pc_10 18 1994subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 18, 1994
12°30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 6, 1994
meeting were approved as mailed.
TII. Members Present; Diane Chachere, Chairperson
Kathleen Oleson
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ramsay Ball
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
John McDaniel
B. J. Wyrick
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
Mizan Rahman
City Attorneys Melinda Raley
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
OCTOBER 18, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. U -Haul of Arkansas -- Amended Short -Form PCD
(Z -4074-A)
B. Kremer's -- Short -Form PRD (Z-5873)
C. Global Learning Center -- Short -Form POD (Z-5874)
D. Candlewood Area -- Rezoning (Z -1791-B)
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Parkside Place Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(S -499-A)
2. Cherry Creek, Lots 23-59, Block 4, Lots 1-35, Block
5, Lots 1-15, Block 6, and Lots 1-10, Block 1 --
Preliminary Plat (S -722-M)
3. Reservoir Flat Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(S-1037)
4. Louis Martin Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1039)
III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
5. Wins 201 W. Roosevelt -- Short -Form PCD (Z -1730-C)
6. Saugey 16715 Cantrell Rd. -- Short -Form POD (Z-5882)
7. Tyrrell Leasing Co. -- Short -Form PCD (Z-5884)
8. Embassy Suites -- Short -Form PCD (Z-5887)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
9. Brennan Addition, Tract A -- Site Plan Review
(S -983-B)
10. Park Place Baptist Church -- Site Plan Review
(S-1038)
Page 2
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
11. Arkansas Central Mortuary Service -- CUP (Z-5883)
12. Candlewood Station Sonic -- CUP (Z-5886)
VI. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
13. Summit Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-219)
VII. REZONING•
14. Lots 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17, Block 1, Riffel and
Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands Addition -- Rezoning
from C-3 to C-4 (Z-5885)
VIII. TIME EXTENSION:
15. Buie Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-984)
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4074 -
NAME: U -HAUL OF ARKANSAS -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: On the north side of Asher Avenue, approximately 600
feet west of University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Mike Rose
D -HAUL OF ARKANSAS
4809 W. 65th. St.
Little Rock, AR 72209
562-1925
AREA• 3.24 ACRES
ZONING: PCD
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: The existing PCD permits
mini -storage use, along with
an accessory office and
dwelling use. The amended
PCD requests, in addition,
approval of truck and trailer
rental uses.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PCD to permit,
in addition to the mini -storage and accessory office and dwelling
uses permitted in the original PCD, the rental of trucks and
trailers from the site. Proposed to be established is a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business to augment the mini -storage
business which is on-going. The original PCD was approved by the
Planning Commission on February 14, 1984; then, by the Board of
Directors on March 7, 1984 in Ordinance No. 14,614. Parking of
the trucks and trailers is planned to be provided at the rear of
the DroDerty against the north n'rnnarty lino MrA I,---
units at the front of the facility for display purposes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for an amendment to an existing PCD
to permit a use of the site which is in addition to the uses
originally approved for the PCD. Originally, in 1984 when
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074 -
the PCD was approved, the specified uses were mini -storage
and the accessory office and dwelling to serve the mini -
storage facility. The applicant now wishes, in addition to
the on-going mini -storage business, to operate a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business from the site. A U -Haul
service center would be used to store the rental vehicles;
the subject site is proposed to have on hand only vehicles
which have been reserved and are awaiting being picked up,
or vehicles which have been "dropped -off" by customers and
are awaiting transfer to the service center. Vehicles which
are on the site would be parked along the rear/north
property line, except for "one or two" trucks or trailers
which would be parked at the front of the facility to
identify the site as a U -Haul rental location.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is fully developed with a large mini -storage
facility involving 82,073 square feet of mini -storage space,
plus 3306 square feet of space for the office and manager's
apartment. Along the east and north, concrete drives extend
to the property line. Along the west, the site is developed
to within 10 feet of the property line where there is a 10
foot easement. The "L" -shaped building at the front of the
property is within a foot and a half of the property line.
At the front, along the Asher Ave. frontage of the site,
there is a 30 foot by 40 foot area available for
landscaping, and there is a 40 foot wide drive approach and
drive way. This driveway is used for parking all the way to
the street. There is a 16 foot high retaining wall along
the rear/north property line.
The site is zoned PCD. The properties immediately to the
east and west are zoned R-5. The property at the southwest
corner of the site is zoned C-4. To the north is a
residential neighborhood in an R-3 area. Across Asher Ave.
is C-3 property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Arkansas Power & Light approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department comments that all driveways around all
buildings must maintain 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment access.
Landscape review comments that the landscaping which was
shown on the original approval must be re -installed.
2
"October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
Planning review comments that the site is located within the
Boyle Park Planning District, and is designated as
Commercial (C) on the land use plan. The proposal is
consistent with the adopted plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site plan which was approved for the PCD in 1984 showed
a 20 foot wide curb cut off Asher Ave., widening to a
24 foot wide drive, with 4 head -in parking spaces off this
drive. The area in front of the office -dwelling portion of
the building and the parking spaces was to be landscaped.
The survey provided with the amended PCD application shows a
40 foot curb cut, the landscaping area reduced by the
20 feet added to the width of the curb cut and driveway, and
parking space reduced to permit 3 vehicles to park head -in
off the driveway, plus a garage to serve the manager's
apartment. A freestanding sign was added in the landscape
strip area which was not requested in the original
application or shown on the originally approved site plan.
The parking requirements for warehouse and storage uses are
5 spaces, plus 1 space per 2000 square feet of floor area up
to 50,000 square feet; then, in addition, 1 space per 10,000
square feet over 50,000 square feet. [See Section 36-
502.(4)b.] For the office portion of the facility, the
parking requirements are 1 space for 400 square feet. [See
Section 36-502.(2)g.] For the residential use, the
requirement is for 1 space per dwelling. [See Section 36-
502.(1)a.] With 82,073 square feet of mini -storage space,
plus 1653 square feet of space for the office, plus the
manager's apartment, the required number of parking spaces
is 33. Parking for 3 vehicles is presently provided, plus
the 1 space available in the garage. There is sufficient
room along the rear/north property line for 9 additional
spaces. The total number of spaces available for parking,
then, is 13.
The number of trucks and trailers proposed to be stored on
the site needs to be designated, as well as the spaces where
they will be parked. If modification of the existing curb
a- long—the--rear-/-north gr-aper—tyline i-s-ant-icipat-ed7—t- ien—th-e - site plan must show this. Protection from vehicles of the
retaining wall must be provided for.
E. ANALYSIS:
As stated in the "Existing Conditions" section, "The site is
fully developed." The site does not provide adequate
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
parking. At the office -residential use area, 4 spaces are
provided; 5 are required. Assuming that there is no need
for additional parking to serve the mini -storage use, there
is still no space for the addition of rental vehicles.
The approved PCD site plan showed 4 head -in parking spaces
and a 50 foot by 40 foot landscaped area. One parking space
has been lost to an addition to the office area, and the
landscaped area is reduced to a 30 foot by 40 foot area. A
freestanding sign exists in the landscaped area which was
not approved for the PCD.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the
PCD, but does recommends approval of an amendment to the PCD
to permit the sign which has been installed to remain in its
present location. Staff recommends that a requirement be
imposed that the front landscaping be installed pursuant to
the originally approved site plan, and that parking not be
permitted in the area in front of the front building line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Rod Baldwin, representing U -Haul, was present. Staff
presented the applicant's site plan and explained that the site,
as shown, was developed; that the request was simply a request to
add the rental of trucks and trailers to the listing of approved
uses in the existing PCD. Mr. Baldwin indicated that the trucks
and trailers are proposed to be stored at the rear of the lot
along the north property line, and that only two trucks or
trailers would be displayed at the front property line. The
Committee members reviewed with Mr. Baldwin the comments
contained in the discussion outline. The Committee indicated
that no parking would be allowed within the front building
setback line, and that parking would be restricted to the area at
the rear of the property where 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment could be maintained. The Committee forwarded the item
to the Commission for the public hearing.
--MMIQC!I-O-NA- CT-I4N: SEP -T -EMBER -5-,-1-9-94 ) - ---
Rod Baldwin and Mike Rose were present representing U -Haul of
Arkansas.
Staff presented the request, and reported that there had been
deviations to the site from the site plan originally approved for
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
the PCD: 1) that there was a sign at the front of the property
which was not provided for in the PCD; 2) that in lieu of the
24 foot wide drive shown on the original plan, a 40 foot drive
had been constructed, and that in the area originally shown to be
landscaped, the wider drive encroached, taking approximately
1/2 of the landscaped area shown on the original site plan; and,
3) the landscaping which had been shown on the original site plan
was not present on the site. Staff reported that there was
insufficient room at the front of the facility for parking of
rental vehicles, and that there was minimal space at the rear of
the property which could be used for storage of rental vehicles.
Staff recommended denial of the amended PCD, and recommended that
either the applicant remove the sign and paving, and install
landscaping in the area as shown on the approved PCD site plan,
or seek approval from the Commission for the sign, drive, and
landscaping as they are presently located on the site.
Rod Baldwin, president of U -Haul of Arkansas, addressed the
Commission. He said that the scope of the request was simply to
be able to rent trailers or trucks to persons moving in or out of
the storage facility as a convenience to these customers. He
stated that any stored vehicles would be located at the rear of
the property against the rear retaining wall, and he committed to
keep only a couple of rental vehicles on the site at any one
time. He said that U -Haul has a shuttle service, and any rental
vehicles needed or dropped off at the site would be shuttled to
and from the main storage location on W. 65th. St.
Jack Payne addressed the Commission. He indicated that he had
the business immediately to the west of the U -Haul site. He
stated that the original PCD site plan provided 3 guest parking
spaces in'front of the office area, but that the parking is
insufficient for the customers who patronize the U -Haul business.
He said that, especially around the 1st. and 15th. of the month,
when customers are paying their mini -storage rents, that the
U -Haul customers do not have sufficient room to park on the
U -Haul site, and overflow onto his parking area. He also said
that the U -Haul sign is located in the center of the property,
and people returning rental trucks evidently have difficulty
locating the U -Haul drive, because they pass up the U -Haul drive
and turn into his parking area. He complained that U -Haul
customers park on his property and walk next door to pay their
rent or to complete the paper work to rent or return trucks or _
trailers. He pointed out that, with the limited parking
available at the front of the U -Haul site, if even one or two
truck are brought to the site, and are parked or wait at the
front of . the_ property, _ then_.there will be -no -customer parking
available. He said that he was definitely opposed to the request
Mr. Baldwin, responding to Mr. Payne's objection, reported that
Mr. Payne operates a competing rental business, renting Ryder
trucks and trailers. He stated that Mr. Payne, then, has a
vested interest in opposing U -Haul renting trucks and trailers.
5
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074 -
Commissioner Walker, addressing Mr. Baldwin, indicated that his
concern with the application is that there is no room for the
additional activity; that U -Haul was not proposing to remove some
of the storage units in order to provide the space for truck and
trailer storage. He said that the U -Haul operation needed to be
able to have sufficient space on the U -Haul site for storage unit
customers and for the rental customers, without overflowing onto
the adjoining neighbor's property. He asked Mr. Baldwin whether
any measures were proposed to provide needed direction to the
U -Haul site for customers.
Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the Asher Ave. frontage of the site
was small, and that, if U -Haul had developed the site originally,
they would have had input into providing a more workable
arrangement for traffic. He said, though, that he had never been
made aware of the problem with overflow onto Mr. Payne's
property. He said that once a storage unit customer has come to
the site to rent a unit, and has signed a contact, that there is
very little need for these customers to park at the office; that
they when they need access to their storage unit, they drive on
back to the rear of the property to their storage unit. He said
that most storage rental customers are on a credit card charge
basis, and do not come to the site to make payments. He said
that, at present, the gate to the storage area is open, but that
a card access gate is planned to be provided. He said that the
only time a truck would be parked at the front, at the office,
would be when a truck was being brought in by a customer and was
being checked in, or when one was being rented.
Staff pointed out the concerns mentioned in the write-up: that nc
provision had been made in the original PCD for the sign which
had been installed, and that the landscaping was not in
conformance with the originally approved site plan. Staff also
stated that the Fire Department does not want any parking in any
of the 20 foot wide drives; that the only available parking is at
the rear of the property where there is 30 feet between the rear
of the buildings and the rear retaining wall. Staff also
cautioned that the retaining wall needs to be protected from
damage which might be caused by trucks parallel parking or
backing into the wall.
Keco-t-t zoning enf-orcement—supe-rv3.-sor-,—r-epo-r-t-ed—tha-t t yre ----
is a second ground sign which had been installed and which needs
to be removed, and that the landscaping, as originally shown on
the site plan, needs to be installed and maintained.
Staff explained that, either the applicant needs to seek approval
of the signs, as they are presently situated on the property, or
they need to remove these signs. Also, staff explained that,
either the applicant needs to seek approval of the size of the
0
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
landscaped area, as it is, or needs to remove a portion of the
driveway and landscape the area as originally approved.
Plantings need to be installed and then maintained in the
landscaped area, whatever that area is determined to be.
Mr. Baldwin responded that U -Haul would amend its request for
approval of the signs, as situated on the site, and for approval
of the site plan, as it was developed. He said that landscaping
in the landscape area in front of the office building would be
installed, then maintained. He said that, since he had not been
aware of the deviations from the original plan until the last
minute, he requested a deferral of further consideration on the
request.
Staff recommended that the deferral be to the October 18, 1994
Subdivision hearing, and that the applicant bring any proposed
changes in the application to the Subdivision Committee for
review of the site plan.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the deferral of the
item until the October 18th. Commission meeting, and the motion
passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had notified staff immediately
prior to the meeting that there was a new manager for U -Haul;
that the manager who had represented U -Haul at the previous
meeting was no longer with U -Haul; that the new manager needed
time to become familiar with the request and to study the options
available; and, that U -Haul requested a deferral of the item
until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing. Staff recommended
that the requested deferral be included in the Consent Agenda,
but reported that the applicant would need to make the request to
the Commission in person; and, that a Bylaws waiver would need to
be approved by the Commission, since the request for deferral had
not been made at least five (5) days prior to the hearing.
Mr. Mike Rose, representing U -Haul, asked the Commission for a
deferral of the item until the January 10, 1995 Commission
meeting. Mr. Jack Payne the owner o�the�y_der rPnta i husines-s
abutting the site to the west, was present, and indicated that,
although he was in opposition to the proposed PCD modification,
he was not opposed to the deferral. A motion was made and
seconded to approve a waiver from the Commission Bylaws which
requires a request for deferral be made at least five (5) days
7
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
prior to a Commission meeting, and the motion was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The
item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval of the
deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Putnam).
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO • Z 5873
NAME: KREMER'S -- SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. Markham Street and S.
Park Street
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
William R. Kremer Robert D. Holloway
11219 Financial Center Parkway ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, INC.
Little Rock, AR 72211 200 Casey Drive
228-4485 Maumelle, AR 72113
851-8806
AREA: 0.32 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
Z NING: R-3 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT• 14
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Waiver of the sidewalk requirement along
the N. Park St. frontage of the site
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of multi -family facility
consisting of 8 apartments (4 units down stairs; 4 up stairs) on
a 0.32 acre site. Provision is made for off-street parking for
12 vehicles. The development involves construction of one-half
street improvements on both boundary streets, Markham and Park
Streets. A sidewalk is to be constructed along the Markham St.
frontage of the site; however, for the Park St. frontage, a
waiver from the requirement is requested. The primary access to
the site is to be by way of a driveway off Markham St. An exit
from the site is provided to an improved alley to the east.
Required landscaping and the provision of a "good neighbor" fence
along the south and east boundary of the site is proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PRD for
a 2 -story, 8 -unit apartment facility to be built on a 0.32
acre site. There is to be__parking_for 12 vehicles on the
site. Required street and sidewalk improvements on Markham
and Park Streets are included in the proposal, except there
is a request for a waiver of the sidewalk improvements on
Park St.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5873
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently vacant, and has been so for several
years. The site is elevated above the Markham St. grade
approximately 4 feet, then rises another 4 feet at the south
property line. Neither Markham or Park Streets have a curb
and gutter section along the project property line; neither
street has the required sidewalk along the street frontage.
Park St. "dead -ends" one-half block south of the Markham St.
intersection; however there are two homes on lots south of
the proposed development and there is an apartment building
on the west side of Park St. at the "dead-end". There is a
sidewalk on the project side of Park St. on beyond the
project site to the south. A portion of the right-of-way
along the east side of Park St. has been paved, and this
paved area is being used for parking for, presumably, the
commercial building across Park St. to the west. The north -
south alley abutting the east side of the site is paved.
The site is currently zoned R-3, with R-3 property to the
east and south. R-4 property lies directly across Markham
St. to the north; the State School for the Deaf campus, on
property which is zoned R-2, is cater -corner to the
northwest across the Markham -Park intersection. Directly
across Park St. to the west is C-3 zoned property. (The
Little Rock Auto Clock and Speedometer Service business is
located in this C-3 area.)
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan
is to be provided. Before issuance of the building permit,
plans must be submitted for the right-of-way improvements,
as well as a complete grading and drainage plan.
Water Works comments that Water Works needs to be contacted
regarding meter size and location.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there will
be no adverse effect on the system.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the site plan as presented.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers, landscaping, and land use screening meet the
Ordinance requirements. Trees and shrubs will be required
within the southern land use buffer. The dumpster enclosure
must be opaque and be 81 high on 3 sides.
K
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5873
Land Use review reports that the site is located in the
Heights/Hillcrest Planning District, and is designated as
Multi -Family Residential (MF) of the adopted land use plan.
The, 'IMF"...category As., intended to__accommodate residential
development of 10 to 36 units per acre. The proposal is for
8 units on 0.32 acres, equating to 24 units per acre. The
proposal is, therefore, consistent with the land use plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant proposes to make street improvements on both
Markham and on Park, and proposes to construct the required
sidewalk on Markham; however, a waiver is requested for the
required sidewalk on Park, and this will require Board of
Directors approval.
The Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces/dwelling unit in
multi -family uses. In this case, 12 would be required, and
12 are provided.
Any anticipated signage must be specified and must be
located on the site plan.
The survey and PRD site plan show N. Park St. as N. Park
Ave. This is incorrect; Park Ave. is in the College Station
area off Frazier Pike. The street name must be corrected on
both the survey and PRD site plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed development is consistent with the land use
plan, and the applicant proposes to meet all development
standards which are required by the various ordinances and
entities, except that a waiver from the sidewalk requirement
on Park St. is requested. Since there are single-family and
multi -family residences to the south of the site on Park
St., and since there is an existing sidewalk south of the
site which can be extended northward along the Park St.
frontage of the site to intersect with the sidewalk to be
constructed along Markham St., the sidewalk along Park St.
should be constructed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD request, but does not
recommend approval of the waiver of the sidewalk on Park St.
rK
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5873
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Robert Holloway, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the request and reviewed with the Committee the
proposed site plan. The Committee --reviewed with Mr. Holloway the
items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Holloway
indicated that he would make the needed adjustments and additions
to the plans. He clarified with the Committee various items
concerning the condition of the existing improvements on the
boundary streets and the alley, indicating that boundary street
improvements would be made, but that a waiver of the sidewalk
requirement on Park St. was being sought, and indicating that the
alley was improved. The Committee forwarded the request to the
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present to represent the developer.
Staff presented the application, and noted that the requested
waiver of the sidewalk construction along the Park St. frontage
of the site had been withdrawn by the applicant; that the
sidewalk would be constructed.
Mr. Holloway indicated that the application and staff's
presentation were sufficient to outline the proposal, and said
that he would prefer to respond to the objectors who were
present.
Mr. Dulyn Butler, indicating that he is the owner of the abutting
property to the south, said that his home is the only dwelling
abutting the property. He said that he had bought the dwelling
knowing that the home was in a single-family zoned area, and said
that he wants the single-family zoning in the area to remain. He
stated that the proposed 8 -unit apartment dwelling was to be
built within 10 feet of his home, and objected to that situation.
Mr. Jim Achard, indicating that he lives a block away from the
proposed development, said that, although he is not opposed to
development on the site, he felt that an 8 -unit apartment
development was "a bit much". He said that, sincethe proposed
property is elevated above the surrounding property, the second
floor windows of the apartment building would look down onto
Mr. Butler's yard and home. A 2 -story structure, he said, is out
of scale for the location; that- something -of a lesser scale would
be more appropriate. He also stated that Mr. Kremer, the
developer of the 8 -unit apartment project, is also the owner of
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
an apartment building across Park St., at the south end of the
dead-end section of Park St. He said that Mr. Kremer's other
apartment project is not properly maintained and is tacky, and
questioned whether a new facility developed by Mr. Kremer would
be an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Holloway responded to the criticisms. He said that the other
property owned by Mr. Kremer was built in 1928, and,
consequently, shows its age. He said that the neighborhood has
been, for many years, a "mixed use,, area, with the multi -family
dwelling to the south, a commercial use to the west, other
multi -family directly to the north, and the deaf school to the
northwest. Mr. Butler's house is a large, order home, which sits
well off the ground and has high ceilings and a high roof. It is
probably, he said, as tall as the proposed 2 -story building being
considered. The exiting topography of the site is proposed to be
lowered, so that the proposed building will be lower than the
present site would suggest. There is to be a privacy fence along
the southern boundary of the site, and this property line is to
be landscaped. Mr. Holloway also corrected Mr. Butler's
contention that the apartment building would be built 10 feet
from his home. Instead, he said, it would be built 10 feet off
the south property line, and Mr. Butler's home is south of that
property line. Mr. Holloway stated that all traffic generated by
the proposed development would use W. Markham St., and that trash
pick-up would use the alley to the east; therefore, S. Park St.
would not be "burdened" by the new use.
Commissioner Oleson questioned the number of units proposed for
the development, indicating that the 8 units seemed too many for
the acreage involved.
Walter Malone, of the Planning staff, indicated that the land use
plan calls for the area to be "multi -family", and that the "MF"
designation suggests developments of 12 or more units per acre.
Staff also mentioned that the R-5 zoning district would permit
the density proposed for the subject property. The proposed
development, then, is in conformance with the adopted land use
plan, and is in line with other zoning and use in the area.
Commissioner Willis, then Commissioner Walker, indicated that
exterior elevations and a topographic cross-section of the
development and its relationship with the property to the south _
would e helpful in their Bing ab to o determine the
appropriateness of the development.
Mr. Holloway indicated that, in light of the Commissioner's
desire for the additional exhibits, he would ask that the item be
deferred until the October 18, 1994 Planning Commission hearing,
and that he would, a the Subdivision Committee meeting of
September 29, produce the requested drawings.
5
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the
October 18th. hearing. The motion was approved with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff recalled that this item had been deferred in order for a
topographic cross section to be prepared and for exterior
elevations to be presented. Staff reported that the topographic
cross section has been received, and shows that the new 2 -story
building will be no higher than the abutting 1 -story house.
Staff pointed out that the Land Use Plan calls for this area to
be multi -family; that there are many multi -family uses in the
area; that the site meets all Ordinance requirements; and, that
staff recommended approval of the PRD zoning. Staff reported
that 27 post cards had been received in the mail from area
residents who are in opposition to the PRD, along with 1 post
card received in favor of it.
Mr. Bob Holloway, the project engineer, was present, and
introduced Ms. Stephenie Kremer, an owner -developer of the site.
Mr. Holloway had photos of the site and the surrounding
properties, including the abutting home to the south, and he
passed these photographs around to the Commission members. He
reported that the single -story home to the south would be
slightly higher in overall height than the proposed 2 -story
apartment building, and that the second floor of the apartment
building would be almost level with the first floor of the
abutting home. He explained that the grade of the proposed site
would be lowered somewhat, making the site lower than the
abutting homesite to the south. He explained further that the
abutting home is an older home, with its first floor elevated 4-5
feet above its yard, and that it has high ceilings, giving it a
more imposing look from the front. He presented the topographic
cross section which showed the relationship between the two
properties. He also reported that the original home which had
occupied the site had been closer to the south property line than
the proposed apartment building would be, and that there would be
a privacy fence and a landscape buffer separating the two
buildings. He reminded the Commission that the requested waiver
from the sidewalk requirement for S. Park St. had been deleted, _
and that all Master Street Plan requirements for both S. Park and
W. Markham Streets would be provided. He then presented the
exterior elevations of the proposed apartment building, and
reported that, in an attempt to blend the new construction with
the other homes in the area, that the exterior was proposed to be
lap board style vinyl siding. He pointed out that all required
parking is contained within the site.
0
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
Mr. Jim Achard spoke in opposition to the proposed development.
He reported that he lived one block to the north of the site. He
indicated that, with 8 units on 1/3 acre, the proposed
development equaled a development in an MF -24 zoning district.
He said that a less intense development would be more acceptable;
that 4 units on one level would be less intrusive and would be
more in keeping with the predominantly single-family and duplex
development in the area. He expressed concern about the parking
situation in the area, saying that the 12 -unit apartment building
at the south end of S. Park St., which the Kremers also own, has
no on-site parking, and that the residents of that apartment
building park anywhere they can, including in front of the two
homes on S. Park St. which are between the proposed site and the
end of S. Park St. He said that the Kremers had paved some of
the shoulder of S. Park St., along the frontage of the proposed
apartment site, in order to provide some parking for the 12 -unit
apartment building at the end of the street, and was concerned
that these spaces would be lost if the new development were
constructed. He also said that if the residents of the proposed
8 -unit apartment building had more than the 12 allotted vehicles,
that this would compound the parking problem. He expressed
concern about the architectural style of the proposed apartment
building, saying that a modern "scheme" would not be compatible
with the 60 -year-old neighborhood. He suggested that the
building be placed along the W. Markham St. frontage of the site,
and that the parking be placed along the south boundary of the
site, thus screening the parking from the north. He reported
that the neighborhood is currently meeting with the City planning
staff in preparation for updating the neighborhood's Land Use
Plan, and that the current plan, which provides for the area to
be developed with high density residential uses, would be changed
to show the area as a low density residential use area.
Commissioner Walker, addressing Mr. Achard, indicated that the
developer is proposing to construct the required Master Street
Plan improvements on both W. Markham and S. Park Streets, and
that these are substantial costs to the project. He asked if the
neighborhood, in saying that it would support a single -story,
4 -unit development, would be willing to support a waiver of the
street development requirements for the proposed PRD.
Mr. Achard responded that most o-f—thePRtreets in rheighbarhoad
are narrow streets with open ditches on both sides, and that he
did not feel that a curb -and -gutter section at one corner would
contribute that much to the neighborhood. He said that the "CDC"
had not addressed street improvements for the neighborhood as a
priority, and that it would be his preference that the street
frontages of the proposed development be left in their current
condition, and that the development be 4 units in a single story
facility. He said that, as a trade-off, he would prefer that the
7
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
Kremers be required to provide parking for their 12 -unit
apartment building which is at the end of S. Park St. in lieu of
having to make the street improvements.
Ms. Mary Post, who identified herself as living two blocks north
of the proposed PRD development, said that a "big" 2 -story
apartment building was not acceptable, and that something "real
modern" would not fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Lon Jones identified himself as living on the lot that would
back up to the proposed development on the east, one lot removed
to the south. He said that he uses the alley between him lot and
the proposed development, and said that the condition of the
alley was bad; that he has difficulty turning into the alley from
W. Markham St. Trash service trucks and the increased traffic
would be a problem. He also said that he was concerned about the
noise from the dumpster service early in the morning or late at
night. He related that W. Markham St. is very narrow,
approaching being a one -lane roadway, and that it was not
adequate for the increased traffic from the proposed development.
He said that the premises of the Kremer"s other apartment
building at the end of Park St. has, in the past, not been kept
clear of trash and wrecked vehicles.
Mr. Holloway, responding to the concerns, said that the density
of the proposed development was in conformance with the approved
Land Use Plan; that the property immediately to the west is
commercial; and, that there is much multi -family development in
the area. He said that in making the required improvements to
both W. Markham and S. Park Streets, additional on -street parking
would be made available; that there would be more on -street
parking, when the improvements are provided, rather than less.
He said that, if the building were placed, as suggested by Mr.
Achard, along W. Markham St., with the parking to the south
between the building and the south property line, the building
would be too close to the street, and would both not meet
building setback requirements and be much more imposing. He said
that the primary access to the site would be from the west, and
would not add substantially to the traffic through the
neighborhood. He pointed out that W. Markham St. to the west,
along the commercial area, is a curb -and -gutter street, and the
developer would be extending the curb -and -gutter section along
his frontage. He said that the developer would be improving the
arrey from -w- Ntarkham—St . , south, along the east property Iine of
the site; therefore, Mr. Jones" concerns would be alleviated. He
explained that the term "modern" referred to the type
construction (i.e., slab -on -grade foundation and 8 foot high
ceilings, rather than elevated wood floors and high ceilings),
rather than the style of architecture, saying that the lap board
vinyl siding was in keeping with the predominant "look" of the
older homes in the area.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Holloway to address the concern
regarding the dumpster service time. Commissioner Walker
suggested that the dumpster service time be restricted to
daylight hours, and Mr. Holloway and Ms. Kremer agreed.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the PRD,
and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent,
and 0 abstentions.
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.• C FILE NO Z- 5874
NAME: GLOBAL LEARNING CENTER -- SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: 1608 S. Rock Street; 1613-15 S. Commerce Street; and,
1623 S. Commerce Street
DEVELOPER•
Rev. Bobby Lee Marshall
GLOBAL LEARNING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
1608 S. Rock St.
Little Rock, AR 72206
375-2430
AREA: 0.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-4 PROPOSED USES: Establishment of a religious,
charitable, or philanthropic
office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 3
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to utilize three existing residential
structures for the activities undertaken by the Global Learning
Center organization. In the structure at 1608 S. Rock St., the
upper story is used as a residence for Rev. Marshall; the lower
level is used for general offices for the organization, as
assembly and lounge area, counseling offices, and a dining and
kitchen area. In the structure at 1613-15 S. Commerce St., a
duplex, the north side of the duplex, at 1613 S. Commerce St., is
used as a basic skills development facility for children and
young people; the south side, at 1615 S. Commerce St., is used as
a residence for otherwise homeless men. In the structure at
1623 S. Commerce St., a duplex, the north side is used as a
residence for otherwise homeless women; the south side is used as
The Global Learning Center seeks to "join forces to help in the
fight (to take) our communities back from gang members, dope
pushers, alcohol ics_,....addicts, and crime. The Center, then, was
organized: 1) to educate high risk youth, adults, and children
in basic education courses; 2) to guide students in enrolling in
computer skills, clerical skills, and basic communications or
language arts courses; 3) to develop violence prevention
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO Z 5874
curriculum for adolescents; 4) to provide counseling and
rehabilitation services for parolees and to provide drug
prevention and intervention services and drug awareness
assistance programs; and, 5) to provide food and shelter for the
homeless. These activities are on-going in or are planned uses
for the three buildings currently used by the organization.
No change in the residential character of the structures and no
signage is proposed. Landscaping improvements are underway and
are proposed to be expanded.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a POD is requested for the Global Learning Center' uses
of three existing structures (at 1608 S. Rock St., at
1613-15 S. Commerce St., and at 1623 S. Commerce St.) for
the organization's counseling, school, office, and
residential programs and uses. The structure at 1608 S.
Rock St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence for
Rev. Marshall, located on the 2nd. floor of the home, and,
on the 1st. floor, to continue its on-going uses which
include: administrative offices for the origination and
counseling offices, a lounge and assembly area, and dining
and kitchen facilities. The structure at 1613-15 S.
Commerce St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence
for homeless men and as a center for teaching young people
in basic developmental and communications skills and in
language arts. The structure at 1623 S. Commerce St. is
proposed to continue its use as a residence for homeless
women and as a counseling center for rehabilitation services
for parolees, for drug prevention and intervention
programming, and drug awareness assistance counseling. No
changes to the exterior of or in the residential character
of the structures are anticipated. The upgrading of
landscaping in the yards is proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed POD site involves three residential structures
at three locations: the 2 -story home at 1608 S. Rock St.
which occupies 3 lots, a duplex at 1613-15 S. Commerce St.
on a single 1-o_t, ander duplex—at 1-6-2-3 S-. Commer-c-e—St . whizz , -
again, is on a single lot. All three locations are in an R-
4 zoned area. Immediately to the west of the S. Rock St.
property is an area which is zoned R-5. This R-5 zoned
district extends -northward from E. 16th. St. and extends
eastward to S. Commerce St. There is a church building, in
the R-4 zoned district, immediately north of the S. Commerce
St. lots. There is a great deal of undeveloped, vacant, or
K
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO .:--Z-5874
abandoned property in the immediate area; however, a block
to the east of the S. Commerce St. property, on E. 17th.
St., is the beginning of the area in which the City, with
C.D.B.G. funding, is designing and constructing new homes
for low -to -moderate income persons, and is the area known as
a "Model Block".
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports no comments.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that sewer service is available, and that,
there is no adverse effect to the system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 6'
high opaque screen is required to screen this site from the
residential properties. (At 1608 Rock, the properties to
the.north, west, and south. At 1613-15 Commerce, the
properties to the south, east, and north. At 1623 Commerce,
the properties to the north and east.) This screen may be a
wood -fence with the structural supports facing inward, or be
dense evergreen planting.
Land Use review comments that the project sites are located
within the Central City Planning District, and are
designated as Single -Family Residential on the land use
plan. The proposal to operate the Global Learning Center on
the three sites is in conflict with the land use plan. An
analysis of the neighborhood reveals that, although the area
has been in a state of decline in recent years, a solid
residential pattern still exists and should be maintained.
Community Development Block Grant funds have—been ;nveested
in the area to enhance the residential character of the
neighborhood. Commercial uses would be intrusive and should
be located nearer to Main Street.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There are no issues which are outstanding, except the land
use issue cited above.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO Z-5874
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposal is one that encompasses a number of uses on
several sites. The proposed uses include some that are
deemed-tobe-Y"commercial" in nature, and these are in
conflict with the land use plan. They are viewed by staff
as possibly being intrusive to the residential neighborhood
and to its redevelopment.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the POD.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
A Ms. Carter and Mr. Walker were present to represent the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the application and
reviewed with the Committee members the site plan of the
properties which the applicant is utilizing for the
organization's activities. Staff asked the applicant's
representatives to delineate and clarify the various activities
which are on-going in the three structures. Ms. Carter and
Mr. Walker explained that at 1608 Rock St., besides being
Rev. Marshall's, the applicant's, residence, the building serves
as the organization's offices, a group meeting center, and a
feeding center where food is both consumed and distributed. The
structure at 1613-15 Commerce St: -serves as a tutoring and skills
development center and the men's residence. The structure at
1623 Commerce St. serves as a counseling center and women's
residence.' The Committee reviewed the comments contained in the
discussion outline, then forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Rev. Bobby Marshall was present to present his application.
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the use category
of "establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic
of f ice 11 was a ca emery—f rom—t- he—z—o rg Ordinan�e�wh i c was c oxen
as one that best captured all the variety of uses proposed to be
undertaken in the POD, but that the Global Learning Center was
not to be understood to be necessarily a religious use. Staff
pointed out that__the_word "or"..designated that the uses could be
religious, or charitable, or philanthropic uses.
Rev. Marshall indicated that the staff's presentation and
explanation of the request was sufficient, and that he would
rather respond to the comments of objectors.
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5874
Ms. Rita Spillenger, indicating that she and her husband were in
opposition to the request, said that they opposed any commercial
rezonings in the area. They had made a significant investment in
the neighborhood in buying a home in the area, and were
interested in seeing -that the neighborhood was revitalized as a
residential area. They had bought the home knowing that the area
was residential, and expect the area to remain residential.
Ms. Spillenger also complained that Rev. Marshall has been less
than forthcoming in the information he has provided regarding the
nature and scope of the activities pursued by his organization.
Rev. Marshall, she said, had been engaged in the pursuit of his
activities for more than a year without the permission of the
City, and that it was only after the neighbors brought the matter
to the City's attention that the application for the rezoning was
made. She also stated that Rev. Marshall did not have the
permission of the property owners to seek the rezoning.
Ms. Spillenger reported that she had invited Rev. Marshall to her
home to discuss their opposition to the proposed rezoning, and to
discuss their contention that drug abusers were frequenting the
premises. The residents are not adequately supervised, and the
facility has not met any licensing requirements, she said. She
complained that there is trash and there are liquor bottles in
the alley between Rev. Marshall's house and her home that are
there due to the Global Learning Center clientele, and that there
is traffic in the alley till all hours of the night. As far as
the safety of the neighborhood is concerned, she said that her
garage and back yard have been broken into, so she did not see
that Rev. Marshall's organization was improving the safety of the
area. Rev. Marshall, she said, refused to discuss the matter,
and had, she said, called her a racist. At another scheduled
meeting, which Rev. Marshall had set, Rev. Marshall had failed,
she continued, to attend. She stated that, contrary to
Rev. Marshall's contention, she and her family are not racists;
that she supports the activities of organizations such as Global
Learning Center, when they are in an appropriately zoned area,
and when the activities are properly supervised and the
institution is properly licensed.
Ms. Tennie J. Swaford, identifying herself as an area resident,
said that, although she does not object to Rev. Marshall and his
program, she does object to rezoning the neighborhood for
Ms. Joan Gould, stating that she owns a home and property which
back up to Rev. Marshall's property, said that she objects to the
non-residential..uses.of.the_..property. She had bought the home
because she wanted to live in a down -town, integrated,
residential neighborhood. She said that she is buying property
from the same persons who own Rev. Marshall's property, and that
these persons had not been informed of the planned rezoning,
5
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
except for the same notice which was sent to property owners in
the area. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Riley, are not, she said,
supportive of the proposed rezoning, and are, she suggested, not
adequately informed of the goings-on. Two years ago, she said,
the Marshalls had been operating a daycare facility in the house
at 1608 Rock, and, at that time, the Rileys had stopped the
activity, due to it not being permitted within the scope of their
insurance coverage on the property. She complained that, over
the past two years, although the front of the property facing
Rock St. has been improved, the alley between their and
Rev. Marshall's property is littered. Food, from the food
program, is scattered in the alley, which she has, on a number of
occasions, had to clean up. There are numerous vehicles parked
on Rev. Marshall's property which are never moved, but are stored
on the property and are an eyesore. She complained that
Rev. Marshall and his clientele trespass on her property which
she is buying from the Rileys, and that she has had to notify
Rev. Marshall not to take soil or plant flowers on her property.
She said that one instance involving her paying clientele of
Rev. Marshall's for removing a tree which had been blown over,
where Rev. Marshall had said that the persons she had paid had
used the money to buy drugs, caused her to question the adequacy
of the supervision afforded to the clientele, and caused her to
question her security, and the security of the other neighbors.
She said that there are a number of homes in the neighborhood
which are historic, and a rezoning to permit a commercial use
would devalue these homes. She questioned the legitimacy of
Rev. Marshall's program and activities, both from the City's
zoning laws, and from the State licensing regulations. She was
approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter, dated October 13, 1994, had been
received from the applicant asking that the item be deferred
until the January 10, 1995 agenda. The applicant had related
that they are attempting to find a suitable space for their
operation, and have a number of options they are pursuing,
including the old East Side ]High School site and the storefront
at the rear of the Harvest Foods store on Main St. The item was
included—on—the—Go s Ag�nd� for �pprova-.—off the—deferrer-1; a
the deferral until the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission
agenda was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent,
and 1 abstention (Putnam).
0
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z -1791-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Char -Beck Trust
R. Wingfield Martin
Candlewood Area (North of the
Kroger on Hwy. 10)
Rezone from R-2, R-4 and R-5
to MF -24 and OS
Multi -Family
131.82 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
South -
Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2 and R-5
East -
Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
West -
Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The area under consideration, 132 acres, is currently zoned
R-2, R-4 and R-5. The request is to rezone the acreage to
MF -24 and OS along a majority of the perimeter of the site.
The land area is situated east of Pinnacle Valley Road,
north of Hwy. 10 (directly north of the Kroger Center) and
west of the Candlewood Subdivision (the end of Rivercrest
Drive). The current zoning was approved in 1965 and 1966.
In 1984 a PRD was filed for the land, but the plan was never
finalized.
The surrounding zoning is primarily R-2. Directly to the
south, there are some R-5 and 0-2 tracts. There is some
commercial zoning, C-3 and PCD, along Hwy. 10. Land use
includes single family and commercial. As with the zoning,
the commercial uses are found adjacent to Hwy. 10, including
the Kroger development and a commercial center__on__the south
side of Hwy. 10.
At this time, the adopted land use plan identifies the
entire site for --single-family use, and does not even
recognized the existing R-5 zoning. Based on the previous
zoning action and the property's location, it appears that
increasing the amount of land for multi -family is
reasonable. However, without seeing more specifics about a
development concept and the land, it would be somewhat
premature to establish an overall density of 24 units per
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: D z -1791-B (Con
acre. A number of issues, such as topography and
circulation, need to be looked at to determine the
appropriate density for the site or if a MF -24 density is
too high for the area. Another concern that needs to be
reviewed is the land use plan and whether a plan amendment
is justified. There are too many questions that need be
answered -before a -rezoning of 132 acres to MF -24 can be
considered. Staff's position is that the item needs to be
deferred to give the city and the applicant more time to
study the area and the site.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the River Mountain District. The recommended
land use is single family. The proposed density is too
high, while some multifamily may be appropriate, a blanket
zoning is not. Due to the nature of the site, additional
information should be required as to the location,
arrangement and number of units.
ENGINEERING COMMENT
Engineering is recommending that the dedication of any
right-of-way occur through the plat or as part of a site
plan review.
-STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request be deferred to allow the
applicant to submit additional information and/or a plan for
the development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994)
At the beginning of the hearing, staff informed the
Commission that the applicant agreed with deferring the item
and requested a 60 day deferral. There were several
interested individuals in attendance and they did not object
to the deferral.
The item was added to the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 28, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Planning Commission action also waived the
bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five
working days prior to the hearing.)
K4
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: D ZZ -1791-B -(Cont.)
PDATE
Representatives of the owner, Char -Beck Trust, and the staff
met to discuss various issues associated with this rezoning
request. During the meeting, it was suggested that MF -12
would -be -amore -appropriate density -for the area. The
applicant has submitted a letter and is amending the
application from MF -24 to MF -12 for the R-2 and R-4 areas.
The existing R-5 will remain and an OS buffer will be
established through rezoning action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred for at least 30 days. As part of the
Consent Agenda, the issue was deferred to the August 9, 1994
hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The
Planning Commission also waived the bylaw provision
requiring 5 day written notice for a deferral.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994)
The request was represented by Herb Rule. There were 6
objectors in attendance. Staff reminded the Commission that
the application had been amended to MF -12 and OS for the R-2
and R-4 areas with a minimum 150 foot OS area and no zoning
change for the two existing R-5 locations. Staff then
indicated basic support for the MF -12 and OS proposal.
Staff then recommended MF -12 for the R-5 site in the
southeast corner of the property and increasing the OS to
200 feet adjacent to the lots on Rivercrest.
Herb Rule spoke and discussed the property's ownership and
gave some history. Mr. Rule told the Commission there was a
pending offer and the impact would be minimal because of a
reduction in the overall density. He continued by reviewing
previous planning efforts for the property and described the
site in detail. Mr. Rule also responded to a question about
access and presented a graphic showing a conceptual street
layout. He also offered some comments about the Master
S -tree -t la l .
Rita Daniel, a 20 year resident of the area and past -
president of the homeowners association, then addressed the
Planning Commission Ms. Daniel discussed the issue of the
Highway 10 Plan and traffic impacts from a multifamily
development. She told the Commission that the neighborhood
had met with the applicant and representatives of the owner.
3
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z-1791-8 (Cont.)
Ms. Daniel also made some comments about the proposed
buffers and the existing R-5 areas. Ms. Daniel then
informed the Commission that the neighborhood would like to
continue to talk to the applicant, but they were opposed to
the current request.
Gary•Hend_ershott spoke against -the proposed rezoning and
said it would cause problems for the area. Mr. Hendershott
said the rezoning was inconsistent with the adopted plan and
the surrounding neighborhoods. He said the property has
potential for single family development and also described
the scenic quality of Highway 10. Mr. Hendershott then
reviewed and discussed some of the neighborhood's concerns
and they included:
• a drop in real estate values
• noise pollution
• environmental impact
• quality control
• crime
He also said that the rezoning would have a negative impact
on the neighborhood.
Donna Williams talked about the area and possible impacts on
the environment. Ms. Williams went on to discuss problems
with a multifamily development and said she was opposed to
the requested MF -12 rezoning.
Joseph Story read a letter into the record and said the
neighborhood voted to oppose the rezoning.
Jan Butenschoen, representing the River Valley Property
Owners Association, spoke against the rezoning and said the
residents were opposed to the multifamily rezoning.
Gary Hendershott spoke again and said there were no details
on the development concept. Mr. Hendershott said that
having a plan to review would provide an increase level of
comfort.
There was a lengthy discussion about various issues
associated with the request.
VVuuuellV is were vLzereu ay severai commissioners and
Commissioner Putnam said he was concerned with the lack of
information.
Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
discussed the site and location of the buildable land.
Herb Rule then introduced Mike Berg, a realtor.
N
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: D Z -1791-B (Cont.)
Mike Berg then spoke and said that he was representing the
potential developer and the proposal was for "high-end"
apartments. Mr. Berg went on to say there would be one
access point into the property and security was an issue.
He then discussed traffic issues and said the development
would be of the highest quality. Mr. Berg also presented a
conceptual elevation of the project.
There was some discussion about the PRD process.
Herb Rule spoke again and made some comments about site plan
review and utilizing a PRD. Mr. Rule also said that a
multifamily development was the highest and best use of the
land. Mr. Rule then suggested that a deferral would
probably be appropriate. Mr. Rule also said that the owner
would agree to rezoning the southern R-5 site to MF -12, as
recommended by the staff.
There was a long discussion about the site and the PRD
process.
Herb Rule then requested a deferral of at least 60 days.
The Planning Commission voted to defer the item to the
October 18, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no other interested
parties in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred for a minimum of 4 months to give the owner adequate
time to develop a plan, address all the issues and to
resubmit the request as a PRD. The owner's representative
agreed to the deferral, and the issue was placed on the
Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer
the item to the February 21, 1995 meeting. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B. Putnam). (The
Commission also waived the bylaws to allow the rezoning
r- equ,es�t� -be de f -4 - r -r -e —fo r more–t han-9-0–days
5
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO $ 499 A
NAME: PARKSIDE PLACE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side of S. University Ave., north of W.
54th. St.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
JEANNIE K. ELLIFF MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln. 11225 Huron Ln.
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72209
223-9900 223-9900
AREA:
4.27 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS:
3
FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
C-4
PROPOSED
USES:
Office/Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12
CENSUS TRACT: 20.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide
street and sidewalk improvements for W. 54th. St. and 63rd. Ave.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The developer proposes a preliminary plat for a 4.27 acre tract,
involving the delineation of 3 lots and the dedication of the
rights-of-way for both an unimproved section of W. 54th. St. and
of 63rd. Ave. The northern -most lot, Lot 3, will contain the
existing building currently known as The Car Connection, located
at 5200 S. University Ave. The two other lots are vacant. Lot 1
is bordered on the south by a section of unimproved W. 54th. St.
Extending southward from W. 54th. St. is the northern -most
portion of unimproved 63rd. Ave. These streets provide access to
the side parking area of the Fire Department sub -station located
to the south of the applicant's property, and to a number of
homes which lie along 63rd. Ave. The entire length of W. 54th.
St., and the northern -most portion of 63rd. Ave. lie wholly
within the boundary of the developer's property, but are used, as
„n-i-mp-r-ov,ed, non-d-eicat-ed--street-s, by tire -publ-c A waiver f rom
the requirement to provide street and sidewalk improvements in
these rights-of-way is requested; the applicant seeks to leave
the streets in their currently existing condition. Access to the
applicant's property -is --to be taken -from --an existing driveway to
Lot 3, and a common access easement to be shared by Lots 1 and 2.
No access to be permitted from the south, from W. 54th. St.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -499-A
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
The applicant seeks Planning Commission approval of a
proposal involving the platting of a 4.27 acre tract into 3
lots and providing the rights-of-way for two streets which
are currently unimproved, but which are used by the public,
W. 54th. St. and 63rd. Ave. Access to the subdivision is to
be provided by way of an existing driveway from S.
University Ave. to the existing facility on Lot 3, and by
way of a common driveway from S. University Ave. to be
shared by Lots 1 and 2. No access is to be taken from W.
54th. St., which borders Lot 1 on the south, and a "no
access" easement is to be designated along the south border
of Lot 1. Since W. 54th. St. and 63rd. Ave. are currently
used by the public in their existing unimproved condition,
and since the developer does not propose to use the boundary
street for access to the subdivision, a waiver from the
requirement to make boundary street improvements is sought.
Approval of the requested waiver will be sought from the
Board of Directors.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The northern -most part of the tract, designated as Lot 3, is
developed, and contains the business currently known as The
Car Connection. The property lying south of this business,
but north of W. 54th. St., is vacant. W. 54th. St. is an
unimproved roadway, used by the public, but is not in a
dedicated right-of-way. A narrow roadway running south from
W. 54th. St., known as 63rd. Ave., is also not in a
dedicated right-of-way, but provides access to a number of
homes which lie along it. The northern -most portion of this
the 63rd. St. roadway lies within the boundary of the
applicant's property. Immediately south of W. 54th. St. is
a Fire Department sub -station, and guest parking for it is
head -in parking off W. 54th. St. To the west and north of
the tract is floodway/park property owned by the City of
Little Rock. The east boundary of the site is S. University
Ave.
The existing zoning of the tract is C-4, with a mixture of
C�and—C-1distric_ts—to_the oxthwe.s_t_, west. and—south-. At
the northeast corner of the parcel is a small 0-3 site.
Across S. University Ave. is C-3 and I-2 zoned property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY-COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, a storm water detention plan and a sketch
grading and drainage plan must be submitted for approval.
The Subdivision Regulations and Master Street Plan will
require street improvements in the W. 54th. St. right-of-
way.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Continued) FILE NO • S 499 A
Little Rock Water Works reports that a water main extension
may be required to maintain domestic service and provide
adequate fire protection to Lot 3 and to serve Lot 2. An
acreage charge of $150 per acre and a pro -rata front footage
charge of $5.00 per foot may apply. These fees are in
addition to the normal connection fees.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension is required, with easements, to serve Lot 3. The
existing sewer main located on Lot 1 must have an easement
shown.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 10 foot easement
along its existing power line, located along the northern
boundary of Lot 1.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot
easement along the north, west, and south boundary of Lot 3,
and along the west boundary of both Lots 2 and 1.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The preliminary plat must have: 1) the location of the area
accurately shown on the vicinity map; 2) the source of the
contours, along with the source from which all elevations
were derived; 3) natural and cultural features within and
immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision, pursuant
to Sections 31-89.4 and 31-89.8 of the Subdivision
Regulations; 4) a stormwater drainage analysis and plan; 5)
the zoning classifications within the platted area and of
abutting areas; 6) proposed PAGIS monuments; and, 7) a
physical description of all monuments.
A preliminary Bill of Assurance is required.
As a �oznu�ercia�—subdivision, t e access point(s) to S.
University Ave. must be indicated. Ordinance No. 16,577
requires that access drives be separated by at least 300
feet; therefore, with the existing driveway to the Lot 3
development proposed -to -remain, Lots l and 2 must have a
common driveway in a common drive access easement. These
access driveways must be shown on the plat.
Section 31-201(h) states that: "New boundary streets shall
be avoided, except where a requirement of the Master Street
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO S 499 A
Plan provides a defined alignment. In that event, the
development... shall provide one-half of the Master Street
Plan's specified improvements and right-of-way. Whenever a
proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or
constructed public street, the developer shall provide the
minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-
of-way." Section 31-201(i) goes on to say: "For the
purposes of determining the extent of required improvements
on boundary streets, the right-of-way centerline shall be
deemed to be the plat boundary."
E. ANALYSIS•
Only minor deficiencies in the plat and the required
submissions remain, and the required corrections or
submittals can be easily completed.
The applicant's property includes the land which, over time,
has been used by the public as streets for access to homes
and to the side of the Fire Department sub -station. The
applicant proposes to dedicate the right-of-way for W. 54th.
St. which lies south of and adjacent to hit property, and to
dedicate the portion of 63rd. Ave. which lies within his
property. He does not propose to use the roadways for
access to his development, and proposes that they be left
"as is". He will, then, seek a waiver from the Board of
Directors for any required improvements to these rights-of-
way.
The proposed subdivision, with the noted corrections, and
with.Board of Directors approval of the waiver of street
improvements on W. 54th. St., meets the standards of the
Subdivision Regulations for a commercial subdivision.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to Board of Directors approval of the requested waivers, and
recommends approval of the requested waiver on the boundary
street improvements.
—M-01—VISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer was present. Staff
outlined the request, and asked Mr. McGetrick about the ownership
of the abutting lands to the west and northwest. Mr. McGetrick
responded that the City of Little Rock had purchased this
property a couple of years ago for the Fourche Creek
floodway/park project. This precluded, staff observed, the
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-499-A
applicant from being able to accomplish a proper preliminary plat
in which his tract would be shown to be divided from the larger
tract. The Subdivision Committee members reviewed the proposed
subdivision plat, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick the discussion
outline. The matter of the improvements to W. 54th. St. and to
63rd. Ave. were discussed, and Mr. McGetrick reported that a
waiver of any improvements would be sought. Mr. McGetrick
indicated that a "no access" easement would be designated along
the northern right-of-way line of W. 54th. St., and that the
applicant would commit to not using this right-of-way for access
to his property. The City Engineering staff reviewed with
Mr. McGetrick the access point locations for the property, and
informed him of the requirement for 300 foot separation between
access points. The requirement to show the access points and the
common access easement on the plat was discussed. Mr. McGetrick
indicated that he would make the required corrections on the plat
and would furnish the remaining information noted in the
discussion outline. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that there were no outstanding issues, and
recommended approval of the preliminary plat, as well as approval
of the requested waivers of street improvements in the W. 54th.
St. and 63rd. Ave. rights-of-way. The item was included in the
Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Putnam).
61
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: 5-722-M
NAME: CHERRY CREEK, LOTS 23-59, BLOCK 4, LOTS 1-35, BLOCK 5,
LOTS 1-15, BLOCK 6, AND LOTS 1-10, BLOCK 1 -- PRELIMINARY
PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 750
feet south of Kanis Rd.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
WINROCK DEVELOPMENT CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
P. 0. Box 8080 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
663-5340 374-1666
AREA: 24.65 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 97 FT. NEW STREET: 4150
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The developer proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 24.65 acre tract to be a new phase of the Cherry Creek
Subdivision. The site is adjacent to and south of the existing
Cherry Creek Subdivision, and will add 97 lots to the addition.
The development involves extending the Cherry Creek streets into
the site, with 4,150 feet of new streets to be constructed, and
will provide an additional entrance onto S. Bowman Rd. No
variances or waivers are requested.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a
preliminary plat for an additional phase of the Cherry Creek
eilid i�-ion.— Anaddi-t-i-ona1 Q'7 1 s�nvolvrng 2-4:65 acre
and construction of 4,150 feet of streets is proposed. No
variances or waivers from the Subdivision or other
regulations are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land to be included in the platted area is hilly and
mostly heavily wooded. There are a couple of rural single-
family residences along the S. Bowman Rd. frontage of the
tract.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO S 722 M
The property is currently zoned R-2. The land to the north,
west, and south is zoned R-2. Across S. Bowman Rd. to the
east, the majority of the land is zoned R-2, but there is an
OS and an MF -12 area across S. Bowman Rd. to the northeast.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works made no comments on the proposed development.
Little Rock Water Works comments that water main extensions
will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main
extensions, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations require the following
information, omitted from the submission, to be furnished
with a preliminary plat application: 1) the type of
subdivision which is being proposed; 2) the average and
minimum lot sizes; 3) any existing and the proposed
covenants and restrictions; 4) the source of water supply
and the means of Wastewater disposal proposed; 5) natural
and cultural features, pursuant to Sections 31-89.4 and 31-
89.8 of the Subdivision Regulations; 6) the names of
recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision,
with plat book and page number or instrument number, or the
names of owners or all abutting lands when the abutting land
is unplatted; 7) the physical description of all monuments;
8) the zoning classifications within the plat area and of
abutting areas; and, 9) the location of nrnnnnaa vnr_Te
monuments.
Contours are to be at 5 foot intervals when the terrain has
an average slope --exceeding 10%,- and be at 2 foot intervals
for terrain with slopes of less than 10%. The contours
shown on the plat are at 10 foot intervals, and additional
contour lines will be required. Also, the source of the
contours, along with the source from which all elevations
were derived, shall be clearly described.
K
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO S 722-M
The vicinity map includes the entire area of Cherry Creek
subdivision, and does not correctly delineate the area of
the phase being considered with this application. The
vicinity_.map.., . then, .._must . be .. corrected .
A storm drainage analysis and plan is required, and must be
submitted.
A metes and bounds legal description is required, and must
be submitted.
Section 31-232(a) and 31-232(b) of the Subdivision
Regulations requires that no single-family residential lot
shall be less than 60 feet in width, nor less than 100 feet
in depth. Section 36-254 of the Zoning Regulations states
that, in an R-2 area, no lot shall have less than 7,000
square feet of area. Some of the lots are shown with less
depth than the required 100 feet, and these must be changed
to provide the minimum depth required, or a variance must be
sought.
E. ANALYSIS:
The development is a continuation of the Cherry Creek
development, and, with attention to the deficiencies noted,
will meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the plat being corrected as outlined above, and the
deficient information being supplied.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
engineering firm on the project, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal and the Committee reviewed with Mr. White the
deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline
r Wh3�e sai a e would make the needed corrections in the
plan and would provide staff with the information noted. He said
that the lots which were noted as being less than 100 feet in
depth would be reviewed in view of adjusting their depth. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
approval of the preliminary plat.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -722-M
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that, immediately prior to the Commission meeting,
Public Works had added the comments that: the developer will be
required to comply with the Master Street Plan requirements for
dedication of right-of-way, alignment, and construction of the
street and sidewalk on Bowman Rd.; Master Street Plan
improvements within the subdivision will be required; the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be applicable; and, the
Excavation Ordinance will be applicable. Staff recommends
approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant
revising the plat so that the substandard lots which do not meet
the lot depth requirement are corrected, and subject to
compliance with the Public Works comments. The item was included
in the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Putnam).
N
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1037
NAME: RESERVOIR FLAT SUBDIVISION— PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the east side of Reservoir Rd., approximately 0.7
,mile north of Rodney Parham Rd.
DEVELOPER•
JACK GARRISON
18 Corporate Hill Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72205
225-5160
AREA• 2.56 ACRES
ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
ENGINEER:
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln.
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 350
PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 2.56 acre tract to
include: the delineation of 6 lots, and 1 tract, the tract
encompassing land in the floodplain which will not be developed;
the dedication to the City of land within the subdivision but
which is in the floodway; dedication of additional land for the
Reservoir Rd. right-of-way and construction of the required
Master Street Plan improvements in this right-of-way; and,
construction of a cul-de-sac street which is approximately 350
feet in length. The applicant proposes to construct multi -family
residential structures on the lots in conformance with the
requirements of the R-5 zoning district regulations. No
variances are proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Approval from the Planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for a subdivision of a parcel of land to
include 6 building sites, a tract in floodplain area which
is not to be developed, dedication of floodway property to
the City, dedication of additional right-of-way for
Reservoir Rd. and construction of the required one-half
street improvements for Reservoir Rd., and construction of a
350 foot long cul-de-sac street. The subdivision is
proposed to be for multi -family residential units,
October 18, 1994
SUBDI VI S ION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO P-1 A'A'7
constructed according to the regulations of the R-5 zoning
district. No variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site lies along the north bank of the Grassy Flat Creek,
and is predominantly heavily wooded.
The site was recently zoned R-5, with an OS strip being
designated for the Grassy Flat Creek floodway. (Note: The
area zoning map has not been updated, and does not show the
change in zoning. The area is shown as R-2 on the area
zoning map included with the agenda.) The land to the north
is zoned R-5, as is land to the northwest across Reservoir
Rd. To the east, south, and across Reservoir Rd. to the
west is R-2 zoned land.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works reports that, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, a complete grading and drainage plan must
be submitted for approval. A floodplain development permit
must be obtained. One-half street improvements will be
required along Reservoir Rd.
Little Rock Water Works reports that an acreage charge of
$150 per acre applies. An existing 54" water main and its
easement are not shown on the plat, and the main will
interfere with construction in the proposed lots 2 and 3.
Significant cuts or fills in the easement area may be
prohibited.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that there is an
existing sewer main located on the property, and that the
sewer main and its easement must be shown.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require 15 foot wide
easements along the east, north, and west boundary of the
site.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide
easement along the north and east boundary of the plat.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Fa
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3(Continued) FILE NO 5-1037
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
As noted by Water Works and Wastewater, there are existing
water and sewer.mains..located on. -the property which are not
shown, and which will significantly affect development of
the property. Lots 2 and 3, as presently shown, are made,
for all practical purposes, undevelopable. A
reconfiguration of the lots is made necessary, and the final
version of the plat will be different from the version
reviewed.
The floodway and the right-of-way for Reservoir Rd. were
dedicated to the City as part of the rezoning of the
property. These areas must not be included in the current
plat.
Tract A, the land that is in the floodplain, must be
retained by the developer and provision for its maintenance
must be made.
The Subdivision Regulations require the following
information, omitted from the submission, be furnished with
a preliminary plat application: 1) the type of subdivision
being developed; 2) the source of title of the owner; 3) any
existing or proposed covenants and restrictions; 4) the
source of the contours, along with the source from which all
elevations are derived; 5) natural and cultural features
pursuant to Sections 31-89.4 and 31-89.8 of the Subdivision
Regulations; 6) the names of recorded subdivisions abutting
the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or
instrument number, the names of owners of unplatted tracts
abutting the proposed subdivision, and the names of all
owners of platted tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres in size;
7) the physical description of all monuments; and, 8) the
location of proposed PAGIS monuments.
A storm drainage analysis and plan is to be provided.
The vicinity map must be corrected to properly designate the
location of the proposed development.
The—proposed st3-ee-t--name must be designated, and approved by
Public Works.
Section 36-259 outlines the requirements for R-5
developments. Paragraph 6 states that lots shall not have a
depth of less than 100 feet. The lot line lying between the
present lots 4 and 5 is 62.8 feet. This lot line must be
adjusted, or a variance will be required to be approved by
the Board of Directors.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1037
E. ANALYSIS•
There are major concerns to be addressed prior to approval
of the preliminary plat: 1) there is the issue of re
configuring the lot layout to leave the area occupied by the
water and sewer mains unobstructed; 2) there is the issue of
the lot line which is less than 100 feet; and, 3) there is
the issue of the floodway area and the Reservoir Rd. right-
of-way already being dedicated to the City, and needing to
be omitted from the subject plat. There are also minor
deficiencies in the plat and in the information needing to
be furnished which the applicant can easily rectify.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that consideration of the proposed plat be
deferred until a correct version of the plat is submitted
and reviewed which reflects the location of the water and
sewer mains and their easements, the amended lot
configuration based on required changes, and the correct
description of the land without the previously dedicated
right-of-way and floodway being included.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
outlined the project. The Committee members reviewed the
discussion outline and asked for Mr. McGetrick's response to the
items contained in it. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the lots
would have to be re -arranged to provide the needed clearance for
the water and sewer mains which cut across the presently shown
lots 2 and 3. He also said that he would make the needed changes
to delete the already dedicated property from the plat. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. He
presented a revised preliminary plat which addressedthe staff
comments and the deficiencies noted in the Agenda "write-up".
David Scherer, the Public works representative, reviewed the
proposed plat briefly, and indicated that the needed changes were
made. He reported, though, that Master Street Plan requirements
would be necessary on the internal street and on Reservoir Rd.;
and, that the Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinance
requirements would be applicable. Staff indicated that the
average of the side yard lines would have to be at least 100
feet, and indicated that the common lot line between Lots 4 and 5
may have to be adjusted in order to get the required depth along
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1037
that property line. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would make
any required change. Staff recommended approval of the
preliminary plat, and the plat was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
5
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.S-1039
DAME: LOUIS MARTIN ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side of Carter Lane, approximately 1/4
mile south of Taylor Loop Rd.
DEVELOPER:
LOUIS MARTIN
3208 Breckenridge
Little Rock, AR 72207
223-3694
AREA: 4.81 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
ENGINEER:
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
PROPOSED USES:
FT. NEW STREET: 0
Single -Family Residential
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Waiver of the requirement to provide
boundary street improvements on Carter Ln, and on the unnamed
future arterial street along the west property line.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the division of a 4.81 acre lot into two home sites.
Lot 1 is proposed to have 115 feet of frontage on the east
boundary street, Carter Ln., and to have the full width of the
tract frontage at the west property line along the future,
unnamed arterial street. Lot 2, which includes the home site
already existing on the tract, is proposed to have 215 feet of
frontage on Carter Ln., and is 295 feet deep. There is proposed
to be a "no access" easement along the west property line of Lot
1 to restrict vehicle access to the west and to the future
arterial street. Dedication of the required right-of-way for the
future arterial street which will lie along the west property
line of the subdivision is proposed. The applicant proposes,
however, a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations which would
require Mas_tes__Str-ePt p- an—imp-r-o----me. s—for—t-1ri-s future--art-e-z-ia
street, and seeks a waiver from the Master Street Plan required
improvements to Carter Ln.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
The applicant seeks Planning Commission approval of a
preliminary plat to divide a 4.81 acre tract into two home
sites. Both lots are proposed to have frontage on Carter
Ln., and both of the lots have in excess of the minimum
frontage on Carter Ln, which is required. Along the west
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO S 1039
boundary of the tract, dedication of the right-of-way for a
future arterial street, in conformance with the Master
Street Plan requirements, is proposed. A "no access"
easement is to be provided along this right-of-way to
restrict vehicle.access_.when..the street -is developed.
Approval from the Board of Directors will be sought for a
waiver from the requirement to construct the Master Street
plan improvements in the right-of-way to be dedicated for
the future arterial, and approval from the Board of
Directors will be sought for a waiver from the requirement
to make one-half street improvements on Carter In.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The tract is presently a rural single-family home site, with
a pond and woods. It is nearly at the end of Carter Ln.,
being approximately one block from the south end of Carter
Ln. in a sparsely developed area. Carter Ln. is a "chip -
seal" paved, open -ditch street section roadway.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with all surrounding
areas being zoned R-2, as well.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the Subdivision Regulations and
Master Street Plan will require one-half street improvements
on Carter Ln, and dedication of one-half of the required
right-of-way and construction of one-half of an arterial
street section along the west boundary of the plat.
Little Rock Water Works reports that there are no objections
to the proposed subdivision.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide
easement along the north, east, and south boundary of the
subdivision.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO S-1039
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations require the following
information, -omitted from -the- submission, to be furnished
with a preliminary plat application: 1) the type of
subdivision which is being proposed; 2) the name and address
of the owner of record, and the source of title of the
ownership; 3) the source of the contours shown, along with
the source from which all elevations were derived; 4)
information on any existing and proposed covenants and
restrictions; 5) the source of water supply and the means of
wastewater disposal; 6) natural and cultural features
pursuant to Sections 31-89.4 and 31-89.8 of the Subdivision
Regulations; 7) a preliminary storm drainage plan; 8) the
names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed
subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument
number, or the names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting
the proposed subdivision, or the names of all owners of
platted land in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 8) the physical
description of all monuments; 9) the zoning of the land
within the proposed subdivision and of abutting areas; and,
10) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments.
The vicinity map must be corrected to show that the property
is not at the end of Carter Ln., but is approximately 330
feet north of its termination.
The Certificate of Preliminary Engineering accuracy is to be
executed.
A preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted.
Section 31-201(h) states that: "New boundary streets shall
be avoided, except where a requirement of the Master Street
Plan provides a defined alignment. In that event,
the—plat ... shall provide one-half of the Master Street
Plan's specified improvements and right-of-way." It
continues: "Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a
partially dedicated or constructed public street, the
developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the
required improvements and right-of-way." The regulations,
iren, provide for the improvements to the two rights-of-way.
The applicant is seeking a waiver from this requirement.
Section 31-232(d) states: "Double frontage lots are
prohibited. However, where a subdivision abuts ... (a)
proposed arterial street..., reverse frontage lots are
Permitted." Although the proposed subdivision provides for
a double -frontage lot, the regulations permit this design
when one of the frontages is bounded by a future arterial
street, as is the situation in this development.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO S 1039
E. ANALYSIS•
The Master Street Plan has defined the alignment of a future
arterial street along the west boundary of the tract. The
developer proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way,
but seeks approval of a waiver of having to construct the
street. When the 5 -acre tract to the south of the proposed
subdivision was subdivided a couple of years ago, the right-
of-way for the future arterial was dedicated. These two
dedications are the only portions of the right-of-way which
have been dedicated or exist in the vicinity.
The area along Carter Ln. is a rural residential area which
is slowly developing. To require construction of Master
Street Plan improvements for the one section of the street
which fronts on the proposed subdivision would be out of
character at this time for the area and for the remainder of
the street; however, within a few years, there will probably
be a need to make the improvements and extend Carter Ln.
The deficiencies noted can be easily corrected by the
project engineer. They are not decisive in determining
whether the plat can be approved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the required information being supplied and the drawing
being completed. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of
Master Street Plan improvements in the right-of-way for the
future arterial along the west boundary of the subdivision,
but recommends a deferral for 5 years of the improvements
for Carter Ln.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
engineering firm on the project, was present. Staff outlined the
request, and the Subdivision Committee members reviewed with Mr.
White the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr.
White said-that__he-wou-ld-make the-needed--carrectzoias-and provi e
the information needed. The Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had agreed with the staff
recommendation of a five (5) -year deferral (in lieu of an
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1039
outright waiver) of the street improvements on Carter Ln. Staff
recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and recommended
approval of the waiver of improvements on the rear unnamed future
arterial street and the deferral of the improvements on Carter
Ln. Since there were no outstanding issues to be resolved, the
item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval, and was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and
1 abstention (Putnam).
5
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE
NAME: WINS 201 W. ROOSEVELT RD. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of W. Roosevelt Rd. and S.
Louisiana St.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER•
M. C. WINS CHARLES E. MILLER
WINS COMPANY CHARLIE MILLER ENGINEERING
201 W. Roosevelt Rd. 1500 Aldersgate Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72206 Little Rock, AR 72205
378-0205 225-7106
AREA• 0.448 ACRES
ZONING: C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 5
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Automobile sales; open
display; office
VARIANCES REQUESTED: A waiver of the requirement to widen S.
Louisiana St. to Master Street Plan standard is requested.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD in order to operate a "car lot" and
his business office on his property at the southwest corner of W.
Roosevelt Rd. and S. Louisiana St. The property contains, at
this time, a 1 -story brick building used for an office for his
business pursuit. He proposes to add the "car lot" operation to
the site, and, in the future, a concrete block garage immediately
to the west of the present office building. Paving of a great
portion of the site for the display of vehicles is proposed. The
development will include a "good neighbor" land use buffer fence
along the south and west property lines; the dedication of an
additional 5 feet of right-of-way for S. Louisiana St.; the
erect.viz �;f�—"r right=watchev,i�'ghtso�rlumination on the
site; and, landscaping as required. An 8 foot high, pole mounted
sign containing a 24 square foot sign face is to be erected along
the W. Roosevelt Rd. frontage of the site. The hours of
operation will be from 8:00 AM to 5:00 -PM, -Monday through
Thursday, and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Friday and Saturday.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a PCD for a "car lot" and office for the applicant is
October 18, 1994
5UBDIVI S ION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -1730-C
requested. The PCD is requested in order to develop an open
display use on property currently owned by and used for
office space by the applicant. The request is for
development of a site which includes: the existing 882
square foot office building on the site; a new 1800 square
foot garage facility which is -to be built at a later date;
asphalt parking/display area to occupy much of the site;
land use buffer fencing along the west and south property
lines; landscaping, as required; "night -watcher" security
lighting to be located on poles at the southeast, southwest,
and northwest corners of the property; and, a 24 square foot
pole -mounted to be located on the W. Roosevelt Rd. frontage
of the site. Hours of operation are to be from 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Friday and Saturday. The required 5 additional feet of
right-of-way along the S. Louisiana St. frontage of the site
will be dedicated to the City; however, the applicant will
request approval from the Board of Directors for a waiver
from the requirement to widen S. Louisiana St. to Master
Street Plan standard.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the present location of the applicant's office.
The office is a one-story, brick, 882 square foot building.
The site is partially paved, with a few scattered mature
trees being located on the lot. Both W. Roosevelt Rd. and
S. Louisiana St. are existing curb -and -gutter streets.
The site is presently zoned C-3. The area to the south,
west, and across S. Louisiana St. to the east is zoned R-4.
There is additional C-3 zoned land immediately to the north
across W. Roosevelt Rd. To the northeast and the northwest,
however, is R-4 property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the applicant will be required to submit a
stormwater detention plan for approval. S. Louisiana St.
must be widened to commercial street standards along the PCD
frontage. This will involve dedication of 5 additional feet
of right-of-way, construction of a new sidewalk, and
construction of 4 1T2 eet of additional width to S.
Louisiana St., with a new curb and gutter section.
Little Rock Water Works reports_no objections.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available to the site.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO Z 1730
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review reports that a "good neighbor" fence, or
dense evergreen plantings are required on the property lines
which abut residential property. Landscaping at the
proposed garage building will be required to be installed.
An upgrade in landscaping on the site will be required. The
perimeter landscape strip must be a minimum of 6 feet in
width.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The project narrative must include a definite time period
for constructing the garage building, and must include a
description of the uses to be pursued in the garage
facility.
The "night -watcher" lights do not provide any shielding to
keep the light "bleedover" from affecting residential
neighbors.
The Planning staff reports that the proposed PCD is located
in the Central City District, and that the adopted land use
plan calls for mixed uses. The mixed use category is for
residential uses and for office or commercial uses which can
be compatibly mixed with single and multi -family units. The
open display use, or C-4 use, is not considered compatible
with single-family or multi -family uses, or with the "mixed
use" category.
E. ANALYSIS•
The open display, or C-4, use is in conflict with the land
use plan, and is not compatible with the surrounding
-s -id -t * charmer of the neighborhood.
The applicant has failed to describe the nature of the uses
to be pursued in the future garage building, or to set a
time frame for -its construction.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the PCD.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1730-C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Charlie Miller, the project engineer, was present.
Staff outlined the request. The Subdivision Committee members
reviewed with Mr. Miller the comments contained in the discussion
outline. The Public Works staff reviewed their comments
concerning dedication of right-of-way for and widening S.
Louisiana St. The Committee then forwarded the request to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 1, 1994)
Staff reported that the proposed PCD had originally been heard by
the Commission as a rezoning request, and that, at the meeting of
June 28, 1994, the applicant had withdrawn the request in order
to re -file it as a PCD. Staff indicated that the Public Works
comments contained the requirement that Master Street Plan
standards for a commercial street for S. Louisiana St. be
imposed; that this would require the applicant dedicate one-half
of a 60 foot right-of-way, requiring he dedicate an additional
5 feet on his S. Louisiana St. frontage; and, that he construct
additional width to S. Louisiana St. to increase its width to a
commercial street standard on his half of the right-of-way, this
requiring the relocation of the sidewalk, as well. Staff pointed
out that the applicant has agreed to dedicate the required
additional right-of-way, but will seek a waiver from the Board of
Directors for the required street and sidewalk construction.
Staff indicated that a recent plan review by Public Works had
brought to light that the driveway off Louisiana St. is too close
to the W. Roosevelt Rd. intersection; that the Ordinance requires
driveways to be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersection;
therefore, Public Works has added the comment that this driveway
must be moved further to the south, or a waiver from the
Ordinance requirement must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Staff reported that 3 letters from abutting property owners have
been received expressing opposition to the PCD request.
Charlie Miller, the project engineer, pointed out that the
driveway which Public Works has commented which must be moved is
-n exist I ng- dr--i-vewa r,and—to—r-emove it--and--rel-ocate- t -wound be
extremely financially burdensome to the applicant. He said that
the widening of S. Louisiana St. would require removing the
existing curb and gutter section and the existing sidewalk,
adding 4 1/2 feet of width to the street, then replacing the curb
and gutter and the sidewalk. He said that the applicant cannot
justify these expenses in the PCD request to simply add the used
car lot use to his current business use of the property.
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1730-C
Mr. M. C. Wins, the applicant, stated that he would have no more
than 15 cars for sale on his lot at any one time. He said that
the building on the site is his current office, and that all he
wanted to do is sell used cars on the property.
Ms. Thelma Banks, indicating that she lived in a house on the
east side of S. Louisiana St., and that her house faces the side
of Mr. Wins property, spoke in opposition to the request. She
said that looking out from the front of her home into a used car
lot would not be pleasant. She also objected to the proposed
future garage use on the property.
Mr. Wins responded that the "garage" was not a working garage;
that there would be no mechanical work done on the lot al all,
He explained that the garage was for storage of employees' or
repossessed vehicles only.
Commissioner Oleson asked Bob Brown, of the Planning staff,
whether the site plan, as presented, met the landscaping and
buffer requirements. Mr. Brown responded that there are minor
deficiencies in the width of the buffers and landscaping, but
that these would be addressed when a building permit were
requested.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD request;
however, the motion failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 5 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
5
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO • Z-5882
NAME: SAIIGEY 16715 CANTRELL ROAD -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.2
mile west of the west Taylor Loop Rd. intersection,
outside the City Limits.
DEVELOPER•
VICKIE SAIIGEY
16715 Cantrell Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72212
868-5199
AREA: 0.43 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Residential and Beauty Shop
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to enclose the garage area of her existing
home, covert that area to a beauty shop operation, and to
continue living in the remainder of the structure. The existing
garage entrance is at the rear of the home, and access to the new
beauty shop will be from that area. Parking for 7 vehicles will
be added off the existing rear -entry driveway. No changes to the
front of the residential structure are proposed. The applicant
proposes to provide space for 3 beauty operators. A single
monument sign is requested, and will be located approximately
60 feet off Cantrell Rd., 5 feet west of the existing driveway.
A land use buffer consisting of dense plantings will be provided
at the border of the new parking area to shield that use from
abutting properties to the east and south.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a POD in order for the
applicant.to-have both a residential use and her proposed
beauty shop use in her existing home. It is proposed that
the existing garage be converted to the beauty shop
facility, and, since the garage is a rear -entry garage,
there will be no change to the front/Cantrell Rd. facing
facade of the home. Entrance to the proposed beauty shop
will be from the rear -entry driveway, and 7 parking spaces
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO Z 5882
are proposed to be added along this driveway at the rear of
the house. A land use buffer consisting of dense evergreen
shrubbery is to be planted at the perimeter of the parking
area, buffering this use from the abutting residential uses
to the east and south. A monument sign is requested to be
placed in the front yard of the home, and is proposed to be
located approximately 60 feet off Cantrell Rd., and 5 feet
west of the existing driveway. Provision for no additional
outside lighting is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is the applicant's home site. There is a 1 -
story, brick residence located on the property,
approximately 70 feet south of the existing Cantrell Rd.
curb line. A rear -entry driveway runs along the east
property line and turns westward behind the home to the
rear -entry garage.
The site is outside the City Limits and is zoned R-2. There
is exclusively R-2 zoning to the north, east, and south.
Immediately to the west is another POD which is an
accounting firm's office.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works indicated that there were no comments to be
made concerning this item.
Little Rock Water Works had no objection to the proposed
POD.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required in order for the
property to be provided with public sewer service.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require dedication of an
easement along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwest PT -n Bel -1 Te',holeCopproved—the su mi a
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review indicated that a 6 foot high "good
neighbor" fence, or dense evergreen shrubbery will have to
be installed to buffer the commercial use from the abutting
residential uses.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5882
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning staff comment that the request is in the Chenal
District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan calls for the
area to be a transition zone. The proposed use is in
conformance with the adopted plan.
There are no issues to be resolved.
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use Plan,
and there are no issues to be resolved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Ms. Vickie Saugey, the applicant, was present.
Staff outlined the request and reviewed with the Subdivision
Committee the site plan. The Committee members reviewed the
discussion outline with Ms. Saugey, and she indicated that she
would provide the additional information noted by staff as
deficient. She presented a more detailed site plan, and the
Committee discussed the proposed layout and provisions for land
use buffering around the proposed additional parking area. It
was noted that the site is outside the City Limits, and that no
building permit will be required to accomplish the improvements.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that there had been a question raised by Mr. David
Jones regarding the appropriateness of placing the beauty shop
use in a POD.
Mr. David Jones, addressing the Commission, explained that,
although he was not in opposition to the request, he questioned
staff's recommendation of approval of a beauty shop use in a POD
district.
Staff, citing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, noted that:
Section 36-452 states that the purpose and intent of the POD
district is: "to accommodate... mixed use developments combining
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5882
residential, commercial, and office uses ... °' (and that) "limited
commercial/retail uses may be allowed if deemed appropriate and
is consistent with and complementary to office development"; and,
Section 36-278 allows beauty shops as conditional uses in the 0-1
district and accessory uses in the 0-2 and 0-3 districts. The
POD district, as described in the ordinance, allows residential
uses and professional and general offices uses, and the beauty
shop use is among the listed uses in the various office
districts. Staff maintained that the POD district, for a mixed
use of residential and beauty shop, was appropriate. Staff
continued that the Land Use Plan designates the area as
"transition", so that, both a POD and the proposed use mixture
are in keeping with the requirements of the Land Use Plan. Staff
recommended approval of the POD, and indicated that there were no
outstanding issues to be resolved.
Ms. Ruth Presley, representing the applicant, explained that the
proposed development was for a beauty shop in the applicant's
home; that the residential portion of the activity is on the east
side of the property, abutting the residentially zoned tract,
with the beauty shop portion of the activity being on the west
side abutting the business zoned property, She said that the
application was for a maximum of 3 beauty operators, because that
was the number which the cosmetology board allows for the size of
the area being used by the applicant, but that the applicant will
operate the beauty shop herself, and may employ another operator
on a part-time basis.
Commissioner Willis asked for clarification on any intentions for
expansion of the beauty shop use.
Ms. Presley said that expansion would not be possible without
adding area to the beauty shop, and that she realized that such
an addition would require an amendment to the POD.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the number of
beauty operators who would be permitted in the POD, and noted
that the request was for 3 operators, yet at the Subdivision
Committee meeting, the applicant had mentioned that she would be
the sole full-time operator with possibly a part-time operator.
Ms. Presley responded that the request would remain for approval
of 3 operators.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD
request, and the motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
4
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5884
NAME: TYRRELL LEASING CO. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 1/4
mile west of S. Bowman Rd.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
BRENT E. TYRRELL WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5624 S. University Ave. 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72201
568-7368 374-1666
AREA: 0.7872 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Automobile rental,
leasing, and sales
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD in order to locate his TLC DAILY
RENTAL business on the subject property. The site is a 0.7872
acre lot fronting on Chenal Parkway. Access to the site is
shared with the lot immediately to the east, and an existing 36
foot wide drive apron is centered on the shared property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a 2000 square foot office,
display, and minor automotive service area building. The front
face of the building is proposed to be rock, brick, or concrete,
and glass. A decorative awning is to be erected along the front
facade. Access to the service area will be from the rear, with
an overhead door being provided. Also, at the rear, and attached
to the main building, is proposed to be a 20 foot by 20 foot
covered vehicle wash "plaza". Parking for 31 vehicles is
proposed—for— the--Pha-s I portion of --tyre site, With an cYditio a
10 spaces being proposed for the Phase II development. The Phase
I development will incorporate the construction of the building
improvements and the development of the east approximately 75% of
the site. Phase II will -consist of -the -remaining usable western
portion of the property. Until Phase II development is
undertaken, that portion of the site will be seeded and
landscaped. The Phase II development will involve construction
of berms, paved at the top, for display of luxury and sports
cars. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:30 AM to 6:00
PM, Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5884
Saturday. Lighting will be accomplished with "shoe -box" light
fixtures, set at minimum heights, and controlled to avoid
bleedover to abutting properties. A single monument sign at the
Chenal Parkway frontage is proposed.
A. PROPOSAL%REOUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
is requested for a PCD for a new, additional facility for
TLC DAILY RENTAL. Approval for the rental, leasing, and
sales of automobiles and other vehicles is requested, and
the applicant requests approval of all other uses by right
as listed in the C-3 zoning district. The PCD involves
development of the 0.7872 site in two phases. Phase I, to
be initiated immediately, will entail construction of the
2000 square foot office, display, and service building,
along with a 20 foot by 20 foot covered car wash "plaza"
which is attached to the building; development of 750 of the
vehicle parking, driveway, and outside vehicle display area;
and, the construction of the monument sign. Phase II, to be
developed at a later date, will involve construction of 10
additional outside display spaces. Involved in this phase
is the construction of berms, paved at the top, for raised
display of luxury and sports cars. The hours of operation
are to be from 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday,
and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Lighting of the site
will be by way of "shoe -box" type fixtures, with "cut-offs"
to limit bleedover to the abutting properties. No variances
are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is cleared, and is prepared for development. There
is an existing 36 foot wide curb cut provided, which is
centered on the east property line and is to be shared with
the abutting lot to the east for a common access point to
the two lots.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3, with C-3 areas to
the east, northwest, and south. Immediately to the north is
the AP&L shops in an I-2 zoning district. Across Chenal
Parkway to the southwest is an OS zone and an R-2
residential development bey-on_d,
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public,_W.orks..comments _.that,___pr.ior- to. -the issuance of a
building permit, a stormwater detention plan and a sketch
grading and drainage plan will be required. One-half street
improvements are required along Chenal Parkway.
Little Rock Water Works reports no objections.
E
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5884
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer service is
available to the site.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide
easement along -the Chenal Parkway frontage of the site.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department commented that all interior
driveways must be a minimum of 20 feet in width.
Landscape review commented that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet the Ordinance requirements.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant has requested a phased development, but has
not stipulated the time frame for development of the second
phase. There needs to be a stated time frame for the second
phase development, even if it is an approximation.
There is an existing common drive access which is shared
with the lot to the east; however, there is no access
easement shown on the plat. A common access easement must
be provided.
A service bay is provided in the building. There needs to
be clarification on the types of service to be undertaken at
the PCD site.
The Planning staff reports that the requested PCD is in the
Ellis Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan calls
for commercial uses. The use which is proposed for the PCD
is questionable, but similar uses have been approved to the
west. There is concern about the parking stalls lining
Chenal Parkway.
The proposed uses are not out of conflict with the Land Use
Plan, and landscaping review has reported that the site is
in compliance -with the. -Landscape Ordinance. The only issues
to be resolved are the time frame for the Phase II
development, and the types of service to be undertaken in
the service area within the building.
K
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5884
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD, as presented, subject
to the applicant addressing the remaining issues.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
engineering firm on the project, and Mr. Brent Tyrrell, the
applicant, were present.
Staff outlined the request, and the Subdivision Committee members
reviewed with Mr. White and Mr. Tyrrell the comments contained in
the discussion outline. The deficiencies noted and corrections
which needed to be made in the site plan were discussed. Mr.
White and Mr. Tyrrell stated that the needed information and
changes would be furnished. The Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that the only issues which the agenda "write-upYe
had noted as remaining to be resolved were: the phasing of the
development and the type of automobile service to be done on the
site. Staff reported that the applicant had provided written
information that the second phase will be started within 30 to
60 days after his business opens, and that the written
information states that only detail work associated with getting
the cars ready for leasing after they are returned by a customer,
and service work, such as minor electrical repairs, brake
maintenance, minor turn -ups, lamp and bulb replacement, and
filter and fluid maintenance, will be done on the site. Staff
recommended approval of the PCD, and the item was included on the
Consent Agenda for approval. The item was approved with the
approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent, and 1 abstention (Putnam).
rA1
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5887
NAME: EMBASSY SUITES -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
LOCATION: On the south side of Financial Center Parkway,
approximately 0.4 mile west of Shackleford Rd.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
JOHN Q. HAMMONS JOE WHITE
JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
300 Hammons Parkway, Suite 900 401 S. Victory St.
Springfield, MO 65806 Little Rock, AR 72201
(417) 864-4300 374-1666
AREA: 4.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 584
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Hotel and Convention Center
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of an Embassy Suites hotel
and convention center facility. The hotel portion of the
development is proposed to be 9 stories, containing approximately
250 suites and an atrium with approximately 10,000 square feet of
meeting space. The convention facility is to be on a single
level and is to contain approximately 12,000 square feet of
meeting space. Below the hotel and convention center is a 2 -
level parking garage. Because of the topography of the site,
both levels of the garage and the hotel and convention center
will have street -level access. In the two levels of the garage,
there is to be space for parking approximately 300 vehicles.
Surface parking will add another 128 spaces. The site is a 4.13
acre (179,902 square foot) tract; the building area is 56,862
scruare feet (31.5% of the site); the paved area is 74,6$8 square
feet (41.5% of the site); and, the landscaped area is 48,352
square feet (27% of the site). An existing street right-of-way
which lies along the west property line is proposed to be
developed, and access to the facility will be taken from this
street. No access from Financial Center Parkway is proposed. A
single monument sign is indicated along the Financial Center
Parkway frontage of the site.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5887
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
is requested for a PCD for the development of a 4.13 tract
for an Embassy Suites hotel and convention center. The
hotel is proposed to have approximately 250 two -unit suites,
to be 9 stories in height, and to have an atrium which will
provide approximately 10,000 square feet of meeting space.
The convention center is proposed to be a single level at
the rear of the hotel, and is to have approximately 12,000
square feet of meeting space. Below the hotel and
convention center is to be a 2 -level parking garage for 300
vehicles. Because of the topography of the site, slopping
downward to the south, the hotel, the convention center, and
both levels of the parking garage will have street level
access. An unimproved and substandard street right-of-way
along the west boundary of the site is to be developed and
used for access to the property. This will involve
dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of
the street. A single monument -type sign is to be located
along the Financial Center Parkway frontage. No variances
are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains a single residence along the
Financial Center Parkway frontage and another residence at
the rear of the property. The site is partially wooded.
The topography drops from a high point at the northeast
corner of the site, at Financial Center Parkway, of
approximately 480 feet Mean Sea Level to an elevation of
approximately 445 at the southwest corner of the site, a
difference of 35 feet. There is a 30 foot wide dedicated
street right-of-way along the west boundary of the site.
The site is currently zoned R-2. To the south and southeast
is the remainder of the R-2 area. To the east is an 0-3
zoned tract; to the west is a C-3 zoned tract and is the
location of the Pinnacle Point Hospital. Across Financial
Center Parkway, to the north, is an 0-3 zoned tract; to the
northwest is the recently rezoned PCD for Chenal Village; to
the northeast is the recently rezoned PCD for the Hampton
Inn hotel and a C-3 zoned lot.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, a complete grading and drainage plan and a
stormwater detention plan must be submitted. The proposed
street along the west property line must be constructed to
collector/commercial street standards. The street name for
this boundary street, shown as "Rector", must be approved by
Public works.
W
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO Z 5887
Little Rock Water Works comments that a pro -rata front
footage fee of $12 per foot applies, and that this charge is
in addition to the normal connection charges. A water main
extension will be required to tie into an existing 8" main
approxi-mately,10-0 feet east of this -property, on the south
side of Financial Center Parkway. On-site fire protection
will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a capacity
analysis will be required. If capacity is available, a
capacity contribution fee and Farm Bureau fee will be
assessed. If capacity is available, a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements along
the east, west, north, and south property lines.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Little Rock Fire Department commented that the number of
fire hydrants must be increased; the number shown is
inadequate. The entrance driveway radius must be opened up
for better access by fire equipment. The Fire Department
would prefer to have more than the one entrance to the
property off the west roadway.
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood
fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen scrubbery, will be required along the entire south
property line and along the east property line where it
abuts residential property. A 29 foot wide street buffer is
required along Financial Center Parkway. A 29 foot wide land
use buffer is required along the south property line. The
ground sign must be a monument -type sign, with a maximum
height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 100 square feet.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-20ICh) of the Subdivi-sian—Reg let- -ons—st-rtes
that: "Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially
dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall
provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements
and right-of-way." Dedication of additional right-of-way
and construction of at least one-half street improvements
will be required along the west boundary of the site.
Because of the volume of traffic using this street for the
only access to the facility, full width street improvements
need to be provided.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5887
Lighting of the building and the site is not dealt with in
the project narrative. This aspect of the development needs
to be a subject of discussion at the Planning Commission.
The project narrative does not indicate whether the facility
will also include a restaurant. This must be classified.
The Subdivision Regulations require the following
information, omitted from the submission, to be furnished
with a PCD application: a preliminary plat with all
required information relative to filing of a preliminary
plat, including showing the zoning classifications within
the plated area and of abutting areas, execution of
preliminary certification of engineering accuracy, and a
preliminary Bill of Assurance.
The Planning staff reports that the proposed PCD is in the
I-430 District, and the adopted Land Use Plan calls for this
area to be developed as office uses. The hotel/convention
center use, then, is in conflict with the exiting Plan, and
the Planning staff does not encourage further disregard of
the Plan. Alternatively, staff needs to re -study the area
in view of amending the Land Use Plan for the area.
Chenal Parkway, which was originally foreseen to eventually
be developed as a 6 -lane parkway, is currently developed as
4 lanes. With the rezonings to commercial uses along the
Financial Center Parkway-Chenal Parkway corridor which have
occurred over the past year and a half, staff has concerns
about the capacity of the existing parkway to handle the
traffic to be generated. The rezoning within the past year
and a half for the Wal-Mart and Sam's site, the Home
Quarters PCD, the Best Buy PCD, the Chenal Village PCD,
Chenal Center, the Hampton Inn PCD, Sonic Drive-in, etc. are
all heavy traffic generators. The Embassy Suites hotel and
convention center would add significantly to the traffic
congestion, and the parkway may not be able to safely handle
the capacity. A traffic study needs to be performed prior
to adding another traffic generator of the magnitude of the
Embassy Suites facility.
The proposed development is an extremely large-scale
development for a 4 -acre ± site. The street landscape and
land use buffers., are below minimum; the use is not in
conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan; and, the
contribution of the facility to a developing traffic problem
are concerns. Wastewater Utility is not at all certain that
there is capacity for such a facility, and will require a
capacity analysis be performed.
4
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5887
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the hearing of this issue be deferred
until the November 29, 1994 Commission meeting to allow
staff to consider the Land Use Plan issue and traffic
issues, and for the sewer capacity analysis to be
accomplished.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
engineering firm for the project, was present.
Staff outlined the proposed development, and the Subdivision
Committee members reviewed with Mr. White the concerns contained
in the discussion outline. There were concerns, for instance,
about the deficiency of the landscaping and the single driveway
off the west boundary street. The need for a topographic cross-
section was brought up. The deficiencies in the submittals were
noted. The various comments from the utilities and from Public
Works were discussed. Mr. White assured the Committee members
that he would address the questions and deficiencies noted, and
the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff pointed out that the staff recommendation, as written in
the agenda, is for a deferral of the request in order for the
City to complete a traffic study which is due to be completed by
the end of the year; for the City Planning staff to prepare an
updated land use study of the area; and, for the applicant to
address the issue on the availability of sewer. Staff reported,
however, that the applicant has told staff that a deferral would
delay the approval process too long, and that they want to
proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., outlined the
scope of the proposed development, and responded to the staff
Wince res -
:he ted tliaW� s t ewat e r—U i� rt y—hael nd cid
they would not withhold sewer service to the hotel, although
there may be a capacity charge imposed; and, that it is his
understanding that the Board of Directors had not been waiting on
the completion of the traffic study to make decisions on re -
zonings along the Financial Center Parkway-Chenal Parkway
corridor. Mr. White reported that he had one amendment to the
plan to propose: that the land use buffer along the south and
5
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5887
the south portion of the east property line be reduced to the
standard landscape buffer width which would be imposed along
property lines of similarly zoned property, instead of the buffer
that is being imposed because the surrounding property is still
zoned residential. He said that he had a letter from the
abutting property owner of the affected property, and that the
owner agreed with the proposal.
Mr. John Hammons, the owner -developer, indicated that he had been
seeking a site to develop a hotel in Little Rock for some time,
and liked this site. He outlined the use which was proposed,
the hotel and convention center, saying that the hotel will
contain 250 suites, and the banquet area will seat 750 persons.
He described the scope of his business operations in hotel
developments around the country, saying that he has the financing
to built the hotels which he is proposing. He said that the
hotel would be "first class", and that he has been successful in
developing these types of facilities in the smaller markets.
Mr. Steve Menton, identifying himself as an architect for the
John Q. Hammons Co., outlined some of the characteristics of the
site and the means taken to address the site conditions. He said
that the site has a great deal of slope to it, but that, with the
parking deck beneath the hotel -convention center, not only were
the parking needs addressed, but the building works with the site
instead of against it.
Mr. Doyle Daniel, of the Birchwood neighborhood, said that he was
not sure that he was totally in opposition to the proposed
development, but that he would suggest that the item be deferred,
as recommended by staff. He said that access to Financial Center
Parkway from the proposed hotel -convention center would be almost
impossible, and he suggested that the developer extend the west
boundary street westward to Autumn Rd. in order to take advantage
of the future traffic signal at the Autumn Rd. -Financial Center
Parkway-Chenal Parkway intersection.
Ms. Ruth Bell, of the League of women Voters of Pulaski Co.,
spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She said that
the development was one more commercial addition to the "hugely"
overburdened commercial corridor along Financial Center Parkway-
Chenal Parkway. The roadways do not have the carrying capacity
for the commercial development which is emerging, she said, and
it has been inappropria-e, sYie ac decl-,—to ave e�oned-so-mucic o
the property for commercial uses. She also said that she was
opposed to reducing the land use buffer, as Mr. white had
requested.
Mr. Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, indicated that a land use
study needs to be made of the entire Financial Center Parkway-
Chenal Parkway corridor, from Shackleford Rd. to Kanisa that the
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5887
Land Use Plan amendments which have been made over the past
several years have been "piece -meal", and a comprehensive study
needs to be undertaken.
Mr. Jeff Sharp, Board of Directors member, saying that he was
speaking as a private citizen, spoke in support of the proposed
development. He said that the proposed development would add
substantially to the economy of the City, and would not compete
with the downtown convention facilities. He reported that the
Board of Directors had not placed a moratorium on development
while the traffic study was being conducted; that the Board knows
that, eventually, something is going to have to be done about the
carrying capacity of the Parkway, but that it is unfair to
developers to defer their projects while the City solves this
problem.
Commissioner Walker asked Bob Brown, with the Planning staff, to
explain the land use and landscaping buffer requirements along
the south and east property lines abutting the residentially
zoned property.
Mr. Brown indicated that the same buffer requirements would be
imposed, as were indicated, for the perimeter of the site if the
abutting properties were zoned commercial or residential; that
the buffer widths are based on the depth of the site. He
reported that the plan meets the landscaping requirements on the
front property line and for internal and building landscaping,
and that a version of the plan had been submitted which meets the
rear and side landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Walker then brought out that, if the site were zoned
C-3, there would be a maximum height allowed of 35 feet; and,
that if the site were zoned for office uses, then the maximum
height, with enough separation, would be 60 feet. He said that,
with the hotel being proposed to be 9 stories, plus the 2 level
garage, the hotel will be significantly higher than would be
allowed in either the office or commercial zoning districts. He
said that the proposed development is extremely dense for the
site. He also suggested that the developer pay the costs of
adding a future lane along Financial Center Parkway, if the
traffic study which is to be produced indicates that such a lane
is needed.
Mr. White responded that the requested variance from the buffer
requirement would be withdrawn, and the developer would comply
with the standard buffer requirements.
Mr. Bob Brown, responding to Commissioner Walker's inquiry
regarding the development's compliance with the bulk and area
requirements of the zoning ordinance, stated that, with the
A
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 CContinued)FILE NO.: Z-5887
request withdrawn for the buffer variance, the site meets the
zoning ordinance requirement for bulk and area.
Commissioner Walker pointed out that, with the parking beneath
the building, there was justification for permitting greater lot
coverage for the building. He said that he wanted to give the
developer credit for placing the parking under the building, in
lieu of having to provide an expansive parking lot.
Commissioner Oleson asked for a description of the signage.
Mr. Hammons responded that the monument sign would comply with
the overlay requirements, and that there would be back -lighted
signs on the building: one would say "Embassy Suites" and one
would be a single "E".
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD request, with
the requirements that: 1) the developer participate in the
provision of a traffic signal at the intersection of what is
shown as Rector St. on the plan and Financial Center Parkway, if
required by the City's traffic engineers and 2) that the
developer pay the cost of providing an additional lane along the
Financial Center Parkway frontage of the site if the traffic
study indicates that this lane is required and if the City
undertakes a contract to build the additional lane along
Financial Center Parkway-Chenal Parkway. The motion passed with
the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
L
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO 5-983-B
NAME: BRENNAN ADDITION, TRACT A -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of White Rock Ln., approximately 0.2
Mile east of Reservoir Rd.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
ABE ROSEN WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A. S. ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St.
9101 Rodney Parham Rd. Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72205 374-1666
223-0647
AREA: 0.7615 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-5 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of a 0.7615 acre lot in a
R-5 zoning_ district consisting of the construction of 12
apartment units in 2 buildings. Parking for 20 vehicles on the
property is proposed. No variances are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a site
plan involving the construction of 2, 2 -story apartment
buildings, each containing 6, 1 -bedroom apartments, for a
total of 12 units on the 0.7615 acre site.. Each building
is proposed to contain 3,420 square feet. Parking for 20
vehicles on the premises is provided. The required "good
neighbor" fence is proposed to be erected along the west
property line abutting the single-family lots. Along the
Grassy Flat Creek boundary, however, no fence is proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is one of the lots in the recently approved Brennan
Addition, and this lot was rezoned to R-5 at the time. The
remaining lots in Brennan Addition were retained for single-
family development and face Brennan Ln. The lot being
developed for multi -family use faces White Rock Ln., and has
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO ---6--983-B
two Brennan Addition single-family lots abutting it along
its west property line. There are other multi -family
developments across White Rock Ln. to the south. To the
east, bordering the site, is the floodway for Grassy Flat
Creek. The site.has_been_cleared,.and-is prepared for
development.
The site is zoned R-5. To the north and west is R-2 zoned
property. Across White Rock Ln, to the south is property
zoned MF -24. At the southwest corner of the tract is an 0-3
zoned parcel. To the east is the Grassy Flat Creek
floodway, with R-2 land beyond.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that, prior to issuance of a building
permit, a complete grading and drainage plan and a
stormwater detention plan must be submitted. One-half
street improvements on White Rock Ln, must be constructed.
Little Rock Water Works comments that an additional fire
hydrant may be required by the Fire Department.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer is
available, and that there will be no adverse effect on the
Utility system in providing service.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements along
the west and south property line.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood
fence, with its structural members facing toward the site,
or evergreen plantings, will be required along the--wetQ
xn—
nd—eastexn proper y ine which abut the single-family
residential areas. Areas set aside for land use buffers and
landscaping areas are below minimum ordinance requirements.
The western and eastern land use buffers must be a minimum
of 6 feet in width. A total of 6% of the interior of the
vehicular use area must be landscaped.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNI AL/DESIGN:
Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Regulations requires site
Plan review for developments involving the construction of 2
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO S 9$3 B
or more buildings on a lot. The proposed development
involves construction of 2 apartment buildings on the lot;
therefore, site plan review pursuant to the Subdivision
Regulations is required.
Section 36-259 of the Zoning Regulations permits high
density multi -family uses, with a density of not more than
36 units per acre. For lots ranging in size of from 10,000
square feet to 1 acre, there shall be provided 2,000 square
feet of land area per dwelling unit. The proposed
development involves construction of 12 units on 33,171
square feet of land area. To meet the R-5 requirements 12
dwelling units require 24,000 square feet of land area;
therefore, this requirement is met. The development
involves the construction of 12 units on 0.7615 acres. This
represents 15.76 units per acre; therefore the development
meets the ratio of the units per acre required by the
Regulations for the development in the R-5 zoning district.
Section 36-502 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that multi-
family developments provide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling
unit. The proposed development proposes 12 dwelling units,
requiring 18 parking spaces. Parking for 20 vehicles is
proposed for the development; therefore, the number of
parking spaces meets Ordinance requirements.
The site plan submitted for review must include the
following item which were not included with this
application: 1) information on the availability of public
utilities; 2) existing and proposed fire hydrants; 3) the
designation of landscape areas; and, 4) the location of
sidewalks.
The head -in parking spaces off White Rock Ln. are not
acceptable as presented. A parking "lot" with a 20 foot
wide drive approach and necessary maneuvering space for
access to and from parking spaces is required. Backing
directly onto White Rock Ln. is not acceptable.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are encroachments into the land use buffers, and
Iandac_a p, ing__ =__ the —veIrz-cu3ar use are is deficient.
Landscape areas are not shown. Walkways are not shown. The
parking area at the southeast corner of the property is
improperly designed. The development, however, meets the
density requirement for the R-5 zoning district; so, with
some modification to the site plan, the development can meet
the requirements.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO S 983 B
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
site plan being amended to incorporate the needed changes as
cited above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Joe white, representing White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. white the comments
contained in the discussion outline. Mr. white indicated that he
would meet with Bob Brown, the staff person responsible for
landscape review, to clarify the requirements for meeting the
land use buffer requirements. He indicated that he ought to be
able to meet the requirements for both minimum and average width
of the buffers. He also mentioned that, with the width of the
Grassy Flat Creek floodway, and the distance to the east to any
residential uses, that the land use buffer along the creek should
be waived. Mr. white stated that the parking area at the
southeast corner of the project would be redesigned to comply
with the Ordinance requirements. The Committee forwarded the
item to the Planning Commission for final approval of the site
plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that there were no outstanding issues to be
resolved, and recommended approval of the site plan, as amended
by the applicant. The item was included on the Consent Agenda
for approval. The item was approved with the approval of the
Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and
1 abstention (Putnam).
4
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: 5-1038
NAME: PARR PLACE BAPTIST CHURCH -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of Mabelvale Pike, approximately 300
feet west of University Ave.
DEVELOPER:
CONTRACTOR:
ED STEPHENSON, PASTOR VALLEY VIEW CONSTRUCTION CO.
PARK PLACE BAPTIST CHURCH 7307 Southwest Dr.
5630 Mabelvale Pike Jonesboro, AR 72401
Little Rock, AR 72209 932-6440
565-7650
AREA: 3.26 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 20.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES:
None
Church Family Life Center
The applicant, Park Place Baptist Church, proposes development of
a Family Life Center on the Church campus, and on which a portion
of the Church's parking facility is currently situated. A 2 -
level facility is planned, with the southern 1/3 of the building
being at ground level at the south end, and the northern 2/3 of
the building being at ground level at the north end. The upper
level is proposed to be used for a game room; the lower level for
a gymnasium. Relocation of the existing vehicle ramp in the
parking lot and repair to the existing parking lot is proposed,
although no additional parking area is included in the proposal.
The covered walkway, extending from the existing Church facility
along the parking area to the west, is to be remodeled and
extended to cover the new walkway to the new Family Life Center.
A_. PROPOSAL/RE UEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested for a site plan
for the addition of a Family Life Center to the grounds of
the Park Place Baptist Church. A 60 foot wide by 110 foot
long, 2 -level building is proposed. The floor level of the
southern 1/3 of the building is to be set at the upper level
and is to be at grade at the south end of the building.
This area is proposed to be used for a game room. The floor
level of the northern 2/3 of the building is to be set at
the lower level and is to be at grade at the north end of
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO S 1038
the building. This area is to be used for a gymnasium. The
relocation and reconstruction of to the vehicle ramp in the
existing parking area is to be accomplished as part of the
project. Repairs to the existing parking areas are
included; however, no additional parking area is to be
Provided. --Walks-are to be extended to the new facility from
the existing Church building, and an existing covering over
the walkway is to be modified to cover the walk to the new
building.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing Church building faces Mabelvale Pike, and lies
along the east property line of the Church's property. To
the west of the Church building, and extending northward
along the west property line is the parking area for the
Church. The portion of the parking area immediately to the
west of the Church building, and extending westward to the
west property line, is at grade with Mabelvale Pike. The
portion of the parking lot extending northward along the
west property line is approximately 6 feet lower than the
upper grade along Mabelvale Pike. There is a concrete ramp
by which vehicles move between the two levels of the parking
lot.
There are commercial uses immediately to the east of the
Church site, with both C-4 and C-3 zoning districts existing
in this area. Across Mabelvale Pike to the south is C-4
zoned property. To the west is residential property zoned
R-2. The Church property includes the home at the southwest
corner of the site, at the corner of Greenway Dr. and N.
Meadowcliff Dr.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, a floodplain development permit must be
completed and a sketch grading and drainage plan must be
submitted. The Building Code review remarks previously
furnished to the applicant are applicable.
Little Rock Water Works comments that the Fire Department
will review this project to determine whether additional
end/or--primate on-si a fire hydrants will be
required.
Little Rock Wastewater -Utility comments that sewer is
available, and that providing service will cause no adverse
effect on the wastewater system.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-1038
Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot wide
easement will be required along the route of the existing
power line entering the existing facility, and to provide
service to the new building. An easement will be required
along the -west property line.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review comments that the existing building is
28,006 square feet in area, and the new building is 12,600
square feet in area. This represents a 45% increase in
size, requiring a 45% increase in landscaping. The
applicant is to verify with Bob Brown, the staff person
responsible for landscape review, the requirements for
landscaping and for buffering.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Regulations requires site
plan review for developments involving the construction of 2
or more buildings on a lot. The proposed development
involves construction of 2 buildings on the lot; therefore,
site plan review pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations is
required.
A total of 125 parking spaces is required for this project.
The applicant states that there are more than this number;
therefore, the parking requirements are met.
The Ordinance requires the following information, omitted on
the plan provided to date, be furnished as part of the
review process: a complete site plan showing all buildings
and structures, parking, points of ingress/egress,
utilities, existing and proposed on-site fire hydrants,
street right-of-way dimensions, and areas wthin_the
development devoted to landscaping. The site plan is
deficient, and a complete site plan with all required
information must be submitted.
The nature of the parking lot, outside lighting, and
security lighting have not been addressed. Whether outside
lighting will, or has, an effect on the residential
neighbors to the west has not been addressed.
3
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1038
E. ANALYSIS•
The site is appropriately zoned and there is adequate space
for the proposed building. The requirements for parking are
met. The only questions to be resolved are the adequacy of
landscaping and whether there is need for additional land
use buffering, and the issue of outside/parking lot/security
lighting. The remaining deficiencies can be easily
remedied.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
applicant furnishing the required complete site plan and
meeting the requirements cited.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Rev. Ed Stephenson, pastor of the Church, was present. Mr. Ron
Hogan, with Valley View Construction Co., the contractor for the
proposed project, was present.
Staff outlined the proposal, and the Subdivision Committee
members reviewed with the applicant and contractor the items
contained in the discussion outline. Rev. Stephenson and Mr.
Hogan indicated that revised and completed drawings were
available, and presented the new site plan to the Committee. it
was noted that the revised drawing appeared to remedy the
deficiencies noted. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant needed to address two issues:
the land use buffer issue along the residential property line on
the west; and, the lighting of the parking lot along the west
property line and of the building on the west face of the new
building.
Rev Ed Stephenson-,—the—pastor �f the hu��h and M —ton iog� ,
with Valley View Construction Co., the contractor on the project,
were present. Mr. Hogan addressed the issues to be resolved. He
said that he would meet with Bob Brown, Landscape review staff
person, and would provide the needed landscaping and land use
buffering. He said that there would be no other lighting on the
west face of the building than necessary lights at the doors to
the building. He said that there would be no additional parking
lot lighting than is currently in place. Staff then recommended
approval of the site plan, as amended.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1038
A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan, and the
motion passed with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and
0 abstentions.
5
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.• 11 FILE NO • Z-5883
NAME: Arkansas Central Mortuary -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1201 East 2nd Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Arkansas Central Mortuary Services,
Inc. by Kenny Adams
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the use of this
existing, I-3 zoned building and
property as a mortuary and
crematorium. Crematoria are
permitted only as a conditional use
in the City of Little Rock.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
Site Location
The site is located at the southeast corner of East 2nd
Street and Industrial Drive.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is located in an area zoned exclusively I-3. Uses
in the vicinity are all industrial. The nearest residential
zoning or uses are located more than 1,000 feet to the east
of this property.
The proposed use is compatible with this industrially zoned
area.
On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed use will not generate customer traffic. The
site contains an existing, concrete parking area and loading
dock which will meet the business's requirement for employee
parking and deliveries.
4. Screening and Buffers
All adjacent properties are also zoned I-3. No expansion of
the building or parking lot is proposed. No additional
screening or.buffering is required.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5883
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
In 1993, the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances was
amended to require crematoria to be permitted only as a
conditional use within the City. This was done based on the
perception that crematoria have a deleterious effect upon
the adjacent neighborhood.
This application is to place a mortuary and crematorium in
the midst of a I-3 zoned area. The I-3 zoning is designed
to accommodate potentially objectionable uses and locate
them in an area where the negative influences have the least
impact.
The applicant proposes to utilize an existing, vacant
building and proposes no expansion of the building or
parking.
The nearest residential property is located over 1,000 feet
from this site and the proposed use should have no effect on
the adjacent, industrially zoned neighborhood.
Staff is supportive of the request.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application, as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
The applicant, Kenny Adams, was present. Staff presented the
item and showed a zoning map of the area, indicating all uses and
zoning in the vicinity.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
The applicant, Kenny Adams, was present. There were two
objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented
the item and a staff recommendation of approval.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5883
Kenny Adams addressed the Commission. He stated that he
currently operates a mortuary at 1514 Maryland Avenue and a
crematorium in North Little Rock. Mr. Adams informed the
Commission that it was his desire to combine both functions under
one roof.
Mr. Joe Larry Straw, of 700 Corning Avenue, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he was not in opposition to the
proposed mortuary but was concerned about the impact of the
crematorium on the neighborhood's air quality.
Robert Higgins, of 2007 East 4th Street, addressed the Commission
in opposition to the proposed crematorium. He stated that he was
concerned about a potential odor problem.
Paul Rahill, of Industrial Equipment and Engineering Company, the
manufacturer of the cremation equipment, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the State Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology had approved the proposed cremation
equipment. Mr. Rahill continued by stating that Mr. Adams had
purchased the highest quality equipment available. In response
to a question from a commissioner, Mr. Rahill stated that no
noise would be emitted from the facility.
Chairman Chachere asked Mr. Rahill if he was familiar with the
crematorium currently located on Bowman Road. Mr. Rahill
responded that he was familiar with the equipment at that
facility and the equipment purchased by Mr. Adams for use at the
East 2nd Street location was superior.
Commissioner Putnam asked if there was an odor problem associated
with the use of this equipment. Mr. Rahill responded that there
was not. He stated that the equipment exceeds all state and
federal requirements.
Commissioner Rahman asked if these facilities are reviewed by
state or federal authorities. Mr. Rahill responded that the
equipment would not be installed without a permit issued by the
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Commissioner Rahman then asked if P.C. and E. continued to
regulate the facility once it is installed. Mr. Adams responded
that the permit must be renewed each year, requiring review by
P.C. and E. He stated that P.C. and E. would respond to any
complaints and may visit the site throughout the year.
After a brief discussion of the zoning and uses in the immediate
vicinity, a motion was made to approve the application. The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent.
3
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO • Z-5886
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Candlewood Station Sonic -
Conditional Use Permit
14000 Cantrell Road
Whisenhunt Investments by
Dick Lawrence
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of an eating place
with drive-in service on this C-3
zoned .8 acre site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The subject property is a .8 acre lease, outparcel located
within the 16± acre Candlewood Station commercial site at
14000 Cantrell Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
All adjoining property is zoned C-3. Non-residential uses
in the immediate vicinity include the Candlewood Shopping
Center, a mini -warehouse complex, a smaller shopping center
and a liquor store. Beyond these are several large areas of
single-family residential homes.
The proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The 1,232 square foot building generates a requirement of 12
on-site parking spaces. The applicant proposes 32 stalls
for customer service and one pick-up station where customers
can pick-up orders previously called in.
4. Screening and Buffers
All adjacent property, including that across Cantrell Road,
is zoned C-3. Compliance with the City's Landscape
Ordinance is required. Landscaping treatment must comply
with the Highway 10 -Overlay -Ordinance, --including
screening/berms on the Highway 10 frontage.
The dumpster must be enclosed by an eight foot tall
screening fence.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5886
5. City Engineer Comments
A complete grading and drainage plan and a stormwater
detention plan must be submitted and approved prior to the
issuance of,-a--building-permit.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Municipal Water Works states consideration
should be given to water service on the easternmost
outparcel, prior to development of this site. Arkansas
Power and Light Company requires a 15 foot easement along
the south and east perimeters of this site.
7. Analysis
The applicant proposes to construct a Sonic drive-in on one
of the C-3 zoned, lease outparcels within the Candlewood
Station commercial development. Candlewood Station was
platted at the time the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance was
being developed and the plat was created in compliance with
the setbacks and buffers established by the Ordinance. This
outparcel complies with those standards by having a 100 foot
building setback from the front property line and a 40 foot
front yard landscaped area.
All signage must comply with the Highway 10 Overlay
Standards.
The proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and
staff is supportive of the application.
8. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City's Landscape and Highway 10 Overlay Ordinances and
compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
The applicant, Dick Lawrence, was present--S-ta f pre_sented-_the
item and noted the Landscape and City Engineer Comments outlined
above.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the landscaping,. -signage and lighting
would comply with the Highway 10 Overlay Standards. He stated
that he would work with staff to revise the plan to accommodate
the required building and interior landscaping.
E
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5886
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Dick Lawrence was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. A revised
site plan had been submitted which provided the required interior
and building landscaping.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstaining (Putnam).
7
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO • G-23-219
Name: Summit Street Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: Summit Street, between west 9th
Street and -7-630
Owner/Applicant: Arkansas Children's Hospital
Reauest: To abandon the Summit Street right-
of-way from the north right-of-way
of West 9th Street (Maryland
Avenue) to the south right-of-way
of Interstate 630 and to abandon
any easements not needed to service
those drainage and utility
facilities already in existence
within the right-of-way.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right-of-Wav
There is no public need for this right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for additional right-of-way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
This block of right-of-way contains an asphalt paved street
with curb, gutter and sidewalks. The street dead -ends at
the I-630 right-of-way.
. np-ma gnment-Pnt-c�r_t-1 a1
Once abandoned, the area of the right-of-way will be
incorporated into the Arkansas Children's Hospital campus as
driveway and parking -lot.
6. Neicrhborhood Land Use and Effect
The street is located at the western fringe of the Arkansas
Children's Hospital campus. The properties extending west
and south of this area are primarily residential.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-219
Both blocks on either side of this street have been cleared
by the hospital. A parking lot exists on the block to the
east and one is proposed for the block to the west.
The street currently serves no residences and essentially
goes no where. Abandoning the right-of-way will have no
effect on the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced, as of this
writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The applicant proposes to retain easement rights for the
utilities and the City to service the existing utility and
drainage facilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the Arkansas Children's
Hospital.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
This one block, dead-end street does not serve any public
need and abandoning the right-of-way will have no effect on
public welfare or safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to easement rights being
retained to serve those existing utility and drainage facilities
currently existing within the right-of-way.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff presented the item. The applicant's representative was
pre -s_ rit--- 'rA ermined-that-the'rr-e-wer-e-no-ou st
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Wallace Smith was present representing the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
2
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-219
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was recommended for
approval by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining
(Putnam).
3
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO • 14 Z-5885
Owner:
Cornelia Witsell Thomas
Revocable Trust, Fred and Mary
Dee Taylor and Worthen Bank
and Trust Company
Applicant:
Pete Hornibrook
Location:
7321 Cantrell Road
Request:
Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose:
Auto Dealership
Size:
0.52 acres
Existing Use:
Branch Bank (vacant)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Commercial, zoned C-3 and C-4
South - Residential, zoned R-5
East - Commercial, zoned C-3
West - Office and Commercial, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
7321 Cantrell Road is currently zoned C-3, and the request
is to rezone the site to C-4. At this time, the proposed
use is an auto dealership. The property is six 50 foot lots
and has been used as a branch bank facility. In addition to
the Cantrell Road frontage, the site also abuts Kentucky
Avenue. There is a single building on the site and majority
of the property is paved.
Zoning in the general area is R-2, R-4, R-5, R-6, MF -12,
MF -24, 0-3, C-3, C-4 and PRD. The properties that front
Cantrell Road are zoned either C-3 or C-4 and there is C-4
zoning directly across Cantrell from the site under
consideration. Other nearby zoning is C-3 and R-5. The
depth of the commercial zoning along Cantrell varies from
location to location and in many instances, abuts
residentially—_onP�,op�rty Land -u -se is iml ar to the
existing zoning and includes single family, multifamily,
office and commercial. The commercial uses cover the full
range of activities, which is typical of a linear commercial
development pattern.
Rezoning 7321 Cantrell Road to C-4 is compatible with the
area and should not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties. The proposed reclassification
conforms to the adopted plan and the C-4 rezonig will not
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 Z-5885 (Cont.
introduce a new commercial district to this part of Cantrell
Road. C-4 is a reasonable option for the location, and
there are no outstanding issues associated with this
request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The West Little Rock District plan identifies the site for
commercial use. Because of being located on Cantrell Road, an
arterial, C-4 is an appropriate commercial reclassification
for the property.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to
recommend approval of the C-4 request. The vote was 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B. Putnam).
0�
October 18, 1994
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: 5-984
NAME: BUIE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Shackleford Rd. and Colonel
Glenn Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
CHARLES BIIIE MCGETRICR ENGINEERING
#5 Wingate Dr. 11225 Huron Ln.
Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72211
225-0765 223-9900
AREA: 11.42 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 111
(For the Lot 2 frontage
on Shackleford Rd.
only)
ZONING: R-2 and PCD PROPOSED USES: The Existing non-
conforming salvage
yard use is to remain on
Tract 1. A PCD for a
mini -storage facility
was approved for Lot 2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission for
the Buie Subdivision on July 13, 1993. The proposal, at that
time, was for a Tract A, which was to remain in preliminary plat
status and was to retain its non -conforming salvage yard use. No
dedication of right-of-way or improvements to Colonel Glenn Rd.
or Shackleford Rd. along the Tract A frontage were proposed. Lot
2 was to be platted as a PCD, and Shackleford Rd. right-of-way
dedication and stree-t--improvemPnts were nsludec�. ThW
proposes a one-year time extension on this approval, saying that
it has taken longer than expected to work out financing for the
mini -storage facility which is to occupy Lot 2 of the
subdivision.. The. PCD....for. he_mini--storage -facility was approved
by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1993, then by the Board
of Directors on September 21, 1993, in Ordinance No. 16,491.
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO • S-984
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a one-year time extension of
the approval of the Buie Subdivision preliminary plat is
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The bulk of the site, designated as Tract A, is the location
of the applicant's non -conforming salvage yard operation.
The area designated as Lot 2, the area of the PCD on which
the mini -storage facility has been approved, has been mostly
cleared of salvage materials.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
There are no comments requested with the proposal for the
time extension.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-94(e) of the Subdivision Regulations states: "A
preliminary plat ... shall be effective and binding upon the
commission for twelve (12) months, or as long as work is
actively progressing, at the end of which time the final
plat application for the subdivision must have been
submitted to the planning staff. Any plat not receiving
final approval within the period of time set forth herein or
otherwise conforming to the requirements of this chapter
shall be null and void, and the developer shall be required
to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary
approval...."
Section 36-454 of the Zoning Regulations provides that a
developer: "...shall have three (3) years from the date of
preliminary plan approval to submit the final development
plan/plat."
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat was approved on July 13, 1993; the PCD
ori-Septemher 21, 1993 Work was in-hated-to--c�ear� thG
property of the salvage vehicles and of undergrowth within
the twelve (12) month time period, but was interrupted when
financing was delayed. Although a final plat has not been
submitted..to staff.within.the one-year time limit, clearing
work was begun. Additionally, the applicant has three (3)
years to begin work on the PCD. There would be no new
requirements imposed on the development if a new preliminary
plat review were required, so there is no reason not to
approve the requested time extension.
E
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO • S-984
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the one-year time extension.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1994)
Mr. Bob McFarlane, the applicant's representative, was present.
Staff outlined the request. The Subdivision Committee members
reviewed the proposal, and, with minimal discussion, referred the
item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the time extension. The item was
included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the time
extension. The time extension was approved with the approval of
the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and
1 abstention (Putnam).
3
I
0
cr0
w
crw
0
z
0
Fno
U 2
z "
Z
z
J
C1.
FMI
z
F --
CO
m
a
F -
z
W
CO
co
W
Q
Z
gill
a
aha
�.aT.
INN
mill
is
III
I
oil
III
Emil
W
Z
Q
Z
=
z
W
LLJ
J
W
�
W
J
�G
m
O]
Z
cr
w
C�
W
�
CC=
W
z
Q
Z
Y
C!j
O
W
�JUJO�OCCzONY
�m1--j
'��ci��
z
F --
CO
m
a
F -
z
W
CO
co
W
Q
Z
gill
INN
mill
is
III
I
oil
III
Emil
z
F --
CO
m
a
F -
z
W
CO
co
W
Q
Z
October 18, 1994
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Date
Chairman