pc_01 25 2001subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 25,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the December 7,2000 and
December 21,2000 Meetings.The minutes were approvedasmailed.
III 'embers Present:Craig Berry
Rohn MuseBillRector
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley
Richard Downing
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Fred Allen,Jr.
Members Absent:Pam Adcock
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 25,2001
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Deloney Adult Day Care —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6942)
B.Divinity Gardens Cemetery —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6929)
C.Green —Short-Form PCD (Z-3875-A)
I I .PRELMINARY PLAT S:
1.Boen Center Addition —Preliminary Plat (S-1301)
2.Ferncrest Estates (Phase II)—Preliminary Plat
(S-1302)
3.Gamble Road Subdivision —Preliminary Plat (S-1303)
3.1.Davis Properties —Short-Form PCD (Z-6915-A)
3.2.LU01-19-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
Chenal Planning District,from Multi-Family
to Mixed Use
III.SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
4.Coburn Service Co.,Inc.—Subdivision Site Plan
Review (S-1300)
IV.OTHER MATTER:
5.Asher Avenue Rezonings
H 1 COUN
Public Hearing
Items
I I-SO
3 3.1
CI
Rl VEuNPRIDEVALLEYMAHAM
MAR M
Ill cl 1-65
O
CITY UMITSKANIS1-631
XM65 I 12M
E.6TH
W
WRICHT
Ic o IC
MCOLIN,I-56 I ROOSEVELT
I R
1
m
pl~B
5 FRAEIER PIKEEAWSTD8
ZEUBERDAWO
8 O'DIXXl
65TH
65TH CIRAINES+VALLE'f zI-30 C ITY LIMITSIYI65
167
VI
g
DIXONBASELINE
A N 4Jo~A N1P1
DIXON HARPER
OTTER
A V CL
MABELVALE
SLINKER
WEST
VINSON K
DREH R I
ALEXANDER SPCS.C OFF
CUTOFFox
C CUTOFF
CITY UMITS o EL
167
65
565 ASHER
PRATT
Subdivision Agenda January 25,2001
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6942
NAME:Deloney Adult Day Care —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:7210 Milford Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Mr.and Mrs.Ronnie and Rita Deloney
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for an
adult day care center for up to 10 adults on
property zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,located at 7210 Milford Drive-
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the north side of Milford
Drive,two lots west of Eva Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.The existing house islocatedwellwithinaresidentialneighborhood,surrounded
by single family residences and vacant lots,with no other
commercial uses in the vicinity.Staff does not believethisproposedcommercialencroachmentwouldbecompatible
with the neighborhood.
The Chicot and Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Associations,
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet
that could be identified,were notified of the public
hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes widening the existing driveway from
Milford Drive,and adding on site parking for three
vehicles in front of the existing house.The Ordinance
would require a minimum of three parking spaces for two
employees and a capacity of 10 adults.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is
required to help screen this site from the residential
properties to the north,east and west.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
b.All driveways shall have concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
d.Driveway to be minimum of 20-feet wide with a side
turnaround for the parking area.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water serviceisrequired.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is near bus routes 417 and 517A and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
convert an existing house into an adult day care centerforupto10adults,It would be open from 7:00 a.m.to
2
January 25 2001
SUBDI VIS ION
ITEM NO--A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
5:30 p.m.Monday thxough Friday,and 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.
on Satuxday.
No exterior work is proposed for the existing building,sositingcriteriaisnotanissue.Sufficient parking,access,and screening have been provided in the proposedsiteplan.The applicant has chosen to make an in-lieu
payment of 15%of the cost of impxovements made instead of
constructing the street improvements.The cost to widen and
improve the driveway apron may be credited towards that in-
lieu payment.
The proposed site is well within a residential
neighborhood.It would be bordered by single family
residences to the north and south,and vacant lots to theeast,west and southeast,but the entire area is zoned
single family residential.Staff is not aware of any other
commercial uses in the vicinity.Therefore,Staff does not
believe this first encroachment of a commercial use would
be compatible with this residential neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested commercial use for
an adult day care center at this location.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(NOVEMBER 16,2000)
Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing the comments provided to the applicant.The
primary areas discussed were screening,parking,street
improvements and access'he applicant indicated he would ask
for a waiver to the street improvement since the surrounding
area has no curb and gutter or
sidewalks'here
being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
3
January 25.2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 7,2000)
Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing theapplication.There were 4 registered objectors present.StaffstatedtheyhadreceivedaletterfromSouthwestLittleRock
United for Progress not supporting the proposed use.Staff notedthattheproposedsiteiswellwithinaresidential
neighborhood,bordered by single family residences to the north
and south,and vacant residential lots to the east,west and
southeast,and that the entire area is zoned single familyresidential.Staff stated they were not aware of any other
commercial uses in the vicinity and did not believe this first
encroachment of a commercial use would be compatible with thisresidentialneighborhood.Therefore,Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for denial of the requested commercial useforanadultdaycareatthislocation.
Madam Chair Adcock stated that since there were only eight
Commissioners present,it was the Commission's Policy to offerapplicantstheopportunitytodefertheiritemsincetheymust
have six positive votes out of the eight Commissioners presenttobeapproved.Sharlie Deloney stated that she wished to deferthisitemuntilJanuary.
The Commission placed the item on the consent deferral agenda
and deferred it to the January 25,2001 Planning Commissionpublichearing.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25I 2001)
Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing theapplication.There were 3 registered objectors and three personsinsupportpresentatthehearing.Staff presented the item
noting that the area where the use would be located was zonedR-2,Single Family Residential,and that the proposed use would
be commercial since the applicant would not be living in the
house.Staff continued that they did not believe this
encroachment of a commercial use would be compatible with thisresidentialneighborhood.Therefore,Staff's recommendation wasfordenialoftherequestedcommercialuseforanadultdaycareatthislocation.
Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney presented their arguments for
approval of the requested use.They showed a picture of what the
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:2'-6942
home would look like after their renovations were completed and
emphasized they had brought the house into compliance with all
City building codes,zoning,permitting,and state licensing
requirements.They stated they intended to maintain the
residential appearance of the house,and so any changes required
for this use would be installed in such a way as they could be
removed if the house went back to residential use.Ms.Deloney
added that the use would be very quiet with little traffic.She
also commented that she had polled the surrounding neighbors,
none of whom expressed any objections to the proposal,and
several she said,stated they thought it would be a good idea.
She presented to the Commission several individual letters and a
petition from supporters.She explained in detail the purpose
and benefits of an adult day care,and mentioned she had already
received several calls about using the service.They also
suggested their use of this previously vacant house would be
good for the neighborhood and help property values.Mr.Deloney
added that he felt the use would improve property values because
the renovation would improve the outside appearance,and
eliminate the past situation of having a house that had been
used for illegal activity,was run down,and vacant.
Troy Laha,Vice President of Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress and Vice President of the Cloverdale Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition.He stated that the
neighborhood action plan did not allow conditional use permits
for commercial operations like this in this area,and that,the
proposed use would not qualify as a home based business.He
added that in general the neighborhood associations are opposed
to any operation that would cause an increase in traffic.Also
he was concerned about the fact that this property floods and
whether it met building code requirements for the intended use.
He stated that he didn'feel the house had the facilities to
house 10 people with one bathroom.He also mentioned that there
was a bill of assurance for this property which stated that it
could be used for residential use only.He added that the
neighborhood association was not opposed to the concept,only
the proposed location,and that it should be located where the
zoning allowed it.
Janet Berry,President of Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress,stated that their membership voted to oppose the
application primarily because of the increase in traffic that
would result on this narrow street bounded by open ditches.She
stated that she felt it would be difficult for two full size
vehicles to pass when traveling on Milford Drive.They
5
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
understood that the Links van/minibus would be a primary way the
occupants of the day care would arrive,and that another vehicle
would not be able to pass that minibus in her opinion.
Clifton Galyean,Vice President of the Chico Neighborhood
Association,and property owner directly north of the proposedsite,spoke in opposition.His main concern was that this use
should not be in the residential neighborhood zoned for single
family residences,it should be in an area zoned for day care.
He asked what the point was of establishing zoning and
developing neighborhood plans if you always made exceptions.
Sharlie Deloney responded to the opposition comments.She stated
that the clients would not live at this location,only stay
there during the day.It would be a "day care"operation between
7 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.She added that the federal requirements
allowed clients to stay only 8 hours per day.She disagreed with
the claims that the street was too narrow for two vehicles to
pass.She stated that she drives the area a lot and that she and
some of the other close-by neighbors believe there is adequate
room on the street to pass.She added that school busses travel
the road daily and one man drives his semi-tractor down thestreetoftenonthewayhome.She also clarified that there
would be a maximum of 10 people staying there during the day,
not living there,and that they would come and go at different
times of the day in a variety of vehicles including regular
cars,but not primarily the Links bus.She also added that there
are two bathrooms in the house and that neither the property
survey nor the realtor who sold them the property identified the
property as being in a flood plain or flood hazard area.Mr.
Deloney stated the home would be for only 10 people even though
DHS qualified the house for 11.4 people,based on theircriteria.
Ana Hernandez,28 year resident on Milford Drive,spoke in favor
of the proposal.She stated that before the Deloneys bought this
property it had been a drug house because she saw needles in the
driveway and on the street.She stated that the Deloneys had
really cleaned up the house and property.She added that she
believed traffic would not be an issue on Milford Drive,that it
was wide enough because she passes school busses on Milford
Drive and she drives a full size van.She stated she felt the
day care would be a great asset to the neighborhood and elderly
people.
6
January 25,4001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
Rev.Kevin Allen,Pastor of Perfecting Christian Church on
Mabelvale Cut-Off,spoke in favor of the proposals He stated
that he felt the proposed adult day care would be an asset to
the community and that his church was 100%behind the proposal.
He planned to use the day care for his grandmother.He added
that he believed it would have a small impact on traffic.He
also felt that this location would be a better location for the
elderly than a busy commercial area because it is quiet and
close to people who need the service.
Glorice Jones,30 year resident on Milford Drive,spoke in favor
of the proposal.She stated she had no problem with the adult
day care opening at the proposed location and she said she feltitwasdrasticallyneeded.She said she knew of several people
who wanted to provide care at home for their elderly parents,
but had difficulty doing so because they had to work and this
would help them with their care.She added that she saw no
problem with the traffic or size of the streets.She said she
had passed comfortably and easily large construction vehicles on
Milford without any problem.She said she saw no problem with
the size of the house.She added that this was not a normal
commercial type operation,it would stay like a home with a
residential atmosphere that would be much more comfortable for
the elderly.
Commissioner Lowry asked Staff what the difference was between a
child and an adult day care.Staff responded that the ordinance
requirements were the same.He then asked if Staff's
recommendation would be the same had this been a child day care.
Staff responded it would have been the same.Mr.Lawson,
Planning Director,added that one of the major concerns of Staff
was that because the applicants wouldn't be living in the house,
which would make it a day care family home,it would be strictly
a commercial business in a residential neighborhood without any
"residential"nature to it.He added that if the Deloneys were
living there Staff probably would not be opposed to the
proposal.
Commissioner Muse asked Public Works about the condition of the
street and if it was wide enough for two vehicles to pass ~Mr.
Turner,Public Works Director,responded that Milford was a
typical 18-20 foot wide chip and seal street with open ditches
on either side,and that it was wide enough for most vehicles to
pass each other.He added that this area is flat and does drain
slowly,but it is not in a flood hazard area.
7
January 25,.JOl
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6942
Commissioner Allen stated that he thought a day care center had
recently been approved in a residential neighborhood in West
Little Rock on Taylor Loop Road without a requirement for the
applicants to live in the facility,and wondered why this one
was any different.Other Commissioners noted that what he had
referred to was actually a school.Staff did respond however,
that each application is looked at closely on its own merits
considering parking availability,what surrounds the proposedsite,other uses in the area,and the particular situation and
factors of each application.Mr.Lawson acknowledged that the
recommendation opposing this application was a close call.
Commissioner Rector stated that it seemed that the determinate
factor in Staff'recommendation was whether the applicant was
living at the site.
Commissioner Berry asked if this applicant sells this property
would the conditional use permit,should it be approved,become
void and the property revert back to residential use.Staff
responded that the conditional use permit normally goes with the
property and is permanent unless the Commission places a
condition on the approval that it be only for this owner.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,less and except the
Staff recommendation for denial,but including the requirement
that the applicant make a 15%in-lieu payment for street
improvements,and including the stipulation that should the use
as an adult day care center ever cease,the conditional use
permit would become void and the property would revert back to
residential use.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay
and 1 absent.
8
X/Y gp dd z Il P ~
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress
8013 Mabelvale Cutoff Road
Mabelvale,Arkansas,72103
501-568-4677 voice and 501-569-9895 fax
December 6,2000
To:Planning Commission
Item No.18
Re:7210 Milford Drive —Obtain a conditional use permit for an
adult day care for.up to 10 adults.
The membership of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress voted at the
December 4,2000 meeting to not support the conditional use permit for an
adult day for up to 10 adults at 7210 Milford Drive.
The membership of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress is supportive
of an adult day care.We feel that there is a great need for the service in
southwest Little Rock due to a concentration of elderly in the area.The
center needs to be located on a street that is not residential in nature.
Milford Drive is one of the smallest streets in the area;the street has chip
and seal pavement with open ditches.The street is not suitable for 20
additional trips daily.
Other reasons for objections to the adult day care at this location are:the
applicant will not be living in the home (not a home based.business)and the
location is very deep into the neighborhood (penetration of commercial into a
stable neighborhood).
Sincerely,
anet Berry DEC 0 6 2000
President Qgl.~
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6929
NAME:Divinity Gardens Cemetery —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:3200 Roosevelt Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:McDonald's Corporation /Gunn Hampton Inc.,
Matthew Hampton
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
construct a new cemetery with a small
pavilion for services,a large cross,
fountains,and accompanying parking on
property zoned C-3,General Commercial,
located at 3200 W.Roosevelt Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 2.69 acre site is located on the north side of
Roosevelt Road on the northeast corner of the intersection
with Brown Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned C-3,General Commercial.
Properties to the west and most of the east side are also
zoned C-3 and contain commercial businesses.Across
Roosevelt to the south the zoning is PCD,Planned
Commercial Development,which contains the County Jail and
Court buildings.To the north across 27 Street,and
northwest and northeast the zoning is R-2,Single Family
Residential.Those properties contain single family
residences.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
The Love Neighborhood Association,all property owners
within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that
could be identified,were notified of the public hearing.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed plan has a one way in driveway off of
Roosevelt Road and a one way out divided driveway onto
Brown Street.There is no specific parking standard for a
cemetery.However,since the intent is to focus services at
the pavilion with accompanying parking there,Staff
believes the standard of one parking space for every three
seats in the pavilion,(as applies to a funeral home with
chapel services),would be reasonable.Since the Pavilion
would seat 70,that would result in a requirement for 23
spaces'here is space for approximately 30 cars on the
plan.Stacked parking could be allowed in the driveways,
but a minimum width of 9 feet would be required for each
column,and open driveways would have to be maintained at
all times.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Maintain the required 8%of the total parking area as
interior landscape islands.An irrigation system is
required for the landscaped areas.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
b.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.c.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
1S,031.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
e.Brown and W.27 are classified on the Master Street
Plan as commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.f.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:E-6929
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Any relocation of water facilities will be at the
expense of the developer.Contact Water Worksformetersizeandlocation.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted,but place fire
hydrant per code.
CATA:Site is served by CATA route I14,Rosedale.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
cemetery with a small pavilion for services,a large cross,
fountains,and accompanying parking,to be placed on this
2.69 acres of vacant land.
Siting requirements for the proposed structures are met in
the proposal.This proposal would take land that has been
vacant for a long time and turn it into a quiet,garden
type cemetery use.The majority of activity and traffic for
services has been confined to the southwest corner of thesite,well away from any residential areas.Only walkingtrafficwouldbeallowedinmostofthesite.
The applicant has asked for a waiver for street
improvements.They would install required sidewalks.Public
Works does not support a waiver of the street improvements-
They would support a deferral of improvements to 27 Street
only.They believe Brown and Johnson Street improvements
should be made with the original development.
There are also problems with the layout or location of both
access driveways and the layout of the parking area.The
parking lanes must be 9 feet wide with a 10-12 foot
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
driveway in between them which would be kept unobstructed
even during services.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this site and
would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood,but
the design of the driveways and parking area must meet
ordinance requirements.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the parking area and driveways can be brought into
compliance,Staff would recommend approval of the
conditional use permit subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
Staff would not support a waiver of street improvements but
would support a payment of 15%in-lieu for the street
improvements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(NOVEMBER 16,2000)
Matthew Hampton was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing the
comments provided to the applicant.
The main areas discussed were the parking requirements including
interior landscaping in the parking area,the need to include
all proposed structures on the site plan,location of driveways,
street improvements and dedication of right-of-way on 27
Street.The applicant asked about a waiver of street
improvements.He was told he could submit a letter asking for a
waiver.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
action.
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
PLAhMING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 7,2000)
Matthew Hampton was present representing his application.There
were 5 registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with
the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above,and with two amendments to the recommendation as stated
in the hearing.First amendment,Public Works,based on further
review and discussions,no longer opposed a waiver of street
improvements including waiving additional sidewalk construction
along the side and northern streets,and a variance for driveway
locations and design as shown on the proposed site plan.Second
amendment,the applicant should adjust the location of the
interior landscape island to allow the driveway and parking lane
widths through the entire parking area to meet minimum ordinance
standards.The parking and driveway lanes must be clearly
striped.
Madam Chair Adcock stated that since there were only eight
Commissioners present,it was the Commission's Policy to offer
applicants the opportunity to defer their item since they must
have six positive votes out of the eight Commissioners present
to be approved.Mr.Hampton chose to defer until January 25,
2001.
The Commission placed the item on the consent deferral agenda
and deferred it to the January 25,2001 Planning Commission
public hearing.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Matthew Hampton and Derrick Gunn were present representing the
application.There were four registered objectors and one
registered proponent of the proposal present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation for approval subject to
compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff
Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above with one change.The
applicant had agreed to make the in-lieu payment of 15%for the
street improvements and Staff would support that approach to
meeting the recpxirement for street improvements.
Mr.Derrick Gunn spoke about the need he saw for another
cemetery based on conversations he had with clients using his
5
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
funeral home services,and why he and his partner chose this
particular site.Mr.Hampton spoke about how through those
conversations and visiting other cemeteries around the country,
they had arrived at the design they were proposing.He
emphasized that they wanted to develop an excellent well kept
facility to establish a good long lasting reputation and have a
facility they and the community could be proud of.He mentioned
that they held meetings with the neighborhood and invited people
to the site to explain first hand what their plan was.He stated
that they were trying to work with the neighborhood people and
do what they could to accommodate their concerns as best as they
could.He added that they agreed to put up a fence on the north
side to screen the cemetery from those houses,changed the
driveways to keep traffic away from the neighborhood,and
promised to help sponsor positive activities in the
neighborhood.He continued that they complied with all state,
city,and Arkansas Cemetery Board requirements.Mr.Hampton
mentioned that people could look at their current funeral home
to see how they develop and maintain their facilities.Jay
Holstead,project architect,explained more about the design and
how he felt it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
He described how it met all ordinance requirements,in some
areas exceeded requirements such as landscaping,and dealt with
many of the concerns of the neighborhood.
Sabrina Hood,a homeowner for the past year on Allis Street
directly across 27 "Street,spoke in opposition.She stated that
she did not want a "graveyard"in front of her home.She added
that she already had a "graveyard"near the side and near the
rear of her home on Roosevelt Road and Wright Avenue,and didn'
want another one in front that she would have to see every time
she came out her front door.
Calvin Anderson,a resident on Booker Street for 15 years,spoke
in opposition.He stated that he did not believe another
cemetery was needed in the community,especially in this
location.He added that having a McDonalds next door was
inappropriate,and he claimed that the applicants had not
contacted the surrounding residents as required.He also felt
that the applicants were ignoring the needs of the surrounding
neighbors when they talked about meeting the needs of the
community.Mr.Anderson stated he felt property values would go
down if this cemetery was built,and he didn't believe the
6
January 25,F001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
applicants would put money into the neighborhood.He also felt
this proposal would increase crime on Roosevelt,was not good
for the neighborhood,and should not be in their neighborhood.
Commissioner Allen asked Mr.Anderson how a cemetery would
increase crime.Mr.Anderson responded that because of the trees
and hedges,etc.,added to the property,visibility into the
cemetery would be blocked so you couldn'see what was going on
in there.
Ouida Clark,resident on Allis Street,spoke in opposition.Her
first concern was traffic increase.She mentioned that she felt
the traffic was already bad at the intersection of Roosevelt and
Brown,and that it was very difficult for the school busses to
get out onto Roosevelt there.She added that they didn't need
any increase to that traffic.Her second concern was that she
felt this proposal would present a bad image that people eat at
McDonalds,go to jail across the street,and then die here at
the cemetery.She continued that there was a gas station,a
restaurant serving liquor,and two bail bondsmen in the past in
that area,and that having a cemetery there would continue to
deliver a bad message to the City's youth.Her third concern was
a drainage problem that she felt would be complicated by the
proposed cemetery.Her fourth point was that they had gathered
nearly 200 signatures,85%of them from 7 churches,in
opposition to this proposal.She concluded by stating again that,
she was concerned with the location and felt it would send the
wrong message to the youth.
Janelle Romandia spoke in opposition.She stated that she lived
in the neighborhood where the Gunn funeral home is located.She
mentioned that she didn't feel they had kept promises made
regarding hiring youth and improving landscaping,helping with
neighborhood projects,and that they moved in there without any
coordination with the neighborhood.She concluded by saying that
people had enough problems along Asher and Roosevelt and did
"not need this kind of thing".
Mr.Hampton responded to the concerns expressed.In response to
Ms.Hood's comment that she already had to see a cemetery every
day,he asked what would be the difference in seeing one
morc'n
response to Mr.Anderson's concerns he commented that people
bought their property knowingly next to commercially zoned
property and the uses that could go there.In response to the
7
January 25,F001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
concerns about the site being next to a McDonalds,he stated
that McDonalds Corporation owns the site in question and knows
what has been proposed,and they are not objecting to a cemetery
being next door.Regarding the claim that proper contacts with
the surrounding neighbors hadn'been made,he commented that
they would not be before the Commission if they hadn'complied
with the City's requirements regarding notification.He
continued by stating that he had met with the City's crime
prevention coordinator and discussed how they could install the
landscaping and lighting in a way that would allow visibility
into the area and not create a hiding place.Regarding traffic
he felt they had worked with Staff in adjusting their access
drives to allow a smooth flow and not add to traffic problems.
Mr.Hampton also stated that he felt he and his partner were
portraying a positive image to the youth since they were two
fairly young (in their 20's)black males trying to do something
positive for the community and be successful business men.In
response to Ms.Romandia's concerns that they hadn'done all
the things she expected in the community and at their current
funeral home,he commented that they did hire youth to work and
had been involved in community projects as much as they felt was
possible.Mr.Hampton passed out to the Commissioners the
petitions they had gathered with approximately 300 names of
supporters of their project.He concluded that they do desire to
work with and meet the community's needs and concerns as much as
possible,but they know they can't totally please everyone.
Pastor Kevin Allen from "Perfecting Christian Church"said he
was speaking for himself and his whole church community in favor
of the proposal.He stated that he felt that Gunn/Hampton
funeral home was a good business,that the two owners had done
good things for the community,and that the cemetery would be
good for the area and beautify the site.
Mr.Holstead,the architect,responded to the concern about
drainage.He stated that their project would not cause any
drainage problems,especially in the direction of the neighbors
to the north since all the paved areas would drain west and
south.He added that most of the area would be grass and
landscaping which would hold and slow down water flow much more
than if a commercial business went in on the site and had a
large parking area.He also disagreed that a cemetery was a
negative image for children since death is a normal fact of
8
January 25,4001
SUBDIUISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
life.When asked if he would want a cemetery next to where he
lived Mr.Holstead said "he would love it,it wouldn'bother
him at all."
Mr.Gunn summarized by saying that the idea for this cemetery
was based on discussions he had with several people who felt
there was a need to have a place that was beautiful,serene and
well kept to place their loved ones.He wished only to satisfy
that expressed need.
Commissioner Muse asked what kind of headstones would be used.
Mr.Hampton responded that in response to neighborhood concerns
about seeing headstones,they plan to use flat,ground level
markers so they would not be visible outside of the cemetery.
Commissioner Nunnley made the comment that he wasn'sure
mandating flat headstones was appropriate because some people
may want to use upright headstones and that requirement may be
too limiting.Mr.Hampton said he was comfortable with using
only flat headstones and he felt that would help make it look
more like a "park"rather than a cemetery.
Commissioner Lowry asked if there was any indication that
McDonalds planned to move their restaurant if the proposed
project were approved.Mr.Lawson,Planning Director,reported
that staff had no such information.
Commissioner Berry asked what other uses could be placed on this
site "By-Right"because of its C-3 zoning.Staff read several of
the uses from the ordinance.Mr.Lawson mentioned that several
of the allowed uses would more likely create the noise,trash,
odors,and traffic impacts that many of the neighbors were
opposed to.Commissioner Berry added that the cemetery would be
a very benign use compared to many of the uses allowed without
any review by the Planning Commission,and actually provide a
buffer from Roosevelt and other uses already in place.
Chairman Downing asked the applicant to respond to the claim
that they had not attended a neighborhood meeting they were
asked to attend.Mr.Hampton responded.that they had attended
every meeting they were aware they had been asked to attend.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,to include the
9
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6929
applicant's agreement to use only flat ground level markers at
this cemetery,install 5 foot sidewalks along Roosevelt,Johnson
and Brown Streets,and make a 15%in-lieu payment for street
improvements'he motion included approval of a variance for
the location of the driveway on Roosevelt Road.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
10
~go~Q M-T|2
(~-t,r~y)
7104 Mabelvale Cut-Off,Little Rock,Arkartsas 72209
Office:(501)565-7104 Fax (501)565&358
Camlyn Allen,Assistant Pastor
Kevin D..Allen,Sr.,Senior Pastor
October 31,2000
City of Little Rock Planning Commission
500 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR.72201
Dear Little Rock Planning Commission
As a pastor I oAen times have the responsibiTity of conducting services at the cemeteries in
our community.I have seen the lack of management and the condition of the cemeteries
in my community.There is a strong need for a new cemetery in Little Rock,particularly
in the black community.
Over the past year I have seen Matthew Hampton and Demck Gunn bring innovation,
integrity,professionalism,and genuine concern to our community through the operation of
their funeral home.
I am con6dent that these young men have the knowledge and ability to develop a very
clean,well-managed,and professional cemetery in our community.Individually,and on
behalf of my entire congregation I would like to pledge our support for the Divinity
Memorial Gardens Development.It is our sincere hope that this addition to our City will
be looked at in a favorable manner by the City Planning Conmission and the AR.
Cemetery Board.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Kevin D.Allen
Perfecting Christian Church
~g,%.IX~F~D
wo '2000
,BY:
Perfecting the Saints,for the Work of the Ministry.EPhesians 12:4a
~gP'0 +'~i'—I G m,g
(z-sv~r)
December 12,2000
Dana Carney~Zonmg Admmlstrator
723 Wcsi Markham Sircct,2 Floor
Little Rock,AR 72201
RF.:OBJFCTIOW TO CFMFTFRY PROPOSAL,
Dear Mr.Carney'.
I IVHtm 'his 1letter to voice my objection to the proposed cons
the vacant lot adjacent to the McD 1 '
Road This neighborhood w ld 1'k
o e c onad'sRestaurantatthe3400
wou i e to see somethin 'n t".
1'ccl thai a ccmcicry is thc answer.
If the city is interested in using this lot fvr svmethin ~then
Ccntcr will bc abcttcr ch i,I h,is nocroice.n t is neighborhood,thcrc is no I
safely play,or go aAer school.
is no p acc for i.hc children to
I wrltm 'h1ss letter strictly as a concerned citizen of this corn
your stalT will do all tl i&a you can io assisi.us as well as ihc c m
fight the proposal for a cemetery.
.1c community in our attempt io
Please be advised tha '
'tasa community,we are piepared to resent .
mmyme be fth''"''dM''ommunity an McDonald*s customers.
We thank ou in ady
'
vance.We extend vur appreciation for
given in this matter.
pp ia 'on for all the aitentivn that you had
Q.~
Georgia O'Neal
Enclosed:
~~~IVKD
QE 0 2000
BY:
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
NAME:Green —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:12825 Interstate 30
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Alvin Green Donald W.Brooks
9910 Chicot Road 20820 Arch StreetLittleRock,AR 72209 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:3.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3/R-2 ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Boat sales and display;
C-3 permitted uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 12825 I-30
from C-3/R-2 to PCD in order to allow boat sales and
display as a permitted use,which the property's current
zoning does not allow.The boat sales and display businessiscurrentlybeingoperatedatthissite,within a portionoftheexistingcommercialbuilding.The applicant hasalsorecentlyconstructeda40footby70footbuilding(for boat storage)at the east end of the existingbuilding.A gravel area for the display of boats has been
shown on the proposed site plan.There is currently a
church which occupies the west one-half of the existingbuilding.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing commercial building and
asphalt parking between the building and I-30.There is a
second building (east end of the existing building)which
has recently been constructed.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-3875-A
There is a mixture of commercial uses along I-30 to theeastandwestandacrossI-30 to the north.There is acreekwithinthesouthernportionoftheproperty,with theOptimistClubPark(race track)and a truck service
business further south.
C .NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Alexander Road and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
All properties are located in floodway.City does not
allow any structures in floodway.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No objection.A water main extension installed at
the expense of the developer will be required to provide water
service to this property.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :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/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Ki.xed Commercial and
Industrial.The applicant has applied for a Planned
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-3875-A
Commercial Development for a boat sales dealership.The
property is currently zoned C-3 General Commercials A land
use plan amendment is not required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The Chicot West/Z-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan
contains the economic development goal of providing a mixed
commercial/residential environment that will promote the
safety,attractiveness,and value of the area while
creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that
encourages investment and diversity of employment
opportunities.
The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan also
states the recommendation of concentrating "...developmenteffortsinthemoreurbanizednorthernportionofthestudyarea..."This property is located on the northern boundary
of the study area.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed parking area encroaches into the 30 foot widestreetbufferrequiredwhenabuttinganexpresswayunless
located within a "mature area"designation.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Alvin Green and Bill Wiedower were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD
and noted that some additional information was needed on
the project.
Staff noted that this property is in the floodway,and that
no new structures could be constructed in the floodway.
This issue was briefly discussed.Staff suggested that the
application be deferred until the floodway issue could be
resolved.The applicant noted that a deferral would be
requested.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
H.ANALYSIS
As noted in the Public Works Comments (paragraph D)and intheSubdivisionCommitteeComments(paragraph G),the
property at 12825 I-30 is located in the floodway and theCitydoesnotallowanynewconstructioninthefloodway.Staff and the Subdivision Committee feel that thisapplicationshouldbedeferredtoallowtheapplicant timetoresolvethefloodwayissue.
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on October 11,2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the
December 7,2000 agenda.The applicant notes that an
engineering firm has been hired to do a preliminary studytodetermineifanyimprovementsmadedownstreamhavealteredthefloodway.If not,the applicant will then
determine if he wants the engineering firm to perform thenecessaryworktoobtainarevisionofthefloodmaps.Staff supports the deferral as requested.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred to the
December 7,2000 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 26,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronOctober11,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the December 7,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda foz deferral to the
December 7,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on November 16,2000
requesting that this application be deferred to the January 25,
2000 meeting.The applicant has retained an engineering firm to
determine if recent improvements downstream have altered the
floodway,which might warrant changes to the FEMA flood maps.
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 7,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronNovember16,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the January 25,2001 agenda.Staff supported thedeferralrequest.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
January 25,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant's engineering
firm had done an analysis of the floodway issues involving this
property,and that Public Works needed additional
information/calculations.Staff noted that the Public Works
Department requested that this application be deferred to the
April 19,2001 agenda to allow time for additional floodwayanalysis.Staff also noted that the applicant agreed to thedeferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 19,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1301
NAME:Boen Center Addition —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Leonard Boen McGetrick and McGetrick
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:59.46 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:15
FT.NEW STREET:approx.920 linear feet
ZONING:R-2 (0-3/C-3 proposed)
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 59.46 acres (includesproposedright-of-way)at the southwest corner of Colonel
Glenn and Talley Roads into 15 lots.The property iscurrentlyzonedR-2,however,the Planning Commission
approved a rezoning to C-3 (north 33.5 acres)and 0-3/OS(south 20.5 acres)at its December 21,2000 meeting.TherezoningrequestwillbeheardbytheBoardofDirectors onJanuary16,2001.
The proposed plat shows access easements for shareddrivewaysfortheproposedcommerciallotsandanew street(Vista View Drive)to serve the office lots within the
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1301
southern portion of the property.The applicant notes thatthelotswillbefinalplattedone(1)at a time as theyaresold.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded with varying degreesofslope.The property immediately west is zoned POD andcurrentlyvacant,with I-430 just further west.The
property across Talley Road to the south contains severalsinglefamilyresidencesonlargelots,with a Little Rock
Water Works/Wastewater maintenance facility to thesoutheast.There are four single family residences onlargelotsacrossTalleyRoadtotheeast.There is a
TV/Radio broadcast studio (old Sam's store)and
office/warehouse uses across Colonel Glenn Road to thenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The John Barrow and Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of thepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no
comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Col.Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline is required.2.Talley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.3.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to
subcommittee hearing,or no later than 5 days before
Planning Commission hearing.
4.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction,site grading,and drainage plan will need
to be submitted and approved.5.The three access easements connecting to Colonel Glenn
Road violate driveway spacing in Ord.No.18031.
Reconfigure lots and/or easements and resubmit.6.Convert 40-foot access easement between Lot 6 and Lot 7
to a 60-foot dedicated R-0-W.Construct full street
improvements for a 36-foot collector street including5-foot sidewalks to City,standards.
7.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1301
at the corners of new collector street at Talley Road.8.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct full street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
9.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
10.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.11.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.12.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
13.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
14.Clarify proposed open space in general notes15.Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall
be per Article V of Sec.30.
16.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No objection,an acreage charge of $150 per acre
applies,development fees of $3,200 per 8"connection
applies,in addition to normal charges.A water main
extension and on-site fire protection installed,at the
expense of the developer,will be required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.Site is near ¹14
bus route.
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1301
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 4,2001)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat,
noting that several additional items needed to be shown on
a revised plat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were discussed,including the
driveway locations.Mr.McGetrick noted that the plat
would be revised to comply with the Public Works
requirements.
The committee asked Mr.McGetrick if a contribution for afuturetrafficsignalonColonelGlennRoadwouldbemade
as part of this application.Mr.McGetrick noted thatadditionaltrafficsignalsalongColonelGlennRoadarepartoftheproposedSummitMalldevelopmentplan.He
noted that he would need to discuss the possibility of acontributionwiththepropertyowner.This issue wasdiscussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonJanuary10,2001.The revised plat addressesmostoftheissuesraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.Most of the notes as required were shown on therevisedplat,however,the applicant needs to submit anadditionalrevisedplattostaffwiththefollowingadditions:
1.Name/address of property owner/subdivider2.Source of title
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1301
3.Zoning of abutting property (including across thestreets)4.PAGIS Monuments
The applicant has revised the driveway/access easement
locations as required by Public Works and provided drainagecalculations.The applicant has noted that he will work
with the existing grades in constructing the street (Vista
View Dr.)which will serve the office lots.The applicant
has noted that cuts no greater than allowed by ordinance
are anticipated.Public Works has reviewed the revised
preliminary plat drawing and has noted approval.
As noted in the Subdivision Committee Comments,the issueoffuturetrafficsignalcontributionwasdiscussed.The
applicant notes that a 25 percent contribution will be madeforthefuturetrafficsignalatColonelGlennRoadandI-
430 if the Summit Mall development is not approved.Mr.
McGetrick noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting thatconstructionofthistrafficsignalispartoftheSummit
Mall development plan.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedplat.The preliminaryplatshouldhavenoadverseeffectonthegeneralarea.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The applicant must submit four (4)copies of a revised
preliminary plat drawing with the additional items as
noted in paragraph H.of this report.3.The applicant agrees to contribute 25 percent of the costofanewtrafficsignalatColonelGlennRoadandI-430iftheSummitMallPCDisnotapprovedand/or developed
by the time a signal is warranted at this location.
5
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1301
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
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 voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1302
NAME:Ferncrest Estates (Phase II)—Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:South side of Kanis Road and north side of Burlingame
Road,approximately 1,100 feet east of Walnut Grove Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Unleashed Innovations,Inc.White-Daters and Associates
10801 Executive Center Dr.24 Rahling Circle
Suite 303 Little Rock,AR 72223LittleRock,AR 72211
AREA:313.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:135
FT.NEW STREET:48,000 linear feet
ZONING:R-2/not zoned
PLANNING DISTRICT:21
CENSUS TRACT:42.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance for reduced standards of boundary street
improvements for Kanis Road.2.Variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length.3.Variance to allow an alternate pedestrian circulation
system.
4.Variance to allow double-frontage lots.5.Variance from the maximum lot width to depth ratio.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 313.37 acres along the
south side of Kanis Road into 135 lots for single-familyresidentialdevelopment.The property is located outsidetheLittleRockcitylimits,with approximately two-thirdsofthepropertybeingwithintheCity's Extraterritorialjurisdiction(zoned R-2)and the remainder in Pulaski
County's jurisdiction (not zoned).
The applicant is proposing approximately 48,000 linear feetofnewstreetswithinthesubdivision,which will beconstructedtoCitystandards,and maintained by the
County.The applicant proposes to final plat the propertyinthefollowingphases:
Phase 1 —All of Ferncrest Drive
Lots 18-23,72-82 and 121-124
Phase 2 —Lots 50-71 and 108-120
Phase 3 —Lots 1-17
Phase 4 —Lots 24-31,83-94,97-101 and 125-133Phase5—Lots 46-49 and 106-107
Phase 6 —Lots 32-45,95-96,102-105 and 134-135
The applicant is requesting the following variancesassociatedwiththepreliminaryplat:
1.Variance for reduced standards of boundary street
improvements for Kanis Road.2.Variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length (FletcherCreekCoveandColdwaterCanyon).3.Variance to allow on alternate pedestrian circulationsystem(pedestrian paths).4.Variance to allow double-frontage lots (Lots 1-8,33-46 and 102-104).5.Variance from the maximum lot width to depth ratio(Lot 22,115-116 and 134-135).
The proposed plat also shows several lakes within thesubdivision.The applicant has noted that the lakes and
dams will be maintained by the property owner'sassociation.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped with varying degrees of slope.
A portion of the property is wooded,with a portion beingpastureland.
The general area contains single-family residences(including manufactured homes)on large lots along Kanis
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
and Burlingame Roads.Ferncrest Estates —Phase I islocatedtothesouthacrossBurlingameRoad.
C .NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from
nearby property owners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2.Burlingame Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline is required.3.Construct one-half street improvements to Kanis
consisting of widening of the eastbound lane to 11 feet,4-foot paved shoulder,and open ditch.Also extend
culverts.
4.Left turn lane at Ferncrest Drive intersections on Kanis
and Burlingame Roads to be 150 feet stacking and 150feettaper.
5.Investigate and engineer for safety any sight distance
problems at the above mentioned intersections.Relocate
entrance on Kanis Road to nearby vertical crest.6.Lot 95 is bounded by a hairpin curve.Redesign by
locating curve approximately 250 feet to the east and
provide 3-way stop for connecting cul-de-sac.
7.Streets C and F exceed maximum cul-de-sac length.
Redesign so that only Street C is in exceedence.
Continue C along path corridor to F and terminate at Lot116.Terminate original F at Lot 121,or request waiver.8.The three upper lakes are not off-set from the stream
and therefore violate the 25-foot stream buffer
provisions on Land Alteration Ordinance,clarify tree
preservation issues,and justify any variance in buffer
area requested.
9.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to
subcommittee hearing,or no later than 5 days before
Planning Commission hearing.10.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.11.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
work.
12 'tormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.13.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
14.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
15.Pedestrian paths must be contained within easements,
must avoid trees,and be handicap accessible as much as
practicable.
16.General notes incorrectly state property is within
corporate city limits.
17.Sidewalk on residential streets will be required or
request waiver,or expand the circulation system of
paths to accommodate the equivalent usage expected of
sidewalks.
18.Stipulate what responsible entity will maintain the
lakes and dams.19.Name all streets.
20.Supply horizontal curve data for all streets.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:1)This area must ultimately be served from two
pressure systems due to the elevation difference (400-650
msl),2)Service from the Colonel Glenn system will require
significant off-site improvements including piping,
pumping,and storage,3)The West Markham system cannot
currently serve above elevation 570 due to low pressure,
4)Service from the West Markham system will require
significant off-site improvements including piping and
pumping,5)The Highland Ridge system cannot serve below
elevation 490 due to high pressure,6)Service from the
Highland Ridge system will require significant off-site
improvements including piping,pumping,and storage,7)
Acreage charges of $300 and $600 per acre apply,8)All
hydraulic recommendations are subject to the upcoming
"Masterplan"study.
4
January 25,.2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :See attached letter dated December 18,
2000 for Pulaski County requirements.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 4,2001)
Wayne Richie and Tim Daters were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the proposed
preliminary plat and noted several additional items which
needed to be shown on the plat.
The variance requests and Public Works requi rements werebrieflydiscussed.Mr.Richie noted that when he purchasedthepropertyheagreedtopreservethetreecanopyalong
Kanis Road.Public Works staff noted that additional
improvements to Kanis Road would be required,including a 4footpavedshoulderandadditionallanewidth.This issue
was briefly discussed.Public Works staff also noted thatadditionalpedestrianpathsorsidewalksneededtobe
provided to improve the interior connectivity within thesubdivision.
Jim Narey,of Pulaski County Planning and Development,
noted that street designs for all streets were needed.Jim
Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted thatallstreetdesignsshouldbeapprovedbycountyplanning.
5
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
The Water Works requirements and water service issues were
discussed.Julian Brown,of Little Rock Water Works,noted
that he is working with the developer on the water service
system.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonJanuary10,2001.The revised plat addresses
some of the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.Although the applicant has submitted a phasing
plan for the subdivision,a revised plat must be submitted
showing the phase lines and how the temporary termination
of the new streets will be dealt with.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow double-frontage lots (Lots 1-8,33-46,
102-104)and a variance from the maximum lot width to depthratioforLot22,115-116 and 134-135.Staff supportsthesevariancesasrequested,given the steep terrain andconfigurationoftheproperty.
Also noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
recpxesting a variance for reduced standards of boundarystreetimprovementsforKanisRoad,a variance from the
maximum cul-de-sac length for two (2)streets and a
variance to allow an alternate pedestrian circulation
system (pedestrian paths).Public Works will make
recommendations or these variances at the public hearing.
The maximum length allowed by ordinance for a cul-de-sacstreetis750linearfeet.The variance is requested to
allow the following cul-de-sac lengths:
~Fletcher Creek Cove —approximately 1,700 linear feet
~Coldwater Canyon —approximately 1,100 linear feet
The applicant notes that the steep terrain dictates the
proposed cul-de-sac lengths and locations.Given the largelotsizesproposed,the cul-de-sacs will each serve a
minimal amount of lots'
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
As noted above,the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow an alternate pedestrian circulation system.A
concrete sidewalk is proposed along the entire length of
Ferncrest Drive,with pedestrian paths located throughout
portions of the subdivision.The applicant has noted that
easements for the paths will be provided.Public Works has
noted that additional paths or sidewalks are needed
throughout the subdivision to provide more internal
connectivity.
Copies of the revised preliminary plat drawing have been
forwarded to the City of Little Rock Public Works
Department and the Pulaski County Department of Planning
and Development.Staff anticipates that both of these
agencies continue to have concerns regarding certain platissuesthatneedtobeaddressedbytheapplicant.The
applicant has informed staff that he will work with these
agencies to resolve all outstanding issues prior to the
public hearing.Staff has informed these agencies to be
prepared to present any outstanding issues/concerns to the
Planning Commission at the public hearing.
The applicant has also noted that he is continuing to work
with the Little Rock Water Works Department on a definite
water service plan for the property.Staff has requestedthatarepresentativefromLittleRockWaterWorksbeat
the public hearing to address any questions from the
Commission.
According to Section 31-232(c):
"Lots served by a public water system and proposed to
be served by a septic tank system must submit at the
time of preliminary plat filing a writtencertificationofapprovalbythestatedepartment ofhealth.The lot sizes allowed by this certification
shall be indicated on the plat."
The applicant wishes to wait until after preliminary plat
approval for submittal of this information.Staff can
support this concept with the following conditions:
1.No site work (clearing/grading)until the writtencertificationisreceivedbystaff.2.No final platting until the written certification isreceived.
7
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
Although staff has no problem with the concept of a single
family subdivision at this location,several outstanding
issues have not been addressed by the applicant (as of this
writing).The outstanding issues include (but are not
limited to)the following:
1.Construction of Kanis Road
2.Radii for internal streets3.Additional interior pedestrian paths/sidewalks
4.Waiver/variance requests
5 .Water service plan
6.Maintenance of traffic circle
7.Pulaski County Planning issues
With resolution of all the outstanding issues,staff
supports the single family preliminary plat.
Z .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject
to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.Staff recommends approval of the variances for double-
frontage lots and maximum lot width to depth ratio,as
noted in paragraph H.of this report.3.Public Works will make a recommendation on the additional
variances at the public hearing.
4.A revised preliminary plat must be submitted with the
proposed phases shown and any additional notes as
required by Public Works and Pulaski County Planning.5.No site work (clearing/grading)or final plat until staff
obtains written certification of approval for the septic
tank system from the state department of health.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Tim Daters and Wayne Richie were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary
plat with a recommendation of approval with conditions.There
were no objectors present.
Chairman Downing asked to hear from the Public Works Department.
8
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,described the plat and
noted that Public Works supported the plat.He noted that he
supported the construction of Kanis Road to reduced standards,
which would include two 11-foot lanes and a 4-foot aggregate
shoulder.He noted that the tree canopy over Kanis Road would
be retained.He also noted that the subdivision would have only
one access point from Kanis Road and one from Burlingame Road,
and that the applicant would dedicate the right-of-way for
Burlingame Road even though it was outside the City'
jurisdiction.It was also noted that a left turn lane would beconstructedonKanisRoad.Mr.Turner stated that Public Works
supported the variances for cul-de-sac length,construction of
Kanis Road to reduced standards and the alternate pedestriancirculationsystem.
Julian Brown,of Little Rock Water Works,noted that he had been
working with the applicant regarding this project.He notedthatthewaterservicetothisdevelopmentwouldbepaidforentirelybythedeveloperandnotLittleRockWaterWorks.He
noted that at the time this developer made improvements to water
system,the Water Works would probably do additional upgrades inthesystemtoservefuturegrowthinthegeneralarea.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about acreage charges.Mr.Brownstatedthatacreagechargeswerefeesaboveandbeyondmeter
charges used to reimburse the Water Works for storage tanks and
pump stations and that the charges were one-time fees.
Commissioner Berry asked if the acreage charges would cover alltheimprovementsmadetothewatersystemtoservethis
development.Mr.Brown noted that all the improvements to servethisdevelopmentwouldbepaidforbythedeveloperand
explained that the final plan would need to be in place in ordertodeterminetheexactfees.
Jim Narey,of Pulaski County Planning,noted that his department
had also been working with the applicant.He stated that theapplicantwaswellonthewaytoaddressingtheCountyissues.
Tim Daters noted that he was present to represent theapplicationandansweranyquestions.
Commissioner Faust asked about sidewalks.Mr.Daters explainedthattherewouldbeafive(5)-foot sidewalk along the entire
length of Ferncrest Drive,with a series of pedestrian paths to
9
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO..2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1302
provide internal circulation within the subdivision.He noted
that 3,100 linear feet of pedestrian paths had been added to the
plat since the Subdivision Committee meeting and pointed them
out to the Commission.
Commissioner Earnest asked about the five (5)acre subdivision
rule and where this standard originated from.Stephen Giles,
City Attorney,noted that the five (5)acre rule was a city
standard.Mr.Turner noted that five (5)acre subdivisions are
not subject to City Ordinance development standards.
Commissioner Berry asked about the City's policy of extending
water service outside the city limits.Mr.Giles responded that
property owners must sign a pre-annexation agreement in order toreceivecitywaterservice.Commissioner Nunnley asked if the
Wildwood development had signed a pre-annexation agreement.
Mr.Brown stated that they did sign an agreement.
Mr.Daters noted that a pre-annexation agreement form for this
property had been submitted to the City.This issue was brieflydiscussed.Mr.Brown noted that other property owners in thisareahadsignedpre-annexation agreements.
Commissioner Berry questioned that the city water charges forthisdevelopmenthadnotbeendetermined.Mr.Daters statedthatthedeveloperwouldpayforalloftheimprovementsforwaterservicetothisproperty.Commissioner Rahman commentedthattheLittleRockWaterWorkshadasolidpasthistoryin theareaofacreagechargesandfees.The issue was briefly
d3.scussed.
Chairman Downing made a very brief comment regarding Kanis Road.
Commissioner Lowry asked if Pulaski County Planning was
comfortable with the preliminary plat.Mr.Narey stated thathisofficehadnothadtimetoreviewtherevisedplat,but wascomfortablethatallthecountyissueswouldbeworkedout.
There was a motion to approve the preliminary plat as
recommended by staff to include approval of the variancerequests.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and1absent.
10
~I
Q OUIl X'9~W
CK pPUBLICWORKS501W.MARKHAM 911 ADDRESSING PROGRAM
PLANNING I|I DEVELOPMENT suITE A 501-340-8270
LITTLE RQGK,ARKANSAS 72201
501-340-8260
COUNT PULISKI
December 18,2000
Monte Moore,Subdivision Administrator
Little Rock Planning and Development
CITIES 723 West Markha'm
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
ALEXANDER
CAhIMACK VILLAGE
RE:County Staff Comments on Ferncrest II Subdivision,Preliminary Plat
JACKSDII VILLE
LITTLE POCK
Dear Monte:
hIAJKIELLE
IIDR r'.Li'TLE RDCI.The following comments represent Staff review regarding Ferncrest II,
preliminary plat:
1)4.1.2—Size and Scale Regulations —County requires 1"=100*
scale
2)4.1.3.3—Show Source of Title
3)4.1.4.2—Existing and Proposed Covenants and Restrictions
4)4.1.4.4—Show Drainage and Flood Control
AREA
5)4.1.4.5—Show All Certificates of Approval,Sewage Disposal,
Water,and other applicable certificates of approval
6)4.1.4.6—Street Plan and Profile —Show all road profiles for
unnamed streets
7)4.1.4.7—Provide Bill of Assurance
h!ITARV
In Addition:
LPAE8
~Provide curb data.
CAPP RD8INSDN
~Name needed on Northwest cul-de-sac.
2
~Road starting on Lot 1 ending on Lot 122,will there be a
prescriptive easement problem?
~Who will maintain dams that form lakes?
~Show acreage of each lot.
I I
~How will Lots 33 and 102 through 106 be addressed?
~Will property owners maintain "roundabout"and what will be
located there?(Minimum radius is 25',unless intersection is
less that 90',then radius will be more.
~Provide intersection detail for Lot 36,and Lot 32.
~Show FEMA Panel and FLOODWAY/PLAIN designated.
~List acreage in each /4 of /4 section in legal description.
~Show rear and side lot setbacks.
~Ensure that no "ponding"will occur in Lot 65 area.
~Identify all corners.
~Show all drainage easements,and all size and type of drainage
p'pe.
~All cul-de-sacs should be no longer that 900'n length (Show
typical cross-sections).
~Show existing and proposed Right-Of-Way on Burlingame and
Kanis Roads.
~All Lots abutting Burlingame and Kanis can not use these roads
for access if they also abut internal roads within the subdivision.
~Provide left turn signal lane design details.
(W
3
Sincerely,
ru.
im Narey,C.F.
Planning Administrator
cc:Sherman Smith,P.E /R.L.S
Director,Pulaski County Public Works
sw
~P,p i E ~iv-,-;,=
DEC 2 0 oooo
l~+z5-il ~
(Zp gs )
MEMORANDUM
LITTLE ROCK MI.JNICIPAL WATER WORKS
TO:Monte Moore,City of Little Rock
FROM:Julian Brown,Assistant Engineer
DATE:4 January 2001
RE:Water Service to Ferncrest Estates Ph 1 k 2
This project,as proposed by the Developer's engineer,plans to extend the Highland Ridge
pressure system &om another proposed extension of the Highland Ridge pressure system,and
install a 300 gallon-per-minute pump from the Col.Glenn pressure system for water supply.
The LRMWW has agreed to evaluate this project as proposed by the engineer.The scope of
this project is such that LRMWW feels it is the responsibility of the engineer to do the required
hydraulic analysis.It is our understanding that this is being done now.
The LRMWW has the following concerns which the engineer needs to address in his
bye aulic analysis.
The current design criteria for this area of the Col.Glenn system is for a fire flow
demand of 1,000 gpm with a minimum of 20 psi AND 35 psi at peak hour demands.
The current capacity of this system for a fire flow is right at or just under 1,000 gpm,
at or below design criteria,indicating no surplus.The LRMWW is willing to evaluate this
current design criteria.The question has been raised "is this required flow higher than the
abilities of the local volunteer fire department"?
At current,there is no pressure (or supply)problem associated with Peak Hour
demands.
What is the schedule of construction/development and what is the anticipated
schedule of lot sales,AND what is the time frame for installation of a "substantial"pump
station AND storage?-Masterplan information needs to be provided.
Future (planned within the next 18 months)improvements will eliminate all concerns
regaurding water supply to this project.These future improvements being "West Kanis k Denny
Roads Improvement District No.349"and "an additional 10,000 gpm+pump station for the
West Markham system".
As an option to being part of the municipal water system at this time (pendind hydraulic
analysis),the LRMWW will allow this development to be "Master Metered"at a demand around
40 gpm+(at this time)and operate as an independent water system.This would require
additional approval from the Health Department and a service contract with the City of Little
Rock.If this development desired to become part of LRMWW system,the design and
installation would have to meet LRMWW specifications.
Julian D.Brown
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS
cc:File
Dale Russom,P.E.,
Director of Engineering,LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS
Bruno Kirsch
Chief Operating Officer,LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS
Timothy E.Daters,PE
White-Daters k,Associates,Inc.
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
Fax 821-1668
Mr.Wayne Riche
Unleashed Innovations
10801 Executive Center Drive,Suite 303,
Shannon Building,Koger Center
Little Rock,AR 72211
Fax 218-0911
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1303
NAME:Gamble Road Subdivision —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Davis Properties Whi te-Dater s and Associates
P.O.Box 241025 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:3.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
A variance to allow a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3).
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 3.2 acres at thenorthwestcornerofChenalParkwayandGambleRoadintothree(3)lots.The applicant is also proposing to rezonethepropertyfrom0-3 to PCD (Item 3.1 on this agenda)foramixedoffice/commercial development.
There is an existing office building with associatedparkingareaslocatedontheproposedLot1.The proposedLots2and3arecurrentlyundeveloped.The applicantproposestoaccesstheproposedsubdivisionfromGambleRoadwithaccesseasementsacrossLot2toLots1and3.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1303
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a lot
without public street frontage (Lot 3).The applicant is
proposing an access easement from Gamble Road (across Lot
2)to serve Lot 3.
The applicant also notes that all three (3)of the lotswillbefinalplattedatthesametime.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office building and parking on the
proposed Lot 1,with a single access point from Gamble
Road.The proposed Lots 2 and 3 are grass-covered with
small pine trees.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the east along
Chenal Parkway,with a car dealership across Chenal to thesouth.There is a multifamily development to the west andvacantR-2 zoned property (including floodway)to thenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/TimberRidgeNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no commentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Resubmit preliminary plat based on re-design requiredforasiteplanonItem¹
Z-6915-A (Item 3.1).
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements toserveLots1and3.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO ~:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1303
Water:No objection,a water main extension,at the expense
of the developer,may be required to serve Lot 3,on-sitefireprotection,at the expense of the developer,may be
required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is on 45 bus route but does not effect bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 4,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed plat and noted several
items that needed to be shown on a revised plat drawing.Staff also noted that the applicant needed to request a
variance for a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3).
This item and the proposed PCD (Item 3.1)were discussed
simultaneously.The Public Works requirements were
discussed,including internal circulation and drivelocations.It was suggested that the southernmost drive
along Gamble Road be an exit only drive.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonJanuary10,2001.The revised plat includes
the additional notations as required by staff.
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1303
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a lot without public street frontage (Lot3).The applicant is providing an access easement across
Lot 2 to serve this lot.Staff supports the variance as
requested.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the revised plat
and notes the following concerns:
1 ~Additional right-of-way for Gamble Road not shown.2.Driveway locations3.Internal circulation
4.No turnaround at the end of Gamble Road
The applicant has noted that he will meet with Public Works
prior to the public hearing to resolve these issues.With
resolution of these issues,staff has no objections to the
proposed preliminary plat.The subdivision should have no
adverse impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow Lot
3 with no public street frontage.3.The Public Works issues as noted in paragraph H.must
be resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJanuary19,2001 requesting that this application be
deferred to the March 8,2001 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 8,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
4
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:3.1 FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
NAME:Davis Properties —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION.Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Davis Properties White-Daters and Associates
P.0.Box 241025 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:3.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office/Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at thenorthwestcornerofChenalParkwayandGambleRoadfrom 0-3toPCDtoallowamixedoffice/commercial development.TheapplicanthasalsofiledaLandUsePlanAmendmentfromMulti-Family to Mixed Use (Item 3.2 on this agenda)forthisproperty.
As a component of the PCD,the applicant has also requestedathree(3)lot preliminary plat (Item 3 on this agenda).The proposed uses for the lots are as follows:
Lot 1 —0-3 permitted uses
Lot 2 —0-3 permitted uses and
furniture storeLot3—0-3 permitted uses
The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.daily.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
There is an existing two-story brick office building andassociatedparkingareasonLot1.This development takesaccessfromGambleRoadacrosstheproposedLot2.
The proposal for Lot 2 includes a 21,840 square foot
building,with parking on the north and south sides.The
building will have the appearance of a one-story structure
from Chenal Parkway,with a second lower level on thebuilding's north side.The proposal for Lot 3 includes aone-story 3,500 square foot building and associated
parking.The applicant notes that the maximum buildingheightwillbe45feetforLot2and30feetforLot3.Access to Lot 2 will be gained by utilizing driveways from
Gamble Road,with an access easement across Lot 2 to serveLot3.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office building and parking on the
proposed Lot 1,with a single access point from GambleRoad.The proposed Lots 2 and 3 are grass-covered withsmallpinetrees.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the east alongChenalParkway,with a car dealership across Chenal to thesouth.There is a multifamily development to the west andvacantR-2 zoned property (including floodway)to thenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/TimberRidgeNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no commentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Gamble Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor commercial.A dedication of right-of-way to 25feetfromcenterlineisrequired.2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct full street improvement tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedintheChenalright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.7.A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area is required prior to construction.8.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 431feet is
required to be shown on plat and grading plans for
Lot 3.
9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.10.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.11.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
12.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
13.Legal access to all lots within the subdivision must be
provided.Service easements,if used,must conform to
Ord.No.18031.Variance requests must be accompanied byjustifications.
14.Two entrances to parking in front of Lot 2 are not
permissible.Redesign in conformance with Ord.No.18031.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve Lots 1 and 3.
Entergy:No Comment received.
K%LA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No objection,a water main extension,at the expenseofthedeveloper,may be required to serve Lot 3,on-sitefireprotection,at the expense of the developer,may be
required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is on ¹5bus route but does not effect bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Multi-Family for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial
Development for new office and retail buildings.The
property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office.A land use
plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item
on this agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and
Commercial Development goal listed three objectives
relevant to this case.The first objective is promotion of
commercial development to meet the needs of neighborhood
residents.The second objective is maintaining as much aspossibletheexistingtopography,trees,and green space.
The third objective is enhancing the primarily residential
character of the community.The plan also states,
"Aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts to influence
more neighborhood-friendly and better quality
developments."
Landsca e Issues:
The on-site street buffer along Gamble Road must not drop
below a width of 9 feet.
The on-site perimeter landscape strips along the northern
and western perimeters must not drop below a width of 6.7feet.
The normally required 6 foot high opaque screen,either a
wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6915-A
evergreen plantings,may not be deemed necessary along the
northern perimeter as long as the existing trees remain
within the adjacent floodway.
A total of eight percent (800 sq.ft.)of the interior of
the southern parking lot must be landscaped with interior
landscaped islands.The northern vehicular use area will
required 1,105 sq.ft.of interior landscaping.To receivecreditforinteriorlandscaping,islands must be at least
150 sq.ft.in area and not drop below a width of 7 4 ft.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be
required.
Buildin Codes:
The building on lot 2,the west elevation will require fireratedwallandlimitedopeningsincludingoverheaddoors.
The type and details would have to be worked out later,there was not enough detail to make specific comments.
Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for details.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 4,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD and noted thatadditionalprojectinformationwasneeded.Staff alsonotedthatsomeadditionalitemsneededtobeshownon thesiteplan.
The Public Works requirements were discussed.Thisdiscussionincludedinternalvehicularcirculation and
driveway locations along Gamble Road.It was suggestedthatthesouthernmostdrivealongGambleRoadbeanexitonlydrive.
The landscaping requirements were also discussed.Bob
Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that some additionallandscapeareasneededtobeshownonthesiteplan.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD tothefullCommissionforresolution.
5
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff onJanuary10,2001 'he revised plan provides some of theadditionalnotationsasrequiredbystaff.The applicantalsosubmittedadditionalprojectinformationasrequested.
The proposed PCD site is located within theChenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District.Theproposedsignage,utilities and lighting must conform tothefollowingordinancestandards:
1 ~Ground-mounted signs must be monument type with a maximumheightof8feetandamaximumareaof100squarefeet.
The applicant has proposed two (2)ground-mounted signs(Lots 1 and 2).2.Lighting must be directed to the parking areas and notreflectedontoadjacentparcelsordisturbthescenicappearanceofthecorridor.3.All lighting and utilities located in front of the rearlineofbuildingsmustbeunderground.
Public Works has reviewed the revised site plan and notes
concerns with the following issues:
1.No additional right-of-way has been shown for Gamble
Road.
2.No sidewalk has been shown along the Gamble Roadfrontage.3.Driveway locations
4.Internal circulation5.No turnaround at the end of Gamble Road
Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,has also reviewed therevisedplanandnotedthefollowingdeficiencies:
1.Landscape buffers required between Lots 1 and 2 and Lots
2 and 3.
2.Additional interior landscaping required for the parkingareaswithinLot2.
The applicant has noted that he will meet with Public Works
and Planning Staffs to resolve these issues prior to thepublichearing.
The following is the parking analysis for the proposedproject:
6
V
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915-A
Parkin t icall re ired Parkin rovided
Lot 1 22 spaces 56 spaces (existing)
Lot 2 66 spaces 61 spaces
Lot 3 8 spaces 20 spaces
Staff is comfortable with the parking plan as proposed.
Some of the parking spaces will be lost in order to provide
the additional landscaping as noted above.
With resolution of the Public Works and Landscape issues as
noted,staff supports the proposed PCD zoning.The
proposed furniture store for Lot 2 should prove to be alow-traffic commercial use,with the 0-3 uses on Lots 1 and
3 providing adequate transition to the multi-family
residential use to the west.Staff feels that the proposed
PCD will have no adverse impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD rezoning subject tothefollowingconditions:
1 ~Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Signage,utilities and site lighting must conform to theChenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District as notedinparagraphH.of this report.3.The outstanding Public Works issues must be resolved.4.The outstanding Landscaping issues must be resolved,ortheapplicantmustapplyforavariancetotheCityBeautifulCommission.5.The proposed dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJanuary19,2001 requesting that this application be
deferred to the March 8,2001 agenda.Staff supported thedeferralrequest.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 8,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
7
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:3.2 FILE NO.:LU01-19-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning District
Location:13000 Chenal Parkway
geest:Multi-Family to Mixed Use
Source:Max Davis,Davis Properties
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District fromMulti-Family to Mixed Use.The Mixed Use category provides for amixtureofresidential,office and commercial uses to occur.APlannedZoningDistrictisrequirediftheuseisentirelyofficeorcommercialoriftheuseisamixtureofthethree.
The applicant wishes to develop the property for office andcommercialuses.
Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Planinthisareawasreviewedlessthantwoyearsago.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and isapproximately3.22+acres in size.The property to the northisthefloodwayforRockCreekandiszonedR-2 Single Family.
To the east is a retail business in a Planned Commercial
Development zone.To the south is retail and automobile salesbusinesseszonedasaPlannedCommercialDevelopment.To thewestisanapartmentcomplexonlandzonedR-5 Urban Residence.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On December 15,2000 a change took place from Single Family to
Low Density Residential on the west side of Gamble Road south ofKanisRoadabout1milesouthoftheapplicant's property.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes took place along Kanis Roadabout1milesouthoftheapplicant's property.
On April 6,1999 a change took place from Single Family toPublicInstitutionalonthewestsideofKirbyRoadatKingsPointabout1milewestoftheapplicant's property.
1
January 25,&001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU01-19-01
On December 15,1998 a change took place from Multi-Family to
Suburban Office on Kanis Road at Point West about 1 mile southoftheapplicant's property.
On December 15,1998 a change took place from Single Family toPublicInstitutionalonthesouthsideofChenalParkwayat
Pride Valley Drive about 1 mile west of the applicant's
property.
On May 20,1997 a change took place from Office to Commercial onthenorthsideofChenalParkwayeastofBowmanRoadabout8of
a mile southeast of the applicant's property.
The applicant's property is shown as Multi-Family on the Future
Land Use Plan.The property to the north is shown as Park/OpenSpace.The properties east of Gamble Road,as well as thepropertiessouthofChenalParkway,are all shown as Commercial.
The neighboring property to the west is shown as Multi-Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the MasterStreetPlan.The section of Gamble Road next to the applicant'spropertyisshownontheMasterStreetPlanasalocalstreet.
A Class I bikeway is shown on Chenal Parkway connecting Bowman
Road to State Highway 10.The Master Street Plan also statesthatClassIbikewaysbuiltaspartofanarterialwillrequireanadditional10feetofright-of-way (5 foot each side for one-
way path)or an easement in which the path is placed.Therequiredsidewalkalongthesestreetscanbeincorporated intothebikepath.The result would be a 9-foot wide path on eachsideoftheroad.A four-foot section of the path should be
marked for pedestrian use.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows existing parkland north of theapplicant's property inside the Park/Open Space strip runningalongRockCreek.The existing parkland is along the floodway ofRockCreek.Any further development of this site should addressnegativeimpactsonthefloodwayandecologicalbalanceofthenaturalarea.With the build out of this site,access points totheparkareawillbelimited.
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU01-19-01
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the RockCreekNeighborhoodActionPlan.The Office and Commercial
Development goal listed three objectives relevant to this case.The first objective is promotion of commercial development tomeettheneedsofneighborhoodresidents'he second objectiveismaintainingasmuchaspossibletheexistingtopography,trees,and green space.The third objective is enhancing theprimarilyresidentialcharacterofthecommunity.The plan alsorecommendsaggressiveuseofPlannedZoningDistrictstoinfluencemoreneighborhood-friendly and better cpxalitydevelopments.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is an established office use occupiedbyacliniclocatedacrossthestreetfromintensecommercialuses.On the north side of Chenal Parkway,the applicant'spropertyislocatedinanareathattransitionsfromintenseCommercialtotheeastandlessintenseMulti-Family to thewest.A little further to the west is an open area where RockCreekcrossesthewestboundlanesofChenalParkwayfromthemediantothePark/Open Space area to the north of theapplicant's property.Currently,there is a step-down fromCommercialtoOfficetoMulti—family which functions well as atransitionfrommoreintenseusestotheeastandlessintenseusestothewest.Presently,Gamble Road serves as a dividinglinebetweenthecommercialandresidentialusesinthisarea.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.Nest/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place P.O.A.,AberdeenCourtP.O.A.,Bayonne Place P.O.A.,Carriage Creek P.O.A.,EaglePointeP.O.A.,Glen Eagles P.O.A.,Hillsborough P.O.A.,HuntersCoveP.O.A.,Hunters Green P.O.A.,Johnson Ranch N.A.,MarloweManorP.O.A.,and St Charles P.O.A.No comments have beenreceivedonthisitem.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.The change to MixedUsestillallowsforresidentialdevelopment,while permitting
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU01-19-01
non-residential uses only as a planned development where reviewforcompatibilityofuseanddesignispossible.The proposed
change would continue a reasonable pattern of transition fromtheintensecommercialusestotheeastandthelessintenseresidentialusestothewest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the
March 8,2001 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was madetoapprovetheconsentagendaandwasapprovedwithavoteof10ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-1300
NAME:Coburn Service Company,Inc.—Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:10625 Sibley Hole Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Coburn Service Co.,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
10601 I-30 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.42 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-2 ALLOWED USES:Industrial
PROPOSED USE:Industrial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The property at 10625 Sibley Hole Road is zoned I-2 and theapplicantisproposinganindustrialdevelopment(heavyequipment/machinery sales and service).A business of this typehasbeenoperatedonthissiteandadjacentproperty(west)foranumberofyears.Based on the fact that multiple buildingsareproposed,the site plan must be reviewed and approved by thePlanningCommission.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a two-phase development plan fortheproperty.Phase I includes construction of a 7,000squarefootbuildingjustsouthoftheexistingone-storybrickofficestructure.A ground-mounted sign location anddumpsterareahavealsobeenshowninPhaseI.Phase IIincludesconstructionoftwo(2)7,000 square footbuildingswithinthesouthernportionoftheproperty.Thebuildingswillbeusedtoperformcertainservicework
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1300
(mechanical and cosmetic work)on heavy equipment.
The majority of this property is gravel-covered and hasbeenusedforheavyequipmentandtruckstorageandmaintenanceforanumberofyears.The applicant proposestocontinuetheuseofthisexistinggravelarea.TheapplicantplanstoworkwithPublicWorksonanimprovedaccesstothepropertyfromSibleyHoleRoad.
Please see the attached site plan for existing and proposedimprovementstotheproperty.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
There is an existing one-story brick structure and anasphaltparkingareawithinthenorthportionofthisproperty.The remainder of the property is gravel-coveredandhasbeenusedforheavyequipmentandtruckstorageinthepast.
There is a mixture of industrial uses (including heavyequipmentsalesandservice)to the west and north alongI-30.There is undeveloped 0-3 zoned property to thesouth,with a church and single-family residences to theeastandsoutheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Pinedale,Mavis Circle and Southwest Little Rock UnitedforProgressNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received nocommentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Sibley Hole Road is classified on the Master Street Planasacollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feetfromcenterline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planneddevelopment.3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per CityOrdinance.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1300
approval prior to start of work.
6.A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area is required prior to construction.7.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 291 feet is
required to be shown on plat and grading plans.8.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.9.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
10.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.11.Direction of flow for water courses leaving the
property.
12.Dedicate floodway easement to the City.
E.UTII ITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No objection,an acreage charge of $150/acre appliesinadditiontothenormalconnectionchargeforthisparcel.On-site fire protection,at the expense of the developer,mayberequired.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1300
Landsca e Issues:
A six foot high opaque barrier,either a wooden fence withitsfacedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings,is
required along the eastern and southern perimeters and that
portion of the western perimeter abutting residential
property.In addition to the screening,trees and shrubs
are required within the land use buffers.The land usebufferwidthrequiredalongtheeasternandwestern
perimeters adjacent to residential property is 17 feet.
The southern land use buffer width required is 26 feet.
A landscaping upgrade of the existing vehicular use area
toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be
required.
Landscape areas are required to be irrigated.
Prior to a building permit being issued,the Landscape Plan
must be stamped by a registered Landscape Architect.
Since this is an existing development some flexibility withthelandscapingrequirementsisallowed.
Buildin Codes:
The proposed and future buildings will require fire ratedwallswithlimitedwindowopeningsalongexteriorwalls
where they are in close proximity to the various propertylines.Details on the type and method of construction
would be worked out later,there was not enough detail to
make specific comments.
Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for details.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 4,2001)
R.C.Coburn and James Luchsinger were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described theproposedsiteplan,noting that several additional items(building height,sign location and dumpster location)
needed to be shown on the site plan.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.
Mr.Coburn noted that the required right-of-way would be
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1300
dedicated and that some improvements for access would be
made along Sibley Hole Road.The Public Works
representatives noted that the new buildings would have to
meet a minimum finished floor elevation.
The landscape requirements were also discussed.Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that an upgrade in landscaping
would be required.Mrs Coburn noted that evergreen
screening would be provided as required with each phase.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plantothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff onJanuary9,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.Theadditionalnotationsrequiredhavebeenshownonthe plan.
The applicant has noted that the maximum building heightwillbe20feet.The maximum building height allowed inI-2 zoning is 45 feet.The applicant has also noted thatevergreenscreeningwillbeprovided(with each phase)along the property lines as required.
As noted earlier,a large portion of this property iscurrentlygravel-covered and has been used for a number ofyearsforheavyequipmentandtruckstorageandmaintenance.Staff supports the continuing use of thegravelareaforthestorage/maintenance of heavy equipment,given the property's industrial zoning and the surroundingindustrialuses.
The applicant has noted that the required right-of-way forSibleyHoleRoadwillbededicated.The applicant plans toworkwiththePublicWorksDepartmentonanimprovedaccessareaalongSibleyHoleRoad.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associatedwiththeproposedsiteplan.The proposed buildingsconformtotheCity's Zoning Ordinance with respect tobuildingsetbacksandheight,and should have no adverseimpactonthegeneralarea.
5
January 2'001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1300
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The proposed ground-mounted sign must conform toordinancestandardsforindustrialzoning(maximum area—
72 square feet,maximum height —30 feet).3.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentresidentialproperty.4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides
with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTZON:(JANUARY 25,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
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 voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
January 25,2001
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966,Z-6967 Z-6968
sz —"
Location.Asher Avenue area
R~e est:Rezonings from Various to Various
STAFF REPORT
As part of the review of the Oak Forest and Stephens
Neighborhood Areas during the neighborhood planning process,the
two steering committees agreed to allow the Asher Corridor
Committee to create a plan along the corridor.This committeeismadeupofapproximately40propertyowners,business owners
and developers.Early in the year 2000 the Planning Commission
had a rezoning request before them along the Asher Corridor.
The Planning Commission asked the Asher Corridor Committee to
make a recommendation on the rezoning request and also asked ifthecommitteecouldreviewthelanduseplanandthezoningclassificationsalongAsher.
The Asher Corridor Committee's goals were to recognize existingusesandtoconfineIndustrialusestothesouthsideofAsher
whenever possible.The Asher Corridor Committee developed a setofLandUsePlanchangesthatmoreaccuratelyreflectedtheexistinglandusesandtheirgoals.The changes were scattered
along Asher Avenue between University and the Asher/Rooseveltsplit.In August 2000 the Planning Commission approved these
changes,and the Board of Directors approved them in October2000.
In November 2000 the Asher Corridor Committee reviewed the
zoning patterns along Asher.Staff identified property owners intheAsherAvenueareausingPulaskiCountyAssessorrecords.
One hundred and seventy-four potential rezoning letters weresenttopropertyownersbycertifiedmailexplainingtheZoning
changes and requesting a response if they were interested in
rezoning their property.Included in this certified mailing wasabusinessreplyenvelopeforthepropertyownertoreturnaresponse.
Staff received the following requests from the property ownerstorezonetheirproperties:
January 2'001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966 Z-6967,Z-6968
6966-1
location:southwest corner of Asher and Taylor
land use classification:commercial
existing use:car repair
zoning change:R2 to C4
surrounding uses:dairy,food processing plant,carwash,oil
change shop,single family
6966-2
location:northwest corner of 33 and Taylor
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:storage of vehicles
zoning change:R2 to I2
surrounding uses:dairy,food processing plant,auto repair,
single family
6966-3
location:southeast corner of Polk and 33rd
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:strip mall,single family,food processing
plant
6966-4
location:northeast corner of Polk and 34th
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:strip mall,single family,food processing
plant
6966-5
location:southeast corner of Polk and 34th
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:strip mall,single family,food processing
plant
6966-6
location:northeast corner of Mabelvale and 34th
2
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966,Z-6967,Z-6968
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:strip mall,asphalt company,soap
manufacturing
6966-7
location:northwest corner of Jane and 34th
land use classification:light industrialexistinguse:storage of vehicles
zoning change:R3 to Z2
surrounding uses:asphalt company,soap manufacturing,singlefamily
6966-8
location:northeast corner of Jane and 34th
land use classification:light industrialexistinguse:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:soap manufacturing,single family,restaurant,vacant
6966-9
location:mid block along the north side of 34th between Anna
and Jane
land use classification:light industrialexistinguse:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:single family,restaurant,vacant
6966-10
location:mid block along the south side of 33rd between Anna
and Jane
land use classification:light industrialexistinguse:single family residence
zoning change:R3 to I2
surrounding uses:single family,restaurant,vacant,vacantbuilding
6966-11
location:northeast corner of Asher and Fair Parklanduseclassification:commercial
existing use:auto parts store
zoning change:Z2 to C3
3
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966 Z-6967 Z-6968
surrounding uses:auto repair,motel,multi family,vacant
industrial building
6966-12
location:southeast corner of Asher and Anna
land use classification:commercial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:Z3 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,single family,lumber company
6966-13
location:northeast corner of 33 and Anna
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:I3 to Z2
surrounding uses:auto repair,single family,lumber company
6966-14
location:southeast corner of 34 and Anna
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:R2 to Z2
surrounding uses:single family,vacant land,food processing
vehicle area
6966-15
location:mid block along the south side of 34 between Mary and
Anna
land use classification:light industrial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:R2 to I2
surrounding uses:single family,vacant land,food processingvehiclearea
6966-16
location:mid block along the south side of Asher between Mary
and Anna
land use classification:commercial
existing use:auto parts
zoning change:I2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,lumber company,vacant
6966-17
location:mid block along the north side of Brack between Lucy
4
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO Z 6966 Z 6967 g Z 6968
and Mary
land use classification:commercial
existing use:single family residence
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:lumber company,multi family,lumber company(2')
6966-18
location:southeast corner of Asher and Mary
land use classification:commercial
existing use:tire store
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,lumber company,liquor store,furniture store
6966-19
location:southwest corner of Brack and Leeds
land use classification:commercial
existing use:4 single family homes
zoning change:Z2 to C3
surrounding uses:lumber company,lictor store,furniture store,
gas station
6966-20
location:southeast corner of Asher and Leeds
land use classification:commercial
existing use:vacant
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:furniture store,food warehouse,gas station,vacant
6966-21
location:northeast corner of Asher and Leeds
land use classification:commercial
existing use:furniture store,gas station,vacant
zoning change:I2/Z3 to C4
surrounding uses:furniture store,vacant,single family,lumber
company
6966-22
location:mid block along the south side of Asher between Mary
and Mopac Spur line
land use classification:commercial
existing use:vacant
5
January 25.2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966 Z-6967,Z-6968
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:gas station,furniture store,auto repair,tire store,food warehouse
6966-23
location:mid block along the east side of Madison between
31'ndAsher
land use classification:commercial
existing use:vacant building
zoning change:Z2 to C3
surrounding uses:single family,multi family,sign company,
club
6966-24
location:mid block along the south side of Asher between the
Jefferson and Adams
land use classification:commercial
existing use:pawn shop
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:tire store,auto repair,auto paint,retail
store
6966-25
location:southwest corner of Asher and Adams
land use classification:commercial
existing use:auto painting shop
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:vacant building,retail stores,pawn shop
6967-26
location:southeast corner of Asher and Adams
land use classification:commercial
existing use:retail
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto paint,furniture store,retail store,
auto repair
6967-27
location:mid block along the south side of 30 between
Washington and Peyton
land use classification:commercial
existing use:vacant building
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:storefront church,auto repair,retail store
6
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO Z 6966 ~2 6967 ~2 6968
6967-28
location:northwest corner of Peyton and 30
land use classification:commercial
existing use:auto repair
zoning change:I2 to C4
surrounding uses:single family,storefront church,outsidestorage,retail stores
6967-29
location:northwest corner of Peyton and Asher
land use classification:commercial
existing use:barber,parking
zoning change:I2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,retail stores
6967-30
location:northeast corner of Peyton and Asher
land use classification:commercial
existing use:barber,club,transmission shop,vacant
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,retail stores,vacant building
6967-31
location:southwest corner of Asher and Elm
land use classification:commercial
existing use:used cars
zoning change:Z2 to C4
surrounding uses:auto repair,offices,auto parts,enginemanufacturer
6967-32
location:mid block along the south side of Asher between Cedar
and Pine
land use classification:commercial
existing use:radiator shop
zoning change:I2 to C4
surrounding uses:offices,retail,auto repair,engine
manufacturer
6968-33
location:southeast corner of Cedar and 27
land use classification:commercial
existing use:3 single family residents
7 l.
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6966 Z-6967,Z-6968
zoning change:R3 to C3
surrounding uses:school,single family,retail,alarm company
6968-34
location:southeast corner of Pine and 27
land use classification:commercial
existing use:alarm company,single family residence
zoning change:I2 to C3
surrounding uses:liquor store,single family,retail,auto
repair
6967-35
location:mid block along the south side of Roosevelt between
Maple and Valentine
land use classification:commercial
existing use:transmission shop
zoning change:I2 to C4
surrounding uses:salvation army,State complex,retirement home
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
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.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE 5 Ue 2 2Mt
r nN)eNT~p E G-LL.&A R
MEMBER 9I .2
a.'ECTOR,BILL
DOWNING,RICHARD o
EARNEST,HUGH v'v v
NUNNLEY,OBRAY v'
v'ERRY,CRAIG v v
ADCOCK,PAM
RAHMAN,MIZAN
LOWRY,BOB
ALLEN,FRED,JR.v v
FAUST,JUDITH
v'USE,ROHN
MEMBER
RECTOR,BILL
DOWNING,RICHARD
EARNEST,HUGH
NUNNLEY,OBRAY
BERRY,CRAIG
ADCOCK,PAM
RAHMAN,MIZAN
LOWRY,BOB )
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
FAUST,JUDITH
MUSE,ROHN
Meeting Adjourned 5 i ~@ P.M.
AYE H NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN RECUSE
January 25,2001
January 25,2001
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
&Hot
Date
~CQChairman Sec e a
V