pc_11 14 2002LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING -REZONING -CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 14,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Judith Faust
Gary Langlais
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Bob Lowry
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Jerry Meyer
Members Absent:Fred Allen,Jr.
City Attorney:Stephen Giles/Cindy Dawson
III.Approval of the Minutes of the October 3,2002 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission.The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
NOVEMBER 14,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z-7268 Mclntosh Family Care Facility —Special Use Permit
2908 S.Gaines Street
B.Z-7270 Sonic Drive-In —Conditional Use Permit
2917 Cantrell Road
C.Z-7281-A Threadgill Short-Form PD-R —Located on the northwest corner of
Arthur Lane and Atkins Road.
D.Z-6178-F Stagecoach Village Revised PCD —Located on the southwest
corner of Stagecoach Road and Stagecoach Village Drive.
E.S-1358 Mountain Side Preliminary Plat —Located on County Line Road
just West of Vimy Ridge Road.
F.Z-7298 Mountain Side Long-Form PD-R —Located on County Line Road
just West of Vimy Ridge Road.
G.S-1356 Mabelvale Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review —Located on
the East side of North Chicot Road approximately 150 feet South
of Mabelvale Cut-Off.
H.LU02-10-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
from Office to Commercial located in the 2000 Block of South
University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue.
H.1.Z-4644-B Yelenich Long-Form PCD —Located in the 2000 Block of South
University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue.
G-23-317 Street Right-of-Way Abandonment;described as approximately 25
feet of the portion of Wingate Drive that exists onto Markham
Street.
Agenda,Page Two
11.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-5016-A Rezoning from OS to C-4
5510 West 65 Street
2.LU02-18-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District from Suburban Office to Office at 36'treet and Bowman
Road
2.1.Z-6049-A Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3
West side of Bowman Road,at West 36'"Street
3.Z-7309 Houston Day Care Facility Home —Special Use Permit
4507 West 29'"Street
4.LU02-18-05 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Office to Commercial
Southwest Corner of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads
4.1.Z-4651-D Kinco —Long-Form PD-C
Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads
5.S-1359 North Point BMW —Subdivision Site Plan Review
Northwest corner of Shackleford Road and Merrill Drive
6.Z-5459-A Forest Park Elementary School —Conditional Use Permit
1600 N.Tyler Street
7.Z-5675-B Philander Smith Student Housing —Conditional Use Permit
812 West 13'"Street
8.Z-7310 Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
3801 Springer Blvd.
9.Z-7311 George Washington Carver Magnet School —Conditional
Use Permit
2100 East 6 Street
10.Z-7312 Mt.Pleasant.Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
1400 S.Ringo Street
11.Z-7313 Lawnmowers Plus —Conditional Use Permit
8223 Asher Avenue
Agenda,Page Three
II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
12.Z-7314 Bass Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
489 Ridgeway Drive
13.Z-7315 4 and Broadway Parking Lot —Conditional Use Permit
316-320 Broadway
14.Z-5115-B T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
11209 1-30
15.Z-6042-D T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
10920 Colonel Glenn Road
16.Z-6129-E T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
10901 Rocky Valley Drive
17.Adoption of 2003 Planning Commission Calendar
18.2002-2003 Zoning —Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Proposals
~ARR.I
0 0 0
Public Hearing
items
CKR
Ot
1
6
B
5 1P 13
"00 PNCE 'IltlfY KNIK A
NARK C,t OMYS 9
0//IQ'0 M IK K Eftg 'ICY
6
CM RCC Mt 0-SC
MIN
IAINC
Klt:2
11 1 A4 8 0 IWIES
4 1 0 CCRC
CSYMIICY
2
14
0 0 ACR"ASENNE
CION2OttfRARYI'f lff
IIK MSI2 SIN f
NNM
AIEAM(l
Y I O'C '
CC Of
C YM
Olt 0 IS
Ii
IK R
AIT
Planning -Rezoning —Conditional Use Hearing November 14,2002
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 'FILE NO.:Z-7268
Name:Mclntosh Family Care Facility —Special Use Permit
Location:2908 S.Gaines Street
Applicant;Sean Mclntosh
Proposal:A Special Use Permit is requested to allow the occupant of
2908 S.Gaines Street to operate a Family Care Facility.
The property is zoned R-4.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,residents within 300
feet who could be identified,and the MLK,Downtown,South End,Meadowbrook
and South End Neighborhood Developers Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Sean Mclntosh,the resident of the single family residence located at 2908 S.
Gaines Street,is requesting a special use permit to allow for the operation of a
Family Care Facility at that address.All adjacent properties are occupied by
single family homes and are zoned either R-3 or R-4.There is some C-3 zoned
property located to the northeast,along Arch Street.
The property is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence.There is
a single car driveway from Gaines Street which serves as access to the property.The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a Family Care Facility in
order to provide a residence for individuals with mental disabilities.Mr.
Mclntosh,the applicant,will also maintain a residence at this location.Mr.
Mclntosh notes in his cover letter that he currently provides a residence to two
(2)individuals and further explains their disabilities and his role in their lives.A
copy of the cover letter is attached for Planning Commission review.
The City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance defines a Family Care Facility as
follows:
"Family care facility means a facility which provides resident
service in a family-like environment to six (6)or fewer
individuals and not more than two (2)staff personnel.These
individuals require a minimal level of supervision and are
provided service and supervision in accordance with their
individual needs."
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7268
Section 36-54(a)of the Zoning Ordinance provides the purpose of requiring a
Special Use Permit for this type of use,as follows:
"General purpose.The purpose of this section is to provide a
method of control over certain types of land uses which,while
not requiring the full review process of the conditional use
permits,do require some review procedure which allows for
determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood
for which they are proposed and for public comment."
Section 36-54(e)(2)of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and location
criteria for Family Care Facilities as follows:
a.This use may be located only in a single-family dwelling.
b.Medical or counseling needs must be provided off-site.
c.No physical changes in the residence are permitted which would
provide other than sleeping accommodations.
d.Drives and parking shall not exceed that required by ordinance for a
single-family residence.
e.This use shall not be permitted to run with the title to the land and not
be transferable.
f.The number and spacing of existing similar facilities in the
neighborhood.
g.Existing zoning and land use patterns.
h.Area wide availability of facilities providing like services.
i.Provision for readily accessible public or quasi-public transportation.
To staffs knowledge there have been no special use permits issued for other
Family Care Facilities in this neighborhood.Additionally,staff knows of no
facilities providing this type of resident care in the immediate area.This site is
located on CATA Bus Route ¹2 and near Route ¹15 (Arch Street).
The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood as
part of the application process.The Bill of Assurance was drafted in 1902 and
addresses no use issues.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports the applicant's
request for a special use permit.The property is currently zoned R-4 and by all
rights could be converted to a duplex at this time,with as many as eight (8)
unrelated persons living there (four per single family unit,as per the Zoning
Ordinance's definition of single family).Staff does not believe the level of activity
generated by a Family Care Facility.at this location would have any negative
impact on the neighborhood.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7268
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner,location to location or use to use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a Family Care
Facility at 2908 S.Gaines Street,subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(2).
2.There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3.The Special Use Permit will be for Sean Mclntosh only,and will not be
transferable in any manner.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 22,2002)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on
August 16,2002 requesting that this application be deferred to the October 3,
2002 agenda.Staff noted that the applicant had not completed the required
notification to surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 3,
2002 agenda by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 3,2002)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting
that the application be deferred to the November 14,2002 agenda,based on the
fact that the required notices to surrounding property owners were not
completed.Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 14,
2002 agenda by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Sean Mclntosh was present,representing the application.There were two
persons present in support of the application and several persons present in
opposition.Staff briefly described the proposed Special Use Permit,with a
recommendation of approval.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7268
Sean Mclntosh addressed the Commission in support of the application.He
described the experience he has in caring for persons with disabilities.He noted
that he does not care for people with negative behavior.He described the two
clients that live with him.He noted that the people he cares for have not done
anything wrong.
Tommy Mclntosh also addressed the Commission in support of the application.
Robert Mclntosh also addressed the Commission in support of the application.
He noted the problems with the neighbors could be worked out.
Dr.Minnie Hatchett addressed the Commission in opposition to the application.
She noted that she has lived at 2904 S.Gaines Street for 29 years.She noted
the following concerns with the proposed Special Use Permit:
1.The house at 2908 S.Gaines Street is not owner occupied.
2.The South End Area Improvement Plan does not support this type of use.
3.Property values will deteriorate.
4.Safety concerns for the neighbors.
She also noted that the property at 2908 S.Gaines is not being properly
maintained.
Faye Grant also spoke in opposition.She expressed concerns with the
proposed use of the property.
Hartence Mitchell,Vice-President of the Martin Luther King Neighborhood
Association,addressed the Commission in opposition.He stated that the
neighborhood association voted to oppose the Special Use Permit.He
expressed concerns with the proposed use.
Dr.Blevins,President of the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition to the application.He explained that the Special Use Permit would be
a negative impact on the area.
Commissioner Floyd asked why a Special Use Permit is required.Jim Lawson,
Director of Planning and Development,explained that the level of care provided
by the applicant required that the use be categorized as a Family Care Facility.
Commissioner Floyd asked the applicant for more details regarding the use of
the property.Sean Mclntosh noted that he was employed by Integrity,Inc.He
briefly explained the work of this organization.He noted that the was approved
by Medicaid and the Department of Human Services.He explained that the
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7268
property had been cleaned up and was being well maintained.He stated that he
would never have any more than two (2)clients at 2908 S.Gaines Street.
Commissioner Meyer asked about an enforcement notice (premise)issued by
the City.Sean Mclntosh noted that the property had been cleaned up and
explained why there was a delay with the clean up.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about other similar uses in the area.Staff
explained that no special use permits had been issued for family care facilities in
this general area in the past five (5)years.Staff explained that they knew of no
other similar uses in the area,other than Tommy Mclntosh's Family Care Facility
at 2900 S.Gaines Street.Staff explained that Tommy Mclntosh had taken the
City to court (case pending)rather than file for a Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Dr.Hatchett what her fears were about the
proposed Family Care Facility.Dr.Hatchett referred to the South End Area
Improvement Plan and noted that property values would deteriorate.
Commissioner Meyer asked Dr.Hatchett if the property at 2908 S.Gaines Street
had been cleaned up.Dr.Hatchett indicated that the property had been cleaned
Up.
Commissioner Rector asked Dr.Hatchett if she had ever felt threatened by one
of Mr.Mclntosh's clients.Dr.Hatchett stated that she had not,and explained
how one of the clients had approached her grandchildren in the front yard and
asked to play with them.She noted that she made the children move to the rear
yard.
Commissioner Rector asked if the application was to allow just the two (2)
existing clients of Mr.Mclntosh.Sean Mclntosh amended the application to be
for two existing clients (Johnny Williams and Robert Trott)only.
There was additional discussion related to the proposed special use permit and
the use of the property.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff and
amended by the applicant.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and
4 absent.The special use permit was approved.
5
A
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to inform you,that I have complied with your regulations concerning
the application for a special use permit.I have obtained a Bill of Assurance from the
Pulaski County Recorder as required.I also received permission from the guardians of
the estate to use the home I live in to house people with special needs.
I am currently providing a stable living environment to two individuals,Johnny
Williams and Robert Trott,who have both been diagnose with various mental disabilities..
Mr.Williams has been diagnosed with a slight mental retardation and social anxiety
disorder.Mr.Williams is extremely passive and very shy.Rarely does he speak to
anyone other than myself.He is functioning in terms of preparing his own meals and
his grooming habits.However;he does require some assistance with some aspects of self
care.
Robert Trott is a 20 year old male who suffers from moderate mental retardation as
well Attention Deficit Disorder.Mr.Trott functions on a child like level requires
assistance with several aspects of self care.He's very sociable and loves people and is
very outgoing.Neither individual is a threat to the community.Their condition does not
warrant they be institutionalized,however,they do need a certain level of guidance to
achieve a level of independent living skills.This why I look after the gentlemen and try
provide them a safe home,as well as,teach them independent living skills,
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-7270
NAME:Sonic Drive In —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2917 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Baird,Inc./Irwin and Saviers
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a drive in restaurant on this C-3 zoned
property.
STAFF REPORT:
On August 2,2002,the applicant submitted a request that this item be deferred to
allow for further review of the design.Staff recommends that the item be deferred to
the October 3,2002 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 22,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that,on August 2,2002,the applicant had requested that the item be
deferred to the October 3,2002 meeting.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 3,2002
meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes,0 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF REPORT:
On September 4,2002,the applicant submitted a request that the item be deferred to
the November 14,2002 meeting.Staff supports the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 3,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had,on September 4,2002,requested that the item be
deferred to the November 14,2002 agenda.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes
and 2 absent.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7270
STAFF REPORT:
On October 8,2002,the applicant submitted a request that this item be withdrawn.
Negotiations are ongoing and it is possible that a new application may be filed at a
later date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the item be withdrawn,without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal without
prejudice.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
NAME:Threadgill Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:12800 Arthur Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Richard Threadgill Donald Brooks
2303 East Grand Avenue 20880 Arch Street
Hot Springs,AR 71901 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.46 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Townhouse development (6 units total or 13 units
per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 19,2002 Public Hearing of the Planning Commission,an application
for the placement of eight units of townhouse development was denied.The
Commission also voted to allow the applicant to resubmit a site plan at a lesser density
without paying a filing fee should the applicant resubmit a plan within a three-month
time period.The Commission also indicated the applicant would not be required to file
a Land Use Plan amendment if the proposal was a lesser density.
November 'l4,2002
ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of six (6)townhouse residential units on
these three lots.There are three (3)units proposed to be located on the south
property line (to back-up to Arthur Lane)and three (3)units to be located along
the north property line.There will be a single concrete drive access point to the
site from Atkins Road entering the center of the development.
Units 2 and 5 are proposed at 1440 square feet with a 240 square foot garage.
Units 1,3,4 and 6 are proposed at 1656 square feet with a 240 square foot
garage.The applicant has indicated all units will be two-story.The units will
consist of concrete block foundation,concrete slab on the first floor,wood
framing,drywall interiors,composition shingles and brick and vinyl siding
exteriors.
The applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wood fence along the north,south
and west property lines and a wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins
Road.The development will utilize city garbage pick-up with residents taking
their trash to the street side.
The applicant has stated the units are for resale as individual homes and a
Property Owners Association will be formed for maintenance and upkeep of the
common areas.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Arthur
Lane and Atkins Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three lots one pf which (the western-most lot)contains a single-
family residence facing Arthur Lane.The site is zoned R-2,single-family as is
the area surrounding the site and is shown as Single Family on the Future Land
Use Plan.The area to the east is a developed single-family subdivision (Point
West Subdivision)and the area to the north and west are developed with single-
family residences.The area to the south of the site from Atkins Road to Nix
Road is vacant (with the exception of a few homes located on Atkins Road)down
to Kanis Road.
Atkins Road is a two lane roadway with curb and gutter on the east side of the
road with no sidewalk.Arthur Lane is a narrow chip seal roadway with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations,all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet
of the site and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing.Staff has received several phone calls and letters in opposition to
the proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Atkins Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Arthur Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Atkins Road and
Arthur Lane.
4.Provide design of the streets conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with the planned development.Sidewalks must be continuous
across all street frontage with appropriate handicap ramps.
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Curb radius of
driveway at Atkins needs to be 10'inimum.
6.Obtain permits pdior 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:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 688-1414.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension,installed at the expense of the developer,
will be required to provide domestic service and adequate fire protection.
The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If
additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the expense of
the developer.An acreage charge of $600.00 per acre and a development
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
fee based on the size of the connection currently applies in addition to normal
charges in the area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
~Coun Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ff5 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The
applicant has applied for a Planned Development —Residential to build a six (6)
unit townhouse development.The applicant previously filed a Land Use Plan
Amendment with his proposal which was heard at the September 19,2002
Public Hearing (LU02-18-04)and was denied by the Commission.It was Staff's
understanding the applicant would not be required to file a Land Use Plan
amendment if he resubmitted his proposal at a lesser density,although the
density proposed with the current development plan results in 13 units per acre
or multifamily density.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential
Development goal is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density
development in the area to act as a buffer between single family and more
intense non-residential uses.Action Statements include using multi-family
housing to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the
density and square footage of multi-family developments.
~bandana e:The plan submitted falls short of the required nine fet foot wide
land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters of the site.
Additionally,a portion of the landscape strip west of the proposed paved area
drops below the 6.7-foot minimum width requirement of the Landscape
Ordinance.
A water source within seventy-five (75)feet of all landscaped areas will be
required.The face side of the proposed wood fence must be directed outward.
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.Staff presented
the item to the Committee noting additions,which were needed on the site plan
(Signage,height of the wrought iron fence).Staff noted the applicant had a
proposal before the Commission at their September 19,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the applicant had reduced the density and resubmitted his
development plan.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated street improvements
would be required to both Atkins Road and Arthur Lane.Staff also stated a
20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the two
roadways.The applicant indicated he would construct "/~street improvements to
both streets.
Staff noted comments from the various utility companies noting a sewer main
extension and a water main extension would be required along with easements.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
patios to be attached to each structure within the side yard setback located two
(2)feet off the property line.A six (6)foot open-air wood fence will separate the
units and act as a screen.The applicant proposes a six (6)foot wooden fence
located along the north,south and west property lines with a six (6)foot wrought
iron fence along the street side of Atkins Road.
The landscaping along the north and south property lines is insufficient when the
patios are added.The landscaping strip along the northern and southern
perimeter should maintain a minimum of nine (9)feet in width and at no point fall
below 6.7-feet.The addition of the patio in this area leaves a minimal side yard
setback (2-feet).The applicant has indicated the area will be surrounded by a
six-foot wooden fence and even if a setback were in place and landscaping
installed the adjoining property owners would not see the area.(The reduction
is a land use buffer issue and the reduction maybe approved by the Planning
Commission.)Staff is supportive of the reduction of landscaped area since the
applicant has increased the street buffer area and has increased the buffer area
adjoining the single-family to the west.The applicant has also increased the
number of trees proposed in this area to act as future screening from the second
floor of the units.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:2-7281-A
The applicant has narrowed the turnaround along the western driveway and
proposed the installation of flat landscaping stones and mondo grass between
the stones to allow for additional landscaping in the turn-around.Staff is
supportive of this request.The stones add a residential character to the
development and the addition of the grasses will break the hard surface areas.
Although,Staff was not supportive of the previous proposal Staff feels the
current density could be workable with the neighborhood.The proposed
development results in 13 units per acre on three (3)previously platted lots.The
proposed development includes six (6)units,which is double the number of units
allowable by right on the site.Staff feels comfortable with the proposed density
on the site.
The applicant is proposing two story buildings.The building height proposed is
not any higher than a two-story single-family home,which could be constructed
on the site.Staff feels window placement is important so as to not intrude on the
single-family residence located west and north of the site.The applicant has
indicated the second story will not have windows facing the western property
line.The applicant has also indicated the placement of trees along the western
perimeter to further screen the homes to the west.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Atkins
Road and to Arthur Lane.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Planned Residential Development
for Threadgill Short-form PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public
Hearing.There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and
approved by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
6
1
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:C Cont FILE NO '-7281-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public
Hearing.There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and
approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
7
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
NAME:Stagecoach Village Revised PCD
LOCATION:On the Southwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and
Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Finley 8 Company Hurricane Valley Engineers
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118
Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807
AREA:1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Selected Office and Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3 Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 5,2000,the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,342
establishing Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)Short-form PCD.The applicant proposed to
construct a 3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial
building and 54 parking spaces.At the time of approval,the applicant proposed to
convert the bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses)if a bank tenant could
not be secured.The site plan was later revised (June 26,2001)at a Staff level to
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
remove the bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage
was increased to 10,800 square feet.The applicant proposed the building to be used
as 80%commercial (C-2 uses)and 20%office (general and professional).
The previous proposal included two driveway locations onto the site.The site has
developed with only one driveway location.
The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development to add the following listed uses as alternative uses for the site and to
market the site for 100%commercial uses.
The requested uses include:Amusement (commercial,inside),Animal clinic
(enclosed),Antique shop,with repair,Appliance repair,Bakery or confectionery
shop,Bank or savings and loan office,Barber and beauty shop,Cabinet and
woodwork shop,Camera shop,Catering,commercial,Church,Clinic (medical,
dental or optical),Clothing store,Custom sewing and millinery,Day nursery and
day care center,Day Care center,adult,Drugstore or pharmacy,Duplication shop,
Eating place without drive-in service,Establishment for the care of alcoholic,
narcotic or psychiatric patients,Establishment of a religious,charitable or
philanthropic organization,Feed store,Florist shop,Food store,Furniture store,
Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork,Hardware or sporting goods
store,Health studio or spa,Hobby shop,Jewelry store,Key shop,Laboratory,
Laundry pickup station,Laundry,domestic cleaning,Lawn and garden center,
enclosed,Library,art gallery,museum or similar public use,Lodge or fraternal
organization,Medical appliance fittings and sales,Office (general or professional),
Office showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed),Office equipment
sales and service,Optical shop,Paint and wallpaper store,Pet shop,Photography
studio,Private school,kindergarten or institution for special education,Retail uses
not listed (enclosed),School (business),School (commercial,trade or craft),
School (public or denominational),Secondhand store (used furniture or rummage
shop),Shoe repair,Studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance or other artistic
endeavors),Studio broadcasting and recording,Tailor,Taxidermist,Tool and
equipment rental (inside display only),Travel bureau.
The applicant is not proposing a change to the hours of operation or any site plan
modifications as a part of this request.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a strip retail center.There are seven bays with four
being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners,Subway,
beauty supply,gift shop).Other uses in the area include an office located on the
northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road.A Planned
Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and
is beginning to develop.
The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building.Access to the
site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one phone call from an area resident.The Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all
property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Coun Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is located in an area
covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-
friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal.The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and
between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.The plan also contains a
statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb
cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Botldin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant was requesting
additional C-3 uses to be considered as alternative uses on the site.Staff stated
they had contacted the applicant and were working to resolve concerns
associated with a few of the requested uses.Staff stated they would continue to
work with the applicant to resolve as many concerns as possible prior to the
Public Hearing.
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 list to Staff indicating uses,which the
applicant and Staff agreed were acceptable,non-obtrusive uses to the
neighborhood.The applicant has agreed there will be no outdoor display or sale
of merchandise on the site.The hours of operation will remain as previously
approved (8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00
pm on Sunday).
The applicant has also requested the center be allowed to be marketed to 100%
commercial uses.Based on Shopping Center parking ratio (1 space per 225 square
feet)the typical minimum parking requirement for the site would be 48 spaces.The
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:2-6178-F
site has developed with 54 spaces,adequate to meet the typical minimum parking.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow the site to be marketed as 100%
commercial.
The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Mixed.The is to be a planned
development if the use is entirely office or commercial.The applicant has met
this criteria by filing for a PCD.The site is also a single lot of a larger PCD with
has developed as office,commercial and residential.Staff feels the request to
market the site as 100%commercial is an acceptable request due to the overall
development pattern in the originally approved PCD.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request to revise the previously approved planned development to
allow the uses listed in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to revised the previously approved
planned development to allow the listed uses in Paragraph A as alternative uses for
the site and to market the site to 100%commercial uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Olan Asbury was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to
revise the previously approved planned development to allow the listed uses in
Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site and to market the site as 100%commercial
uses.
Mr.Asbury stated the site was a developed site.He stated the overall development
consisted of 20+acres and was shown as Mixed on the Future Land Use Plan.He
stated the commercial building was approved with a mix of commercial and office uses.
Mr.Asbury stated with the proposed mix the development would not be allowed to
develop to full potential.He stated with the entire area under ownership developing as
a mix the need to hold the commercial site to a mixed use development was not as
critical.
Mr.David Henning spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated his
disagreement was in principal.He stated the original PCD was approved with a ground
mounted sign and the development had erected a pole mounted sign with back lighting.
He stated the original approval also included the removal of the driveway for Lot 2 off of
Stagecoach Road and onto Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Henning stated this had not
happened and with the current street design it appeared the driveway was not going to
be removed.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
Mr.Asbury stated the driveway was to be removed at the time Lot 2 was Final Platted.
He stated a driveway to Lot 2 was in place on Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Asbury
stated the driveway from Stagecoach Road was being used by truck traffic to develop
the residential development to the west of the site.He stated when the applicant was
ready to develop Lot 2 then the driveway would be removed from Stagecoach Road
and access would be from the ddveway that had been put in place from Stagecoach
Village Drive.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the existing sign and the approved signage.
Staff stated the previous PCD approved a single ground-mounted monument sign.
Staff stated the request before the Commission did not include the sign issue.
Mr.Asbury requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing to
allow himself and Staff sufficient time to research the issue of signage with respect to
the previously approved PCD.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes
and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing to allow the applicant additional time
to work with the neighbors concerning the sign issue.Staff stated the request would
take a waiver of the By-Laws to allow the deferral.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-laws to allow the
deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.A motion was
then made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:S-1358
NAME:Mountain Side Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:On County Line Road just west of Vimy Ridge Road
DEVELOPER;ENGINEER:
BAC Lending The Mehlburger Firm
1308 South Bowman Road P.O.Box 3837
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:20 FT.NEW STREET:1245
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:16 —Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT:41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Reduced front building line for Lots 4 —6,8—
11 and 15-18.
A.P ROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.0-acre site into 20 residential lots.
The proposal includes the development of these lots into duplex and sixplex
residential housing through a Planned Development (Item fI 15 File No.Z-7298).
The applicant has indicated there will be 1245 linear feet of internal street,which
will be maintained as private streets as a part of the development.The proposal
includes a gated driveway with a two car stacking capacity and a turn-around for
motorists to exit when they are unable to access the site.
The applicant is requesting a reduced front platted building line on Lots 4 —6,8—
11 and 15 —18.The applicant proposes the front building line to be 20 foot on
these lots.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1358
The proposed preliminary plat is tied directly to the requested planned
development in that the lot sizes proposed are such to accommodate the
proposed duplex and sixplex buildings being considered for constructed.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site,sloping slightly from north to south.County Line Road
is a narrow two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage.There are new
single-family subdivisions developing to the south in Saline County;Carrington
Place and South-Fork.On the Pulaski County side there are single-family
homes developed on acreage in a rural setting and single-family subdivisions
located north of the site,accessed by Vimy Ridge Road.At the northwest and
northeast intersections of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road there is a
Dollar General Store and a Conoco Quick Stop.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,the Quail
Run Neighborhood Association,the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association
and the Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,all property owners within 200
feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of the
site were notified of the public hearing.
The Engineer also met with the neighborhood at a well attended neighborhood
meeting (50+residents).The attendees were from the Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association,the Quail Run Neighborhood Association,the
Carrington Place neighborhood,the Southfork neighborhood and the City of
Shannon Hills (residents and the Mayor,Police Chief and Planning
Commissioners).
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.County Line Road is classified under the Master Street Plan as a local
street.Since the Saline County line forms the southern right-of-way line of
County Line Road,a minimum 50-foot right-of-way dedication as measured
from the county line will be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with
planned development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1358
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
6.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 (Derick Bergffeld)for more information.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Show easements for all major proposed storm drainage and detention
facilities.
9.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).
10.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-406 of the Little Rock Code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpot)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
11.If this is to be a gated community,provide a proposed entrance gate design
that provides a three car stacking depth and turn-out exit for vehicles that
enter the driveway but do not enter the site.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Water main extension will be required.Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants Oer code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on
bus radius turnout or route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~hendeca e:No comment.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO '-1358
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the application.
Staff presented the development plan indicating the application was two part;a
preliminary plat to subdivide the acreage into 20 lots and a planned development to
construct duplex and sixplex units.
Mr.Riggins stated County Line Road was entirely on the applicant's property and
questioned what street improvements would be required.Staff stated "/~street
improvements would be required but the entire dedication of right-of-way would
also be required (50-feet).Staff also stated the N street improvements would be
from the centerline of the existing pavement and not the centerline of the right-of-
way.
Staff noted comments from the water and wastewater departments.Staff stated
the applicant should contact each department for additional information.
Landscaping comments were discussed with regard to the rezoning request.
The proposed rezoning was also discussed.Staff noted additional information,
which would be required on the site plan.Staff stated if the community was to
be gated,a turn-around would be required.Staff stated it would be possible to
allow stacking on County Line Road.Staff also requested building elevations
and proposed building materials.Staff questioned the proposed ownership of
the development and requested a detailed Bill of Assurance,which would govern
the site with regard to maintenance.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
floodplain/floodway information on the plat.The applicant has also provided the
names of property owners of unplatted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision.
The applicant has indicated the development will take place in two phases.Lots
1,2,13 —20 to be final platted first with the remainder of the lots to be final
platted after the units are constructed on these lots.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed request.The preliminary plat is directly
tied to the planned development and Staff is not supportive of the Planned
evelopment request.It is very unlikely that should the planned development not
be approved the applicant would proceed with the final platting of these lots in
this configuration.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO E Cont FILE NO.:S-1358
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed preliminary plat.The preliminary plat
and the Planned Development are a component of each and Staff is
recommending denial of the proposed rezoning request therefore,Staff is also
recommending denial of the preliminary plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Mr.Riggins stated he was under the impression the applicant would be allow
a deferral if fewer than nine (9)Commissioners were present.Mr.Riggins stated
several interested persons were told the item would be deferred to the November 14,
2002 Public Hearing.Staff agreed they had also reported to area residents the item
would not be heard by the Commission until the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
Chairman Faust stated nine (9)Commissioners were present.Staff stated it was
possible when the item would be heard that fewer than nine (9)Commissioners would
be present.Chairman Faust questioned those who had signed cards in opposition of
the project if they were in agreement to allow the item to be heard at a later date.They
two objectors agreed.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item along with the rezoning request (Item ¹F-
File ¹Z-7298)both with a recommendation of denial.Staff stated the proposed
preliminary plat and the rezoning request were directly related and it was unlikely the
plat would move forward should the rezoning request not be approved.Please see the
detailed minute record for the rezoning request contained in Item ¹F.
A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as filed.The motion failed by a vote
of 3 ayes,6 noes,1 abstain and 1 absent.(Obray Nunnley Jr.abstaining)
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:E Cont FILE NO S-1358
A motion was made to expunge the vote.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the proposed preliminary plat as filed.The motion
failed by a vote of 2 ayes,7 noes,1 abstain and 1 absent.(Obray Nunnley Jr.
abstaining)
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO Z-7298
NAME:Mountain Side Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:County Line Road just East of Vimy Ridge Road
BAC Lending The Mehlburger Firm
1308 South Bowman Road P.O.Box 3837
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA;10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:20 FT.NEW STREET:1245
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Duplex and Sixplex housing
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct 64 units of duplex and sixplex housing on
this 10.0-acre site through a planned development.The buildings will be
constructed on individual lots.The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat
as a part of the development (Item ¹5 File No.S-1356).The plat is somewhat
connected to the planned development request in that the lots are various sizes,
sized to accommodate the structure which will be located on the site.The
applicant has indicated at some point in the future he will sell individual lots
(buildings).
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
The units are proposed as one-story units with brick and vinyl siding exteriors.
Each unit will have a double car carport and individual driveway.The units are
proposed as two (2)and three (3)bedroom units and approximately 950 to 1150
square feet.
The applicant has indicated the development will be gated.The gate allows for a
two (2)car stacking length and a turn-around in case a visitor cannot access the
site.There is a six (6)foot wooden fence along the eastern,western and
northern perimeters of the site and a wood post split rail fence along the front of
the development.The development will be developed in two phases with 36
units (10 lots)being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots)in the
second phase.
The applicant is proposing a detailed Bill of Assurance for the development with
regard to future maintenance and exterior appearance.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site,sloping slightly from north to south.County Line Road
is a narrow two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage.There are new
single-family subdivisions developing to the south in Saline County;Carrington
Place and South-Fork.On the Pulaski County side there are single-family
homes developed on acreage in a rural setting.At the northwest and northeast
intersections of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road there is a Dollar
General Store and a Conoco Quick Stop.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,the Quail Run
Neighborhood Association,the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association and the
Meyer I ane Neighborhood Association,all property owners within 200 feet of the site
and all residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the public hearing.
The Engineer also met with the neighborhood at a well attended neighborhood
meeting (50+residents).The attendees were from the Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association,the Quail Run Neighborhood Association,the Carrington
Place neighborhood,the Southfork neighborhood and the City of Shannon Hills
(residents and the Mayor,Police Chief and Planning Commissioners).
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont FILE NO.'-7298
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.County Line Road is classified under the Master Street Plan as a local
street.Dedicate right-of-way 25-feet from the centerline.Since the Saline
County line forms the southern right-of-way line of County Line Road,a
minimum
50-foot right-of-way dedication as measured from the county line will be
required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the
planned development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
6.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 (Derick Bergfield)for more information.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Show easements for all major proposed storm drainage and detention
facilities.
9.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)&(d).
10.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-406 of the Little Rock Code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpot)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
11.If this is to be a gated community,provide a proposed entrance gate design
that provides a three car stacking depth and turn-out exit for vehicles that
enter the driveway but do not enter the site.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Capacity Contribution Analysis required,contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for details.
Entercny:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
Water:Water main extension will be required.Contact Central Arkansas Water
at 992-2438 for additional details.
~stre De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
CountOPlanninq:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development -Residential for a residential development of
two and six plexes.
Since the Land Use Plan is to be a general guide to the future development of
the area,a development of 6.4 residential units per acre is generally consistent
with a recommendation of residential 6 units per acre.It is not so dense as to
require a Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property is located
in the area covered by the Chicot West 1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.
The plan includes objectives of "Encourage home ownership"and "Strictly
enforce building codes,especially for rental property".Action Statements
include:"Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized areas as and
"urban reserve"to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area.
Landsca e Issues:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance
requirements.
A six (6)foot opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern,
eastern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will be necessary to submit copies of an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
~Buildin Codes:No comment.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO '-7298
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the
application.Staff presented the development plan indicating the application was
two part;a preliminary plat to subdivide the acreage into 20 lots and a planned
development to construct duplex and sixplex units.
Mr.Riggins stated County Line Road was entirely on the applicant's property and
questioned what street improvements would be required.Staff stated "l~street
improvements would be required but the entire dedication of right-of-way would
be required (50-feet).Staff also stated the "/~street improvements would be from
the centerline of the existing pavement and not the centerline of the right-of-way.
Staff noted comments from the water and wastewater departments.Staff stated
the applicant should contact each department for additional information.
Landscaping comments were discussed with regard to the rezoning request.
The proposed rezoning was also discussed.The Staff noted additional
information,which would be required on the site plan.Staff stated if the
community was to be gated,a turn-around would be required.Staff stated it
would be possible to allow the stacking onto County Line Road.Staff also
requested building elevations and proposed building materials.Staff questioned
the proposed ownership of the development and requested a detailed Bill of
Assurance,which would govern the site with regard to maintenance.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has provided a
detailed Bill of Assurance,which will govern the future of the site with regard to
maintenance,storage and automobile repair,fencing,and the funding of
maintenance of common areas.
The applicant has indicated the development will be gated.The gate allows for a
two (2)car stacking length and a turn-around in case a visitor cannot access the
site.There is a six (6)foot wooden fence along the eastern,western and
northern perimeters of the site and a four (4)foot wood post split rail fence along
the front of the development.The development will be developed in two phases
with 36 units (10 lots)being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots)
in the second phase.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO F Cont FILE NO Z-7298
The applicant has indicated a development sign to be located west of the
driveway and the sign is proposed to be three (3)foot by five (5)foot or 15
square feet in area.The proposed area is consistent with multi-family
development signage.
The applicant has stated the development will utilize private garbage collection to
serve the residents.The applicant has also stated any site lighting will be low
level and directed away from residentially zoned property.
The proposed development will consist of duplex and sixplex units.The units will
all have a two (2)carport.The units are proposed to be two (2)and three (3)
bedroom units and be approximately 950 to 1150 square feet.Each of the
buildings will be constructed on a separate lot thus necessitating the need for a
preliminary plat (Item ¹5 File ¹S-1358).The applicant has indicated at some
point in the future individual buildings will be offered for resale leading to the
potential for 20 different land owners within the development.This is a concern
of Staff.Although,the owner has provided a detailed Bill of Assurance to govern
the development the enforcement of a Bill of Assurance is a legal matter that is
out of the city's control.Based on past experiences persons are reluctant to take
their neighbor to court.
The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of brick and vinyl siding.
The applicant has indicated all structures will be single-story structures each with
a patio extending from the rear of the structure.There will not be any internal
fencing to screen the patios.
The applicant has written into the Bill of Assurance a mechanism that requires
three (3)percent of the gross rents to be used to fund the maintenance of
common areas.Although,this should ensure the common areas are maintained,
this will not ensure the buildings are properly maintained.With multiple owners,
based on past experience,exterior building maintenance has been a real issue.
Based on the proposed development plans,Staff is not supportive of the
proposed request for rezoning.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Mr.Riggins stated he was under the impression the applicant would be allow
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
a deferral if fewer than nine (9)Commissioners were present.Mr.Riggins stated
several interested persons were told the item would be deferred to the November 14,
2002 Public Hearing.Staff agreed they had also reported to area residents the item
would not be heard by the Commission until the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
Chairman Faust stated nine (9)Commissioners were present.Staff stated it was
possible when the item would be heard that fewer than nine (9)Commissioners would
be present.Chairman Faust questioned those who had signed cards in opposition of
the project if they were in agreement to allow the item to be heard at a later date.They
two objectors agreed.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item in conjunction with the proposed preliminary plat
(Item fIE -File No.S-1358)and recommended denial of both.Staff stated the
proposed development would possible have 20 different landowners,which based on
past experience was not a good situation.
Mr.Jamie Hutchinson,President of the Carrington Place Neighborhood Association,
spoke on behalf of the neighborhood in opposition of the proposed development.He
stated County Line Road was a unimproved secondary road.He stated the emergency
response,police and fire,would be slow at best from Little Rock and the nearby
community of Shannon Hills would be forced to respond to emergency situations.He
stated the financial burden of repair to the road would be on Saline County since they
were responsible for maintenance of County Line Road.He stated a concern of the
area residents was also the possibility of absentee landlords.He stated the proposed
development would have a negative impact on area property owners.
Mr.Rickey Lee spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated the area
was currently in recovery and with the addition of this type multi-family units into the
area it would hinder any future development.
Mr.Troy Laha,Vice President of the Southwest United for Progress,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.He stated the traffic on Vimy Ridge Road was
currently 7000 vehicles per day and this would only add to the traffic load of the already
taxed roadway.
7
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont FILE NO Z-7298
Mr.LaHa stated County Line Road adjacent to the site was entirely in Pulaski County.
Mr.Doug Loftin spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated he
currently had property zoned for multi-family development and the market was not in
place for his property to develop so there was not a need for an additional 10 acres.
Mr.Mike Kemp,Shannon Hills City Council and Saline County Quorum Court member,
spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated more than 150+area
residents had signed a petition in opposition of the proposed development.He stated
these persons lived in both Pulaski and Saline Counties.He stated the zoning of
Shannon Hills mirrored the zoning of Little Rock.He stated this was done intentionally
to not allow conflicting developments within an area.He stated drainage was also a
concern of area residents.He stated the Otter Creek within Shannon Hills had been
channelized and questioned if the creek in this area would also be channelized.
Mr.Kemp stated,traffic and safety were concerns as well.He stated with the proposed
development police and fire response would come from Shannon Hills since their
response time would be somewhat less than Little Rock's.
Ms.Janet Berry,President of Southwest United for Progress,spoke in opposition of the
proposed development.She stated the proposed development ownership pattern was
the primary concern.She stated based on past experience this type ownership pattern
did not work in Southwest Little Rock.She stated the infrastructure was not in place to
handle the number of cars the proposed development would generate.Ms.Berry
stated the open ditches on Vimy Ridge Road there were a safety issue concern.
The Commission discussed the proposed response time of the fire and police
departments to the site.The Commission questioned the response time of the fire
department.Staff stated response would be from the Otter Creek Fire Station and the
response time would depend on the time of day.Mr.Riggins stated any time given
would be speculative.
Mr.Riggins stated the developer would dedicate the entire road right-of-way and would
develop "/~street improvements to the road adjoining his property.He stated staff's
concern of the development not working based on past experience was not a valid
argument.He stated the development was being prejudged before it had a change to
prove it validity.
Mr.Mike McKinner,Raney Realty Property Management group,spoke on behalf of the
application.He stated his firm would represent the property management in the initial
stages.A Commissioner asked what amount of time the initial stages included.Mr.
McKinner stated the contract had not yet been set and the details of the contract had
not been established.
8
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the issues
raised by staff.The Commission questioned if staff would have reviewed the
application differently if the development would have been under a single ownership.
Staff stated it was possible.
A motion was made to approve the proposed planned development request.The
motion failed by a vote of 1 ayes,7 noes,2 abstain and 1 absent.(Obray Nunnley,Jr.
and Bill Rector abstaining)
9
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:S-1356
NAME:Mabelvale Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:On the east side of North Chicot approximately 150-feet south of
Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mabelvale Apartments LP RLK Engineering
1818 Cedar Dale Road 111 Main Street
Lancaster,TX 75134 Allen,TX 75013
AREA:10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-18
PLANNING DISTRICT:15 —Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT:21.02
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct 132-units of multi-family housing on this MF-
18 zoned property.There will be a total of nine buildings of housing and an
office/clubhouse on the site.The applicant proposes the buildings'xterior to be
constructed of brick and Hardi-siding.(Hardi siding is a cement treated fiber
siding material.)The apartment buildings are proposed to be a maximum of two-
stories in height and one apartment building and the lease office will be one
story.
The applicant proposes the placement of a play ground area and swimming pool
on the site.There is a six-foot fence with 7-foot columns proposed around the
perimeter of the site.The fencing along North Chicot is proposed at 6-foot with
7-foot columns but will be placed within the 30-foot required building line.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
The applicant proposes to place a development sign on the site,near the
northern driveway entrance.The sign is proposed to be five foot tall and nine
foot six inches wide.The sign will be constructed of brick and wood.
The applicant is also proposing a plat to remove a portion of the site,which is
located within the floodplain from the total site area.The applicant has indicated
this area will be incorporated into the single-family plat to the north and rezoned
in the future to open space or single-family.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is heavily wooded.There are a variety of uses in the area ranging from
single-family homes on acreage to typical single-family subdivision development.
The Village Green Apartments are located immediately south of the site and Old
Oaks Apartments are located adjacent to Mabelvale Pike just south of the site.
On the Interstate 30 frontage road is a mini-warehouse development (west of
North Chicot Road)and an area used for trailer storage (East of North Chicot
Road).
The site is adjacent to North Chicot Road,which is a very narrow unimproved
roadway with deep ditches for drainage.Just north of the site,North Chicot
intersects with Mabelvale Pike (making a sharp turn to the east)and North
Chicot continues to the north at a slight off-set.This intersection is dangerous
due to the narrowness of the roadway and the deep ditches used for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received numerous phone calls stating opposition to
the proposed development.The South Brookwood/Ponderosa Neighborhood
Association,the Town and Country Neighborhood Association,Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.North Chicot is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from the centerline.
2.Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the
planned development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
4.All driveway shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
the start of work.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO S-1356
6.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.
7.Provide the direction of flow and all stormwater flows (Q)entering and leaving
the property.
8.Provide existing topographic information at maximum five (5)foot contour
interval and the 100-year base flood elevation.
9.A grading permit for Special Flood Hazard Area will be required per Section
8-283.
10.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpot)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available on the site.Capacity Contribution Analysis will be
required,contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional details at 688-1414.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:The facility on-site will be private.When meters are planned
off private lines,private facilities shall be installed with Central Arkansas
Water's material and construction specifications and an engineer,licensed to
practice in the State of Arkansas,will inspect the installation.Execution of
Customer Owned Line Agreement is required.The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether fire hydrants are
adequate.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.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
~Fire De artmenk Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17 and ¹17A and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont FILE NO.'-1356
F.ISSUES/TECHNICALJDESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~fandsca e:The proposed area widths of land use huffem to remain
undisturbed do not meet with ordinance requirements.A total of seventy (70)
percent of the required land use buffer area must remain in its natural state.
Therefore,the required average width of undisturbed area along the northern
perimeter is thirty-one (31)feet.The required average width of undisturbed
buffer along the eastern perimeter is thirty-five (35)feet.The proposed plan only
allows for a undisturbed buffer width of nine (9)feet along both the northern and
eastern perimeters.
A six (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 and eastern perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to submit an approved
Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on this tree-covered site.Extra credit can be given toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff introduced the item to the Committee
indicating the items,which were not shown on the proposed site plan.Staff
stated the parking proposed was insufficient to meet the minimum typical parking
requirements.Staff also stated the applicant had failed to provide a scale of the
drawing so several of the issues could not be considered.
Staff stated they would contact the applicant and try to resolve any issues prior
to the Commission meeting.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated 200
parking spaces as a part of the development.This is sufficient to meet the
typical minimum parking requirement of 198 spaces.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
The applicant has also proposed a six (6)foot wood fence around the
development with seven foot four inch (7'")brick columns.This is an
acceptable fence height since the applicant has indicated the fence along the
street frontage will be behind the 30-foot platted building line.
The applicant has indicated the development will contain two dumpsters.Each
is located near the rear of the development adjacent to the parking area.The
dumpsters will have proper screening in place,at least two feet above the
finished level of the dumpster,which conforms to the ordinance requirement.
The applicant has indicated landscaped areas and undisturbed areas on the site
plan.The areas to be left undisturbed average a width of 31-feet along the
northern and 35-feet along the eastern perimeter.The applicant has indicated
on-site detention near the northwestern boundary of the site.
The applicant has indicated there will be a single ground mounted monument
sign located near the driveway.The sign is proposed at 5'"tall and 9'"wide.
This sign area is larger than allowable under signage allowed in multi-family
zones,which is not to exceed 24 square feet in area.Staff is not supportive of
allowing the increased sign area.
The applicant has indicated a portion of the site will be split from the
development through the platting process.The portion requested to be removed
from the site is located within the floodplain and the lender will not fund a project
if any portion lies within the floodplain.The area to be removed is adjacent to
the detention area and adjoining the single-family to the north.The applicant
has indicated a rezoning request will be made in the future to rezone the
property and incorporate the area into the single-family plat to the north.Staff is
supportive of this request.
Staff recommends approval of the overall site plan for the development and
denial of the proposed signage.Staff feels the applicant should revise the site
plan to indicated proper signage,area and height,as allowed in multi-family
zones.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed development plan.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision site plan review subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont FILE NO.:S-1356
Staff recommends denial of the proposed signage but recommends approval of
signage not to exceed signage allowed in multifamily zones (one identification
sign not to exceed twenty-four (24)square feet in area).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant failed to notify adjoining property owners as required by the Planning
Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to
the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the
request.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Ron Kemp,Mr.Kenneth Frambro and Mr.Frank Pollacia were present representing
the application.There were numerous objectors present.Staff presented the item with
a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the review was a technical review.Staff
stated the applicant had complied with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated the review was not a use issue.He
stated the uses issue had been decided when the property was rezoned several years
earlier.He stated the review was to be of the footprint of the buildings,the ingress and
egress,landscaping,setback and the street system as it related to the site.
Mr.Giles stated the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was to the chancery
court or to federal court.
Mr.Kenneth Frambro spoke on behalf of the applicant.He stated the proposed
development would be developed with 132 units and a gated community.He stated the
site was zoned MF-18 and the proposed development was not developing the site at
the full density allowable.He stated the developer had reduced the density to allow for
a quality development with more open space.
Mr.Fambro stated the proposed development would include a clubhouse which would
have computer workstations and after school tutoring programs.He stated the
development would cater to after school programs for the youth to assist with
education.
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont FILE NO.:S-1356
Ms.Pat Gee,President of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.She stated the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Association supported the other neighborhoods in the area in opposition of the
proposed development.
Ms.BJ Wyrich,a member of the City's Board of Directors,spoke in opposition of the
proposed development.She stated the neighborhood had tried unsuccessfully to
rezone the site.She stated the proposed development was not considering the
preservation of the mature trees within the development.She stated there was not bus
service to the site nor were there any shopping areas within close proximity.Director
Wyrick stated the site was a habitat for eagles and questioned the need for an
environmental impact statement.
Herb Dicker,President of Meadowcliff Neighborhood Association,spoke in opposition
of the proposed development.He stated the collation of neighborhoods was opposed
to the proposed development.
Mr.'Troy Laha,Vice President of the Southwest United for Progress,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.He stated he was also a member of the
Schriner Temple and a concern of the Schriners was that persons would break into
their adjoining site and vandalizing their property.
Mr.John Honea,President of the South Brookwood Ponderosa Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated the roads in
the area were in poor condition and the proposed development would only increase the
number of cars in the area.He stated there were not sidewalks for the children to walk
on forcing them to walk in and near the deep ditches which were located on both sides
of the road.
Mr.Honea stated with the redesign of the frontage roads the number of cars had
increased significantly.He stated with the development of 132 multi-family units and
the redesign of the roadways all traffic exiting the site and traveling east would be
required to travel through the neighborhood.
Ms.Pat Dicker,Justice of the Peace for the area,spoke in opposition to the proposed
development.She stated she had witnessed the eagles living in the woods on the site.
She also stated the area drained into the Fourche Basin.She stated development in
the area was contributing to the decline of the basin.She stated it was important to
maintain the basin for environmental and ecological reasons.
Ms.Pam Adcock,President of the Cloverdale Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.She stated the roadway was a narrow road
and was not sufficient to carry the existing traffic.She also questioned the developer
7
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
and his research of pool development in Southwest Little Rock.She stated the soil
condition was not conducive to pools.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the placement of the proposal of 100%
subsidized housing and not offering a mixed income development.The Commission
also discussed the existing roadway and the narrowness of the road.Staff stated the
developer would install "/.street improvements to the roadway adjacent to the site.
Staff stated there were no provisions within the current ordinance for off-site
improvements.
Staff stated the current traffic load on this section of North Chicot Road was 3360 cars
per day and the proposed development would increase the traffic load to 4600 cars per
day.Staff stated the road classification was designed to carry 5000 cars per day,which
was more than projected.Staff stated the road would be stressed since the road was
not built to full street width.
There was a general discussion concerning the lack of infrastructure in place to service
the basic needs of the area,bus service,commercial shopping.The Commissioners
also discussed the need for additional playground equipment to serve the development.
Mr.Frambro stated he would amend his application to double the amount of playground
area on the site.
A motion was made to approve the proposed development as amended.The motion
carried by a vote of 6 ayes,4 noes and 1 absent.
8
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District
Location:South University just south of Boyle Park Road
Receuest:Office to Commercial
Source:Mare Yelenich
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Office to
Commercial.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale
sales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on the areas that they serve,
The applicant wishes to develop the property for self-storage and retail strip
development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 10
+acres in size.Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the
property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating
establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial.The land to the east across University
Avenue is wooded land north of the Cooperative Extension Service building which is
zoned R-2.The land to the south and west consists of property zoned R-2 and
developed with single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Singe Family to Park/Open Space at W.
14 Street and Pierce Street about a /~mile northeast of the application area to
recognize Oak Forest Park.
On October 17,2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi-
Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and
Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question to recognize existing
conditions.
The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.The area to
the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University Avenue,
The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional.The remainder of the
land to the south and west is shown as Single Family.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built
to a four-lane width.Half street improvements would be needed to improve this section
of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards.There are no Bikeways
shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that
are located within an eight-block distance of the applicant's property.
Boyle Park,located at W.36'treet and Boyle Park Road,is shown as a 50+acre
Large Urban Park located west of the applicant's property.University Park,located at
W.12'"Street and Leisure Lane,is shown as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest
of the study area.Boyle Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational
opportunities,while University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis
Center.Oak Forest Park,located at W.14'"Street and Pierce Street,is shown as a
mini-Park under 5 acres northeast of the property in question and is designed
specifically to serve the needs of the Oak Forest neighborhood,which surrounds the
park.Curran-Conway Park,located at W.24'"Street and Monroe Street,is shown as a
as a 20-50 acre Community Park located east of the UALR campus and is located the
furthest distance from the amendment area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the
neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern.The only practical access
to the property in question is from University Avenue.The neighboring houses are
oriented in such a way that the back yards face the applicant's property.The
Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue.
The wooded lot is accessed from University Avenue.The street pattern of the area
isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential areas.
The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues:traffic,topography,scale,
and massing.Commercial development on this property could increase traffic on a
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
portion of University Avenue that is not built to Principal Arterial design standards.
Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on which this
property is located.Development on this property would also need a sufficient buffer
between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-family residences to
compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on the property.Without
sufficient buffers,the neighboring properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on
the applicant's property.Although there is a change in topographical elevation between
the site and the surrounding neighborhood,this application would allow development
that could result in a non-residential intrusion into the neighborhood.The massing,
scale,visual impacts,and noise generation of any development on this site should be
minimized to isolate the affects of any non-residential development on the neighboring
single-family development.
Most of the land shown as Commercial located along the west side of University
Avenue is on average about 150'+deep.This application would allow the
development of Commercial uses on a piece of property that is about 605'+deep.This
increase in depth could change the character of the neighborhood and allow the
development of a large area shown as Commercial on University Avenue that is located
about half way between the intersections of the arterials at W.12 Street and Asher
Avenue.The thin strip of land shown as Commercial north of the applicant's property
separates the houses to the west from the traffic on University Avenue while no such
barrier is provided for the houses to the south.Most of the businesses to the north are
small neighborhood businesses.Any turnover in the businesses to the north would
accommodate room for another small neighborhood oriented business to move in.The
application area is large enough to accommodate a larger Commercial use that would
draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the
neighborhood.
Currently,this portion of University Avenue acts as a buffer between the University to
the east and the residential area to the west.Commercial uses at this location would
erode that buffer.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association,
University Park Neighborhood Association,Westwood Neighborhood Association,
Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association.
Staff has not received comments from area residents at the time of this report.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO H Cont FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Commercial would extend
the strip of Commercial development to the south and intrude into the residential area
to the west.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission were
present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes,and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was notified that only eight members of the Planning Commission were
present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.The item was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,
and 3 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
NAME:Yelenich Long-form PCD
LOCATION:2000 Block of South University Avenue;on the West side
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mare Yelenich ETC Engineers
110 South Shore Drive 1510 S.Broadway
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:10+Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3,with conditions,
for this site.The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping
center at this location.The applicant later withdrew the request and the property
remained zoned R-2,Single-family.
The Planning Commission later reviewed an application for the placement of non-
traditional multi-family housing on this site on February 14,2002.The proposed
development included dormitory style housing,four bedrooms sharing a common
kitchen and living area.The proposal included seven rows of structures,each separate
buildings,all three stories in height,all having a six car garage on the first level and two
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
levels of living area above.There were to be 43 buildings total.A building included
eight bedroom facilities,four on the second level and four on the third level.The levels
each had four bedrooms and a separate bath,which could be secured,and were to
share a common open area and kitchen facility.The applicant proposed,in addition to
the garage parking spaces,an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the
perimeter of the property.
The applicant withdrew the proposal after receiving an abundance of neighborhood
opposition to the development.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision as a part of the application.On Lot
1,the applicant proposes the placement of 90,000 square feet of self-storage,
mini-warehouse.The facility will be buffered by an undisturbed and terraced
area,with ground cover between retaining walls.The applicant is proposing a
2-story 2,400 square foot resident manager's office as a part of the development.
The units will be ground level single story units.Approximately 25%of the units
will be climate controlled units.The applicant is proposing a sign located at the
entrance adjacent to South University Avenue.The sign is proposed to be a
monument style sign and be approximately 5-foot by 10-foot or 50-square feet in
area and have a time and temperature LED reader board.The applicant
proposes to operate a truck rental leasing service from the mini-warehouse office
building.
Lot 2 will consist of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3 uses being
requested.There will be approximately 10 individual business bays within the
development,however,the interior walls will be moveable to accommodate
various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants.The
applicant is requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot as well.
The sign will be located near the driveway at be approximately 10-feet by 15-feet
or 150 square feet in area.The applicant is proposing a LED reader board as
part of the signage.The applicant has indicated the building facade will have
sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site,which has been previously graded and
somewhat leveled.The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree
covered with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension
Service Center.Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as
check
cashing,liquor store and restaurants.Uses to the south and west of the site are
single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O'oods neighborhoods.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this
location.Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the
north at Boyle Park Road.Currently there are plans to widen South University
Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received several phone calls both in support and
opposition of the proposal.The applicant has met with the Neighborhood
Associations and the area residents prior to submission of his application.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be
identified,within 300 feet of the site and the Broadmoore,the University Park,
the Oak Forest,the Point O'oods,the Curran Conway and the 25 residents
who signed in at an information meeting held September 23,2002 were notified
of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.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
as indicated on the plans.
2.Provide design of street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.This requirement will be waived if the bids have been opened
for the planned University widening project prior to approval of the building
permit.No new median cuts are allowed on University.
3.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.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property as indicated on the
plans.
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)&(d).Hillside cuts
must comply with the land alteration ordinance including but not limited to a
15-foot maximum cut between benches (the plan shows 17').Cuts over 10-
feet vertical must be faced with architectural stone.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Cpntact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
EntercnEf:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:A 10-foot utility easement along the north,west and south
property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be required.
Water:No objection.
~Fire Ce anment:place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17,¹17A and ¹21 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial Development to allow a mini-storage development and
retail shopping.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.(Item ¹10 File No.LU02-10-06)
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:The proposed land use buffer along the northern and
southern perimeters are required to have an undisturbed average width of
twenty-one (21)feet.This takes into consideration the transfer allowed for the
wide buffer proposed along the western perimeter.The full undisturbed width
required without this transfer credit is twenty-eight (28)feet.The proposed
undisturbed buffer width along the southern perimeter is ten (10)feet.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
A six (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,southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide copies of
an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
~Bottdtn Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Mark Yelenich was present representing the application.Staff presented the
proposed development indicating additional information needed on the site plan.
Staff questioned if there was to be any outdoor storage,boats,campers,etc.
Staff also requested details of the proposed signage.Staff requested the days
and hours of operation and the estimated number of bays for the retail center.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to pay improvement cost for the
widening of South University Avenue if a building permit were obtained prior to
the letting of the bid on the publicly financed widening project.Staff stated there
would not be any additional median cuts allowed on South University Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated at least 70%of the buffer
was to remain undisturbed.Staff stated the southern land use buffer should
maintain an average width of 21 feet.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
there will be no outdoor storage on the site (no boats,campers,etc.)and has
indicated the dumpster location with the proper screening.The applicant has
also indicated the project will be built in three phases.Phase I will consist of
construction of the resident managers/office building and the construction of the
two mini-storage buildings,which run east and west.Phases II and III will
consist of the construction of the two additional mini-warehouse buildings and
the construction of the retail building.The applicant has indicated he will not
construct the retail center until he is 50%pre-leased.He has indicated he will
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4644-B
not construct the additional mini-warehouse buildings until Phase I of the mini-
warehouse is 70%leased.
The applicant has requested a 2-foot by 10-foot sign located adjacent to the
mini-warehouse development.He is requesting the sign be allowed LED time
and temperature display within the sign area.The signage for the commercial
center is proposed as a monument sign 3-feet by 10-feet sign area with a LED
reader board.The applicant also proposes to park a 16-foot moving van with an
advertising logo on the side adjacent to the street.The van will be made
available to persons renting the mini-warehouse units.Staff is not supportive of
the placement of the moving van on the site near the street.Staff feels (although
not an actual sign)it will have the appearance of a billboard.
The applicant proposes the self-storage hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday and
closed on Sunday.The gate hours are proposed to be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm
7 days per week.For an additional fee the applicant has indicated tenants would
have 24-hour access to the site.The intent is not to collect an additional income
but to limit the number of tenants entering after normal gate hours.The
applicant has stated the retail building will have approximately 10 different
businesses and their hours of operation may vary.Staff is not supportive of not
limiting the hours of operation on this site and leaving the possibility of 24-hour
operations open to a potential user.
The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental/leasing office (Penske Truck
Rental)from the site as well.The applicant has requested two spaces be
designated as truck parking.He has stated the site would not have more than
two truck on the site at a time but there were times when there would not be any
trucks on the site.Staff is not supportive of this request.
The applicant proposes a resident manager on-site for the mini-warehouse
development.The development will consist of a two (2)story 30x40-foot
structure to act as both the office/retail sales area/break-room with the living
quarters upstairs.
The applicant proposes the office/residence to have either standing seam metal
or asphalt shingle roofing material with a 20-foot eave height;the roof will be
constructed on a 6 on 12 pitch.The self storage buildings are proposed with
standing seam galvanized metal,roof with an eve height of 10.5 feet;the roof will
have a '/4 on 12 pitch and will not be colored.Staff recommends the roofs be
constructed of non-reflective materials to lessen the heat vapors and to avoid
any potential impacts to surrounding neighbors.The applicant proposes the
retail center to be either a standing seam or screw down metal roof with a front
eave height of 21-feet.There will be a parapet on the front of the building,which
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
would add an additional 9-feet to the finished building height.The maximum
building height in C-3 zoning district is 35-feet,consistent with the applicant's
proposal.
The applicant has indicated undisturbed areas to the north,south and west
property lines consistent with the land use buffer requirements.The applicant
has also indicated a cut and two (2)benches in 10-foot intervals along the
western boundary to eliminate concerns of the Land Alteration Ordinance.The
applicant is proposing riprap along these benches,which from an engineering
standpoint is a workable alternative.From a design standpoint it is not a
workable alternative.Staff is not supportive of the request to place riprap along
the entire area.Staff feels the applicant should install a split faced block wall
along the top terrace,which will be visible from the street and the riprap
treatment along the lower terrace.
Although Staff has some concerns with the proposed development,the
workability of retail on South University Avenue without a median break,Staff is
inclined to support the proposed development.The addition of mini-warehouse
to this site,Staff feels is a viable development approach.Typically mini-
warehouse development is a low traffic generator,destination bound
development and the hours of operation are not typically intrusive to the
neighbors.Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to do too much on the site.
Staff cannot support the unlimited hours of operation for the retail or the mini-
warehouse center.Staff feels the development should be limited to hours of
operation consistent with development in the area.
Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the applicant's truck to be parked
adjacent to South University Avenue and act as additional signage.Staff also
does not support allowing the applicant to operate a truck rental business from
the site.Once again Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to conduct to many
activities on this site.
Staff cannot support the proposed treatment of the slope on the rear (western
boundary)of the site.Staff would recommend the applicant install an
architectural wall on the top portion of the sloped area and then the riprap along
the lower tier.Even though motorists are traveling at a somewhat higher rate of
speed through the area,the rock will be visible from the street and the parking
lot.Staff feels the addition of the block wall will enhance the development
adding to the design theme the applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue.
7
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4644-B
Staff is in support of the concept to the proposed development.Staff feels
should the applicant revise his application to include the recommendations
included above and limit the number of uses proposed on the site after which
Staff could possible support the proposed development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
8
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:I FILE NO.:G-23-317
Name:Wingate Drive Abandonment
Location:A portion of Wingate Drive lying north
of Markham Street in Little Rock,
Pulaski County,Arkansas
~Owner/A licenl:Thomas L.Jones,Meredith Taft;
Clyde Karnes,Betty Karnes
Receuest:To abandon approximately 25'f that
portion of Wingate Drive lying north of
Markham Street.Existing right-of-way
width is 50 feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Wingate Drive is a residential street providing access to the Wingate
subdivision located north of Markham and west of Mississippi Streets.
Wingate Drive intersects with Markham Street approximately 400 feet
west of the Markham and Mississippi intersection and Mississippi Street
approximately 300 feet north of the intersection.
Early this year,Wingate residents complained that Wingate Drive was
being used as a ecut through"between Markham and Mississippi to avoid
the intersection.According to the residents,both the volume and speed
of the cut through traffic caused a hazard to the neighborhood.
Public Works conducted traffic counts on Wingate Drive in August 2001
and January 2002.The 2001 count indicated 377 west bound vehicles
and 187 east bound vehicles in a 10-hour period at a median speed of 22
miles per hour and an 85 percentile speed of 28 mph.
The 2002 count indicated 344 east bound and 492 west bound vehicles in
an 11 hour period at a median speed of 22 mph and an 85'"percentile
speed of 28 mph.
In April of this year,Public Works erected temporary barriers to close the
entrance off Markham Street and few complaints have been received as a
result of this closure.In June,residents brought an application to the
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:I Cont.FILE NO '-23-317
Board of Directors to close Wingate Drive at its intersection with Markham
Street and the Board referred the action to the Planning Commission for
recommendation.
The applicants are property owners abutting Wingate Drive at its
intersection with Markham Street.
2.Master Street Plan
Wingate Drive is classified as a local street.Both Markham Street and
Mississippi Street are classified as minor arterials.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'geant Streets
The current right-of-way width of Markham Street at this location is 60'.
The Master Street Plan calls for a width of right-of-way of 70 feet at this
location.Five feet of right-of-way will be retained at the intersection of
Wingate with Markham (35 feet from the centerline of Markham)to
provide the required Master Street Plan right-of-way width.
4.Develo ment Potential
This is an established area consisting of mostly single family homes.
There is little re-development potential in the vicinity of Wingate.
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
This established area along Markham and Mississippi has been
developed for many years and the majority of land use in the immediate
vicinity is single family.In the past,because Wingate drive connects to the
south to Markham,and to the east to Mississippi,Wingate has been used
by some drivers as a way to bypass the intersection of Mississippi and
Markham.This "cut-through"traffic has been cited by the applicants as
the reason for requesting closure.Closing this portion of Wingate would
mean that only local traffic in the neighborhood would use this street,
Closure would also limit alternatives for local traffic to enter and leave the
subdivision.All traffic would have to enter and exit the subdivision from
Mississippi Avenue.Traffic Counts on Mississippi are 17,000 vehicles per
day,and 20,000 vehicles per day use Markham.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.I Cont FILE NO.:G-23-317
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and neighborhood associations were notified
of the public hearing.At this writing,one objection to the closure from a
landowner in Wingate has been received.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Several utility companies have facilities located in the existing right-of-
way.There is no objection to closure of the right-of-way,provided a utility
easement is retained.
Fire Department —has no objection to the abandonment
8.Reversiona Ri hts
All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property owners.
A utility and access easement will also be retained in the former right-of-
way.
9.Public Welfare and Safe Issues
Permanently abandoning this segment of Wingate will reduce traffic on
this local street,and would be expected to enhance public safety for those
residents living on Wingate.However,closure would also limit the options
residents have for entering and leaving the subdivision,routing all traffic to
a single entrance on Mississippi.
Wingate is a local street not a part of the Master Street Plan network.
Local streets are typically designed to carry up to 2500 vehicles per day,
however,peak traffic counts on Wingate were 836 vehicles per day.
Closure would have no measurable impact on traffic safety operations or
the arterial network.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Since the proposed closure will have no
significant impact on traffic operations and is primarily a neighborhood
consideration,Public Works supports the closure.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:I Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION (JUNE,2002)
The applicants originally filed the petition for abandonment directly with the
Board of Directors.Rather that requesting closure under the statute for unused
right-of-way,the petition requested closure under the State statute for closure
under the general police powers of the Board.The Board declined to hear the
petition and referred it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated
the notices mailed to the area residents stated November 14,2002 as the Public
Hearing date.Staff stated they were supportive of the request to defer the item
to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were objectors and supports present.
Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners
were present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
The applicant requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public
Hearing.There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item
and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-5016-A
Owner:Louis Beck/St.Jude Packaging Co.
Applicant:McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering
Location:5510 West 65 Street;northeast corner of West 65'"Street
and Battle Road
Request:Rezone from OS to C-4
Purpose:New commercial development (parking)
Existing Use:Vacant;new building being constructed on C-4 portion of the
property.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Sysco Foods development;zoned PID
South —Mixture of commercial and industrial uses (across West 65'"
Street);zoned C-3 and 1-2
East —Commercial uses along the north side of West 65 Street (PD-I
and 1-2);single family residences to the northeast (R2)
West —Printing business (across Battle Road),zoned I-2;one (1)single
family lot,zoned R-2
A.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B.PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The property is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5016-A
C.PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified,as well as the Wakefield,Geyer
Springs and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
proposed rezoning.
D.LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the 65'"—East Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Mixed Commercial and Industrial for this property.The
applicant has applied for a C-4 Open Display Commercial to remove a
portion of a strip of Open Space zoning that separates property zoned as
Planned Industrial District from property zoned C-4.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan,
which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS:
On June 21,1988 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.15,492
which rezoned the 4.22 acre property at the northeast corner of West 65"
Street and Battle Road from R-2 to C-4 and OS.The bulk of the property
was zoned C-4,with a 50 foot strip along the north and a portion of the
east and west property lines being zoned OS.The OS portion was to
provide a buffer between the C-4 zoning and the residential zoning (R-2,
R-4 and MF-6)to the north,northeast and northwest which existed at that
time.
Since that time,all of the property to the north has been purchased by
Sysco Foods and zoned PID as part of their industrial development.
Single Family residences exist to the northeast.There is one (1)single
family residence left to the west (across Battle Street)which is shown as
Mixed Commercial Industrial on the future land use plan.
The request currently before the Commission is to rezone a portion of the
OS zoning to C-4.The existing C-4 zoned portion of the property at the
northeast corner of West 65'"Street and Battle Road is currently being
developed with a new commercial building and associated drives and
parking.The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the OS strip for
parking and vehicular circulation.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:1 Cont FILE NO.:Z-5016-A
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.Based on the fact that all of
the property north of this site has been purchased by Sysco Foods and
zoned PID,and the fact that the only remaining residential structure on
the west side of Battle Road will eventually became part of a commercial
or industrial development,staff feels that the majority of the 50 foot wide
OS strip is no longer needed.The applicant proposes to leave the 50 foot
wide OS strip at the northeast corner of the property,where adjacent to
single family residences.
The 65 Street East Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Commercial
Industrial for this property.The proposed C-4 zoning would be in
conformance with the adopted land use plan.Staff believes the C-4
rezoning request to be reasonable and compatible with uses and zoning
in the area.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The
application was approved.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU02-18-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment-Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:Bowman Road at W.36th Street
~Re uest:Suburban Office and Low Density Residential to Office
Source:Pat McGetrick,McGetrick 8 McGetrick
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Suburban
Office to Office.The office category represents services provided directly to
consumers (e.g.,legal,financial,medical)as well as general offices,which
support more basic economic activities.The applicant wishes to develop the
property for office uses.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the area south of the applicant's property shown as
Suburban Office and Low Density Residential to the boundary of the area shown
as Park /Open Space shown along the floodway/floodplain of Brodie Creek.All
of the land shown as Suburban Office and Low Density Residential between the
applicant's property and the floodway/floodplain shown as Park /Open Space
would be eliminated.The additional area would provide a viable tract of land for
Office uses.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 12.84+
acres in size.A house built on a large lot occupies the property under review.
All of the surrounding property is zoned R-2 Single Family and is developed with
houses built on large lots.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001 multiple changes were made from Low Density Residential,
Mixed Office Commercial,and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family in an
area bounded by Bowman Road,Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road and Brodie
Creek within a 1-mile radius of the applicant's property to the north and west.
On January 6,2001 a change was made from Mixed Use and Suburban Office
to Commercial and Office at the southeast corner of the 1-430 and Col.Glenn
interchange about 1 mile southeast of the property under review to fit the pattern
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-06
of land use located in the vicinity of that application area.
On September 19,2000 a change was made from Low Density Residential and
Mixed Office Commercial at the northeast corner of Bowman Road and W.36
Street,across the street to the east of the amendment area to allow Mixed Uses
at that location.
On April 6,1999 a change was made from Office and Commercial to Mixed
Office Commercial on the northwest corner of Col.Glenn and Bowman Road
about '/4 of a mile south of the application area to the pattern of land use located
at that area.
The applicant's property is shown as Suburban Office on the Future Land Use
Plan.The property to the north is shown as Suburban Office while the property
to the northeast is shown as Mixed Use.The property to the east is shown as
Mixed Office Commercial while the property to the south is shown as Suburban
Office.The property to the west is shown as Low Density Residential.A strip of
Park/Open Space is shown along the floodway of Brodie Creek.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
W.36'"Street and Bowman Road are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master
Street Plan and are built as rural two lane roads.The Master Street Plan also
shows a re-alignment of Bowman Road that would eliminate the curve adjacent
to the property in question.W.36'treet is also shown as a Proposed Minor
Arterial that will link Bowman Road to the Proposed West Loop.The Master
Street plan lists special conditions for W.36'"Street,with a 3-lane section of
right-of-way of 70 feet from State Highway 5 to Bowman Road,and a 4-lane
right-of-way of 80 feet with 5 lanes at major intersections with a 90-foot right-of-
way.
A Class III Bikeway is shown on both W.36'"Street and Bowman Road.The
bikeway on W.36'treet starts at Bowman Road and continues east to Rock
Creek while the bikeway on Bowman Road links Executive Center Drive to Col.
Glenn Road.Development of the applicant's property will require half street
improvements on Bowman Road and be responsible for a portion of the W.36'"
Street extension.The only bikeway affected by development of the applicant's
property will be the one on Bowman Road.Since a Class III Bikeway shares the
pavement of the main roadway,half street improvements will need to make
accommodations for the bikewag.Development of the applicant's property will
not affect the bikeway on W.36 Street since it starts at Bowman Road and
continues east.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.'U02-18-06
The re-alignment of Bowman Road would eliminate the curve around the hill
north of the house on the applicant's property.The new alignment of Bowman
Road would eliminate most of the front yard on the application area property.
The new intersection between Bowman Road and W.36'"Street would sit
approximately at the current location of the driveway on the property.The
proposed extension of W.36'treet would also divide the application property
in two and create a four-way intersection in place of the current T-shape
intersection.The re-alignment of Bowman Road will require a 90 foot right-of-
way while the extension of W.36'"Street will require a 90 foot right-of-way at the
intersection and an 80 foot right-of-way for the remainder of the proposed
extension.The proposed changes at the Bowman Road and W.36'"Street
intersection would greatly reduce the land area available for development on the
applicant's property.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the
applicant's property is located within eight blocks of the Potential Greenbelt at
Brodie Creek.This Potential Greenbelt serves as an area that may be used for
either recreational uses,and or open space opportunities.The Potential
Greenbelt also covers the flood plain of Brodie Creek,which is also shown as
Park /Open Space.Development of the applicant's property would need to
respect the integrity of the watershed and the viability of the Potential Greenbelt.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
This application area is located in a part of the city characterized by low-density
semi-rural development patterns.Although there is land available for office
developments near the application area,most of the office developments would
require a Planned Zoning Development.The property currently shown as
Suburban Office provides land for low intensity development of office or office
parks that would have a minimum impact on neighboring residential uses.
However,any developments in an area shown as Office on the applicant's
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-06
property would be buffered from the areas shown as Single Family by the strip of
Park/Open Space and the area shown as Low-Density Residential,as well as
the area remaining Suburban Office.Most of the area shown as Mixed Use is
zoned Planned Office Development for a future church,reducing the amount of
land available for future office development in that area.The area shown as
Mixed Office Commercial provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to
occur and would ideally develop with a mixture of office and commercial uses.
However,a development could occur in MOC with strictly office uses.A
development in MOC would most likely be a mixture of office and commercial
uses in a PZD.Currently the land shown as Mixed Office Commercial is zoned
R-2 Single Family and MF-12 Multi-family and would require a re-zoning to allow
the development of any non-residential uses.This amendment would provide
land that could be developed for strictly Office uses without a mixture of uses
and without the requirement for a PZD.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association,Sandpiper Neighborhood Association,and
John Barrow Neighborhood Association.Staff has not received comments from
area residents at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is pre-mature.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 9,2003
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent
agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:Z-6049-A
Owner:Unity Church
Applicant:McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering
Location:West side of Bowman Road at West 36'treet
Size:12.84 Acres
Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Future Office Use
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family Residences;zoned R-2
South —Single Family Residences and horse ranch;zoned R-2
East —Single Family Residences and nonconforming commercial
use (across Bowman Road to the southeast);zoned R-2,
undeveloped (across Bowman Road to the northeast);zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
A.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.This property is traversed by the proposgd re-alignment of Bowman
Road and the proposed extension of 36'treet.The proposed right-
of-way dedication should be shown on the plans.Contact Public
Works 918-5345.
2.A regulated Floodway passes through this property.Dedicate the
limits of the regulated floodway and a 25-foot wide access easement
adjacent to the floodway.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2 1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-A
With Buildin Permit:
3.Provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
4.A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area
is required prior to construction.
B.PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The property is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
C.PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet
who could be identified,and the Sandpiper and John Barrow
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
D.LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land
Use Plan shows Suburban Office and Low Density Residential for this
property.The applicant has applied for a zoning change to 0-3 General
Office for office uses.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Office is a separate item on
this agenda.(Item 2.)
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
E.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The 12.84 acre property located along the west side of Bowman Road at
West 36 Street is currently zoned R-2,single family residential.There
are two (2)single family residences located at the northeast corner of the
property,with the remainder of the property being undeveloped and
partially wooded.The western portion of the site is located in the
floodplain.
On October 31,1995,the Planning Commission approved a conditional
use permit for a church development on this site.The church
development never took place and therefore,the conditional use permit
has expired.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:2.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-A
The request currently before the Commission is to rezone the 12.84 acres
from "R-2"Single Family District to "0-3"General Office District.The
applicant proposes to rezone the property for a future office development,
after sale of the property.The property is currently designated as
Suburban Office and Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land
Use Plan.A land use plan amendment from SO and LDR to Office is a
separate item on this agenda (Item 2).
Staff does not support the proposed rezoning.The Suburban Office land
use plan designation for the east portion of the property would allow for a
low intense office or office park development.A PZD (Planned Zoning
Development)zoning would be required for any development within the
Suburban Office land use plan area.The PZD is required to assure
compatibility with lower density residential areas which are abutting or in
close proximity to the area of Suburban Office.
Given the fact that all of the abutting property is zoned R-2,with several
existing single family residences on larger lots,staff feels that the
proposed rezoning to 0-3 will not be compatible with these properties.
Although staff is not necessarily opposed to an office development on this
property,staff feels that it should be done under a PZD review,which
would address all aspects of the property's development,use and
compatibility with the abutting properties and general area.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the application be deferred to the January 9,2003 agenda.Staff
supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 9,2003 agenda.A motion to that
effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
The application was deferred.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 'FILE NO.:Z-7309
NAME:Houston Day Care Family Home —Special Use Permit
LOCATION:4507 West 29'"Street
APPLICANT:Willie and Airfredia Houston
PROPOSAL:A special use permit is requested to allow a Day Care
Family Home to be operated in the single family residence
located on the R-3 zoned property at 4507 West 29
Street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Property owners within 200 feet of the site,residents within 300 feet of the site who
could be identified and the Midway,Curran-Conway and Love Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
4507 West 29'"Street is located on the south side of West 29'treet,between
Jefferson and Washington Streets.The properties to the north,east and west are
zoned R-3 and R-4 and contain single family and two-family residences.There is a
mixture of office,commercial and industrial uses to the south,between this property
and Asher Avenue.
The applicant's home is a one-story frame structure and is typical of those in the
general area.There is a single car driveway from West 29 Street,with parking for
two vehicles.The rear yard is enclosed by a wood screening fence and provides a
safe play area.The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:30 a.m.to 5:30
p.m.,Monday —Friday.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential.No signage
beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted.The applicants have
noted that they are licensed by the State Department of Human Services for a day
care family home for six (6)to ten (10)children.
Section 36-54(e)(3)of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes the site
and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7309
a.This use may be located only in a single family home,occupied by the care giver.
b.Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of
Arkansas.State regulations shall control the number of employees residing off
premises.
c.The use is limited to ten (10)children including the care givers.
d.The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6)children from households
other than the care givers.
e.This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers
are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.Permits cannot be
transferred from owner to owner,location to location or use to use.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with this application.
Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location will have no
adverse impact on the general area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family home
at 4507 West 29 Street,subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2.There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3.Outdoor activities,including playground use,are to be limited to day-light hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO Z-7309
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The application was
approved.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO 'U02-18-05
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:12201 Colonel Glenn Rd.
Receuest:Office to Commercial
Source:Robert M.Brown,Development Consultants,Inc.
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Office to
Commercial.The Commercia!category includes a broad range of retail and
wholesale sales of products,personal and professional services,and general
business activities.Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on
the areas that they serve.The applicant wishes to develop the property for an
office and contractor yard.
This application has been expanded to include the Crystal Valley Fire Station,
which is surrounded on three sides by the applicant's property.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned C-4 Open Display Commercial at the corner of
Colonel Glenn and Lawson Road,0-3 General Office (with a Conditional Use
Permit for a contractor/maintenance yard)at the back of the property,and R-2
Single Family west of the fire station.The applicant's property is approximately
5.15+acres in size and occupied by a vacant commercial building and two sheds
while the back of the property is vacant.
The applicant's property wraps around the Crystal Valley Fire Station located
next to the city limit.The property to the North is vacant land zoned 0-3 General
Office with a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot,while the neighboring
property to the northeast is zoned Planned Office Development and occupied by
two office/warehouse buildings.The land to the east is zoned C-3 General
Commercial occupied by a grocery store,R-2 Single Family occupied by a
house,and 0-2 Office and Institutional occupied by a house.The land to the
south and west is zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of houses built on large
lots.An auto repair business is located on the neighboring lot to the west of the
applicant's property.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-05
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On January 16,2001 a change was made from Mixed Use and Suburban Office
to Commercial and Office at the southeast corner of 1-430 and Colonel Glenn
Road about '/4 of a mile east of the applicant's property to fit the pattern of land
use located in the vicinity of that application area.
On September 19,2000 a change was made from Low Density Residential &
Mixed Office Commercial at W.36 Street and Bowman Road about 9/10 of a
mile northeast of the application area to allow Mixed Uses at that location.
On April 6,1999 a change was made from Office 8 Community Shopping to
Mixed Office Commercial across the street to the north of the amendment area
to reflect changes of use in the neighborhood.
The portion of the applicant's property covered by this amendment application is
shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.The part of the applicant's
property located at the southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson
Road is shown as Commercial.The property to the north and northeast is
shown as Mixed Office Commercial.The property to the east is shown as
Community Shopping while the property to the south is shown as Office.The
property to the west and northwest is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Colonel Glenn Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial
while Lawson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial.There is a Class I Bikeway
shown from Lawson Road to Burlingame Road and on Lawson Road from
Colonel Glenn Road to David O'Dodd Road.Both streets are currently built as
rural 2-lane roads and will require half street improvements to bring the streets
into compliance with the Master Street Plan.Class I bikeway design standards
provide a paved roadway that is separated from the main roadway of any streets
the bikeway parallels.The exact route and location of the bikeways will need to
be determined to establish the nature of the applicant's responsibility for half
street improvements.
PARKS;
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan Master Plan of 2001 shows that the
applicant's property is within eight blocks of the J.A.Fair High School in the
eight-block strategy that shows all of the recreation providers within the city,
which includes public schools.The plan does not show existing or proposed
park facilities operated by the City of Little Rock within eight blocks of the
applicant's property.An increase in population in the vicinity of the applicant's
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4 Cont FILE NO 'U02-18-05
property may necessitate the need for new park facilities operated by the Parks
and Recreation Department.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of I ittle
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a developing rural area at the western city
limit.Most of Colonel Glenn Road is developing as a large-scale commercia!
corridor starting east of 1-430 and continuing to the applicant's property.The
applicant's property is located in the transition between the developing
commercial uses to the east and the semi-rural area to the west.The
neighborhood to the south of Lawson Road is residential in character.The land
next to the amendment area would remain shown as Office and provide a buffer
between the intense uses along Colonel Glenn Road and the less intense rural
and residential areas to the west and southwest.
The dividing line between the residential and non-residential areas is defined by
a ridgeline that runs through the applicant's property.There is a change in
topographical elevation between the site and the land to the north and west.
This application would allow development that could be viewed by neighboring
residential uses built at higher elevations.Measures should be taken to
minimize and isolate any negative visual impacts on the neighboring properties.
This amendment would also establish the ridgeline as a natural boundary
between the developing urban areas to the east from the semi-rural land to the
west.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association,and John Barrow Neighborhood
Association.Staff has received two (2)comments from area residents.One (1)
was in support,and one (1)was neutral.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-05
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.A change to Commercial at this
location,along with a buffer shown as Office,should act as a boundary between
the residential and non-residential areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission
were present.Robert Brown,the applicant,requested that the item be heard.
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission.Monte
Moore made a presentation of item 4.1 so the discussion could coincide with the
discussion for item 4.See item 4.1 for a complete discussion concerning the
Long-Form Planned Development-Commercial.
Robert Brown spoke in support of the application and discussed Right-of-Way
abandonment issues along Col.Glenn Road.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was approved
with a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes,3 absent,and 1 abstain.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 FILE NO.:Z-4651-D
NAME:Kinco —Long-Form PD-C
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kinco Constructors,LLC Development Consultants,Inc.
15617 Chenal Parkway 2200 N.Rodney Parham Rd.,Suite 220
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72212
AREA:5.04 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2/0-3/C-4 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family Residential/
General Office/Commercial—
Open Display
PROPOSED USE:Offices and Contractor's Yard
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Allow in-lieu contribution for boundary street improvements that is limited to 15'/o of
the project development cost.
2.Allow applicant to construct half-street improvements along Lawson Road as a part
of the total 15'lo allowance toward street improvement contributions.
3.Variance for reduced drive spacing along Lawson Road frontage to allow an
additional one-way drive exit.A one-way drive is proposed across the front of the
building.The applicant does not want to route such traffic through the "Yard"areas
and there is no other way to turn a larger vehicle around to exit.
BACKGROUND:
The property at the southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads which is
proposed to be rezoned to PD-C is currently zoned R-2/0-3/C-4.The C-4 portion of the
property was once occupied by a hardware store with lumberyard.It was most recently
occupied by a cable contractor (offices and contractor's yard).The property is currently
vacant.The R-2 and 0-3 portions of the property are undeveloped.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4651-D
A.PROPOSAL/REQ LIEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone 5.04 acres of property from C-4/0-3/R-2 to
PD-C to allow for the corporate offices and contractor's yard for Kinco
Constructors,LLC.
The proposed development would remodel the existing concrete building at the
corner for office use with parking.Two other existing storage sheds will also
remain.A new 6,000 SF shop building (used for equipment maintenance repair,
and tool storage)is proposed along the south boundary.Three additional open
storage sheds are also proposed along the southern and western boundaries.
The shop building will be completed within one year.The first shed will be
completed within three to five years.The two most western storage sheds are
planned for the future,but with no specific time frame for construction.
The site areas around the office and shop buildings will be paved with asphalt.
The yard area at the west will be a gravel or grass surface.The yard areas will
be used to store heavy equipment,storage trailers,and job site trailers.The
shed structures will be used to store construction materials and small equipment
items.
The site area at the west end,fronting Colonel Glenn Road,contains an existing
gravel drive to be paved and maintained as a secondary access.There is no
development plan proposed for this area at this time.An additional a5.83 acres
will be a part of the property purchase,but is planned to be held and sold in the
future in conjunction with the redevelopment of surrounding properties.The
+5.83 acres is not a part of this PD-C application.The hours of operation will be
7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday —Friday.
The applicant has shown a proposed alignment for the future improvement of
Colonel Glenn Road on the proposed site plan.This alignment was set in a
review of the Leonard Boen property,north of Colonel Glenn,by the Little Rock
Traffic Engineer in 1995.The proposed alignment and resulting right-of-way
dedications were then shown in the survey for the property purchase.The
subject PZD site will require a significant dedication at the western frontage on
Colonel Glenn.To the east,the alignment moves away from this property and a
right-of-way abandonment is proposed to recover a portion of the excess right-of-
way area.An easement is proposed to allow the existing utilities to remain in
place until the road is relocated.
The applicant has also shown a proposed abandonment of right-of-way along
the Lawson Road frontage.The prior right-of-way dedication here was made
based on Lawson being a principal arterial street.It is now a commercial
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO '-4651-D
collector,due to land use,with a right-of-way of 60 feet.The Lawson Road half-
street improvements will be constructed as part of the project.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The C-4 zoned portion of this property contains an 8,868 square foot
office/commercial building and four (4)small shed buildings which were once
part of a lumberyard.The R-2 and 0-3 portions of the proposed PD-C are
undeveloped and mostly grass-covered.There is an existing gravel access drive
from Colonel Glenn Road within the R-2 and 0-3 zoned portions.There are
some existing trees along the perimeter of the R-2 and 0-3 zoned areas.
There is additional undeveloped R-2 zoned property located to the west,with an
auto repair shop and some single family uses to the northwest.There is
undeveloped 0-3 zoned property across Colonel Glenn Road to the north,and
an office-warehouse development to the northeast.There are single family
structures to the south,along the west side of Lawson Road.There is a small
grocery store and a single family residence across Lawson Road to the east,with
a small cemetery and additional single family structures to the southeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet ho
could be identified and the John Barrow and SWLR UP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
The new dedication shown on the plans for the re-alignment of Colonel Glenn
will be acceptable.
2.Lawson Road has been reclassified from a minor arterial to a Commercial
Street on the Master Street Plan.No additional dedication is required for the
standard right-of-way of 30 feet from centerline.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.This property may qualify for a contribution in-lieu of
construction for Colonel Glenn.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO '.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4651-D
5.Public Works Civil Engineering and Traffic Engineering must approve
completed plans prior to construction.Street Improvement plans shall
include signage and striping.
6.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7.Board of Director action will be required for the requested abandonment of
right-of-way on Lawson and Colonel Glenn.Public Works would support the
abandonment of right-of-way on Lawson due to the change in Master Street
Plan classification.Public Works does not support the abandonment of right-
of-way on Colonel Glenn until such time as the roadway is reconstructed to
the new Master Street Plan alignment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.
EntennEF:No Comment received.
Reliant:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Any relocation of facilities will be at the cost of the
developer.
Water:Central Arkansas Water needs a 20-foot wide waterline easement
centered over the existing 12-inch water main where public right-of-way is being
abandoned or else the 12-inch water main must be relocated to the proposed
public right-of-way at the expense of the developer.The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public
and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are
required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.
Fpire DeFartment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact Dennis Free at
918-3752 for details.
CATA:The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit bus route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Development-Commercial for an office and contractor yard.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO '-4651-D
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.(Item 4.)
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
A minimum nine (9)foot wide land use buffer is required between the proposed
shop building and residential property to the south.
A six (6)foot high opaque wood fence with its face side directed outward,a wall,
or dense evergreen plantings,is required to screen this site from the residential
properties to the south and west.Credit toward fulfilling these requirements can
be given for existing trees and vegetation that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
Pulaski Count Plannin:
1.Request to see preliminary plat showing city limits,topographical information.
2.A driveway permit may be required from P.C.road and bridge.
3.Coordinate all construction activities located within the County with Pulaski
County Road and Bridge.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 24,2002)
Robert Brown and Doug Wasson were present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed PD-C development,noting several items
which needed to be shown on a revised plan.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Brown noted that old pavement along
the south side of the proposed shop building will be removed and used as a
landscape buffer,with new plantings.Mr.Brown also noted that the rear walls of
the proposed shop and storage shed buildings would be of solid construction to
serve as screening.
The Public Works issues associated with Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road
were discussed at length.Mr.Brown noted that he would request to do an in-lieu
contribution for the required Colonel Glenn and Lawson Road improvements,
and use the in-lieu money to construct the improvements to Lawson Road.Staff
noted that the Public Works Department needed to meet with Pulaski County
Planning to work out procedural issues related to the in-lieu contribution and
street maintenance.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 4.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4651-D
The landscape requirements associated with this project were briefly discussed.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Brown noted that he would work out any
access issues with the volunteer fire department,whose property abuts this
proposed PD-C development.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C to the full Commission
for resolution.
I L ANALYS IS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on October 30,2002.The
revised plan addresses the issues as raised by the Planning Staff at the
Subdivision Committee meeting.The revised plan as submitted conforms to the
landscape and buffer requirements.
The revised site plan shows a monument sign at the northeast corner of the
property.The sign is proposed to have a height of eight (8)feet and an area of
80 square feet.The size and placement as proposed conforms to typical
ordinance requirements for commercial property.
The use of the existing building as office space would typically require 22 on-site
paved parking spaces.There are 30 paved parking spaces shown on the
proposed site plan.Therefore,there are no parking issues associated with this
development.
The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the revised site plan and
notes support of all aspects of the plan,except for the proposed abandonment of
a portion of Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way at the northeast corner of the
property.Public Works notes that this right-of-way should not be abandoned
until Colonel Glenn Road is reconstructed to the new Master Street Plan
alignment.If the right-of-way is not abandoned,a portion of the fence,new
asphalt paving and landscaping will be located across the current property line
and in the existing Colonel Glenn right-of-way.These improvements in the right-
of-way would require issuance of a franchise by the City.Additionally,the
portion of the required street landscape buffer located in the right-of-way would
require a City Beautiful Commission variance.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the additional required right-of-way for
Colonel Glenn Road at the northwest corner of the property.The applicant is
also requesting to do an in-lieu contribution for the required street improvements.
The applicant proposes to apply the in-lieu contribution toward improvements
along the Lawson Road frontage.The new alignment for Colonel Glenn Road
will be constructed when the 0-3 zoned property across Colonel Glenn road to
6
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO '-4651-D
the north develops.The new alignment was worked out previously with that
development plat.Public Works has indicated support of the in-lieu contribution.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow reduced driveway spacing
along Lawson Road.The applicant is proposing two (2)drives from Lawson
Road.The southernmost drive will be an exit drive only.The drives are located
approximately 130 feet apart.The northernmost drive is approximately 95 feet
from the north property line,with the south drive being 30 feet from the south
property line.There are currently two (2)drives from Lawson Road which serve
as access.The ordinance requires a minimum driveway spacing of 200 feet
between drives and 125 feet from property lines.Public Works has indicated
support of this variance.
To staffs knowledge,the only outstanding issue associated with this application
relates to the abandonment of a portion of the existing Colonel Glenn Road right-
of-way at the northeast corner of the property.As noted earlier,Public Works
does not support the abandonment request.This issue will need to be
discussed and resolved by the Commission.
The applicant has done a good job in addressing the site development issues
associated with this property.Given the amount of buffering and screening
proposed between this property and the adjacent residential zoned property,
staff feels that the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the
surrounding properties.With compliance to the conditions as noted in the next
paragraph,staff feels that the proposed PD-C zoning represents a good
redevelopment plan for this property.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested PD-C rezoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
2.Compliance with all aspects of the approved site plan.
3.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away from adjacent
residential property.
4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides with an eight (8)foot
high opaque fence or wall.
5.The rear walls of the proposed shop and storage shed buildings must be of
solid construction to serve as screening.
6.A construction fence must be installed prior to any construction to protect the
land use buffers along the east,south and west property lines.
7.The land use buffers must be in place,including additional plantings,prior to
the use of the rear gravel/grass yard area.
7
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4651-D
8.Staff recommends approval of the in-lieu contribution for street
improvements as proposed by the applicant.
9.Staff also recommends approval of the variances associated with driveway
spacing for the two (2)access drives along Lawson Road.
10.Staff recommends approval of the requested abandonment of a portion of
the Lawson Road right-of-way.
11.Staff recommends denial of the requested abandonment of a portion of the
Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Robert Brown,Jeff Hathaway,Tom Cole and others were present,representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the PD-C rezoning and
the land use plan amendment to the Commission,with recommendations of approval.
The Commission discussed the PD-C rezoning and the land use plan amendment
simultaneously.Staff noted that the only outstanding issue was the proposed
abandonment of a portion of the Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way,which Public Works
was opposed to.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had mailed the required notices two
(2)days late and a bylaw waiver was required in order to proceed with the public
hearing.The issue of bylaw waiver was briefly discussed.With a vote of 4 ayes,
2 nays,4 absent and 1 abstention (Meyer),the Commission voted to waive the bylaws
and accept the notification as completed by the applicant.
There was a discussion as to whether Commissioner Meyer needed to abstain from this
issue.Cindy Dawson,City Attorney,recommended that he abstain since the firm he is
employed by represents the property.
Robert Brown addressed the Commission in support of the application and explained
why the applicant wished to abandon the Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way.He
explained the issues associated with the Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way
abandonment.He noted that the right-of-way proposed to be abandoned would be
excess right-of-way when Colonel Glenn Road is realigned in the future.
There was a brief discussion regarding a City Beautiful Commission variance if the
Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way is not abandoned.
The proposed use of the property was briefly discussed.Staff explained that the use of
the property would be administrative offices and a contractor's maintenance yard,and
that no alternate uses were proposed.
8
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:4.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4651-D
There was additional discussion regarding the proposed Colonel Glenn Road right-of-
way abandonment.Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that landscaping would be
required in the area where the right-of-way abandonment was proposed.
There was a brief discussion regarding the various motions which needed to be made.
There was a motion to approve the land use plan amendment,as recommended by
staff.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays,4 absent and 1 abstention
(Meyer).The land use plan amendment was approved.
There was a second motion to approve the PD-C rezoning as recommended by staff,
with the exception of the Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way abandonment.The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays,4 absent and 1 abstention (Meyer).The PD-C
rezoning was approved.
There was a third motion to approve the Colonel Glenn Road right-of-way abandonment
as proposed by the applicant.The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes,3 nays,4 absent
and 1 abstention (Meyer).The right-of-way abandonment was denied.
By recommending approval of the PD-C development plan and denial of the Colonel
Glenn Road right-of-way abandonment,the Commission supports the issuance of a
franchise for location of the proposed improvements in the Colonel Glenn right-of-way
and a City Beautiful Commission variance for the location of the required landscaping in
the right-of-way.
9
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1359
NAME:North Point BMW —Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Shackleford Road and Merrill Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Harco Constructors,Inc.The Holloway Firm,Inc.
9625 Rowlett 200 Casey Drive
Maumelle,AR 72113 Maumelle,AR 72113
AREA:6.61 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-4 ALLOWED USES:Auto dealership
PROPOSED USE:Auto dealership with body shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
A Subdivision (multiple building)Site Plan Review is requested to allow for the
construction of a new collision center building within the existing auto sales and
service facility.The proposed single story collision center building will be located
within the southwest portion of the property.The following is general project
information as supplied by the applicant:
Building Type:The new facility will be a pre-engineered metal building with a
standing seam metal roof to match the existing pre-engineered buildings.The
eave height is 17'ith a '/~:12 roof slope.The shop areas will be approximately
20,000 square feet and offices will be approximately 4,500 square feet for a total
of 24,500 square feet.The color of the new building will match the existing
buildings on site.
Purpose:The purpose of this new collision center is to replace the existing
smaller and outdated facility on the same site.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1359
smaller and outdated facility on the same site.
Environment Concerns:The new collision center will have new self-contained
paint booths on the paint side of the shop.The booths have multiple filter
systems and enclosed paint rooms.
Traffic:There may be a minor increase in traffic for the new center.As you
may know at a collision center,vehicles are kept for an extended period of time.
When the repairs are completed,the vehicles are then picked up.Please note
that damaged vehicles will not be stored around the new building.Damaged
vehicles are currently being stored inside the fenced area and this will continue
after the new building is complete.
People/Employees:The current employees will remain and approximately 17
new positions will be created with this expansion within one year of opening.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 6.61 acre property at the northwest corner of Shackleford Road and Merrill
Drive is zoned C-4 and occupied by an auto dealership with service department.
The area where the new building is proposed is a paved auto display/storage
area.
There is a mixture of commercial and office uses to the west and to the south
across Merrill Drive.There is a multifamily development across Shackleford
Road to the east,with commercial development to the northeast.There is a
mixture of commercial and office uses to the north,including another auto
dealership.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site as well as the Walnut Valley and
Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.A Grading permit may be required on this development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.'-1359
AP 8 L:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Any relocation of facilities will be at the cost of the
developer.
Water:The facilities on-site will be private.When meters are planned off
private lines,private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water'
material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by
an engineer,licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.Execution of
Customer Owned Line Agreement is required and the existing underground
line would have to be replaced in its entirety.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact Dennis Free at
918-3752 for details.
~Count Plannin:No Comment.
CATA:The site is not located on Central Arkansas Transit bus route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptannin Division:No Comment.
~hendeca e:A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the landscape
ordinance equal to the expansion proposed (38%)will be required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 24,2002)
Chuck Harper and Mark Rudder were present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed subdivision site plan.Staff noted several
items which needed to be shown on a revised site plan.The applicants indicated
no problems with the staff or Public Works Comments.
The landscape requirements were briefly discussed.Staff noted that an upgrade
in landscaping would be required.Staff also noted that the required landscape
upgrade needed to be shown on a plan and approved by staff prior to the public
hearing.The applicants noted that this issue would be worked out.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee forwarded this
application to the full Commission for final action.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 5 Cont.FILE NO S-1359
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and a landscape plan to staff on
October 30,2002.The revised site plan addresses all staff issues.All of the
additional notations as required by staff have been shown on the site plan.
Additionally,staff has reviewed the applicant's landscape plan.The plan
addresses all of the landscape issues and provides for the required landscape
upgrade as required with the building expansion.
As noted in paragraph D.of this report,Public Works will require that any curb
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way be repaired or
replaced prior to occupancy of the new building.The applicant has noted that
this requirement will be complied with.
The total amount of building area,including the proposed new building,on the
site requires a minimum of 300'arking spaces.There is a more than adequate
number of parking spaces on the site to meet this minimum requirement and
satisfy the parking needs of this applicant.Section 36-302(b)(5)of the Zoning
Ordinance states that there shall be no open display of any kind within the first
20 feet of the required front yard setback.There is existing auto display within
the first 20 feet of the front yard setback along Shackleford Road.This display is
nonconforming (has existed for a number of years)and will be allowed to
continue.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application.The applicant has done an excellent job in addressing the issues as
raised during the staff and Subdivision Committee review.The applicant is
requesting no waivers or variances with this application.The proposed collision
center building complies with all of the required building setbacks for the C-4
zoning district.No new ground-mounted signage is proposed with the new
building.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Subdivision Site plan review subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
2.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides with an eight (8)foot
high opaque fence or wall.
3.All vehicular repair and service must be done within the enclosed buildings,
4.There will be no new ground-mounted signage.
4
l
November 14,2002
ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO.:S-1359
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The application was
approved.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
NAME:Forest Park Elementary School —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1600 N.Tyler Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/Peters and Associates
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
addition of parking on this existing,R-2 zoned,
elementary school campus.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The campus is located within the block bounded by "0"Street,"P"Street,
Tyler Street and Polk Street;one block south of Cantrell Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The campus is located within a residential neighborhood and is
surrounded by single-family occupied,R-2 zoned properties.No
expansion of school grounds or the building are proposed.The proposed
parking expansion will not affect the school's compatibility with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest and Propsect
Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The school contains 23 classrooms and has 38 total employees;requiring
61 on-site parking spaces.There is currently no on-site parking.Utilizing
a portion of the right-of-way,the school district proposes to construct 29,
60'ngle parking spaces along "0"Street and Polk Street.Each of these
streets are one-way,local streets with very little traffic other than for that
generated by the school.Bus loading/unloading currently occurs on "0"
Street.It will be relocated to Tyler Street.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No screening and buffer issues.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:6 Cont FILE NO.'-5459-A
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Dedicate right-of-way to 5'ehind the proposed parking back-of-curb
(make it public parking),or obtain a franchise agreement for that
portion of the parking lot located within the public right-of-way (private
parking).
2.Vehicles backing out of the parking should not back into an
intersection.Remove or relocate the eastern most parking stalls on
oOn Street and the southernmost stall on Polk.
3.There are currently no sidewalks on NON Street and Polk Street.
Provide 5'idewalks with proposed improvements.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk on all adjacent
streets that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
6.Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
7.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed
or existing dght-of-way from Public Works Civil Engineering and Traffic
Engineering prior to construction.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be done at the
expense of the developer.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Doug Eaton and Earnest Peters,were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5459-A
the number of classrooms,total number of employees and signage.Staff noted
that the proposed parking on "0"Street was located in the area currently used
for bus drop-off/pick-up.Mr.Eaton responded that the buses would be moved to
the Tyler Street perimeter.
Most of the discussion centered on Public Works'omments.Mike Hood,of
Public Works,commented that additional right-of-way should be dedicated to
place the entirety of the proposed new parking in the right-of-way,making it
public parking or a franchise agreement would need to be obtained for the
portion of the parking located in the right-of-way if the parking was to remain
private.Mr.Eaton responded that it was the school district's desire to keep the
parking private so that there would be control over who utilized it.In response to
a question from Commissioner Berry,Mr.Hood stated that staff was supportive
of the proposal to have parking backing out into "0"and Polk Streets because
they were local streets with very little traffic,other than that generated by the
school.In response to Public Works'omment that sidewalks were needed on
the "0"and Polk Street perimeters of the school site,Mr.Peters and Mr.Eaton
both stated that the terrain in that area made sidewalk construction very difficult.
Mr.Peters described a retaining wall that was going to be built in that area,
rendering the area unbuildable for sidewalks.There was a brief discussion of
whether right-of-way was needed for the abutting streets since,although they are
residential streets,the Master Street Plan classifies than as commercial streets
since they abut a nonresidential use.Mr.Hood stated he would discuss the
issue with Public Works Staff and the applicant.The applicant was advised to
respond to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Forest Park Elementary School occupies the block of R-2 zoned property
bounded by "0","P",Tyler and Polk Streets.The site contains a single building
with 23 classrooms.There are no parking spaces on-site.Parallel parking
occurs along the various streets.Bus loading/unloading takes place on "O"
Street.The school district proposes to utilize a portion of the right-of-way to
construct 60'ngle parking spaces along "0"and Polk Streets.The parking will
back into the streets.The bus loading/unloading will be relocated to Tyler Street.
No other changes are proposed to the site other than for new,4 foot chain-link
fencing to be installed in front of the parking spaces.Some of the fencing may
be located on top of a retaining wall.
On November 1,2002,the applicant submitted written responses to staff issues
raised at Subdivision Committee.No new site plan was submitted.Issues
remaining to be resolved are right-of-way dedication,franchising the parking and
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.'-5459-A
providing sidewalks on "0"and Polk Street.It appears the district concurs with
dedicating the required right-of-way,if the parking spaces can be franchised for
use by the school.Staff is supportive of this action.The applicant has indicated
a desire to have the sidewalk requirement waived.Staff does not support that
request.
Staff does support the overall conditional use permit to allow the angled parking.
The streets around the school are all one-way,local streets that generate little
traffic beyond that created by the school itself.Allowing the angled parking
should not have a detrimental effect on the traffic pattern in the area.Relocating
the bus drop-off/pick-up to Tyler Street will allow the buses to turn either east or
west on "0"Street;more evenly dispersing the bus traffic away from the school.
No new signage,site lighting or building expansion is proposed.No changes are
proposed to the school programs or classes on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and 6
of this report.
Staff recommends that the Commission support a franchise to allow use of the"0"and Polk Street rights-of-way for the proposed parking.
Staff does not support a waiver of the requirement to construct sidewalks along
the "0"and Polk Street perimeters.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There was one objector present.One letter and a
petition had been received.The letter and petition offered an alternative plan for
the proposed parking along Polk Street.Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant was requesting deferral of the item in order to meet with the concerned
neighbors.The request for deferral was received two days prior to the meeting.
Antonio Mesa,of 1612 N.Polk Street,asked if the Commission had received his
letter and alternate plan.Chairman.Lowry responded that the letter and plan had
been received and the item would be deferred to allow the applicant an
opportunity to meet with the neighbors.There was no further discussion.A
motion was made to waive the Bylaws and accept the late request for deferral.
The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusing
(Lowry).
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 9,
2003 meeting.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusing (Lowry).
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-5675-B
NAME:Philander Smith College Student Housing —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:812 West 13'"Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Philander Smith College/Dr.Trudie Reed,President
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow the
construction of a student housing building on this existing,
R-4 and CZD zoned college campus.
STAFF REPORT:
It has been determined that this conditional use review is not required.On
February 8,2001,the Planning Commission approved a master plan for future
development of the Philander Smith College campus.That plan included the
construction of a 4-story,128 room student housing building.Although the building
has been relocated within the campus,it is still within the scope of that approved by
the Commission in February 2001.
A portion of the building lies within the Capitol Zoning District.On October 24,2002,
the Capitol Zoning Commission approved the student housing development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this item be withdrawn.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that it had been determined that the conditional use review was not
required since the proposed student housing was within the scope of a master plan
that had been approved in February 2001.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7310
NAME:Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:3801 Springer Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church/Ron Bene Woods
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
expansio'n of the existing church and parking lot
located on this R-2 zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the southeast corner of East 38'"Street and
Springer Blvd.;south of l-440,in the Granite Mountain Neighborhood.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The church has been a vital part of this neighborhood for many years.
The majority of the properties immediately around the church are zoned
R-2 and are occupied by single family homes.A city park is adjacent to
the southeast.The church is not expanding beyond its current property
boundaries.Allowing the proposed expansions should not affect the
church's compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Granite Mountain
Neighborhood Association were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Total seating in the sanctuary is 266,requiring 53 parking spaces since
the church was in existence prior to November 1988.The expansion will
increase the seating capacity to 498 seats,requiring an additional 58
parking spaces for the 232 new seats.A total of 111 on-site parking
spaces are required.The church currently has 30 parking spaces,none
of which are entirely on the church's property.The parking spaces on the
north side of the church are partially in the oversized,80 foot right-of-way
of 38'treet.The parking on the south side of the church is partially in
an area owned by the City that serves as access to a city park.The
church is proposing the construction of a new parking lot containing 13
parking spaces;bringing the total number of available spaces to 43.The
applicant states nearly all members are from the immediate community
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7310
and thus,is requesting a variance to allow reduced parking.The Parks
Department has approved allowing the new driveway to take access from
the park entrance/parking area.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Before credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be
given for landscaping within the public right-of-way,it will be necessary to
obtain City Beautiful Commission approval.Franchise approval will also
be required.
A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the landscape ordinance
equal to the expansion proposed will be required.Before the percentage
of upgrade required can be calculated,it will be necessary to clarify the
size of the proposed second floor addition.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Springer Boulevard (Highway 365)is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from
centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.This development may also
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.Obtain permits for improvements in the public right-of-way from Public
Works and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department,
District Vl,prior to starting work.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7310
C~ount Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Ron Woods was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted additional information was needed regarding building heights,
architectural elements such as steeples,signage and the dimensions of the new
parking spaces and driveway.Staff noted a variance would be needed for
reduced on-site parking.
Public Works Comments were presented and discussed.It was noted that
dedicating right-of-way for Springer Blvd.would result in the need to franchise
some of the landscaping along that perimeter.There was some discussion of
the possibility of reducing the right-of-way dedication and street improvement
requirements for Springer Blvd.The Committee questioned whether it was
necessary to continue to classify Springer Blvd.as a minor arterial.Mike Hood,
of Public Works,stated he would discuss the issue with staff.
Landscaping Comments were presented and discussed.
Staff noted that the Parks Department was not opposed to the proposed new
driveway coming off of the park entrance,as proposed.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues no later than noon,
Wednesday,October 30,2002.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church occupies the R-2 zoned,.7a acre tract located at
3801 Springer Blvd.The church proposes to expand its facilities by constructing
a 2,270 square foot addition onto the existing sanctuary and a second floor over
the existing fellowship hall/education wing.The existing sanctuary seats
approximately 200 members with an additional 66 in the choir.The expansion
will increase the seating to 430 in the sanctuary and 68 in the choir.The second
floor addition will accommodate the relocation of 6 classrooms,a nursery,the
library and an office.Moving these functions upstairs will free-up floor area on
the first floor for administrative functions and public activities.No additional uses
such as day care,private school or Mother's Day Out program are proposed.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7310
Additionally,the church proposes to construct a 13 space parking lot in front of
the church building.The proposed additions will not exceed the allowable height
of 35 feet in R-2.A steeple will extend no more than 28 feet above the ridge of
the sanctuary roof.A new ground-mounted sign will be installed on the property.
The sign will not exceed the office/institutional standards of 6 feet in height and
64 square feet in area.
On October 30,2002,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues as reflected in the analysis above.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use permit.The church has been
an integral part of this community for many years.Allowing the proposed
expansion should not affect the church's continued compatibility with the
neighborhood.Parking is the one issue of note.The church does not currently
have the number of parking spaces required by the Code.Even with the addition
of 13 new parking spaces,the site will be 68 parking spaces short of the
Ordinance requirement.The applicant states nearly all members are from the
surrounding neighborhood,implying that many attendees walk to church.There
is parking available on area streets and satellite parking could possibly be
arranged on sites located several blocks away.
Springer Blvd.is classified by the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial street
requiring 90 feet of right-of-way;45 feet from centerline.The right-of-way is
currently at 60 feet;30 feet from centerline.The requirement to dedicate an
additional 15 feet will result in the landscape strip and a small portion of the
parking adjacent to Springer Blvd.being in the right-of-way.Staff will support a
franchise and a City Beautiful variance to allow the landscaping and parking to
be in the right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
3.Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office and institutional zones.
4.All new site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed inward to the
site.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7310
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the reduced number of on-site
parking spaces.
Staff recommends that the Commission support a franchise and City Beautiful
Commission variance to allow the landscaping and a portion of the parking to be
located in the new,expanded Springer Blvd.right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff recommended
approval of a variance to allow reduced on-site parking.Staff also
recommended that the Commission support a franchise and City Beautiful
Commission variance to allow the landscaping and a portion of the parking to be
located in the new,expanded Springer Blvd.right-of-way.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7311
NAME:George Washington Carver Magnet School—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2100 East 6 Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/Peters and Associates
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow
additional parking to be constructed on this existing,
R-4 zoned school campus.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The campus is located on the north side of East 6'"Street,east of
Fletcher Street;in the East End community.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been a part of this neighborhood for many years.Other
than for a scattering of residences adjacent to the west,all other
surrounding properties are nonresidential in use and zoning.Vacant,1-3
zoned property is located north and south of this site.The Nathaniel Hill
Community Complex is adjacent to the east.Allowing the proposed
parking expansion should not affect the school's compatibility with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the East Little Rock
Neighborhood Association were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The school has 33 classrooms and a total of 67 employees;requiring 100
on-site parking spaces under the current code.The site now has 58
parking spaces located on the west side of the school.This proposal
would add 32 more on-site parking spaces;resulting in a total of 90
parking spaces.Bus loading/unloading takes place in a separate circular
driveway located in front of the school.The new parking spaces are to be
located west of the existing parking.An exit-only driveway will be opened
onto Fletcher Street to improve circulation on the site.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7311
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed width of the land use buffer south of the proposed parking
lot drops below the minimum width of 6.7 feet required by both the zoning
and landscape ordinances.This takes into account the reduction allowed
within the designated "mature area"of the city.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be done at the
expense of the developer.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Doug Eaton and Earnest Peters,were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding
the number of classrooms,total number of parking spaces currently on the site,
number of employees,signage and site lighting.In response to a question from
staff,Mr.Eaton confirmed that the bus drop-off/pick-up area was in a separate
area located in front of the school,off of East 6'treet.
Public Works and Landscape Comments were presented.Mr.Peters stated the
plan could be adjusted to provide the required land use buffer width.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7311
The applicants were advised to provide 4 copies of a revised site plan and
responses to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002.The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
George Washington Carver Elementary School is located on the R-4 zoned
property at 2100 East 6'treet.The school contains 33 classrooms.Bus
loading/unloading takes place in a circular driveway located in front of the school.
Employee and visitor parking is located on the west side of the school.58
parking spaces are located along a circular driveway that is also used as
stacking space for student drop-off/pick-up.The school district proposes to
construct an additional 32 parking spaces in this area,including a one-way,exit-
only driveway onto Fletcher Street.The new parking will result in a total of 90
on-site parking space;bringing the number of on-site parking spaces much
closer to the current code requirement of 100 spaces for this school.The
parking expansion is totally on school property and does not involve any
additional property.
On November 1,2002,the applicant submitted a written response to issues
raised at Subdivision Committee and reflected in the analysis above.No
additional signage is proposed other than directional signage.No new site
lighting is proposed.A revised site plan was not submitted.The only change
that needs to be made is a slight adjustment in the proposed parking to provide
the required 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the south perimeter of the new
parking area.This must occur prior to any permits being obtained for
development of the new parking area.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use permit.To staff'
knowledge,there are no other outstanding issues.The expanded parking area
should be of benefit to the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and
6 of this report.
2.Compliance with the City'Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7311
3.Any new site lighting must be low-level and directional,aimed inward to the
site.
4.All new signage must not exceed office and institutional standards.
5.Three (3)copies of a revised site plan must be submitted addressing all
requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-7312
NAME:Mt.Pleasant Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1400 S.Ringo Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Mt.Pleasant Baptist Church/The Mehlburger Firm
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of church parking lots on these C-3 and
R-4 zoned properties.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The two proposed parking lots are located at the southeast corner of
Daisy Gatson Bates Drive and Ringo Street and the southeast corner of
Bates and Cross Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
Mt.Pleasant Baptist Church has been part of this neighborhood for many
years.The immediate area around the church is characterized by a
variety of zonings and uses.Allowing the expansion of these parking lots
will not affect the church's compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown,Central High
and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The total seating capacity in the main worship area is 300.The church
existed pdor to November 1,1988 and the parking requirements are one
parking space per 5 seats,requiring 60 parking spaces.The church
currently has 48 parking spaces in 2 lots located east and west of the
church.The church proposes to completely rebuild and expand the 2 lots,
resulting in a total of 102 parking spaces.The lot located east of Ringo
Street is proposed to have two driveways onto Ringo.Staff is supportive
of a variance to allow the reduced driveway spacing.Allowing the two
driveways onto Ringo is preferable to having a drive onto Daisy Bates
Drive or using the narrow,substandard alley.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO Z-7312
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The width of the proposed on-site street buffer along Daisy L.Gatson
Drive drops below the average 13.5 feet minimum allowed.This takes
into account the reduction allowed within the designated "mature area"of
the city.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.As needed,property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current Master Street Plan requirements and ADA
standards.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance (as shown).
4.Driveway spacing criteria (200'enter to center)would allow only one,26'ide driveway on Ringo.All other exiting drive aprons should be
removed during construction.Staff supports allowing two driveways
onto Ringo Street,as shown.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be done at the
expense of the developer.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Piennin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO '0 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7312
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Frank Riggins,of the Mehlburger Firm,was present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding
the seating capacity of the sanctuary,signage,site lighting and fencing.
Public Works and Landscape Comments were presented.
Mr.Riggins stated variances were requested for the height of the cross in the
meditation garden,the reduced land use buffer on the north perimeter of the
parking lot east of Ringo Street and to allow two driveways onto Ringo Street.
Mr.Riggins stated the cross would be externally illuminated.Mr.Riggins stated
the required minimum landscape strip of 6.7 feet would be installed on the north
perimeter of the new parking lot,east of Ringo Street.He noted that the area
was now paved with no landscape or buffer strip at all.In response to a question
from the Committee,Mr.Riggins stated he would discuss with Public Works the
possibility of eliminating one of the driveways onto Ringo Street and using alley
access.
The applicant was advised to provide 4 copies of a revised site plan and
responses to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002,The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Mt.Pleasant Baptist Church is located at 1400 S.Ringo Street;the southwest
corner of Ringo Street and Daisy Bates Drive.The church has two parking lots
located adjacent to the west of the church and across Ringo Street east of the
church.A total of 48 parking spaces are located in the parking lots.The parking
lots do not conform to landscape and screening requirements in the current
code.
The church proposes to completely rebuild and expand the two parking lots,
resulting in a total of 102 parking spaces.The new parking lots will be designed
to conform to the current landscape and screening requirements of the code.
The new parking lot east of Ringo Street is proposed to have two driveways,both
providing access from Ringo Street.Staff supports a variance to allow reduced
driveway spacing.After reviewing the specifics of this proposal,staff determined
it was preferable to allow the two driveways over having a driveway onto Daisy
Bates Drive or utilizing the narrow,substandard alley east of the parking lot.The
two driveways will not conflict with traffic or other uses in the area.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7312
At the south end of the parking lot east of Ringo Street,the church proposes to
develop a "meditation garden"consisting of landscaped pathways and benches
built around a centerpoint containing a 70 foot tall cross.The cross will be
lighted at night by ground mounted flood lights which will be directed such as to
not cause light pollution to spill into the neighborhood to the south.If the cross
were mounted on the church building,it could extend to a height of 70 feet by
right.Since it is free-standing,a variance is needed to allow the cross to exceed
the allowable maximum height of 35 feet in the R-4 district.Staff does support
the variance.
On October 30,2002,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The required
landscape strip has been shown on the north perimeter of the parking lot.No
changes are proposed in signage.Any new site lighting will be low level and
directional,aimed away from adjacent properties.The proposed parking lots will
not be fenced.However,gates will be erected at the driveways to control access
to the lots.To staff's knowledge there are no other outstanding issues.Staff
believes the new,upgraded parking lots will be a positive addition to the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5 and
6 of this report.
2.Compliance with the City's Landscapes and Buffer Ordinances.
3.Any new site lighting must be low-level and directional,aimed away from
adjacent properties.If the proposed lighting for the cross is found to intrude
upon nearby residential properties,the lighting must be removed or
redirected.
4.All signage must not exceed that allowed in office and institutional zones.
Staff recommends approval of the requested driveway spacing and height
variances to allow two driveways onto Ringo Street and to allow the 70 foot tall
cross.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7312
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.Staff recommended
approval of the requested driveway spacing and height variances.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-7313
NAME:Lawnmowers Plus —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:8223 Asher Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:James Echols/Alan Beasley
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a lawnmower sales and service
business on this C-3 zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Asher Avenue,between
Walker and Cobb Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This portion of Asher Avenue is characterized by a variety of zonings and
uses including a mobile home park,a liquor store,vacant commercial and
residential lots and recently approved day care and beauty shop.Single
family residences are located south of the site,beyond an undeveloped
alley.With proper attention to screening and buffering and limits on
outdoor use,this proposed use should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet,all residents within 300 feet
who could be identified and the John Barrow,Westwood and SWLRUP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This 3,156 square foot retail building requires 10 on-site parking spaces at
one space per 300 square feet.The applicant proposes 11 parking
spaces accessed via a single driveway off of Asher Avenue.The
proposed parking conforms to ordinance standards.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont FILE NO '-7313
A six (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 eastern and western perimeters of the site.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Asher Avenue is currently being reconstructed and improved by the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department.No further right-
of-way dedication or construction is required.Coordinate drive
location as necessary with AHTD District Vl.
2.Grading permit may be required on this development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance will not apply to this property.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will
be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be
installed at the Developer's expense.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.
~Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Alan Beasley was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted additional information was needed regarding signage and site lighting.
The applicant was advised to show screening around the pick-up/receiving yard
and the dumpster.Staff noted that single family residences were located south
of the site and care needed to be taken to reduce the impact of this use on the
nearby residences.Staff suggested that all repair/testing of mowers and
equipment take place only inside the building and that any doors on the south
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7313
side of the building remain closed at all times other than drop-off/receiving.Staff
stated no access should be permitted to the alley south of the site.
There was a discussion of the issue of outdoor storage or display.Mr.Beasley
stated there would be some storage in the screened delivery/pick-up area behind
the building.He was advised that a variance would be required to allow outdoor
storage.Mr.Beasley was advised that the C-3 zoning district did allow some
outdoor display of merchandise but that did not include the storage of machinery
and equipment awaiting repair or pick-up.
Public Works Comments were noted.Landscape Comments were presented.
The applicant was advised to submit 4 copies of a revised site plan and
responses to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002.The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS;
The applicant proposes to construct a new,3,156 square foot building on the C-3
zoned property located at 8223 Asher Avenue for "Lawnmowers Plus",a
lawnmower/small engine sales and service business.In addition to the new
building,an 11 space parking lot,landscaping,screening and perimeter fencing
will be installed.The 3,156 square foot building contains 420 square feet of
showroom,1,624 square feet of shop and 1,112 square feet for parts and office.
A 67 feet by 16 feet area behind the building will be used to store lawnmowers
and equipment awaiting repair or customer pick-up.This storage area will be on
a concrete slab and will be enclosed by a 6 foot tall,wood opaque fence on all
sides.One 6 foot wood gate will open from the storage area to the parking lot.
The business will operate from 7:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.A
6 foot tall,wood opaque fence will be erected along the rear,south,perimeter of
the site.The fence and an undeveloped,20 foot wide alley right-of-way separate
this site from residential properties to the south.
On October 30,2002,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant more
clearly defined the rear,storage area.This area is for pickup and delivery only.
No mechanical work will be performed outside.The rear doors accessing the
shop area from the pickup/delivery area will be furnished with door closures and
will remain closed when not in use.The outside security lights will be placed in a
manner so as not to shine at the residential properties to the south.Signage will
not exceed that permitted in commercial zones.The required dumpster
screening has been shown.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7313
The applicant has also indicated a 10 foot by 60 foot concrete,display area to be
located directly in front of the building.The display area will be used to display
mowers and small equipment which are offered for sale.The C-3 district allows
outdoor display of merchandise in an area equal to one-half of the facade area
of the front of the building.In no case,is full time static open display permitted.
The 600 square foot display area is within the allowable area based on the
building having a facade of 1,638 square feet.
With appropriate attention given to details such as screening and limiting outdoor
noise,staff believes the proposed use is appropriate and should be compatible
with uses and development in the area.
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 this report.
2.Compliance with the City's Landscapes and Buffer Ordinances.
3.Outdoor storage of mowers and equipment awaiting service or customer
pick-up is to be limited to the 67 feet by 16 feet area located directly behind
the building as described by the applicant.
4.There is to be no testing or service of mowers and equipment outside of the
building.
5.All doors and openings on the south side of the building are to be kept closed
at all times other than at times of delivery or pick-up of individual items.
6.Outdoor display of new merchandise is to be limited to the 10 feet by 60 feet
concrete display area located in front of the building.That display is to
conform to C-3 development criteria.
7.All site lighting is to be low level and directional,aimed away from adjacent
properties.
8.Signage must not exceed that permitted in commercial zones.
9.There is to be no access to the alley located to the rear,south of the site,
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7313
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Letters of support
had been submitted by the John Barrow and Westwood Neighborhood
Associations.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-7314
NAME:Bass Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:489 Ridgeway Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:Logan Bass
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory dwelling on this R-3
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of Ridgeway,one lot south of Lee
Avenue.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
There are several other accessory dwellings and detached guesthouses in
this neighborhood.The alley is lined with fences and accessory
structures.Allowing an accessory dwelling of this nature would not seem
incompatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest Residents
Association were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling require one on-site parking
space each.The proposed accessory building contains two parking
spaces in a carport taking access off of the alley.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No issues.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7314
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
The applicant,Logan Bass,was present.Staff presented the item and advised
the Committee that an area coverage variance would be needed since the
structure was proposed to cover more than 30%of the required rear yard.Mr.
Bass was asked if separates utilities were requested.He responded that
separate electric service was needed.In response to questions from staff,Mr.
Bass presented plans for the structure.The plan showed two parking spaces in
the carport and an internal stairway providing access to the upstairs accessory
dwelling.There were no other staff comments.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues no later than noon,
Wednesday October 30,2002.The Committee determined there were no other
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-3 zoned property located at 489 Ridgeway Drive is currently occupied by
a one-story,stucco,single-family residence and a 392 square foot accessory
building that,at one time,served as,an accessory dwelling.The applicant
proposes to remove the old accessory building and build in its place a two-story,
16'44'ccessory building.The lower floor of the structure will contain a
two-car carport and a storage room.The upper floor will contain a 645 square
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7314
foot accessory dwelling.The accessory structure does meet required setbacks
but exceeds the allowable 30%rear yard area coverage of 375 square feet for
this lot.The applicant is requesting separate electric service for the structure.
Staff is supportive of the request.Accessory dwellings are not uncommon in this
area.Although the structure exceeds the allowable rear yard coverage,it does
not seem out of character with other development surrounding the site.The
required parking is being provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the approved site plan.Staff recommends approval of the
request to have a separate electric meter for the accessory building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
approved site plan.Staff recommended approval of the request to have a
separate electric meter.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO '-7315
NAME:4'nd Broadway Parking Lot —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:316-320 Broadway
OWNER/APPLICANT:Metropolitan Land Company/Thomas Engineering
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a commercial,surface parking lot
on this UU zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the northwest corner of West 4'"Street and
Broadway.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located in the intensely developed,urban core of downtown.
Parking lots are located east and west of the site.The parking lot south of
this site is being lost to an expansion of the federal courts building.With
proper attention to the UU regulations and the City's Landscape
Ordinance,the proposed parking lot should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown Neighborhood
Association were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed parking lot will be accessed via an existing driveway onto
Broadway and a new driveway onto West 4'"Street.The existing
driveway on 4'treet,near the Broadway intersection,will be removed.
The parking lot will contain 65 spaces,several of which are accessed via
the alley.A variance is needed for many of the right-angle spaces within
the site to have a total stall and maneuvering depth of 6 inches less than
the 40 feet required by the code.One of the spaces on the alley must be
removed because its maneuvering space extends into the 4"Street
right-of-way.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7315
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Because of the reduction allowed for both commercial parking lots and
sites within the designated "mature area",areas set aside for landscaping
meet with minimum requirements.
The Urban Use District requires street trees spaced thirty (30)on center.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
A water source within seventy-five (75)of landscaping areas will be
required.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of Broadway and 4'.
2.Driveway spacing from the intersection does not meet ordinance
requirements.Close the eastern-most driveway on 4'treet.
3.Broadway is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be done at the
expense of the developer:
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
C~ount Ptennin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7315
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
John Pownall,of Thomas Engineering,was present representing the application.
Staff presented the item and noted that some redesign of the parking lot was
needed to provide proper maneuvering/back-out space for some of the parking
spaces.Staff noted that a variance would be needed to allow a 6 inch reduction
in parking stall depth/maneuvering area for a portion of the lot.Staff noted that
ground-mounted signs were not permitted in the UU district and the applicant
had indicated that a ground sign would be requested.Staff asked that details on
the sign be provided,including size and location.
Landscape comments were noted.The applicant was advised that street trees
would be required,to conform to UU requirements.Public Works Comments
were discussed.The applicant was advised that the driveway onto 4'treet
must be closed.There was discussion of the Master Street Plan requirement to
dedicate additional right-of-way for Broadway.Mike Hood,of Public Works,
stated he would meet with the applicant to discuss right-of-way and driveway
issues.
The applicant was advised to provide 4 copies of a revised site plan and
responses to staff issues no later than noon,Wednesday October 30,2002.The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The vacant,UU zoned property at the northwest corner of Broadway and West
4 Street was previously occupied by a restaurant.The building was recently
removed.The site now contains only a paved parking lot and the concrete
foundation remaining from the restaurant.The applicant proposes to redevelop
the site as a commercial,surface parking lot.A portion of the site will need to be
filled and graded to bring the slope of the site up to the elevation of the alley
adjacent to the west.Perimeter and interior landscaping,which the site currently
lacks,will be installed.The existing driveway onto Broadway will be retained.
The current driveway onto 4'treet will be removed because it is too close to
the intersection.A new driveway will be opened onto 4 Street farther west from
the intersection.Angled parking will be installed off of the alley.Within the UU
"Urban Use"zoning district,commercial surface parking lots are permitted only
as a conditional use.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use.The site is currently paved
from property line to property line by either the concrete slab of the old restaurant
building or the existing asphalt parking lot.Allowing the property to be used as a
parking lot seems reasonable and is not incompatible with uses in the area.
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7315
On October 30,2002,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues raised at Subdivision Committee.
There are two outstanding issues that need to be addressed.The applicant is
requesting approval of a 10-foot tall,64 square foot qround-mounted sign to be
placed at the southeast corner of the site,near the 4 and Broadway
intersection.The UU zoning district does not permit ground-mounted signs
by-right.The concept of the UU district is that buildings are to be located on the
front building line,with no room for ground-mounted signs.In this case of a
parking lot,being reviewed through the conditional use process,the Commission
may find it appropriate to allow signage to identify the parking lot.The proposed
sign will also contain the money boxes where patrons pay to use the lot.Staff
does not support the sign as proposed.Staff recommends that the sign be
relocated to the northeast corner on the site on the interior of the new landscape
area or to the interior of the site on the interior landscape island.Either location
is preferable to the highly visible intersection of 4'nd Broadway.Staff
recommends that the sign be limited to the size and height allowed in office
zones;64 square feet and 6 feet in height.
The second issue concerns the right-of-way for Broadway.The Master Street
Plan designates Broadway as a principal arterial and requires the dedication of
an additional 15 feet of right-of-way to bring it up to the requirement of 55 feet
from centerline.This will result in the entire landscape strip and first row of
parking along Broadway being in the new right-of-way.Staff will support
franchising the parking and landscaping.Staff believes it would be appropriate
to consider a possible amendment to the Master Street Plan whereby a reduced
right-of-way standard could be established for Broadway.Until such time as that
amendment occurs,the franchise process is reasonable and appropriate for the
parking spaces and landscaping.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
3.The southernmost parking space off of the alley must be removed.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a ground-mounted sign
subject to the ground-mounted sign not exceeding 6 feet in height and 64 square
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7315
feet in area and the sign being located either at the northeast corner of the site
or at an interior landscape island away from the intersection of 4'nd Broadway
Staff recommends that the Commission support a franchise and City Beautiful
Commission variance to allow the landscape strip and first row of parking to be
located in the new,Broadway right-of-way once the required right-of-way is
dedicated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.Staff informed the Commission
staff was now supporting a waiver of the required right-of-way dedication for
Broadway.Staff stated the Master Street Plan was going to be reviewed for
possible amendment to establish a reduced,urban arterial right-of-way standard
for Broadway.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended
by staff,including the right-of-way waiver.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
5
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-5115-B
NAME:T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:11209 1-30
OWNER/APPLICANT:Reeves/Site Excell
PROPOSAL:A tower use permit is requested to allow for the
addition of 15 feet to the height of this existing,150-
foot tall monopole tower to accommodate an
additional wireless carrier.The property is zoned l-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of 1-30,east of its intersection
with 1-430.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
Industrial uses are adjacent to the east and west of the site.1-30 is
adjacent to the north.Beyond the industrial site and an area of dense
vegetation,single family homes are located to the south.Allowing the
existing tower to be raised by 15 feet will not affect this WCF's
compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Pinedale and SWLRUP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A 15'ngress/egress easement provides access to the WCF lease site
through the parent tract from the I-30 Frontage Road.Adequate parking
is available on the site to accommodate any technician servicing the
WCF.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
I andscape and screening requirements are those standards contained
within the Zoning WCF Ordinance.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5115-B
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CountOPlanning:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Chris Villines was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that a variance would be needed to allow the height of the tower to be
increased from 150 feet to 165 feet.Staff voiced support for a complete waiver
of landscaping and screening on the south,east and west perimeter but
suggested that the full requirement should be imposed on the north (street)side.
Mr.Villines stated he agreed with staffs recommendation.
There were no further staff comments.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)located at 11209 I-30 consists of a
150-foot tall monopole tower and an equipment cabinet within a 48'34'ease
area.The lease area is enclosed by a 6-foot tall chain-link fence topped with
barbed wire.The lease area is located between two buildings on the 1-2 zoned,
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5115-B
Reeves Fastners property.The lease area is screened on the east and west
sides by existing buildings and on the south side by dense vegetation.The site
is visible from the 1-30 Frontage Road.The site was approved through a Tower
Use Permit by the Planning Commission on September 3,1998.One condition
of that 1998 Tower Use Permit was that the site be designed to accommodate at
least one additional wireless carrier.
T-Mobile proposes to collocate on the WCF site.T-Mobile will sub-lease a 15'
15'ortion of the overall lease area.An equipment cabinet will be placed in the
lease area and antennae will be placed on the monopole tower.Existing
antennae are at the 150-foot level on the tower.In order to provide the required
coverage,T-Mobile cannot place its antennae any lower on the tower.
Consequently,this proposal includes adding a 15-foot extension on top of the
tower.T-Mobile's antennae will be placed at the 165-foot level.Staff is
supportive of a variance to allow the tower to exceed the allowable height of 150
feet.This will accommodate the collocation and reduce the need for an
additional tower in this area.
Since the WCF is located within an industrially zoned and developed property
and is screened on three sides by existing buildings and dense vegetation,
T-Mobile is requesting a deferral of the WCF Landscape and Screening
requirements on 3 of the 4 perimeters of the WCF lease area.This site has not
previously been brought into compliance with the provisions of the 1999 WCF
Landscape and Screening Ordinance,nor has a deferral been previously
granted.Staff is supportive of the requested deferral of the required landscaping
and screening on the east and west perimeters where the WCF site is adjacent
to buildings and on the south side where an area of dense vegetation provides
adequate screening.In response to staff's request,the applicant has agreed to
install the required 8-foot tall wood screening fence and landscape materials on
the north perimeter of the WCF where it is visible from 1-30.Due to the nature
and location of this site,it is reasonable not to require landscaping and screening
on all 4 perimeters.
Staff supports a deferral of the landscaping and screening on the south,east
and west perimeters of the WCF site until such time as a "major change in
circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the code.
Section 36-593(c)(6)states a "major change in circumstance"means that:
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower
site has developed to the point that there is a virtually
unobstructed view of the tower site from any adjoining
occupiable residential structure or from public property or right-
of-way,and
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO '4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5115-B
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site
that the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;
and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC 5 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,
but no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional
space around the site has been acquired to meet the
landscaping,setback and screening requirements of LRC g
36-593.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit.
Staff recommends approval of a height variance to allow the monopole tower to
be increased to 165 feet in height.
Staff recommends approval of a deferral of the Landscape and Screening
requirements on the south,east and west perimeters of the WCF lease site
until such time as a "major change in circumstance"as defined in Section
36-593(c)(6)of the code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had amended the application by agreeing to
install the required screening fence on the south and west perimeters in addition
to installing the required screening fence and landscaping on the north
perimeter.The amendment was offered in response to a concern that had been
raised in a letter submitted by SWLR United for Progress.Staff recommended
approval of the T.U.P.and of a height variance to allow the tower height to be
raised to 165 feet.Staff recommended approval of a deferral of the landscape
and screening requirement on the east perimeter and of the landscape
requirement on the west and south perimeters until such time as a "major
change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-6042-D
NAME:T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:10920 Colonel Glenn
OWNER/APPLICANT:Central Arkansas Water/Site Excell
PROPOSAL:A tower use permit is requested to allow for the
addition of 5 feet to the height of this existing,
150-foot tall monopole tower to accommodate an
additional wireless carrier.The property is zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on a wooded hillside above the northeast corner of
Colonel Glenn and 1-430.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The WCF lease site is located within a Central Arkansas Water Facility
which is surrounded by undeveloped,heavily wooded properties.
Allowing the slight increase in tower height to accommodate an additional
carrier will not affect the WCF's compatibility with the neighborhood.No
residentially occupied properties are within the vicinity of this site.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and
SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A gravel road within an ingress/egress easement provides access to the
Water Works site and WCF lease area from Colonel Glenn Road.There
is adequate area within the water works site to accommodate the vehicles
of any technicians visiting the WCF.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Landscape and screening requirements are those standards contained
within the Zoning WCF Ordinance.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6042-D
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding easement needed for
this project.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Chris Villines was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that a variance would be needed to allow the tower height to be
increased from 150 feet to 155 feet.Staff noted that the WCF was located within
a Central Arkansas Water Works site and was surrounded by densely wooded,
undeveloped property.Staff voiced support for a waiver of the landscaping and
screening requirements on all perimeters of the WCF site.
There were no further staff comments.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)located at 10920 Colonel Road
consists of a 150-foot tall monopole tower and two equipment cabinets within a
40'40'ease area.The lease area is within a 2.52 acre Central Arkansas
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6042-D
Water Facility.The parent tract contains a water tank,water works buildings and
a separate WCF lease area containing an additional monopole tower.The entire
water works site is enclosed by an 8-foot tall chainlink fence topped with barbed
wire.The properties north,south and east of the water works site are
undeveloped and heavily wooded.The 1-430 right-of-way is adjacent to the
west.Dense vegetation in the right-of-way provides screening for the west
perimeter of the site.This WCF site was approved,at staff level,in August
1998.A collocation on the site was.approved in August 2002.
T-Mobile now proposes to collocate on the site,resulting in 3 carriers on this one
monopole tower.T-Mobile will sublease a 12'15'rea within the larger,1,600
square foot WCF lease area.An equipment cabinet will be placed in the lease
area and additional antennae will be placed on the tower.In order to provide
the required coverage,T-Mobile cannot place its antennae any lower on the
tower.Consequently,this proposal includes adding 5 feet on top of the tower.
T-Mobile's antennae will be placed at the 155-foot level.Staff is supportive of a
variance to allow the tower to exceed the allowable height of 150 feet.This will
accommodate the collocation and reduce the need for an additional tower in this
area.
Since the WCF lease site is located within a Central Arkansas Water Facility and
is surrounded by undeveloped,heavily wooded properties,the applicant is
requesting a deferral of the WCF landscape and screening requirements on all
4 sides of the WCF lease area.This site has not previously been brought into
compliance with the provisions of the 1999 WCF landscape and screening
ordinance,nor has a deferral been previously granted.Central Arkansas Water
has requested that no additional fencing (screening)or landscaping be installed
within their site,fearing that to do so would hamper operation of their facility.
Staff is supportive of the requested deferral.Due to the nature and location of
this site,it is reasonable not to require screening or landscaping on the
perimeters of the WCF lease site.
Staff supports a deferral of the landscaping and screening until such time as a
"major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code,
Section 36-593(c)(6)states a "major change in circumstance"means that:
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower
site has developed to the point that there is a virtually
unobstructed view of the tower site from any adjoining
occupiable residential structure or from public property or right-
of-way,and
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:15 Cont FILE NO Z-6042-D
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site
that the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;
and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC 5 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,
but no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional
space around the site has been acquired to meet the
landscaping,setback and screening requirements of LRC
5 36-593.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit.
Staff recommends approval of a height variance to allow the monopole tower to
be increased in height to 155 feet.
Staff recommends approval of a deferral of the Landscape and Screening
requirements on all 4 perimeters of the WCF lease site until such time as a
"major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.Staff recommended approval of the
requested height variance.Staff recommended approval of a deferral of the
landscaping and screening requirements on all perimeters of the WCF until such
time as a "major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of
the Code.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-6129-E
NAME:T-Mobile Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:10901 Rocky Valley Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Central Arkansas Water/Site Excell
PROPOSAL:A tower use permit is requested to allow for the
addition of 5 feet to the height of this existing,
150-foot tall monopole tower to accommodate an
additional wireless carrier.The property is zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The lease area is located within the Jack Wilson Water Treatment plant
site,at the northwest corner of 1-430 and Pleasant Valley Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The WCF is located near the center of the large,Central Arkansas Water
Jack Wilson Water Treatment plant site.It is shielded from visibility by
plant facilities and woods.Allowing the tower to be increased 5 feet in
height to accommodate an additional wireless carrier will not affect its
compatibility with surrounding uses.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Pleasant Valley and
SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A paved driveway within an ingress/egress easement provides access to
the WCF lease area through the water works property from Pleasant
Valley Drive.There is adequate area within the water works property to
accommodate the vehicles of any technicians visiting the WCF site.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Landscape and screening requirements are those standards contained
within the Zoning WCF Ordinance.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.;16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6129-E
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Coun Plannin:No Comments received.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 24,2002)
Chris Villines was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted a variance would be needed to allow the tower height to be increased
from 150 feet to 155 feet.Staff noted that the WCF was located within the large,
Central Arkansas Water Jack Wilson Water Treatment Plant and was shielded
by perimeter vegetation and the water tanks and buildings.Staff voiced support
for a waiver of the landscaping and screening requirements on all perimeters of
the WCF site.
There were no further staff comments.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)located at 10901 Rocky Valley
Drive consists of a 150-foot tall monopole tower and 3 equipment
shelters/cabinets within a 2,075 square foot lease area.The lease area is within
2
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6129-E
the very large,Jack Wilson Water T'reatment Plant Facility that is operated by
Central Arkansas Water.The entire Water Works site is enclosed by security
fencing.The WCF lease area is enclosed bya6-foot tall chainlinkfence.The
lease area is located 288 feet away from the north property line,364 feet from
the east property line,1,027 feet from the south property line and 938 feet from
the west property line.The lease area is shielded from view from neighboring
properties by dense vegetation on the perimeters of the water works property
and by the large tanks and buildings on the site.This WCF site was approved at
staff level in July 1998.Subsequent collocations were approved in June 2000
and December 2000.On June 20,2000,the City Board of Directors passed
Ordinance No.18,288 granting a waiver of the landscaping requirement on all 4
sides of the WCF.That ordinance required that an 8-foot tall,wood fence be
erected on all 4 perimeters of the WCF lease area.
T-Mobile now proposes to collocate on the site resulting in 4 carriers on this one
monopole tower.T-Mobile will sublease a 19'25'rea within the larger,2,075
square foot WCF lease area.An equipment cabinet will be placed in the lease
area and additional antennae will be placed on the tower.The current carriers
have their antennae at 125 feet;137 feet and 149 feet on the tower.In order to
provide the required coverage,T-Mobile cannot place their antennae any lower
on the tower.Consequently,this proposal includes adding 5 feet on top of the
tower.T-Mobile's antennae will be placed at the 155-foot level.Staff is
supportive of the variance to allow the tower to exceed the allowable height of
150 feet.This will accommodate the collocation and reduce the need for an
additional tower in this area.
Since the WCF lease site is located within the Central Arkansas Water Jack
Wilson Water Treatment plant site and is so separated from all adjoining
properties,staff supports a deferral of the landscape and screening requirements
in the perimeters of the WCF lease site.Although the June 2000 colocation
required the installation of the 8-foot wood fence,it appears it was not installed.
Typically,Central Arkansas Water does not want additional fencing or
landscaping placed around WCF lease sites that are on Water Works property
because it might hamper operation of their facility.Due to the nature and
location of this site,it is reasonable not to require screening or landscaping on
the perimeters of the WCF lease site.
Staff supports a deferral of the landscaping and screening until such time as a
"major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
Section 36-593(c)(6)states a "major change in circumstance"means that:
3
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-6129-E
(1)the area within 200 feet of the boundaries of the WCF tower
site has developed to the point that there is a virtually
unobstructed view of the tower site from any adjoining
occupiable residential structure or from public property or right-
of-way,and
(2)the City has received a complaint from the owner of an
occupiable structure located within 200 feet of the tower site
that the site has insufficient landscaping or screening in place;
and
(3)the City has requested that the parties resolve the issue by
agreeing to certain screening or landscaping requirements
consistent with LRC 5 36-593 which can be granted
administratively by the Director of Planning and Development,
but no agreement has been reached,or sufficient additional
space around the site has been acquired to meet the
landscaping,setback and screening requirements of LRC
5 36-593.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit.
Staff recommends approval of a height variance to allow the tower height to be
raised to 155 feet.
Staff recommends approval of a deferral of the landscape and screening
requirements on all 4 perimeters of the WCF lease site until such time as a
"major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of the Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.Staff recommended approval of the
requested height variance.Staff recommended approval of a deferral of the
landscape and screening requirements on all 4 perimeters of the WCF until such
time as a "major change in circumstance"as defined in Section 36-593(c)(6)of
the Code.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR -2003
SUBDIVISION HEARINGS:
Subdivision
~Filin Date Legal Ad Committee (2)HHi )()(3)
12-23-02 01-03-03 01-16-03 02-06-03
02-10-03 02-21-03 02-27-03 03-20-03
03-24-03 04-04-03 04-10-03 05-01-03
05-05-03 05-16-03 05-22-03 06-12-03
06-16-03 06-27-03 07-03-03 07-24-03
07-28-03 08-08-03 08-14-03 09-04-03
09-08-03 09-19-03 09-25-03 10-16-03
1 0-20-03 10-31-03 11-06-03 12-04-03
12-08-03 12-19-03 01-08-04 01-29-04
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS:
Subdivision
Filinc(Date ~Le el Ad Committee (2)~3 ~HH)i 03 K(1)(3)
11-18-02 12-04-02 12-12-02 11-20-02 12-04-02 12-18-02 01-09-03
01-13-03 01-24-03 01-30-03 01-15-03 01-29-03 02-12-03 02-20-03
02-24-03 03-07-03 03-13-03 02-26-03 03-12-03 03-26-03 04-03-03
04-07-03 04-18-03 04-24-03 04-09-03 04-23-03 05-07-03 05-15-03
05-19-03 05-30-03 06-05-03 05-21-03 06-04-03 06-18-03 06-26-03
06-30-03 07-11-03 07-17-03 07-02-03 07-16-03 07-30-03 08-07-03
08-11-03 08-22-03 08-28-03 08-13-03 08-27-03 09-10-03 09-18-03
09-22-03 10-03-03 10-09-03 09-24-03 10-08-03 10-22-03 10-30-03
11-03-03 11-14-03 11-20-03 11-05-03 11-19-03 12-10-03 12-18-03
12-22-03 01-02-04 01-15-04 01-07-04 01-24-04 02-04-04 02-12-04
AVAILABLE INFORMAL MEETING DATES:
(to be scheduled as required)
~Mi 3 (3)
01-23-03
03-06-03
04-17-03
05-29-03
07-10-03
08-21-03
10-02-03
11-13-03
NOTE'1)All public Hearings shall be held at 4:00 P.M.unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(2)All meetings shall be held at 12 00 P M unless changed by the Subdivision Committee.
(3)An agenda meeting will be held prior to each pubhc hearing date and will begin at 3:30 P.M.in the Sister Cities
Conference Room.
(4)Reserved.
(5)All informal meetings shall be held at 3:30 P.M.unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(6)All meetings shall be held at 12.00 NOON unless otherwise changed by the Plans Committee.
NOTICE.AN INTERPRETER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED UPON REQUEST.REQUEST SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR
TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE.
November 14,2002
ITEM NO.:18
SUBJECT:Planning Commission receipt and acceptance of an
ordinance amendment work program for 2002-2003;
directing the Plans Committee to proceed with review and
forwarding the results of that review for public hearing.
STAFF REPORT:
The seventeen (17)subjects in this proposal were offered by staff and citizens over
the past several months.On October 9,2002,the Plans Committee briefly reviewed
the proposals and directed staff to proceed with preparation of an agenda item on
November 14,2002 for commission endorsement.If the Commission accepts this
material as the 2002-2003 Work Program for ordinance amendments,staff will
immediately distribute the material to contact persons.Comments received will be
forwarded to the committee for inclusion within the discussion.
Once the Plans Committee completes its review,the completed package will be
returned to the Commission.It is anticipated that the review process should take
4 to 5 months.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Staff presented the proposed Ordinance Amendment package.There was no
discuss~on.
The Ordinance Amendment Work Program was placed on the Consent Agenda and
adopted by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2002-2003
ZONING —SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
ZONINQ ORDINANCE
2002-2003 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
DRAFT 1 DATE October 9 2002
~Sub'ect ~Priorit ~Pe Text
A.Section 36-54(d);resolve a conflict within the Special Use 3
Permit section regarding the transferability of permits.
B.Section 36-553(b);eclean-upe matter to add setbacks for
projecting signs in the office and institutional zones.
C.Section 36-346(f);eclean-upe matter to correct incorrect 5
reference to former Chapter 27,Little Rock Sign
Ordinance.
D.Section 31-232(b);eclean-upe matter to correct incorrect 6
reference to Subsection regarding lot width-to-depth ratio.
E.Section 36-342.1(c)(8);relocation of incorrectly placed 7
sign regulation in the UU Urban Use development criteria.
F.Section 36-342.1(c)(8);relocation of incorrectly placed 8
height regulation in the UU Urban Use development
criteda.
G.Sections 36-553,36-554 and 36-555;incidental signs are 9
incorrectly listed with the allowable permanent signage for
each district.This amendment establishes incidental sign
guidelines as a separate subsection.
H.Section 36-342.1(c)(9)(a);corrects a conflict within the UU 12
Urban Use District regulations regarding signage that
projects over the public right-of-way.
I.Section 36-342.1(e);clarifies the allowable height of 13
buildings constructed within the "high-rise"district of the
UU Urban Use zoned portion of downtown.
Priority:
(1)Urgent need
(2)Need
3 Text Cleanu can wait.
Page 1
ZONING ORDINANCE
2002-2003 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
DRAFT 1 DATE ON b 9 2002
~Sub ect ~Priorit ~Pi T xt
J.Section 36-302(c)(2);establishes permitted and 14
conditional uses in the C-3 district as conditional uses in
the C-4 district.
K.Section 36-342.1(b);clarifies at what point compliance 15
with the UU Urban Use District is required in relation to
redevelopment of an existing building.
L,Section 31-89;requires submission of an IBM compatible 16
diskette containing specific information at the time of
preliminary plat filing.
M.Section 36-130(b)(1);requires submission of an IBM 17
compatible diskette containing specific information at the
time of site plan submittal.
N.Sections 36-299,36-300,36-301 and 36-302;permits 18
restaurants (eating place)to have outdoor dining.
O.Section 31-94(e);extends preliminary plat approval from 19
1 year to 3 years.
P.Section 36-511;proposes a change in required parking 20
stall width from 9 feet to 8 feet 6 inches in structured
parking.
Q.Requires the display of street address numbers on on-site 21
signage.
Priority:
(1)Urgent need
(2)Need
3 Text Cleanu can wait.
Page 2
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
OATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:AconflictwithintheS ecialUse SOURCE:Staff
Permit Section 36-54 concernin the
transferabili of ermits.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-54(d)
(d)Transfer of permits.Special use permits shall not be transferable in any manner.Permits cannot
be passed (from)owner to owner,location to location or use to use.
Sec.36-54(e)(2)e
(e)This use shall be permitted to run with the title to the land and be transferable.
STAFF REPORT:()
Section 36-54(d)states that Special Use Permits are not to be transferable in any manner;owner to
owner,location to location or use to use.Section 36-54(e)(2)e states family care facilities run with the
title to the land and are transferable.Staff believes this last statement is not in keeping with the nature of
Special Use Permits and is more appropriate where a use change is proposed that has the higher level
of review and public notice associated with a conditional use or rezoning.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Staff suggests that Section 36-54(e)(2)e be eliminated.
Page 3
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:"Clean-u "matter to add setbacks SOURCE:Staff
for ro'ectin si ns in the institutional and office
zones and to clean-u text.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-553(b)
(b)Freestanding and under-canopy signs shall have a setback from property line and five (5)feet
from any vehicular public right-of-way,measured from the closest edge of the sign,and a minimum
clearance of thirteen (13)feet over any vehicular use area and nine (9)feet over any pedestrian-use
area.Illumination is allowed but not greater than two hundred (200)footlamberts of luminance.
STAFF REPORT:()
Section 36-553(b)establishes the required setbacks for freestanding and under-canopy signs within the
institutional and office zones but,inadvertently,leaves out projecting signs.Additionally,other language
has been left out that is necessary to complete the statement.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 36-553(b)by adding projecting signs and to read as follows:
(b)All freestanding,projecting,and under-canopy signs shall have a minimum setback of five (5)feet
from any property line and vehicular public right-of-way,measured from the closest edge of the sign,and
a minimum clearance of thirteen (13)feet over any vehicular use area and nine (9)feet over any
pedestrian use area.Illumination is allowed but not greater than two hundred (200)footlamberts of
luminance.
Page 4
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Incorrect reference to former SOURCE:Staff
Cha ter 27 Little Rock Si n Ordinance
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-346(f)
(f)Signage.Signage shall comply with the Little Rock Sign Ordinance (Chapter 27),except as
follows:
STAFF REPORT:()
This subsection incorrectly refers to the former Little Rock Sign Ordinance;Chapter 27.It should be
corrected to refer to the proper Section now within Chapter 36.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 36-346(f)to read as follows:
(f)Signage.Signage shall comply with the provisions of Article X.Signs of this Chapter,except as
follows:
Page 5
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:incorrect reference to subsection SOURCE:Staff
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.31-232(b)
(b)No residential lot shall be more than three (3)times as deep as it is wide,except lots approved
under paragraph(h)of this section.No lot except lots designated for townhouse use shall average less
than one hundred (100)feet in depth.Lot width shall be measured at the building line except in the case
of lots abutting culs-de-sac where the average width of the lot shall be used.
STAFF REPORT:()
The reference to paragraph (h)to allow exceptions to the lot width to depth ratio is incorrect.The
reference should be to paragraph (g)which permits deeper lots when adjacent to a freeway,expressway
or main line railway.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 31-232(b)to reference "paragyaph (g)"not "paragraph (h)"
Page 6
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Incorrectl laced si n re ulation SOURCE:Staff
in the UU Urban Use develo ment criteria
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-342.1(c)(b)
(8)Street-level floor.The ground-level (street fronting)floor of nonresidential structures shall have a
minimum surface area of sixty (60)percent transparent or window display.
If at least fifty (50)percent of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the street,
the total building square footage may be increased with additional floor(s)at a rate of two (2)square teet
for each one (1)square foot of leasable space directly accessible to the street.On the street level the
maximum area of sign may also be doubled if the above requirement is met.
STAFF REPORT:()
One of the sign criteria within the UU district is..placed in the wrong section and needs to be relocated to
the "sign"section within UU.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Remove the last sentence from Section 36-342.1(c)(8)and amend Section 36-342.1(c)(11)by adding the
.following:
On the street level the maximum area of signage may be doubled if at least 50 percent of the street-level
office and retail space has direct access to the street.
Page 7
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE Dctoeer 9 2002
PROBLEM:Incorrectl laced hei ht re ulation SOURCE:Staff
in the UU Urban Use develo ment criteria.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE;
Sec.36-342.1(c)(b)
(8)Street-level floor.The ground-level (street fronting)floor of nonresidential structures shall have a
minimum surface area of sixty (60)percent transparent or window display.
If at least fifty (50)percent of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the street,
the total building square footage may be increased with additional floor(s)at a rate of two (2)square feet
for each one (1)square foot of leasable space directly accessible to the street.On the street level the
maximum area of sign may also be doubled if the above requirement is met.
STAFF REPORT:()
One of the bonus height criteria within the UU district is placed in the wrong section and needs to be
relocated to the "height"regulations section within UU.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Delete the second paragraph of Section 36-34.1(c)(8)and add the following language to Line 11,Section
36-342.1(e):
...is entitled to one bonus floor.If at least 50 percent of the street-level office and retail space has
direct access to the street,the total building square footage may be increased with additional
floor(s)at a rate of 2 square feet for each one square foot of leasable space directly accessible to
the street.All building height bonuses...
Page 8
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Incidental si ns within the office SOURCE:Staff
industrial and commercial zones are incorrectl
listed with the ermanent si na e for each
district.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-555.Signs permitted in commercial zones.
(a)The following signs are permitted in commercial zones:
(1)All signs as permitted in sections 36-550 through 36-554.
(2)One (1)freestanding sign per premises,not to exceed two (2)square feet in sign area for each
linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of one hundred sixty (160)square feet.Such
sign shall not exceed a height of thirty-six (36)feet.In addition to the above,freestanding sign,
the owner may use one (1)of the following;
a.Wall or mansard signs not to exceed ten (10)percent in aggregate sign area for that
occupancy's facade area.
b.One (1)awning sign per occupancy not to exceed fifty (50)percent of the surface area of the
awning or one (1)marquee sign not exceed one-third square foot in sign area for each linear
foot of marquee front and side.
c.One (1)under-canopy or projecting sign per occupancy,not to exceed fifteen (15)square feet
in sign area.
d.Incidental signs not to exceed twenty (20)square feet in aggregate sign area per occupancy.
(3)Where a building has more than one (1)main street frontage,one (1)additional wall sign and one
(1)additional freestanding sign are allowed on the additional frontage,not to exceed the size
limitations of other allowed wall and freestanding signs.
Page 9
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-553.Signs permitted in institutional and office zones.
(a)The following signs are permitted in institutional and office zones.
(1)All signs as permitted in sections 36-550 through 36-552.
(2)One (1)freestanding sign per premises,not to exceed two (2)square feet in sign area for each
linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of sixty-four (64)square feet.Such sign may
not exceed a height of six (6)feet.In addition to the above freestanding sign,the owner may use
one (1)of the following:
a.Wall or mansard signs not to exceed ten (10)percent in aggregate sign area for that
occupancy's facade area.
b.One (1)under-canopy or projecting sign per occupancy,not to exceed twelve (12)square feet
in sign area.
c.Incidental signs not to exceed twenty-four (24)square feet in aggregate sign area per
occupancy.
(3)Where a building is on a corner or has more than one (1)main street frontage,one (1)wall sign
and one (1)additional freestanding sign will be allowed on the additional frontage,not to exceed
the size of other wall and freestanding signs.
Page 10
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Sec.36-554.Signs permitted in industrial zones.
(a)The following signs are permitted in industrial zones.
(1)All signs as permitted in sections 36-550 through 36-553.
(2)One (1)freestanding sign per premises,not to exceed two (2)square feet in sign area for each
linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of seventy-two (72)square feet.Such sign
shall not exceed a height of thirty (30)feet.In addition to the above freestanding sign,the owner
may use one (1)of the following:
a.Wall or mansard signs not to exceed ten (10)percent in aggregate sign area for that
occupancy's facade area.
b.One (1)awning sign per occupancy not to exceed thirty-three (33)percent of the surface area
of an awning,or one (1)marquee sign not to exceed one-third square foot in sign area for
each linear foot of marquee front and side.
c.One (1)under-canopy or projecting sign per occupancy,not to exceed twelve (12)square feet
in sign area.
d.Incidental signs not to exceed twenty (20)square feet in aggregate sign area per occupancy.
(3)Where a building is on a corner or has more than one (1)main street frontage,one (1)additional
wall sign and one (1)additional freestanding sign are allowed on the additional frontage,not to
exceed the size limitations of other allowed wall and freestanding signs.
STAFF REPORT:()
Within the commercial,office and industrial districts,specific limits are established for permanent
signage;type,placement and size,Incidental signage is incorrectly listed in each district within the
permitted sign section.Staff believes incidental signage should be listed under the "special provisions"
section,Section 36-557.
SUGGESTED TEXT;()
Remove the incidental sign provisions from each of the referenced districts and establish a new
subsection with Section 36-557,special provisions for on-premises signs,to read:
"Within the institutional and office,commercial and industrial districts,each
premises may utilize incidental signs not to exceed twenty (20)square feet in
aggregate sign area per occupancy."
Page 11
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Conflict within UU Urban Use SOURCE:Staff
re ulationsre ardin si na ethat ro'ects
over the ublic ri ht-of-wa .
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-342.1(c)(9)(a);Urban Use;
Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right-of-way except for awnings and
balconies.
STAFF REPORT:()
The Urban Use District requires buildings to be built at the front property line,with no front yard setback.
Signage in the UU district is as permitted in the office and institutional zone of the City.Under canopy
and projecting signs are permitted in the office and institutional district but are not specified as being
permitted to extend over the right-of-way as would be required in the UU district if the building was
located on the front property line.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 36-342.1(c)(9)(a)to read:
Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right-of-way except for awnings,
balconies or signs as specified in Section 36-553.
Page 12
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Clarification ofhei htre ulations SOURCE:Staff
in "hi hrise"area of downtown.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-342.1(e)
(e)Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height
of five (5)stories or seventy-five (75)feet,whichever is less.Developments which provide a minimum
twenty (20)percent of the gross floor area for residential uses are entitled to add two (2)stories to the
structure.Any structure which is certified by CATA (Central Arkansas Transit Authority)as providing a
portion of the structure for mass transit (such as a bus stop,etc.),is entitled to one (1)bonus floor.All
building height bonuses in this section are cumulative not to exceed fifteen (15)stories or two hundred
twenty-five (225)feet.
For those structures within the area described as,2"'treet south to 9"Street and Scott Street west
to Broadway,the structural height shall not exceed that specified by the "Adams Field Airport Zoning
Ordinance"(Little Rock Code of Ordinances 7-57 [section 7-51 et seq.]).
STAFF REPORT:()
The intent of the second paragraph in the referenced section is to not have a height limit within the high-
rise district other than that established by the airport zoning regulations.Structures in that area are not
limited to the 5-story limit that is established for the remainder of the UU district.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend second paragraph of Section 36-342.1(e)to read as follows:
For those structures within the area described as,2"'treet south to 9"Street and Scott Street west to
Broadway,the maximum allowable structural height shall be governed by the "Adams Field Airport
Zoning Ordinance"(Little Rock Code of Ordinances 7-57 [section 7-51 et seq.]).
Page 13
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Several uses listed as"ermitted"SOURCE:Staff
in C-3 are not listed at all in C-4 as either
ermitted or conditional uses.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Current C-3 and C-4 Sections are attached.
STAFF REPORT:()
There are several uses listed as "permitted"in C-3 which do not show up as either permitted or
conditional uses in C-4.There are several uses that may be appropriate on a C-4 zoned tract,if there
were some mechanism to allow a case-by-case review.Staff believes it would be appropriate to allow
review through the conditional use process.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 36-302(c)(2)to add a new conditional use listing in C-4 to read:
"Other permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 district not otherwise permitted in
the C-4 district."
Page 14
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:A need to clarif at what oint SOURCE:Staff
com liance with UU is re uired in relation to
redevelo ment of an existin buildin in UU.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-342.1(b)
(b)Application of regulations.The regulations of this district shall apply to new development,
redevelopment,and expansion of existing development or exterior modifications.Routine repairs and
maintenance shall not require compliance with this section.
Except for construction of improvements in the public dght-of-way required by the city,and
redevelopment or expansion of existing development,all uses,structures or lots which existed on the
effective date of this section which do not conform to the standards and guidelines in this section,shall
be treated as nonconforming according to the provisions of article lil of this chapter.
STAFF REPORT:()
It is unclear at which point redevelopment of existing sites requires compliance with the UU Urban Use
District development criteria and regulations.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend the first sentence of Section 36-342.1(b)to read:
Application of regulations.The regulations of this District shall apply to new development,
redevelopment exceeding 50%percent of the structures replacement cost,expansion of existing
development or exterior modifications.
Page 15
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Pro osed chan eto hei staff SOURCE:Staff
better work with the received relimina
lat data.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 31-89
A preliminary plat shall be submitted in the number of copies as established by the planning
commission.It shall be clearly and legibly drawn and shall be submitted on white paper no larger than
twenty-four (24)inches by thirty-six (36)inches shall be filed.Extra large plats may be submitted on
more than one (1)conforming sheet.Plat scale shall be one (1)inch equals fifty (50)feet for plats up to
and including ten (10)acres and one (1)inch equals one hundred (100)feet for plats larger than ten (10)
acres,except where a smaller scale may be deemed appropriate by the staff.The preliminary plat shall
be identified by the name of the subdivision,and shall include:
STAFF REPORT:()
The proposed change will give staff and the Commission access to data in a more readily usable format.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 31-89 by adding language as follows:
...except where a smaller scale may be deemed appropriate by the staff.An IBM compatible diskette
with the data in CAD compatible .DXF and/or .DWG format containing the information listed below is
required.Subsections (1)through (10),(11)or (12)and (13)through (18)shall be saved in separate
layers.The preliminary plat shall be identified by the name of the subdivision,and shall include:
Page 16
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:Pro osed chan e to hei staff SOURCE:Staff
better work with the received data.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-130(b)(1)
(1)A site plan to be submitted on white paper no larger than twenty-four (24)inches by thirty-six (36)
inches,and no smaller than twelve (12)inches by twenty-four (24)inches,and including:
STAFF REPORT:()
The proposed change will give staff and the Commission access to data in a more visible format.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Amend Section 36-130(b)(1)by adding the following language to the beginning;
A site plan to be submitted on an IBM compatible diskette with the data in CAD compatible .DXF and/or
.DWG format containing the following information in separate layers and...
Page 17
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE Dereeer 9 2002
PROBLEM:Numerous restaurants eatin SOURCE:Staff
lace are now rovidin some level of outdoor
dinin .There is no rovision in the code for
outdoor dinin associated with a restaurant.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
eC-1";Section 36-299(b)
(b)Development criteria.Unless otherwise specifically provided in this section,the following
development criteria shall apply to this district:-
(1)Outdoor display prohibited in any yard.
eC-2";Section 36-300(b)(2)
All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings,except parking lots,seasonal and temporary
sales per section 36-298(4),and the normal pump island services of service stations operations.
eC-3";Section 36-301(b)
(b)Development criteria.All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings,except parking
lots,seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4,and the normal pump island services of service
station operations.In addition,outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half
(1/2)of the facade area of the front of the building.Certain seasonal or special event sales may be
allowed when the owner has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license
application.The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of merchandise in order
to assure that obstruction of drives,walks,required parking and fire lanes do not occur.In no case shall
full-time static open display be permitted.
eC-4";Section 36-302(b)(4)
No article or material stored or offered for sale in connection with the permitted or conditional uses listed
herein shall be stored or displayed outside the confines of a building unless it is so screened fence or
wall so that it cannot be seen from an adjoining lot.The following screening and display criteria shall
apply to uses located in the C-4 open display district:
Page 18
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
STAFF REPORT:()
Numerous restaurants are now providing some level of outdoor dining in association with their permitted
use.Many of these have received approval through the Board of Adjustment.Some have not.Staff
believes it is appropriate to consider an amendment,which would allow outdoor dining in conjunction with
an approved restaurant (eating place inside)under certain criteria.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Page 19
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:A ro osal that relimina SOURCE:Joe White
lat a royal be extended from one ear to
three ears.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 31-94(e)
(e)A preliminary plat approved by the planning commission shall be effective and binding upon the
commission for one (1)year from the date of approval or as long as work is actively progressing,at the
end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning
staff.Any plat not receiving final approval within the pediod of time set forth herein or otherwise
conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void,and the developer shall be required
to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary approval subject to all zoning restrictions and this
chapter.
The planning commission may extend the original preliminary approval,for a period not to exceed one
(1)year from the date of approval,when it can be demonstrated that there are no changes in the plat
design or neighborhood that warrant a complete review.
STAFF REPORT:()
Mr.White has requested a modification of the ordinance regulation that limits preliminary plat approval to
one year.He states a longer time is often needed due to issues such as financing and wetlands issues.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Page 20
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:A ro osed chan e in re uired SOURCE:L.Dickson Flake
arkin stall width from 9 feet to 8 feet 6 inches
in structured arkin .
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
Section 36-511.Parking design.
(a)The following four (4)parking angles are allowed with their respective width and depth
dimensions for stalls and maneuvering areas:
Type Width Depth Maneuvering Area
(feet)(feet)(feet)
Parallel 22 9 11
Right Angle 9 20 20
Sixty-degree angle 9 18 18
Forty-five degree angle 9 18 12
For purposes of compact-car space design,the width of spaces may be reduced to eight (8)feet six
(6)inches.This design dimension modification is permitted in those instances where a parking lot will
consist of a minimum of fifty (50)parking spaces upon completion of the design whether located within a
parking structure or an open parking surface.The maximum number of compact spaces permitted in any
parking lot shall be limited to twenty (20)percent of the total spaces.Spaces shall be measured between
centerlines of painted stripes.These spaces shall be properly signed or marked as compact-car use
only.These dimensions are specifically prohibited for use in handicapped or loading-zone areas.
STAFF REPORT:()
The code currently establishes a required parking stall width of 9 feet.In parking lots or decks with more
than 50 spaces,up to 20%of those spaces can be reduced in width to 8 feet 6 inches and labeled for
compact vehicle use.It is Mr.Flake's contention that the overall requirement should be reduced to 8 feet
6 inches in parking decks as that has become an industry standard for low to moderate turnover parking
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
No suggested text.Information will be provided.
Page 21
2002-2003 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
DATE October 9 2002
PROBLEM:In continuin attem ts to ensure SOURCE:Public Works John Barr
structures have addresses dis la ed in
accordance with Ci re ulations it has been
su ested that we need to ensure that
addresses the number onl are dis la ed on
"on-site"si na e."These would include si ns
such as those at retail centers and office
com lexes
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:
No current language
STAFF REPORT:()
The example cited for this is looking for anything along Rodney Parham Road among the strip-
commercial establishments.If addresses appeared on the many signs there near the street,you would
at least have some sense of your proximity to what address you are looking for.Given the speeds along
Rodney Parham,it is a very uncomfortable feeling (and very unsafe situation)to creep along the street
looking for an address.
Often it is suggested that we are limited in what we may require because of "freedom of speech"
constitutional issues.It is possibly a situation of public safety,and the requirement for display of such
addresses would benefit both the public and the private business.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
No suggested text
Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE ~SK~t
'INNSPA.-„.,::....,':,'2',::.',-S..5 ..':..'7'.....I .:.'..'a.i "'tw I
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
FAUST,JUDITH
FLOYD,NORM
LANGLAIS,GARY
LOWRY,BOB
MEYER,JERRY gl
MUSE,ROHN
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.L
RAHMAN,MIZAN
RECTOR,BILL
STEBBINS,ROBERT
A)-w Ir',g ~Lb.g.&mme ~'4 N:.:-..8,'.::......,:-.:::„.....';.-.,:....h.;',.:..:.:...,E:..:,".:::..."..,',4::.c.:.x:H.'.',I '',-.,t 't.l
ALLEN,FRED,JR.A-A A-Iir
FAUST,JUDITH VV Vv e e e V e v v v v v Y v'
FLOYD,NORM V V v'e e V y e V v'u'v +~
LANGLAIS,GARY v v v'z a v v z v &v v Y V
LOWRY,BOB t-c~9;&)+v v'V e v e ~v v
MEYER,JERRY v v V ee&ev~v~vv AP
MUSE,ROHN Lg,v v v v v'h-A-
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.v v V &V 6 +RP'~V &z V
RAHMAN,MIZAN v v a y e v'e v v v ~
v'ECTOR,BILL V V p p,&v''''
STEBBINS,ROBERT L~t ln'A e e a A-A
ibad(m QP~4 p,~A»7 Meeting Adjourned F i 4 0 P.M.~AYE NAYE A'BSENT M ABSTAIN ~RECUSE
November 14,2002
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was
adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Date
Se re ary Chairman