pc_04 08 2004
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 8, 2004
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Gary Langlais
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Bill Rector
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
APRIL 8, 2004
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Rock House Short-form POD (Z-7563), located at 715 North University Avenue.
2. G-23-334 Grant Street – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Between “F” and “G” Streets
3. Diamond T Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1419), located on Crystal Valley Road
approximately 1200 feet north of the east/west leg.
4. Green Diamond Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1421), located on Crystal Valley Road
on the north side west of Crystal Valley Cove.
5. Z-7589 Rezoning from C-3 to C-4
4724 West 12th Street
6. Z-5600-C Chenal Mini-Storage – Revised Conditional Use Permit
24300 Chenal Parkway
7. Z-7594 Vasquez Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
6720 Mabelvale Cut-Off
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-7563
NAME: Rock House Short-form POD
LOCATION: 715 North University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Rock House, LLC
11500 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Rickett Engineering, Inc.
78 Aberdeen Drive
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District
ALLOWED USES: High Density Residential Units of not more than 36-units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: Office (General and Professional) with the 25 percent of the gross
floor area being available for selected commercial uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the placement of a two-story office building consisting
of 18,000 square feet of general and professional office uses with provisions for
some light commercial uses should they fit with office occupancy. The proposed
site plan includes fifty-nine on-site parking spaces.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
2
The applicant is requesting to be allowed 25 percent of the gross floor area
(4,500 square feet) be allowed to be utilized by the following listed uses:
Barber/Beauty Shop, Book and Stationary Store, Drugstore, Florist, Optic Shop,
Clothing, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, or Tailor Shop.
Included in the filing is a petition for abandonment of Grant Street and “G” Street.
Grant Street currently ends at the intersection of “F” Street. The applicant is
proposing an extension of Grant Street approximately 120 feet from “F” Street to
the property line and creating adequate turn around in the parking lot for
emergency vehicles.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property now consists of twelve residentially zoned lots in Blocks 9 and 10 of
the Lincoln Park Subdivision and a portion of Grant Street which has never been
constructed. The property is bounded by University Avenue to the west, “G”
Street (not constructed) to the north, a closed alley to the east, and a dwelling
and small office building to the south. Steep grades to the east and north lead
down to a drainage canal. Access to the site from University Avenue is right turn
only. An abandoned house with a stone exterior currently sits on the site.
Frontage along University Avenue is predominantly occupied by office and
commercial uses, with a few remaining single-family dwellings. To the east of
the site are residential uses adjacent to the drainage canal. Other uses in the
area include the Catholic Boys school a strip retail center and a public library.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood
Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all
residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The site plan as proposed cannot be approved. An un-stable fill was placed
on this site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there are un-
resolved enforcement issues. A large portion of the site is within the mapped
floodway and floodplain. Before site plan review, a restoration plan must be
provided for the site, and a required for a Letter of Map Revision must be
prepared and submitted through this office to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
3
2. All fill slopes must conform to the land alteration ordinance. Slopes must be
at 3:1 or benched with erosion protection provided.
3. A special grading permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to any construction. Approval from the Little Rock District Corps
of Engineers may also be required.
4. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from centerline will be required.
5. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct
one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the
planned development. The right turn lane for “H” Street would need to be
extended across the frontage.
6. Contact Traffic engineering at (501) 379-1816 for guidance of the driveway
location and configuration. The design must provide for a directional right-in,
right-out island and minimize traffic conflicts near the right-of-way line.
7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Dedication of the Floodway and a 25-foot access easement adjacent to the
floodway will be required.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main on property. No permanent construction
within five foot either side of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: The proposed right-of-way will require approval from the SBC right-of-way
engineer. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met before service is resumed.
The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the
location of public and/or private fire hydrant(s), which will be required. A water
main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be installed at the
Developer’s expense. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact CAW at 992-2438 for
additional details.
Fire Department: Increase the south driveway to a minimum of 20-feet in width.
Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at
918-3752 for additional information.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
4
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights – Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development for O-1 Quiet Office Uses.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning & Land
Use goal lists an objective of no net loss of residential units by demolition or
conversion to other uses.
Landscape: A portion of the proposed land use buffer along the southern
perimeter is less than the 6-foot 9-inch minimum allowed. This takes into
account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area of the city.
A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required to help screen this
property from the residential properties to the east and south.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site plan as
proposed could not be approved. Staff stated an un-stable fill was placed on the
site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there were un-resolved
enforcement issues. Staff stated a large portion of the site was within the
mapped floodway and floodplain. Staff stated a restoration plan had been filed
and approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated before a site plan
review could be approved located in the floodway, a restoration plan would have
to be provided for the site, and a Letter of Map Revision prepared and submitted
through the City to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff stated
the process was quite lengthy and they felt the request should be withdrawn
awaiting the FEMA decision.
Additional Planning, Landscaping and Public Works comments were addressed
to allow the applicant information that would be expected if and when the site
were approved for development.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
5
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary site plan to staff addressing most
of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the previously approved restoration plan will be
implemented for the site. Areas of fill will be removed from the floodway and the
slopes will be flattened to a maximum of 3:1. The applicant has indicated an
easement along the rear parking area will be dedicated for access to the
floodway.
The applicant has also indicated a dedication of right-of-way for University
Avenue from the existing centerline of fifty-five feet as required by the Master
Street Plan ordinance. The applicant has also indicated a right-turn lane will be
installed adjacent to the site and the applicant will coordinate with Traffic
Engineering to determine the exact requirements.
The applicant has indicated the proposed signage on the site plan along with a
note stating the signage will be a ground mounted sign and comply with the sign
area allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two
square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage.
The applicant has provided a proposed maximum building height of forty-five
feet. The applicant is proposing a two story building. The proposed elevation
indicates the building will contain a metal roof and the building will contain glass
fronts. The applicant has indicated architectural plans have not been finalized
indicating construction materials have not been fully determined.
Staff would suggest the building follow design recommendations set forth by the
Urban Land Institute for redevelopment of the area. The site lies in the
secondary area reviewed by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment
possibilities (University Avenue from Lee Street north to Evergreen Drive. The
primary focus of the study was the area along West Markham Street from Pine
Street to University Avenue and on University Avenue from West Markham
Street to Lee Street.) “The panel did not suggest changes of the northern
portion of the secondary area, other than to continue to recognize it as a Hillcrest
neighborhood border that needs to be protected.” The panel suggested the
adoption of specific guidelines and controls that would result in less visual clutter
and provide greater convenience for pedestrians. The panel also stated the
design guidelines can help to safeguard the Hillcrest neighborhood and
concentrate mixed use development. The panel suggested the adoption of
design guidelines that would ensure compatibility with the bordering Hillcrest
residential neighborhood. Staff feels the building could be designed and
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
6
constructed to enhance the neighborhood with regard to architectural style and
construction materials.
The applicant has indicated a desire to close portions of two (2) streets located
within the development. The applicant has indicated a portion of Grant Street
will be closed from the applicant’s northern property line to the applicant’s
southern property line or approximately 210 feet. The applicant is also
requesting the closure of a portion of “G” Street from University Avenue to the
applicant’s eastern property line. The applicant is the sole owner of the
properties of Grant Street. There is an adjoining property owner to the north,
which would gain the northern portion of the abandoned Grant Street right-of-
way.
Staff has been contacted by the property owner located to the south of the site
stating his desire to close Grant Street from “F” Street to the intersection with “G”
Street (the northern boundary of the applicant’s property). There are existing
utilities located in these right-of-ways and all would be required to be maintained
as utility easements. Staff feels this issue should be resolved prior to approval
of the proposed rezoning request. Staff feels should the street be closed from
“F” Street to the applicant’s southern property line the site plan will change
significantly.
The proposed site plan indicates a total of fifty-nine parking spaces. The typical
minimum parking required for an 18,000 square foot office building would be
forty-five parking spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet
the typical minimum parking demand.
Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the property as general and
professional office uses and the allowance of up to twenty-five percent of the
gross floor area to be utilized by the specified uses listed in paragraph A of this
report. Since the applicant is requesting only general and professional office ues
for seventy-five percent of the gross floor area, not a broader list of uses, such
as O-1, O-2 or O-3 with the associated accessory uses; staff supports the
specific proposed uses for the remaining twenty-five percent.
The proposed use is consistent with the future land use plan. Staff would
however suggest the overall design be given consideration and the
recommendations of the Urban Land Institute be followed to protect the integrity
of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends the applicant resolve outstanding
issues related to the closure of “F” Street prior to
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the right-of-way issue related to the closure of “F” Street be
resolved prior to consideration of the rezoning request.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated a portion of the
request was to close Grant Street within the development. Staff stated the property
owner to the south was also requesting the closure of Grant Street adjacent to his
property. Staff stated if the street south of the development were closed then this
would affect the proposed site plan currently submitted for review. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the owner of
the property to the south sufficient time to make application for the street closure
adjacent to his property and to allow the Commission to review the Grant Street street
closure request at the same hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating a deferral was being requested.
Staff stated they were requesting the deferral to the March 25, 2004 Planning
Commission Public Hearing to allow the item to be discussed with an item filed for the
March 25, 2004 Public Hearing related to the requested street closure.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were two registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff
then presented Item No. 1 with a recommendation of denial of the request.
Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
request. He stated he was the property owner located to the south of the proposed
Rock House Development and he was requesting the entire roadway be closed or no
portion of the roadway be closed. He stated the proposed road would run adjacent to
the rear of his home and he was opposed to the increased traffic. Mr. Weedman stated
this was one of the few remaining portions of Grant Street remaining from West
Markham Street to Cantrell Road.
Mr. Todd Hart addressed the Commission as the applicant. He stated the existing
house on the site was in disrepair and was no longer livable. He stated the desire was
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
8
to close two sections of streets, a portion of Grant Street and a portion of F Street, to
allow the development to occur. He stated it was unlikely that Grant Street would ever
continue due to grades and the creek along the north property line. He stated the
desire of the development was to have two access points. He stated as indicated by
staff the development would be difficult if there was only one access point from
University Avenue.
Commissioner Adcock questioned if the two access points were critical to the
development. Mr. Hart stated the two access points would better serve the
development. Commissioner Adcock questioned if there was a median cut on “F”
Street at University Avenue. Mr. Hart stated there was not.
Mr. Weedman stated he was unaware the proposed developers were proposing to
construct the undeveloped proportion of Grant Street at this time. He stated the
developers indicated to him that the road would be constructed in the future.
Commissioner Rector questioned if he was opposed to the office development. Mr.
Weedman stated he was not happy with the development but he was not opposed to
the office development.
Mr. Peyton Rice addressed the Commission. He stated the owned property to the
northeast of the proposed development. He stated his request was to landscape the
proposed wall structure to enhance the appearance. He stated currently he had two
apartment buildings on his property and he was considering development of two
additional buildings. He stated he had received a landscape plan only today and was
requesting a deferral of the item until the landscape plan could be assessed to ensure it
was sufficient to screen the proposed wall.
Commissioner Lowry indicated the proposed development would be required to comply
with the landscape ordinance and buffer requirements.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site and the illegal fill that had
taken place in previous years. Commissioner Langlais questioned staff comments
concerning the proposed map revision. Staff stated the applicant had indicated there
would not be a map revision and all the fill material located in the floodway would be
removed.
Chairman Rahman stated there were only eight Commissioners present. He stated
previous Commission policy was to offer the applicant a deferral if there were eight or
fewer Commissioners present.
Mr. Hart indicated he wished to continue.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
9
Mr. Weedman indicated his desire was for a two-week deferral.
A motion was made to defer both item to the April 8, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented a brief overview indicating the item was deferred from the
March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated there had not been changes or
modifications since the previous meeting.
Mr. Hart stated the development had relocated the dumpster away from the residential
property to the south and would limit the service of the dumpsters to normal office
hours. He stated the development would also require service vehicles to access the
site from South University Avenue.
Mr. Hal Kemp addressed the Commission in opposition to the street closure request
within the development. He stated the developer was requesting the abandonment of
undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped “G” Street within the development and his
client was opposed to the closure. Mr. Kemp stated consistency of treatment was an
issue for his client (Item #2 – File No. G-23-334).
Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
street closure. Me. Weedman requested the Commission deny the applicant’s request
for the closure of undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped “G” Street.
Mr. Hart addressed the Commission indicating access was a concern. He stated
without the access from the south via Grant Street the development would be difficult to
market. He stated the desire was to allow Hillcrest traffic the ability to access the site
without entering North University Avenue.
There was a general discussion concerning the abandonment of the proposed right-of-
way and if the development could be constructed without any abandonment’s. Mr. Hart
stated the development would be difficult to construct without the closure of the
undeveloped streets.
A motion was made to approve the abandonment of the proposed streets within the
development. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 7 noes and 0 absent.
Commissioner Rector stated he felt it was the desire of the Commission to be
supportive of the proposed development and the redevelopment of Mid-Town. He
stated absent the equality and the issues brought up by Mr. Kemp and Mr. Weedman to
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563
10
limit access to house the Commission would support the Rock House Development.
He stated he would form this statement in a motion. There was not a second.
Mr. Hart stated his desire was to more forward with a development. He requested the
Commission allow him to amend his request.
A motion was made to expunge the previous vote. The motion carried by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Mr. Hart amended his request to include no access from the south maintaining only
access from South University Avenue. The applicant stated the POD included the
abandonment of Grant Street and “G” Street and his amendment included limiting the
hours of dumpster service to normal business hours.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed and to place a condition on the
approval that the abandonment of the south ½ of Grant Street be included when the
item was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: G-23-334
Name: Grant Street – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location: Between “F” and “G” Streets
Owner/Applicant: Heywood Weedman, Stephen Maxwell and
Doug Buxton
Request: To abandon the 50-foot wide Grant Street
right-of-way between Lots 7-10, Block 9 and
Lots 7-10, Block 10, Lincoln Park Addition.
Purpose: The purpose of the proposed right-of-way
abandonment is to use the area of
abandonment as a private driveway.
STAFF REVIEW:
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
As noted in paragraph G. of this report, all of the public utility companies
consent to the right-of-way abandonment. All of the utility companies
request to retain all or part of the right-of-way area as a utility easement.
The Public Works Department comments are as follows:
1. The Grant Street right-of-way at this location is not currently being
maintained as a public street or drainage way. Further to the north
near H Street, Coleman Creek lies in the right-of-way and a portion
of the right-of-way was apparently abandoned. Therefore, Grant
Street is unlikely to ever be a through street.
2. The right-of-way at this location was proposed as one of two
access points for the property immediately to the north (Rock
House Short-Form Z-7563). Rock House proposed to construct a
street in this right-of-way to serve its development.
B. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan would classify Grant Street as a local road.
Abandonment of this right-of-way will not adversely affect the Master
Street Plan, as it is not classified as a collector street or higher.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-334
2
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
This portion of Grant Street right-of-way is currently undeveloped. It
serves as a residential driveway for the property on its west side, at the
corner of “F” Street and University Avenue. Heywood Weedman owns the
four (4) lots on the west side of the right-of-way, and one (1) lot on the
east side. Stephen Maxwell and Doug Buxton own the other three (3) lots
on the east side of the right-of-way.
D. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the applicants propose to utilize the area as a private
driveway.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect
There is a vacant single family residence (proposed to be rezoned to
POD) and undeveloped property immediately north of the portion of Grant
Street proposed for abandonment. Office uses are located to the south
and east. There is a single family residence along the west side of the
right-of-way, with Catholic High School located to the southwest.
Abandoning this portion of the Grant Street right-of-way will have no
adverse impact on the general area, except for the property to the north
(Rock House Short-Form POD, Z-7563), which proposes to construct this
portion of the street and use it for access.
F. Neighborhood Position
The Hillcrest and Evergreen Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the abandonment request. As of this writing, staff knows of no objectors
to the abandonment. The abutting property owners were also notified of
the proposed abandonment.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Wastewater: No objection to abandonment. Retain the area as a utility
easement for existing sewer main.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment. Retain west 15 feet of the
current 50-foot right-of-way as a utility easement.
CenterPoint Energy: No objection to abandonment. Retain the area as
a utility easement.
Southwestern Bell: No objection to abandonment. Retain the area as a
utility easement.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-334
3
Water: No objection to abandonment. Retain the area as a utility
easement for possible future water facilities.
H. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the adjacent property owners.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning this street right-of-way will have no adverse effects on the
public welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire Department has no
objection to the abandonment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested Grant Street right-of-way
abandonment.
As noted previously, the Rock House Short-Form POD development (Z-7563)
proposes to construct this portion of Grant Street and use it as one (1) of two (2)
points to access the development. Staff is supportive of the Rock House
development, and feels that it needs both access points. Both properties on the
east and west sides of the portion of Grant Street proposed for abandonment are
shown as “Office” on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Staff feels that it would
be a positive to have the Grant Street right-of-way for access to these properties
once they are undeveloped. This will help to limit the number of curb cuts near
the intersection of “F” Street and S. University Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 4, 2004)
The applicant was not present. Staff briefly described the proposed right-of-way
abandonment. The proposal was briefly discussed. The proposed POD (Rock
House) development was also discussed with relation to the proposed
abandonment.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
Heywood Weedman was present, representing the application. There was one
(1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation
of denial. This item was discussed simultaneously with Item M, Rock House
Short-Form POD (Z-7563).
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-334
4
Heywood Weedman addressed the Commission in support of the right-of-way
abandonment. He expressed concern with Grant Street being constructed and
used for access to the property to the north. He stated that if the north portion of
the street can be closed with the proposed Rock House development, the south
portion should also be closed.
Staff explained which properties were owned by Mr. Weedman and the other
applicants, Stephen Maxwell and Doug Buxton. There was a brief discussion of
the abandonment issue.
Item M, Rock House Short-Form POD (Z-7563), was discussed. Development
issues associated with the development, including the abandonment of Grant
Street, were discussed.
At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners present at the meeting dropped
to eight (8). According to Planning Commission Policy, Chairman Rahman
offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all remaining applicants. The
Commission had previously determined to make the informal meeting of April 8,
2004 a public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
Heywood Weedman and Hal Kemp were present, representing the application.
There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of denial.
Hal Kemp addressed the Commission in support of the application. He gave a
brief history of Mr. Weedman’s property. He noted that the proposed POD
development to the north proposed to use Grant Street as access to the project.
He noted that he was not opposed to the POD development, but only to the use
of Grant Street as access. He stated that the southern portion of Grant Street
right-of-way should be abandoned if the northern portion is abandoned as part of
the POD development.
The legal rights of abutting property owners with regards to right-of-way
abandonments were discussed.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-334
5
Mr. Kemp stated that the abandonment of the south portion of Grant Street
would not adversely affect the proposed Rock House Short-Form POD. This
issue was discussed at length. Also discussed was the process for dedicating
and constructing public rights-of-way.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the existing driveway within the Grant Street right-
of-way served the rock house to the north. Mr. Kemp noted that it served the
rock house as well as Mr. Weedman’s property. He noted that it was never
constructed as a street right-of-way.
The abandonment issue was discussed further. Mr. Kemp explained that Grant
Street was never constructed as a street right-of-way for access to the property
to the north.
There was additional discussion related to legal issues associated with the right-
of-way abandonment, as well as traffic patterns in the area.
Heywood Weedman addressed the Commission in support of the application.
He expressed concerns with the south portion of Grant Street being constructed
to serve the Rock House Short-Form POD. He expressed concern with the
amount of traffic which would be on the street and the noise generated by the
traffic.
Todd Hart, representing the Rock House Short-Form POD, addressed the
Commission in opposition. He explained that the utilizing Grant Street as access
to the proposed POD development was very important. Commissioner Rector
asked if the south portion of Grant Street is abandoned, how it would effect the
proposed POD. Mr. Hart explained that it would adversely affect the proposed
POD. He stated that he did not know if the POD would be developed without the
Grant Street access. This issue was discussed further.
Chairman Rahman stated that he was not convinced that abandoning Grant
Street would have a negative impact on the POD development. The past due of
the area of Grant Street proposed for abandonment was briefly discussed.
There was additional discussion related to the legal issues associated with the
proposed abandonment.
There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the area of
abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. The motion
failed by a vote of 5 ayes and 6 nays. The application was denied.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1419
NAME: Diamond T Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: On Crystal Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Diamond Development Company
P.O. Box 26052
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 12.11 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 48 FT. NEW STREET: 1550 L.F.
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 12.11 acres located on Crystal Valley Road
into 48 single-family lots. The site is located outside the existing city limits of
Little Rock and the applicant has indicated annexation will be sought if the
proposed plat is approved.
The applicant is proposing an average lot size of 7560 square feet and the
minimum lot dimension of 63-feet by 120-feet. The applicant has indicated 1550
linear feet of new street as a part of the development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located on Crystal Valley Road outside the City limits. The City limits
adjoin the site to the west (Eagle Hill Community) making annexation a
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
2
possibility. The site is currently vacant. The site as well as the general area
contain rolling hills. There are single-family homes located across Crystal Valley
Road as well as north and south of the site. There is a PCD located south of the
site that appears to be functioning as a single-family residence.
Crystal Valley Road is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners, the Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The preliminary plat shows right-of-way dedications and street improvements
as required by the Master Street Plan. However, sidewalk construction is
also required on Crystal Valley and on West Diamond Way west to Diamond
Cove.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. Show easements for
all drainage and detention facilities.
4. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
5. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: The site is located outside the city limits and outside the service
boundary. No comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
3
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will
be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Located outside the City Limits. The site must annex to
receive City services. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 19, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the
request was for a preliminary plat located outside the corporate limits. Staff
stated since the proposed plat was located within the city’s planning jurisdiction it
was appropriate to review the plat and as a condition of approval the applicant
would be required to seek annexation. Staff stated it should be clear that
support of the plat did not constitute support of the annexation.
Staff requested the applicant provide additional information related to the
proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested the applicant provide a 30-foot front
building line adjacent to Crystal Valley Road. Staff also requested the applicant
provide the names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the proposed plat area.
Staff requested the applicant provide a phasing plan, if applicable.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to any grading activities on the site. Staff also stated the right-of-
way for Crystal Valley Road was not sufficient to meet the minimum
requirements of the Master Street Plan.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
4
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the February 19, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated a 30-foot front building line adjacent to Crystal Valley
Road (a collector street on the Master Street Plan) and a 25-foot front building
line adjacent to the interior street.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an increased lot depth to width
ratio for Lots 19 – 20, 24 – 27 and 33 – 36. These lots are corner lots at the
ends of cul-de-sacs. The Subdivision Ordinance requires no lot may be
developed at a ratio greater than three times the depth to width ratio. Staff feels
the proposed requested variance will have minimal to no adverse impact on the
adjoining properties. Staff is supportive of the proposed requested variance.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. For the most part the
proposed preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance with regard to minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and the
minimum square footage required for an R-2, Single-family zoned property.
The site is located outside the City limits and should the preliminary plat be
approved, the applicant will file for annexation. Staff is not however, indicating
support of the future annexation request. The request will be evaluated on its
merits based on the cost/benefit analysis prepared at the time of the request for
annexation. Development of the plat as proposed is conditioned upon
annexation to the City since the developer proposes to utilize Little Rock sewer
service.
Otherwise, to staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat should have
minimal to no adverse impact on adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 19 – 20,
24 – 27 and 33 – 36 to develop with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
5
The property must be annexed to the City of Little Rock prior to any grading
activities or development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter dated March 10,
2004 requesting the item be deferred to the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff
stated the applicant was requesting additional time to meet the adjoining property
owners to discuss their concerns. Staff stated the requested deferral would require a
waiver of the By-laws related to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested By-law waiver and the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners present at
the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission Policy, Chairman
Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all remaining applicants. The
Commission had previously determined to make the informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a
public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda. A
motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and
3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were numerous
objectors present. Staff stated the developer did not mail notices as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated the notices were post marked thirteen days and
not fifteen days prior to the public hearing. A motion was made to waiver the By-laws
with regard to notification. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent. Staff presented the item indicating the proposed subdivision meet all the
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
proposed developers and himself had meet with the property owners prior to the public
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
6
hearing. He stated the developer would install sidewalks, detention and provide
improvements to Crystal Valley Road. He stated the developer was not requesting any
waivers or variance to allow the proposed subdivision to be developed.
Mr. Barry Hass addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his wife owned
property to the south of the proposed subdivision. He stated the family was opposed to
the development for a number of reasons. He stated the plat had not requested
annexation prior to the request for subdivision review, the density of the proposed
development, traffic and safety concerns. He stated the developer had meet with
property owners in the area. He stated he also had concerns with the notification
process. He stated not all owners of property abutting the proposed plat area were
identified and/or notified. He stated he had a concern with the Commission waiving a
wand and removing the notification requirement. He stated notification requirements
were put in place for a reason and the requirements should be followed. He stated
according to County records there were seven to eight property owners located
adjacent to the plat and only three were notified.
Mr. Hass stated the recently approved Dyke annexation would allow approximately 605
new homes in the area. He stated the proposed level of density would result in a large
amount of traffic on the existing two lane roads. He stated the area was rural in
character and the proposed development was not. He stated the site contained an
exiting pond, which was not proposed to be kept, and the development did not allow for
green space. Mr. Hass stated there were also concerns of the proposed development
and the adjoining properties. He stated the neighboring property to the north contained
a horse farm and the property to the south contained a large pond. He questioned the
responsibility of the property owners if a child was hurt.
Mr. Eric Harden addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development.
He stated his concern was related to flooding. He stated the site contained a creek,
which was susceptible to flash flooding. He stated he had lived in the area for 38 years
and the site had flooded on many occasions.
Ms. Susan Hardin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
subdivision. She stated the many of the residents in the area were using wells for their
water source. She stated the residents had a concern with the placement of the
number of homes requested and the potential for contamination to their water source.
She questioned any studies, which had been completed to determine non-point source
water contamination. She stated the developer could not control the household
chemicals or the materials placed on yards from future homeowners. She stated the
new development would increase run-off to adjoining properties, which was also a
concern.
Ms. Marla Alderson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
development. She stated her property was located between the two subdivisions. She
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
7
stated the quality of life was a concern of area residents. She stated there were also
concerns with the placement to the proposed number of homes in close proximity.
Ms. Alderson stated there were two hair pen turns located near the subdivision. She
stated the developments were also located near a slight ridge in the road, which cause
sight distance problems for existing homeowners when exiting their drives.
Mr. Alderson stated the development was also located in close proximity to the Dyke
annexation property, which would add an additional 600 homes to the area in a
relatively short time frame. She stated south of the proposed subdivision Eagle Hill
apartment development would also add additional units which would use Crystal Valley
Road for access to the new units. She stated with the existing roads in place safety
was a primary concern.
Ms. Melissa Woods addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
development. She stated fire protection was a concern. She stated during the recent
Dyke annexation fire safety and the possibility of losing the City’s current fire rating was
discussed. She stated the Fire Department had indicated a fire station was needed at
intervals of 1.5 and 2.5 miles. She stated the nearest fire station was located at the
Southwest Hospital. She stated development should be limited to allow time for City
resources to catch-up with demand.
Mr. Redman Ritchie addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
traffic and traffic safety were concerns. He stated currently it was difficult to travel
Highway 5 at 5:00 pm. He stated police patrols were currently stretched and the City
should not place additional demand on the police department.
Mr. Tom Alderson, Mr. Frank Vorster and Ms. Bobbie Ritchie chose not to address the
Commission.
Ms. Karen Hooks addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the development of 48 homes on the site was not characteristic of the
neighborhood. She stated the area was developed in a rural setting and not in the
density proposed. She stated the development of the area at the proposed density
would be disruptive to the existing wildlife. She stated the development should include
areas designated as green space.
Ms. Tami Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
development. She stated she agreed with the previous speakers.
Ms. Martha Hopkins addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed request.
She stated the development was located near a 90-degree turn on Crystal Valley Road.
She stated she was outside all day training horsed on her farm. She stated motorists
traveled the road at high rates of speed and the placement of an entrance to the
subdivision at the proposed location would be hazardous.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1419
8
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the proposed request. She stated the impact of the subdivision on the City’s limited
resources was a concern of the League. She stated the road network was not
adequate to handle the traffic impact of the proposed development. She stated it was
important for the City to develop a long-range plan for the area prior to allowing
additional development in an area that was not ready for development.
Mr. George Hirrill addressed the Commission in support of the proposed development.
He stated he was the property owner and he questioned the previous statement
concerning flooding. He stated the creek located on the land did not over flow unless
there were significant rainfalls. He stated even then the water would recede quickly.
Mr. Hirrill stated the city was in great need of affordable single-family homes. He stated
the development as proposed would offer this to the community.
Staff stated the roadway was adequate to handle the traffic that was projected from the
development. Staff stated the traffic volumes on a two lane rural facility were similar to
areas located within the City. Staff stated existing traffic counts indicated 2000 to
29000 vehicles per day. Staff stated the Master Street Plan classified the street as a
collector street in this area. Staff stated the proposed development would generate an
average traffic count of 6800 trips per day or 10 trips per day per household. Staff
stated the road would handle the proposed traffic volume. Staff stated the volume of
traffic on Fair Park Boulevard was currently 14,000 vehicles per day.
Commissioner Lowry questioned the Deputy City Attorney on the discretion of the
Commission. Ms. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, stated per Richardson vs. the
City of Little Rock, if a development meets all the minimum requirements of the
subdivision ordinance the Commission was required by Law to approve the request.
Commission Lowry questioned if all the minimum requirements had been met. Staff
noted all the requirements had been met.
There was a general discussion concerning Richardson vs. the City of Little Rock.
Ms. Dawson stated in the dissenting opinion reference was made to the Planning
Commission having discretion under the ordinance. Ms. Dawson noted the opinion was
on the losing side and not the basis of the case.
A motion was made to approve the subdivision request as filed. The motion carried by
a vote of 10 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1421
NAME: Green Diamond Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: On Crystal Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Diamond Development Company
P.O. Box 26052
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 7.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 840 L.F.
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased lot depth to
width ratio for Lots 14 – 17.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.10 acres into 30 lots located outside the
city limits of Little Rock. The applicant has indicated annexation will be sought
should the preliminary plat be approved.
The applicant proposes an average lot size of 61-feet by 132-feet resulting in an
average square footage of 8052 square feet. The applicant has indicated a
30-foot front building line adjacent to Crystal Valley Road (a collector street) and
25-foot front building line adjacent to the interior residential street (Greenway
Cove).
The applicant is requesting a variance from the lot depth to width requirement of
the Subdivision Ordinance for Lots 14 – 17.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located on Crystal Valley Road outside the City limits. The City limits
adjoin the site to the south across Crystal Valley making annexation a possibility.
The site has an abandoned single-family home located along Crystal Valley
Road with the remainder of the site vacant. The site as well as the general area
contain rolling hills. There are single-family homes located across Crystal Valley
Road as well as to the west of the site.
Crystal Valley Road is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners, the Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The preliminary plat shows right-of-way dedications and street improvements
as required by the Master Street Plan. However, sidewalk construction is
also required.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. Show easements for
all drainage and detention facilities.
4. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
5. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: The site is located outside the city limits and outside the service
boundary. No comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will
be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Located outside the City Limits. The site must annex to
receive City services. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 19, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the
request was for a preliminary plat located outside the corporate limits. Staff
stated since the proposed plat was located within the city’s planning jurisdiction it
was appropriate to review the plat and as a condition of approval the applicant
would be required to seek annexation. Staff stated it should be clear that
support of the plat did not constitute support of the annexation.
Staff requested the applicant provide additional information related to the
proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested the applicant provide a 30-foot front
building line adjacent to Crystal Valley Road. Staff also requested the applicant
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
4
provide the names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the proposed plat area.
Staff requested the applicant provide a phasing plan, if applicable.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to any grading activities on the site. Staff also stated the right-of-
way was not sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Master Street
Plan for Crystal Valley Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the February 19, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated a 30-foot front building line adjacent to Crystal Valley
Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Crystal Valley Road is
classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street, which per the
Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30-foot front building line. The applicant has
indicated a 25-foot front building line adjacent to the internal street (Greenway
Cove) as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow four of the lots to develop with an
increased lot depth to width ratio. Lots 14 – 17 are located on a cul-de-sac with
a reduced street width. The lots do meet the minimum requirement for lot width
at the building line (60-feet) as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff
feels the proposed lots developing with an increased depth to width ratio should
have minimal to no adverse impact on adjoining properties and is supportive of
the requested variance.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. For the most part the
proposed preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance with regard to minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and the
minimum square footage required for an R-2, Single-family zoned property.
The applicant has indicated the site is located outside the City limits and should
the preliminary plat be approved, the applicant will file for annexation. Staff is
not however, indicating support of the future annexation request. The request
will be evaluated on its merits based on the cost/benefit analysis prepared at the
time of the request for annexation. Development of the plat as proposed is
conditioned upon annexation to the City since the developer proposes to utilize
Little Rock sewer service.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
5
Otherwise, to staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat should have
minimal to no adverse impact on adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 14 – 17 to
develop with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
The property must be annexed to the City of Little Rock prior to any grading
activities or development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter dated March 10,
2004 requesting the item be deferred to the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff
stated the applicant was requesting additional time to meet the adjoining property
owners to discuss their concerns. Staff stated the requested deferral would require a
waiver of the By-laws related to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested By-law waiver and the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners present at
the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission Policy, Chairman
Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all remaining applicants. The
Commission had previously determined to make the informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a
public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda. A
motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and
3 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were numerous
objectors present. Staff stated the developer did not mail notices as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated the notices were post marked thirteen days and
not fifteen days prior to the public hearing. A motion was made to waiver the By-laws
with regard to notification. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent. Staff presented the item indicating the proposed subdivision meet all the
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
proposed developers and himself had meet with the property owners prior to the public
hearing. He stated the developer would install sidewalks, detention and provide
improvements to Crystal Valley Road. He stated the developer was not requesting any
waivers or variance to allow the proposed subdivision to be developed.
Mr. Barry Hass addressed the Commission with regard to the notification requirement.
He stated the developer was required to notify all abutting property owners and only two
owners were notified of the request. He questioned the design process.
Staff stated the developer had provided a revised drainage plan on the site. Staff
stated the developer had relocated the detention away from the west property line and
would pipe the water to the roadway. Staff stated the developer had also indicated one
or two located along Crystal Valley Road would be sacrificed for detention if necessary.
Mr. Barry Hass stated his comments from the previous item (S-1419) also applied to the
proposed development.
Mr. Redman Ritchie addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. He stated
he was the owner of the property located to the west of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Ritchie stated his concerns were related to drainage. He stated if the development
did not drain properly all the water would back on his property causing tremendous
property damage. He stated he was also concerned with the contamination of his
existing well. He stated his home was served by a well and he did not want to connect
to city water. He stated with the proposed development so close to his property line he
was concerned with possible contaminates to his drinking water. He stated there were
also concerns with sight distances and the proposed driveway location.
Ms. Bobbie Ritchie stated she agreed with the previous speaker.
Mr. Frank Vorster addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed subdivision
request. He stated the development would increase traffic in the area. He stated Eagle
Hill apartment development was also planned with an entrance near the subdivision
entrance. Mr. Voster stated drainage was also a concern. He stated with development
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1421
7
water would exit the site at a greater rate. He stated the existing pipe at Crystal Valley
Road would not handle any additional run-off. He questioned if something was not
developed as proposed who was responsible and who would the residents would
contact. Staff stated the Public Works Department.
Staff stated Public Works would review all prior to development. Staff stated the pipe
under Crystal Valley Road would be sized to accommodate the anticipated water flows.
Ms. Susan Hardin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
development. She stated the Dyke annexation; the development of Eagle Hill
apartments and the existing traffic in the area did not lend then selves to the existing
roadways. She stated traffic at the intersection with Stagecoach Road was current
congested at peak hours and the adding of additional traffic in this area would only
increase this congestion.
Ms. Melissa Wood and Ms. Karen Hooks stated comments from the previous item also
applied to the current request (S-1419).
Ms. Martha Hopkins stated she would welcome anyone to come and join her for a day
and watch the residents trying to walk in the area and the increased volumes and
speeds in traffic.
Ms. Tami Johnson stated she was also opposed to the development. She stated there
were several older residents who walked Crystal Valley Road for exercise daily and the
increased traffic was a danger to the residents.
Commissioner Lowry stated the residents did have valid points but as in the previous
case the Commission was bound to comply with the court ruling. He stated the
Commission could not take into consideration most of the issues raised.
Commissioner Rector stated the issues raised concerning inadequate streets was a
classic example of the need for infrastructure. He stated the recently failed sales tax
was a source of funding and should the opportunity to fund infrastructure come along in
the future maybe the residents would vote for the tax.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
2 noes and 1 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-7589
Owner: Pearl Peaster and
Holy Cross Missionary Baptist Church
Applicant: Larry Miller
Location: 4724 West 12th Street (northeast corner of
West 12th and Madison Streets)
Area: 0.32 acre
Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose: Used car business
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Single family residences; zoned R-3
South – Multifamily development (across West 12th Street); zoned PRD
East – Mixed enclosed commercial uses; zoned C-3
West – Church (across Madison Street); zoned O-3
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. West 12th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline (reduced
standard) will be required.
2. The proposed land use would classify Madison Street on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3. With future site development plans, provide design of street
conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4. The current driveway location does not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210 and should be
removed. Access should be from the alley on Madison Street or as
approved in the site development plans.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7589
2
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is located on CATA Bus Route 3 (Baptist Medical Center Route).
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within
300 feet who could be identified, and the War Memorial, Forest Hills,
Hope and Oak Forest Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for C-4
Open Display Commercial for a used car lot.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. However,
due to the intense nature of C-4 zoning, the specifics of the site plan
should be reviewed to assure the compatibility of the proposed
development with the surrounding uses.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Stephens Area
Neighborhood Action Plan. The section on Economic Development lists a
goal of attracting businesses to the Stephens Area with the objective of
attracting small business such as small retail stores and cafes.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Pearl Peaster and Holy Cross Missionary Baptist Church, owners of the
two (2) lots located at 4724 West 12th Street (northeast corner of West
12th and Madison Streets), are requesting to rezone the property from
“C-3” General Commercial District to “C-4” Open Display District. The
rezoning is proposed in order to develop a used car business on the
property.
The property is currently undeveloped. Two (2) concrete pads exist on
the property, where buildings were once located. There is a paved alley
along the north property line. There is also an existing driveway apron
from West 12th Street.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7589
3
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning along West 12th
Street. Single family residences are located north of the site, with
churches located across Madison Street to the west and northwest. A
multifamily development (Madison Heights) is located across West 12th
Street to the south. A mixture of commercial uses is located to the east,
along the north side of West 12th Street.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as commercial.
The proposed C-4 zoning does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
Staff does not support the requested C-4 zoning. Although the property is
shown as commercial on the City’s Future Land Use Plan, it is located at
the far west end of the commercial area along West 12th Street,
specifically the north side of West 12th Street. This end of the commercial
area is adjacent to single family, multifamily and public/institutional uses
and zoning. Staff believes that an open display type use at this location
will be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff feels that the C-3
zoned property would be much more appropriate for a small commercial
use, such as restaurant, drug store or laundromat, which would serve the
surrounding residential properties. Staff feels that an open display type
use, such as a used car lot, will have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners
present at the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission
Policy, Chairman Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all
remaining applicants. The Commission had previously determined to make the
informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7589
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
Larry and Marilyn Miller were present, representing the application. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Larry Miller addressed the Commission in support of the application. He
presented photos of the area to the Commission. He explained that he had a
plan for a used car dealership on the property. He explained his proposed
development of the property.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the car dealership would be operated by a nearby
church. Mr. Miller stated that it would not.
Commissioner Allen asked how many cars would be displayed on the property.
Mr. Miller stated that there would be 20 or so.
Commissioner Rector noted that Mr. Miller’s development plan for the property
would not be binding for other future owners of the property, given the fact that
straight C-4 zoning is requested.
Marilyn Miller addressed the Commission in support of the application. She
referenced other used car dealerships in the area.
Commissioner Lowry asked if the applicant could amend the application to a
PCD zoning. The issue of a PCD zoning for the property was briefly discussed.
Dana Carney, Planning and Development, suggested withdrawing the application
and refiling as a PCD. The issue was discussed further.
Commissioner Allen asked the Millers if they would withdraw the application.
Mr. Miller asked that the application be withdrawn.
A motion was made to withdraw the application. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was withdrawn.
A second motion was made to waive the filing fee for a PCD application, if filed
within three (3) months. The second motion, passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
NAME: Chenal Mini-Storage – Revised Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 24,300 Chenal Parkway
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris Thornton/Patrick McGetrick
PROPOSAL: A revision to a previously approved and revised
conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
splitting of a single second phase into two separate
phases, to allow a reconfiguration of buildings, the
addition of climate controlled space and the addition
of a two-story building containing some general
commercial lease space. The property is zoned C-3.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 350
feet north of Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10).
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
A conditional use permit for the phased construction of a mini-warehouse
development was first approved for this site in 1997. The first phase was
constructed at that time and has been in operation since then. The
current proposal does not expand the boundary of the site nor should it
change the development’s compatibility with the neighborhood. Since the
original approval, addition nonresidential and multifamily development has
occurred in the general area around the site.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Pinnacle, Aberdeen and
DuQuesne Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site will continue to be accessed via the single driveway off of Chenal
Parkway. Four customer parking spaces are located adjacent to the office
building. Adequate driveways and parking are located around each of the
mini-warehouse buildings. The lower floor of the Phase IV building is
proposed to be used for permitted C-3 commercial and office uses. A 33-
space parking lot will be located in front of this building. Uses within that
building must be limited to those requiring no more than 33 total parking
spaces. No restaurant is proposed or will be permitted in the Phase IV
building.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
• Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is
required.
• The proposed parking area does not provide for the 8-percent (1,117
square feet) of interior landscaping required by the landscape
ordinance. Interior landscape islands must be at least 7 ½ feet in
width and 150 square feet in area. Additionally, a small amount of
building landscaping is required between the public parking and
building. There is considerable flexibility with this requirement.
• A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required
along the northern perimeter of the site. In addition to this screening
requirement, the northern land use buffer are must be re-established
with trees and shrubs. This area has suffered significant erosion and
will require re-stabilization prior to a final certificate of occupancy being
issued.
• Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
• An irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any additional land clearing or grading activities at the
site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and
approved prior to the start of construction.
2. In accordance with Section 29-186(f), a Sketch Grading and Drainage
Plan will be required. Contents must address all requirements in
Section 29-188(a).
3. Provide a schedule showing dates for completing the installation of
erosion controls on site and restoring adjacent disturbed property.
4. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
3
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met. Separate water service to this
phase will be required unless the parcels are combined to form a
single parcel. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. On site fire protection
will be required and will be installed at the Developer’s expense. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per Code.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. A CATA express
route is located along Cantrell Road, to the south.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 4, 2004)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff presented the
item and noted additional information was needed regarding building height and
design, signage, hours of operation, site lighting, dumpster screening and
fencing. Staff asked that the proposed phase lines be more clearly delineated
and any areas of outdoor storage be labeled. Staff noted that a copy of the Bill
of Assurance needed to be submitted. Staff informed Mr. McGetrick that the
uses proposed in one of the building (top floor warehouse and bottom floor
office/showroom) were not permitted in C-3, even with a conditional use. He was
asked to clarify the use of that building. Public Works and Landscape
Comments were discussed at length. It was noted that this site was currently in
violation of the City’s Land Alteration Ordinances and a restoration plan needed
to be submitted. Mr. McGetrick was advised to submit a restoration plan
addressing the violation and a sketch grading plan for the current proposal. It
was noted that the applicant had actually encroached on an adjacent property
with his illegal grading. Mr. McGetrick noted that adjacent property was not
included in this application and the applicant and adjacent property owner were
working to resolve the issue. Mr. McGetrick was again advised that the land
alteration violation needed to be addressed.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
4
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by March 10, 2004. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On May 15, 1997, the Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing
for the two-phased construction of a mini-warehouse development on this C-3
zoned tract. The phase line split the site roughly in half, north and south. Phase
I, the south half, consisted of 12, one-story buildings and a two-story manager’s
office/apartment. Phase II consisted of 12 more, one-story buildings. Areas for
RV and boat storage were shown in each phase. On May 2, 2000, staff
approved a modification to the approved site plan. The phase lines remained as
approved. The modification allowed a more east-west orientation of the
buildings in each phase and a consolidation of the approved square footage into
fewer buildings. Phase I consisted of 9 buildings, eight lying east to west and
one lying parallel to Chenal Parkway. Phase II consisted of 8 buildings lying east
to west. Areas for RV and boat storage were maintained in each phase. Phase
I was constructed. On December 7, 2000, the Commission approved a revision
of the conditional use permit. That revision allowed one of the buildings in
Phase I to be used for conditioned mini-warehouse and realigned the Phase II
buildings. Phase II was approved for 6 buildings to be oriented roughly parallel
with Chenal Parkway. Eight spaces for storage of RV’s and boats were shown in
Phase II. Truck rental was added as a permitted use. Eight spaces either for
truck rental or RV and boat storage were shown in Phase I. The building
facades facing Chenal Parkway were required to be brick.
None of the Phase II buildings have been constructed, although the applicant
has done grading on that portion of the site in violation of the City’s Land
Alteration Ordinance. An appeal of that Land Alteration Violation notice is a
separate item on this agenda.
The applicant is now requesting approval of a revision to the conditional use
permit. The previously approved Phase I has been indicated as Phases I and II.
These two phases have been completed. The previously approved Phase II (the
north half of the property) is now proposed as Phases III and IV. Phase III is
proposed to consist of 5 mini-warehouse buildings lying east to west. Four of the
buildings are one-story in height. One of the buildings, due to the terrain is two
stories on the south side and one-story on the north side. The top floor is
proposed to be more climate controlled (conditioned) mini-warehouse space.
Twelve spaces of parking for RV and boat storage are shown in Phase III.
Phase IV is now proposed to consist of a single, two-story building lying parallel
to Chenal Parkway, with a parking lot located between the building and the
street. The top floor is proposed to contain climate controlled (conditioned) mini-
warehouse space and the bottom floor is proposed to be divided into tenant
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
5
spaces for various permitted C-3 uses. Due to the terrain, access to the upper
floor will be through the mini-warehouse development at the back and access to
the lower floor will be from the front. There will not be access from the lower
floor to the upper floor. The mini-warehouse buildings will be constructed of
metal. The commercial/office building will have a metal roof and back. The
façade facing Chenal Parkway will be brick and metal. Existing signage will
remain for the mini-warehouse development. A new ground-mounted sign,
meeting Chenal Parkway overlay standards, will be erected in front of the
commercial/office building. Hours of operation for the mini-warehouse
development are 24 hours, 7 days a week. Hours for the commercial/office
building are 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Site lighting will be
located on the buildings and will be directed downward and inward. Parking lot
lighting for the commercial/office building will be on 15-foot tall poles and will be
shielded downward and inward to the site. Screening will be installed on the
perimeters of the site.
Although there have been issues related to land alteration, staff continues to be
supportive of the proposed development.
On March 10, 2004, the applicant submitted responses to the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee and reflected in the analysis above. There is no bill of
assurance issue. The uses proposed for occupancy of the lower floor of the
commercial/office building must comply with the parking requirements for a 33
space parking lot. This will assure a mix of low intensity uses. The issue of the
land alteration violation must be resolved prior to the issuance of any permits for
further construction on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Staff Comments and Conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the staff report.
2. All roofing is to be constructed of nonreflective material.
3. All signage must comply with the Chenal Parkway overlay standards.
4. The façade of the commercial/office building must be constructed of brick,
with metal trim only.
5. All site lighting must be shielded downward and into the site.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5600-C
6
6. The land alteration violation issue must be resolved and the site brought into
compliance with the Land Alteration Ordinance prior to the issuance of any
permits for any construction on the site.
7. Uses within the ground floor of the commercial/office building must comply
with the ordinance established parking requirement for a parking lot with 33
spaces. No restaurant will be permitted on the site.
8. Use of the mini-warehouse buildings, including the climate controlled
buildings, must comply with the Ordinance definition of a “mini-warehouse”
and not be used for bulk storage or warehousing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners
present at the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission
Policy, Chairman Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all
remaining applicants. The Commission had previously determined to make the
informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
The applicant was present. One objector arrived at the meeting after the item
had been acted on by the Commission. Mike Hood, of Public Works, informed
the Commission that the applicant had just provided a grading plan and had not
yet provided a drainage plan. He asked that the item be deferred until the
grading and drainage plans had been submitted and reviewed. There was no
further discussion of the issue.
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 5, 2004 Commission meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Mr. Gene Pfeifer, of 16,300 Cantrell Road, later appeared at the meeting and
asked to make a statement since he was to be out of town on May 6, 2004. The
Chair allowed the statement.
Mr. Pfeifer stated the applicant had violated the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance
and, in fact, had graded onto adjacent property that he, Mr. Pfeifer, owns. He
asked the Commission not to approve any amendment to the C.U.P. until the
Land Alteration violation was addressed. Mr. Pfeifer stated the applicant had
also violated the Subdivision’s bill of assurance.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-7594
NAME: Vasquez Accessory Dwelling –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 6720 Mabelvale Cut-Off
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jamie and Ruth Vasquez
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
conversion of the existing accessory structure on this
R-2 zoned, .39± acre tract into an accessory dwelling.
The applicant is not proposing to occupy either
dwelling.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located at the northeast corner of Mabelvale Cut-Off and
Warren Drive.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
Although the surrounding neighborhood is primarily single family in zoning
and use, there are other uses in the general vicinity. Two large apartment
complexes are located to the east, on either side of Mabelvale Cut-Off. A
nonconforming skating rink is located nearby to the northeast. Duplexes
are located across Mabelvale Cut-Off to the south. Single family homes
are located north, south and west of the site. While staff is generally
supportive of accessory dwellings, the applicant, in this case, does not
propose to occupy either dwelling. There has been a history of concern
about substandard rental property in this area and staff is concerned that
allowing the proposed two rental units may not be in the best interest of
the nearby single family residential neighborhood.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are required to have one
on-site parking space each. The site has paved driveways off of
Mabelvale Cut-Off and Warren Drive. There is adequate parking available
on site to accommodate both dwellings.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7594
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 4, 2004)
The applicant, Ruth Vasquez, was present. Staff presented the item and noted
the applicant was requesting a variance from the requirement that the property
owner occupy one of the dwellings. In response to a question from the
Committee, Ms. Vasquez stated the house was currently being rented. Staff
noted that the site had adequate parking to serve both dwellings. Public Works,
Landscape and Utility Comments were noted. Staff informed the Committee that
the property was not within a subdivision and was not covered by a bill of
assurance.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property located at 6720 Mabelvale Cut-Off is occupied by a one-
story, brick and frame single family residence and a detached, block accessory
building. The block building was at one time utilized as a recording studio and
contains a control room, performing studio, storage space, kitchen, restroom
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7594
3
and shower. The recording studio was a nonconforming use. The house and
accessory building both have paved driveways and parking pads.
The applicants are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
block accessory building to be converted into an accessory dwelling. The
applicants do not propose to occupy either dwelling. They are requesting a
variance from Section 36-252 of the Code which requires that the landowner
occupy one of the dwellings.
Staff is not supportive of the requested conditional use permit. While staff is
generally supportive of accessory dwellings, there are concerns about the fact
that the applicants do not propose to occupy either of these dwellings. There
has been a history of concern in this neighborhood about substandard rental
property. Staff feels that allowing the conversion of the block building into
another dwelling, thus creating two rental units on this site, could have a negative
impact on the adjacent single family neighborhood. The property is not located
within a subdivision and is not covered by a valid bill of assurance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners
present at the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission
Policy, Chairman Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to all
remaining applicants. The Commission had previously determined to make the
informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
The applicant, Ruth Vasquez, was present. Ms. Eugenia Williams was present
assisting Ms. Vasquez. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of denial.
Ms. Williams stated the block building had previously been used as a recording
studio and contained a kitchen and bath facilities. She stated Ms. Vasquez had
April 8, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7594
4
purchased the property as an investment. Ms. Williams asked that the
Commission approve the application. She asked what the structure could be
used for if the application were denied.
Chairman Rahman stated it would not be as much of an issue if the applicant
proposed to occupy one of the dwellings. Ms. Williams reiterated that the
property was purchased as an investment, with the intent to rent both dwellings.
Ms. Vasquez stated she understood the neighbors’ concerns about some of the
other properties in the area. She stated she took care of this site.
Chairman Rahman stated the Zoning Ordinance required the property owner to
occupy one of the dwellings.
Commissioner Rector explained the concept of “accessory dwellings”. He voiced
support for the concept of converting the structure into a dwelling and asked if
the property could be subdivided so that there would be one principal dwelling on
each lot. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, responded that the property could
be subdivided but there would likely be variances due to relationship of the
structures to the property lines. Commissioner Rector stated that would be
better than setting the precedent of supporting “non-owner” occupation of
accessory dwelling sites. He asked if the item could be deferred and amended
to a plat or PRD. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated staff would prefer
that this application be withdrawn and a completely new application filed.
Commissioner Floyd commented that he could not support this application,
although he was sympathetic to the applicant’s situation.
Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney’s Office, stated a deferral might be
appropriate. Ms. Vasquez agreed to a deferral.
Janet Berry, of SWLR United for Progress, stated the applicant did attend a
meeting of the association. She stated the applicant has made improvements to
the site. Ms. Berry stated the neighbors had concerns about “rental property”.
She commented that whatever mechanism was employed, there would still be
two rental dwellings.
Commissioner Rector commented that the neighborhood might benefit from
having a derelict building fixed up.
Troy Laha, of 6602 Baseline Road, stated he was speaking a behalf of
neighboring property owners who were opposed to neither dwelling being
occupied by the property owner.
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 6, 2004 Commission meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.