswhichhavealreadybeenconstructed,as well
as the additional modifications which are desired is the requestpresented.
3
August 24,1993
RR91YLRXQH
n 'n
Mr.Goldsholl explained that at 11701 Sgringtree Drive,the
Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio
covers be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the
two side property lines and from the residence out to the north
property line;be allowed to move the rear building line east to
coincide with the open space and utility easement line at the
rear of their property;and,additionally,gain approval for the
placing of a metal storage building at the rear of the property
(within the open space and utility easement)three (3)feet off
the rear and south property lines.At 11711 Springtree Drive,
Mr.Goldsholl explained that the Purifoys wish to gain approval
for the now existing metal patio cover;and,be allowed to fence
the rear yard with fences along the two side lot lines and from
the side of the house to the north to the side lot line.Mrs.
Purifoy added that the reguest to move the rear building line
back to the easement line was in order to provide the space
needed for a planned future expansion of their residence.
Chairman walker made the observation that he wondered if this
item was being thought about properly:should the Bill of
Assurance be the proper recourse for the Purifoye,or should the
PRD be amended?He cautioned Mrs.Purifoy,though,that simply
relocating the building line would not provide the clearance
needed to make the planned addition to the residence;that
further site plan review would be reguired when glans are
completed.
Staff commented that the concept of the Sgringtree village PRD
was for small lot affordable housing with designated open space
and no outbuildings and cargorts.If changes are made and the
open space is encroached upon,there is a difference "picture"
created.Staff stated that the established and approved PRD site
plan is the controlling instrument as to what is permitted in the
PRD.
Mrs.Purifoy added that that of the thirty-three lots in the
suMivision,there are approximately ten (10)which are
developed;that the residents are predominantly low income people
who cannot afford to go through the process which they are
undertaking to gain approval of modifications,but that a number
of other people in the suMivision want to make similar
modifications;that the next door neighbor to their home at
11701 Springtree Drive will be going "50-50"on the cost of the
fence between them;that the neighbor to the east in the adjacent
suMivision has already erected the fence at the rear,at the
east edge of the open space-utility easement;that vandalism andtheftshavemadeaddingthefencesanimportantreguest)and,
that the builder who had originally built the houses in the
subdivision had erected fences and patio covers,and had placed a
4
August 24,1993
RUBDXYXRXQH
n n
storage building in the open space easement when he built at
least one other house.The Purifoys,then,felt that what the
builder had done himself,they and others in the PRD ought to be
able to do,as well.
Thoughts from various Commission Members and from Staff followed.It was suggested that there might be a possibility of property
owners forming a Property Owners Association to present a
comprehensive application to modify the pRD.It was questioned
whether there ought to be enforcement on this level of detail.It was reiterated that maintaining the open space concept was
paramount in this PRD to keep the "look"of the basic concept.
Mrs.Purifoy responded that the rest of the property owner-
residents of the PRD want similar changes,but cannot afford to
pursue the required process.As the same time,she added,she
and her husband should not bear the costs for legal and filing
fees for the entire subdivision and the other residents.
From comments from most of the Commissioners,the consensus
emerged that the Commission is unwilling to deal with an
application from an individual property owner within a pRD onspecificitemsformodificationonthatpropertyowner's
individual lot;that the Commissioners want to look at a combined
comprehensive request;and,that the Commissioners would prefer
to defer consideration of the request to allow further thought
and study,and to allow the applicant to bring in a group request
from the neighborhood.
Mrs.Purifoy recounted that she and her husband were being
required to bear the burden of the costs for the comprehensive
request.A motion was made by the Commission,however,to defer,
with the applicants concurrence,consideration of the matter
until the June 15,1993,hearing date;that in the interim,theStaffhelpthePurifoysandtheirneighborsformulatean
appropriate and comprehensive application for the Commission's
review.The motion carried with 9 eyes and 0 nays.
2XhKF~hXI:
There has been no resolution of the impasse which as arisen.
Winrock has not agreed to amend its requirements and the Bill of
Assurance and staff is not amenable to a recommendation that the
open space designation be changed to permit encroachment intothatarea.
5
August 24,1993
SUDRZXXRXQH
(AUGUST a4,1993)
The applicant,Mrs.sue purifoy and her attorney,Mr.ScotGoldsholl,were present.Staff outlined the reguest,butdeferredtoMr.Goldsholl who had indicated that the ayylicantwishedtoamendherreguest.Mr.Goldsholl reported that theapplicantwishedtolimitherreguesttoapyrovalofthemetalpatiocoversonly,and to delete from her reguest for approval ofthefencingandportablestoragebuilding.Mr.GoldshollreportedthatWinrockhadagreedtoamendtheBillofAssurancetopermitthemetalpatiocoversifapprovedbytheCity.Winrock,however,was unwilling to permit the fencing and storagebuildingsinthePRD,Mr.Goldsholl indicated.Mr.Goldshollrelatedthatthemetalpatiocovershadbeeninstalledin1992,and that approval was being sought to allow the two covers toremaininplace;that the two covers were the subject ofenforcementactionwhichwaspending.
The Commission discussed at length the merits of considering thisapplicationasanindividualapplicationasopposedtoonewhichwouldbeonbehalfoftheentirepRD.There was a desire on thepartoftheCommissiontokeepfromhearingsimilarreguestsbyeachownerofalotinthePRD,and,instead,recommend approvalofpatiocoversforeachlot.The City Attorney indicated that,if the entire PRD were being amended,the applicant would have tobeorincludewinrock.At this time,only the two lots owned bytheapplicantscouldbeconsidered.Staff reported that the PRDwasestablishedtocontroldevelopmentonthesmalllotsandtoretainopenspace.If a blanket approval for coverings weregranted,without review,it would not be long before there wouldbenosideyards.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval to the BoardofDirectorsoftheapplicant's reguest for an amendment to the
PRD for the two lots owned by the applicant to permit to permitthemetalcoveringspreviouslyinstalledovertheconcretepatiostoremain.The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes and1naY.
6
August 24,1993
Country Club of Little Rock—
Conditional Use Permit
JaQCEXXQH:4200 Country Club Blvd.
Country Club of Little Rock/
H.Terry Rasco,Agent
ZRQZQShIa:A conditional use permit is
reguested to allow for the
construction of an indoor tennis
facility,several new golf holes
and a rest room facility on the
existing,R-2 soned,238 acre
Country Club of Little Rock
property.
RD B T
1.'
The Country Club of Little Rock is generally located at the
east end of Country Club Blvd.,north of Cantrell Road and
south of the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
right-of-way.
2.ih i rh
The Country Club of Tittle Rock has long been a fixture in
the Heights neighborhood.
Although adjacent to several single family residential
neighborhoods,the property of the Country Club is primarily
open space and park-like in appearance,devoted mostly to
the large open areas of the golf course.
The only aspect of this proposed project which could have a
possible impact on the adjacent residences is the indoor
tennis facility.It will be a large structure and may have
a visual impact on those residences to the south and
southwest.The tennis facility itself is compatible with
the continued use of the property as a country club with itsassociatedfacilities.With proper attention to screeningthisstructure,the proposed improvements should be
compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods.
3.riv
Associated with the indoor tennis facility is a new 36 space
parking lot which,when added to the number of existing
spaces on the Country Club grounds,should be sufficient to
August 24,1993
KRl2XYXRZQH
meet the club's parking needs.Parking lot lighting should
be low level,directional,aimed away from adjacentresidences.
4.
The majority of the new tennis facility and parking lot willbescreenedfromresidencestothewestbytheexistinglandscapingandbytheopaquewindscreenonthewestperimeteroftheexistingoutdoortenniscourts.
Due to the severe change in elevation,it appears that thesouthwalloftheproposedtennisfacilitywillbe40'eettallandwillhaveavisualimpactonresidencestothesouthandsouthwest.increased plantings,particularly offastgrowingevergreentreesandshrubs,should beconsideredonthesouthandsouthwestofthenewtennisfacilitytoprovideascreenandlessenthevisualimpact ofthestructure.
The new parking lot will have to comply with the City'8
Landscape Ordinance.
5.i n r
No comments
6.
Contact Little Rock Municipal Water WOrks to discuss howwaterservicewillbeprovidedtotheproposedrestroomfacility.
7.hg~iA'R
Staff feels that the proposed improvements are anappropriatelanduseontheexistingCountryClub of LittleRockproperty.
Of the improvements proposed,staff's concern centers on theindoortennisfacilityandthenewparkinglot.Due to theproximityoftheresidencessouthandsouthwest,attentionmustbegiventoprovidingadequatescreeningandbuffering.The applicant should provide greater detail of plans tolessenthevisualimpactofthisstructureontheadjacentresidences.
8.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject tocompliancewiththeCitY's Landscape Ordinance and screeningandbufferingtothesouthandsouthwestoftheproposed
a
August 24,1993
kURRXX~I 8
T
tennis facility to lessen the visual impact on the adjacent
residential properties.
(MAY 13,1993)
Terry Rasco was present representing the Country Club of Little
Rock.Mr.King,the manager of the club,was also present.Staff presented the item and outlined the following items of
concern.
1.Provide a detailed screening plan for the parking lot and
other new use areas.
2.Provide a cross-section through the site showing building
elevations.
3.Show site treatment on cuts and fills.
4.Provide details of landscape/buffer plan.
Discussion centered on the possible visual impact of the proposed
tennis center on adjacent residences.
Mr.Rasco stated that the existing tennis screen,on the west
side of the existing outdoor tennis courts,would provide
adeguate screening for those residences across Country Club Lane.
He further stated that there is an existing area of woods to the
southwest of the proposed building which would provide some
screening.
Mr.Rasco informed the Committee that due to the required cutintothehillsideforconstructionofthetennisfacility,the
actual ridge line of the building will be 35 feet or less above
grade.
He indicated that the selection of materials and colors for the
building will be such as to lessen the visual impact.
A committee member guestioned the proposed lighting for the
parking lot.It was decided that any lighting should be lowlevel,directional lighting aimed away from adjacent residences.
Mr.Rasco was asked to provide a cross-section of the site and he
agreed to do so.
After further discussion,the Committee forwarded this item tothefullCommissionforfinalresolution.
3
August 24,1993
RUKDDXZRZQH
n
(JUNB 1,1993)
Chairman Walker stepped down,prior to discussion of this item.Vice Chairman Chachere presided.
Terry Rasco was present representing the Country Club of Little
Rock.There were numerous objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and astaffrecommendationofapprovalsubjecttocompliancewith theCity's Landscape Ordinance and screening and buffering to the
south and southwest of the proposed tennis facility to lessen thevisualimpactontheadjacentresidentialproperties.
Terry Rasco then addressed the Commission in support of theproposal.He stated that he felt the proposed use was compatiblewiththeneighborhoodandthecontinueduseofthepropertyasacountryclub.He stated that the primary issue was mitigation ofthevisualimpactoftheproposedtennisfacilityonadjacentproperties.
Mr.Rasco stated that he had recently visited Newport,RhodeISlandandhadobservedatenniscenteratthatlocation.HepresentedaphotographoftheRhodeIslandfacilityandexplained
how he would use similar materials and building design to lessentheimpactoftheproposedtennisstructure.Mr.Rasco presentedseveralphotosanddrawingsshowingproposedlandscapingtreatmentandbuildingdesignandcolorthathefeltwouldmitigatethevisualimpactofthestructureonadjacentproperties.
Mr.Rasco continued by explaining that the Country Club of LittleRockhadagreedtorebuildanexistingrockwallalongCountryClubLane.The Country Club would also heavily landscape alongCountryClubLane,including shrubbery and trees to help screentheexistingfacilitiesaswellasanyproposedimprovements.
Mr.Rasco stated that the Country Club had agreed to repair andrestoretherockwall,but will do the landscaping only if theproposedtenniscenterisbuilt.
Mr.Herbert Rule,of 2000 Country Club lane,then addressed theCommissioninoppositiontotheproposedtenniscenter.Mr.Rulestatedthathewasrepresentingseveralneighborswhowerealsoinoppositiontotheproposedtenniscenter.He stated that hefeltthenoticerequirementhadnotbeenproperlymet.
Mr.Rule then presented a series of slides showing the negativeimpactwhichhefelttheproposedtenniscentercouldhaveon theadjacentresidences.
4
August 24,1993
SURQXYXRXQH
Joe Ford,of 2100 Country Club Lane,then spoke in opposition to
the proposed tennis center.
Mrs.George Rose Smith,of 4300 Cantrell Road,spoke next in
opposition to the proposal.She stated that she had received no
notice of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
Mr.Carney informed the Commission that the applicant had
received a certified list of adjacent property owners from a
licensed abstract company,and had sent the required notice based
on that list.
Terry Rasco then addressed the Commission and stated that once he
had been made aware that some adjacent property owners had not
been notified,he had hand-delivered notices.
Mr.Robert Batton,representing Lois Park of ¹4Cantrell Road,
then spoke in opposition to the proposed tennis center.
Mr.Batton guestioned the height of the structure as viewed from
the south,and stated that he felt it would have a negative
impact on adjacent property owners.
Mr.Rasco responded to the Commission and stated that the heighttotheridgelineofthetenniscenterwouldbe35feet.He
further stated that due to the topography of the land,the south
side of the proposed tennis center would be higher.
Mr.Batton continued by stating that the rear side of the
proposed tennis center would be approximately 84 feet high,
including the foundation.He presented a sketch showing the
proposed structure and stated that the building will create an
eyesore.He continued by stating that the proposed construction
would create a drainage problem and could possibly cause erosion
of the hillside.Mr.Batton stated that the Country Club
membership had not yet approved the project.
Susan Mayes,of 2021 Beechwood,addressed the Commission.She
stated that she felt the proposed parking lot and driveway would
not be adequate for the tennis center's needs.She further
stated that she fears the Country Club will come back later with
requests for more parking lots and driveways.Ms.Mayes stated
that she felt the proposed tennis center would create traffic
congestion in the neighborhood.
Ann Bernie,of 1921 CountrY Club Lane,addressed the Commission in
opposition to the proposal.
Hlixabeth Patterson,of 2422 CountrY Club Lane,then addressed
the Commission in support of the proposed tennis center.She
informed the Commission that she is on the Country Club's tennis
5
August 24,1993
KRDXYXNXQH
committee.Ms.Patterson stated that the location was chosen duetoitsproximitytotheexistingtenniscourtsandparking.
Herbert Rule then presented the Commission with a letter from
Mike Long,a nearby property owner,in opposition to the proposedtenniscenter.He again questioned the propriety of the notices
and stated that the proposed tennis center would be visible fromCantrellRoadandwouldbeaneyesore.
Mr.Rule then asked that this item be deferred until severalquestionsareresolved.
1.Can a different site be considered2
2.Is the proposed structure a tennis center or tennis center
and health club?
3.What is the effect on adjacent residences2
Commissioner Woods then asked if the application indicated aproposedhealthclub.Mr.Carney informed the Commi.ssion that it
was his understanding that there would be a couple of pieces ofexerciseequipment,such as exercise bicycles,but that there isnoproposedhealthclub.
In response to a question from a commissioner,Mr.Rasco statedthathedidnotknowwhentheCountryClubofLittleRockwouldvoteontheproposal.Mr.Rasco also stated that there wereseveralparkinglotsontheCountryClub's site which would beavailableforusebypatronsofthetenniscenter.Mr.RascoinformedtheCommissionthatalthoughthebuildingis60feetfromthesouthpropertyline,it will actually be much furtherthanthatfromtheresidencesthemselves.
Commissioner Woods then stated that he had a problem with theproposedlocationontheCountryClubsite.
Mr.Rasco stated that this was the best available to save treesandbeinproximitytotheexistingtenniscourts.
Mr.Rasco then presented a cross-section of the property andstatedthatexistingvegetationwillhidethefoundationof thetenniscenter,but that the building will be visible above thetrees.
Commissioner Willis asked if the Country Club would considerothersites.Mr.Rasco responded that he would look at othersitesifdirectedtobytheCountryCluborbythePlanningCommission.
6
August 24,1993
KEl2ZYLkZQH
Mr.Batton then addressed the commission again,and stated that
he felt landscaping would not hide the building.He stated that
natural shrubbery and vegetation will not screen the structure
from November through late March.
Gerald King,Manager of the Country Club of Little Rock,then
addressed the Commission in support of the proposal.He stated
that they had looked at numerous sites,but chose this one due toitsaccesstotheexistingfacilitiesandclubhouseaswellasforsecuritypurposes.
Commissioner Chachere then asked if the applicant would consider
a deferral to allow for a meeting with the neighborhood.
Mr.King responded that he did not have the authorization to
request a deferral.
Commissioner Oleson asked when the full membership would vote on
the proposed tennis center.Mr.King responded that it would be
perhaps in September.
Commissioner Nicholson then made a motion to defer the item to
July 13 to allow all parties to come together to discuss the
proposal,
The vote on the motion to defer was 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
BDIV MMITTEE T:(JUNE 24,1993)
The applicant was not present.Dana Carney,of the Planningstaff,presented the item and informed the Committee that there
had been no further action on this item since the June 1 Planning
Commission meeting.
The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for finalresolution.
P I (JULY 13,1993)
The applicant was not present.There were no ob]ectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,informed the Commission thattheapplicanthadwritten,reguesting that this item be deferredtotheAugust24,1993 Planning Commission meeting to allow more
time to meet with people in the neighborhood.Mutually agreeable
times have been difficult to arrange due to conflicting vacationschedules.
7
August 24,1993
X73DXYXRXQH
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was deferred to the
August 24,1993 Planning Commission meeting.The vote was
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff informed the Committee thattherehadbeennoinformationreceivedregardinganyneighborhood
meeting.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission forfinalresolutionwiththenotationthatwithdrawalmaybe
appropriate if there is no further contact.
P (AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,informed the Commission thattheapplicanthadwrittenrequestingadeferraltothe
October 5,1993 Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to
meet with people in the neighborhood.Mutually agreeable times
have been difficult to arrange due to conflicting summer
schedules.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved fordeferraltotheOctober5,1993 Planning Commission meeting.Thevotewas11ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
This is the applicant's second and final request for deferral.
8
August 24,1993
7
g@Q:PankeY New Life Support Center—
Conditional Use Permit
RQQQXQH:13421 Cantrell Road
Janie Bledsoe/Barbara Douglas,
representing the Pankey CommunitY
Improvement Association,Applicant
ZEQRQShh:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use of
the existing structure on this R-2
zoned property as a community
service center.The Pankey New
Life Support Center is a community
based,nonprofit,health and social
services program operating under
the auspices of the Little Rock
Pighting Back Program.
The applicant is also requesting a
waiver of the $125.00 filing fee.
1.'in
The site is a single family zoned residential lot,located
on the south side of Cantrell Road (State Highway No.10),
between Russ Street and Rightsell Street,in the Pankey
community.
2.m i ili wi h i rh
The zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2 with the
surrounding uses being almost exclusively single family
residential.
A vacant,nonresidential structure sits adjacent,to the
west.There are a few nonconforming,nonresidential uses
such as a church and an auto repair garage located within
two to three blocks of this site.
Compatibility with the neighborhood is gained by the support
and encouragement of neighbors for this proposed use.
3.V
An area has been paved for on-site parking for two to three
cars in the front of structure.A parking area has been
created in the rear of the property,taking access off of an
alley from Russ Street.
August 24,1993
v~H
I 7
4.
None reguired
5.i i r
No comments
6.
No comments
Nlulzaia
While staff guestions the appropriateness of placing this
proposed "community center"at this location,it also
recognizes that there is a need for the proposed use in the
community and it appears that there is widespread
neighborhood support for the center.
It is also conceivable that this is not a permanent use of
this property.Long range plans,according to centerofficials,are to build a community center on the site of
the former Pulaski County Exceptional School,approximately
three blocks west on Cantrell Road.If this occurs,the
Pankey New Life Support Center would relocate to the new
community center.
8.ff R n '
Staff recommends approval of this application,subject to
compliance with the signage standards established by the
Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance.Staff would also recommend
that the conditional use permit be granted for this specific
use only.If and when this use vacates the site,the
property should revert back to single family residential.Staff recommends approval of the request to waive the filingfee.
MMI E (JUNE 24,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and
recommended to the Committee that the Highway 10 Overlay
standards for signage be followed and that the conditional use
permit be limited to this specific use.
The Subdivision Committee agreed with these recommendations and
forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution.
a
August 24,1993
KllDXYXRXQH
I P i
(JULY 13,1993)
The applicant,Barbara Douglas,was present.There was one
objector present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and
informed the Commission that late news had been received that
there may be a potential property line dispute concerning this
property and the property adjacent to the west.
Stephen Giles,of the City Attorney's Office,informed the
Commission that he had a conversation with the attorney
representing the adjacent property owner,concerning the property
line dispute.Mr.Giles informed the Commission that it would
prudent to defer this item to a later date to allow time for this
property line dispute to be resolved.
John T.Root,Jr.,attorney for the adjacent property owner,then
addressed the Commission.He informed the Commission that there
is pending legal action regarding the property line dispute.He
agreed with Mr.Giles'ecommendation to defer this item.
Barbara Douglas then addressed the Commission.She stated that
she was unaware of any legal problems regarding the propertyline,but that she also agreed with the recommendation to defer
the item to a later date.
A motion was then made to place this item on the Consent Agenda
for deferral to the August 24,1993 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 eyes,0 noes and 1 absent.
Barbara Douglas asked the Commission about any potential code
enforcement action against the New Life Support Center since it
was already open and operating.Chairman Walker informed
Ms.Douglas that any enforcement action would be put in abeyance
since there was an application pending before the Planning
Commission.
V (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant,Barbara Douglas,was present.Staff presented the
item and again recommended to the Committee that the Highway 10
Overlay standards for signage be followed,and that the
conditional use permit be limited to this specific use.
The Committee was informed that staff has not received theresultsofthereportedlitigationregardingtheproperty line.
3
August 24,1993
KHk~vL~H
Ms.Douglas stated that Arkla Gas Company had agreed to finish
paving the parking lot and alley shortly,and that she would
adhere to the Highway 10 sign regulations,if the conditional use
permit is approved.
Ms.Douglas stated that she was unaware of further legal action
on the property line.
After a brief discussion,the Committee forwarded this item to
the full Commission for final resolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant,Barbara Douglas,was present.There was one
objector present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and
informed the Commission that there had apparently been no
resolution of the dispute regarding the property line.
Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,informed the Commission
that he had spoken with the attorney representing the adjacent
property owner.Mr.Giles stated that the dispute had not beenresolved.
Barbara Douglas then addressed the Commission.She stated that
the property line issue was an ongoing dispute,some 20 years orhetter,and requested that the Commission act on her application.
Chairman Walker stated that the Commission's reticence to hear
the item is not based on the merits of the application,but is
based on the fact that the adjacent,involved property owner has
not agreed to the proposal.
Jim Dawson,Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning,stated that the property line dispute is many years old
and may not ever be resolved.He further stated that the matter
could he forwarded to the Board of Directors who could act on the
item without the adjacent property owner's approval.
Mr.Giles interjected that the planning Commission has finalauthorityonconditionalusepermitapplications,pending an
appeal.
Commissioner Chachere asked if the Planning Commission could act
on this matter without the adjacent property owner's approval.
Mr.Giles replied that the Commission could.
4
August 24,1993
/~~VI Qg
John T.Root,Jr.,attorney for the adjacent property owner,then
addressed the Commission.He stated that his client does not
object to the proposed use,but only to the encroachment on her
property.
Commissioner Chachere asked if the parties have met in an effort
to resolve the dispute.
Mr.Root replied that the only conversations have been bytelephone,and that there appears to be an impasse.
Commissioner Chachere stated that unless there is hope of
resolution of the dispute,any further deferral of this item
would be a waste of time.
Mr.Root asked that the Commission give him time to try to
resolve the issue.
Mr.Giles suggested that Mr.Root draft a written agreement,
amicable to both parties,and then come back to the Commission.
Ms.Douglas then stated that Mr.Root's client was attempting toforcethePankeycommunitytoceaseoppositiontoanyattemptto
rezone the adjacent property in return for his client's lifting
her opposition to the Pankey New Life Support Center conditional
use permit.
Chairman Walker then asked Ms.Douglas if she wanted a vote or
wished to request a deferral.
Ms.Douglas responded that she wanted a vote.
commissioner Nicholson asked Mr.Giles what implications there
would be in approving this conditional use permit application
over the neighboring property owner's objection.
Mr.Giles stated that he saw no legal problem with the Commission
approving the proposed use.The neighbor does not object to the
proposed use,but to the encroachment on her property.
Commissioner Woods then asked Mr.Root if it was all right with
him that the Commission vote on this item,since his client does
not object to the use.
Mr.Root responded that the proposed use,without resolving the
property line dispute,would have an impact on his client's
property.
Commissioner willis then made a motion to approve theapplication.
After the motion was seconded,there was further discussion.
5
August 24,1993
KRl2XYIRZQH
7
Chairman walker asked staff who had the authority to submit this
application which involved not only the applicant's lot,but also
part of the adjacent lot,Lot 4.
Mr.Lawson replied that.there has been an established use
relationship for 27z years and that relationship was recognized
by staff for purposes of taking this application.
After further discussion,Commissioner Oleson asked if there had
been any consideration of putting a time limit on this proposed
use.
Mr.Lawson responded that there had not.
After a brief discussion,it was determined that putting a time
limit on the use was not a suitable option.
A vote was then taken on the motion to approve the application.
The vote was 9 eyes,2 noes and 0 absent.The application was
approved.
6
August 24,1993
KQR:FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH OFFICBS AND CLASSROOM BUILDING
SITB PLAN RBVIBW
MQEXZQH:On the south side of Hinson Road,east of Napa Valley
Drive,at 12201 Hinson Road
2RYRLQPRE:hRCKZXKCX:
John A.Rees LEWIS,BLLIOTT &STUDBR
RBBS DBVBLOPMBNT 11225 Huron Lane,Suite 104
12115 Hinson Road Little Rock,AR 72211LittleRock,AR 72212 223-9302
223-2220
AREA:4 .3 ACRBS R 1 W 0
Zd}HIHQ:O-2 HURQgg~gRQ:Church of f ices and classrooms
2
MHSQ~ahn:22.05
None
The applicant proposes the development of a 4.3 acre site for a
church offices and classroom facility,with parking for 275
vehicles.proposed is a two-story building containing a total
area of 40,000 square feet,paved parking with access drives,and
both landscape and natural wooded buffer areas.A single accessoffHinsonRoadatanexistingcurb-cut is designated.
A.
Site Plan review by the Planning Commission is requested for
the development of a 4.3 acre site in a tract which is zoned0-2.A 40,000 total square foot,two-story building is
proposed which is to be utilixed for church offices and
classrooms.Parking for 275 vehicles is planned.The site
plan designates areas for landscaping,and designates areas
along the rear,at the south-east corner,and along a
portion of the west property line as areas where existing
wooded areas are to remain as buffers.
B.
The site is presently soned 0-2.It is partially cleared,
with foundation remains of former residences along the frontoftheproperty.The rear of the property remains tree-
August 24,1993
KHkQIYXSXQH
covered and with undergrowth.There is a fairly significantriseintopographyattherearofthesite.The properties
on both sides of the site are xoned 0-2.The rear of the
property borders a residential area in a PRD.Across Hinson
Road are residences along the Pleasant Valley Country Club
golf course in an R-2 soning district.
C.
Little Rock Engineering Division indicates that the
Excavation and Detention Ordinance are applicable to this
development.
Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be
required.It is reported that there is an 8"main in the
easement along the east property line which can be taped for
the fire hydrant,
Wastewater responds that sewer is available from a main
along the east property line.There is a 15 foot easement
along that property line which needs to be shown on the site
plan.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.responds that an easement will
be required for their use.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.approved the site plan as
submitted.
D.TE E
The site plan must be based on a final plat showing only onelot.The old division line of the proposed two-lot
subdivision must be removed.Submit a final plat for the
single lot with all required easements indicated.
Provide the required exhibit showing the topographic cross-section and the method to be employed to protect anyresultingembankmentatthesouthpropertyline.
E hKhhXRZR:
The proposed use is in conformance with the approved soningofthesite,and only minimal requirements for exhibits and
documentation remain outstanding.The site layout provides
good on-site traffic circulation and landscaping areas.
P.AT
Staff recommends approval of the site plan with theconditionthattheremainingexhibit(s)be submitted.
a
August 24,1993
KRDXKXXQH
I (August 5,1993)
The applicant was present and outlined the reguest to the
Committee.Staff presented the item,indicating that this is arevisedreguesttoonepreviouslYapprovedonthefronthalfofthesiteattheApril20,1993 Planning Commission meeting.Thediscussionoutlinewasreviewedwiththeapplicant.Committee
members asked for clarification on the proposed use(s)of thebuildingindicatedonthesite,and the applicant reported that
various church offices and meeting-conference-seminar-classroom
uses were intended at this time,hut that construction of the
building was not an immediate plan of the church;construction
and use of the parking facility was the immediate intention.The
Committee asked that the applicant furnish written clarificationoftheproposeduse(s)of the building.The applicant indicatedthatthisclarificationwouldhefurnished.The CommitteereferredtheitemtotheCommissionforfinalresolution.
I (AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was recommended to the Commission for approval and was
included on the Consent Agenda.However,a neighboring propertY
owner was present at the hearing and wished the item heard on theregularagenda.
Mr.Bud Pinley,reyresenting the applicant was present.Staffpresentedtheproposalandthereco~tion for approval.Staff indicated,however,that a verbal,then written,reguest
had been received from Mr.George Plastiras,representing himself
and three of his neighbors,asking that the hearing on this item
be deferred until the neighbors returned from vacations.The
Chair responded that the Commission allows the applicant tocontrolhisapplication,and asked the Church's representative if
he wished to defer the hearing.Mr.Finley responded that he didnotwantadeferral;that the Church is outgrowing its currentsiteandhascontractorswaitingtobeginconstructiononthissite.
Mr.Plastiras then presented his objections.He indicated thathelivesdirectlYacrossHinsonRoadfromthesiteandheandhisneighborsobjecttothedevelopment.He said that he represents
Mr.and Mrs.Tom curry,Dr.and Mrs.William Casey,Mr.and Mrs.
Bob Brown,and himself and his wife.Each of these neighborsliveonValleyClubCircle,across Hinson Road.Mr.Plastiras
mentioned that he and his constituents have concerns aboutpossibleloiteringonthesite;that no provision is made forgatesorfencing.He has concerns about the lighting on the site
and the line-of-sight into the second floor of his and hisneighbors'omes.He indicated that the neighbors have concerns
about the uses to which the site might he put in the future;thattheChurchindicatesthattheusewillbeforadults,but that
3
August 24,1993
RIK2XYXRXQH
there is no control of a change of use to accommodate children inthefuture.The Chair responded that the hearing is for a site
plan review;that uses are not a issue as would be in a
Conditional Use Permit review;that only issues related to the
organisation and layout of the site were applicable.
Commissioners asked for clarification of the location of theobjectors'omes.Again,it was indicated that the objectorsliveonValleyClubCircle,facing the golf course,with a 6 foot
privacy fence along their back property line and Hinson Road
between their back property line and the subject property.Thedistancefromtheyroyosedbuildingandbackofthe
objectors'omeswouldbeabout300feet.It was also related that there isstreetlightingonHiasonRoadwhichwouldbeclosertotheobjectors'omes than the lighting on the applicant's site.
The discussion then returned to a discussion on the merits of
deferring the hearing.Mr.Pinley responded that other area
buildings with large yarking lots associated with them do not
have gates and fences,yet do not have problems with loitering;
and,that it would be the chruch's position that such
inappropriate activities would not be permitted to continue.He
suggested that the Church has looked at the possibility of asecuritypatrolandwouldconsiderthesetypesofcontrolsif a
problem became apparent on any of their properties.Mr.Finleyagreedthatthelightingonthepropertywouldbedirectedinward
and have a limited lighting pattern so that the effects of thelightingwouldnotbefeltbytheneighborsacrossHinsonRoad.
Mr.Pinley responded that he had not felt that neighbors who liveacrossfivelanesoftrafficanda100footright-of-way of a
major arterial street,with the backs of their houses facing the
proposed development would have any serious objections to theproposal;therefore,he had not visited with them personally intheweekspriortothehearing.A motion to defer the hearing
was offered,but died for lack of a second.The motion was then
made to approve the site plan as submitted.The motion carriedwithavoteof10eyesand1abstention.Mr.Plastiras was toldthathehadtherighttoappealtheCommission's decision to theBoardofDirectors.
4
August 24,1993
ghgg:CHERRY CREEK,LOTS 23-26,BLOCK 1 &LOTS 70-73,BLOCK 4
PRELIMINARY PLAT
MChXZQH:On Cherry Laurel Drive in Cherry Creek SuMivision,
south of Kanis road and west of the intersection of
Cherry Laurel Drive and Bowman Road
MDKLMHR:XHQXHKKE:
Ron Tyne Joe White
WINROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHITE-DATERS &ASSOCIATES,INC.
2101 Brookwood Drive 401 Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 7aa03 Little Rock,AR 7aaol
663-5340 374-1666
hR55:1.76 ACRES ER F L:8 W 0
?ding?59:R-2 ~P ~ED gg:Single Pamily Residential
RI T:18
QfHQQ~MCX:42.07
None
TATENE P PR P
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
8 additional lots in the existing Cherry Creek Subdivision.The
proposal is for development of tracts which were part of the
original suMivision,but which were left as two 3/4-acre tracts
noted for "future development".Now,in lieu of other options,
the applicant is proposing to develop the property as additional
single-family lots in the suMivision.The streets were
developed as part of the construction of the Cherry Creek
SuMivision,so no street improvements are reguired.
A.
Approval of the Planning Commission is reguested for a
preliminary plat involving 8 single-family lots fronting on
an existing street in Cherry Creek SuMivision.The total
acreage involved is 1.76 acres,with two 3/4 acre tracts andstreetright-of-way of approximately I/2 acre being the
extent of the proposal.With street improvements already inplace,construction of the street is not proposed in this
application.No variances are reguested.
August 24,1993
ZIRDXvUXQH
B.
The site is presently zoned R-2,with all properties in the
vicinity being likewise zoned.The two tracts have been
partially cleared.Street improvements have been completed.
Residences have been built on Cherry Laurel to the west.
There is a short stretch of undeveloped land lying between
the site and Bowman Road which is outside the boundarY of
the subdivision.
C.ITY MME
Engineering indicates that the Detention and Excavation
Ordinances are applicable and that PAGIS monuments will be
required.
Water Works reports that a main extension will be required.
Wastewater indicates that a sewer main extension,with
easements,will he required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.reports that easements will be
required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.approved the plat as
submitted.
D.E
Revised drawings have been submitted and meet the
requirements outlined at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
No issues remain unresolved.
E.gggg X~:
The proposal is for six additional residential lots
immediatelY to the east of the existing residential
subdivision,and is in keeping with the present development.
The deficiencies remaining to be dealt can be addressed by
the Engineer without difficulty.
P.E
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the
stipulation that the deficiencies noted be addressed.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant and the applicant's engineer were present.Staff
presented the request and the discussion outline was presented.
a
August 24,1993
KQDXYXQXQH
The engineer indicated that deficiencies would be addressed.
After a brief discussion,the Committee referred the item to the
Commission for final resolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval,and
the Preliminary Plat was approved in the vote to approve the
Consent Agenda with 11 eyes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
5hgg:DAVID WILKERSON SUBDIVISION --PRELIMINARY PLAT
LQQAXZQH:west of Arch street pike at the north-east corner of
West Pratt Road and Wilkerson Road
~D~~P ZHQZHRRE:
DAVID WILKERSON BEN KETTLER,JR.
3300 West Pratt Road 6133 Dens Drive
Little Rock,AR 72206 Little Rock,AR 72206
888-4863 888-3960
BELLS:2.3328 ACRES E F T :6 T 0
None ZRQRQSR~RR:Single Family Residential
28
~QQ~TRA g:40.03
V ED:
Waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance requirement which
would require making improvements to West Pratt and
Wilkerson Roads to include improvements to the roadway,
construction of curb and gutter,and construction of
sidewalks
T P AL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the subdivision of
a 2.33 acre site into 5 single-family lots.The property is
outside the Little Rock city limits,but execution of a "pre-
annexation"agreement is anticipated.It is proposed that the
lots would be served by Little Rock Water Utilities,but that
private individual sewage disposal would be required.The
applicant proposes to make no off-site improvements to the two
fronting streets,Wilkerson Road and West Pratt Road,nor to
construct sidewalks.A waiver of these requirements is
requested.
A.R
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a preliminary plat for the David Wilkerson Subdivision.
The developer proposes to subdivide a portion of the largertractwhichheownsandestablisha2.33 acre,5-lot
subdivision.Although outside the city limits,the
execution of a "pre-annexation agreement"is proposed.
Because the value of the proposed homes to be constructed
cannot support the cost of off-site improvements,the
August 24,1993
KIRDZYZRZQH
developer relates,street improvements and sidewalks along
Wilkerson Road and west pratt Road cannot be afforded;
therefore,a waiver for these improvements is reguested from
the Board of Directors.
B.
The site is outside the Little Rock city limits and is in a
rural setting,with rural residential properties surrounding
this property.Trees and grass make the site look like a
pasture.Both West Pratt Road and Wilkerson Road are paved,
open-ditch rural streets.Wilkerson Road dead-ends
approximately 800 feet to the north of the property.West
Pratt Road ends at the Wilkerson Road intersection.
C.
Engineering reports that an additional 5 foot right-of-way
dedication is required along the West Pratt Road frontage.
Engineering indicates that Master Street Plan improvements
along both West Pratt Road and Wilkerson Road are
applicable,including constructing one-half of a collector
street,with a sidewalk,along West Pratt Road and a
standard residential street on Wilkerson Road.PAGIS
monuments will be reguired.The Detention and Excavation
Ordinances are applicable.
Water Works reports that a pre-annexation agreement must be
executed and approval by the City will be required in order
to obtain water service.An acreage charge of $100.00 per
acre is applicable.
Wastewater indicates that the proposed subdivision is
outside their service boundary.Individual sewage disposal
will be reguired.
Pulaski County reports that both West Pratt Road and
Wilkerson Road were accepted by the County and are
recognised as having 50 foot rights-of-way.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.approved the submittal
without comment.
D.
Provision for the reguired right-of-way width must be made
and dedicated to the public (not to the City).The plat
must show the reguired streets and sidewalks,properlyidentified.The right-of-way at the West Pratt Road and
wilkerson Road intersection needs to provide for the radius
reguirement.
2
August 24,1993
KlRRXVVXQH
The plat must show all street building lines,in this case,
along the West Pratt Road frontage.The Certificate of
SurveYing Accuracy needs to be amended to contain the
information reguired by the SuMivision Ordinance and be
executed.The location of proposed PAGIS monuments is to be
shown.
The proposed suMivision is,evidently,part of a largertractownedbythedeveloper.The breaking out from this
larger tract of the property for the 5-lot suMivision is,
in itself,a "suMivision",and the larger tract from which
the lots are derived needs to be included in the preliminary
plat for the suMivision.
E hKhhXSZR:
The preliminary plat as submitted is severely deficient,
most notable since the plat apparently needs to include theentiretractfromwhichtheproposed5-lot suMivision is
derived.
The Master Street Plan designates west Pratt Road as acollectorstreetandisproposedtocontinuewestand curve
south to tie into Atwood Road.Dedication of the needed
right-of-way is important.Engineering indicates that
construction of one-half of the street improvements on both
West Pratt Road and Wilkerson Road is recommended.
P.T
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the developer
has amended the proposal to include the entire tract and
until amended and complete drawings have been submitted.
IV I TT (AUGUST 5,1993)
A representative of the developer was present.Staff presented
the item and outlined the concerns indicated in the discussionoutline.The applicant's representative indicated that,indeed,
the developer owns additional land from which this proposed
development is derived.After a brief discussion,the Committee
deferred the item to the Commission for review.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval of the
preliminary plat.Staff reported that all reguired exhibits have
been submitted and the reguired modifications have been
3
August 24,1993
T
KQR:THE OASIS --PRELIMINART PLAT
On the west side of Geyer Springs Road at Geyer Springs
Cut-off
QEYEL~PR:XHGXHRRR:
TIM BROWN Joe White
7710 Broadview WHITE-DATERS a ASSOCIATES,INC.
Houston,TX 77061 401 Victory St.Little Rock,AR 72201
374-1666
AREA:39.38 ACRES :76 :5100
ggKX59:R-2 PR ED E :Single Family Residential
P I I TR T:14
CEHGQSMMCX:40.03
VARI D:None
TAT F
The developer proposes a preliminary plat for a 76-lot
subdivision on a 39.38-acre tract.Proposed are 69 single-familylots,2 townhouse tracts,one multi-family tract,2 commercialtracts,and 2 lots to be retained as "open space".Improvements
to entail construction of 5.100 feet of curb and gutter street
and sidewalks as required are proposed.
A.P
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a
subdivision involving a 39.38 acre tract and the creation of
76 lots,all but 12 of which are outside the Little Rockcitylimits.Requested are 69 single-family lots,2
townhouse tracts,one multi-family tract,2 commercialtracts,and two lots to remain undeveloped and retained as
open space.Construction of streets,drainage,and sidewalk
improvements to Master Street Plan and Subdivision Ordinance
standards is proposed for both the internal streets and to
the boundary street,Geyer Springs Road.
B.XI I T
The site is heavily overgrown with trees and natural
undergrowth.An abandoned railroad right-of-way runs
diagonally across the north-west corner of the parcel.The
north line of this railroad right-of-way is the Little Rock
August 24,1993
SQR~Iv SXQH
City limits line.The tracts in the City are zoned R-E.
There are sparse rural residential uses along Geyer Syringe
Road to the east and south of the site.Geyer Springs Roadisapaved,open-ditch rural collector street.
C.I ERI I I MME
Engineering reports that Geyer Syringe Road is to beconstructedtominorarterialstandards.Interior streetsaretobeconstructedtoresidentialstandards.PAGIS
monumente will he required.
Water Works reports that an acreage charge of 8150.00 yeracrewillapply.There is also a yro-rata front footage
charge of $15.00 yer foot for connections to the 16"main intheabandonedrailroadright-of-way.Main extensions will
be required.Water Works may require larger mains than are
needed to serve this project,with Water works paying partofthecostfortheinstallationofthesemains.AnnexationtotheCitywillberequired.Water Works cautions that 3feetofcoverneedstohemaintainedoverthe16"main.
Wastewater reports that lots 6-17 can he served with a sewer
main extension with easements provided.The remainder ofthelotsareoutsidethecitylimitsandcannotreceiveservicewithouttheapprovaloftheBoardofDirectors.
Pulaski County indicates that the floodplain/floodway ie tohedelineatedonthepreliminaryandfinalplate,and that astatementistobeincludedonthefinalplatwhichrequiresthedeveloperoranybuyerofalotwhichcontainsfloodplainlandobtainaDeveloymentPermitfromthecountypriortothestartofanyconstruction.
D.E LE AL T I
The exhibits submitted to date are minimal and deficient inseveralways:the site ie erroneously reported as being in
range 12 west instead of in 13 west;the contours are shownat10footintervalsinlieuofattherequired2footintervals;the names of owners of abutting tracts or namesofabuttingsubdivisionarenotshown;adjusted bearings anddistancesarenotshown;survey pins are not identified andlocated;no metes and bounds legal description is provided;the floodplain ie not located;the zoning classification(e)of the property within the city limits ie not reyorted;municipal boundaries are not located;proposed PAGIS
monumente are not located;and,the Preliminary Engineering
and Surveying Certifications are not executed.NopreliminaryBillofAssuranceieprovided.
a
august 24,1993
SDRDX3LZRIQH
There is a question as to the ownership of the abandoned
railroad right-of-way.Unless the developer has or can
acquire ownership of the right-of-way,access to the north-
west lots is blocked.
Parameters for the "tracts"designated for townhouse,
apartment,and commercial development need to beestablished.
"Open Space"lots are designated.A provision for
maintenance of these must be made.
E hKLKQGEXfk:
The exhibit furnished with the application is deficient,andseriousquestionsremainregardingthelocationofthe
floodplain/floodway,ownership of and access across the
abandoned railroad right-of-way,etc.
The concept presented for the subdivision shows a mix of
single-family,multi-family,and neighborhood commercial.
The adopted land use plan,however,reflects only single
family residential development for this area.No commercial
node is identified at the intersection of Qeyer Springs Road
and Qeyer Springs Cut-off.Low density multi-family might
be an approvable variation to the land use plan,but the
density issue has not been dealt with by the applicant.
Parameters for the several tracts need to be presented bytheapplicantandreviewedbyStaffandtheCommissionpriortoapprovalofthepreliminaryplat.
F.T
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the
exhibitipreliminary plat is completed,with complete
information as required by the Subdivision Ordinance
provided,and the needed information on the plans for the
multi-family and commercial tracts has been presented.
(AUQUST 5,1993)
The applicant and the applicant's engineer were present.Staffpresentedtheapplication,with the applicant and engineer making
comments regarding the design intent.The discussion outline was
reviewed and Committee members addressed the various concerns.
Following the discussion,the Committee referred the item to the
Commission for review.
3
August 24,1993
KRDXKXXQH
4 n i
(AUGUST 24,1993)
Mr.Joe White,representing the applicant,asRed that the item be
deferred until the October 5,1993 hearing in order for the
applicant to further evaluate the proposal and issues brought up
on the Subdivision Committee meeting.The Commission concurred
with the request and voted to defer the item as requested.The
vote was 9 ayes and 2 absent.
4
August 24,1993
5@55:FAIRVIEW PARK ——PRELIMINARY PLAT
MChXXQH:At the north-east corner of Pleasant Ridge Road and
Pairview Road
RKYIldlPRR:MQXHRRR:
GERALD JOHNSON TRUST Joe White
WHITE-DATERS &ASSOCIATES,INC.
401 victory St.Little Rock,AR 72201
374-1666
AREA:3.7887 ACRES T :4 :None
?iQHX59:MP —6 ggggggg~g:Church facility on Lot 1 &
with 0-3 unspecified 0-3 uses on
pending on remaining tracts
south and
east tracts
1
~GUS TBhCX:42.06
E :None
TAT T PR P
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for a subdivision
involving a 3.79 acre tract on which a 1.5 acre lot for a
proposed church is deleanated and three other tracts for future
development are shown,The applicant anticipates making the
required improvements to Master Street Plan and Subidivision
Ordinance standards to both of the boundary streets.Dedication
of additional right-of-way as required on one of the streets is
planned.
A.E
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for the
subidivsion of a 3.79 acre tract into one 1.5 acre lot and 4tracts.Dedication of right-of-way along Pairview Road,asspecifiedbytheMasterStreetPlan,is proposed.
Improvement to the two boundary streets,pairview Road and
Pleasant Ridge Road,including construction of one-half of
the required curb and gutter street section and sidewalks,
as required,is proposed.
August 24,1993
KR~&MH
B.
The site has been cleared of undergrowth,but many of the
trees have been preserved.The present zoning of the siteisMP-6,and it is proyosed that the church site will retainthiszoningclassification.The remainder of the site is
proposed to be zoned 0-3 in a zoning applicaiton to be heard
at a later date.Across pleasant Ridge Road to the south is0-2 and 0-3 zoned property,along with a small R-2 tract.
To the west is R-3 property.Wrapping around the site to
the north and east is largly undeveloped R-2 land.Both
boundary streets are paved,open-ditch streets.
C.I ERI IL
Engineering indicates that dedication of right-of-way along
and improvements to Pairview ROad to Master Street Plan
standards will be reguired,as will the setting of PAGIS
monuments.A sidewalk and handicap ramp on pleasant Ridge
Road are reguired.The Detention and Excavation Ordinances
are applicable.
Water Works has no objections or comments.
Wastewater reports that there is the possibility of a sewer
main extension requirement with easements for Lot 1.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.respond that easements will be required by each of theseutilities.
D.LE
More complete descriptive information needs to be furnishedge.g.,dimensions to the centerlines of the boundary streets
and to the edge of pavement of these streets,the extent of
the proposed improvements to streets,the location of
proposed sidewalks,etc.The suMivision boundary line istobeaheavy,bold line;this line needs to be ehwon to
conform to the reguirements of the SuMivieion Ordinance.
The names of recorded suMivisions,with recording citations
noted,must be shown.The names of abutting property
owenrs,where not platted,are to be noted on the plat.The
Surveyor and Engineering Certifications need to be executed.
The location of proposed pAQIS monuments is to be shown.A
preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted.
E hHhhXRXR:
The drawing furnished to date has deficiencies,but thesedeficienciescanbeeasilyremediedbytheengineer.Theapplicantindicateethatitietheintentionofthe
2
August 24,1993
RIRDXvVTXQH
applicant to conform to the Master Street Plan and
Subdivision Ordinance reguirements,and has sought no
waivers in the application.There are no significant
outstanding issues to be resolved which cannot be addressedafterPlanningCommissionreview.
P.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat,subject
to the requirement that all reguired information be provided
on a reviwed preliminary plat.
8 (AUGUST 5,1993)
Representatives of the applicant and the applicant's engineer
were present.Staff yresented the item.The applicant's
representatives outlined the request to the Committee.The
Committee commented on the deficiencies noted in the disucssion
outline,and the engineer responded that revisions would be made.
The Committee referred the item to the Commission for final
resolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval,and
the Preliminary Plat was approved with the vote to approve the
Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 eyes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
Hogg:CHAMONIX SQUARE --PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ABANDONMENT OF
WILSON STREET,HENDERSON STREET,RODGERS STREET,AND
ANGLIN STREET
hQChXXQH:At the east end of versailles court off Loyola Drive
2EYRRQRRR:RKQZHlQR:
CARL AND VIRGINIA WARREN ROBERT BROWN
83 Betsy Lane DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
Little Rock,AR 72205 10411 west Markham,Suite 210
375-6414 Little Rock,AR 72205
221-7880
AREjL:2.00 ACRES :8 :315
ZQHZHQ:R-2 ZRQZQKEILQHRR:Single-family ResidentialI:19
QRQQ~RhCX:42.06
V R None
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for an 8-lot
subdivision involving 2 acres,the abandonment of rights-of-way
for streets previously platted but never developed,and.the
construction of a cul-de-sac street to serve the newly configuredlots.Dedication of and construction of a street section to
connect the existing end of Versailles Court with the proposed
Versailles Court within the subdivision is proposed.Compliance
with the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Ordinance is
anticipated and no variances are reguested.
A.
approval of the Planning Commission is reguested for an 8-
lot subdivision on 2 acres of land,involving the
construction of a cul-de-sac street within the boundary of
the platted area and the dedication and construction of a
section of street to connect the existing end of Versailles
Court with the proposed Versailles Court within the
subdivision.No variances or waivers are reguested.
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought to abandon the rights-of-way of four
boundary streets (Wilson Street,Henderson Street,Rodgers
August 24,1993
KRDLYXRXQH
Street,and Anglin Street)which were formerly platted as
part of the original Neimeyer's Grove Subdivision but which
were never constructed.
B.I I
The site is heavily overgrown with trees and natural
undergrOwth.It iS SurrOunded On all SideS With hamea in
the St.Charles Subdivision.The site,as well as all lands
in the vicinity,is zoned R-2.
C.
Engineering reports that PAGIS monuments will be reguired,
and that the Detention and ExCavatiOn Ordinances are
applicable to this development.
Water Works reports that a main extension will be reguired.
Water works responds that they have no objection to the
street closures.
Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension,with
easements,will be reguired.They report no objection to
the street rights-of-way abandonment.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.approved the submittal without comment.
D.E
The zoning classifications of the site and of the abutting
property needs to be indicated on the plat.The Engineering
and Surveying Certifications need to be executed.The
location of the proposed PAGIS monuments is to be shown.
Close contact with the City Clerk's office needs to be
maintained regarding the abandonment of the rights-of-way.
Documentation that the abutting property owners have all
signed the petition needs to be submitted.
ED hHhhYYl:
As far as the reguirements for approval of the preliminary
plat are concerned,only minimal deficiencies are noted.On
the other hand,the submittal of the completed petition withallrequiredsignaturesisessential.Without the added
land provided by the abandoned street right-of-way,the lots
do not meet minimum size reguirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.As an alternative to gaining the signatures ofallabuttingpropertyowners,the applicant may need to
pursue an "adversarial abandonment"procedural to the Board
of Directors.
a
August 24,1993
KIRQXYLkZQH
p.
If,as the applicant has suggested,he has not been
successful in obtaining the signatures of all the abutting
property owners to the proposed right-of-way abandonment,
Staff reco~s deferral of the item until after the
applicant has been successful in gaining the right-of-way or
has re-designed the subdivision to meet area and dimension
requirements of the Ordinance.
1f the applicant is successful in getting the required
signatures,Staff recommends approval of the preliminary
plat and abandonment of the rights-of-way.
V (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant's architect was present.Staff presented the
proposal and the applicant's representative reviewed the
application and design documents with the Committee.The
Committee reviewed with the applicant's representative the
deficiencies noted in the discussion outline,and were assured
that the deficiencies would be addressed.After a short
discussion,the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for review.
I (AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval.Staff
reported that the applicant has amended his request to delete the
request for a hearing on the abandonment of the four boundary
streets.Instead,the applicant will pursue an adversarial
abandonment route directly to the Board of Directors.Staff also
reported that the applicant has requested approval of two
variations of the Preliminary Plat:1)approval of a Preliminary
plat which is totally within the boundary of the original
Neimeyer's Grove block,exclusive of the four boundary streets,
in case he is unsuccessful in his attempt to get the boundary
streets abandoned;and,2)approval of the Preliminary Plat as
submitted which includes the land gained through abandonment of
the four boundary streets.The latter approval would be subject
to the Board of Directors abandoning the four boundary streets.
The former approval would be contingent upon the applicant
seeking and having the Board approve a waiver of having to
dedicate additional right-of-way for the four boundary streets
and of having to improve these rights-of-way.After a brief
clarification of the request,the item was kept on the Consent
Agenda for approval and was approved in the vote to approve the
Consent Agenda with 11 ayes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
KQR:6420 MABELVALE CUT-OFF --SHORT-FORM PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
QKhXXQH:At the north-west corner of Mablevale Cut-off at
Stillman Drive,at 6420 Mabelvale Cut-off
QKGGaQRRR:lLHQZHRRR:
DAVID F.AND SHARRA D.AKERS BROOKS &CURRY,INC.¹34 Melinda Drive P.O.Box 897
I ittle Rock,AR 72209 North Little Rock,AR 72215
455-8511 372-2131
0.307 ACRES :1 W None
Nonconforming K~Qgg~ggg:MENS Ambulance
general office Service Post
in an R-2 zone to
POD
TR T:15
~gg~~:41.06
1)waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional
right-of-way along Mablevale Cut-off;and,
2)waiver of the requirement to make an "in-lieu"paymentforfutureMablevaleCut-off street improvements.
The applicant proposes the establishment of a Short-form Planned
Office Development (POD)in order to use the property for a MENS
ambulance service post amd for other uses by right in the 0-3
zoning district.The existing residential structure is proposedtobeutilized,with no modifications to the interior or exterior
of the building being anticipated.No changes in the driveway or
provision of additional parking are planned.lt is proposed that
the ambulance park in the yard at the front door of the
structure.No dedication of additional right-of-way or off-site
improvements are proposed.
A.
Review by the planning Commission and approval by the BoardofDirectorsisrequestedfortheestablishmentofaShort-
form pOD for the applicant's property to permit its use as a
MENS ambulance service post and other uses by right which
are allowed in the 0-3 zoning district.The applicant
August 24,1993
kUK?ZYJJkZQH
7
proposes to utilize the property "as is",and anticipates
making no changes to the building or grounds.It is
requested of the Board of Directors that a waiver be granted
exempting the applicant from having to dedicate additional
right-of-way along Mablevale Pike or make an in-lieu payment
for future off-site improvements to Mablevale Pike.
B.
The site currently has a brick veneer home on it,but,it is
reported,the residential strucure has been used for office
uses for a number of years.The office use is a legal non-
conforming use since the office use was present when the
property was annexed into the City.The site,as well as of
the land to the east and north,is zoned R-2.Across
Mabelvale Cut-off to the south is a large apartment complex
in an MF-18 zone.To the west is a C-3 zoned tract with a
strucure on it which was formerly occupied by a convenience
store,but which is now vacant.There is a right-of-way
immediately to the west for access to an apartment complex
to the north-west of the site.Mabelvale Cut-off is a
paved,open ditch rural collector street.Stillman Drive is
a paved,open ditch rural residential street.
C.
Bngineering reports that additional right-of-way is required
on Mablevale Cut-off for compliance with Master Street Plan
right-of-way reguirements.Bngineering recommends that an"in-lieu"contribution be levied for future improvements to
Mabelvale Cut-off.
Water Works and Wastewater report no objections to the
development.
D.
Screening of the proposed use from the abutting residential
uses needs to be addressed.Instead of parking the MEMS
ambulance in the yard,a provision needs to be made for a
drive extension and access to the street at a drive
approach.
B hKhkXRXR:
The office use of the property pre-dates the annexation into
the City,and the use by MBMS for its ambulance service postisnotanobjectionaluseoftheproperty.
The requirement for providing additional right-of-way along
Mablevale Cut-off does not appear unreasonable,and should
be a reguirement for approval of the application.A
a
August 24,1993
KHPXYZRXQH
reguirement for making the "in-lieu"payment for future
improvements to Mablevale Cut-off do appear excessive in
light of the scope of the reguest to simply use the building
for the MEMS ambulance station.
P.
Staff recommends approval of the application,subject to
meeting the buffer and landscaping reguiremtns;providing
the appropriate drive for the ambulance;and executing a
guit-claim deed for the reguired right-of-way on Mablevale
Cut-off.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
Staff presented the reguest and outlined the deficiencies in the
application.The Committee disucssed the proposal,then referred
the item to the Commission for the hearing.
I (AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval.Staff
reported that the applicant had agreed to dedicate additional
right-of-way on Mabelvale Cut-off,but has indicated that he
wishes to seek a waiver from the Board of Directors for the
reguired "in-lieu"payment for future Mabelvale Cut-off
improvements.No other issues remain unresolved.Staff
recommended approval of a recommendation to the Board of
Directors for the establishment of the POD.After a brief
discussion,the Commission reguested that it be made clear that
the Commission is,in its affirmative vote,not recommending
approval of the waiver.The recommendation to the Board of
Directors for the establishment of the POD was approved,with the
condition that either the applicant gain approval of the
reguested waivers or comply with the reguirements.The vote to
approve the Consent Agenda was 11 eyes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
5jhÃI:6300 FORBINQ ROAD --LONG-FORM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
&CAXXQH:On the north side of Forbing Road,approximately
700 feet west of Geyer Springs Road,at 6300 Forbing
Road
QgV~~E 559XHRRR:
WEST TREE SERVICE CO.,INC.M.L .GORDON,INC .
Post Office Box 4725 17200 Kanis Road
Little Rock,AR 7aa14 Little Rock,AR 7aa11
663-5111 821-4011
8.8869 ACRES :1 :None
~Z:I-2 ~PR P Q~D gled:Tree service contractor
to PID offices and vehicle
maintenance and storagefacility
P T:13
~a~aaCX:ao.oa
None
A
The applicant proposes a Planned Industrial District (PID)in
order to utilize this site for their tree service business.Thesiteisownedandhasbeenusedonalimitedbasisbythe
applicant for parking of tree service eguipment,but it is
proposed that the business operation be relocated to this site
with a complete new facility provided.The construction of three
buildings is outlined in the application:a building foroffices,one for vehicle maintenance,and another for parts
storage.Dedication of the required additional right-of-way
along Forbing Road is proposed.
A.
Review bY the planning Commission and approval bY the Board
of Directors is reguested for the establishment of a pID for
West Tree Service.The applicant proposes to relocate theirtreeserviceoperationtothesite.This involves the
construction of three buildings and the paving of an areaforadriveandparking.There is an existing paved area
which is has been used for some time by the applicant for
August 24 1993
KllDZYXRXQH
7
parking of work trucks,and use of the area for this purposewillcontinue.Dedication of the required additional right-
of-way on Porbing Road is proposed.
B.
The site is currently used for parking of the applicant's
equipment and service trucks;there is a large paved area on
the west side of the property.Approximately mid-way back
on the property is a heavily wooded area which is not
anticipated to be included in the current development plans.
The current zoning is I-2,with I-2 tracts to the west and
south.Along the east property line are R-2,I-2,and C-3
zoned properties;however,the R-2 property is immediately
to the east of the portion of the site to be utilized for
the tree service operations.Porbing Road is a paved,curb
and gutter commercial collector street,and no improvements
to Porbing Road are required.Meyerson Drive,which dead-
ends into the site approximately 450 feet north of Porbing
Road was designed for storm run-off to drain to the west;
thus storm water collects at the end of Meyerson Drive where
there has been no provision for water to drain.
C.ERI I ITY MME
Engineering reports that additional right-of-way on Porbing
Road is required.
water works and wastewater Utility report no objections to
the development
The Pire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D.TE H I AL DB
The site plan needs to include the Surveyor and EngineeringCertificationsrequiredbytheSubdivisionOrdinance.
The buffer/fence shown along the east property line needs to
extend to 10 feet beyond the development limits.
A provision needs to be made to accept the discharge of
storm water from Myerson Drive.
E hHhhXRXR:
No significant deficiencies remain in the application.Arevisedsiteplan,showing the dedication of the neededadditionalright-of-way,have been submitted.
The use is appropriate to the existing zoning and uses.Suffering of the use from the adjacent residential uses are
being addressed.
2
August 24,1993
KRPIYZRZQH
p.
Staff recommends approval of the PZD application.
(August 5,1993)
The contractor representing the applicant was present.Staff
presented the reguest,and the applicant's representative
outlined the proposal to the Committee members.The Committee
reviewed the discussion outline with the applicant's
representative who indicated that the deficiencies would be
addressed.The Committee then referred the item to the
Commission for the public hearing.
P (AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval and the
recommendation to the Board of Directors for the establishment of
the PID was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with
the vote of 11 ayes and no nays.
3
August 24,1993
55ÃR:4607 HOFFMAW ROAD --SHORT-FORM PLANNED COMMBRCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
MQLXXQH:On the south side of Hoffman Road,approximately
750 feet west of patterson Road,at 4607 Hoffman Road
2RYILQRlK:XKQXHERR:
LBON S.&JEAN F.HOFFMAN OLLBN DBB WILSON
c/o Chris McCants,Agent 2523 N.Willow
8201 Red Oak Lane North Little Rock,AR 72214
Little Rock,AR 722005 758-8333
399-2850
4.5 ACRBS BR 1 F EE :None
XQHZHQ:I-2 &R-5 ~P QRQ55~ggg:Mini-warehouse Storage
to PCD
13
am~aaQ2::20.02
V Waiver from the Suhdivision Ordinance
Reguirement to construct a sidewalk along Hoffman Road.
T T
Review hy the Planning Commission and approval of the Board of
Directors is reguested for the establishment of a Planned
Commercial Development (PCD)for a mini-warehouse facility on
this site.Proposed is a phased development involving the
construction of 8 mini.-warehouse buildings in three phases over
three years.The first phase entails the constriction of the 3
most northerly buildings.The front building will contain a
manager's office.The second phase involves the construction of
the two remaining buildings north of the drainage ditch.The
final phase involves the construction of the remaining 3
buildings shown on the site plan.The applicant proposes to
construct one-half of a 27 foot back-to-back of curb and gutter
street section,as well as dedicate one-half of the 50 foot
reguired right-of-way,but does not propose to provide a sidewalk
along the frontage.
A.
Review by the planning Commission and approval of the Board
of Directors is reguested for the establishment of a PCD for
the construction of a mini-warehouse facility on this site.
The applicant's reguest entails the construction of 8 eight
buildings phased over three years.The first phase involves
August 24,1993
ZlRDXYXRXQH
7
the construction of the northern most 3 buildings,the one
closest to the street containing an office.The second
phase,scheduled for the following year,entails the
construction of the remaining 2 buildings which are north of
the drainage channel.The third phase,to be developed
during the third year,would involve the construction of the
remaining 3 buildings south of the drainage channel.
Construction of one-half of a 27 foot curb and gutter street
section is proposed.It is requested that a waiver be
granted by the Board of Directors for the required sidewalk
along the Hoffman Road frontage.
B.TI
The site is currently a truck farm;crops are growing on
most of the land.Hoffman Road is a paved,open-ditch
street.There is an open drainage channel bisecting the
site approximately two-thirds of the way back on the site.
The present soning of the tract is I-2 and R-5,with I-2
zoning to the east,north-east,and south.There is a mini-
warehouse storage facility across Hoffman Road to the north-
east of the site.To the North,directly across Hoffman
Road,and at the north-west corner of the site is R-2
property.To the west is R-3 property,with the homes on
Applegate Court hacking up to the site.
C.
Hngineering reports that right-of-way dedication and
construction of improvements to Hoffman Road will be
required.The Detention and Bxcavation Ordinances are
applicable to this development.
Water Works reports that a main extension is required to
serve this property.On-site fire protection will be
required for development beyond the front 3 or 4 buildings.
An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre is applicable.
Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension with
easements will be required.
The Fire Department will require on-site fire protection.
D.
The site plan needs to make provision for landscaping and
buffers,and for the means for protecting and maintaining
these buffers.Buffers are required along residential
abutting property.
A properly prepared and dimensioned site plan is required.
Off street parking and sidewalks are to be shown.Basements
are to be shown as required by the utilities.The Burveying
2
August 24,1993
89RDXYL!XQH
Certificate needs to address the reguirements outlined in
the SuMivision Ordinance.All adjoining property owners
andior names of suMivisions must be shown on the
preliminary plan/plat.The zoning of the site and of
abutting properties needs to be shown on the plan.The
location of proposed PAGIS monuments needs to be shown.The
proposed phasing of the project needs to be indicated.A
storm water analysis and sizing of the drainage culvert
needs to be furnished.
A final plat,with all reguired information in the proper
format,will be required.
A preliminary Bill of Assurance must be submitted.
B.iLALY~:
The plan submitted to date has only minimal information
presented in schematic form.A great deal of additional
information as indicated above is needed.
The proposed use of the site,as mini-warehouse storage,is
in conformance with the uses allowed by the zoning of the
majority of the property.The western-most portion of thetractiszonedR-5 for high density housing uses and the
mini-warehouse use would be less intrusive than those uses
by right in the R-5 zone.
F.AT
Staff recommends deferral of the application pending the
submission of a complete site plan with all reguired
information.If this required information is presented,Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
meeting the re&Zuirements noted.Staff recommends approvalofthewaiverofthesidewalkalongtheHoffmanRoad
frontage.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant and the applicant's agent were present.Staff
presented the reguest and the applicant and applicant's agent
presented their proposal.The Committee reviewed the list ofdeficienciescontainedinthediscussionoutlineanddiscussed
these with the applicant.The applicant responded that they
would proceed with addressing the deficiencies.The applicantalsonotedthatsewerwasnotavailablewithin300feetofthesiteandthattheywerepursuingtheapprovalbytheStateHealth
pepartment of an individual sewage system on site.The CommitteereferredtheitemtotheCommissionforthepublichearing.
3
August 24,1993
KlQRXYLfGQH
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval.Staff
reported that the applicant was reguesting a waiver from the
Board of Directors for the construction of a sidewalk along the
Hoffman Road frontage.The Commission recommended approval of
the establishment of the PCD in the vote to approve the Consent
Agenda,contingent upon the applicant either gaining the
reguested wavier or complying with the reguirements.The vote
was 11 eyes and no nays.
4
August 24,1993
KQR:10825 HERMITAGE ROAD --SHORT-PORN PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
~hgggg:On the south side of Hermitage Road,approximately 300
feet west of Shackleford Road,at 10825 Hermitage Road
QIYRRQRlR:
Ken Hollifield DAVID SCOTT WINDLE,AIA
THE VINCENT ASSOCIATION 10015 Technology Blvd.West,
10015 Technology Blvd.West,Suite 151
Suite 151 Dallas,Tx 75220
Dallas,TX 75220 (214)351-5400
(214)351-5400
and
WHITE-DATERS 8 ASSOCIATES,INC.
401 VictorY St.Little Rock,AR 72201
374-1666
AREA:2.849 ACRES :1 :None
$QHX5Q:0-3 ZRQRQQRRJIQgg:Restaurant and Bakery
to PCDT:11
mSau~aan:24.04
V E TED:None
T P
The applicant has re((uested this item be withdrawn from the
agenda.An earlier re-zoning request,heard at the July 27,1993
Planning Commission hearing,was amended at that hearing from a
reguest for a C-3 re-zoning to a reguest for a PCD.The amended
application was then deferred to the August 10,1993 hearing,
making this request moot.The planning Commission,at the
August 10,1993 hearing,recommended the approval of the request
to establish the PCD to the Board of Directors.The applicant,
subseguently,requested this item be withdrawn from the
August 24,1993 agenda.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for withdrawal,and
the withdrawal was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda
with the vote of 11 eyes and no nays.
August 24,1993
WOODLAKE VILLAGB APARTMENTS --LONG-FORM PLANNED
RBSIDBNTIAL DBVELOPMENT AND EXCLUSIVE ABANDONMENT OF A
PORTION OF CAULDEN DRIVE AND OF NORTH ROAD
&CKXXQH:On the south side of Leander Road at Caulden Drive,
south of Kanis Road
RlKIRaQPRE:JQKKZXKCX:
DAVID A.CARL Frank A.Riggins
12634 Westella Drive THB MEHLBDRGER FIRM
Houston,TX 77077 201 S.Ixard St.
(713)497-0658 Little Rock,AR ,72201
375-5331
ggggh:22.5 ACRES F T :1 W None
ZQHZKQ:MF-18 ZRQRQ~Iggg:Apartment Complex
to PCD
T:10
~E ~X:24.03
None
ATBME P AL:
The applicant proposes a Planned Residential Development (pRD)
for the development of an ayartment complex and the exclusive
abandonment of two rights-of-way within the site.Woodlake
Village Apartments is proposed to have 398 units in 24 buildings,
to be built in two phases.An office and club house building,
racguet ball facility,swimming pool,tennis courts,and jogging
trail are proposed.Parking for 551 vehicles is designated.The
first phase is proposed to involve the construction of 14
buildings;the second phase,the remaining 10.The improved
street which is proposed to be abandoned is Caulden Drive.In
order to provide access to property owners to the south of the
site who currently use Caulden Drive for that purpose,Caulden
Drive is planned to be re-located to a strip along the south
property line of the yroject with access from Leander Drive to
the east.An unimproved right-of-way for North Street is also
proposed to be abandoned.Improvements to Leander Drive along
the boundary of the site are proposed.
A.R
Review by the planning Commission and approval by the Hoard
of Directors for the establishment of a Long-form pRD for
the woodlake village Apartments is reguested.The applicant
August 24,1993
KEDZYZRXQH
also reguests approval by the Board of Directors for the
exclusive abandonment of Caulden Drive and North Drive
within the site.Woodlake Village Apartments is proposed to
be constructed in 2 phases.The first phase is to involve
the construction of the first 14 buildings;the second phase
the remaining 10 buildings for a total of 24 buildings,398
apartment units,with parking for 551 vehicles.Proposed
are a club house and office building,a racguet ball
facility,swimming pool,tennis courts and jogging trail.
The entire site is proposed to be fenced with a 6 foot wood
privacy fence,except at the main entrance where a wrought
iron fence is designated.The applicant requests no
variances or waivers.Proposed,then,is compliance with
the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Ordinance provisions
for construction of one-half of a curb and gutter street
section for Leander Road along the boundary of the project.
No sidewalks are proposed along Leander Drive on the
applicant's side of the right-of-way.Also proposed is the
construction of the full width of a relocated Caulden Drive
along the south property line from Leander Drive west to tie
to the present end of Caulden Drive at its termination into
a private drive.
B.ITI
The existing site is heavily wooded,with thick underbrush
covering the site.The terrain is rolling,and is high up
on the hillside overlooking Eanis Road and I-630 to the
north.Caulden Drive bisects the site,running through thesitenorthtosouthfromLeanderDrivetoaprivatedriveat
the south.The site is presently zoned MP-18.All the
property to the south is R-2.To the west is R-2,c-3,and
R-2 property.To the north is I-2 with a thin strip of R-2
land separating the site from the I-2 and a PID beyond and
across Leander Drive.To the east,across Leander Drive,is
an AP tract and R-2 property south of the AF-zoned property.
C.
Engineering comments that the drive into the site off
Leander must be re-designed so that Leander Drive is shown
as the through street that it is.As it is now presented,
the access drive into the site is shown as the continuation
of Leander Drive from Kanis Road and Leander Drive on past
the entrance appears to be a driveway.Engineering reports
that Leander Drive will be reguired to be constructed to
Master Street plan standards.Engineering also will require
the plat to show and dedicate the right-of-way for therelocatedCauldenDrive.The Detention and Excavation
Ordinances are applicable to this development.
2
August 24,1993
KllBXYXRZQH
7
Water Utility reports that a main extension will be
required.Water Works may require this project to tie into
the main on Kanis,with a portion of the line being public
and a portion being private fire service lines.water works
also reports that there is no objection to closing the
internal roadways.
Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension with
easements will be required.A capacity study is being
performed.There is no objection to closing the internal
streets.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.has no objection to closing the
internal streets.
The Fire Department approved the submittal with the notation
that "no parking,tow-away xone"signs will be required on
interior driveways.
D.I
The preliminary plat/plan which has been submitted is
deficient in the following wayss a vicinity map is missing;
the names of abutting recorded subdivisions,with book and
page number or instrument number,or on unplatted land,the
names of abutting property owners has not been furnished;
the soning classifications of the site and of surrounding
properties has not been shown;and,the location of proposed
PAGIS monuments has not been indicated.
The proposed phasing of the project needs to be indicated on
the plan.
A topographic cross section has not been submitted.
The required documentation for the closing of the internalstreetsmustbesubmitted.The applicant needs to be
working closely with the City Clerk in the abandonment
issue,as well.
hKLXZRXR:
The site is currently zoned for multi-family use.The PRD
review was chosen to combine the reviews for platting of thesite,abandonment of the rights-of-way,and site plan review
for multiple buildings on a site.Therefore,the proposed
use is not in question and is appropriate to the site.
As of this writing,the applicant has not submitted the
necessary petitions for proceeding with the abandonment of
the internal streets.
3
August 24,1993
SLlDXVVXQH
1
P.
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the right-of-
way abandonment issue is resolved.If the applicant
produces the reguired documentation prior to or at the
meeting,the Staff recommendation is one of approval of the
application subject to completing the exhibits and making
the corrections noted above.
IVI (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant's architect was present.Staff presented the item
and the architect outlined the proposal.The list ofdeficienciesnotedinthediscussionoutlinewaspresented,with
the Committee commenting on these deficiencies.The applicant's
representative commented that the required changes would be made.
The Committee then forwarded the application to the Commissionforthepublichearing.
P (AUGUST 24,1993)
Mr.Prank Riggins,representing the applicant,was present.Staff outlined the proposal and Mr.Riggins presented revisedexhibits.A number of neighbors to the proposed project werepresent.
Mr.Paul Williams who lives beyond the site on Caulden Drive
completed a registration card,but,when the Chair asked for his
comments,did not respond.
Mr.Thomas Humphries expressed the concerns of the neighborhood.
He asked whether there were provisions for handling as muchtrafficaswouldbegeneratedbythedevelopment.He asked ifthereweretimelimitssetforthedurationofconstructionand
when the two phases would take place.He asked for assurancethattheproposedlakeswouldhandletherun-off generated by the
development.He indicated that Leander Road is the only way inoroutofthearea,except by way of Kanis Park which most of theresidentswillnotuse,especially at night,and was concerned
about maintaining access to Kanis by way of leander Road duringconstruction.He wanted to know what the buildings would looklike.
Mr.Riggins responded to the concerns.He reported thatadditionallaneswereproposedfortheKanisRoadintersection;that a left turn lane was proposed to be provided off Kanis ontoLeanderandtwoadditionalthroughlaneswereproposedonKanis.
He reported that a right turn lane was proposed on Leander ontoKanis.He assured the neighbors that the lakes on site would
accommodate the run-off which would be generated.Mr.Riggins
4
august 24,1993
ZIRDXYXRXQH
responded that the existing Caulden Drive would be left in tact
until the relocated road is completed and dedicated.He
indicated that the time of construction for the completed project
is anticipated to be eighteen months,that as soon as phase one
is completed,phase two should begin,that the lakes and fences
would be completed as part of phase one.The buildings,he
reported,would be brick veneer with some siding;the proportion
of brick veneer would be 80'4.
The City traffic engineering staff reported that with 400
apartments,the amount of traffic generated should be able to be
accommodated on the two lane Leander Road,and that no signal is
warranted at Kanis at this time.Staff added that if,in the
future,a signal is warranted,it would be added.Staff also
reported that the stop signs and turn lanes should be adequate
for the amount of traffic.Staff also reported that the sight
distance at the intersection was good.
Mrs.Bonnie Burg introduced herself to the Commission,indicating
that she had not completed a registration card,but that she had
concerns about the access to her home.Mrs.Burg said that she
is a widow,and fears to go through Kanis park after dark.She
wanted assurances that her access by way of Leander Road would be
maintained during reconstruction of Leander Road and during the
construction of the development.Mr.Riggins responded that one-
half of Leander Road would be constructed at a time and that it
would remain passable.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the development and to
recommend the establishment of the PRD to the Board of Directors.
The motion carried with 10 ayes and one absent.
5
August 24,1993
KQR:LOWE'S HOME CENTER LONG-FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVBLOPMENT AND EXCLUSIVE ABANDONMENT OF ALHAMBRA
DRIVB,BRISTOL DRIVE,SHADECREST DRIVB,A PORTION OF
ALAMO CIRCLB,AND A PORTION OF CHENAL PARKWAY
l6lMXXQH:On the north side of Chenal Parkway,east of Bowman
Road and west of Autumn Road
QKG3LQHK:hRQGXlKX:
LOWE 'COMPANIES,INC.DEVBLOPMENT CONSULTANTS
Highway 268 East 10411 West Markham St.
North Wilkesboro,NC 28659 Suite 210
(919)651-4000 Little Rock,AR 7aa05
221-7880
~EA:21 ACRES BR F L T:1 F W None
XQggQ:0-1 &R-2 ZRQP~BD J~B:Lowe's Home Center
to PCDR:11
QEma~aan:a4.04
VAR B :Waiver from the reguirement to construct an
additional lane along the north edge of Chanel Parkway
PR P AL:
Proposed is a Long-form Planned Commercial Development (PCD)for
the development of a Lowe's Home Center facility.The site is
designed to accommodate a Lowe's building containing 121,148
square feet of floor area for the hame center itself,plus
another 32,195 sguare feet for the garden center.parking for
673 vehicles is provided.The site also designates three "out-
parcels"for future development,two along the Bowman Road
frontage of the site,and one at the corner of Chanel Parkway and
Autumn Road.The proposal includes a provision for a buffer
along the north property line backing up to the residences in the
Birchwood Addition.This buffer is shown to range in depth from
60 feet for approximately 2/3 of the length of the property line
to a minimum of 30 feet in the area north of the building.The
applicant proposes to supplement the plantings in the buffer to
ensure visual screening,and,where the buffer is reduced to 30
feet,to provide evergreen trees and scrubs in the buffer and on
the sloped fill area to provide a minimum 60 foot visual
screening effect.The applicant proposes to construct the full
width of Autumn Road from Chenal Parkway to the north line of the
site,including raising the grade of the street to reduce the
height of the resulting embankment along the Autumn Road frontage
August 24,1993
KIBRXvV}H
7
and to eliminate the deep dips which are present in the existing
street.At the same time,the applicant proposes to utilize land
to the east of Autumn Road for the storm water detention from thesite.The alternative and originally designated site for the
storm water detention area is the now-designated out-parcel at
the corner of Autumn Road and Chenal Parkway.
A.R
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is reguested for the establishment of the
Lowe's Home Center Long-form PCD.Approval by the Board of
Directors is requested for the exclusive abandonment of
streets within the boundary of the site:Alhambra Drive,
Bristol Drive,Shadecrest Drive,and Alamo Circle,and the
exclusive abandonment of a small portion of the Chenal
Parkway right-of-way which is excess right-of-way and which
protrudes into the site.The applicant requests approval
for a PCD which includes provisions for three out-parcels
and a stormwater detention area which is off site.The
request also provides for the construction of the full width
of Autumn Road,without the curb and gutter section on the
east side of the street,from Chenal Parkway to the north
line of the site.The applicant requests exemption from the
requirement to construct the additional lane along the
Chenal parkway frontage,providing,instead,a right turn
lane from and an acceleration lane onto Chenal Parkway at
the parking lot entrance.The Lowe's Home Center involves
the construction of a building containing 121,148 square
feet in the home center portion of the building,plus
another 32,195 square feet in the garden center.Parking
for 668 vehicles is provided.Buffering,with supplemental
plantings,along the north boundary of the site,behind the
Birchwood Addition residences,is designed into the site
plan.Slopes in the area at the north-east corner of the
property,where the most sever "fill"will take place,are
shown to be kept at "3:1"so that these areas can be planted
and maintained.This area also contains a retaining wall to
allow the slopes to be kept at the "3:1"ratio.A 6 foot
wood privacy fence is proposed for the entire north property
line and along the east property line to the front line of
the building.In the area behind the residences,the fenceisproposedtobelocatedtothesouth,against the
developed area and at the top of the filled area,to give
the screening added effect and provide the greatest benefit
to the residents to the north.
B.
The site is primarily undeveloped,with homes on the west
side fronting on Bowman Road and on the north side of the
tract on a private drive.A few remnants of former
2
August 24,1993
RMDXvVRXQH
structures which have already been removed are scattered
around the site.The site contains a great deal of wooded
area with natural undergrowth.To the north,in an R-2
zone,is the Birchwood subdivision;homes back up to the
proposed site.At the north-west corner of the site is a
newly designated C-1 site.To the west is a large C-3
tract.To the east is 0-2 and C-3 property.Across Chenal
Parkway,to the south,is a pCD for the Home Quarters
development currently taking place.South-west across
Chenal Parkway is a large C-3 zone.
C.
Little Rock Bngineering Division relates that the
re&vxirements relating to traffic access to and from the
site,discussed at a July 27,1993 meeting involving the
developer and Traffic Hngineering,must be followed.
Traffic Hngineering reports that there is a sight distance
problem at the Autumn Road-Chenal Parkway intersection,and
that no traffic signalization is recommended.The Master
Street Plan will re&Zuire that the developer provide an
additional lane along the north edge of Chanel Parkway,plus
providing the deceleration and acceleration lanes at the
access point to the parking lot.Hngineering reports that
they object to the provision of off-site storm water
detention and to the proposal to omit the curb and gutter
section to the east edge of Autumn Road.The Detention and
Hxcavation Ordinances are applicable to this development.
Water Works will require that the project connect to the 12"
main in Bowman Road with an 8"connection.Information is
needed as to whether the building will be sprinkled and the
size and location of the meter.A pro-rata front footage
charge of $12.00 per foot applies along Bowman Road.Water
Works has no objections to the abandonment of the rights-of-
way of the internal streets.
Wastewater reports that sewer is available.There is no
objection to the abandonment of the streets.
The pire Department indicates that additional fire hydrants
appear to be needed at the east end of the building;also,
that "no parking --tow-away"signs are to be placed in the
fire lane encircling the building.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.comments that any removal
and relocation of lines in rights-of-way to be abandoned
will have to be done at the developer's expense.
Arkansas Power and Light approved the site plan as
submitted.
3
August 24,1993
KlRDXvVI XQH
D.
All required exhibits and amendments to exhibits have been
submitted which relate to the site plan.Deficiencies
remain relative to the street rights-of-way abandonment,
since not all adjacent property owners have endorsed the
petition.The options available to the developer are being
pursued,including pursuing the course of "advesarial
abandonment"directly to the Board of Directors.
rn the issue of the street right-of-way abandonment,close
coordination with the City Clerk's office and with the City
Attorney's office is necessary.The City Attorney's office
needs to be involved in the abandonment of the Chenal
Parkway excess right-of-way and transfer of that right-of-
way to the developer.
Since the site drops in grade nearly 75 feet from west to
east,the building "pad"is elevated to decrease that change
in elevation to approximately 35 feet,resulting in as much
as a 35-40 foot of fill.At the north-east corner of the
property,backing up to the residences in Birchwood,the
difference in grade between the rear yards of the residences
and the grade around the building is 10 to 30 feet.
Pactoring in the building height of 28 feet,there is as
much as 58 feet from the elevations of rear yards of
residences in Birchwood behind the building to the top of
the building parapet.
Parameters (e.g.,buildable area,parking and access,and
proposed uses)for the out-parcels have not been identified
by the developer.zn a Planned Unit Development,these must
be established as part of the review by Staff and the
Commission.
The adopted land use plan designates the majority of this
site for office uses,with the remainder designated for
mixed office and commercial uses.
Service access to the site for trucks and customer access to
lowe's and the out-parcel at Autumn Road is by way of Autumn
Road.The development of the site as proposed,then,will
generate a great deal of traffic on Autumn Road,and,as
reported by Traffic Engineering,there is a sight distance
problem at the Autumn Road-Chenal Parkway intersection.Atrafficsignalwouldnotbeadvised.
A hHhhXiRXak:
The adopted land use plan envisions a mixture of office and
commercial development at this site.This is a much less
intense vision of the site than the proposed development
4
August 24,1993
RUll2ZX~IH
7
imposes.The amount of the fill at the north-east corner of
the property creates an imposing facade,rising 38-58 feet
above the rear yards of adjoining residences.The
established residential neighborhood to the north of the
proposed development has a limited number of access points:
two to Markham Street to the north and the one by way of
Autumn Road.The intensity of the proposed Lowe's use,
coupled with the future out-parcel use at Autumn Road,and
truck and customer traffic utilixing Autumn Road will
greatly impact the Rirchwood and Markham Pines
neighborhoods'tilisation of Autumn Road.
P.
The staff recommends denial of the establishment of the PCD
for the Lowe's Home Center.
The use is not in conformance with the adopted land use
plan,and,after review,Staff finds that conditions and
development patterns have not sufficiently changed to
warrant amending the plan.The land use plan envisions a
mixture of office and commercial uses.The proposed uses
are much more intense.The proposed development is an
overdevelopment of the site involving the Lowe's building
itself,its traffic,and the three proposed out-parcels and
their traffic.
The site grading plan as proposed does not relate to the
topography of the terrain,causing sever changes of grade.
Too sever a grade differential is created between the
adjoining yards and area around the proposed building.With
the grade differential at the east end of the project and
the proximity of a 583 space parking lot at the center of
the project,the impact on the residential neighbors is
significant and the proposed buffering is inadeguate to
midigate these effects.
The revised site plan proposes the placement of the storm
water detention pond off site across Autumn Road,in lieu of
the original which is now designated as the out parcel on
Autumn Road.
The impact on the abutting and neighboring residential
subdivisions will be significant.The intense commerical
uses proposed and out-parcel uses which are possible will
create significant noise and traffic.Parking area and
building area lighting,on a grade which is significantly
above the yards of the abutting residences,could be an
objectional situation for the neighbors.
The buildable area,parking provisions,proposed uses,etc.
for the out-parcels,which are reguired parameters to be
reviewed as part of the review for a planned unit
5
August 24,1993
KlRI2XYXSXQH
development,have not been furnished by the applicant.The
Commission,then,is unable to consider all the factors
which are applicable to the site development of this
project.
The applicant requests a waiver from the requirement to
construct the required additional lane on Chenal Parkway,as
reflected in the Master Street Plan.The applicant also
proposes to delete the curb and gutter on the east edge of
Autumn Road which they propose to construct along the east
boundary of the site.Staff does not concur with these
proposals.
Traffic Rngineering has cited the Chenal Parkway-Autumn Road
intersection as having a sight-distance problem and one at
which a traffic signal would not be advisable.The amount
of traffic which would be generated for this intersection by
the proposed development would cause a dangerous condition.
T:(August 5,1993)
A representative from Lowe's and the architect were present.Staff outlined the proposal and the architect presented the
proposal to the Committee members.The discussion outline for
the meeting was reviewed,and the applicant indicated that
deficiencies would be addressed.The applicant discussed theeffectoftheproposedsitedevelopmentplanontheadjacentresidentialpropertytothenorth,and indicated that buffering
would mitigate adverse effects.Trees and evergreen plantings
would augment the natural planting in the buffer area.Utilizing
a retaining wall,the slope from the rear yards behind the
building and the grade at the building would be kept at a low
enough slope so that trees and plants could be successfully grown
and maintained.The Committee referred the request to the
commission for the hearing.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
September 7,1993 Planning Commission hearing,and the deferral
was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda with the voteof11eyesandnonays.
6
August 24,1993
KQR:Steve's Speed and Truck Accessories
—Conditional Use Permit
~azrael:7301 Qeyer Springs Road
Steve Haynes
ZRQRQiShh-A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of an existing auto part
sales with limited motor vehicle
parts installation business on this
C-3 zoned lot.A variance from the
required 25 foot rear yard is
requested.The applicant is also
requesting continued,temporary use
of an existing gravel parking area
and temporary outside storage until
the building and parking lot
expansion are completed which may
be as long as three years.
D I T D
The property is located on the east side of Geyer Springs
ROad,at its intersection with Forbing Road.
a.i i
Uses in the immediate neighborhood are extremely mixed,with
the predominant zonings being C-3,1-2 and R-2.
All property abutting the site is zoned C-3.
There are many commercial businesses in the vicinity of the
intersection of Geyer Springs Road and Forbing Road,
including several restaurants,retail businesses and other
auto service related uses.
A boat sales company,equipment rental business and
mini-warehouse complex are located just west of the
intersection.
A small mobile home park,zoned C-3,is adjacent to the rear
of the site.
The proposed use of this property for retail sales of
vehicle accessories with limited parts installation should
be compatible with the neighborhood.
August 24,1993
SIR1GYXRXQH
3.
There is currently a paved driveway and a 15 space parking
lot on the site.An unpaved,gravel area is also being
utilixed as parking.The applicant requests permission to
continue use of this unpaved,gravel parking area until such
time as construction of the proposed building expansion is
completed.
Once completed,the site will have a paved parking lot for
29 vehicles with two spaces designated as handicapped
parking.There will be additional parking for four vehicles
within the installation bays of the proposed building.
4.nn
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5.Rn n
Dedicate right-of-way on Geyer Springs Road to meet Master
Street Plan requirements,An additional 20 feet of
right-of-way dedication is required.
6.'
No comments as of this writing.
7.AD~i
This application is before the Planning Commission as a
result of action by the Zoning Bnforcement staff.The
applicant is currently parking vehicles on an unimproved,
gravel parking lot.Additionally,the applicant was cited
for outdoor storage of bedliners and storage within two
semi-trailers.
ln response to the enforcement action,the applicant has
filed for a conditional use permit to allow for the
expansion of the building which houses his auto part sales
with limited installation business.Once the expansion is
complete,there will be no need for the outdoor storage or
the semi-trailers.
A paved parking lot will be constructed in conjunction with
the building expansion.
The applicant expects to began construction within three
years and is requesting continued use of the unimproved
parking lot,outdoor storage area and storage within the two
semi-trailers until the expansion is completed.
a
August 24,1993
5!RRLV~IH
Staff feels that the proposed expansion is appropriate andisgenerallysupportiveoftherequest.It is felt thatthereshouldbealessertimeapprovedforcontinueduse oftheunimprovedparkinglotandoutdoorstorage.Staff isnotsupportiveofa3year,open storage yard.Staff feelsthatanyareaapprovedforoutdoorstorage,for whatever
length of time,should be properly screened.
8.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitapplicationsubjecttocompliancewiththeCity's Landscape
and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with the City Engineer
Comments.
Staff does not recommend approval of the reguested 3 yeartimeperiodforcontinueduseofthegravelparkinglotoroutdoorstorage.
IV TTE (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item andoutlinedtheconcernsnotedabove.The Committee was notsupportiveofa3yearopenstorageyard,and felt that theapplicantneededtodealwithamorerealisticperiodforexpansionofhisbuilding.The Committee also felt that,regardless of the time approved,any area of outdoor storageshouldbeproperlyscreenedbyanopaguefence.
It was determined that the reguested rear yard variance was not
an issue.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant,Steve Haynes,was present.There were noobjectorspresent.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and thestaffrecommendation.He informed the Commission that there is
some Guestion as to exactly how much right-of-way is currently inplaceonGeyerSpringsRoad,thus making it difficult todetermineexactlywhatright-of-way dedication is needed to
comply with Master Street Plan standards.
3
August 24,1993
KRlGYXRXQI
Steve Haynes addressed the Commission.He outlined the proposed
expansion and explained his request for a three year continuance
of the use of the gravel parking area and the area of outside
storage.Mr.Haynes stated that the 3 year period would allow
for proper compaction of the soil in the area of the gravel
parking lot,and would allow him to establish a "track record"
with the bank.
After further discussion,staff was asked if there was more
concern about the 3 years proposed for continued use of the
gravel parking lot or of the outdoor storage.
Mr.Carney responded that staff was more greatly concerned about
establishing an outdoor storage yard.
Mr.Haynes explained the nature of the proposed outdoor storage.
He stated that he currently has two semi-trailers being used for
storage of merchandise and a small area behind the building where
pickup truck bedliners are stored.
Mr.Haynes then presented photographs to the Commission showing
his property and the surrounding properties.
The Commission then asked Mr.Haynes about erecting a screening
fence to enclose the area of outdoor storage.
Mr.Haynes stated that security of the site was a major concern.
He stated that a chain-link fence allows the police to observe
any activity on his property and that he would rather not have to
erect a solid fence.
After further discussion,Commissioner VonTungeln made a motion
to approve the application with an 18 month approval to continue
use of the gravel parking lot and outdoor storage.Mr.Haynes
was informed that he could come back before the Planning
Commission at that time and request an extension.
The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 abstention (Oleson).
August 24,1993
KLHK:Victory Fellowship Church—
Conditional Use Permit
LaQChXXQH:7405 Chicot Road
Victory Pellowship Church/Jeff Hathaway,Agent
RKQRQShh:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the phased
construction of a church and
private school on this MF-18 zoned,
12*acre tract.
RDI B DE I T
1.~~~gatiin
The site is located on the east side of Chicot Road,north
of 1-30 and just south of Mabelvale Pike.
a.
Although the immediate neighborhood is primarily single
family residential,there are several non-single family uses
in the vicinity and the site is not directly adjacent to any
single family homes.
The proposed church site abuts a large apartment complex,
also zoned MP-18.A second large apartment development is
located one block further south.
A church is located directly across Chicot Road from thissite
Two blocks to the south,a large area of commercial zoningislocatedattheintersectionofChicotRoadand1-30.
A large area of single family homes extends to the north and
east of the proposed church site.
with proper attention given to screening the adjacentresidentialuses,the proposed development should be
compatible with the neighborhood.
3.
The applicant is proposing a parking lot which will be built
in phases to coincide with the development of the property.
The final seating capacity of the sanctuary will be a
August 24,1993
RIRDZKXZQH
maximum of 1500,reguiring 375 parking spaces.The
completed parking lot will have 411 spaces,exceeding the
ordinance reguirement.
The proposed private school will operate during hours which
will not conflict the church services,The proposed parkinglotshouldbesufficientlylargetoservetheschoolandthe
church both,since they will have activities at different
times.
4.r nin B
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.A 6 foot high opaque fence is reguired along
the south property line,adjacent to the apartment complex.
5.
Additional right-of-way and Master street plan improvements
to Chicot Road will be reguired.This should be
accomplished as part of Phase I construction.
6.
Little Rock Waste Water Utility states an easement should be
platted for the existing 8 inch sewer main.Little Rock
Municipal Water Works states on-site fire protection will be
required,show line size and hydrant location.
7,M~l~i
The applicant proposes to construct,in three phases,a
church and private school on this MP-18 zoned,12+acretract.
The first phase would consist of a multipurpose building
containing classrooms and a sanctuary seating 450.The
corresponding Phase 1 parking lot would accommodate
114 vehicles.
Phase II would involve the construction of a sanctuary,
maximum seating capacity of 1500,and the corresponding
required parking.
The final phase would incorporate the construction of a
classroom and counseling facility,additional parking,a
landscaped picnic area with a pavilion and a ballfield.
The church estimates that it would be a minimum of three
years before Phase ll would be implemented and an additional
three years after that before Phase III would be
implemented.
2
August 24,1993
Kl&llXYL&XQH
The proposed private school would include kindergarten
through 12th grade with an estimated maximum enrollment of
200 students.
The site plan,as submitted,complies with ordinance
standards and has adequate areas set aside for open space
and buffers.Staff is supportive of the application asfiled.
8.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances,including a 6 foot high opaque fence to beinstalledalongthesouthpropertylineadjacenttothe
apartment complex.
2.Compliance with the City Engineer Comments with
right-of-way dedication and Master Street Plan
improvements to be included as a part of Phase I.
3.Compliance with Utility Comments.
I I (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and outlined
the comments noted above.
The applicant was told to provide greater details on the height
and size of the proposed buildings,specifics on Phase I and
general on the balance.
The applicant was also informed that details on the height and
type of any lighting for the proposed ballfield must be provided.
After a brief discussion,the applicant stated that the reguiredright-of-way dedication and Master Street Plan improvements to
Chicot Road will be reviewed by the owner and commented on at the
Planning Commission meeting.
It was determined that there were no other outstanding issues andthisitemwasforwardedtothefullCommissionforfinalresolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
3
August 24,1993
KRDXYXRXQH
Staff presented the item and the staff recommendation with the
following additional comments:
1.The required right-of-way is to be dedicated with the
development of phase I and the required street improvements
are to be accomplished with Phase 11.
2.The ballfield lighting is to be lower than regulation height
and aimed inward,away from any adjacent residential areas.
3.The requested 15 foot tall,135 square foot monument typesignbeapprovedwiththeconditionthatnootherground
mounted signs be permitted.
The Commission was informed that the applicant had respondedsatisfactorilytoallstaffconcernsandhadansweredthose
questions raised in the Subdivision Committee meeting.
It was determined that there were no outstanding issues and this
item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff,with the additional comments.The vote was 10 eyes,
0 noes,0 absent and 1 abstention (Oleson).
4
August 24,1993
KQR:Arch Street Church of Christ
Conditional Use Permit
MCEXZOH:11820 Fairview Road
Arch Street Church of Christ/
Basil Copeland,Elder
~P RQQhh:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a church on this
MF-6 zoned 1 1/Ez acre site.The
proposed sanctuary will have a
seating capacity not to exceed 250.
R I E
The proposed church site is located on the east side of
Pairview Road,north of Woodland Heights and east of Cedar
Branch Drive.
2.i wih i
The zoning and uses in the immediate vicinity are mixed.
ranging from single family homes to large apartment
complexes and office buildings.
Adjacent,to the north of this site,is an older
neighborhood of single family homes on larger tracts of
land.
Directly across Pairview Road,to the west,is a new single
family residential development.
Parther to the west are several large apartment complexes.
A vacant tract of MP-6 zoned property is adjacent,to the
south.Beyond that,across the street,is the Easter Seal
Work Center and a nonconforming kennel operation.
Approximately,one-block south and east of this site is alargeareaofofficezoningwhichincludeslargeoffice
buildings and a large church,Christ The Ring Catholic
Church.
with attention given to properly screening the residences to
the north and across Fairview Road to the west,this
proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood.
August a4,1993
RIRPXKRXQH
n
3.
The applicant is proposing to construct a sanctuary with a
seating capacity of 250,requiring 62 on-site parking
spaces.
The site plan,as submitted,shows a parking lot with 84
spaces,four of which are designated as handicapped parking.
4.n
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinancesisrequiredwithattentiongiventoscreeningthesingle
family residences adjacent to the north and across Fairview
Road to the west.A 15.4 foot street side buffer is
required.The applicant is proposing a 10 foot street side
buffer.
5.
Master Street Plan improvements including curb,gutter and
sidewalks will be required on Fairview Road.Detention and
Excavation Ordinances apply.
6.
Little Rock Waste Water Utilities states a sewer main
extension is required with easements to serve this property.
7 Km1yaia
The applicant is proposing to construct a church on this
MP-6 zoned 1 1/2s acre site.This item is associated with
Item No.5 on this agenda,Pairview Park Preliminary Plat.
The church will consists of a single building housing a 250
seat sanctuary and the usual associated uses such as
classroom space and fellowship hall.
The applicant is proposing a reduced street side buffer of
10 feet,15.4 feet is required.This remaining 10 footbuffershouldbeheavilylandscapedtoscreentheresidences
located across Pairview Road from the church parking lot.
With attention given to adequately screening adjacentresidences,staff is supportive of the proposal.
8.
Staff recommends approval of the application as filedsubjectto:
a
August 24,1993
kUIQXYZRZQM
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances including increased plantings in the reduced
street side buffer.
2.Compliance with the City Bngineer and Utility Comments.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and outlined
the concerns noted above as well as the following items.
1.Provide height and detailed dimensions of the proposed
building,including any steeple structures.
2.Bliminate first parking space which backs into the "throat"
of each driveway entrance.
3.Provide a signage plan,principal and directional.
4.Provide a grading plan.
The applicant agreed to comply with all items noted.
It was pointed out to the Committee that sewer would be served to
the south over a committed easement.
It was determined that there were no other outstanding issues and
this item was forwarded to the full Commission for final
resolution.
P &AUGUST a4,1993)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and
informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been
submitted which addressed all staff concerns,including
increasing the street side buffer to 16 feet.
Doug Coy,an attorney and member of the church,addressed the
Commission for the applicant.He discussed the merits of the
proposal and stated that there would be no school or recreational
activities associated with the church.He further stated that
the congregation would not exceed 250 persons.If that occurred,
he stated,the church would locate another site to sponsor
another church,as this church has done in the past.
Richard Clemente,of 11621 Summit Road,addressed the Commission
in opposition to the proposed church.He stated that he fearstrafficproblemswouldoccuronPairvi'ew Road,which is narrow
3
August 24,1993
KIR2XvVQH
and dangerous.Mr.Clemente asked the Commission to refer the
item back to the Subdivision Committee to resolve the potentialtrafficproblems.
J.K.Clemente,of 11621 Summit Road,next addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposal.He repeated the
contention that the church would add to traffic problems on
pairview Road and recommended that Pairview Road be closed at a
point north of the proposed church site,thus eliminating traffic
using it as a route from Pleasant Forest to Highway 10.
Mr.Clemente also stated that he feared the church parking lot
would become a problem area for loitering and parties,as Cedar
BranCh was prior to its full development.
B.Dale West,of 11617 Summit Road,then addressed the Commission
in opposition to the church.He also stated that traffic on
Pairview Road was his major concern.He recommended that
Pairview Road be made a one-way street.Mr.West stated that the
proposed church was not compatible with the neighborhood.
After further discussion of the traffic problems on Pairview
Road,Mr.Bill Henry,City Traffic Hngineer,addressed the
Commission.He stated that the City did,at one time,consider
making Fairview Road a one-way street.He further stated that
the residents of the area were contacted and the City received a
mixed response to the proposal.
Commissioner Nicholson asked if the proposed church would
generate more traffic on a weekly basis than apartments if this
MF-6 site were developed as such.
Mr.Henry stated that the Traffic Department's studies indicated
that apartments would generate more traffic on a weekly basis
than would a church of this size.
Mr.Kurt Henle,of 11611 Summit Road,addressed the Commission.
He stated that he was not in opposition to the church,but felt
that it needs a larger site,perhaps on a corner that would give
an alternate traffic route other then Pairview Road.
Ms.Cloie Morgan,of 10 Cedar Branch,then addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed church.She stated that
the relatively small church site would force overflow parking
onto the streets of her neighborhood.She further stated that
approval of this application would make it easier for the
Commission to approve the forthcoming 0-3 rezoning application
for the property to the south of the proposed church site.
Mr.Coy,representing the applicant,then addressed the
Commission.He stated that Arch Street of Church of Christ was
an existing neighborhood church that was seeking to relocate to
this site.He stated that the church is not a "mega church"and
does not intend to grow beyond 250 persons.
4
August 24,1993
RB!DXYXSXQH
Mr.Coy continued by stating that traffic would not be a problem.
The church meets for services twice on Sundays and once on
Wednesdays,other than for special occasions.
Mr.Coy concluded by stating that loitering would not be
tolerated.He informed the Commission that this proposed church
is compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner VonTungeln reminded the opponents that the portion
of Pairview Road located in front of the church will be improved
as a result of the church construction.
Further discussion then followed concerning this development and
the pending 0-3 rezoning request for the property adjacent to the
south.
Commissioner Putnam stated that Pairview Road would continue to
be improved as the adjacent properties are developed.
Purther discussion then followed between Mr.Putnam and
Mr.Clemente concerning Fairview Road.
Mr.Clemente stated that he had spoken with Bill Henry about the
possibility of making Pairview Road a cul-de-sac at some point
north of the proposed church site.
Chairman Walker then called the question.A motion was made and
seconded to approve the application as recommended by staff.The
vote was 6 ayes,g noes,1 absent and 2 abstentions (Chachere,
Nicholson).The application was approved.
5
August 24,1993
KLHK:Pellowship sible Church—
Conditional Use Permit
LQCEXXQH:12601 Hinson Road
I Pellowship sible Church/
Bud Pinley,Agent
~PRQShh:The applicant requests a
conditional use permit to allow
for the construction of a new
2,000 seat sanctuary,a
maintenance/storage building,two
future additions to the existing
learning center and an expansion
of the parking lot on this existing
R-2 soned church site.The
existing sanctuary is to be
remodeled into a chapel and
classrooms with two entrance
canopies added.The learning
center and youth building are
also proposed for remodeling.
The site is located at the southwest corner of Hinson Road
and Napa Valley Road.
2.m i 'wi
All improvements proposed in this conditional use permit
application are to be constructed on the existing Pellowship
Bible Church site.
There are several institutional type uses in the immediate
vicinity of the church including Asbury United Methodist
Church,pulaski Academy,the West Little Rock Library and
some doctors'ffices.
A large area of single family homes,Pleasant Valley,
extends north of this site across Hinson Road.
As this is not an expansion beyond the existing church
property,the proposed use should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
August 24,1993
5~DV~QH
3.
There is currently a substantial parRing area of 442 spaces
on the site.A significant number of those spaces will be
eliminated by the new worship center.The applicant is
proposing to construct 62 more parRing spaces which will
help compensate for those parRing spaces displaced by the
construction of the new worship center.The new worship
center will have seating for 2,000 people,requiring 500on-site parking spaces.The applicant is proposing a total
on-site parking area of 415 spaces.If the church intends
to utilize adjacent sites,such as Pulaski Academy,to meet
the parking reguirement,a written five year agreement
should be obtained.
4.r in f
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinancesisreguired.The parking lot in the southwest corner of thesitemustberedesignedtoprovideforminimallandscapingarea.
5.En n
Remove existing driveway apron on Napa Valley at the
southeast corner of this site.Additional detentionfacilitiesareneeded.
6.ili mm n
Little Rock Municipal Water WorRs states additional on-sitefireprotectionwillprobablybereguired.Arkansas power
and Light reguires additional easements.See Arkansas power
and Light's copy of site plan in file.
huakxaia
The applicant proposes a major expansion and remodeling of
the existing church on this R-2 zoned site.
Of primary concern with a facility of this size is assuring
that adequate parRing is available.The church is in the
process of obtaining additional property nearby which will
allow for construction of other parking spaces.
An agreement has been reached with pulaski Academy whichwillallowthechurchtoutilizetheschoolparRinglot.
8.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to:
2
August 24,1993
KllPZYZSXQH
I 1 n i -B
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
2.Compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
3.A letter of agreement with Pulaski Academy allowingfortheuseoftheschool's parking lot.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the proposal andnotedtheitemsofconcernoutlinedabove.Other items of
concern noted were as follow.
1.Provide the height of the proposed worship center,including
any steeple structure.
2.Provide details on the three connections between the
learning center and the worship center.Are they elevated
sidewalks?If so,is there adequate clearance for fire
apparatus?
The applicant advised the Committee that the building will not beaconventionalbuildingwithasteepleandthe35footheightlimitwillnotbeaproblem.He said a letter of agreement withPulaskiAcademywillbeforthcoming,but no lease.The applicantfurtherstatedthataredesigncouldbedonetodealwithconcernsaboutthesouthwestcorner,trees etc.The Committee
was informed that further detail could be provided on buildingclearancesandconstructionandthatthedetentionissuewould bediscussedwithPublicWorks.
After a brief discussion,it was determined that there were nofurtheroutstandingissuesandthisitemwasforwardedtothefullCommissionforfinalresolution.
&AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant,Bud Finley,was present.There were no objectorspresent.
The planning staff presented the item and a staff recommendationofapproval.The Commission was informed that a revised siteplanhadbeensubmittedwhichansweredalloutstandingconcerns.
An agreement has been received from Pulaski Academy which allowsthechurchtousetheschool's parking lot.With the redesign ofthesitetoaccommodatethe25footbufferinthesouthwestcorner,there will be 400 on-site parking spaces.
3
August 24,1993
KRDLYXRXQH
Due to the grade of the site,the proyosed worship center will
have a height not to exceed 50 feet.There will be no steeyle
structure.
The elevated skywalks will have a 15 foot clearance.
It was determined that there were no outstanding issues and this
item was ylaced on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff.
The vote was 11 eyes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
August 24,1993
7
KQR:Pellowship Bible Church Parking Lot-Conditional Use Permit
MChXXQH:12800 Hinson Road
L.V.Hinson and Ruth M.
Hinson/John Rees,Agent
~PRQShh:The applicant proposes to remove
the existing residence and to
construct a 113 space parking lot
on this R-2 zoned 2.2 acre tract.
The parking lot will be utilized by
Pellowship Bible Church which is
located at 12601 Hinson Road.
R B D
The site is located on the north side of Hinson Road,
approximately two blocks west of Napa Valley Road.
2.
The zoning on the north side of Hinson Road is primarily R-2
with the uses being exclusively single family residential.
Pulaski Academy is located directly across Hinson Road,to
the south.
Due to its distance from the church,this proposed parking
lot will most probably be used as overflow parking on Sunday
mornings.With proper screening and buffering,this
relatively nonintensive use should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3.
There is an existing 20 foot access easement extending along
the west perimeter of this site which serves the adjacent
properties located to the west and north of the proposed
parking lot.
The parking lot itself consists of a single curb cut on
Hinson Road and a loop driveway which will access 113
parking spaces.
August 24,1993
KIRRZYZRXQH
n
4.
Compliance with the City's landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required with attention given to screening the adjacent
single family residences.
5.
Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply.Sidewalk
required along Hinson Road.
6.
I ittle Rock Municipal Water Works states a pro rata front
footage charge of 84.00 per foot along Hinson Road will
apply if water service is required.Arkansas Power and
I ight requires a 15 foot easement along Hinson Road.
haaXXEia
The applicant is proposing to construct a 113 space parking
lot on this R-2 zoned 2.2 acre tract.The parking lot will
serve Pellowship Bible Church,located at 12601 Hinson Road.
The parking lot will have a single access point onto Hinson
Road.
The parking lot will be over 600 feet away from the church
which it is suppose to serve,therefore,it should be
designated as overflow parking not required parking.Any
lighting must be low level,directional lighting,aimed away
from adjacent residential property.
Attention must be given to adequately screening the adjacent
residences.
8.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to:
1.Compliance with the City's Iandscape and Buffer
Ordinances with attention given to screening the
adjacent single family residences.
2.Any lighting is to be low level,directional lighting,
aimed away from adjacent residential property.
3.Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments.
2
August a4,1993
9ERXVUXQH
V (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and yointed
out the concerns outlined above as well as the following.
1.The lack of a buffer or landscape strip on the west
perimeter of the parking lot,adjacent to the 20 foot
access easement.
2.There are no sidewalks on the north side of Hinson Road.
Anyone using the lot will have to cross a five lane road to
reach the church.
3.The lack of a signage plan
The applicant addressed the Committee and stated that the parking
lot would be redesigned to accommodate the reguired landscaping.
It was agreed to bz the applicant that sidewalks would be
constructed on Hinson Road and that a sign plan would be
submitted.
The applicant also stated that the lot would be chained or locked
at night and that the balance of the site,on the north end,
would be left as it is,as neighborhood playground.
After further discussion,it was determined that there were no
other outstanding issues and this item was forwarded to the full
Commission for final resolution.
I A TI (AUGUST 24,1993)
Bud Pinley and John Rees were present representing Pellowship
Bible Church.There were no objectors present.One letter of
opposition,from an adjacent property owner,had been received.
The Planning staff presented the item and a staff recommendation
of approval.The Commission was informed that a revised site
plan had been submitted which addresses all outstanding staff
concerns,including the addition of a 6 foot privacy fence along
the north property line.
Due to the inclusion of a 10 foot landscaping strip on the west
perimeter of the parking lot,the lot was subtly redesigned and
now has 109 parking spaces.
All signage will comply with ordinance standards.
Chairman Walker asked if the proposed landscaping exceeded
ordinance reguirements.He was informed that the perimeter
landscaping strips do indeed exceed ordinance minimums.
3
August 24,1993
BQRDXvVi'!XQH
n
Zt was determined that there were no outstanding issues and this
item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
hy staff.
The vote was 11 eyes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
August 24,1993
T
gAgg:Old Landmark House of Prayer—
Conditional Use Permit
~&XQH:3105 South Louisiana Street
Old Landmark House of prayer/
Bishop H.L.Ballard,Pastor
ZRQRQShh:The applicant requests a
conditional use permit to allow for
the placement of a 24 foot by 60
foot portable building on an R-3
zoned lot,adjacent to the existing
church site.The new building will
be made permanent and is to be used
as a 100 seat sanctuary and
classrooms.The existing church
building will be converted into
classroom space and a fellowship
hall.
RD E T
The existing church and the adjacent vacant lot are located
on the east side of South Louisiana Street,just south of
West 31st Street.
a.i il'i h
A small neighborhood church has existed at 3105 South
Louisiana for many years.The church has now purchased the
vacant lot adjacent to the north and seeks to expand from
the one lot it now occupies.
The neighborhood is primarily zoned R-3 and single family
residential is the predominate use in the immediate
vicinity.
A small,commercial node is located directly east of the
proposed site.This commercial node,although zoned C-3,
has no commercial businesses in it.It is comprised of a
vacant commercial building,several vacant lots and a couple
of single family residential structures.
One-half block south of the church,an upholstery shop
occupies two C-3 zoned lots.
One-half block further south are the railroad right-of-way
and biddle yards,zoned I-3.
August 24,1993
~BL~VI Qg
With proper attention to ordinance criteria and design
standards,the church should continue to be compatible with
the neighborhood.
3.
A sanctuary seating 100 persons requires 25 on-site parking
spaces.The site plan,as submitted,shows no on-site
parking.The applicant states that there is parking around
the existing church building on the adjacent lot.Staff
feels that a better site plan should be submitted,showing
both lots,the existing building and any on-site parking.
4.r r
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5.i
Dedicate additional 15 feet of right-of-way to meet Master
Street Plan requirements.
6.i i mm
No comments as of this writing.
7.~An 1 kii
Although staff is basically supportive of the concept,it isfeltthattherehasnotbeensufficientinformation
submitted to allow for a thorough review to assure
compliance with ordinance standards and design criteria.A
survey/site plan should be done incorporating the entire
church site,including the existing building and property as
well as any proposed improvements.
At this point,a deferral may be appropriate,to allow the
applicant time to address this issue.
8.in
Staff recommends that this item be deferred until a more
complete,workable site plan has been submitted.
I (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant,Dorothy Ballard,was present.staff and the
Committee discussed at length the kinds of issues the church
needs to address such as parking,building location,permit
a
August 24,1993
KlRI2XYXRXQH
requirements,signage,a workable combined survey and obtainingadvisefromanarchitect.
Ms.Ballard agreed to deal with these issues prior to the publichearing.
Staff pointed out that a deferral may be appropriate at thispoint.
After further discussion,the Committee forwarded this item tothefullCommission.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had written
reguesting a deferral to the October 5,1993 Planning Commission
meeting.The deferral is reguested in order to allow the
applicant time to develop a comprehensive site plan.
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved fordeferraltotheOctober5,1993 Planning Commission meeting.
The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
August 24,1993
gAMg:Circuit City —Conditional
Dse Permit
RKhXXQH:109 Markham Park Drive
Circuit City/R.Bruce Lucas,
Applicant
ZEQRQGhh:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 34,315 square
foot retail electronics,home
appliances and computer store with
an automobile stereo installation
bay of 1,452 square feet on this
C-3 zoned three acre site.The
automobile stereo installation
aspect of the proposal generates
the requirement of a conditional
use permit C-3 zoning.
RDI B I D
The site is located on the north side of Markham Park Drive,
east of North Bowman Road.
2.m i ili wi h i rh
The neighborhood in the vicinity of the West Markham/Bowman
Road intersection is heavily commercial with a variety of
uses ranging from small offices to large commercial shopping
centers and automobile dealerships.
Circuit City is primarily a business which specializes inretailsalesofelectronics,home appliances and computers.
Only about 4%of the total floor area is allocated for the
incidental use of car stereo installation.
The proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood.
3.
The applicant is proposing a parking area of 115 spaces
which complies with the parking ratio requirement of one
parking space to 300 square feet of gross floor area.Four
parking spaces are designated as handicapped parking.The
parking lot is designed to access a shared driveway on theeast.This common driveway will be shared by a restaurant
which is currently under construction.
August 24,1993
KB!DXKI~H
T
The east driveway onto Markham park Drive is poorly
designed,creating a bottleneck for vehicles trying to exit
the property.This needs to be redesigned.
4.'
Compliance with the city's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5.in r
No engineering comments
6.'n
Little Rock Municipal water Works states that the water line
which goes up into this property will be a private fire
service.It will have to be tapped off the existing main.
The meter will be off the public portion of the line.
7 .M~li
The primary use of this C-3 zoned property will be retail
sales of electronics,which is allowed by right.
Only a small portion,4'4,of the gross floor is allocated
for car stereo installation which generates the need for a
conditional use permit in C-3.
Purther information is needed detailing the treatment of the
slope on the north side of the property and the proposed
retaining wall at the northwest corner of the building.
8.n
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
2.Compliance with Utility Comments.
3.Resolution of the design issues concerning the east
driveway entrance and hillside treatment.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and outlined
the concerns regarding the east driveway entrance and the
treatment of the hillside on the north perimeter.The applicant
2
August 24,1993
SIRI2ZXZRXQH
7
agreed to redesign the driveway and stated that a revised plan
will be submitted reflecting the details on the retaining wall
and excavation of the hillside.
After a brief discussion,the Committee determined that there
were no other outstanding issues and forwarded this item to the
full Commission for final resolution.
I (AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
'The Planning staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.The Commission was informed that a revised site plan
had been received which answered staff concerns.
It was determined that there were no outstanding issues and this
item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff.
The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
August 24,1993
KLHE:Caulder Manufactured Home—
Conditional Use Permit
~hTXQH:4610 Gooch Drive
Richard Caulder
RKQRQShh:A conditional use permit is
reguested to allow for the
construction of a multisectional
manufactured home on this R-2
zoned lot.This is to be
accomplished by installing a
singlewide manufactured home and
then adding an addition to the
front.The entire structure will
be covered with a single roof.
variance to allow a reduced rear
yard of 15 feet is reguested.
T
The property is located on the west side of Gooch Drive,
approximately 100 feet north of Taylor Loop Road.
2.m i ''i rh
The zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2 with the
predominate use being single family residential homes on
large lots,in a rural setting.
There are a few older singlewide mobile homes along Gooch
Drive.
Chenal valley Church of Christ is located one block west of
this site,on the south side of Taylor Loop Road.
The proposed use,once completed,will be compatible with
the neighborhood.
3.
The property will be served by a standard doublewide,
residential driveway.
4.r
None reguired for single family residential construction.
August 24,1993
KRI2ZYZRZQH
7
5.
No engineering comments
6.
Little Rock Waste Water Utilities states a sewer main
extension is required with easements.
7.Nm1zaia
Although the request is for a multisectional manufactured
home,it is being accomplished in an unorthodox manner.
singlewide manufactured home will be placed on the site and
an addition will be added to the front.The entire
structure will then be wrapped with the same siding and
covered with a single roof.
Staff supports this concept,but feels that assurance is
needed that the "multisectional"aspect of this proposal
will be accomplished immediately upon placement of the
singlewide on the lot,perhaps tie in the Certificate of
Occupancy to approval.
8.n
Staff recommends approval of this application as filed,
subject to the addition heing constructed immediately upon
placement of the singlewide manufactured home on the
property.
Staff would also recommend that the Certificate of Occupancy
be withheld until the "multisectional"aspect of the projectiscompletedasproposedbytheapplicant.
B V (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and
explained the "multisectional"concept of the project.
The applicant addressed the Committee and explained that
construction was a one time activity with the addition being
added immediately upon placement of the singlewide manufactured
home.
He further explained that the finished structure would be wrapped
with the same siding so as to cover the singlewide component.
The Committee felt that tying approval to the Certificate of
Occupancy was a good point to assure completion.
August 24,1993
SURRXXXRXQH
7
No one voiced concerns about the reduced rear yard setback,
however the applicant said he would provide the location of
several big trees which he stated was his justification for
wanting to move the structure closer to the rear of the property.
After a brief discussion,it was determined that there were no
other outstanding issues and this item was forwarded to the full
Commission for final resolution.
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
The Planning staff presented the item and a staff recommendation
of approval.It was determined that there were no outstanding
issues and this item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
approval as recommended by staff,including the provision that
the Certificate of Occupancy be withheld until the
"multisectional"aspect is completed.
The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
August 24,1993
1 E
KLKK:Caradine Accessory Dwelling—
Conditional Use Permit
ML ChXXQH:4621 Eastwood Road
L Martha Caradine
z~p~:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 1,040 square
foot accessory dwelling on this
R-2 zoned .3 acre lot.Variances
are requested to allow for the
size of the structure which exceeds
ordinance standards by 340 square
feet and for the rear yard coverage
which exceeds ordinance standards
by 87.5 square feet.
E I
The property is located on the east side of Eastwood Drive
which is in the westwood Addition,south of Asher Avenue.
a.
This portion of the Westwood neighborhood is comprised of
single family homes on standard city lots.The majority of
the adjacent portion of westwood is comprised of single
family homes on larger tracts.
Two blocks north of this site is a large area of commercial
and industrial zoning,fronting on Asher Avenue.
The concept of an accessory dwelling,within the confines of
the zoning ordinance,is appropriate for the neighborhood.It is felt by staff that the proposed accessory dwelling
exceeds ordinance standards to such a degree so as not to be
compatible with the neighborhood.
If the size of the proposed structure were reduced to comply
with ordinance standards,it would perhaps be a more
compatible use.
3.ki
There are currently two driveways on the site,a concrete
paved driveway leading to the principal dwelling and a
second,unpaved driveway leading to the rear of the
property.
Auguat 24,1993
KKPZYXRXQH
4,
None required.
5.
No engineering comments
6.i
No utility comments as of this writing.
hQiL1YSAS
The maximum permitted floor area allowed by ordinance for
accessory dwellings is 700 square feet.The proposed
accessory dwelling is 1,040 square feet in area with a
260 square foot carport for a total area of 1,300 square
feet.The principal dwelling is just over 2,000 square feet
in area.
Staff questions whether the proposed structure truly meets
the ordinance definition of an accessory dwelling which is
to be subordinate in both land coverage and gross floor area
to the principal dwelling on the lot.
8.
Staff recommends denial of this application on the grounds
that the proposed structure does not conform to ordinance
standards defining the required subordinate relationship for
an accessory dwelling.
(AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and
outlined the concern about the size of the proposed accessory
structure and the lack of a true subordinate relationship to the
existing principal dwelling on the lot.
The Committee felt that there was a positive aspect to the
removal of the existing metal quanset hut in the rear yard.
It was noted that the property has a large rear yard,but it was
felt that the proposed accessory dwelling is out of scale.
The Committee asked staff to obtain photos of the site and the
existing buildings.
The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final
resolution.
2
August 24,1993
KRRXYXRXQH
(AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant,Martha Caradine,was present.There were several
objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and a
staff recommendation of denial.
Martha Caradine addressed the Commission.She stated that the
proposed accessory dwelling would be occupied only by family
members.
chairman Walker asked Ms.Caradine if she was aware of the
700 square foot ordinance standard for accessory dwellings and
staff's disapproval of the structure which she proposes.
Ms.Caradine stated that she had a particular plan in mind for a
premanufactured,log cabin structure and wanted approval for the
size structure proposed.
Blizabeth Trantham,of 4713 Bastwood Street,addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling.She
stated that the residents of westwood Addition are opposed to a
second dwelling on any lot in the subdivision.
Ms.Trantham presented the Commission with a petition,signed by
115 westwood residents,in opposition to the proposed accessory
dwelling.
Commissioner Woods asked Ms.Trantham if the fact that Ms.
Caradine was replacing an existing,unsightly accessory building
with a new structure made any difference.
Ms.Trantham replied that she would like to see the existing
building removed,but not at the cost of replacing it with the
proposed accessory dwelling.
Louie Waldron,of 4613 Eastwood Road,next addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling.He
stated that he feared Ms.Caradine would rent out the structure
and not use it solely for family members.
ln response to a guestion from the Commission,staff responded
that the property owner was reguired to occupy one of the
dwellings on the property,but there was no restriction on who
could occupy the second dwelling.
A couple of those persons in opposition then questioned whether
the notices were proper.
Ms.Caradine responded that she mailed the reguired notice based
on a list obtained from an abstract company.
3
August 24,1993
89l2XKXRXQH
Staff assured the Commission that the yxoyer procedure had beanfollowed.
Commissioners VonTungeln and McDanlel then voiced theix
oyyosition to the proposed accessory dwelling.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted.
The vote was 0 eyes,10 noes and 1 absent.The application wasdenied.
4
August 24,1993
P
Horne:Unnamed Right-of-Way Exclusive
Abandonment
M~@:Within the South 1/2,SW 1/4,
Section 31,T-2-N,R-13-W
r li John W.and Zohnnie Mae
Shackleford/Wingfield Martin,Agent
REagESj;:To abandon a 110 foot by 1,706 foot
unnamed and undeveloped right-of-
way located within the South 1/2 SW
1/4,Section 31,T-2-N,R-13-W and
to abandon any easements located
within said right-of-way.
MQZ~IVIEW:
1.i f r hi Ri
There is no public need for this right-of-way.
2.Pl
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way since a comparable right-of-way will be
dedicated in this area.
3.f r i —-W n
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets as
there are no adjacent streets.
4.r r
The right-of-way is undeveloped.The terrain is comprised
of rolling pasture and woods.
5.v m
Once abandoned,the area will be incorporated into a new
phase of the St.Charles residential development.
6.
All surrounding property is vacant and undeveloped.Thereiscurrentlynodirectaccesstothisportionofright-of-
way.A new right-of-way is being dedicated in this vicinity
through a phase of St.Charles which roughly corresponds to
the location of this right-of-way.
August 24,1993
XII)2ZYZRZQH
7.
There has been no neighborhood position voiced.All
adfoining property is owned by the ayylicant.
8.
There will be no effect on public services or utilities.
All utilities have approved the abandonment.
9.v
All reversionary rights will extend to J.W.and Johnnie Mae
Shackleford.
10.
Abandonment of this portion of right-of-way and the
easements located within it will allow for the development
of a new phase of the St.Charles development,A new right-
of-way is being dedicated through the platting of this new
phase of St.Charles,The preliminary plat was approved by
the Planning Commission on tulY 13,1993.
Staff recommends approval of the petition to abandon this portion
of right-of-way and the easements located within it.
V T (AUGUST 5,1993)
The applicant,Wingfield Martin,was present.There was a verybriefdiscussionconcerningthisitem.The Committee determined
that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final resolution.
P I I (AUGUST 24,1993)
The applicant,Wingfield Martin,was present.There were no
obfectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and astaffrecommendationofapproval.
Richard wood,zoning and Subdivision Manager for the Department
of Neighborhoods and Planning,then addressed the Commission.He
explained that this right-of-way was dedicated during the process
in which this area was zoned and a replacement right-of-way is
reguired.A concurrent right-of-way should be dedicated.
a
August 24,1993
KIRDXYXRZQH
Jim Lawson,Director of the Department of Heighborhoods and
Planning,stated that this property needed to be annexed into
city.He stated that the property owner had promised to do so
7 to 8 years ago but had not done so.Mr.Lawson stated that the
City would agree to abandon this right-of-way only when the
replacement right-of-way dedication is "in hand".
Wingfield Martin then addressed the Commission.He stated that
the property owner had agreed to dedicate the needed right-of-way
and would do so during the future platting process.
After further discussion,Chairman Walker asked Mr.Martin if
hewould accept a Planning Commission recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors,subject to the concurrent right-of-way
being dedicated.
Joe White,the pro]ect engineer,then addressed the Commission.
He stated that the property owner,Mr.Shackleford,would agree
to dedicate the needed right-of-way at the same time this
right-of-way is abandoned.
A motion was then made to recommend approval of the right-of-way
abandonment application.
The vote was 9 eyes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE f 9)3 g CONSENT%~REGULAR
1o 12 A 8 C 3 4,S 14 1F 2oEfk257I&f9 F 'f 4 '11 f3 f5 ZI 22.
BALL,RAMSEY rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr4
CHACHERE,DIANE A f3 ~
WILLIS,EMMETT 4 Q A A
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r A r'IB ~
OLESON,KATHLEEN ~~r r r Q ~
VONTUNGELN,JIM rrrrr"rrrrrrrrrrrrrW&r&&~
PUTNAM,BILL rr
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H,
'
WALKER,BRAD /rrrr rr rrrr»rrrr r r r r r r r ~0
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY (N AT IZ:3o 4(3P
CHACHERE,DIANE
WILLIS,EMMETT fff AT IZ:42/2 0 '7 E 9 o N A t-I-I 7 E M 5 E XCP P7 4,II 3 15 Zf ZZ
MCDANIEL,JOHN iN A7 (2:3o
NICHOLSON,JERILYN
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD
+AYE ~NAYE A ABSENT ~A ABSTAIN
Meeting Adjourned +.50 P.M.
August 24,1993
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
ate
c rman e etary