HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 07 19931
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 7,1993
12:30 P.M.
I.RO11 Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the July 27,1993 meeting were approved
as mailed.
Members Present:Brad Walker
Ramsay Ball
John McDaniel
Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam
Joe Selz
Jim VonTungeln
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ronald woods
Members Absent:Diane Chachere
Jerilyn Nicholson
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HBARING
AGENDA
SEPTBMBER 7,1993
I.I
A.Lowe's Home center Long-form PcD (z-5719)
II .I
1.Z-3844-B Fairview Road and R-2 and MF-6 to 0-3
Plesant Ridge Road
2.z-4265-A 1202 and 1206 North R-2 to O-l
University
3.Z-5099-A Hwy.10,Hwy.300 and R-2,0-3 and
Chanel Parkway C-2 to MF-180-3 and C-3
4.Z-5724 11,324 Kanis Road R-2 to 0-3
5.Z-5726 Peach Tree Drive R-2 to 0-3
I I I .QTHP~RLTT~
6.7604 Eagle Dr.Short-form POD (Z-5688)
7.9505 Alexander Road —reguest for a full waiver of all
Subdivision Ordinance reguirements (8-991)
September 7,1993
KQR:LOWE'S HOMB CENTER LONG-FORM PLANNBD COMMBRCIAL
DEVBLOPMENT AND EXCLUSIVE ABANDONMBNT OF ALHAMBRA DRIVB,
BRISTOL DRIVB,SHADECREST DRIVB,A PORTION OF ALAMO
CIRCLE,AND A PORTION OF CHENAL PARKWAY
~hXZQH:On the north side of Chenal Parkway,east of Bowman
Road and west of Autumn Road.
DD~hQRRR:hEQGXRCX:
LOWE'8 COMPANIES INC.DEVBLOPMENT CONSULTANTS
Highway 268 East 10411 West Markham Street
North Wilkesboro,NC 28659 Suite 210
(919)651-4000 Little Rock,AR 72205
221-7880
hKgj:21 ACRES BR L T :1 :None
0-1 &R-2 ~PR P QED JtQE:LOwe'S Home Center
to PCD
P D 11
~SQ~RhCX:24.04
Waiver from the requirement to construct an
additional lane along the north edge of Chenal Parkway.
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
sguare feet of floor area for the home 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 Chenal Parkway and
Autumn Road.The proposal includes a provision for a buffer
along the north property line backing up to the residences in the
Hirchwood 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 30feet,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 thesite,including raising the grade of the street to reduce the
height of the resulting embankment along the Autumn Road frontage
September 7,1993
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.
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested 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 Chanel
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
reguest 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
reguirement to construct the additional lane along the
Chenal Parkway frontage,providing,instead,a right turn
lane from 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 sguare
feet in the home center portion of the building,plus
another 32,195 sguare 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 the north side of the tract
on a private drive.A few remnants of former structures
2
September 7,1993
which have already been removed are scattered around thesite.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 designatedC-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 takingplace.South-west across chenal parkway is a large c-3
zone.
C.
Little Rock Engineering Division relates that the
reguirements relating to traffic access to and from thesite,discussed at a July 27,1993 meeting involving the
developer and Traffic Engineering,must be followed.Traffic Engineering 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 require that the developer provide an
additional lane along the north edge of Chenal Parkway,plus
providing the deceleration and acceleration lanes at the
access point to the parking lot.Engineering reports that
they object to the provision of off-site storm water
detention and to the proposal to omit the curb and guttersectiontotheeastedgeofAutumnRoad.The Detention and
Excavation 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 thesizeandlocationofthemeter.A pro-rate 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 noobjectiontotheabandonmentofthestreets.
The pire Department indicates that additional fire hydrants
appear to be needed at the east end of the buildings also,that "no parking --tow-away"signs are to be placed in thefirelaneencirclingthebuilding.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company 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 assubmitted.
3
September 7,1993
I ~'
D.
All reguired 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 "adversarial
abandonment"directly to the Board of Directors.
ln 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 Chanel
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 thissiteforofficeuses,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.
B hHhhXRXR:
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
September 7,1993
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 utilizing Autumn Road will
greatly impact the Sirchwood and Markham Pines
neighborhoods'tilization of Autumn Road.
P.P RE
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 buildingitself,its traffic,and the three proposed out-parcels andtheirtraffic.
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 inadequate to
mitigate 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 commercial
uses proposed and out-parcel uses which are possible willcreatesignificantnoiseandtraffic.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 required parameters to be
reviewed as part of the review for a planned unit
5
September 7,1993
development,have not been furnished hy the applicant.TheCommission,then,is unable to consider all the factors
which are applicable to the site development of thisproject.
The applicant reyxests a waiver from the requirement toconstructthereguiredadditionallaneonChenalParkway,asreflectedintheMasterStreetPlan.The applicant alsoproposestodeletethecurbandgutterontheeastedge of
Autumn Road which they propose to construct along the eastboundaryofthesite.staff does not concur with theseproposals.
Traffic Engineering has cited the Chenal Parkway-Autumn Roadintersectionashavingasight-distance problem and one atwhichatrafficsignalwouldnotbeadvisable.The amountoftrafficwhichwouldbegeneratedforthisintersection hytheproposeddevelopmentwouldcauseadangerouscondition.
D I E (August 5,1993)
A representative from Lowe's and the architect were present.Staff outlined the proposal and the architect presented theproposaltotheCommitteemembers.The discussion outline forthemeetingwasreviewed,and the applicant indicated thatdeficiencieswouldbeaddressed.The applicant discussed theeffectoftheproposedsitedevelopmentplanontheadjacentresidentialpropertytothenorth,and indicated that bufferingwouldmitigateadverseeffects.Trees and evergreen plantingswouldaugmentthenaturalplantinginthebufferarea.Utilizingaretainingwall,the slope from the rear yards behind thebuildingandthegradeatthebuildingwouldhekeptata lowenoughslopesothattreesandplantscouldbesuccessfullygrownandmaintained.The Committee referred the request to thecommissionforthehearing.
ZQZ~PhTTk:
The applicant submitted a written request five days prior to thePlanningCommissionmeetingdaterequestingadeferralofthehearingofthisitemtotheSeptember7,1993 Planning Commissionmeeting.
(August 24,1993)
This item was included in the Consent Agenda for deferral and wasapprovedwith11ayesandnonays.
6
September 7,1993
(SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
Mr.Herb Rule,attorney representing Iowe's,Misters Mitch
Pranklin,Charlie white,and Eric Dowell with Iowe's,and
Mr.Robert Brown with Development Consultants,Inc.,the
engineering firm working on the project,were present.Staff
outlined the proposed development;Mr.pranklin and Mr.Rule made
brief opening statements;then,Mr.Brown presented the proposal.
Mr.Brown presented an overview of the existing land uses of and
bordering the site.He yresented the changes in the plans that
Iowe's had agreed to in response to the neighborhood's concerns
and to the City staff's critique as outlined in the agenda
packet:Iowe's has agreed to increase the buffer between the
Birchwood neighborhood to the north and the yroposed develoyment;
the height of the privacy fence is to be increased;the access to
the out-parcels on Bowman will be limited to "right-turn
in/right-turn out";Iowa's has agreed to add the additional lane
to Chenal Parkway and for the improvement to Autumn Road to
include constructing the curb and gutter section on the east
side.Mr.Brown presented the cross sections which show the
relation of the development to the property to the north,
indicating that the change in elevation will be about 22 feet at
its maximum at the north-east corner of the development,and that
where the differential is most severe,the retaining walls will
be stepped and terraced so that ylanting areas will be elevated
and more effective.
Mr.Rule asked a group of people in the audience to stand whom he
identified as residents of the neighborhood who were in support
of the Iowe's development.Ten people stood.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification of the location of
the proposed loading dock and the times of operation of the
applicant.She indicated that it was her understanding that
there would be no activity on the north side of the building.
Mr.White responded that deliveries occurred during business
hours,with 70'4 being made in the mornings.
Mr.Scott Roberts identified himself as a resident of Birchwood
who lived north of the northeast corner of the proposed Lowe's
site.He explained that a number of those who had stood in
support of the development and who were identified as residents
of the neighborhood by Mr.Rule were actually people who were
trying to sell their property to Lowe's and would no longer be
residents of the neighborhood if the application is successful.
He went on to explain that the neighborhood feels that the best
use of the site is,as is indicated on the adopted land use ylan,
"quiet office".He outlined the history of the development of
this neighborhood position.He indicated that there had been one
7
September 7,1993
general meeting to which the entire neighborhood had been
invited,but that the neighborhood had decided that those who
were the most affected by the proposed development,those who
backed up to the site,would be the ones who would develop and
present the neighborhood's position.In developing that
position,he and others had met with City staff where they had
learned of the adopted Land gse Plan and that the Plan did not
show commercial uses planned for the portion of the site
bordering the Birchwood Subdivision.He and the interested
persons from the neighborhood came to the conclusion that the
Lowe's use was inappropriate,and that meetings with Lowe's would
be fruitless;Lowe's could not make superficial changes to the
plans that could change the basic fact that the proposed use was
inappropriate.Mr.Roberts reported that a letter was
distributed to all the neighbors that indicated the position
developed by the committee of most affected neighbors.He
explained that Lowe's hours of operation,open until 9:00 week
days and on weekends,the on-site traffic,and exhaust wouldaffectthevalueofhishomeandofhisandhischildren'
enjoyment of their home.He stated that Lowe's would increasetrafficthroughtheBirchwoodneighborhoodandwouldincrease
congestion at the Autumn Road-Chenal Parkway intersection which
the residents use as one of their three egresses from the
neighborhood.He indicated that if the Lowe's site were allowed
to develop as a commercial use,the property to the east of thissitewouldalsosoonbedevelopedlikewise.He cautioned that if
Lowe's were to close,the commercial use of the property would beestablished,with very little the neighborhood could then do to
control future occupant's operation at the site.He reported
that over 50 of the neighborhood residents who will remainresidentsoftheneighborhoodeveniftheLowe's project is
approved signed a petition opposing the proposed project.He
asked that it be noted that of those who stood who are in favor
of the project,all are residents who will profit from a sale oftheirpropertytoLowe's.
Commissioner Woods asked Mr.Roberts about the percent of the
Birchwood residents who are opposed to the development.Mr.
Roberts indicated that there are approximately 300 residents of
Birchwoods 50 signed the petition opposing the project;30 some-
odd were at the general neighborhood meeting.He explained that
presenting the petition had been abandoned when the neighborhood
had come to the position that the proposed Lowe's use was
inappropriate,and that making amendments or Lowe's making
concessions did not change the basic fact that the use was not
compatible with the neighborhood.They did not want to present
the petition and make it appear that they would support the
Lowe's use if Lowe's would simply make concessions or
modifications.
Commissioner Oleson observed that the limited number of persons
from the neighborhood who had attended the general meeting or
were present at the hearing or had signed the petition was
8
I
September 7,1993
probably due to their having to oppose a potential rezoning everysixmonthsorso;that they had gotten tired of attending
meetings.
Mr.Roberts said that 100%,of the residents who will remain
residents of the neighborhood should Lowe's be approved are
opposed to the development.
Commissioner Putnam reminded those in attendance that the
Commission needs to deal with land use aspects of the proposed
development and not inconveniences to the neighbors who would
remain in the neighborhood.Commissioner Willis observed thatofficebuildingswhichmightbebuildonthesiteinanoffice
zone could exceed the height of the proposed Lowe's building.
Mr.Roberts responded that the neighborhood would prefer a quietofficedevelopmentsuchastheRogerCenterandthatwithanofficeuse,nights and weekends would be quiet.
Ms.Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,asked forclarificationonthelightingtobeusedontheproposedsite,
and for an explanation of the provision for dealing with traffic
around the site.She complained that the ingress/egress for the
out-parcels was too close to the Bowman-Chanel intersection,and
she suggested that an additional lane be constructed on Bowman
Road along the west frontage of the project.
Mr.Bill Henry,Traffic Engineer,responded that he had been
working with the Lowe's people on the site design;that the
access point to the out-parcels along the western frontage had
been moved as far north away from the Chenal-Bowman intersection
as possibles and,that Lowe's had agreed to the right-in/right-
out limitation which he had suggested.He reported that,without
a traffic impact study,he could not make a determination
concerning the need for an additional lane on Bowman.
Mr.Rule interjected that,across Bowman,within the samedistancealongBowmannorthoftheintersection,businesses on
the west side of Bowman have four curb cuts,and that left turnsarenotcontrolledashasbeenagreedtobyLowe's.He respondedtoMs.Bell's question regarding the lighting by reporting that
the lamps poles would be lower than is usual and that they would
be the "shoe-box"type that direct the light down,with cut-off
shields being utilized.The Lowe's spokesman added that thestorewouldutilizeanenergymanagementsystemwhichwould cutoffapproximately70%,of the lighting after the store closes.
Commissioner Willis returned to the question about the possible
widening of Bowman.The Lowe's spokesman responded that Lowe4S
has not anticipated uses for the out-parcels at this time,socouldnotmakeadeterminationabouttheamountoftraffictheout-parcels might generate.He related that in another location
they recently developed,the out-parcel generates more traffic
9
September 7,1993
ITEM N n 'PILE —7
than the store does.He offered,though,to removed theout-parcels from consideration at this time,leaving them asfutureparcelstobedeveloped,and agreed to have any future usereviewedbytheCommission.A requirement to add another lane to
Bowman Road could be a condition of the approval of theout-parcels.The Lowe's spokesman added that,if a traffic studyindicatedtheneedforanadditionallanealongBowman,thenLowe's would pay for the construction of that lane.Mr.Henryrelated,though,that the lane capacity along Bowman Road shouldbeadequateforanticipatedtrafficintheimmediatefuture.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Neighborhoods and planning Director,presentedthestaff's position on the proposed development.He said thatovertheyearsstaffhadtriedtodeveloprecommendationsonappropriatelanduseswhichwerecontiguoustotheBirchwoodSubdivisionwhichwouldkeepBirchwoodfrombeingsqueezedout bycommercialusesonMarkhamtothenorthandtheuseswhichwouldbeallowedonthesouth.He indicated that the scheme which hadbeenadoptedprovidedforofficeusesalongtheboundaryofBirchwoodandcommercialusesattheBowman-Chenal and
Autumn-Chenal intersections.The Lowe's development,hesuggested,was inappropriate;it would "doom"Birchwood.Lowe's,because of its size and scale is too much and too large for thesite.Too much re-contouring and raising of the elevation isrequired.There is too much parking lot area.The buildingwouldbetoohighabovetheabuttingproperty.A developmentwhichwasinconformancewiththeLandUsePlanwouldcomplementtheneighborhood.Just because the south-east and south-westcornersoftheChenal-Bowman intersection have recently beenrezonedforcommercialusesdoesnotmeanthenorth-east cornershouldbeacommercialuseofthisscale.These other corners donothavethesameimpactastheLowe's site development wouldhaveonaneighborhood.The Wal-Mart/Sam's site is lower thantheabuttingneighborhood;the Lowe's site is higher.TheBirchwoodneighborsdonotwanttobetalkedintoaccepting theLowe's project.
Various neighborhood supports then spoke:
Ms.Jimi Walters indicated that she would rather have a businesslikeLowe's than fast food restaurants.She said that the BowmanRoad-Chenal Parkway area was forecasted to,in time,be thecenterofLittleRock,and that this forecast has come true.Itisnolongerfeasibletobearesidentialarea.
Mr.Preston Brown,who reported that he lives at the corner ofChenalparkwayandBowmanRoad,reminisced that 20 years ago itwasquietintheneighborhood,but that it is now too busy forresidentialuses.He indicated that the price for keeping his
home in its present location is too high and he wants to move.The site needs to be commercial,he added.
10
September 7,1993
A i 7
Mr.Richard Stevens indicated that the character of the
neighborhood has changed over the 25 years he has lived in his
home on Bowman Road,and said that the land use should change.
Sarah Stevens added that this was the only home she and her
husband had known during their marriage,but that it was not
"home"any longer.She asked the Commissioners to please
consider approving the Lowe's application.
Mr.Don pleming,who indicated that he lived in Birchwood,on the
east side and abutting Autumn Road,said that the Lowe's proposal
to improve Autumn Road and install a traffic signal at the Autumn
Road-Chenal Parkway intersection would be good for Birchwood.
Commissioner Oleson wanted verification that Lowe's was willing
to install the traffic signal at Autumn Road and Chenal Parkway.
Mr.Renry replied that Lowe's was supposed to be furnishing him a
copy of a traffic study along Chanel Parkway,and,if the
warrants were met to justify a traffic signal,then Lowe's was
willing to install one.A Lowe's spokesman confirmed this.
Commissioner Willis returned to the question of the additional
lane on Bowman Road.The Lowe's spokesman confirmed that if thetrafficstudyindicatedaneedforthelane,Lowe's would pay for
the additional lane.
Mr.Rule and Mr.Brown then recounted the changes that Lowe's had
made to their plans in response to the Birchwood petition which
they had obtained.The neighborhood had asked that the buffer be
increased from 60 feet in width to 100 feet.Lowe's had agreed
to an SO-87 foot wide buffer along the north property line,with
the building being 125 feet from the north property line.The
neighborhood had asked that the building be rotated to reorient
the direction the building faced.This could not be done.The
neighborhood had asked that the retaining walls and fence be
moved further south.Lowe's moved it 10-20 feet.The height of
the privacy fence was to be increased to 10 feet,the
neighborhood asked.This was done.Dense planting of the
eastern portion of the buffer area,where the tree cover was
sparse,was to be added.This was shown.Closing off access to
the buffer from the east was asked by the neighborhood.Lowe's
agreed to do that.Control of the out-parcels was to bespecified.Lowe's has agreed to this.Keep the detention pondon-site was asked.Lowe's agreed.The neighborhood asked that
the use of the out-parcels be limited to "quiet office".Lowe's
submitted a list of excluded uses to which it could agree.The
neighborhood wanted the main customer entrance to Lowe's to be on
Bowman Road.The main entrances are on Bowman and on Chanel.No
sign was to be at the Autumn Road entrance.Lowe's will place
only a small directional sign at the Autumn entrance.Noclearingofthesitewastobeginuntilconstructionwas tostart.Lowe's agreed.The site was to be watered to reduce dust
11
September 7,1993
n i
during construction,Lowe's agreed.No burning on site was to
be allowed.Lowe's agreed.The neighborhood wanted the effects
of site lighting on the neighboring properties minimized.Lowe's
complied.On the north side of the building,the building was to
be an earth-tone color.Lowe's will omit its color bands on the
north side and the building will be a grey architectural block.
The neighborhood wanted the hours of operation to be from
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,and to 6:00 PM on
Sunday.Lowe's would not agree to a restriction on their hours
of operation.The neighborhood wanted deliveries and the
dumpster being emptied limited to business hours.Lowe's agreed.
The neighborhood wanted information on the convertibility of the
pcD if Lowe's were to vacate the property.Lowe's agreed to a
"user specific"PCD so that any new use would have to be heard by
the Planning Commission.
Mr.Srown added that the staff comments outlined in the agenda
packet had been addressed.The extra lane on Chanel Parkway had
been added.Storm water detention was to be on site as
originally shown in lieu of off-site.Lowe's had established the
potential uses for the out-parcels and had fixed the required
building area.
Mr.Rule concluded that the area was developing as commercial,
and observed that the proposed Lowe's use is less intrusive than
other possible uses could be.He indicated that Lowe's had
addressed most of the concerns of the neighborhood before the
neighborhood representatives had decided that they would oppose
the use altogether.
Mr.Pranklin added that normally,for a store the size of the
proposed Lowe's,a site is 15-16 acres.This site is larger thantheirstandard,with more open space than normal,Lowe's,he
said,does a good job with site development and tries to work
with the neighborhoods to be a good neighbor.LOwe's he added,is still anxious to talk with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Putnam asked that the topographic information beclarified.Mr.Hrown responded that the site drops approximately
22 feet west to east.Mr.Putnam asked for verification of theanticipatedtrafficcount.Mr.Henry responded that 50,000vehiclesperdaywereanticipatedby2010.Mr.Putnam recountedthatLowe's was willing to have the out-parcels reviewed by the
Commission when a specific use is requested.He then suggestedthatthesitecouldhaveahigh-rise office building constructed
on it which would be more of a problem to the neighborhood than
the Lowe's store.Mr.Roberts responded that something like the
Roger Center would be preferable,and that an office development
would not be open on weekends and at night.
chairman walker reviewed the changes which had been presented.
The site plan which had been amended and presented was the one
which was being considered.Lowe's would fund a traffic signal
12
September 7,1993
A
at Chenal parkwaY and Autumn Road and an additional lane on
Bowman if the traffic studY supported the need.Lowe's would
bring anY uses proposed for the out-parcels back to the
Commission for a public hearing.
A motion was then made and seconded to approve the re&xuest as
amended.The vote was 5 aYes,2 noes,3 absent,and
1 abstention.Chairman walker explained that a vote of
6 aYes was reguired for a recommendation of the matter to the
Board of Directors,and that the item would have to be deferred
to the October 5 Planning Commission for a rehearing of the
issue.
13
September 7,1993
Owner:Gerald K.and Jaquetta Johnson
Applicant:J.E.Hathaway,Jr.
Location:Fairview Road and Pleasant
Ridge Road
Request:Rezone from MF-6 and R-2 to
0-3
Purpose:Office Development
Size:2.24 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
North -Vacant,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,Easter Seals and Commercial,
zoned R-2,0-2 and 0-3
East —Single-Family,zoned R-2
West -Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 and R-3
The property in guestion is located at the northeast corner
of Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road.The request is to
rezone the site from MF-6 and R-2 to 0-3.The MF-6 land has
frontage on both streets and the R-2 portion is situated on
Pleasant Ridge,just west of Woodland Heights.As of this
writing,no specific use or user has been identified.The
entire site is vacant and wooded.
Zoning found in the general vicinity includes R-2,R-3,0-2,0-3,pRD and PCD.The property abuts R-2 zoned land on the
north and east.To the west is the Cedar Branch Subdivision
and it is zoned R-3.Across Pleasant Ridge,the zoning is
R-2,0-2 and 0-3.The land use includes single family,a
church and school,office,a dog kennel and an Easter Sealsfacility.The single family neighborhoods include a well-
established area along Summit Road,the Pleasant Forest
Subdivision and a small developing addition,Cedar Branch.
The dog kennel is a nonconforming use and there are still
some undeveloped tracts.At this time,the nonresidential
uses are situated to the south of Pleasant Ridge/Woodland
Heights.At the intersection of Highway 10 and pleasant
Ridge,there are some commercial uses,however,they are
somewhat removed from the area under consideration.
September 7,1993
The River Mountain District Plan identifies the site as partofasinglefamilyarea.It is the staff's position thatthelanduseplan's direction should be maintained by notendorsingtherequestedofficereclassification.Conditions
have not changed enough to ]ustify a modification of the
plan to support a nonresidential rezoning at this time.Infact,it appears that there is some renewed interest insinglefamilydevelopmentbecauseoftheamountofnewconstructionunderwayintheCedarBranchSubdivision,whichisdirectlytothewest.Staff views the area north ofPleasantRidgeasbestsuitedforresidentialdevelopment
and cannot support the 0-3 request.
P E E
The adopted land use plan in the River Mountain District
recommends single family use for the area.The recent
development of single family homes to the west indicates thereasonablenessoftheplan.Conditions have not changed towarrantamendingtheplan.
E I ERI MME T
The existing right-of-way for Pairview is deficient anddedicationofadditionalright-of-way is needed.
T P R MME DATI
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning request.
I I T (SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a requestforadeferral.As part of the Consent Agenda,the item wasdeferredtotheOctober19,1993 meeting.The vote was
9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
2
September 7,1993
ITEM 2
Owner:Mark Weedman and the Estate of
aim goad
Applicant:Everett 0.Martindale
location:1202 and 1206 North University
Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-1
Purpose:Office
Size:0.49 acres
ExiSting USe:Vacant and Single-Family
I Z I
North —Single-FamilY,zoned R-2
South —Office,zoned 0-3
East —Vacant,zoned R-2
West —Single-Family,zoned R-2
F I
The Northwest corner of Evergreen and North University iscurrentlyzonedR-2,and the request is to rezone thepropertyto0-1 for an office use.On the northern portionofthesite,there is a single family residence and the
remaining land area,the south 96 feet,is vacant.The areathatisundevelopedhasneverbeenusedforanything.The
property has 134 feet of frontage on Evergreen and 160 feet
on the North University side.
Zoning is made up of R-2,R-4,R-5,MF-6,MF-12,0-2,0-3,
PCD,and OS.To the east of North University and to thesouthofEvergreen,the zoning pattern is somewhat
fragmented and includes single family,multifamily andofficezonedproperties.The northeast,southeast andsouthwestcornersoftheEvergreen/North Universityintersectionareallzonedeither0-2 or 0-3.The office
zoning at the northeast corner does not abut Evergreen orNorthUniversitybecausethereisaR-2 buffer between thestreetsandthe0-3 land.On the Evergreen side,the bufferis50feetandalongNorthUniversityitisatleast100feetwide.The property in question borders R-2 lots on thenorthandwestsides.Land use includes single family,multifamily,office and a junior high school.The existinglanduseisverysimilartothezoningandtherearenononresidentialusestothenorthwestoftheNorth
University/Evergreen intersection.
September 7,1993
2 -4
There have been two other attempts to rezone all or part of
the property under consideration.In 1985,a PCD request
was filed for the south 48 feet of the site to permit a realestateoffice.The reclassification was denied by the
Planning Commission and their action was never appealed to
the City Board of Directors.The following year,1986,an0-3 application was filed for the entire site.There was
strong neighborhood opposition and the office rezoning was
disapproved by the Planning Commission.There was no appealtotheCityBoardofDirectors.Staff did not support the0-3 rezoning in 1986 and had some reservations about the PCD
proposal.
Staff's position is that nothing has changed in the
neighborhood to justify a nonresidential rezoning at the
northwest corner of the Evergreen/North Universityintersectionandrecommendsthatthe0-1 request not be
endorsed.By placing the R-2 buffer on the east side of
North University,it is apparent that a conscious effort was
made to protect the well-established neighborhood west of
North University from nonresidential encroachment.Anotherfactorthatiscriticaltothisre&Zuest is the district planforthearea.The west Little RocR Land Use plan shows the
northwest corner of Evergreen and North University for
continued single family use.Therefore,the proposed officereclassificationisinconflictwiththeadoptedplan.
The adopted land use plan in the West Little RocR District
recommends single family for this location.Any
nonresidential use would have to be carefully and thoroughly
reviewed to address impacts on surrounding development.
Conditions to warrant a plan amendment have not been met.
MME T
Evergreen is classified as a collector and the existingright-of-way is deficient.The Master Street Plan standardforacollectoris30feetfromthecenterlineanddedicationofadditionalright-of-way is reguired.
A I
Staff recommends denial of the 0-1 rezoning request.
a
Segtember 7,1993
(SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred becauseofanoticeProblem.As gart of the Consent Agenda,thePlanningCommissionvotedtodefertheissuetotheOctober19,1993 meeting.The vote was 9 eyes,0 nays and2absent.
3
September 7,1993
Owner:Eugene M.Pfeifer,III and
Pfeifer Development
Applicant:Eugene M.Pfeifer,III by
Joe D.White
Location:Highway 10,Highway 300 and
Chenal Parkway
Request:Rezone from R-2,C-2 and 0-3
to MP-18,0-3,C-3
Purpose:Multifamily,Office and
Commercial
Size:68.79 acres (total)
Existing Use:Vacant
North —Vacant,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,Church and APAL Substation,zoned R-2,0-2,C-2 and C-3
East —Vacant and APRL Substation,zoned R-2 and C-2
West —Vacant,Church,Commercial and Camp Grundy,
zoned R-2 and C-2
I
The reguest before the Planning Commission involves a totalofapproximately69acres,and the site is located in the
general vicinity of Highway 10,Highway 300 and the Chenal
Parkway.The following is a breakdown of the proposed
rezonings and the acreage.
1.R-2 to C-3 (Highway 300)—3.68 acres and 11.5
acres
2.R-2 to MF-18 —12.91 acres and 18.5 acres
3.R-2 and 0-3 to 0-3 —10.65 acres
4.R-2 and C-2 to C-3 (Highway 10)—11.56 acres
All of the tracts have frontage on the Chenal Parkway and
extend from Highway 300 to Highway 10.The entire acreageisvacantandheavilywooded.
September 7,1993
The existing nonresidential zoning,O-3 and C-2,was grantedin1989.The remaining area was classified R-2 as part oftheextraterritorialzoningeffortforAreaI.A PCD was
approved for a portion of the 0-3 and C-2,however,thenecessaryfinalplanhasneverbeensubmitted.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2,0-2,C-1 and C-2.
The adjacent zoning is R-2,o-2,and c-2.The most recent
rezoning action in the area involved some land on the southsideofHighway10,part of the Deltic Holding at theintersectionoftheChenalParkwayandHighway10.An
eleven acre tract was rezoned from MF-18 to C-3 and added
some additional land to the existing commercial node.Land
use includes single family,a church and some small scaled
commercial uses.Across Highway 300 is Camp Grundy,achildrensummercamp,and there is also an APaL substationadjoiningthesiteonthesoutheastcorner.Several of theexistingusesarenonconformingandtherearevacanttracts
found throughout the area.
The adopted district plan,Pinnacle,does identify the
Highway 10/Chenal Parkway intersection as a commercial node,with commercial areas shown on both sides of Highway 10.Because of the plan and the location,the reguested C-3
rezoning at Highway 10 is appropriate.Changing some of thedesignatedcommercialareafromC-2 to C-3 should not have
an adverse impact on the surrounding properties.The planalsorecognizesanofficeareaalongtheparkway.Therefore,increasing the amount of 0-3 land is compatiblewiththeplan.Rezoning 31 acres to MF-18 is reasonablebecauseitestablishesatransitionareabetweenthenonresidentiallandstothesoutheastandthesinglefamilyareastothenorthwest.Also,12 to 18 units per acre hasbeenthedensitylevelthathasbeensupportedinthewesternpartofthecity.
Creating another commercial area at Highway 300 and the
Parkway Extension is in conflict with the adopted plan andshouldnotbeendorsedthroughthisrequest.At this time,there is no justification for adding 15 acres of commerciallandadjacenttoHighway300becausethereisanadequateamountofcommercialacreageattheHighway10node.If theCityapprovesthe11.5 acres for C-3,there will be close to70acresavailableforcommercialdevelopmentattheHighway10/Chenal Parkway intersection.Approval of the C-3 for the
Highway 300 location could establish undesirable precedentfortheareaandleadtoaquestionablezoningpattern.
2
September 7,1993
P L
The adopted plan in the Pinnacle District recommendscommercialandofficefortheHighway10areaandsinglefamilyfortheHighway300area.Staff does agree thatadditionalofficeshouldbeshownontheHighway10frontage(east of church)with multifamily to the north as atransitionfromcommercialtosinglefamily.However,theproposedintersectionofHighway300andChenalisaminorintersectionanddoesnotjustifyintensivelanduses.Anamendmenttoaddthepreviouslymentionedofficeandmultifamilyisappropriate,however no other intensificationiswarranted.
E T
The Chenal Parkway needs to he dedicated and completed toHighway300.
T E ATI
Staff recommends approval of all of the requested resonings,except for the 15 acres for C-3 at Highway 300 and theChenalParkway.
I I A T (SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicanthadfailedtonotifytherequiredpropertyowners.As partoftheConsentAgenda,the item was deferred to theOctober19,1993 meeting.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and2absent.
3
September 7,1993
Owner:Marvin T.Griffin
Applicant:Marvin T.Griffin
Location:11324 Kanis Road
Reguest:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Office
Size:0.61 acres
Existing Use:Office (Nonconforming)
North -vacant,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,zoned C-2 and OS
East —Single-Pamily,zoned R-2
West —Single-Pamily,zoned R-2
11324 Kanis Road is zoned R-2,and has a nonconforming use
on it.The owner would like to expand the use by making a
20 foot by 40 foot addition to the principal structure.The
zoning ordinance prohibits any expansions of nonconforming
uses,so the property must first be rezoned before the
proposed construction can be initated.tn addition to the
main building,there are several accessory structures to the
rear of the site.The property has a width of approximately
100 feet along Kanis Road and a depth of 315 feet.
Zoning in the area includes MP-18,0-3,C-2,C-3,OS and
PCD.The adjacent zoning is R-2.Land use is made up of
single family residences,a church,office,a day care
center,a hospital and light industrial.The Koger Office
Development is located to the southeast of the property in
Guestion.There are undeveloped tracts throughout the area
and several vacant buildings.
The north side of Kanis Road,including 11324,is identified
for office development on the adopted plan.Therefore,the
proposed 0-3 request conforms to the recommended land use
plan and is the appropriate classification for the site.
There are no outstanding land use or zoning issues
associated with this reguest.
September 7,1993
The adopted plan in the I-430 District recommends office forthesite—no issue.
Zunis Road is classified as a minor arterial and theexistingright-of-way is deficient.The right-of-way for a
minor arterial is 45 feet from the centerline.
Staff recommends approval of the 0-3 rezoning as requested.
I I (SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors,and theitemwasplacedontheConsentAgenda.The Planning
Commission voted 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent to recommend
approval of the 0-3 request.
a
September 7,1993
owner:D.B.Davis Corporation
Applicant:J.E.Hathaway,Jr.
Location:Peach Tree Drive
Request Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Office
Size:0.74 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
I Z I
North —Koger Office Development,zoned 0-3
South —I-430 Right-of-way,zoned R-2
East —I-430 Right-of-Way,zoned R-2
West -Single-Family,zoned R-2
ALY I
The site on Peach Tree Drive is currently zoned R-Z,and the
request is to rezone the location to 0-3 for future office
use.The property is situated at the entrance to the
sandpiper suMivision and is adjacent to z-430.zn fact,a
portion of the tract was taken for use as right-of-way for
I-430.The site has approximately 273 feet of frontage on
Peach Tree Drive.
Zoning in the general area is R-2,0-1,0-2,0-3 and OS.
There is also a large PCD,the Summit Mall site,on the
south side of z-430.The property in question abuts R-2
land on three sides and 0-3 zoning is directly across Peach
Tree Drive.Land use is primarily single family and the
Koger Office Development.At the corner of Hickory Hill and
Peach Tree is the location of the suMivision's recreational
area.There is undeveloped land throughout the area,
especially to the west of Centerview Drive.
Because of the property's location and other factors,it
does appear that the site has some potential for limited
nonresidential development.However,it is questionable
whether 0-3 is the best zoning approach for the site.The
lot has a 40 foot platted building line,and because of a
very shallow lot depth,the addition of the 15 foot rear
September 7,1993
yard setback could severely limit the use of the property,possibly make it unfeasible to develop.Staff suggests a
POD as a better option for the site because it does offermoreflexibility.The property is somewhat unigue,and the
POD process is designed for atypical situations.Also,aPODwouldinsurethatanydevelopment(site plan)issensitivetotheresidentiallotslocateddirectlyto thewest.
The adopted plan in the 1-430 District recommends either nouseoroffice.Any office use should be carefully designedtominimizeanynegativeimpactstoadjacentsinglefamily.
There are none to be reported.
MME
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning and suggeststhatthePODprocessbeutilizedfortheproperty.
(SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that theitembedeferred.There were two objectors present,andtherewasabriefdiscussionaboutdeferringtheissue.TheitemwasplacedontheConsentAgendaanddeferredtotheOctober19,1993 meeting.The Commission's vote was S ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 abstention (Kathleen Oleson).
(The Planning Commission's action also waived the deferralprovisioninthebylawsreguiringawrittenre((nest fiveworkingdayspriortothemeeting.)
a
September 7,1993
Z-
Owner:John and Greg lamb
Applicant:John I amb
Iocation:7604 Eagle Drive
Reguest:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Commercial
Size:0.18 acres
Bxisting Use:Commercial
North —Office,zoned C-3
South —Office,zoned C-3
Bast —Office,zoned C-3
west —Single-yamily,zoned R-2
Y
The request for 7604 Bagle Drive is to rezone the propertyfromR-2 to c-3.The location has 0-3 nonconforming status,and the site has been used as an office for a number ofyears.In 1973,an amendment to the Bill of Assurance fortheChicotManorSuhdivisionwasapprovedtoallowLot2(7604 Eagle Drive)to "be used for any purpose or purposessetforthinIittleRockCodeSection43-6 "B-1"guietBusinessandInstitutiOnalDistrict."B-l converted to 0-3withtheadoptionofthenewzoningordinanceof1980.TheamendmentwasendorsedpriortothispartofSouthwestLittleRockbeingannexedtothecity.A C-3reclassificationisbeingreguestedtoallow a portion ofexistingthebuildingtobeutilizedforasmalleatingestablishment.The principal building has 1,346 square feetandanaccessorystructurehas345squarefeet.The lot has85feetoffrontageonBagleDriveandisapproximately100feetwestofChicotRoad.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2,R-5,0-3 and C-3.The lot in Guestion abuts C-3 on two sides and R-2 on thewest.Directly across Bagle Drive,the zoning is C-3.Thema5orityofanonresidentialzoningfoundalongthissegmentofChicotwasaccomplishedthroughthe"South CentralIsland"plan,which was adopted in 1982.Land use includessinglefamily,multifamily,a church,office,commercial andAP&L substation.There are still nonconforming uses in thearea,and several parcels are undeveloped.
September 7,1993
The proposed commercial reclassification of 7604 Eagle DriveisinconflictwiththeGeyerSpringsDistrictplan,whichreflectstheexistingzoningandshowsthesiteassingle
family.Staff is concerned with the potential impact on the
subdivision from the rezoning and not providing a good
zoning buffer from the C-3 on Chicot to the single familylotsalongEagleDrive.Since the property has been used as
an office and has a nonconforming status,a possible optionforthelotisanofficereclassification.Because of thelocationandtherelationshiptotheneighborhood,0-1 would
probably be the logical district.An office rezoning wouldcreateanacceptablezoningpatternandprovidethenormaltransitionfromC-3 to the residential area.
p
The commercial re&Zuest is in conflict with the plan.
There are none to be reported.
p
Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning and suggest 0-1
as being more appropriate for the location.
P I I A I (JUNE 15,1993)
The applicant,John Lamb,was present.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Mr.Lamb spoke and said he wantedC-3 zoning and stated that there was C-3 on three sides.He
went on to describe the area and the existing uses.
There was some discussion about the existing zoning pattern
and land use.
John Lamb said that his building was occupied by an office,barber shop and a small snack shop.Mr.Lamb said that he
would have problems if the lot was not zoned C-3.
There was some discussion about the Bill of Assurance forthesuMivision.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,saidthattheBillofAssurancecouldnotcontroltheCommission's action on a particular rezoning request.
Mr.Giles also said that the Commission should not try tototallyoffendtheBillofAssurance.
September 7,1993
M
Additional comments were made by various individuals,
including John Lamb and several commissioners.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoningasreguested.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay
and 2 absent.
J~~P UPDATE:
This item was heard by the Board of Directors at its
August 3,1993 meeting.The Board of Directors recommendedthattheapplicantreconsiderhisrequestforrezoning,andinsteadapplyforconsiderationofaPODdesignationforhisproperty.The applicant agreed to pursue this course.
BD I MM EE (AUGUST 5,1993)
This item was presented to the committee for considerationasanadd-on item to the agenda.The situation regardingtheBoard's recommendation was outlined by staff.It wasreguestedthatthisitembeheardbythePlanningCommissionatitsSeptember7,1993 hearing in lien of requiring theapplicantwaituntilthenormalOctober5Subdivisionmeeting.The Committee agreed and forwarded the applicationtotheCommissionforthehearing.
PL ING COMMI IO A TION:(SEPTEMBER 7,1993)
The applicant,Mr.John Lamb,was present.The staffpresentedthereguestandoutlinedthebackgroundof thematter.Chairman Walker asked Mr.Lamb to present hisrequest.Realizing that there were a number of persons atthehearingwhowereopposedtohisapplication,Mr.Lambaskedthatthesepersonsbeallowedtopresenttheirobjections,and that he would then respond to them.
Mr.Ed Tucker,who indicated that he owned a business onChicotRoadwhichbackeduptoMr.Lamb's property,spoke.
He asked how Mr.Lamb could operate a barber shop,restaurant,and insurance agency in an R-2 zone in a1300squarefootbuildingthatwasbuiltasahouse.Headdedthattheseusesarealreadyinexistance,and thatMr.Lamb was not asking for permission,but for forgiveness.
He complained that the parking situation was a real problem.Mr.Lamb's customers overflow onto Buckholts'nd hisparkingareasandacrossEagleDriveintheparkingarea forthebusinesseswhichhavefrontageonEagleDrive.He said
3
September 7,1993
that Mr.Lamb has 5 or 6 usable parking spaces for the three
businesses,and that Mr.Iamb's customers are always using
other business'arking.He strongly opposed the zoning
change,he concluded.
Ms.Modean Moore said that she lived next door to Mr.Lamb'
business location,on Eagle Drive,to the west.She
indicated that she opposed the re-zoning because Mr.Lamb'
patrons are noisy,cause a lot of "racket",sgueal theirtires,and because of "everything that goes on...."
Mr.Olin Wahrmund identified himself as the owner of the
building at the south-west corner of Eagle Drive and Chicot
Road.He confirmed that Mr.I,amb's customexs park on his
property in parking areas which he has provided for his
customers.He said that Mr.Iamb has three businesses,plus
has a "For Rent"sign on a fourth suite.He indicated that
there is not enough parking for the customers which Mr.Lamb
has.He reported that on the previous Saturday morning at
8:00,there were 3 cars parked on pxoperty which adjoins
Mr.Lamb's business,that only Mr.Lamb's barber shop was
open at that time.He also inquired about how Mx.Iamb could
operate his business in an R-2 zone.
Mr.Lamb stated that his building was build as a business,
not as a residential structure.He said that Buckholts
customers also park on his property,or that mutual
customers park on one lot then do business with both.He
pleaded that the property owners in the vicinity of the
Chicot Road-Eagle Drive intersection need to get along.He
said that "18-wheelere"which stop in front of his business
and pax'king area,but which are not delivering to or for
him,block his parking,hut that he tries to get along and
does not complain.Mr.Lamb continued that all the other
businesses in the vicinity are zoned C-3.All he wants to
do,he said,is operate his existing businesses.
Commissioner Oleson related that when the issue was heard
perviously hy the Commission when a C-3 zoning had been
requested,she had xealized after the Commission had voted
to recommend approval of the rezoning that the other
businesses at the Chicot Road-Eagle Drive intersection all
face Chicot Road;that only Mr.Lamb's businesses faces
Eagle Drive.At that hearing,she continued,the staff
recommendation had been for denial of the rezoning,hut that
the Board of Directors had referred the issue back to the
Commission for consideration of a POD as a means ofassistingMr.Lamb achieve his reguest without rezoning the
property to C-3.The Planning staff explained that the
buildings immediately east of Mr.Lamb'e property face
Chicot Road,including Mr.Tucker's business and Buckholte.
Across Eagle Drive to the south,the building sits on the
4
September 7,1993
TEM n
corner,with frontage on both chicot Road and Eagle Drive.
Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification of the
number of parking spaces on Mr.Lamb's site,and what the
reguired number would be for the poD.Staff replied that
the spaces which were provided were "head-in"spaces off thestreet,so none comply with the Ordinance for legitimate"off-street"parking.Staff reported that parking alongEagleDriveforotherbusinesses—Buckholts next door andthebuildingacrossthestreet—also have "head in"parkingoffEagleDrivewithouttheoff-street parking maneuvering
room,making these parking spaces for the other businessesillegalaswell.
Chairman Walker brought up the topic of the concession useintheproposedPlannedOfficeDevelopmentDistrict.
Mr.Walker pointed out that in a POD,there is norestrictiononthesquarefootageofpermittedaccessoryuses,so the snack shop use could be an accessory use to theotherofficeusesinthebuilding,When the item was heard
by the Board of Directors,Mr.Lamb had indicated that theconcessionusewaslimitedtoa100squarefootareaofthebuilding,so the Commission needed to consider establishingalimitontheamountofareaforthisuse.
Staff clarified the situation of the non-conforming statusoftheLambproperty.As was presented in the agendawrite-up,Mr.Lamb's property was an office use prior to itsannexation,and is a legal non-conforming use for its officeuses.The problem arose when Mr.Lamb added the snack shoptothebuilding,and that is why the matter is being heard.
Mr.Lamb responded that all the other businesses in thevicinityofhispropertyarezonedC-3,and these businessescandojustaboutanythingtheywanttoasfarascommercialusesareconcerned.He alone is restricted.That,he said,is discrimination.He should be allowed to be free to usehisbuildingashisneighborsusetheirs.He reiteratedthatparkingissharedamongallthebuildingsinthe
immediate vicinity;that his customers may park next door oracrossthestreet,but customers of those businesses park onhisproperty,as well.Commissioner McDaniel commented thattheproblemwithMr.Lamb's situation is that there isapparentlyinadequateparking.Again,Mr.Lamb respondedthatthebusinessesshareparkingandcustomers.Mr.Lambagainsaidthattheotherareabusinessescandoanythingtheywantandhehaslimitations.Chairman Walker indicatedthatparkingintheareais,to a great extent,head-in offthestreet,and that if the POD is approved,the parking forMr.Lamb's business would be designated by the approved siteplan.
5
September 7,1993
T
There was discussion on limiting Mr.Lamb's poD to the threecurrentuses:the barber shop,the snack shop,and the
insurance office.Commissioner McDaniel commented that the
requirement for parking at a commercial use is one space for
each 400 square feet of building area;therefore,for the1300squarefootbuilding,the re&Zuired number of spaces
should be four.With the seven spaces provided,there is,therefore,enough parking.Mr.Tucker responded,though,that there are always 5 to 10 cars parking on the available
parking area which are attributable to Mr.Lamb'businesses.They park on the Buckholts lot,primarily.Eight people,he indicated,are in the snack shop at a time.
That accounts for 8 cars alone.Ee pointed out that
Mr.Lamb's building has 4 suites.With employees andcustomers,there is not enough parking on Mr.Lamb'
property.Mr.Lawson related that the Board of Directors
had referred the item back to the Commission to consider
giving Mr.Lamb authorization to continue operating histhreecurrentbusinesses,and that,pursuant to Mr.Lamb'
statement that the snack shop only occupied 100 square feetofthebuilding,limiting that use to the current 100 squarefeet.Mr.Lamb was told that,if the motion passed and was
approved by the Board,the "For Rent"sign on the remainingleasespacewouldhavetoberemoved.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the
POD to the Board of Directors with the requirement that thesnackshopbelimitedto100squarefeetandthebuildingbeusedforthethreecurrentuses,the snack shop,the barber
shop,and the insurance office.The motion passed with
7 ayes,1 no,and 3 absent.
6
September 7,1993
HLER:9505 Alexander Road —Subdivision Ordinance Waiver
MChXZQH:Approximately 330 feet south of Alexander Road,offtheendofthepavedsectionofAlexanderRoadapproximately1,000 feet east of Sardis Road,at 9505 Alexander Road.
]2~~PQR:HHQXHKlR:
&JOB WATBRS BDWARD LOPTON
6507 Pourche Dam Pike 15415 Oakcrest
I ittle Rock,AR 72206 I.ittle Rock,AR 72206490-0695 SSS-5232
hah:4.0 ACRES :1 PT W 0
~ZI:R-2 ZRQR~ED HH:Single Pamily ResidentialI:15
~HU~HACX:41.04
B
1.Waiver of all Subdivision Ordinance requirements to include:a)the reguirement to present for approval a preliminary
and final plat of the 4-acre tract owned by the applicant;
b)the requirement to provide frontage for the lot on apublicstreet;and c)the requirement to provide for theconstructionofpublicorprivatestreetimprovementsto thelot.
2.Variance from the water Utilities guideline which wouldrequireafrontageonAlexanderRoadof64.25 feet andpermitafrontageof20feet.
The applicant states that in the summer of 1992,he purchased a4-acre tract of land which lies approximately 330 feet south ofAlexanderRoad,with access to Alexander Road by way of a 20-footaccesseasementacrosspropertyretainedbytheseller.Theapplicantrelatesthatthepropertyispartofa15-acre tractoutofwhichtwotractshavenowbeendivided,one in 1990 andtheapplicant's in 1992.IN 1990,a 1.64 acre site was soldwhichfrontsonanun-opened portion of the Alexander Road right-of-way and which gains access to the improved portion ofAlexanderRoadbywayofa35-foot access easement along the westsideofthepropertyonpropertyretainedbytheseller.Thistractisimmediatelynorthoftheapplicant's tract and lies
September 7,1993
between Alexander Road and the applicant's property.The
applicant's 20-foot access easement to Alexander Road is within
the 35-foot access easement granted to the lot previously sold.
The seller of the applicant's tract,as well as the owner/sellerofthepreviouslysoldtracthave,in effect,been subdividingtheirpropertyinviolationoftheSubdivisionOrdinance,and
have created lots which do not abut improved streets.The
applicant,in making application for a building permit toconstructhishomeonthetracthepurchased,has been confronted
with the situation that he is unable to gain approval for a
building permit or to obtain public utility services.
The Subdivision Ordinance provides that minimum 5-acre tracts
may,if they have frontage of a public street,be sold from
larger tracts without complying with the Ordinance.The
applicant maintains that he has not been able,because offinanciallimitationsandrestrictionsimposedbyhisVA loan,to
purchase an additional acre of land.znstead,he proposes that a
waiver be granted of all Subdivision Ordinance requirements whichrelatetohissituation,and he be permitted to construct his
home on the 4-acre tract "as is",with the tract not abutting astreetandhishavingaccesstothepropertybywayofthe20-
foot access easement.
Water Utilities reguires that,for the tract to have service from
the water main in Alexander road,the tract must have frontage on
Alexander Road.The amount of frontage required by WaterUtilitiesguidelinesisbasedonaratioof15:1 depth of lot to
width of frontage.For the applicant to have service from the
Alexander Road main,then,based on the depth of his tract,he
would have to have frontage of 64.25 feet.Water Utility's
minimum frontage is 20 feet.The applicant proposes,that,if heisabletoacguireownershipofthe20-foot access easement forfrontage,a variance be granted by the Board of Directora to
allow the 20-foot frontage to suffice in lieu of the 64.25 foot
requirement based on the 15:1 ratio.
A.R
The applicant reczuests review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the Board of Directors for a waiver frOm allSubdivisionOrdinancerequirementsrelativetothe4-acretracthepurchasedin1992andonwhichheproposestoconstructahome.He requests a waiver from the Subdivision
Ordinance reguirement which would reguire a preliminary-then-final plat of his 4-acre lot,or its inclusion in aplatoftheentire15-acre tract from which his site isderived.He requests a waiver from the reguirement which
would reguire that his lot abut a public street or thatstreetimprovementsbeprovidedbyhimorbytheseller of
2
September 7,1993
7
the tracts to his particular lot or to the boundary street
(Alexander Road)to the 15-acre tract.
The applicant re&@rests,if he is able to obtain ownership of
the easement by which he now gains access to his property,
approval by the Board of Directors of a variance from the
Water Utilities guideline which would require,in order to
have water service from the Alexander Road main,a frontage
on Alexander Road of 64.25 feet and permit frontage of
20 feet.
B.I
The site is approximately 330 feet south of Alexander Road
and 1,000 feet east of Sardis Road.Alexander road "dead-
ends"at the access easement which provides access to thissiteandtheabuttingpropertywhichliesbetweentheapplicant's property and Alexander Road.Besides the home
on the 1.64-acre site lying between the applicant's tract
and Alexander Road,there are scattered homesites on largetractsonbothsidesofAlexanderRoadfromSardisRoadeasttothedead-end of Alexander Road.Immediately west of theapplicant's tract is a large ravine which is heavily wooded
and overgrown.The applicant's site is pasture land withscatteredtreesandmediumheightgrasses.There is no
development beyond,to the east and south.of the property.
The zoning of the applicant's and all surrounding propertyisR-2
C.ER
Engineering Division indicates that it will not comment onthisrequest.
Little Rock Water Works reports that water service isavailableonAlexanderRoad;however,in order for theapplicant's lot to receive service,either the lot will havetohaveatleastaminimum64.25 foot frontage on Alexander
Road or a water main will have to be extended by the
applicant to the property.The 64.25 foot frontage
reguirement is based on the water Works guideline which
requires a 15:1 depth-to-width ratio for the property.The
Water Works guideline permits a variance from this ratio ifitisapprovedbytheBoardofDirectors.Water Works alsoreportsthatwaterservicewillnotbepermittedunlessthe
proposed structure is within 450 feet of an approved fire
hydrant.Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage
charge of $15.00 per foot of frontage on Alexander Road will
apply,in addition to the normal connection fee.Water
works adds that if the applicant cannot obtain the requiredfrontageonAlexanderRoad,or his proposed home is beyond
3
September 7,1993
450 feet to the fire hydrant on Alexander Road,he will be
reguired to install a water main to his property in a
minimum 150-foot utility easement,and install a privatefirehydrant.
Wastewater Utility reports that sewer service is not
available to the lot without major main extensions of atleast1,000 feet uphill from the west or in excess of 1,500feettotheeast.
D.
The SuMivision Ordinance,Section 31-2,Definitions,and
Section 31-5,Ourisdiction and Application,define asuMivisionas"all divisions of a tract...into one (1)or
more lots,...sites,or other divisions for the purpose...forsaleofbuildingdevelopment,and shall include alldivisions...involving the need for new access (or)a newstreet..."Both division,however,exclude "the division of
land into parcels greater than five (5)acres,provided each
newly created lot or parcel has minimum lot frontage on a
dedicated public street...."
The BuMivision Ordinance,Section 31-231,states that"every lot shall abut upon a public street,except where
private streets are explicitly approved...."
Section 31-396 of the SuMivision Ordinance states that "inallsubdivisions...,the suMivider shall install,at his
own expense,or to have installed by the appropriate publicutilitycertainspecifiedimprovements...."The sections
which follow list the "specified improvements as:streets,
curb and gutters,water supply,sanitary sewage disposal
(public system or appropriate individual private system
where applicable),storm drainage,sidewalks,street
lighting,fire hydrants,etc.
Section 31-36 and the following sections of the suMivision
Ordinance reguire a plat review and approval process toincludethepreparation,review,and approval of a
preliminary plat for all suMivisions of land,installationoftherequiredimprovementsandmonuments,and the filingofafinalplatandBillofAssurance.
hkQkXiRXR:
The original and subseguent owner of the 15-acre tract,who
have sold two parcels of less than 5 acres each,one of
which does not abut a public street,are in technicalviolationoftheBuMivisionOrdinanceintheareas citedabove.The applicant simply bought a parcel of land andarrangedaVAloanforthepurchaseofthelandand
4
September 7,1993
construction of a home for himself,but has hit theproverbial"brick wall"in an attempt to get the permitsnecessarytoproceedwithhisplan.The applicant,in
apparent good faith,and relying on the expertise ofprofessionalsintherealestatebusiness,bought the land
through a licensed real estate agent who should have knownthatthetransactionwouldproduceasubdivisionwhichis intechnicalviolationoftheSubdivisionOrdinance.The
surveyor should have know.The title or abstract company
should have known.The Circuit Clerk and Recorder's office
should have know.The VA appraiser should have known.Theapplicant,though,is the one who is suffering the
consequences of professionals not warning him that what he
was doing would not be permitted.
P,T E MME A
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the Subdivision
Ordinance reguirements for this one individual applicant sothathemayconstructhishomeonthe4-acre tract.
I MMIT EE MME T:(August 5,1993)
Staff presented the background of the applicant's situation andrequest,and indicated that the item was being presented to the
Committee as an "add-on"item to the Committee agenda which wouldbeplacedontheSeptember7PlanningCommissionagenda.The
Committee reviewed the special circumstances of the request,andforwardedtheapplicationtothefullCommissionforreview.
PL MMI I CTIO (September 7,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the reguest andoutlinedthesequenceofeventswhichleduptothecurrentsituation.The applicant indicated that Staff's presentationreflectedthesituationinwhichtheapplicantfoundhimself.without further discussion,a motion was made and seconded to
recommend approval of the waivers and variance to the Board ofDirectors.The motion passed with 8 eyes,no nays,and 3 absent.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE P I Cco45ENT ~p I2Ie GULL%
MEMBER f 2 3 4 5 A 6 7
BALL,RAMSEY
CHACHERE,DIANE A A A A
WILLIS,EMMETT A A
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN A A A
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM e
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY IN AT IZ:30
CHACHERE,DIANE
WILLIS,EMMETT I N AT'IZ:30 L&AT 2:25 V o h6 oa7
MCDANIEL,JOHN IN AT l2:30
NICHOLSON JERILYN Ass~
OLESON,KATHLEEN II4 ATIZ;.~
VONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD
+AYE ~NAYE A ABSENT ~ABSTAIN Meeting Adjourned 5:3&P.M.
September 7,1993
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Date
r tary Cl