pc_06 22 2000subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 22,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the May 11,2000 Meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Craig Berry
Pam Adcock
Rohn Muse
Richard Downing
Fred Allen,Jr.
Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley
Members Absent:Bill Rector
Judith Faust
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 22,2000
I .DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Claremore Court —Preliminary Plat (S-1272)
B.Little Rock Port Industrial Park —Revised Preliminary
Plat (S-957-D)
C.Bryant —Revised PCD (Z-5505-I)
D.Commercial Development Associates —Short-Form PCD
(Z-6629-A)
E.LUOO-19-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal
Planning District from Office to Commercial
F.Mini-Storages at Chenal —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6829)
G.Larry Freeman —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6846)
H.LUOO-01-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River
Mountain Planning District from Single-Family and
Transition to Commercial
I.LUOO-16-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District from Single Family to
Commercial
J.Summit Mall —Revised PCD (Z-4923-A)
K.Hughey's Replat —Preliminary Plat (S-1275)
L.Dewey Towing Service —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6805)
M.Master Street Plan Amendments in the 36 Street
Corridor
N.St.John Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4686-A)
Agenda,Page Two
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Chenal Valley (Tract 5A)—Preliminary Plat (S-867-GGGG)
1.1.Chenal Valley (Tract 5A)—Zoning Site Plan Review
(Z-5936-B)
2.Pinnacle Valley Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat
(S-992-J)
3.Baptist Health —Kanis South Subdivision (Lot 12)
Replat (S-1162-G)
4.Mid-Towne Development (Lot 1)—Replat (S-1216-A)
4.1.Z-6526-A 10800 Shackleford West Blvd.C-2 to 0-3
5.Westwood Industrial Park —Preliminary Plat (S-1285)
III .PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
6.Wentwood Valley Townhomes —Short-Form PRD (Z-2530-A)
7.Bowman Plaza —Revised POD (Z-4213-D)
8.Freeway Business Park —Revised POD (Z-4249-C)
9.Michael —Short-Form PCD (Z-6863)
10.Grubbs —Revised PD-I (Z-6671-A)
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEW:
11.Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Subdivision Site Plan
Review (S-1096-C)
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
12.Parkway Place Baptist Church —Revised Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4650-A)
13.Montessori School —Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6096-B)
Agenda,Page Three
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:(Cont.)
14.St.Paul United Methodist Church —Conditional Use
Permit (Z-6857)
15.Perritt Massage Clinic —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6860)
16.Cricket Communications Switching Station —Conditional
Use Permit (Z-6864)
VI .OTHER MATTERS:
17.Williams Day Care Family Home —Special Use Permit
(Z-6862)
18.Country Club Blvd.—Right-of-Way Abandonment —Lot 8,Block 14,Newton's Addition (G-23-304)
14
H
10
2
CO
U
N
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
It
e
m
s
LN
V
47
V
S
47
K
V 4J
=*
8
Ri
v
e
g
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
~
w
MA
HA
M
IA
12
1-
6
3
C
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
KA
N
I
S
1-
6
3
0
AH
I
S
I
TH
12
T
H
11
AH
~
0
E
6T
H
e2
4
a.
R
24
(
„
I
WR
I
G
H
T
4
4.
1
CO
I
OT
Y
E
E
I-
30
3
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
4
DA
M
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
Fy
LA
W
S
O
N
1-
4
4
0
B
C
J CI
FR
A
E
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
XS
O
V
5
7
ZE
U
B
E
R
DA
V
I
D
O'
D
O
D
D
65
T
H
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
K
VA
L
L
E
Y
Ã
TY
LI
M
I
T
S
13
65
4
16
7
II
X
17
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
G
43
AS
N
70
10
K
DI
X
O
N
36
5
HA
R
P
E
R
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
V
TF
F
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
~
SL
I
N
K
E
R
tL
'
I
N
S
O
N
0-
DR
E
H
R
I
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
P
R
SP
O
S
.
I
C
OF
F
CU
T
O
F
F
5'
+
CU
T
O
F
F
CI
T
Y
LW
R
T
S
~T
X
EL
65
16
7
36
5
AS
H
E
R
e
PR
A
T
T
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ju
n
e
22
,
20
0
0
June 22,2lrv0
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:S-1272
NAME:Claremore Court —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:West end of Claremore Court,at Beasley Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Norman Holcomb McGetrick &McGetrick
2311 Biscayne Dr.319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72227 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-6
PLANNING DISTRICT:2
CENSUS TRACT:22.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 1.23 acres into seven
(7)lots to allow for the development of single familyresidences.The applicant proposes to access the lots byutilizinganexistingpavedaccesseasementfromClaremoreDrive.All of the lots will be final platted at the sametime.
The property is zoned MF-6,which does not allow single-family residential development.The applicant will need torezonethepropertytoR-2.
June 22,2bu0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and mostly wooded.The
property generally slopes downward from Claremore Drive tothenorth.There are single family residences to the
south,west and northwest,with a multifamily developmenttothenortheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Echo Valley,Sturbridge and Robinwood
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Developer will be responsible for all adjacent street
improvements,which includes Claremore Drive frontage.2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 4-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A water main extension and private fire hydrant
will be required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrant per city code.
Provide 50 foot turning radius for cul-de-sac with no
parking.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is served by Route ¹22.Approved for transit
purposes.
2
June 22,20v0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on December 14,1999.The revised plan shows many of theadditionalnotationsasrequired.The following items needtobeshownonarevisedpreliminaryplatdrawing:
1.Source of title.
2.Sources of title for abutting recorded subdivisions.3.Move building lines to provide 60 foot lot width (chorddistance)for Lots 14 and 15.
As noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting,the
remainder of the property that this 1.23 acres came from
must be part of this plat,or the applicant must provide
deed information (history)showing that this parcel has
been separately owned for at least ten (10)years.The
applicant must also provide access easement deed
documentation for the access to the condo development to
the north.These issues must be resolved prior to the
Commission taking action on this application.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,this property is
zoned MF-6,which does not allow single-family residential
development.The applicant will need to rezone the
property to R-2 as a condition of the plat approval.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph DandEofthisreport.2.The property must be rezoned to R-2 prior to a final platbeingsignedbystaff.
3
June 22,2t v0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
3.A revised preliminary plat with the additional notations,as requested in paragraph G.of this report,must besubmittedtostaff.4.The issues relating to property ownership and access
easement to the condo development must be resolved priortotheCommissionactingonthisapplication.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Norman Holcomb were present,representing theapplication.Staff described the proposed preliminary plat,noting several items which needed to be shown on a revised plat
drawing.Staff also noted that easement deed and ownership
documentation needed to be provided by the applicant.Staff
noted that the property was zoned MF-6,which did not allowsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopment.Staff informed the
Committee that the preliminary plat application needed to bedeferredsothattheapplicantcouldfilearezoningapplication(R-2)for this property.It was determined that the rezoningcouldbemadeaconditionoftheplatapproval.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.McGetrick noted thatallofthelotswouldbefinalplattedatthesametime.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.The
primary focus of the discussion related to the proposed accesstothelots.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6 2000)
Staff informed the Commission that this item needed to bedeferredduetothefactthattherewasanoutstandingissuerelatingtotheproperty's ownership which needed to beresolved.Staff recommended that this item be deferred to the
February 17,2000 agenda.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 17,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof11ayesand0nays.
4
June 22,240'()
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1272
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 17,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthatthisitembedeferredtotheMarch30,
2000 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.With a vote
of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent,the Commission voted to waive
their bylaws and accept the deferral request being made less than
five (5)working days prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMarch22,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the May 11,2000 agenda.Staff noted that the
applicant,requesting a third deferral,would be required to
renotify abutting property owners.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
May 11,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay11,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 open position,the
Commission voted to waive the bylaws and accept the request fordeferral,which was made less than five (5)working days priortothepublichearing.
5
June 22,20u0
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-957-D
NAME:Little Rock Port Industrial Park —Revised
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southeast of Interstate 440,east of Fourche Dam Pike
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Little Rock Port Authority Garver Engineers
(City of Little Rock)1010 Battery Street
7500 Lindsey Road Little Rock,AR 72202LittleRock,AR 72206
AREA:377 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:—FT.NEW STREET:6,820 lf
ZONING:I-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:25
CENSUS TRACT:40.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of the filing fee.
2.Variance for reduced street centerline radii.3.Variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length standards.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing a revised preliminary plat for
approximately 377 acres of the Little Rock Port IndustrialPark.The area is generally east of Fourche Dam Pike andsouthofI-440.The primary purpose for the plat is todedicate6,820 linear feet of new streets.
The applicant has noted that lots within this area will beplattedinsinglelotfinalplatsastheyaresoldand/or
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
developed.This has been the accepted practice within thePortIndustrialParkforthepastseveraldecades.ThespecificlotswillconformtotheI-3 zoning standards.
The preliminary plat drawing submitted to staff also showsseveralotheramenitiesforthisareaofthesubdivision.
These include 78,457 linear feet of new railroad
construction,railroad crossings,drainage improvements and
a cargo dock for the industrial harbor.The proposedstreetsandotheramenitiesaswellastheproposedphasesarenotedontheattachedplatdrawing.A color-coded
version has been included for Planning Commission review.
Due to the fact that the Little Rock Port Authority is an
agency of the City,a waiver of the filing fee has beenrequested.This is a waiver which has been granted in thepastwithotherphasesofthesubdivision.
The applicant is also requesting a variance for minimumcenterlineradiusfortwo(2)locations on Alden Bowen
Road.The applicant is also requesting a variance from the
maximum cul-de-sac length standards for Alden Bowen Road
and South Harbor Drive.
The applicant has also noted that approximately 6 acres ofexistingtreeswillneedtobeclearedinanisolatedareawestofI-440 (near the northwest corner of the
subdivision).This would allow continuation of a drainageprojectstartedlastyear.This issue is not a plat issue.
The applicant needs to work with Public Works in requestingrelieffromtheregulationsonclearingrecentlypassedbytheCityBoard.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area proposed for the revised preliminary plat is
undeveloped and mostly grass-covered.
There are existing industrial uses along Lindsey Road,Frazier Pike and Fourche Dam Pike within the Little RockPortIndustrialPark.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Hermitage Property Owners Association was notified ofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has receivedthree(3)phone calls from persons requesting information
on the project.
2
June 22,2t,0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Variances will be required if construction
planned as shown i.e.,curve radii,length of cul-de-sac.
2.Contact AHTD for roadway location approval underinterstate.
3.Show drainage easements and preliminary drainage design.4.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required with a building permit.5.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186(b)will be required with building permit.6.A Development Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area perSec.8-283 will be required.
7.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.8.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if
necessary to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment.
2QQKA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Water service is available from the Gravity system.
The proposed railroad crossing appears to conflict with anexistingwaterline.Relocation may be required,depending on
grade.Protection will be required (split casing).
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No affect —Site is close to ¹20 Route.
3
June 22,2L.~O
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonApril26,2000.The revised plat provides alloftheadditionalnotationsasrequiredbystaffand
discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting.A vicinity
map,PAGIS monuments and labels for all rights-of-way andplattedbuildinglineshavebeenprovided.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting avarianceforareducedcenterlineradiusattwo(2)locations on Alden Bowen Road.The proposed radii at theselocationsare100feet.The minimum radius required byordinanceis275feet.Public Works supports the variance
request based on the low volume of traffic anticipated forthisstreet.
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the
maximum cul-de-sac length standards for Alden Bowen Road
and South Harbor Drive.The maximum allowed cul-de-sac
length is 1,500 feet.The length of Alden Bowen Road is
approximately 2,100 linear feet and the length of South
Harbor Drive is 2,690 linear feet.Public Works also
supports this variance based on the low traffic volumeanticipated.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the preliminary plat.The applicant has done an
adequate job in addressing the issues as raised by staff.
The proposed continuation of the Little Rock PortIndustrialParkshouldhavenoadverseeffecton the
general area.
4
June 22,20vO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
H.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 requested variance for
reduced centerline radii for Alden Bowen Road.3.Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from
the maximum cul-de-sac length standards for Alden Bowen
Road and South Harbor Drive.
4.Staff also recommends approval of the requested waiver of
the filing fee.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Bill Ruck and Paul Latture were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the revised preliminary
plat,noting several items which needed to be shown on a revised
drawing.Staff noted that filing fee waivers had been supported
in the past for the port area.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Bob
Turner,of Public Works,noted that the variance for reduced
centerline radii on Alden Bowen Road could be supported based on
the low traffic volume on the street.Mr.Ruck noted that his
firm is working with the Corps of Engineers regarding drainage
issues in this area.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the plat to the
full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Bill Ruck and Katie Gibbons were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the preliminary plat,with
a recommendation of approval with conditions.There were four
(4)persons present with concerns.
J.A.Swift noted that he had concerns with Old Fourche Creek.
He stated that the quality of the water had declined in this
creek over the past several years.He stated that he had
5
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
questions about the Port Authority development in the area
northwest of I-440.
Mary Swift also addressed the Commission with concerns.She
also noted concern with the quality of Old Fourche Creek.She
also noted concern with the number of snakes that she has found
in her yard and stated that there was a problem with mosquitoes
in the area.
Bill Ruck and Katie Gibbons addressed the Commission in supportoftheapplication.Ms.Gibbons noted that when spraying beginsformosquitoes(approximately 2 weeks),the area around Old
Fourche Creek would be included.She stated that the snake
problem could not be taken care of.
Commissioner Lowry asked if Old Fourche Creek was full ofdebris.Ms.Gibbons stated that she was not sure whether or not
the creek was full of debris.
Ms.Gibbons noted that the Port Authority had a meeting with the
property owners in this area.She stated that the Port
Authority made every effort to contact and meet with the
property owners.
Commissioner Lowry asked how the issues of debris and water
quality in Old Fourche Creek would be addressed.Ms.Gibbons
stated that she would check into the issue,determine if the
Port Authority owns the property and try to resolve the issues.
She noted that the snake problem was possibly an issue that the
City could handle.Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that
the Public Works Department would also look into the matter.
Bill Ruck discussed Old Fourche Creek and gave possible reasonsforthereductioninwaterquality.
Commissioner Lowry stated that he hoped that the Port Authority
would up keep their property.
Commissioner Downing commented on the six (6)acres where trees
would be removed and asked what effect the clearing would have
on drainage.Mr.Ruck stated that the clearing would have noeffectondrainage.He stated that there were no plans to fill
the channel of the creek.
6
June 22,2v 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
Mr.Ruck explained that the clearing was to be within an area of
designated wetlands,and that the Corps of Engineers had issued
a permit to eliminate the wetlands area.There was a brief
discussion of this issue.
Commissioner Downing commented on the stagnation issue regarding
Old Fourche Creek and the clearing of the acreage northwest of
I-440.Mr.Ruck made additional comments concerning Old Fourche
Creek.
There was a motion to defer the application to the June 22,2000
agenda to allow the Port Authority time to meet with the
neighborhood and try to resolve the issues relating to Old
Fourche Creek and the snake and mosquito problems.
Commissioner Muse suggested that the applicant contact a
herpetologist regarding the snake issue.
The previous motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Paul Latture,Katie Gibbons and Bill Ruck were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
preliminary plat.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,suggested that
the Commission stick to the plat issues and not discuss issues
which the Commission has no authority over.
Paul Latture briefly discussed the preliminary plat.He noted
that the complaints from the neighborhood were not associated
with the proposed plat,but that he would be happy to work with
the neighborhood concerning their problems.He noted that the
neighborhood has valid complaints,but that they are far removed
from the plat area.He noted that he had contacted
herpetologists regarding the snake problem and explained.
City Director Johnnie Pugh addressed the Commission.She noted
that she attended the meeting to find out information about theproject.
7
June 22,2~i'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns.She noted
concerns with removal of existing mature trees in the area
northwest of I-440.She asked if any additional clearing would
be done prior to the new landscape ordinance being passed.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the Port received a
grading permit in 1998,and that the permit is still in effect.
He noted that it allows clearing of a portion of the property
northwest of I-440.
Mary Swift addressed the Commission with concerns.She
presented a petition from the neighborhood.She also presented
photos to the Commission.She noted that the Port Authority had
met with the neighborhood and that the Port refused to put their
plans in writing.
J.A.Swift addressed the Commission and explained the photos.
He discussed the property on the north side of I-440,behind the
lots on Plantation and Shelby Drives.He asked what the Port's
intent was for this property.
Richard McCauley,of the Hermitage Homeowners Association,
addressed the Commission.He also asked what the intent was for
the property northwest of I-440.He stated that the
neighborhood had no problem with the proposed plat south and
east of I-440.He stated that he wished to not see commercial
development northwest of I-440.
Commissioner Downing asked about the plans for the cul-de-sac
northwest of I-440.Mr.Latture noted that there would be
drainage improvements in this area and development of a 10-acre
tract.
Commissioner Downing asked about preservation of trees in this
area.Mr.Latture noted that a small area would be cleared
around a drainage area and explained referring to a map of the
area.There was further discussion of the area northwest of
I-440 and the area to be cleared with the drainage improvements.
Commissioner Downing asked about drainage behind the properties
along Plantation Drive.This issue was briefly discussed.
Commissioner Downing asked if the development of the property
northwest of I-440 would create a drainage problem.Mr.Latture
and Mr.Ruck explained that it would not.Mr.Ruck explained
8
June 22,2t 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
that he had been the Port's engineer for approximately 25 years,
and within that time none of the improvements in the port area
had an adverse impact on the property northwest of I-440.The
drainage issues were briefly discussed.
Commissioner Downing stated that he wished to make sure that the
Port development does not contribute to drainage problems.
There was further discussion of the drainage issues.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about the 10 acres northwest ofI-440.Mr.Latture noted that the 10 acres would be utilized as
a warehousing-type use.He noted that the 10 acres is zoned I-3
and that the property further west is zoned R-2 and is in the
floodway.
Commissioner Nunnley noted that the neighborhood could have beenbetterinformed.
There was additional discussion regarding the drainage behind
the residential lots.Commissioner Rahman commented that he
thought that the neighbors did not have all of the information
regarding this development.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Latture if he would amend the
existing grading permit and abide by current ordinance standards
and the future landscape and tree preservation ordinance when itispassed.Mr.Latture noted that 50 to 60 cottonwood trees
would need to be removed in order to do the drainage
improvements.There was additional discussion relating to the
grading permit.Commissioner Downing noted that a buffer wouldstillexistbetweenthePortpropertyandtheneighborhood.
Commissioner Rahman asked why the area northwest of I-440 was
being cleared at this time.Mr.Ruck noted that there was a 404
permit (partially federally funded)and that it was a 5-year
project.He explained the procedure associated with the permit.
Commissioner Berry asked what else would be done with the10-acre property northwest of I-440.Mr.Ruck noted that there
would be drainage improvements to relieve the wetlands area.
There was additional discussion relating to the proposed
development northwest of I-440.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about the buffer between the 10-acre
property and the residential lots.Mr.Latture stated that thebufferwouldbeapproximately200feet.
9
June 22,2t ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-957-D
Mr.Swift addressed the Commission with concerns about possible
future development west of the 10-acre site.Mr.Latture noted
that there would be no development or clearing west of the
10 acres.Mr.Swift also noted concern with the creek adjacent
to the residential lots,and the fact that the creek is not
currently flowing.There was a brief discussion concerning who
owns the area where the creek exists.
Chair Adcock asked if Public Works could intervene and clean up
the creek area.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that he had concerns based on
the fact that the area is in the floodway and any structural
changes to the creek would involve the Corps of Engineers and
FEMA.He noted that Public Works would be glad to assist,but
the City had no easements in this area.He noted that the area
west of the 10-acre property could not be cleared or developed
without additional permits and rezoning.
Mr.Ruck noted that he had met with the Corps of Engineers andstatedthattheculvertsunderPickettRoad(if still existing)
were probably not in good condition.This issue was briefly
discussed.
There was a motion to approve the application subject to the
conditions as noted by staff.The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent.
10
June 22,2i 0
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
NAME:Bryant —Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Johnnie and Sandra Bryant White-Daters and Associates
3606 Rocky Lane 401 S.Vi ctory StreetLittleRock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.76 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Convenience store with gas
pumps,auto repair garage,
stone works business
PROPOSED USE:Same,with the addition of a
welding shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Continuation of the deferral of right-of-way dedication andstreetimprovementstoColonelGlennRoadandRockyLane
approved by Ordinance No.18,048.
BACKGROUND:
This property was rezoned from R-2 to PCD in 1992,in order to
recognize the existing uses of the property.These existing
uses included a grocery store with gas pumps,a natural stone
business and a single-family residence (mobile home).The
property is outside the city limits but within the city'extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
On July 6,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
18,047 approving a revised PCD for the property.The revised
PCD included the following:
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
1.Utilization of 480 square feet of the 1,875 square foot
grocery store building for general retail use.
2.A 1,380 square foot building addition to be used as an auto
repair garage.
3.Storage bins for the natural stone business
4.Additional paved parking areas and landscaped areas
5.Five year deferral of right-of-way dedication and street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane (Ordinance
No.18,048).
6.Removal of the mobile home within the south portion of the
property.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the PCD as follows:
Phase I —construction of a 4 foot by 64 foot buildingadditiononthewestsideoftheexistingbuildingtobeusedforstoragefortheautorepairbusiness.
construction of a 10 foot by 62 foot overhang on theeastsideofthebuilding.The applicant proposestoplacetablesundertheexistingnorthoverhangportionforcustomers.
relocation of the existing storage bins for the
stone works business.
Phase II —construction of a 30 foot by 40 foot buildingwithinthesouthhalfofthepropertytobeused as
an office,storage and welding shop.
The applicant has also noted that he has received a permit
from the State to sell vehicles in conjunction with theautorepairgarage.A wall-mounted sign ("Bryant'AutoSales")has been noted on the revised site plan on the
south side of the existing building.
The proposed hours of operation are as follows:
~store (existing)6:30 a.m.—9:00 p.m.
~garage (existing)7:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m.
~welding shop (proposed —7:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property currently contains a grocery store building
with gas pumps located within the northern portion of theproperty.There is also an auto repair garage located
2
June 22,2u~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
within this building.There is also a stone works businesslocatedontheproperty,with stone being stored within the
south one-half of the site.
There are single-family residences on larger lots locatedacrossRockyLanetotheeast,across Colonel Glenn Road tothenorthwest,to the south along Rocky Lane and to the
west along Colonel Glenn Road.There are several mobile
and manufactured homes in the area.
There is a grocery store with gas pumps located across
Colonel Glenn to the north.There is also a beauty shop
and a pet grooming/boarding business to the west.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
There was no established neighborhood association to notifyconcerningthisapplication.As of this writing,staff hasreceivedone(1)phone call from a person requesting
information on this application.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlineisrequired.
2.Rocky Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofColonelGlennandRockyLane.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.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.
3
June 22,2t ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside Service Boundary.No Comment.
AP&L:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water serviceisrequired.
Fire Department:Fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Affect-Not on a dedicated Bus Route
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Ellis Mountain PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Existing Business Nodeforthislocation.The property is currently zoned for a
Planned Commercial Development and the zoning request is torevisethePCDfortheconstructionofanadditional
building for a welding shop.This proposal does not
require a Land Use Plan amendment.Concerns arise over the
proposed uses and intensification of the PCD for
compatibility with the surrounding residential uses.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This propertyislocatedinanareathatisnotcoveredbyacity
recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
The 6 foot high wood fence must continue the entire lengthofthewesternperimeteroftheproperty.
A four foot wide on-site landscape strip is requiredparallelwithRockyLane.
4
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 26,2000.The revised plan addresses several of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
Areas of additional parking have been shown around the
proposed second building and the proposed hours for the
welding shop have been provided.The revised plan also
shows a 6 foot wood screening fence along the entire west
property line.
A total of 22 parking spaces is shown on the site plan.
The ordinance would typically require 20 spaces for this
proposed development.
As noted earlier,the applicant was granted a five (5)yeardeferralofstreetimprovementsandright-of-way dedication
for Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane on July 6,1999
(Ordinance No.18,048).The applicant is requesting
continuation of this deferral.Public Works supports the
continuation.
Although staff has no problem with the small additions
proposed to the existing building,staff cannot support theintensificationofthesiteasproposed.The applicant is
proposing a second building to be used as a welding shop,
used auto sales and additional parking areas on a site thatisalreadyfacingsizeconstraints.The site is only
three-quarters of an acre in size.Staff feels that the
intensity of the uses as proposed extends beyond the scopeoftheBusinessNodelanduseplandesignation.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the revised PCD as proposed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the revised PCD and noted concerns with theintensificationofusesproposed.
It was noted that a deferral of right-of-way dedication andstreetimprovementstoColonelGlennRoadandRockyLanewere
5
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
previously approved.It was noted that the applicant could
request that the deferral apply to this application also,or
request a new deferral.
Staff noted that adequate screening should be installed between
this site and the property to the west,preferably a screening
fence.
After the presentation,the Committee forwarded the revised PCD
to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay11,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 open position,the
Commission voted to waive the bylaws and accept the request for
deferral,which was made less than five (5)working days prior
to the public hearing.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 22,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 open
position.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 8,2000)
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on June 7,
2000.The revised plan eliminates the 30 foot by 40 foot
welding shop building within the south one-half of the property.
The applicant is proposing only the Phase I improvements as
noted on page 2 of this report.The overhang on the east side
of the building has been reduced to an 8 foot width.Staff has
no problem with these minor revisions in the previously approvedsiteplan.
Also noted on page 2 of this report,the applicant has informed
staff that he has received a permit from the state to sell
vehicles in conjunction with the auto repair garage.Staff will
not support the sale of vehicles on this site,due to the size
6
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
constraints associated with this property and discussed in the
analysis on page 5.
REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD with respect to the
Phase I improvements as noted on page 2 of this report and
subject to the following conditions:
1.There is to be no sale of vehicles on the property.2.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E
and F of this report.3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away from
adjacent property.
4.All vehicle repair shall be done within the enclosed
building.
5.There shall be no outside storage of vehicles of vehicle
parts.
6.All vehicles awaiting repair or customer pickup must be
parked in designated,paved parking areas.7.Public Works supports the continuation of the deferrals ofstreetimprovementsandright-of-way dedication for Colonel
Glenn Road and Rocky Lane as approved by Ordinance No.
18,048.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Johnnie Bryant,Jay Bryant and Joe White were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed Revised PCD,noting that the only changes to the
previously approved plan were the two (2)small building
additions and the revision of the rear parking area.Staff also
noted that Mr.Bryant had dropped his request to have auto sales
on the property.
Karen Stringer addressed the Commission in opposition.She
stated that the property had been a nuisance for some time.Shestatedthattheautorepairshopisopenallhoursandthat
there is outside storage of vehicles.She also stated that the
property had not been in compliance with the previous approval.
Rodney Faust addressed the Commission with concerns.He
submitted a petition to the Commission.He stated that he had a
problem with noise and the hours of operation.He also noted
7
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
traffic concerns.He stated that the property had not been
well-maintained and that vehicles had been repaired outside the
building.
Commissioner Nunnley asked of the applicant's conduct could be
taken under consideration with this application.Possible
violations which exist on the property were discussed.
There was a discussion of the revised PCD and what was
previously approved with respect to what could be done to
enforce violations on the property.Jim Lawson,Director of
Planning and Development,noted that the proposed improvements
will help eliminate possible violations.He noted that staff
will enforce the conditions of the PCD.This issue was briefly
discussed.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the conditions asked for by
Mr.Faust (letter dated June 22,2000)and if they could be
added to the conditions as recommended by staff.This issue
was discussed.
Commissioner Allen asked about deferring this application to
allow Mr.Bryant to bring the site into compliance before the
Planning Commission acts on the revised PCD.This issue was
briefly discussed.
Jay Bryant addressed the Commission.He addressed the
conditions in Mr.Faust's letter.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Bryant if he would agree to defer
the application and work with staff in determining if the
property is in compliance.Mr.Bryant noted that if the
building additions were approved the outside storage would be
eliminated.Mr.Lawson noted that staff could determine if the
property is in compliance before the revised PCD goes to the
Board of Directors.
Commissioner Downing noted that he had a problem with the
Commission determining whether or not there were violations on
the property.
Commissioner Nunnley asked how a PCD could be revoked if
an applicant did not conform to the approved conditions.
Mr.Lawson noted that violations are handled through
8
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-I
Environmental Court and an applicant can be fined until
violation is corrected.He noted that staff would enforce
on this property if needed.
There was a motion to approve the revised PCD subject to the
conditions as noted by staff and the conditions as noted in
Mr.Faust's letter dated June 22,2000 (with the exception of
item ¹5).The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,2 nays,and
2 absent.
9
June 22,2~F0
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
NAME:Commercial Development Associates —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:East side of University Avenue,between "B"and
"C"Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Commercial Development Associates McGetrick and McGetrick
14502 N.Dale Murphy,Ste.333 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Tampa,FL 33618 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.63 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:360 lf
ZONING:R-3/R-5 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential and
Multifamily Residential
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-3/R-5
to PCD to allow for the construction of a 25,600 square
foot commercial building.The applicant is proposing 74
parking spaces to serve the proposed building.
The applicant proposes to realign "C"Street to line up
with the Park Plaza access drive on the west side of
University Avenue.The applicant is proposing two (2)
access points from "C"Street and one (1)from "B"Street.
The existing rock retaining wall along University Avenue
will be shifted approximately 23 feet to the east and have
a height of six (6)feet.This will allow for construction
of a 12 foot turn lane and sidewalk along University
Avenue.The existing traffic signal at the northwest
corner of the property will be relocated.
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
The proposed hours of operation for the commercial building
are as follows:
9:00 a.m.—9:00 p.m.,Monday —Saturday10:00 a.m.—8:00 p.m.,Sunday
The proposed building,parking areas,drives and landscape
and buffer areas are noted on the attached site plan.The
applicant has shown a ground-mounted sign location near the
northwest corner of the property,on the south side of "C"
Street.The applicant has also submitted the proposedfrontbuildingelevationforPlanningCommissionreview.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The general area contains a mixture of residential,office
and commercial uses and zoning.There are single-family
and multifamily residences located to the east,north and
south.There are existing office buildings to the north
along the east side of University Avenue and a parking lot
immediately east of this site along the south side of "C"
Street.There is an office building/beauty shop located at
the southeast corner of University Avenue and "B"Street,
with the Park Plaza Mall being located to the west across
University Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Hillcrest Residents Association was notified of the
public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received one
(1)letter expressing concerns about the proposed project.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.University Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 50
feet from centerline is required.
2."C"Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.(Additional lane on University will be
required with building permit.)
2
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.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.
8.Show access to adjacent properties to the North.
9.Eliminate access to "B"Street or meet with Staff to
modify.
10.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required with a building permit.11.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required with a building permit.
12.University Avenue has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 13,000.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A water main extension may be required to providefireprotectiontothisproperty.Any needed relocation of
existing water facilities will be at developer's expense.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752
regarding fire hydrants.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Affect-Site is on route ¹21 and is close to
routes ¹5 and ¹8.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this
location.The property is currently zoned R-3 Single
Family Residential and R-5 Urban Residence and the zoning
request is for a Planned Commercial Development for the
3
June 22,2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
construction of a retail development.This proposal is
consistent with Mixed Use Land Uses.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in an area covered by the
Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan "A 'Blueprint'f our
Community."The neighborhood action plan calls for
locating intensive uses at the edge of the neighborhood,
establishing buffers between residential and non-
residential uses,and controlling the erosion of the
neighborhood's quality resulting from incompatible land
uses at the edge of the neighborhood.
Landsca e Issues:
It will be necessary to remove two of the parking spaces
within the middle of the proposed eastern parking lot to
provide for interior landscaping.
Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance
requirements.
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the eastern
perimeter of the site.This screen may be a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on April 27,2000.The revised plan
addresses most of the issues as discussed by the
Subdivision Committee.The revised plan eliminates one (1)of the two (2)drives originally shown on "B"Street,and
reduces the number of parking spaces from 86 to 74.The
revised plan also shows a service drive along the southsideofthebuildingandascreeningfencealongtheeast
property line.
The following are outstanding issues that need to be
resolved:
1.Proposed use mix needs to be provided.
2 .Proposed ground-mounted sign details need to be
provided.
4
June 22,2i J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
3.The landscape buffer between the service drive and "B"
Street needs to be increased to six (6)feet.
Staff will attempt to resolve those issues prior to the
public hearing.
The applicant is proposing 74 parking spaces to serve this
proposed development.The ordinance would typically
require 113 spaces for this development (shopping center
standards).Staff has no problem with the parking plan as
proposed.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there should be no other
outstanding issues associated with the site plan.As noted
in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant provided a
proposed front building elevation.Staff is very pleased
with the elevation and feels that the project will not have
the appearance of a "big box"development.Staff feels
that this project represents a good infill development.
H.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.The outstanding issues noted in paragraph G.must beresolved.3.Any site lighting shall be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footopaquefenceorwall.5.Staff recommends approval of the proposed buildingelevationasacomponentofthisproject.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Pat McGetrick,Ron Tabor and Jim Irwin were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the PCD,
noting that additional information was needed.
The parking for the project was briefly discussed.Staff notedthatasmalleramountofparkingwasproposedthanwastypically
required by ordinance.There seemed to be no concern with thisissue.
5
June 22,2~
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
Ron Tabor discussed the proposed building's faqade.He noted
that he had met with the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association.
The Public Works requirements were discussed,with the primary
focus being on "B"Street construction.Access to "B"Street
from this project was discussed.Mr.Tabor noted that only one
(1)access point to "B"Street could be provided.The Committee
supported one (1)access point to "B"Street.
It was also noted that additional interior landscaping and
screening along the east property line were needed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Ron Tabor was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the PCD with a recommendation of approval with
conditions.There were several persons present with concerns.
Ron Tabor addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He explained the project and noted who the
proposed tenants were.He also provided a history of the
property.He discussed the proposed realignment of "C"Street
and the proposed front building elevation.
George Campbell,of the Hillcrest Merchant's Association,
addressed the Commission in support of the project.He noted
that the project would be a "good fit"for the neighborhood.
Mac Helms addressed the Commission in opposition to the project.
He stated that he had concerns with increased traffic based on
there being a large number of children in the area.
Ruth Bell also addressed the Commission in opposition to the
project.She noted concerns with a commercial development being
introduced into this area.She also noted traffic concerns.
Carl Evans also spoke in opposition to the project.He
presented a petition to the Commission.He stated that he was
concerned with the appearance of the rear of the structure.He
also expressed concerns with drainage and traffic.
6
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
Commissioner Lowry asked about the traffic issue.Tad
Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that traffic would be
increased slightly.Mr.Tabor noted that he would work with
Public Works regarding the traffic issue.He noted that the
developer considered a cul-de-sac for "C"Street,but the City
would not allow it.
Mr.Tabor noted that he had met with the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Association on two (2)occasions.He noted that the development
would be properly landscaped,screened and buffered.
Commissioner Lowry commented on a deferral to allow the
applicant additional time to meet with the neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Berry commented on waiving the required commercialstreetright-of-way for "B"and "C"Streets.He also commented
on the traffic issues in this general area of Hillcrest.
Commissioner Earnest referred to the letter submitted by theHillcrestNeighborhoodAssociationwithregardstothedesign
standards and use mix.Mr.Tabor commented that the property is
not large enough to accommodate use mix which would includeresidential.
Mr.Tabor commented that the City was requiring the improvementsto"B"and "C"Streets.
Chairperson Adcock asked about lights on the rear of the
building.Mr.Tabor stated that there would be shielded,directional lighting on the rear of the building.
Chairperson Adcock asked about the color of the building.
Mr.Tabor noted that the building would be constructed of brick
and would be complementary to the clinic buildings to the north.
There was a brief discussion pertaining to the proposed "C"
Street construction.
Commissioner Faust commented on the project with regard to the
neighborhood and also commented on traffic issues.She noted
that this development had the potential to be an appropriateinfilldevelopment.
7
June 22,2v~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629-A
Commissioner Earnest also commented that this could be a goodinfilldevelopment.He noted that there were issues between the
developer and the neighborhood which needed to be resolved.
Commissioner Rector supported the idea of a cul-de-sac at "C"
Street and briefly discussed this issue.
Mr.Tabor made additional brief comments about the project.
Vice-Chair Berry briefly commented on the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Association letter.
A motion was made to defer the application to the June 22,2000
agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Ron Tabor and Pat McGetrick were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD.
Mr.Tabor noted that he would like for the persons present with
concerns to speak first.
Claire Burch,of 5817 "C"Street,addressed the Commission.Shestatedthatshewasmainlyconcernedwithtrafficon"C"Street.
Robin Borne noted that he represented the Hillcrest Residents
Association Board of Directors.He noted that the association
was opposed to the application.He noted that the was objectiontothesizeofthebuildingandparkingareaproposed.He
noted that the proposed use and size of the project was not
appropriate nor compatible with the existing neighborhood.He
stated that neighborhood would like a good mixed use projectfortheproperty.He also noted concerns with possible
increased traffic in the residential area.
Valerie Wingert,of 5907 "C"Street,also addressed the
Commission with concerns.She presented a petition of
opposition.She noted traffic as a major concern.She also
noted that hours of operation was a concern.She noted that theprojectcouldcausealossinpropertyvalueforherproperty.
8
June 22,2 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6629-A
Ruth Bell addressed the Commission.She stated that she had
concerns with the size of the project and traffic.
Mr.Tabor noted that he had met three times with the neighborhood
association and that he had met with the adjacent property owner.
He noted that the proposed building would only cover approximately
25 percent of the site.He noted that a sheet metal shop had
operated on the site for a number of years.
Commissioner Muse asked about the outstanding staff issues.
Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,noted that staff needed a
proposed use list for the property and sign details.There was
a brief discussion of these issues.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that traffic counts had been
taken for Pierce and "C"Streets.He noted that the traffic
count for "C"Street was 549 vehicles per day and Pierce Street
was 964 vehicles per day.He discussed the traffic patterns in
this immediate area.
Commissioner Berry asked about the widening of the residential
streets.Mr.Turner noted that the streets would have to be
widened.There was a brief discussion concerning this issue.
Mr.Turner noted that a decel lane along the University Avenue
frontage would not be required and that this would save several
mature trees.This issue was discussed.
Vice-Chair Berry asked Mr.Borne about the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Association vote.Mr.Borne stated that it was a unanimous vote.
He made additional comments in opposition to the project.
Chair Adcock also asked about the vote.Mr.Borne stated that it
was a vote of the Board of Directors of the association.
There was a motion to approve the PCD subject to the conditions
as noted by staff,the elimination of the decel lane requirement
and a waiver of the required street widths for the residential
streets.
Mr.Lawson asked about the proposed use list.Mr.Tabor noted
that the uses would be enclosed retail.
9
A
Z.-((7f-p
~'7
p
/g +~~~~~~~W~/PE /
~~gg ~~M~~~~'
~C'~~'F~
~A ~~~g(Q
~r .~~~M .~e.~.~~
P~~
u.
RKC',KIVED
APR 2 0 2000
BY:
2-~~~&-~
May 5,2000
Little Rock Planning Commission
723 West MarkhamLittleRock,AR 72201 —1334
Dear Board of Directors:
This letter is to oppose the application filed for a rezoning of
property located between the northeast corner of University Avenue
and B Street and the southeast corner of University Avenue and C
Streets
The proposed rezoning would change this property from residential
to commercial property and would allow commercial retail businesses
from B to C Streets along University Avenue.This change would
cause the destruction of two blocks of a family-oriented
residential neighborhood.
Specifically,the proposed change would put the rear of retail
businesses within feet of my home at 5907 C Streets It would add
inestimable vehicle traffic to a very narrow,unimproved street (CStreet).Even with an "improved"traffic signal at University and
C,most customers and delivery personnel would realize that twotrafficlightscouldbeavoidedbyaccessingthesebusinessbyC
Street,a phenomenon already practiced by the patients and
employees of the doctors'ffices presently located along
University'hese new retail businesses would,in addition,be
open at night at on weekends.Please consider that thirteen children
live on the 5900 block of C Street which would bear all thetrafficfromthisroosal.
This proposal would devastate property values and the prospect of
resale of any of the homes on this street.The proposal would also
add to the already unaddressed drainage and erosion problem along both
sides of C Street.
Bear in mind that there is little chance of success for new retail
stores in this area,given that Park Plaza is across the street and
has empty retail space available and that University Mall,one
block away,has practically already dried up and blown away.
Please deny this proposal immediately for the sake of families and
~children in this neighborhood.
Very truly ours,
Carl Evans
5907 C St.Little Rock,AR 72205 RECEIVED
(501)663-1882
MAY ~2000
BY
O ertzil C.&Heather A.Cortyer
5906 C Street +e.DLittleRock,AR 72205
Home Phone 501-2M-9912
May 03,2000
City of I.ittle Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
I.ittle Rock,AR 72201-1334
To The Planning Committee:
My husband &I have recently become aware of the proposed rezoning of the area on the east side of University Ave.
between "B"and "C"Streets.While we understand that the stores interested in the space are quite reputable,we feel
that the space under consideration would be inappropriate for a commercial development.Placing stores in this space
would bring an influx of traffic that our narrow streets cannot support.The result could only be continuous
congestion on our roads.Another point of concern for us is that the trafEc would be mostly evening and weekend
traffic.We feel that this would not only disrupt the peacefulness and beauty of the neighborhood (a major
consideration for our decision to purchase in this area last year),but would also present a constant,liazard for the
many young children who live and play on our block.
It is with great concern that we write this letter to oppose the rezoning of this property.We will not be able to attend
the public hearing on'May 11th,but we ask that you consider our reservations regarding this issue when making your
decision to accept or deny the application submitted by the Commercial Development Associates.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Denzil k Heather Conyer
RECFIVED
MAY 8 1000
BY
p -«i~-8LittleRockPlarmingCommission723WestMarkhamLittleRock,Ar.72201 —1334
Dear Board of Directors:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning ofthepropertyonUniversityAvenuebetween'B'nd 'C'treets fortheconstructionofaretai1stripcenter.
My husband and I are opposed to the rezoning for two main
reasons'urneighborhoodstreets,which are narrow with no curbs or guttersandinastateofdisrepair,already bear a large amount ofcommercialtrafficduringtheweekfrom7a.m.to 5 porn.Theproposedretailstoreswouldalmostcertainlybeopenuntil9p.m.on weekdays and would also be open on Saturday and Sunday.Unless'C'treet was closed to through traffic,this would dramaticallyincreasetheamountofcommercialtraffic.7 days a week ~There are13childrenon'C'treet in the one block between University andN.Pierce and their safety is a major concern.
We are also concerned about our property value.We may already bepayingrealestatetaxesoninflatedpropertyvaluesandmostcertainlyourpropertywouldhavelessresidentialandpracticallynocommercialappealaswearetheclosesthouseonthesouthsideof'C'treet to the land in questions As it is now,I look out
my kitchen window and see large,old trees that would be cut downtomakewayf'r constructions I'm afraid the future view out mywindowwouldbethebackofahugeconcrete-block building.
These are only two of the reasons we oppose the rezoning and wewouldappreciateyourconsiderationoftheseandother.residentialneighborhoodinterestsasyoucontemplatetherezoningissue.WeandseveralofourneighborsplantoattendthehearingonMay11toexpressour
concerns'incerely,
Valerie Wingert
5907 'C'treet
Little Rock,Ar ~72205
RECEDJED
MAY 8 2000
BY:
We,the undersigned,as property owners and/or residents in theHillcrestNeighborhoodofLittleRock,Ar.oppose the proposedcommercialdevelopmentofthepropertylocatedonUniversityAvenuebetween'B'nd 'C'treets.
bf87 8 S7~
Q!GU ~+~~
)p '/
gg14 'c
ieh ~~~~+
~p qllBN6 IIEJt~IYk&
z~&~
Q5(o 'c,'9,
$4&lc(~-/au'j (Q Q ~l'B
MP~
QcEQ
~(o-~-~:
IEEIVED
p $O
NlAy 1 1 2000g~
v-t.gag-AHillcrestResideotsAssociation
P,O.Box 251121
Little Rock,Arkansas 72225
May 11,2000
Mr.Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
723 %Vest Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
RE:Request to rezone property on east side of University Avenue between "B"and "C"
Streets from R-3 to PCD to allow a commercial dcvclopment
Dear iXfx.Moonie.
The Hillcrest Residents Association has voted to oppose the request to iczonc
property on the east side of University Avenue between "B"and "C"Streets horn R-3 toPCDtoallowacommercialdevelopment,The land use of the site is MXor mixed use.The
board would like to see a quality mixed use proposal,which would be good for the
neighborhood and which we could support.This project could be supported by the HRA if
some issues of placement,massing,land use,and design are addressed,
Hillcrest is a neighborhood of mixed uses,What sets Hillcrest apart from the rest ofpost-war Little Rock is how well different uses arc mixed together sensitively,Housing,of6ccs,and retail co-exist,A good example of a mixed use project in which one of the
tenant stores of this proposed project,Williams Sonoma,was an original participant,is "Old.
Hyde Park Village"in the Hyde Park Neighborhood of Tampa,Florida (1986).This
neighborhood is very similar to Hillcrest,built between 1890 and 1940 with the same stylesofarchitecture,Queen Anne and Craftsman.
The following is a list of the types of things that the HRA board would like to sec
included in a inixed use proposal for this property.This list is not meant to be all inclusive
or written in stone —it merely illustrates the types of details that wc are interested in.
Project to have mixture of thc following uses in good proportion:retail,office,and
residential.
Crcatc Qcxiblc spaces,they can be enlarged or subdivided for store/office growth.
The building needs to reflect individual spaces in an economical module or bay system.
Materials and design complementary of turn of the century retail neighborhood style.
There are many examples throughout Little Rock's older neighborhoods.Also look at
neighborhood prototypes like "Old Hyde Park Village"in Tampa.
Create street edge storefronts on the property lines of B Bc C streets.
Move sidewalk cdgc and rock wall of University Avenue back to allow a green planting
strip,separating pedestrians from high volume traffic.
58 3Bttd HSING GNtt 3WVB 8V Lt't'9KKKT89 98:TT 8885/TT/98
Landscape buffer the east side of the dcvclopment but sew the edges of the site into thefabricoftheneighborhood.(Don't make the development isolated from existing streetsandstreetedges.—Look at the context of the cxisttng buildings on the edges).Place signage on building and minimize sign size to be low to the ground at UniversityAvenueandonthcbuildingfacingB&C streets.All signage to be opaeiuc with lightdirectedonit,not backlit,(Look at signage on the Ice House development,I&vanaughBoulevardinHillcrest).
Use street trees in sidewalk on B &C streets,
Maximize existing vegetation currently on site.
Design development where it fits the context and pattern of the neighborhood creating aneighborhoodcornerinthesouthwest.
Park the cars in the center of thc development through openings in the sides of thestructureoffofB&C streets creating a center parking courtyard.Entry to the courtyard
through articulated centered openings off of B &C streets.Some service and deliverycouldoccurinthecenterofthedevelopmentafterhours,but not after midnight.
The Board of the Hillcrest Residents Association would welcome the opportunity to work
with the property owner and architect to plan a development that could benefit the
neighborhood.Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
Nancy S.Ledbetter
President
Hillcrest Residents Association
RECEIVED
MAY l.1 2000
BY:
p~
z4~&!
-y&p7~~~g ~~
c~~
~/cD~~~
-W 'C'.
~~
pP ~g
~~W.&.
a
J
g g
~,~Cp,
eg
CZ~~~~
4Lg~~~,,~jW~~,~&re
i~Sac
C
I
c~~
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2000
BY:
~4~b
/Per&~''A
cP.w~~/
0'~&~~CZm~~e ~~
~C
/~g
~~LATM
RECEIVED
MAY 312000
BY:
June 22,-GOO
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning
District
Location:1801 Champlin Dr.
Receuest:Office to Commercial
Source:Jack McCray,Deltic Timber Corporation
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District
from Office to Commercial.The Commercial category includes
a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,
personal and professional services,and general business
activities.Commercial activities vary in type and scale,
depending on the trade area they have.The applicant
wishes to build a mini-storage warehouse.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's vacant property is currently zoned 0-3
General Office and is approximately 4.4 +acres in size.
The property is bounded by a vacant lot zoned C-1
Neighborhood Commercial to the north,a vacant tract R-2
Single Family Residential to the south,the Carrington Park
Apartments occupy a MF-18 Multi-family zone to the east,
while the 0-2 Office and Institutional zone to the west
remains vacant.A vacant lot zoned Planned Commercial
Development lying to the northeast of the applicant's
property is the site of a future Texaco convenience store.
A shopping center is located further to the west on the
Rahling Road /Chenal Parkway intersection in a Planned
Commercial Development zone.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On January 4,2000 a change was made from Office to
Commercial about a mile south of the applicant's property.
On April 20,1999 a similar change was made on another
piece of property from Office to Commercial about a mile
south of the applicant's property.
On December 15,1998 a change was made from Single Family
to Public Institutional about 8 of a mile southeast of the
June 22,300
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
applicant's property.
On September 1,1998 a change was made from Single Family
to Multifamily and from Multifamily to Single Family about
1,000 feet northwest of the applicant's property.
On May 6,1997 various changes were made from Single
Family,Public Institutional,Neighborhood Commercial and
Park/Open Space to Single Family,Low Density Residential,
Public Institutional,Office,Neighborhood Commercial,and
Community Shopping.The changes resulted in the current
designation of the applicant's property as Office on the
Land Use Plan.
The applicant's property is bounded on two sides by Office
to the north and west.Multi-family land uses lie to the
east and south of the applicant's property.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Champlin Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan as a
proposed Minor Arterial.Rahling Road is shown on the
Master Street Plan as a Minor Arterial and is a segment of
the proposed West Loop.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan does not show any parks in the
vicinity of this proposed change that will be affected.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This property lies just outside the boundary of the area
covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan on the
northwest corner.Nevertheless,the neighborhood action
plan has a Traffic and Transportation goal containing an
action statement that recommended the completion of
Champlin Drive.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a neighborhood
commercial node characterized by undeveloped land centered
on the Rahling Road /Champlin Drive intersection.The
existing PZD and the C-1 zoning should provide for
neighborhood services and goods.The Office future land
2
June 22,GOO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
use along Champlin Drive is acting as a buffer surrounding
the developing commercial node and residential areas.
Expanding commercial uses south and east along Champlin
Drive will erode the buffer between residential areas.In
addition,the commercial node at the Chenal Parkway /
Rahling Road still has vacant land shown as Commercial
available for development.The Chenal Parkway /Kanis Road
intersection has vacant land available in an area shown as
Mixed Office Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations Aberdeen Court P.O.A.,Bayonne Place P.O.A.,
Carriage Creek P.O.A.,Eagle Pointe P.O.A.,Glen Eagles
P.O.A.,Hillsborough P.O.A.,Hunters Cove P.O.A.,Hunters
Green P.O.A.,Johnson Ranch N.A.,Marlowe Manor P.O.A.,and
St Charles P.O.A.Staff has received no comments from area
residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.Approval of
this amendment will result in the erosion of the Office
buffer around the commercial node at a time when
undeveloped land shown as Commercial on the Future Land Use
Plan exists within surrounding commercial nodes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the May 11,2000 meeting to coincide with a Planned
Development application.A motion was made to accept the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
3
June 22,~000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the June 22,2000 meeting.A motion was made by commissioner
Bob Lowry to accept the consent agenda and was approved with
a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the August 3,2000 meeting.A motion was made to accept
the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
4
June 22,2L ~0
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-6829
NAME:Mini-storages at Chenal —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:West side of Champlin Drive,south of Rahling Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates¹7 Chenal Club Blvd.401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-2/0-3/C-1 ALLOWED USES:General Office,
Neighborhood Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse
Development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from 0-2/0-3/C-1 to PD-C to allow for development of a mini-
warehouse complex.The proposed site plan shows a total ofeight(8)buildings with a total area of 72,600 squarefoot.A manager's office and apartment is shown in
Building A.
Two (2)access points are proposed from Champlin Drive.
These drives will be gated entrances.There is a small
parking area (5 spaces)on the south side of Building A.A
ground-mounted sign is shown at each entrance drive.The
applicant also proposes an 8 foot screening fence aroundtheperimeterofthesite.
The applicant has noted that the typical building heightwillbeasfollows:
Buildings A and B —19 feet
Buildings C thru H —8.5 feet
June 22,2u 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
The applicant has noted that the roofs of the structureswillbeconstructedofanonreflectivematerial.Also,the
building facades will have an earth-tone color.The
applicant has noted that the hours of operation will be
from 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.There is also a land use plan
amendment application for this property (Item E.on this
agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and brush-covered.The
property slopes generally to the south from Rahling Road.
There is a multifamily development to the east across
Champlin Drive,with undeveloped property to the north atthesouthwestcornerofChamplinDr.and Rahling Rd.Thereisamixtureofcommercial,office and residential zoning
along Rahling in this area.There is undeveloped R-2 zoned
property to the south and undeveloped 0-2 zoned property tothewest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
There was no established neighborhood association tonotify.As of this writing,staff has received severalcallsinoppositiontotheproposedproject.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Champlin Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.(Dedicate right-of-way to
property line.)
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Show driveway location on opposite side of Champlin
Drive.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
2
June 22,2v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required with Building Permit.
9.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required with building permit.
10.Contact the ADEQ for approval before start of work.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
AREKA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.An acreage
charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding turningradii.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Chenal Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this location.The
property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and the
zoning request is for a Planned Development-Commercial for
the construction of mini-warehouses.This case is the
subject of a Land Use Plan amendment on this agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan contained the
commercial development goal objective of promoting
3
June 22,2v 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
commercial and office development that enhances the
primarily residential nature of the community.The plan
also contained an action statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts (PZD's)to
influence more neighborhood friendly and better quality
developments.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance
requirements.
G.ANALYSIS:
Staff met with the applicant on April 26,2000 to discuss
the project.The applicant has informed staff that a
revised site plan with substantial changes will be
submitted,in response to the staff comments at the
Subdivision Committee meeting.However,the revised plan
could not be submitted to staff for review prior to this
writing.
Staff will work with the applicant in reviewing the revised
plan and report to the Commission and present a
recommendation at .the public hearing.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommendation will be presented at the publichearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedthePD-C,noting that additional information
was needed.
Mr.Daters noted no problems with the Planning Staff comments or
Public Works requirements.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the PD-C to the full Commission for resolution.
4
June 22,2v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay11,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 open position,the
Commission voted to waive the bylaws and accept the request fordeferral,which was made less than five (5)working days priortothepublichearing.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 22,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 openposition.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 8,2000)
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on June 1,2000.The revised plan shows that the west property line has
been extended to the west by approximately 54 feet.The
proposed mini-warehouse buildings have been shifted to the west,with an additional 35 feet of setback (60 feet total)along
Chaplin Drive.Otherwise,the proposed site plan is relatively
unchanged.
The applicant also submitted a detailed landscape plan andcross-sections to staff.The cross-sections show that the
property slopes downward from Chaplain Drive.The proposed
landscape plan notes that intense landscaping will be provided
within the perimeter buffer areas along all of the propertyboundaries.The applicant is proposing 8 foot to 18 foot trees(at planting)within these landscaped areas.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is also
proposing a land use plan amendment for this property.Staff isnotsupportingthelanduseplanamendmentduetothefactthattheamendmentwouldresultinerosionoftheofficebuffer
between Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road and the residential
property to the east and south.
5
June 22,2bv0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
Although the applicant is proposing an intense landscape plan
for the proposed development,this does not change the type of
use that is proposed (C-4 type use).For the same reasons thatstaffisnotsupportingthelandusePlanamendmentforthis
property,staff cannot support the proposed PD-C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed PD-C.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The applicant,Jack McCray,addressed the Commission and
requested that this application be deferred to the August 3,2000
agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
August 3,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
GILL ELROD RAGON
OWEN SKINNER &SHERMAN,P.A.Z-4$'&'J
ATIORNEYS
W.W.EiiroD II,P.A..JUDv P.MGNErr.
JOHN P.Grr.r.CHRrsroFHER L.TRAvrs
DRAKE ~ROGER H.FITZGIBBON,JR.
MARIE-B.MILLER,P.A
CHARLEs C.OwEN,P.A.JOHN A.FOGLEMAN,oF CoUNsEr.
HEARTsrLL RAGON III,P.A.
W.BRADFQRD SHERMAN May 1,2000
H.EDwARD SKINNER,P.A.www.gill-law.corn
Little Rock City Planning Commission
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Re:Zoning and Land Use Plan Amendment Applications
Planning Commission Case ¹Z-6829
Dear Commissioners:
Our law firm represents LAW Development,LLC,which owns and operates Wellington
Village Self Storage ("Wellington"),and Guardsmart Corporation,which owns and operates
Guardsmart Self Storage ("Guardsmart").Wellington and Guardsmart oppose the granting the
subject applications to amend the City of Little Rock Land Use Plan and to re-zone property on
Champlin Road in Little Rock (the "Property")&om an 0-3 zoning classification to a planned
commercial district ("PCD")for miniwarehouses.
Wellington is located on Wellington Hills Road,approximately 3,000 feet from the Property.
Guardsmart is located on Chenal Parkway,just north of the intersection of Chenal Parkway and
Highway 10.These two companies are engaged in the miniwarehouse business and oppose the over-
development of commercial tracts in the area to allow more miniwarehouses when the existing lands
zoned for that purpose are not fully utilized.
The Commission should deny the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment application because
the proposed amendment does not conform with the Land Use Plan for the Property.
According to the Land Use Plan,the Commission has determined that the Property should
be used for offices.The Property on the west is a large undeveloped office area,and immediately
east is an upscale apartment complex.The land northeast of the Property is being developed as a
convenience store.Immediately north of the Property is an undeveloped light commercial district,
while an undeveloped multi-family tract lies to the south.
Because there is no expanding commercial use in the area around the Property,a PCD
zoning for the Property is improper at this time.The Land Use Plan should not be amended to suit
3801 TCBY Tower,Capitol and Broadway,Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Telephone (501)376-3800 Telefax (501)372-3359
Little Rock City Planning Commission
Page 2
May 1,2000
the needs of each developer.The Land Use Plan is developed and adopted to guide the Commission
and the citizens of Little Rock in their present development of the City.My clients understand that
flexibility must exist for Little Rock to grow,but if the Land Use Plan may be amended on other
than a land use planning basis,it means nothing.
The Commission should also deny the proposed zoning amendment application because the
Property is not suitable at this time for a PCD.
The Commission,when considering a PCD according to Ordinance No.36-451,must assure
that the proposed development would not "have a negative effect on the future development of the
area."
The Commission in this instance must be mindful of the economic impact of its actions.
Ordinance 36-451(d)(5)states that the Commission must encourage the "more efficient and
economic arrangement of varied land use"in approving PCD's.If the Commission approves these
applications,the Commission will have authorized two miniwarehouses approximately 3,000 feet
from each other.The Commission should deny the applications because that situation cannot be
described as "efficient and economic"land use.The miniwarehouse needs of the community,
moreover,are being well met in this area.
Miniwarehouse developers utilize two standards in their development decisions:plan on a
five-mile radius for customer draw,and assume each citizen will use,on average,three (3)square
feet of storage space.Using these two standards,there are approximately 68,056 people living
within a five-mile radius of the Property and these people require 204,168 square feet of storage
space.After conducting a market study,my clients report that there are now approximately 273,080
square feet o f storage existing space in within that five-mile radius.That means that right now there
are about 68,912 empty feet of storage space within a five-mile radius of the Property.Wellington
has rented 103 of its 678 constructed units,and operates at a sixteen percent (16%)occupancy rate.
Guardsmart operates 212 units and has only utilized twenty-two percent (22%)of its available land
capacity,and,after two years,is still not full.My clients argue that,with the current zoning and
expansion capabilities in the area,there is unmet demand within the draw area of the Property,and,
thus a re-zoning to allow another miniwarehouse at this time does not make economic sense.The
Commission should consider these economic conditions and deny these applications.
The Commission must deny applications that have a "negative effect upon the future
development of the area."If a miniwarehouse is built only 3,000 feet from Wellington,one of those
businesses will likely fail.Guardsmart is only about two miles away,and the proposed
PADOCUMEN'PCLVL&V@ZONE.LTR
Little Rock City Planning Commission
Page 3
May 1,2000
miniwarehouse would adversely effect it as well.In the event that the ro ose
W 11'd f 1 h Csmai,t e Commission,by granting these applications,will have violated
the purpose of the Ordinance by creating a prospect for abandoned buildings.In fact,the
Commission may well have caused a negative ff t h fu ea.oieeecuponteturedevelopmentofthearea.To
avoid that negative effect,the Commission sh ld d hsouenyt ese applications.
Onbehalfofmyclients thank oy',you for the opportunity to express their views regardin these
applications.Please feel free to contact mc if any of you have questions or desire further
information.Mr Fred Langford with Wellington or Mr.Chri
o ow up wit a p one call in a few days to answer any questions that you may have.
Sincerel,
John P.Gill
P U)OCLMENPCL'PLScWZONE.LTR
~CEIVED
VWV X ~GOO
BY:
P A.~
P:hDOCUMEN'DCL'PL&V&ZONE.LTR
85/88/2888 88:56 i81821631515 MAIL BOXES ETC 83775 PAGE 81/81
I
May 5,2000
MR DANA CARNEY
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING CCOMMISSION
Dear Mr.Carney:
This letter is to express our o s'our opposition to rezoning the hnd located on Rahlings Road
storage developments nearbnear yonCh 1 tHighwa 10y and on Ihngton n Kr
ies.y build another one'7
Sincerely,
Larry R.Campbell
17314 LaMarche Blvd.
Little Rock AR 72223
RK~P.&wrKD
l4AY 0 8 2000
BY:
Davis Development
250 Corporate Center Court g-6g'Z)
Stockbridge,Georgia 30281
(770)474-4345
May 9,2000
Via Overni ht Delive 501 371-4790
City of Little Rock a
Planning Commission
c/o Department of Planning and
Development
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Attn:Monte Moore
Re:May 11,2000,Item ¹11,Mini-storages at Chenal
Dear Sirs:
We are writing concerning the above referenced matter which we understand is being considered by the
Planning Commission at its May 11 meeting.We own the Carrington Park Apartment community on
Champlin Drive directly across from the proposed mini-storage development.The purpose of this letter is
to voice our opposition to the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (File No.:LU00-19-01)and Planned
Zoning Development/Rezoning (File No.:Z-6829)which would allow this development to proceed.Our
reasons for opposing the development are discussed below.
We have reviewed the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment being sought.Also,we have read the staff
report and recommendation provided to us by Mr.Brian Minyard,Planner with the Department of Planning
and Development.We concur with the staff recommendation that this Land Use Plan Amendment be
denied because of the manner in which it would erode the "Office buffer"with separates our Community
from larger commercial development.It appears to us that sufficient commercial land use areas have been
created under the current Land Use Plan such that this amendment is not necessary to serve the needs of the
residents in the area.The only outcome that we see from the granting of this Amendment (and the
Rezoning sought in conjunction therewith)is the deterioration of the residential "sense and feel"of our
apartment community which is presently well protected by the current Land Use Plan.
We feel that our residents deserve to continue to enjoy the residential community atmosphere that they
sought when that chose our apartment community.We feel that this development will have quite a
negative impact to that end.Our residential development should be afforded no less protection by the Land
Use Plan that any other residential neighborhood.
We respectfully request that the Little Rock Planning Commission vote to send a denial recommendation to
the Board.ank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sine ely
Fre .azel
RKCEIVKD
MAY 7 0 2000
BY:
June 22,2~F0
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-6846
NAME:Larry Freeman —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:14400 West Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Charles Higgins /Larry Freeman
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a two-
section 1,120 square foot manufactured home as
the primary residence on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential,located at 14400
West Baseline Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the north side of West Baseline
Road,just west of Colonel Miller Road.This is just
outside the City limits,but within the extra-territorial
zoning boundary.The area on the south side of Baseline
across the street from this site is inside the City.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and is
surrounded by R-2 zoning.This site is vacant and is just
beyond a built up area of residential subdivisions and an
apartment complex.The area surrounding this site is more
rural and more sparsely populated.There are site built
homes on both sides and across the street to the southwest.
To the south and southeast the property is vacant.The
closest manufactured home is a single-wide located about
0.5 mile to the west on the south side of Baseline,just
inside the City limits.Along this 0.5 mile of Baseline the
north side is outside the City and the south side is inside
the City.
The proposed manufactured home is a brand new 28 foot by 44
foot home,and would be set up to meet City standards.
Based on that and the construction and condition of many of
the structures along this stretch of Baseline,Staff
believes this proposed manufactured home would not have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood.
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6846
The Otter-Creek Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There would be a single driveway from Baseline,
typical of the other lots in this area.Normal single
family parking would be provided.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:As specified in Resolution N7,893 of 1988,
approval by the Little Rock Board of Directors is
recpxired for all service connections and main
extensions outside the City of Little Rock.The City
will recpxire execution of a Pre-Annexation Agreement.
A development fee based on the size of the connection
applies in addition to normal charges.
Wastewater:Outside service boundary.No comment.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.This site is close to Routes N2&15.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has recpxested a conditional use permit
to place a two-section manufactured home on this R-2,
Single Family Residential zoned vacant property as the
primary and only residence.
2
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6846
The proposed home is 1120 gross square feet,28 feet
by 40 feet.The lot dimensions are 65 feet by 200
feet.All setbacks are exceeded.Normal single family
access and parking would be provided.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this site
and when set up using as a minimum standard,the City
requirements,it would not have an adverse impact on
the neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit and recommends the home be set up and anchored
according to City Building Code requirements,and
Little Rock City Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5)as
follows:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with
the neighborhood.e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 20,2000)
The applicant was not present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Since there were no open issues,even though the applicant
was not present,the Committee accepted the proposal and
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
No one was present representing the application since
the applicant had requested a deferral.There were no
registered supporters or objectors present.Staff presented
3
June 22,2v 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6846
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 22,2000 Planning Commission public hearing.The vote was 8
ayes,0 nays,2 absent,and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 22,2000)
The applicant requested in writing on June 6,2000,that this
item be withdrawn without prejudice.Staff supports the
withdrawal and recommends the Commission approve the requested
withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
No one was present representing or regarding the application.Staff presented the item with a recommendation that it be placed
on the consent agenda and approved for withdrawal.There was nodiscussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 22,2000
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —River Mountain
Planning District
Location:14814 —14910 Cantrell Rd.
RecCoest:Single Family and Transition to Commercial
Source:C.J.Cropper
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning
District from Single Family and Transition to Commercial.
The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail
and wholesale sales of products,personal and professional
services,and general business activities.Commercial
activities vary in type and scale,depending on the trade
area they have.The applicant wishes to build a retail
commercial development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately
26.6+acres in size.A large wooded area zoned R-2 Single
Family lies to the north with homes built on large lots.A
grocery store is located in a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development)zone located to the south of the area under
review.Homes built on large wooded lots typify the R-2
Single Family zone to the southwest.A tract of land zoned
C-3 General Commercial occupied by a picture frame shop
lies to the southeast.The property to the east is split
between C-3,developed as a strip shopping center along
Cantrell Road,and property zoned R-2 consisting of homes
built on large lots to the north.The land to the west
zoned R-2 consists of homes built on large lots in a wooded
area.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999 a change was made form Single Family and
Low Density Residential to Park/Open Space,Multi-family,
Office,and Commercial about a mile to the east of the
properties under review.
June 22,4000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-01-01
The properties listed in the application are shown as
Single Family on.the northern half and as Transition on the
southern half.Parks /Open Space is shown on the northern
boundary of the application area.The Parks /Open Space
covers the floodway of Ison Creek that runs roughly
parallel to Pinnacle Valley Road.Commercial and
Transition is shown to the south on the opposite side of
Cantrell Road.Directly to the east of the application
area,the land along Cantrell Road is shown as Commercial,
while the land adjacent to Ison Creek is shown as
Transition.Directly to the west of the area under
consideration,the land along Cantrell Road is shown as
Transition,while the remainder is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan.
Taylor Loop Road is shown on the plan as a Minor Arterial.
The Master Street Plan does not indicate any proposed
changes for these streets.
PARKS:
River Mountain Park is located about a mile east of the
property in question and is not accessed by Cantrell Road.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property in question is located in an area covered by
the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.One important
action statement included under the Sustainable Natural
Environment goal is a statement supporting the preservation
of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The
neighborhood action plan also recommends the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Cantrell Road
and Taylor Loop Road as well as the reconstruction of
Taylor Loop Road as a 4-lane Minor Arterial from Hinson
Road north to Cantrell Road.
ANALYSIS:
The site under review is located near an existing
commercial node at the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Road
intersection.The surrounding area is characterized by
2
June 22,000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
both new residential subdivisions and homes built on largelots.
The area under review is located in the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District adopted in 1989.The purpose of thedistrictistopreservethescenicattributesofthe
Highway 10 corridor through more restrictive development
standards than applied to rest of the city.The Design
Overlay District has enhanced the design standards of
buildings along the corridor and covers 300 feet on each
side of the Highway 10 right-of-way.Some site design and
development standards of the Highway 10 Design OverlayDistrictincludeaminimumlotssizeoftwoacres,a 100
foot setback from the property line abutting Highway 10,a
rear setback of 40 feet,and a side setback of 30 feet.
The Highway 10 design Overlay District also has additional
landscaping,signage,curb cut,lighting,and maximum
density of buildings allowed in commercial developments.
Commercial developments are required to apply as one entiretractinsteadofindividuallotsandmustbereviewedby
the city through a site plan review process.
Currently,the Land Use Plan shows 35+acres of Commercial
in the Vicinity of the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Road
intersection.The Commercial land use to the east (5.7 +
acres),southeast (.7 +acres)and south (6.9 +acres)of
the applicant's site are built-out and occupied by
businesses.The shopping center anchored by the Kroger
super market to the east fills over half of the 13 +acres
of Commercial land use area proposed in that location.The7.9 +acres of Commercial land use area south of the Krogerisoccupiedbybusinesses,leaving little room available
for further expansion of commercial uses in the immediate
vicinity of the applicant's site.
Currently the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Road intersectionisthesiteofasecondarycommercialnode.Two primary
commercial nodes already exist along Cantrell Road with
vacant property available for commercial uses.Such vacant
property is located at the intersections of:Cantrell Road
/Chenonceau Blvd,and Cantrell Road /Chenal Parkway.
Approval of this amendment will result in the development
of a third primary commercial node.
3
June 22,JOO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
If the amenchnent is approved,a strip of Park/Open Space is
recommended along the eastern boundary of the Single Family
located to the west.Such a Park/Open Space strip will
buffer the Single Family uses located to the west from the
proposed Commercial uses.
Approval of this amenchnent as applied for,coupled with an
extension of Taylor Loop Road,could encourage requests for
Land Use Plan amenchnents to change existing land uses along
Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road to Commercial land
uses.This could change the focus form Cantrell Road and
shift commercial uses along Pinnacle Valley Road.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Pankey Community Improvement Association,
Piechnont N.A.,Pleasant Forest N.A.,Pleasant Valley
P.O.A.,Secluded Hills P.O.A.,Walton Heights-Candlewood
N.A.,Westbury N.A.,and Westchester/Heatherbrae P.O.A.
Staff has received 44 comments from area residents.Two
are in support,39 are opposed to the change and three were
neutral.Westbury and Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood
Associations,are opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
On March 27,2000,the applicant asked for deferral of the
item to the June 22,2000 hearing date "so that this
application can be considered at the same time as our PCD
application for the same property."Based on standard
Planning Commission procedures,this item is placed on the
consent agenda for deferral to the June 22,2000 hearing
date.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the June 22,2000 meeting to coincide with a Planned
Development application.A motion was made to accept the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
4
June 22,~000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
STAFF UPDATE:
This is more than an expansion of an existing commercial
node;it results in a tripling of the commercial at this
location.Significant expansion of the commercial area
without other significant changes in the area such as
adding a forth arterial leg to the intersection or
increased density in surrounding residential areas to show
demand for more commercial in the area is not justified.Staff recommends denial as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the September 14,2000 meeting.A motion was made to
accept the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
5
June 22,&000
ITEM NO.:I FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning
District
Location:12800 County Line Road.
R~e est:Single Family to Commercial
Source:Doug Loftin
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning
District from Single Family to Commercial.The Commercial
category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale of
products,personal and professional services,and general
business activities.Commercial activities very in type
and scale,depending on the trade area that they serve.
The applicant wishes to develop the property under review
for a day care center and a mini-storage warehouse.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family
Residential and is approximately 3.54 +acres in size.The
property to the north and east is zoned R-2 Single Family
Residential and is occupied by the Irish Spring
subdivision.A convenience store is located to the west on
a piece of property zoned C-3 General Commercial at the
northeast corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road
intersection.The property to the south lies in Saline
County and in the city limits of Shannon Hills.It is
zoned R-1 Single Family.Directly across county Line road
lies Davis Elementary school,part of the Bryant School
district.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 4,1997 three changes took place from Low
Density Residential to Single Family along both sides of
Vimy Ridge Road with in a mile north of the applicant's
property.
On November 4,1997 a change was made from Low Density
Residential to Commercial at the northwest corner of the
June 22,F000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection about 300 feet
west of the applicant's property.
In November 21,1995 various changes were made on both
sides of Vimy Ridge Road on large tracts of land within a
mile north of the applicant's property,one of those
changes included the change Neighborhood Commercial to
Commercial west of the applicant's property on the
northeast corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road
intersection west of the applicant's property.
The applicant's properties,as well as the property to the
north and east,are all shown as Single Family on the Land
Use Plan West of the applicant's property are two areas
shown as Commercial on the northwest and northeast corners
of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road.The area to the
south of the applicant's property is located in Saline
County.The Shannon Hills Comprehensive Development Plan
shows the southwest corner of the intersection as
Commercial and the southeast corner as Park/Elementary
school.The remainder of the area along Vimy Ridge Road
and County line road is shown as Residential.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Vimy Ridge Road is shown as a minor arterial from Alexander
Road to the Saline County line.County Line Road is shown
as a minor arterial from Vimy Ridge Road with a proposed
extension east as a minor arterial to connect to the
proposed South Loop.Vimy Ridge Road is also shown as
continuing south from the County Li.ne through Shannon Hills
as a minor arterial on the Central Arkansas Transit System
(CARTS)Future Classification Plan.The CARTS Future
Classification Plan shows County Line Road as a major
collector from Vimy Ridge Road to the Donnie Drive /Joan
Drive intersection in Shannon Hills.Both the Master
Street Plan and the CARTS Future Classification Plan show
County Line Road continuing west from the intersection with
Vimy Ridge Road as a residential street.
PARKS:
The Master Parks Plan does not show any parks,existing or
proposed,effected by this amendment.
2
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The Chicot West /I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan
states the recommendation of concentrating "...development
efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study
area..."and "...view the southern portion of the study area as
an 'urban reserve'o be developed as market forces become
stronger in the area."This amendment is located next to
the southern boundary of the study area.
ANALYSIS:
Much of the area surrounding the Vimy Ridge /County Line
Road intersection consists of large tracts of undeveloped
land in a semi-rural setting.R.L.Davis Elementary
School lies across the street from the applicant's.
Commercial uses across from a school on a street may cause
traffic conflicts from both the loading and unloading of
school students and the commercial traffic throughout the
day.The undeveloped tract of land on the southwest corner
of the intersection provides for future development of
commercial areas.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood
Association,and'Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received 17 comments from area residents.None
are in support and 17 are opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is premature and therefore not
appropriate.The area shown as Commercial on the southwest
corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection
provides an area for future Commercial uses.This area
will be reviewed in a year or so as part of the Chicot West
I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan review.
3
June 22,@000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Doug Loftin,the applicant,stated that the property was
improperly zoned R-2 residential instead of multi-family.
The applicant would prefer a commercial zoning,but if
denied,would want a multi-family zoning.Mr.Loftin gave
a description of his proposed development.
Joe Longinotti spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.
Longinotti opposed the development of either commercial
property or a day care center,next to his property.
Donna Jones spoke in opposition to the item.Ms.Jones
expressed concern that a the proposed development would
flood her property and complained that the gas station on
the corner of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road caused
flooding on her property.
Michelle Ready spoke in opposition to the item.Ms.Ready
stated that development of the applicant's property would
cause drainage problems and added concerns about noise form
a daycare facility.Ms.Ready closed by adding a concern
about the potential for increased traffic in the area.
Chair Pam Adcock asked if several options could work to
develop the property without a land use plan change to
commercial.The applicant expressed an interest in
construction of either a day care center or development of
residential units.
Winston Simpson,Superintendent of Bryant School District,
spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Simpson expressed
concerns about the safety of children attending,and
walking to Davis Elementary School.Mr.Simpson stated
that he did not oppose development of a day care on the
property,but opposed commercial development on the
property.
Mack Blann spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Blann
stated that any development would hurt the property values
of area residents and added that he would prefer that the
June 22,~000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
property in question would be developed for residential
purposes.The speaker closed his remarks with concerns
about drainage.
Doug Loftin requested a deferral on the item.Mr.Loftin
wanted time to arrive at a consensus with the area property
owners on the issue of how to best develop the property in
question.
Commissioner Mizan's expressed thanks for participation and
comments made by a representative of the Bryant School
District in the meeting.
Commissioner Hawn requested that the Public Works
Department study the drainage issue in the vicinity of the
property discussed in this item.
Commissioner Downing expressed concern about improperly
zoning of the property in question made by Mr.Loftin.
Mr.Lawson,city staff,stated that the property in
question is zoned R-2 Single Family,but if a mistake was
made,city staff would request that the Board of Directors
change the zoning of the property back to the original
zoning.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 13 meeting
and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13 g 2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the June 22,2000 meeting to coincide with a Planned
Development application.A motion was made to accept the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant on April 13,2000 requested a deferral to the
August 3,2000 planning commission hearing.This is their
second deferral for this item without a public hearing.
The applicant states that "We will also be filing a PZD
5
June 22,F000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
application for the same property prior to June 26.By
deferring item LU00-16-03,the commission can review both
items for this property on the same agenda."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the August 3,2000 meeting.A motion was made to accept
the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
6
"".,HOPE ENGINEERS,Inc.
~+/406 W.SOUTH STREET
'i,,IN~=BENTON ARKANSAS 72015
TEL.(501)315-0786 *FAX 501-315-0700 RECKIVKD
PLANNERS'DEVELOPERS
MAY 2 5 2000
May 24,2000 BY:
Mr.Brian Minyard
Department of Planning &Development
723 West Markham,1"Floor
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:Item No.LU00-16-03
12,800 County Line Road
Dear Mr.Minyard:
As an agent for Doug Loftin,we are requesting to defer the referenced item fi.om the June
22 meeting to the August 03,2000 meeting .We will also be filing a PZD application for
the same property prior to June 26.By deferring item LU00-16-03,the commission can
review both items for this property on the same agenda.
Your assistance is appreciated.Please let us know if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sine rely,
Randy Ma ess,P.
cc:Doug Loftin
99-1052LU-3
June 22,2t.0
ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
NAME:Summit Mall —Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and
Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Summit Mall Co.,LLC McGetrick and McGetrick
Construction Developers,Inc.219 East Markham St.,Ste.202
c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock,AR 72201
115 West Washington Street
Indianapolis,IN 46204
AREA:97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Commercial/Office Mixed
Development
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 1,1987,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD,establishing the Summit Mall —Long-Form PCD.The approved site
plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall,three (3)office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet,a 190,000 squarefoothotel(250 rooms)and two (2)restaurant lease parcelstotaling20,000 square feet.A total of 5,945 parking spaces
was proposed,some of which were located in a parking deck fortheproposedofficebuildings.
The previously approved PCD has received several time extensionsovertheyearsandcurrentlyexpiresonMarch18,2000.
June 22,2v 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD with an entirely new site development plan.The new
proposed site plan consists of the following:
1.An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one-
half of the property.2.An 85,700 square foot,4,238 seat movie theatre located
near the southwest corner of the property.3.Three (3)retail/office buildings with a total area of
77,400 square feet,located between the mall building and
the theatre.
4.Four (4)lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 squarefeettotal)at the southeast corner of the property.5.A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the
property labeled as office/hotel/retail.6.4,734 parking spaces.7.Three (3)access points from Shackleford Road.
The proposed buildings,parking areas,drives and
landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded,with
varying degrees of slope throughout the property.Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the
property,with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary.
Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to theeast.The property immediately south is also vacant and
wooded.
There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along
the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded bytheproposedmallsite.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received comments and
concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives.The
John Barrow,Sandpiper and Sewer District ¹147 NeighborhoodAssociationshavebeennotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis.
2
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
2.Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial
street standards for access to commercial activity
around the site.This road should have access points
designed along the route with drive spacing at not less
than 250 feet on center.
3.Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with
and without development traffic to verify adequacy of
the interchange and recommend improvements due to
development.
4.Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight
distance is provided at all points of access.5.Verify with capacity analysis that all site
intersections will operate at a minimum level of service
of "D"during the peak hour of the generator.
6.Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for
Shackleford Road adjacent to site.
7.NPDES permit from ADEQ,including Wetland Clearance will
be required.
8.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.
9.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
10.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
11.All internal streets must be designed to commercialstreetstandards.
12.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
13.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.14.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
15.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
16.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
17.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required.18.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
19.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
3
June 22,2L.~O
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
20.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
21.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-
283 is required.
22.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is
required.
23.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work is required.
E .UT IL IT IES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main relocation and extension required
with easements.
AP&L:Underground easements will have to be negotiated at
a later date when transformers are located to make a loop
through the shopping center.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.An
acreage charge of $150/acre,plus a development fee based
on the size of connections,will apply in addition to the
normal connection charges.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for
information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant
placement.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:CATA Route ¹3 serves very near this site.This
location is in a key area for transit.CATA would like to
discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a
bus pullout(s)on the periphery of the site.Better
pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need
to be established.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-430 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial.The
revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current
land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is not
covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan.
4
June 22,2l
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Because this property has significant variations in its
grade elevations,cross sections showing the proposed
method of treatment will be necessary.
Since this site is currently covered in trees,the City
Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the
existing trees as feasible.This includes preserving trees
within the street buffers.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger.
G.ANALYSI S:
As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments,a great
deal of information regarding this application is needed bystaff.Some of the additional information requested bystaffattheSubdivisionCommitteemeetingisasfollows:
1.Discuss phasing plan.Show proposed phasing on site
plan.
2.Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed
phases.Note areas within the site where existing trees
will be preserved.
3.Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and
Shackleford Road.
4.Note proposed sign location(s)and provide details.
5.Show dumpster locations.
6.Provide north/south and east/west sections and
elevations.
7.Show retaining walls on the site plan and providedetails.
8.There should be no grading or site work prior to
obtaining a building permit.
9.Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at
the southeast corner of the property.The previously
approved site plan included only two (2)lease
parcels/restaurant sites,one (1)on each side of the
Comcast property.Provide proposed uses for the lease
parcels.
5
June 22,2L
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
10.Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at
the northeast corner of the property.11.Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this
project (phases,proposed uses,etc.)and addressing the
design features as offered by the previous developer and
the conditions agreed to with the previous approval.12.Define proposal.Is the proposed revised PCD site plan
requested for a three (3)year approval?Include this
information in the cover letter.
These are issues which need to be addressed by the
applicant in addition to the Public Works,Utility,Fire
Department,CATA and Landscape requirements and comments.
One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed
project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to
the overall site grading (cuts and fill,etc.).The
existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes
that the existing high point of the property is located
within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the
lowest point within the site is near the southwest corneroftheproperty.The proposed contour plan shows that the
high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75to80feetandthelowpoint(location of theatre building)will be raised approximately 60 feet.An overall plan for
the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved,to
include information on street buffer treatment and tree
preservation.The effect of the proposed development on
the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate
property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be
discussed and resolved.
The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on
December 9,1999 that the applicant should make a
preliminary presentation of this item to the full
Commission on January 6,2000.This will allow the other
commissioners to express concerns that they might have withthisproposeddevelopment.Then the item would need to be
deferred to the February 17,2000 agenda to allow the
applicant to respond to the issues and concerns,and
present additional information to staff and the Subdivision
Committee (January 27,2000).It was also discussed by the
Subdivision Committee that a six (6)month time extension
of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable.This
6
June 22,2t
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4923-A
is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff
and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to
extend beyond the March 18,2000 expiration date.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this application to the
February 17,2000 Planning Commission agenda.
Staff also recommends that the expiration date of the
previously approved PCD be extended six (6)months to
September 18,2000.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing the
application.Staff described the proposed revised PCD site
plan,noting that a great deal of additional information was
needed.Staff noted that this item was a candidate for
deferral.
There was a discussion of the project which included topics
relating to phasing,grading,parking standards and the
conditions approved with the previous site plan.It was noted
that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between
the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner
of the property.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It was
noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed.Phasing of
street improvements was also discussed.Public Works
representatives noted phased development to include street
improvements could be supported.The grading of the site and
cuts into the hillside were also discussed.
The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make
a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6,
2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might
have.Then the item would be deferred to the February 17,2000
agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and
Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision
Committee on January 27,2000.
7
June 22,2v 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
It was also determined that a six (6)month time extension on
the previously approved PCD would be appropriate,given the fact
that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the
March 18,2000 expiration date.The Committee then forwarded
the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary
dl.scussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing the
application.Staff explained that as a result of the
Subdivision Committee review of this item,the applicant was to
make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this
meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17,
2000 agenda.Staff noted that there was much additional
information which was needed.Staff also noted that since the
application needed to be deferred,an extension of time for the
previously approved PCD was in order.The previously approved
PCD expires on March 18,2000.
Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be consideredfirst.There was a brief discussion regarding the time
extension issue.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,explained the
time extension issue.There was a motion to grant a six (6)
month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration
date-September 18,2000).The motion passed with a vote of 9
ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary
presentation.
Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to
determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that
have not been addressed by staff.
Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary
presentation at this time.
Mr.Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had
concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked
out.
8
June 22,2L ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with
Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns.
There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17,
2000 agenda.There was a brief discussion of the deferral.The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 27,2000)
Pat McGetrick,Chuck Synder,Ernie Peters,Greg Simmons and
Merle Seamon were present,representing the application.The
applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the
Committee,noting that the most significant change in the plan
was within the southeast corner of the property.The drive
location was revised with the restaurants being on the south
side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive
and the Comcast property.The applicants then discussed the
phasing plan for the property.The new phasing plan limits the
total clearing and excavation to be done with Phase I (cinema
building and restaurants).
There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut andfillthatwouldbedone.Mr.McGetrick noted that the maximum
cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point.He
also noted that the largest amount of fill would be
approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property.
Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction were
briefly discussed.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the applicant had
submitted a traffic study.He noted that Public Works had
concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a positionatthistimetosupportthestudy.There was a general
discussion of this issue.The applicant stated that the
Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study,most
likely when completed to Public Works satisfaction.
The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project.
These were briefly discussed.
Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the
revised site plan,but was still negotiating with the applicant
on some issues (lighting,etc.).
9
June 22,2l.0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
There was additional discussion of the site design.There was
also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a
vote from the Commission on February 17,2000.
The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve
all of the outstanding issues and be ready for Commission action
on February 17,2000.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 17,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthatthisitembedeferredtotheMarch30,
2000 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 30,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMarch23,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff noted that the
applicant,requesting a third deferral,would be required to
renotify property owners within 200 feet.Staff supported the
deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 22,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune7,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the September 14,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
10
June 22,2v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:J (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
September 14,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
11
June 22,2i
ITEM NO.:K FILE NO.:S-1275
NAME:Hughey'Replat —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:4808 Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Margaret Hughey The Mehlburger Firm
4808 Baseline Road 201 S.Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.493 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2/C-1
PLANNING DISTRICT:14
CENSUS TRACT:41.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The 2.493 acre property was recently illegally subdivided by
Richdale Development Co.,with the south portion of the property
being sold to Margaret Hughey.A 25 foot access and utility
easement along the west side of Lot 1 was also recorded to
provide access to Lot 2.
A.PROPOSAL:
The property owners are proposing a preliminary plat for
the property in order to resolve the illegal subdivisionissue.The south 273 feet of the property along with
Margaret Hughey's additional property (immediately east)is
proposed as Lot 1.The remaining north 347 feet is
proposed as Lot 2.
June 22,2c
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:K (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing structure on Lot 1 which contains a
beauty salon.The remainder of the property is undeveloped
and partially wooded.
There are existing commercial buildings east and west of
the site along the north side of Baseline Road.There aresinglefamilyresidencestothesouthacrossBaselineRoad,
with R-2 zoned property to the north.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a person requesting information on this application.
The Windamere and Upper Baseline Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Baseline is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline will be required.
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Close unused driveways.
5.Baseline Road has an average daily traffic counts of13,000.
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:This plat creates a landlocked parcel.This will
cause problems in providing water service and fire
protection in the future for any use of Lot 2.
Consideration should be given to providing for each lot
have frontage on a water main and adequate access for
2
June 22,2c
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:K (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275
fire protection.Combining Lot 2 with the property to
the west and creating a single parcel would also provide
a possible solution to these problems.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
On March 15,2000,the applicant submitted a letter tostaffrequestingthatthisitembedeferredtotheMay 11,
2000 Planning Commission meeting.Staff supports the
deferral as requested.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this item to the May 11,2000
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 9,2000)
Larry Lester,Jeremy Ventress and Frank Riggins were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
preliminary plat and noted several items which needed to be
shown on a revised plat drawing.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Ventress noted that
both lots would be final platted at the same time.
Staff noted that an access drive to Lot 2 must be constructed
when Lot 2 is developed.This issue was briefly discussed.Mr.
Lester noted that he would meet with the other property owner
regarding this issue.
3
June 22,2v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:K (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275
Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that the westernmost curb
cut needed to be closed,with the only access being the existing
driveway to Lot 1 and the access easement.This issue was
discussed.Mr.Borkowski noted that he would meet with Mr.
Lester on the site and review the driveway locations.
Staff noted that Lot 2 had no street frontage and providing
water service to this lot would be a problem.Staff suggested
creating a pipe stem for Lot 2 (Baseline frontage)or combining
Lot 2 with the property to the west,which had the same
ownership.This issue was discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the preliminary
plat to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMarch15,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the May 11,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
May 11,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay5,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 22,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 openposition.
4
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:K (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune14,2000 requesting that this item be withdrawn,
without prejudice.Staff supported the withdrawal request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal,without
prejudice.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
5
June 22,2i~0
ITEM NO.:L FILE NO.:Z-6805
NAME:Dewey Towing Service—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:3420/3424 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Duane R.Dewey
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
towing service on property zoned C-3,
General Commercial,located at 3420/3424
John Barrow Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the west side of John Barrow Road
at the intersection with 35 Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned C-3,General Commercial,and it
is surrounded on three sides,north,east and south,by C-3
zoning.The property to the west is zoned R-3,Single
Family Residential and contains a single family house.
Another single family house exists to the south across the
35 Street right of way.The adjacent property to the
north and the property across Barrow Road is vacant.The
Mount Sinai Baptist church is on the property to the
northwest.
Staff believes the use is compatible with the area,but the
proposed building is too large for the property.It does
not allow for outside parking,and therefore,its use would
be limited to the use intended by this applicant and almost
no other use allowed in C-3 zoning.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes one access driveway from Barrow Road.
There is room for only one parking space in front of the
building as it is currently laid out.The applicant planned
for all the rest of the required 16 parking spaces to be
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
inside the building.That can work for his intended use,
but it would be extremely limiting to the property for any
different future use.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas for buffers and landscaping shown in the revised site
plan do comply with minimum requirements.Maintain a 6 foot
landscape buffer on the street frontage,a 4 foot buffer
along both sides of the paved area in front of the
building,and a 3 foot buffer along the remainder of the
north and south property lines.A 6 foot privacy fence is
required along the west property line.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.John Barrow Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
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
18,031.One driveway will be allowed.
d.Close West 35th Street right-of-way or pave it according
to normal street standards.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works regarding
meter size and location.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments received.
2
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
new towing service on two lots zoned C-3,General
Commercial.All the towing vehicles would be kept inside
the building.Vehicles could not be brought to this
location for repairs.Towed vehicles would not be brought
to this site either.This location would be used only to
park the tow trucks inside while waiting for a call,and
for dispatching when called.Most of the building would be
open bay on the first level,with a small office in the
middle.The applicant proposes to live in the second story.
The applicant intends the business to normally operate 24
hours a day,7 days a week.
The location of the building does meet setback
requirements,but because of the overhead doors in the
front of the proposed building,and the space needed to
maneuver the tow trucks,there is no room for parking
around the building.The tight fit of the building,
combined with the lack of outside parking,results in the
site being overbuilt and very limited in changing to other
uses.
Staff does not support the proposed site plan for the
reasons above.Staff suggests the facility be reduced to
half the proposed size and provide a dedicated parking area
in the area left open by reducing the building size.The
only way Staff could support the proposed plan would be if
additional land was added to the site and used as a parking
area.At least one additional lot would be needed.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit as
submitted.
Staff recommends that either additional land be added to
the site plan or reduce the building by half,and show a
dedicated outside parking area in either case.Then
resubmit the revised plan for reconsideration.
3
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JANUARY 27,2000)
Duane Dewey was present representing the application.Staff gave
a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments with the applicant.
The applicant mentioned he wanted to gate the entrance.The
Committee suggested he get with Public Works to see if that was
feasible.The issue of closing 35 Street between Barrow and
Ludwig was discussed and left to the applicant to decide if he
would pursue that.
Staff also described the additional details needed to better
explain what the building would look like and how it would fit
in the neighborhood.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 17,2000)
Duane Dewey was present representing his application.There were
two registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with
a recommendation for denial of the proposal as presented,and
recommended that either additional land be added to the site
plan or reduce the building by half,in order to be able to
provide dedicated outside parking.Then resubmit the revised
plan for consideration.
Mr.Dewey stated that he expected the site to always be a towing
service once he built it,and there would be no real need for
exterior parking since he would always do 99%of his business
over the phone.He continued that he had investigated other
avenues for additional parking and,even though he saw no point
for it,he would be willing to do what was necessary to add more
parking.
Michael Peterson,a member of Mount Sinai Baptist Church,spoke
in opposition.His main concerns were that the proposed building
would take away from their church and their efforts to give
neighbors an opportunity to serve God and come to their church.
4
June 22,2~F0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
Commissioner Rector reminded Mr.Peterson that the property was
zoned commercial,and asked if he was opposed to any building or
this particular building.Mr.Peterson responded that he was
opposed to this particular building and that there were no other
businesses in the immediate area between 34 and 36 streets.
After further questioning he agreed that it was this particular
use that he was opposed to and that other uses might be
acceptable.
Commissioner Earnest asked Staff whether the lack of outside
parking would actually be self limiting for this site and makeitmoreacceptable.Mr.Lawson agreed with that point,but added
that another concern he had was that the proposed plan overbuilt
the site.If the applicant would reduce the building size to
allow for additional landscaping and other features that were
needed,it would be more acceptable.
Commissioner Hawn asked about the possibility of turning the
building 90 degrees,and if that would moderate any of Staff's
concerns.Staff responded that the proposed building size wouldstillnotfit,and that idea had been looked at.The applicant
agreed the current size might not fit,but he was willing to
reduce the building to 45 by 90 feet and all landscaping
requirements could then be met.He stated he was willing to move
things around to make it acceptable.Commissioner Hawn also
stated that this is a C-3 zoned area that the owner was trying
to develop.He didn'feel the code provided any site distance
guarantees to surrounding property,and he hadn't heard a valid
argument against the proposal.
Commissioner Muse stated he preferred having all the towing
equipment on the inside of the building as proposed,and didn'
feel there was much negative risk for future use changes.There
was further discussion suggesting additional screening on the
west side of the site,abandoning the 35 Street right-of-way to
provide more land to the site,and other conditions and comments
that could be made part of the C.U.P.Commissioner Muse asked
Mr.Peterson if additional screening to the west between the
proposed site and their parsonage would help their position.He
responded that wouldn'change the fact that the new building
would block the view of their church,and that this use in his
opinion was not compatible with this area.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he didn't feel this use was
consistent with what the neighborhood association was trying to
do in this area.He then asked why if the site is zoned
5
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
commercial,is the C.U.P.even needed.Mr.Lawson responded that
the site is zoned C-3,which does not permit by-right a towing
service primarily because of the outside activity and outside
parking that normally accompanies a towing service.
Ron Woods,a resident in the neighborhood,spoke in opposition.
He stated that he also felt that this use was not the type of
business that the neighborhood association was trying to develop
in this area.He also asked how it would be realistically
enforced to ensure that all vehicles would always be kept inside
the building.Mr.Lawson responded that the enforcement would be
handled like any other enforcement situation.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff conditions and recommendations and applicant
agreements.The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,3 nays and
3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 22,2000)
This item was originally disapproved by the Commission on
February 17,2000,by a vote of 5 ayes,3 nays,and 3 absent.It
went to the Board of Directors on May 16,2000,under appeal by
the applicant.The Board decided to send the item back to the
Commission since there had been additional meetings with the
neighborhood association who asked that a decision be delayed,
and the site plan had been revised.The neighborhood association
has provided Staff with a letter stating their support of the
proposal.There are also two letters attached from nearby
neighbors supporting the proposal.Mt.Sinai Church had not at
the time of this writing responded to Staff'inquiries
regarding their current position on this item.
Staff now recommends approval of the proposed revised site plan
for this conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.
c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
d.No storage of any vehicles is allowed on-site outside of
the building.
6
June 22,20uu
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:L (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6805
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Duane Dewey was present representing his application.There were
no registered objectors present.Norma Walker,President of the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association,was present in favor of
the item.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for
approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the
"Staff Recommendation,"described in the "Staff Update"above.
It was mentioned that the applicant had worked with Staff and the
neighborhood association in coming to an agreement with the
revised site plan.None of the Commissioners had any questions
or comments,and no discussion occurred.
A motion was made to approve the application as revised to
include staff comments and recommendations.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
7
Su p(('((A (Qp~(L
(W-&I('(S)
April 21,2000
City of Little Rock,Arkansas Board of Directors
Dear Board Members,
This letter represents our support of Mr.Dewey's Towing Service,as we are unable to
appear in person.
We are the owners of the commercial property directly south of the property Mr.Dewey
has been trying to develop.
We hope the board will approve Mr.Dewey's application for a conditional use permit,
and let him continue to improve and develop the property site at 3420 and 3424
Barrow Road.
W..Neal k Shellie Neal
RECEIVED
JUN 0 5 OOOO
BY:C
&(u ~~~p,t ~&r=w L (e-(&II')~1a,~ad
~~.C~~~P.~
4e.b~kd
vs~~
.,,cto j
~g
3+it.L
L,k.,~p lorn+
zzg cq~g
RECEIVED
JUN 0 5 2000
BY
June 22,2000
ITEM NO.:M
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Master Street Plan Revision on the 36'treet Corridor
SOURCE:Public Works Staff
In the Fall of 1997,Peters &Associates Engineers,Inc.was retained to provide
professional traffic engineering services associated with the study of traffic
operations and traffic volume projections in the 36'"Street corridor in western Little
Rock.The study process has involved the use of extensive traffic volume data in the
appraisal of the existing and projected "full development"travel characteristics in
the area of western Little Rock generally bound by:
~Colonel Glenn Road on the south,
~Kanis road on the north,
~The proposed Outer Loop on the west and
~Shackleford Road on the east.
On February 1,2000,Public Works Department held public meeting.All adjacent
property owners were notified of proposed 36 Street Future Alignment changes.
Public Works Staff and Peters and Associates Engineers were present to answer
questions.Thirty-seven people attended meeting (see attached list of attendants).
F~indin s:
The study has found that certain changes to the City's Master Street Plan can and
should be made.The recommended changes are generally south of Kanis Road and
west of Bowman Road.They should be made to conform to the alternate 36'"Street,
Capitol Lakes Estates,Cooper Orbit Road and Kirby road alignments as well as
certain yet unbuilt Collector streets.These changes to the master Street Plan will
provide better assurance of an adequate street network,which respects both
development character and densities and topography limitations.The recommended
changes include a major change in the alignment of 36'"Street west of Bowman
Road which has much greater potential of serving as a major east-west arterial route
than the current Master Street Plan 36'"Street Parkway alignment and which
recognizes the limitations of topography and established development.
Plannin and Develo ment Comments:
The proposed realignment of 36 Street and related collector modifications do not
result in Land Use Plan anomalies.There won't be any "intense area"left,that do
not have access to a major roadway.This is also true of the zoning pattern.
There are two major subdivisions within the area of suggested changes:Brodie
Creek and Capitol Lakes.The proposed changes appear to be consistent with the
approved preliminary plat for Capitol Lakes.Brodie Creek would require some
minor changes to the approved collector system.The collector through Brodie
Creek is located in the proposed arterial corridor.In order not to have volume and
speed problems on this collector 'traffic calming'esign elements should be
included.
Public Work Recommendations:
The Department of Public Works recommends adoption of an ordinance for the
amendment of the Master Street Plan of the 36'treet Corridor Study.Figure 8
of the study is attached as an exhibit to be included in the proposed ordinance
depicting the recommended changes.
The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve all of the outstanding
issues and be ready for Commission action on February 17,2000.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission.
Plannin Commission Action:A ril13 2000
Planning Commission requested more information for propose West 36'"Street re-
alignment Study.Commission requested that the application be deferred to the May
25,2000 agenda.
The Chairman placed the item before the commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 25,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays,and 0 absent.
Plannin Commission Action:Ma 25 2000
The Staff reported to the Commission that the Master Street Plan Amendment for the
proposed realignment of 36'treet needs to be deferred until the June 22,2000
Agenda to help resolve standing issues with neighborhoods in the area outside study
limits.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined to defer this item to the
June 22 Agenda.A motion was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,2 absents,and
1 open position.
Plannin Commission Action:June 22 2000
Bob Turner of Director of Public Works presented the item to the Commission.
Commissioner Hugh Earnest stated that only partial information was provided
regarding the study and he is interested on the impact of the Master Street Plan
changes and land use.
Mrs.Eulalia Araoz of 24 Glenridge stated that Public Works proposal would deny
access to her property.She would like to be assured that the value of her property
will not decrease in value
Mr.Turner stated that Mr.Greg Simmons with Peters and Associates had the
information provided to the Commission in the Master Street Plan Study.The Study
will answer questions regarding Master Street Plan changes and Land Use.
Mr.Turner clarified that removing a collector street from the Master Street Plan was
meant only figuratively and not literally.Mr.Turner assured the residents present
that when the Collector Street is removed from the MSP,it would then be converted
to a residential street.
Mr.Turner described Study limits on the MSP Study and advised residents and the
Commission that to make changes outside the study area would require a separate
meeting and another study.
Jim Lawson stated that the citizens directly affected by the 36'"Street Corridor were
not present,but citizens located outside the Study (west of the Study area)and
indirectly affected were present.Mr.Lawson suggested that the citizens living
outside the Study should submit a letter requesting that the MSP be changed and for
the Planning Commission not to let this cloud the issue at hand.
Commissioner Obray Rahman stated that although the citizens live outside the
Study,they are affected and concerned.He stated that the impact of Master Street
3
Plan changes is greater and there should be a similar discussion,especially regarding
the land use.
Mrs.Peggy Meyers of 11701 West 36'"'as concerned that the street widening
would decrease the frontage of her property.She is pleased that that 36'treet
extends west of Bowman Road.
Robert Wilson,property owner,discussed the delays in the Study and he would like
to see the whole issue resolved.Mr.Wilson states that the Study has been going on
since 1988 and there have been numerous meetings with the Planning Commission
regarding how to implement the decision.He stated that the issue has been deferred
three times and he was requested some type of resolution to this issue.
Commissioner Richard Downing asked how old the land use was in that area.Mr.
Lawson stated it was 5-6 years old.Mr.Lawson stated that transportation network
should be implemented before land use changes.
Commissioner Downing stated that the transportation network and land use should
be implemented in conjunction with each other.
Commissioner Obray Nunnerly stated that there were too many unanswered
questions regarding the 36'"Street Corridor Study to make a decision to either
approve or disapprove it and suggested that the item be deferred until August 3,
2000.It was agreed upon with a motion made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay,
and 2 absents.
4
June 22,2000
ZTEM NO.:N FZLE NO.:Z-4686-A
Name:St.John Baptist Church Parking
Lot C.U.P.
Location:109 West Roosevelt Road
Owner/A licant:St.John Baptist Church/
Reba Cargile,Architect
~Pro osal:
A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a church parking lot on the R-4 and C-3
zoned property located at 109 West Roosevelt Road.
ORDZNANCE DESZGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
The proposed parking lot is located on the south side
of Roosevelt Road,between S.Main and S.Louisiana
Streets.
2.Com atibilit With Nei hborhood:
The proposed parking lot is compatible with the
neighborhood.The southern half of this block has
previously been developed as parking for St.John
Baptist Church.The larger church facility itself is
located east of the site,across S.Main Street.The
C-3 zoned properties across Roosevelt Road to the north
are occupied by a liquor store,an auto parts store and
a private club.One single family home is also located
north of Roosevelt Road.This home faces the side
street.The C-3 zoned property across Louisiana Street
to the west is vacant.All owners of property within
200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and
the Community Outreach,East of Broadway and
Meadowbrook Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the C.U.P.request.
3.On Site Drives and Parkin
The proposed parking lot is in two sections,a 44 space
section on the west side of the block and a smaller,14
space section on the east side.The larger section
will take access from an existing parking lot which
June 22,~000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:N (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4686-A
currently occupies the southern half of the block.The
smaller section will take access from a single driveway
onto Main Street.This proposal will provide much
needed parking for the large church located across Main
Street,east of this site.
4.Screenin and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements with the exception of a section
along Main Street which does not provide for the
minimum buffer width of 6 feet.The full buffer width
required without transfers is 14 feet.Prior to a
building permit being issued,a detailed Landscape Plan
will be required.
5.Public Works Comments:
1.Roosevelt Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way
to 40 feet from centerline is required.2.Main Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30feetfromcenterline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at all corners.
4.Provide design of Roosevelt Road.Conforming to
Master Street Plan,construct one-half street
improvements (29.5 feet)including sidewalk with
planned development.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy (Louisiana,Main,West 26 Street).6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.7.Obtain permits for improvements within State
Highway right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.8.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
9.Close one driveway on Louisiana Street.
10.Request waiver of street improvement and additional
right-of-way dedication on West 26 and Louisiana.
2
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:N (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
6.Utilit and Fire Comments:
No Comments.
7.Staff Anal sis:
St.John Baptist Church proposes to develop additional
parking on the north half of the block located south of
Roosevelt Road,between S.Main and S.Louisiana
Streets.The parking will be in two sections,a 44
space section on the west side of the block and a 14
space section on the east side.An existing church
office/bookstore building is located between the two
new parking lots.A small portion of the eastern
parking lot is zoned C-3,Commercial.The remainder of
the property is zoned R-4,Two-Family Residential.The
new parking will tie into an existing church parking
lot that occupies the entirety of the southern half of
the block.The church does not own the properties
immediately abutting Roosevelt Road and the proposed
new parking does not enter those properties.The area
proposed for development of the larger lot is vacant.
A dilapidated residential structure will be removed
from the area where the smaller lot is to be developed.
The proposed parking lots conform to ordinance design
standards with the exception of a slight reduction in
proposed street perimeter landscape area.There
appears to be enough room within the proposed parking
lots to expand the landscape strip by the required 1
foot to bring those strips up to the minimum width of 6
feet.Parking lot lighting is indicated.That
lighting must be low-level and directional to prevent
the lighting from affecting any nearby residences
across Roosevelt Road or Louisiana Street.
Staff believes the proposed new parking lot to be a
good use of this site which will provide much needed
parking for this large church.The additional parking
area will help to alleviate the problem of church
members parking on neighborhood streets.
3
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:N (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional
use permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with Public Works Comments
2 .Compliance with the City'Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
3.All site lighting is to be low-level and
directional,aimed away from nearby residential
properties.
Staff recommends approval of a waiver of street
improvements and additional right-of-way dedication on
West 26 and Louisiana Streets since those streets were
recently rebuilt as a CDBG project.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Reba Cargile was present representing St.John Baptist
Church.There was a brief discussion of the Landscaping
and Public Works Comments.The Committee determined there
were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF REPORT:
On May 5,2000,the applicant contacted staff and requested
that the item be deferred to the June 22,2000 meeting.A
question has arisen concerning the ownership of a small
portion of the site which abuts Roosevelt Road.The site
plan may have to be revised to address that issue.Staff
recommends deferral of the item to June 22,2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 25,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the applicant's request to defer
the item.
4
June 22,F000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:N (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 22,2000 commission meeting.The vote
was 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Reba Cargile was present representing the Church.
Ms.Cargile presented a plan which addressed Public Worksissues.She was advised to make a minor modification in
the landscaping along the north perimeter of the larger lot
and to pull the smaller lot out of the adjacent land
owner's property at the corner of Roosevelt and Main or
right-of-way dedication and street improvements would be
required at that corner.There were no other issues.
STAFF REPORT:
A revised plan was submitted on June 8,2000 with the minor
modifications addressing Public Works concerns about right-
of-way dedication at the corners and on Main Street and
Roosevelt Road and removal of the proposed additional
driveway onto Louisiana Street.The plan also incorporates
the required minor modification in landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.On June 14,2000,the applicant had informedstaffthattherequirednoticestopropertyownerswithin
200 feet had not been sent.Staff recommended deferral of
the item to the August 3,2000 agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the August 3,2000 Commission meeting by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
5
June 22,2v 0
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-867-GGGG
NAME:Chenal Valley (Tract 5A)—Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and LaGrande Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Cousins White-Daters and Associates
2500 Windy Ridge Pkwy.401 S.Victory Street
Suite 1600 Little Rock,AR 72201
Atlanta,GA 30339
AREA:38 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for minimum lot area for Lots 3 and 4.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 38 acres at the
northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and LaGrande Drive into
four (4)lots for the development of a shopping center.
The applicant has also filed a site plan review for the
property (Item 1.1 on this agenda).This property was
recently rezoned from PCD to C-2.
The applicant is requesting a variance for the minimum lot
area of Lots 3 and 4.The ordinance requires a minimum lotsizeoffive(5)acres in C-2 zoning.The lots are
approximately 2.28 acres (Lot 3)and 1.70 acres (Lot 4)insize.
June 22,2i~O
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-GGGG
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded,with varying
degrees of slope.The Arkansas Systems and Village at
Rahling Road developments are located across Chenal Parkwaytotheeast.The GMAC office complex is located across
LaGrande Dr.to the south.The property immediately north
and west is undeveloped and part of a PCD development which
was approved previously.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no public comment
regarding this item.There was no established neighborhoodassociationintheareatonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West Loop is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline is required.
2.LaGrande Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.
3.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of West Loop and LaGrande.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct full street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks and incorporate
signalization conduits in design with planned
development.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Prepare a plan with underground service addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All plans should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering for review and approval.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comments received.
Arkla:Arkla approves plat as is as long as existing
easement is not affected.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
2
June 22,2L,~O
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-GGGG
Water:An acreage charge of $300/acre will apply in
addition to the normal connection charges.A water main
extension will be required to serve Lot 4,looped lines
with on site fire protection will be required to serve
Lot 1,and on site fire protection may be required for
the other lots.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Tim Daters,Bill Bassett and Joe Keaton were present,
representing the application.Staff briefly described the
proposed preliminary plat.
Staff noted that the Commission,in reviewing a C-2 site
plan and plat,could approve peripheral lots of less than
five (5)acres in size.Therefore,no variance for lot
size would be required.
Mr.Daters noted that access easements would be shown on
the plat and that the driveway locations would be
addressed.He also noted that the applicant was in
agreement with Public Works regarding
acceleration/deceleration lanes and traffic signalization.
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 to staff
on June 7,2000.The revised plat addresses most of the
3
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-GGGG
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plat shows the source of title for the property
and zoning of abutting property.The revised plat does not
show the proposed driveway locations and access easements
for the shared drives.These items need to be shown as a
revised plat drawing and submitted to staff.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance for minimum lot size for Lots 3 and 4.Staff
noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting that the
Planning Commission could approve peripheral lots,in
conjunction with a site plan review,which are less than
five (5)acres.Based on the fact that the applicant has
submitted a site plan for this property,staff feels that
no variance is needed in this case.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with this application.The proposed
preliminary plat should have no adverse impact on the
general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary platsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.A revised preliminary plat (with the additional items
shown)must be submitted to staff,as noted in paragraph
H.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
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 Chairperson 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 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 22,2i~'0
ITEM NO.:1.1.FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
NAME:Chenal Valley (Tract 5A)—Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and LaGrande Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Cousins White-Daters and Associates
2500 Windy Ridge Pky.401 S.Victory Street
Suite 1600 Little Rock,AR 72201
Atlanta,GA 30339
AREA:38 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-2 ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance for reduced building setbacks (Lots 2,3 and 4).
2.Variance for driveway setbacks from property lines.
3.Variance to allow a median cut on Chenal Parkway.
BACKGROUND:
This property was recently rezoned from PCD to C-2.The C-2
zoning district requires a site plan review by the Planning
Commission for any development.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a four (4)lot site plan for the
38 acre property for the development of a shopping center.
The applicant is proposing the following development:
Lot 1 —building area:215,153 square feet
(3 single-story buildings)
parking:1,114 spaces
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
Lot 2 —building area:119,888 square feet
(1 two-story building)with 20,000 square
foot future building addition.
parking:530 spaces
Lot 3 —building area:6,500 square feet
(1 single-story building)
parking:69 spaces
Lot 4 —building area:8,250 square feet
(1 single-story building)
parking:69 spaces
The applicant is proposing a main entrance from Chenal
Parkway with a new median cut in Chenal Parkway.A
variance for this median cut has been requested.One other
driveway is shown on the Chenal frontage (Lot 2),with two
drives from LaGrande Dr.and three driveways from Rahling
Road.The applicant is requesting a variance for the
minimum setback for the two westernmost drives (one on
LaGrande Dr.and one on Rahling Road).The minimum
ordinance setback from property lines is 125 feet.The
proposed drives are approximately 30 to 40 feet from the
property lines.
As part of the development,the applicant proposes to fund
new traffic signals at the intersection of Chenal Parkway
and Rahling Road and the intersection of Chenal Parkway and
the project's main entrance (new median cut).The
applicant has also noted that LaGrande Dr.and Rahling Road
will be constructed to their intersection,just west of
this property.
The applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced
building setback for the proposed building on Lot 2.The
south building setback is approximately 30 feet.The
applicant is also requesting variances for reduced building
setbacks for Lots 3 and 4.The south setback for the
building on Lot 3 is approximately 37 feet and the south
and west setbacks for the building on Lot 4 are
approximately 10 to 18 feet.The ordinance requires a
minimum setback of 40 feet from all property lines in C-2
zoning.
The applicant is also proposing two (2)ground-mounted
signs (one on each side of the main entry drive from Chenal
Parkway),with a maximum height of eight (8)feet.The
applicant is also proposing a six (6)foot sidewalk along
Chenal Parkway within the property's front landscaped area.
2
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
The applicant has also submitted a detailed "tenant signcriteria"(dated June 7,2000)for this proposed
development.A copy is included in the agenda report for
Planning Commission review.
The proposed buildings,parking areas,drives,landscaped
areas and other proposed improvements are noted on the
attached site plan.The applicant has noted that the
project will be developed in one (1)phase.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded,with varying
degrees of slope.The Arkansas Systems and Village at
Rahling Road developments are located across Chenal Parkwaytotheeast.The GMAC office complex is located across
LaGrande Dr.to the south.The property immediately north
and west is undeveloped and part of a PCD development which
was approved previously.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no public comment
regarding this item.There was no established neighborhood
association in the area to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.All comments from Subdivision Plat S-867-GGGG apply to
this item.
2.Add left turn bays on West Loop Road,Chenal Parkway and
LaGrande Drive (dual left turns for WB lane with
additional lane added on LaGrande).(44 feet wide)
3.Show and construct sidewalk on all street frontages.
4.Show future curb cuts on remaining acreage bounded by
LaGrande Drive and West Loop.
5.Show existing driveways on GMAC property and line-up
proposed driveway with existing driveways.
6.Continue third lane to Chenal Parkway to LaGrande Drive.
7.Show cross access easements between lots one,three,and
four.
8.Traffic signal at Chenal and Rahling Road will be
required to handle projected site traffic.
3
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5936-B
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:Arkla approves as long as existing easement is not
affected.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $300/acre will apply in
addition to the normal connection charges.A water main
extension will be required to serve Lot 4,looped lines
with on site fire protection will be required to serve
Lot 1,and on site fire protection may be required for
the other lots.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
placement of fire hydrants.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many
existing trees as is feasible on this tree covered site.
Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six inch
caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Tim Daters,Bill Bassett and Joe Keaton were present,
representing the application.Mr.Bassett briefly
described the site plan.He noted that the project would
be developed as a single phase.
4
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
It was noted that a variance would be needed for the median
cut in Chenal Parkway.Bob Turner,of Public Works,
discussed the Public Works requirements,and noted that he
would support the variance for the median cut based on the
fact that the entrance to the project was estimated to
generate traffic equal to a collector street.
Mr.Bassett gave a brief description of the proposed
signage.Staff noted that a document explaining the
proposed signage had been submitted.Mr.Bassett also
explained the proposed interior pedestrian sidewalks.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan
to the full Commission for final action.
H .ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on June 7,2000.The revised site
plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.Dumpster areas and ground-mounted
sign locations have been shown on the revised plan.
The following is the minimum number of required parking
spaces and the proposed parking for each individual lot ofthisdevelopment:
Re i red (minimum)~Pro oned
Lot 1 956 1,114
Lot 2 387 530
Lot 3 21 69
Lot 4 27 69
The number of parking spaces for each lot exceeds the
minimum ordinance standards and staff is comfortable with
the parking plan as proposed.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance for minimum building setbacks for Lots 2,3 and 4.
Staff supports the variance as requested.
The applicant is also requesting a variance for reduced
driveway setbacks from property lines and a variance to
allow a median cut in Chenal Parkway.Public Works has
indicated approval of the driveway setback variance.
Public Works has indicated support of the variance for a
median cut in Chenal Parkway based on the projected amount
of traffic that this development will generate.
5
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
The proposed site is located within the Chenal/Financial
Center Design Overlay District and must comply with the
following requirements for signage,site lighting andutilities:
1.Ground-mounted signs must be monument —type with a
maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 100
square feet.
2.Site lighting must be directed to the parking areas and
not reflected to adjacent parcels.3.All lighting and utilities located between the rear
lines of the buildings and Chenal Parkway right-of-way
shall be underground.No overhead utilities shall be
constructed within 100 feet of the Chenal Parkway
right-of-way.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant has submitted a
document titled "Tenant Sign Criteria"(dated June 7,
2000),which provides restrictions for wall-mounted and
projecting signs throughout this development.Staff feels
that the proposed sign criteria is extremely close to the
City's sign ordinance requirements and recommends approved
of this document as a component of the proposed site plan.
A copy of the document has been attached for Planning
Commission review.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed site plan.Staff feels
that the proposed site plan will have no adverse effect on
the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for
reduced building setbacks (Lots 2,3 and 4).3.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a
median cut in Chenal Parkway at the main development
entry.4.Staff recommends approval of the variance for reduced
driveway setbacks for the two westernmost drives.
6
June 22,2i J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1.(Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5936-B
5.Ground-mounted signage,site lighting and utilities shall
conform to the Chenal/Financial Center Design OverlayDistrictStandards.6.The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot opacpxe fence or wall.7.Staff recommends approval of the "Tenant Sign Criteria"
(dated June 7,2000)as a component of this site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
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 Chairperson 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 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
7
zg,-
(.I'.—
gg 94-B
E VENUE
CHENAL
Tenant Sign Criteria
June 7,2000
RECEIVED
"UN 7 2000
BY:
/$p~g~
Index
Guidelines/Requirements.2
Definitions.3
Sign Standards -Wal!Signs..4
Blade Signs..5
Window Information Signs..5
Door Signs..6
Display Signs.............................6
illustrative Examples..7
I T~HE VENUE
CHENAL
Guidelines/Requirements
Each tenant is responsible for obtaining a sign permit for their proposed
signage from City of Little Rock.The application for sign permit shall be
obtained and filed with the City.
1.Name,address,telephone number and business license
of the legal owner of the business,the applicant,and
sign contractor,where applicable;
2.Complete description and /or drawings showing the
size,shape,height and location of the sign on the
property or building;
3.A sketch showing street graphic faces,exposed surfaces
and proposed message thereof accurately represented in
scale as to size,proportion and color.This sketch should
also contain all pertinent information required by the
building inspector such as structure and building
materials in accordance with the Standard Building Code
as amended by the State of Arkansas;
4.Color and material samples completely described and
keyed to the proposed sign;
5.Agent authorization statement signed by owner or
authorized manager of business,allowing agent or sign
contractor to act in their place,where applicable;
6.Zoning,property dimensions,vicinity map,site address,
highway right-of-way,compliance with the electrical
code (if applicable)any other such information as
required by the sign committee or planning commission.
2 T~HE AvE UE
CHENAL
Definitions
Sign Area The area of a sign shall mean and shall be computed as the entire area
within a continuous perimeter enclosing the limits of writing,
representation,emblem,or any figure of similar character together with
any frame,other material,open space,or color forming an integral part of
the display or used to differentiate such sign from the background
against which it is placed.The supports,uprights or structure on which
any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign area
unless such supports are designed is such a manner as to form an integral
background of the display.The sign area of painted or affixed wall signs
when composed of letters only is the sum of the area of a rectangle
which encloses all of the letters.
Wall Signs Any sign or other graphic,the principal face of which is parallel to the
facade of a building or structure and does not exceed (15)fifteen inches
in depth
Window Sign A window sign is any type of sign which is located on the interior of a
business premises,is either attached to or is located immediately adjacent
to an exterior window,and is intended primarily to be viewed from the
exterior of the premises.Any sign on the interior of a business premises
located beyond an aisle used for general customer circulation shall not be
classified as a window sign and shall not be regulated by this article.
Displays which show products or depict services sold on premises are not
to be classified as window signs.For purposes of administering this
article,glass exterior doors are considered to be windows.
Door Signs Any type of sign attached to a door (including the door frame or jamb),
the lettered,numbered,pictorial or sculptured matter of which is visible
from the exterior of the premises.
Policies
Logos,Trademarks and/or three-dimensional symbols may be used on
signs complying with this article,but shall be restricted to occupy no
more than fifty (50)percent of each exposed surface.
P$
3 THE ~~EVE
CHENAL
Outline indicates sign area Sign Standards -Wall Signs
h Area
One and one-half (1 1/2)square feet per linear foot of building frontage,ai e Grin to a maximum area of one hundred fifty (150)square feet.
Illus.1 -Sign Area Calculation the area of a wall sign
If a sign consists of individual letters,each attached directly to a building
or structure,the area of the sign shall be measured by the area of the
smallest rectangle or series of contiguous rectangles which enclose all
7596 of y=maximum sign length the letters and symbols.-see illustration ff I
e e e e e e e e e LengthVhDIBllpQtrl(mdo Multi-frontage sites are calculated with one (1)major frontage only.
The signage shall not exceed 759o the length of the frontage.-see
Illus.2 -Length illustration ff2
Frontage
Panel or box signs are not permitted.Wall mounted signs may be applied
to any building elevation.Signs shall either be individual reverse channel
letters -seeillustration ff3,backlighted,projected from building wall
with no exposed raceway or exposed box.User's trademark lettering style
is acceptable.All Neon tubes shall be white,and concealed by an opaque
cover.Signs may also be solid cast letters with indirect lighting of face.
Maximum height determined by
area restrictions.
Maximum Depth:Fikeen Inches ~
illus.3 -Reverse Channel Letter Signs may be flat against the wall or pinned away from the wall,but in no
case project more than fifteen (15)inches from the wall surface.Tenant is
responsible for appropriate blocking or other substrate required for
Indirect Lighting Solid Cast Letters mOunting hiS Signage
No part of a wall sign shall extend above the eave line of the roof or,if a
e e e e e e e e building does not have an eave line on the side where a sign is installed,
Vh DD IlP'(Idol no part of the sign shall extend above the top of fascia or parapet on that
side of the building.,Exception:At Buildings with "cantilevered"canopies
Illus.4-Signage with indirect Lighting provided by developer,tenant is required to locate free standing letters
mounted to top of canopy.-see illustration 0'5
ln addition,no part of a wall sign shall be at an elevation higher than
twenty-five (25)feet above the average ground elevation along the sideSideFrontofthebuildingonwhichthewallsignisinstalled.
0
Sign
x
0 0
Illui.5 -Buildings with "cantilevered"canopies
IH
4 CHENAL
Blade Signs
Maximum Blade Sign Area will be
In addition to all other permitted signs,each tenant required to provide
total not exceeding (6)six square feet one (I)projecting sign used to identify the entrance or location of the
premises.This sign shall:-see illustrations ¹6&¹7
Minimum Height 1.Not exceed six (6)square feet in area.is (B)eight Feet
2.Conform to guidelines indicated on illustrations ¹6,&¹7
3.Maintains a minimum of eight (8)feet clearance betweenx
-the bottom of the sign and the walkway below.
Window Information Sign
Sign Base.C A window information sign is intended to provide the public with a
general message that is not oriented toward advertising or promoting aE
particular product,service or event.Window information signs shall
include,but not be limited to,hours of operation,emergency instructions,
illus.6 -Bracketed Blade Sign general conditions for occupying the premises,like "no smoking"and
"proper dress.'Window signs can also include the name of the business
but not any other kind of advertising copy -seeillustration ¹8
Side Front All window information signs shall be securely attached to the window
frame,or surrounding structure of the building in a neat,orderly and
professional appearing manner.A temporary window information sign
maybe taped to the window or frame and shall not be displayed for more
tl.Ale(Died'han fifteen (15))calendar days.Each temporary sign shall be dated on
the day of its installation.Antique's
1.Tenant address is required.Tenant address shall be applied above
primary entrance and will be visible from nearest driveway.-see
lighting illustration ¹8.C Sign Base
E 2.No more than four (4)windows shall be used to display
window information signs.
Walkway 3.No window information sign shall exceed one and one-half
square feet in area (216 square inches).illus.7-Hanging Blade Sign
4.No more than twenty-five (25)percent of the area of a window
shall be used to display a window information sign.
5.No window information sign shall extend from one window
to another.
6.More than one window information sign may be installed on a-
single window,provided the area of the smallest rectangle
which encloses all elements of the ingividual signs complies
with the above paragraphs.
%015
Tenant Address
Tenant Name
Maximum Window Sign Area will be
calculated by (x times y)with the
total not exceeding (1 1/2)one and
y one-half square feet.
he Dailey Ciirlnd x
illus.8 -Tenant Address,Information,and Window Sign
5 THE AVENUE
CHENAL
Door Sign
Permanent door signs over one and one-half (1 1/2)square feet are
prohibited
Temporary door signs shall not exceed fifty (50)percent of the door area
(excluding the frame or jamb).
Temporary signs shall not be displayed for longer than thirty (30)days.
Tenant is required to have the store address and tenant name applied to
the back entrance of premises.Address and name shall be applied with
white reflective vinyl letters that's sign area may not exceed one and
one-half (1 1/2)square feet.Name and address must be applied to the
door,with a minimum five (5)feet in height from ground elevation.
-see illustration f/9
Display Signs
May be displayed as a temporary or permanent sign,provided the area of
such sign does not exceed a value calculated as one and one-half (1 1/2)
square feet for each one (1)foot (and/or fraction thereof)such sign is
located from the nearest window or door,or two (2)square feet,whichev-
er is greater.Distance measured shall be the shortest distance between
any portion of the sign to any part of the nearest window or door.
Sign Area
1 I Tenant address and name will be
I reflective white vinyl.
I V
I I
e a&e rtn Sign Area cannot exceed (1 t/2)one
and one-half square feet
RO~S
,The Dosed orle lJ
Illus.9-Tenant Back Door Sign
Pg
6 THE AVENUE
CHENAL
illustrative Example:Major
Reverse Channel Letters,Back lighted
Fabric Awning
Fabric Window Awning with Logo
-g If
g-'9"'r
t
Tenants primary entrance +
Tenant frontage
7 1~ME VENUE
CHENAL
I llustrative Example:Typical Tenant Space
Reverse Channel Letter,Back lighted
Bracketed Blade Sign
Metal Standing Seam Awning
Sign Band
0 q
t
g)I
I
'l
8 ~EAVENUE
CHENAL
Illustrative Example:Typical Tenant Space
Indirect Lighting for Tenant Signage
I
Solid Cast Letters
Fabric Awning
Tenant 8lade Sign
69M'I
Sign 8and
I
0
&Ei
C.
Tenants pnmary entrance~
Tenant frontage
9 THE AVENUE
CHEN AL
June 22,2i
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-992-J
NAME:Pinnacle Valley Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:East side of Rummel Road,at Mooser Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown,Jr.McGetrick and McGetrick¹6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 E.Markham Street,Suite 202LittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:38 FT.NEW STREET:0(total)(Phase I)
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:20
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this
property on November 16,1993.The approved plat included 48singlefamilylotsbetweenIsomCreekandRummelRoad.The twoareaseastofthecreekasshownontheattachedplatwere
approved at later dates.
Due to the floodway/floodplain along the property's east
boundary,the applicant was only able to final plat 36 lots.Anupdatedpreliminaryplatreflectingtherevisionto36lotswasapprovedbystaffonAugust31,1998,as part of the finalplattingprocess.
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-J
The applicant has since been working with the Corps of Engineers
and Public Works on revising the floodway/floodplain boundary.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedupdatedpreliminaryplatbyaddingtwo(2)single familylotsattheendofEagleGlennCove(Lots 37 and 38 as
shown on the attached plat).This will bring the total
number of lots to 38.As noted previously,the originalapprovedpreliminaryplatforthisareahad48lots.Theadditionofthetwo(2)lots is the only proposed revisioninthepreliminaryplat.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property where the two (2)new lots are proposed ispartiallywooded.There are several single familyresidenceswithinthissubdivision,with others currentlyunderconstruction.There is floodway immediately east ofthesubdivisionwithundevelopedpropertyfurthereast.There is also undeveloped property to the north and south.There are single family residences on large lots to thewestacrossRummelRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The River Valley Neighborhood Association was notified ofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has receivednocommentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Pinnacle Valley Road is listed on the Master Street Planasaminorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45feetfromcenterlineisrecpxired.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Pinnacle Valley Road has a 1998 average daily traffic
count of 1,600.
2
June 22,2i~'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-J
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty.
APSL:No Comments received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments.
Water:No objection.An acreage charge of $300 per acre
applies in addition to normal charges.Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
placement of fire hydrants.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not located on a dedicated busroute.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed revised preliminaryplat,noting that the only change was the addition of two
(2)lots.Staff noted that several items needed to be
shown on the revised preliminary plat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It
was noted that Pinnacle Valley Road was previously approvedtobeconstructedtosuburbanstandardswhenthelotsalongthisstreetarefinalplatted.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
revised preliminary plat to the full Commission for finalaction.
3
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-J
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on June 7,2000.The revised plat addresses most of theissuesasraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.
The following items were left off of the revised plat
submitted:
1.Source of title
2.Names of owners of all unplatted tracts which abut theplatarea.
3.Correct zoning of property and abutting property.
The applicant will need to submit a revised plat drawing tostafftoincludetheseitems.
As noted previously,the applicant has worked with the
Corps of Engineers and Public Works in revising the
floodway/floodplain boundary along the property's east
boundary.Public Works has noted that a Letter of MapRevisionwasapprovedbyFEMAandtheCorpsofEngineers
and submitted to the Public Works Department in September,1999.The floodway/floodplain lines as shown on thisrevisedpreliminaryplatareasapprovedwiththeLetter of
Map Revision.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the revised preliminary plat.The two (2)additionallotsproposedconformtoordinancestandardsandshould
have no adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary platsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs DandEofthisreport.2.A revised preliminary plat (with the additional items asnotedinparagraphH.)must be submitted to staff priortoafinalplatofLots37and38.
4
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-J
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
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 Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
5
June 22,2~JO
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1162-G
NAME:Baptist Health —Kanis South Subdivision (Lot 12)—Replat
LOCATION:East side of Aldersgate Road,approximately 1,000feetsouthofKanisRoad
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
OA Land Co.,LLC The Mehlburger Firm
10301 Kanis Road 201 S.Izard StreetLittleRock,AR 72205 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:3.882 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 12,Baptist Health-
Kanis South Subdivision into three (3)lots for the
development of offices.The splitting of a single plattedlotintotwo(2)lots is typically handled at staff-level,
however a split creating more than two (2)lots must be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
The proposed lots (Lots 12A,12B and 12C)are shown on theattachedplatdrawing.The applicant is proposing anaccessdrivefromAldersgateRoadforLot12Aandasharedaccessdrive(with cross-access easement)for Lots 12B and12C.There is a 50 foot OS zoned buffer along theproperty's south boundary.
June 22,2~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1162-G
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently undeveloped and wooded.TherearesinglefamilyresidencestothesouthalongtheeastsideofAldersgateRoadandanofficebuildingimmediatelytothenorth.There is undeveloped 0-3 zoned property totheeastandsinglefamilyresidences(zoned MF-24/0-3)tothewestacrossAldersgateRoad.
C .NE I GHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The John Barrow and Sewer District No.147 NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Aldersgate Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Show proposed driveway location.5.Plat no access easement to Perry Street.6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Aldersgate Road has a 1998 average daily traffic countof2,200.
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required with a building permit.9.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required with a building permit.10.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty.
AP&L:A 15 foot utility easement is requested along the
property's west boundary line.
2
June 22,2 ~'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1162-G
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No Comments.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is on bus route ¹3.However,thislegofthebusroutewillbeterminatedJuly1,2000.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Frank Riggins was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed replat.
Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that driveway
locations and access easements needed to be shown on theplatdrawing.
There was also discussion related to the required
Aldersgate Road improvements.Mr.Borkowski noted that
there was no sight/distance problem at this location.
Otherwise,Mr.Riggins noted that he had no issues with the
Planning Staff or Public Works requirements.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
replat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat drawing to staff on
June 7,2000.The revised plat shows an access easementforashareddrivewaybetweenLots12Band12C,as
3
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1162-G
requested by Public Works.Lot 12A will have a separateaccessdrivetoAldersgateRoad.The revised plat also
shows the 15 foot utility easement as requested by AP&L.
The applicant has noted that a construction fence will beinstalledpriortoanysiteworktoprotecttheOSzoned
area along the property'south boundary.The applicant
has also noted that a revised preliminary plat will be
submitted to staff reflecting the changes to Lot 12.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed replat.The proposed replat of Lot 12
should have no adverse impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs DandEofthisreport.2.A construction fence must be installed to protect the OSareapriortobeginninganysitework.3.A revised preliminary plat,reflecting the changes to Lot12,must be submitted prior to the final plat (replat)being signed by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
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 Chairperson 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 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 22,2~0
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-1216-A
NAME:Mid-Towne Development (Lot 1)—Replat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Shackleford Road and Shackleford
West Blvd.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Cardiovascular Surgery,LLC.The Mehlburger Firm
10800 Shackleford West Blvd.201 S.Izard StreetLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.486 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-2/proposed 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 1,Mid-Towne
Development into two (2)lots (Lots 1A and 1B)to allow fortheconstructionofanofficebuildingonLot1A.ThepropertyiscurrentlyzonedC-2 and the applicant hassubmittedanapplicationtodownzonethepropertyto 0-3(Item 4.1.on this agenda).A lot split of this nature istypicallyhandledatstaff-level,however,based on thefactthattheproposedreplatisdrivingtherezoningto0-3,staff has included the item on this agenda forPlanningCommissionreview.The proposed replat would notconformtotheordinancestandardsforC-2 zoning (minimumlotsizeof5acres).
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1216-A
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing building within the eastern portion oftheproperty(proposed Lot 1B).The proposed Lot 1A is
undeveloped and has been partially cleared and graded.There is undeveloped C-2 zoned property,immediately north,with a convenience store at the southwest corner ofShacklefordandKanisRoads.There is an office buildingcurrentlyunderconstructionacrossShacklefordWestBlvd.to the south,with undeveloped property (0-3 and C-2)tothewestalongShacklefordWestBlvd.There is undeveloped0-2 and 0-3 zoned property to the east across ShacklefordRoad.A hotel and hospital are located to the southeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Sandpiper and Birchwood Neighborhood Associations werenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staffhasreceivednocommentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.City of Little Rock Ordinance would allow only
one driveway to be shared between Lot 1A and Lot 1B.2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP6L:A 15 foot utility easement is requested along the
property's south boundary line.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No Comments.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
2
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1216-A
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Frank Riggins was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed replat,noting that
driveway locations needed to be shown.
Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that Lot 1A needed to
have shared access through Lot 1B,utilizing the existing
driveway from Shackleford West Blvd.He noted that access
easements needed to be shown on the replat drawing.
Mr.Riggins noted that he had no issues with the PlanningStafforPublicWorksrequirements.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the replat to
the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat drawing to staff on
June 7,2000.The applicant has made the additional notes
as requested by staff.The driveway location,description
of all monuments and source of title have been shown on the
revised plat.A 15 foot utility easement along the
property's south boundary has also been shown.
To staff'knowledge the only outstanding issue relates to
the proposed driveway locations.There is an existing
drive to Lot 1B and the applicant is proposing a separate
drive for Lot 1A.The applicant needs to request a
variance for the second proposed drive.
3
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1216-A
Public Works supports only one (1)driveway for this
proposed development.Public Works notes that access to
Lot 1A must be taken by utilizing the existing drive for
Lot 1B with a cross-access easement,or the existing driveforLot1Bshouldbeclosedandanewshareddrivebetween
Lots 1A and 1B provided.This issue must be resolved.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed replat.This proposal should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.2.The driveway location must be resolved.3.A revised preliminary plat,reflecting the changes toLot1,must be submitted prior to the final plat (replat)being signed by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff noted that Public Works supported the driveway locationsasproposed.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 22,000
ITEM NO.:4.1 FILE NO.:Z-6526-A
Owner:Cardiovascular Surgery,LLC
Applicant:Mehlburger Firm
Location:10800 Shackleford West Blvd.
Request:Rezone from C-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Future medical office
development
Size:1.486+acres
Existing Use:One story medical office
building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned C-2
South —Car dealership and four-story medical buildingbothunderconstruction;zoned C-2East—Vacant;zoned 0-3 and hotel and restaurants
under construction;zoned 0-2
West —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned C-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
With Construction:
1.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.City of Little Rock Ordinance would allow only
one driveway to be shared between Lot 1A and Lot 1B.2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation.7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)will be required with a building permit.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
June 22,~000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6526-A
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the Sandpiper and
Birchwood Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-430 Planning District.The
Plan recommends Community Shopping for the site and for allofthepropertiesfrontingontoShacklefordWestBlvd.
This designation is reflective of the existing C-2,
Shopping Center Commercial zoning.The property currentlycontainsonemedicalofficebuilding,with a second office
planned for the site.The proposed 0-3 zoning does notrequirealanduseplanamendment.The property is notwithinanareacoveredbyaneighborhoodactionplan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.486+acre tract from "C-2"Shopping Center Commercial to "0-3"
General Office district.The eastern 2/3 of the tract hasbeendevelopedasaone-story medical office building.Thewestern1/3 of the tract has been cleared and filled but isotherwiseundeveloped.The applicants propose to subdividethepropertyinto2tracts.The eastern 1.085+acre lotwillcontaintheexistingdevelopment,leaving a second,.401+acre lot on the west for development of anotherofficebuilding(see associated replat,Mid-Towne
Development replat S-1216-A).The proposed lots fall belowtheminimumlotsizeforC-2 zoned properties.Since theproposeddevelopmentispurelyofficeinnatureitisappropriateto"downzone"the tract to 0-3 with its smallerlotsizeminimumandreducedbuildingsetbacks.Theproposedlotswillexceedthe0-3 lot size minimum.
The property is located at the northwest corner ofShacklefordRoadandShacklefordWestBlvd.The propertiesintheareaaroundthesitecontainavarietyofexistingandproposedofficeandcommercialuses.The C-2 zonedpropertiesimmediatelyadjacenttothewestandnortharecurrentlywoodedandundeveloped.The C-2 zoned propertiesacrossShacklefordWesttothesouthhavebeenclearedand
2
June 22,000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6526-A
are now being developed for an automobile dealership and amultistorymedicalofficebuilding.The 0-2 zonedpropertiesacrossShacklefordRoadtotheeastare just nowbeingclearedfordevelopmentofahotelandtworestaurants.Other uses across Shackleford Road includeanotherhotel,the Heart Hospital and several vacant 0-3zonedparcels.The proposed 0-3 zoning is compatible withusesandzoninginthearea.
The land use plan is reflective of the existing zoning andrecommendsCommunityShoppingforthetract.Staff doesnotbelievethataplanamendmentisnecessarytoaccommodatetheproposed0-3 General Office zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectorspresent.Staff presented the item and a recommendation ofapproval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by avoteof9ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 22,2 ~'0
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1285
NAME:Westwood Industrial Park —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:East side of Shackleford Road at Clearwater Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Steve Wortman White-Daters and Associates
5100 Asher Avenue 401 S.Victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:29.63 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:12 FT.NEW STREET:1,050 lf
ZONING:I-1
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Deferral of street improvements to Shackleford Road.
2.Variance for length of proposed cul-de-sac.
3.Variance for minimum centerline radius for proposed
cul-de-sac.
4.Variance for minimum front platted building line.
5.Variance for minimum lot width for Lots 5,6,and 8.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 29.63 acres into 12lotsfordevelopmentofanindustrialpark.The applicant
proposes to final plat the lots one at a time as they aresold.The property is zoned I-1 and will require zoningsiteplanreviewbythePlanningCommissionforthe
individual lot development.The applicant is proposing a
1,050 foot cul-de-sac to serve the proposed development.
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1285
The applicant is proposing the following deferral andvariancesaspartofthisapplication:
1.Deferral of street improvements to Shackleford Road forfive(5)years or until development of adjacentproperty.2.Variance for maximum length of the proposed cul-de-sac;1,050 linear feet proposed,750 linear feet maximumallowedbyordinance.3.Variance for the minimum centerline radius for the
proposed cul-de-sac;150 foot radius proposed,275 foot
minimum radius allowed by ordinance.4.Variance for minimum front platted building line;50footbuildinglineproposed,70 foot minimum frontbuildinglinerequiredbyordinance.5.Variance for minimum lot width for Lots 5,6 and 8;proposed lot widths for these lots range from 110 to120feet(chord distance),minimum lot width required
by ordinance is 150 feet.
The site has been cleared and graded,and the applicantnotesthattheOSzonedareaalongtheproperty's east andaportionofthenorthboundarieshasbeenleftundisturbed.The applicant also notes that buffers alongthesouthandwestpropertylineshavebeenpreserved.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property has been mostly cleared of trees,with site
work currently being done.It appears that the OS zonedportionofthispropertyhasbeenleftundisturbed.
There is an office/warehouse development and a Little Rock
Water Works facility across Shackleford Road to the west.There are single family residences to the east andnortheast.There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property to thesouthandI-1 zoned property to the north,with site workalsobeingdoneonthepropertytothenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westwood,John Barrow and SWLR UP NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.
2
June 22,2v~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1285
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet
from centerline is required.2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Eliminate driveway that does not meet Ordinance.4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stozmwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
7.Detail drainage plan must be submitted for approvalbeforedevelopment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty.
AP&L:No Comments received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150/acre,plus a developmentfeebasedonthesizeofconnectiontothemainin
Shackleford Road,will apply in addition to the normal
connection charges.A water main extension will be
required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route,but is near bus route ¹14.
3
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1285
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Protective temporary fencing must be installed prior to
clearing Lots 5,6,7 and 8 to protect the adjacent OSstrips.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Joe White and Tom Cole were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed
preliminary plat.
Joe White noted that the proposed cul-de-sac would be
dedicated and constructed when the first lot within the
subdivision is final platted.He also noted that a
deferral of street improvements to Shackleford Road would
be requested.These issues were briefly discussed.
Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that the proposedcul-de-sac needed to be lined up with Clearwater Drive on
the west side of Shackleford Road.Bob Turner,also of
Public Works,discussed the driveway locations to the lots.
He noted that some of the drives needed to be eliminated.
Joe White indicated that he would meet with Public Works
regarding these issues.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on June 7,2000.The revised plat shows the names of the
abutting property owners and the PAGIS Monuments.However,
the revised plat does not address the concerns as raised by
Public Works at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
4
June 22,2i J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1285
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting a deferral of street improvements to Shackleford
Road and several variances for the proposed plat.Public
Works supports the variances for cul-de-sac length andcenterlineradius,and the Planning Staff supports thevariancesforlotwidthandfrontplattedbuildingline.Public Works recommends denial of the requested deferral ofstreetimprovementstoShacklefordRoad,due to the factthattheimprovementswererecentlymadetothewestsideofShacklefordRoad,adjacent to a new office/warehouse
development.
Public Works also has concerns with the location of the
proposed cul-de-sac and the number of proposed driveways
along the street.Public Works notes that the proposedcul-de-sac should line up with Clearwater Drive (west sideofShacklefordRd.)for safety reasons.Public Works hasalsonotedthatthetotalnumberofdrivewaysalongthecul-de-sac needs to be reduced.As of this writing,theapplicanthasnotmetwithPublicWorkstodiscusstheseissues.
Based on these Public Works design concerns and the factthatPublicWorksisnotsupportingthedeferralofstreet
improvements to Shackleford Road,staff cannot support the
proposed plat.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed preliminary plat,unless the outstanding Public Works issues as noted inparagraphH.can be resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff noted that the plat had been redesigned and that all ofthePublicWorksissueshadbeenresolved.Staff noted that theapplicanthadalsorequestedavariancetoallowservicedriveswithoutsidewalksbetweensomeofthelots.It was also notedthattheapplicant'deferral of street improvements to
5
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1285
Shackleford Road was for 5 years,until adjacent development or
until one (1)of the lots fronting on Shackleford Road develops,
whichever occurs first.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the revised plat
and of the variances and deferral as recpxested.
The Chairperson 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 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
June 22,2L,
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-2530-A
NAME:Wentwood Valley Townhomes —Short-Form PRD
LOCATION:East side of Wentwood Valley Drive,at Brazos
Valley Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Bailey Properties White-Daters and Associates
1400 West Markham St.401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:3.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-18 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily
PROPOSED USE:Multifamily
STAFF NOTE:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 1,20QQ,requesting that this item be withdrawn.Staff supports the
withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune1,2000 requesting that this item be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforwithdrawal.A motiontothateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
June 22,2i~0
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4213-D
NAME:Bowman Plaza —Revised POD
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and
Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Leonard Boen McGetrick and McGetrick
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 E.Markham Street,Suite 202LittleRock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:16.366 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:POD/0-3 ALLOWED USES:Office,Office/Warehouse
PROPOSED USE:Office,Office/Warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On March 4,1999 the Planning Commission approved a preliminary
plat (4 lots)and a POD (Lots 1 and 2)for this property at the
northwest corner of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads.On April 6,
1999 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,974
approving the POD for Lots 1 and 2.
The approved POD included the construction of two (2)office-
showroom/warehouse buildings (one per lot)and associated
parking areas.The following site specifics were approved:
1.Lot 1 —63,575 square foot building and 79 parking spaces.2.Lot 2 —111,000 square foot building and 202 parking spaces.3.Driveway from Bowman Road to serve Lot 1 and a shared
driveway from Colonel Glenn Road (with access easement)to
serve Lots 1 and 2.
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FII E NO.:Z-4213-D
4.A 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the north property line.5.An in-lieu contribution for the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Bowman and Colonel Glenn Roads.6.Hours of operation —8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday-Friday.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a revised site plan for Iot 2 ofthisPODdevelopment.There are no changes proposed forIot1,which is currently under construction.
With the revised plan,the applicant proposes toincorporatetheproposedIot3ofthissubdivision (1.225acres)and a sliver of the eastern portion of the proposedIot4intoIot2forthedevelopmentofanoffice-
showroom/warehouse.The applicant is proposing toconstructa192,000 square foot building and 200 parkingspacesonIot2.The building is proposed to be used asfollows:
15 percent —office/showroom
85 percent —warehouse
The proposed hours of operation will be the same as
previously approved.The applicant will also maintain the
50 foot undisturbed buffer area along the property's north
boundary.The applicant has noted that the street
improvements along the entire Colonel Glenn Road frontagewillbeprovidedwiththedevelopmentofIot2.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is currently an office/warehouse building underconstructiononIot1ofthisproperty,with site work
being done throughout the remainder of the property.
The general area has a mixture of uses,including a mobile
home park to the north and a few residential structures onlargetractstothewest.A large office building islocatedatthenortheastcornerofColonelGlennand Bowman
Roads.There are a couple of single-family structures tothesouthacrossColonelGlennRoad,with a convenience
food store and a telephone cable company (C-4 type use)located at the southeast and southwest corners of Colonel
Glenn and Lawson Roads.There is also a large amount of
vacant property in the general area.
2
June 22,2i ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4213-D
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotifyofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlineisrequired.2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Colonel Glenn Road has a 1998 average daily traffic countof9,900.
6.Shackleford Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 3,600.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comments.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:Provide turnarounds at the ends of the
parking lots.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
3
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4213-D
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Ellis Mountain PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercialforthislocation.The property is currently zoned Planned
Office Development and the request is for a revision of the
current Planned Office Development.The applicant wishes
to change the configuration of the proposed buildings on
the property.The proposed changes are consistent with the
adopted Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This property is
located in an area that is not covered by a city recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
A minimum four (4)foot wide perimeter landscaping strip is
required between separate tracks of property unless access
easements are present.
A three (3)foot wide building landscape strip is required
between the public parking areas and building.There is
considerable flexibility with this requirement.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed revised POD,noting
that some additional information was needed.
Mr.McGetrick briefly reviewed the proposed project and
noted the following:
1.Lot 2 would be replatted to include the additional
area.
2.A 50 foot buffer along the north property line would be
maintained.
3.All of the Colonel Glenn Road improvements (entire
property frontage)would be constructed with the
development of Lot 2.These issues were briefly
discussed.
4
June 22,2i.3
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4213-D
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
POD to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
June 7,2000.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The
appropriate lot lines have been shown for the proposed Lot
2 and the legal description for the area of the Revised PODhasbeenprovided.The dumpster areas have also been shown
on the site plan.
The applicant provided the following information to staff
which needs to be shown on a revised site plan:
1.The access easement will be extended the length of theparkingareaanddrivebetweenLots1and2toprovidecrossaccessandparking.2.The required building landscaping will be provided
between the front parking area and the building onLot2.
The ordinance would typically require 108 parking spacesforadevelopmentofthissize(Lot 2).The applicant isproposing200parkingspaces(202 spaces were approved onthepreviousplan).Staff is comfortable with the parkingplanasproposed,as some of the parking could be used byemployees/customers of the Lot 1 development.
There is currently a 10 foot utility easement which runs
along the existing south and west property lines of Lot 2
and through the proposed building.There are no existingutilitieswithinthiseasement.The applicant will berequiredtoreplatLot2(staff level)and can relocate theeasementtothewestpropertylineofLot2atthattime.
The Fire Department has requested a turnaround at the eastendoftheparkinglotinfrontofthebuildingonLot2.
The Fire Department has worked with the applicant andagreedtoasecondaryaccessforthisparkinglotto allowfiretrucksthatenterthelotanexitpoint.The
secondary access will have a base of a special type
5
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4213-D
concrete block that will allow grass to grow through.
There will be no curb cut onto Colonel Glenn Road.Public
Works has noted no concerns with the secondary accesspoint.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththisapplication.With compliance
with the conditions as noted in the next paragraph,the
proposed development should have no adverse impact on thegeneralarea.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised POD subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentresidentialproperty.3.The 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the property'snorthboundarymustbemaintained.4.A revised preliminary plat must be submitted to staffpriortoabuildingpermitbeingissuedforLot2.5.A replat of Lot 2 (to include the additional area)mustbefiledpriortoabuildingpermitbeingissuedforLot2.The 10 foot utility easement will be relocatedwiththisreplat.6.The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8-foot opaque fence or wall.7.A revised site plan must be submitted to staff with theadditionalitemsasnotedinparagraphH.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
June 22,2i~0
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-4249-C
NAME:Freeway Business Park —Revised POD
LOCATION:South side of Interstate 630,approximately 0.1 mile
east of Rodney Parham Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
U-Storit,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
6100 Patterson Road 319 E.Markham Street,Suite 202LittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:12.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:POD ALLOWED USES:Office/Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Office/Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On May 3,1994,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
16,644 approving the Freeway Business Park —Long-Form POD.The
project included Lots 4-9 of the Freeway Business Park
Subdivision.A mini-warehouse development was approved for Lots
8 and 9,with an office/commercial building being approved for
each of the other four lots.Certain development criteria and
uses for the development were negotiated between the developer
and the University Park Residential Association.This criteria
was included in a letter dated May 3,1994 and was accepted by
the Board of Directors as a component of the development.A
copy of the letter has been included for Planning Commission
review .
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4249-C
A mini-warehouse development has been constructed on Lots 8 and
9 of the site and an office building has been constructed on Lot4.The area of Lots 5-7 has been cleared and graded.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedsiteplanforthedevelopmentbyexpandingthemini-
warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 and constructing anoffice/commercial building on Lot 5.All of this proposeddevelopmentwillbeonthenorthsideofFreewayDrive.
The applicant proposes to construct five (5)new mini-
warehouse buildings with a total area of 41,075 squarefeet.Two (2)new drives from Freeway Drive are proposedwiththemini-warehouse expansion.The applicant notesthatthesedriveswillbegatedandonlyusedforemergencyaccess,dumpster service and large moving vehicle access.
The applicant is proposing a single-story 13,941 squarefootbuildingonLot5withatotalof47parkingspaces.
Two (2)access drives are proposed from Freeway Drive.
The proposed site plan showing the existing and proposed
improvements is attached for Planning Commission review.
The applicant has noted that the development criteria andpermittedusesasagreedtobythedeveloperandtheUniversityParkNeighborhoodAssociationandmadepartoftheapprovedPODwillnotbechanged,except for revisingthedocumenttoallowthemini-warehouse expansion ontoLots6and7andaddressingthehoursofoperationformini-warehouse complex.The applicant has noted that hewillworkwiththeneighborhoodinamendingthedocument.
The applicant has noted that the mini-warehouse developmentwillbeabletobeaccessed24hoursaday.Hours ofoperationfortheentiredevelopmentwillbefrom7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,daily.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing mini-warehouse complex within theeasternportionofthispropertyandanofficebuilding atthesouthwestcornerofthedevelopment.The remainder oftheproperty(along the north side of Freeway Drive)isvacant,with site work having been done in the past.Interstate 630 is located along the property's north
boundary,with a cemetery to the south.There is a mixtureofcommercialandindustrialusesfurthersouthacrossWest12Street.There is undeveloped C-3 zoned propertyimmediatelywestofthissite,with a mixture of commercial
2
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4249-C
and industrial uses further west across Rodney Parham Road.
Hughes Street is located along the property's east
boundary,with single family residences across HughesStreettotheeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The University Park and Briarwood 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:
1.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required with a building permit.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely af fected.
APEL:No Comments.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No Comments.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route,
but is near bus route ¹3.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this
location.The property is currently zoned Planned Office
3
June 22,2i ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4249-C
Development and the request is for a revision of the
current Planned Office Development.The applicant wishestoexpandamini-warehouse and office building.The
proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Land Use
Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in the Boyle Park study area where
a Neighborhood Action Plan process had began but to date no
Neighborhood Plan currently exists.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed site plan for the
revised POD.Staff noted that additional information
relating to hours,use list,dumpster location,signage and
driveway locations were needed.
The proposed driveway locations were briefly discussed.It
was noted that driveway locations needed to be revised in
order to conform to the typical ordinance standards.Mr.
McGetrick noted that he would meet with the applicants and
discuss revising the drive locations.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
POD to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
June 7,2000.The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.Dumpster
areas have been shown on the site plan and the driveway
locations have been revised.
The applicant has shown a total of 47 parking spaces for
Lot 5.The ordinance would typically require a minimum of
35 spaces for an office building of this size.Staff is
comfortable with the parking plan as proposed.
4
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4249-C
Public Works has noted support of the proposed driveway
locations,with the exception of the center drive proposedforthemini-warehouse complex.Public Works feels that
this drive should be eliminated and that other two (2)
drives will provide the appropriate area for accessing the
property with large vehicles.Staff will attempt to havethisissueresolvedpriortothepublichearing.
As noted in paragraph A.,a document was agreed to by the
developer and the University Park Neighborhood Association
on May 3,1994.This document contained specific
development criteria and uses for this proposed
development,and was accepted by the Board of Directors as
a component of the development.Item No.20 of the
document reads as follows:"20.Mini-storage development
will be limited to Lots 8 and 9.Mini-storage areas will
be secured and hours of operation will be limited to 6:00
a.m.to 9:00 p.m."
As noted earlier,the applicant is proposing to expand the
mini-warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 of this
subdivision,with 24 hour access.Staff has informed the
applicant that he must meet with the neighborhood and
revise the May 3,1994 document only with respect to Item
No.20 and leave the remainder of the document intact.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the revised POD.Staff feels that
the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the
general area.Staff will support the revised POD subject
to the applicant working with the neighborhood in revising
the May 3,1994 document.Staff suggests that the Planning
Commission not conduct a public hearing on this application
until this document has been revised.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised POD subject to the
following conditions:
1.The May 3,1994 document between the developer and the
University Park Neighborhood Association must be revised
with respect to Item No.20.2.The remainder of the May 3,1994 document will remainvalidandpartoftherevisedPOD.
5
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4249-C
3.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph Dofthisreport.4.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.5.The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall.6.No additional ground-mounted signage along the I-630
property line will be allowed.7.The proposed ground-mounted sign for Lot 5 must be
monument-type and comply with the ordinance standards forofficesignage.8.The roofs of the proposed mini-warehouse structures must
be constructed of a non-reflective material.9.The driveway locations for the mini-warehouse complex
must be resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff noted that Public Works supported the proposed drive
locations for the mini-warehouse project based on the fact that
the drives would be gated.Staff also noted that the University
Park Neighborhood Association had signed a letter agreeing to
allow mini-warehouses on Lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision.ThisletteramendedItem¹20 of the agreement (dated May 3,1994)
between the neighborhood association and the developer.
The Chairperson 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 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
I
g4en g
May 3,1994
Cf p-p )
Mayor Jim Dailey
Dailey's United Supply Company
304 Rock Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
Vice Mayor Jesse Mason,Jr.
UALR Cooperative Ed.Program
2801 South University
Little Rock,AR 72204
Re:Freeway Business Park -Application for Planned Office Development
Dear Mayor Daily and Vice Mayor Mason:
The applicant,Freeway Investment Company and the University Park Residential
Association have come to an agreement with regard to the planned office development
application filed by Freeway Investment Company after representatives of Freeway and the
Project Committee of the Association met on May 1,1994.The Project Committee is
authorized to make a final decision on behalf of the entire membership of the Association.
The terms of the agreement are set forth below and will be performed by Freeway if the
application is approved.We request that this letter be made a part of the application for a
planned office development for Freeway Business Park and,if approved by the City Board,that
the terms of this letter be made a part of the city ordinance.
ITEMS INCLUDED IN APPLICATION
A.GENERAL.
1.There will be under'ground utility service.
2.There will be comprehensive landscape requirements.A specific landscape plan shall
be described and made available to the Neighborhood As&ociation.
3.All buildings abutting Hughes Street will have roofs that do not have a "tin"appearance.
4.There will be a Strict Bill of Assurance for future development on the land site that will
prohibit any uses other than those listed in the ordinance.The Neighborhood Association
will be given prior information of any proposed development not listed as an authorized
use.
5.Hours of operation in any mini-warehouse facility will be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 9:00
p.m.
6.There will be curb,gutter,sidewalk,and storm water drainage.
7.There will be no substantial increase in elevation of existing grades on lots 8 and 9.
8.A six-foot high brick fence will be constructed from the rear of the three residential lots
on Hughes Street on the eastern side of the development north up to the existing chain
link fence constructed by the Arkansas Highway Department.The brick will be similar
to the brick on Laverne Circle in University Park.Red top shrubbery will be planted
on all fences on the Hughes Street side.The fence and shrubbery along the Hughes
Street side will be maintained by University Park Residential Association.Other project
fencing will consist of a six-foot tall wooden fence.The brick fence will be constructed
prior to construction of any buildings.
9.There will be no building over two storie's high.
10.There will be no regular outdoor storage of materials.
11.There will be no pole signs other than the project sign on I-630 previously referred to
in the application.Ground mount monument signs will be used in front of buildings.
12.Project sign on I-630 will be placed at the west end of the development,away from
Hughes Street.
13.Entrance sign will be on Rodney Parham Street.
14.Lighting will be directed away from Hughes Street.
15.There will be no signage on Hughes Street.
16.There will be no access on Hughes Street.
17.There will be no development on three Hughes Street lots,except by the University Park
Residential Association.
18.Three Hughes Street lots will be deeded to the University Park Residential Association
prior to any development of the property under the planned office development
application.
19.There will be masonry walls/facades on building walls closest to Hughes Street.
20.Mini-storage development will be limited to Lots 8 and 9.Mini-storage areas will be
secured and hours of operation will be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.
2
B.AUTHORIZED USES.
1.The following uses will be permitted on the entire development:clinic (medical,dental,or optical);duplication shops;establishment of a religious,charitable,or philanthropicorganization;governmental or private recreational uses,including but not limited to golfcourses,tennis courses,swimming pools,playgrounds,day camps,and passiverecreationalopenspace(enclosed only);group care facility;laboratory (no biologicalactivity);library,art gallery,museum or other similar use;mortuary or funeral home;nursing home or convalescent home;office (general or professional);photography studio;private school or kindergarten;school (business);school (commercial or trade);school(public or denominational);studio (broadcasting or recording);studio (broadcasting andrecording)antenna limited to no higher than 60 feet;studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance,or other artistic endeavors);travel bureau;antique shop;book and stationeryhstore;camera shop;cigar,tobacco,or candy store;clothing store;custom sewing ormillinery;florist shop;health studio or spa (enclosed);jewelry store;key shop;tailorshop;job-printing,lithographer,printing or blueprinting;parking,commercial lot orgarage;office showroom/warehouse;school (commercial,trade,or craft);studio (music,dance,or ceramics);appliance repair (no small engine repair);hauling and storage;landscape service;lawn and garden center (enclosed);light fabrication and assemblyprocess;mini-warehouse;office warehouse;school,business;warehouse andwholesaling.
2.With regard to lot 9,loading and unloading for any hauling and storage company,warehouse,and wholesaling use will be limited to the northern and western sides of thelot.Plumbing,electrical,heating and air conditioning shop uses will not be allowed onlot9.
3.The following uses will be allowed only on lots 4 -7:Bank or savings and loan;church;community welfare or health center;day nursery or day care center;establishment forcareofalcoholic,narcotic,or psychiatric patients (outpatient treatment only);institutionforspecialeducation;drugstore or pharmacy;eating place without drive-in service;hobby shop;animal clinic (enclosed);cemetery or mausoleum.
4.The following uses will not be permitted:ambulance service post;college dormitory,college fraternity or sorority;convent or monastery;lodge or fraternal organization;rooming,lodging,and boarding facilities;barber or beauty shop;multifamily dwellings;orphanage.
5.Only the uses listed above in the designated areas will be allowed on the development.
We request that you place the application of Freeway Development Company back ontheMay3dagendaforBoardofDirectorsmeetingandapprovetheapplicationattheMay3dmeeting.This application has already been deferred once by the Board and is supported by the
3
I
planning staff.
Very truly yours,
F EWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY
(
By:
David E.Simmons
P
UNIVERSITY PARK RESIDENTIAL
ASSOCIATION
/
Willie V.Nooner,President
des:pm
Enclosures
cc:Jim Lawson
4
June 22,2~~0
ZTEM NO.:9 FZLE NO.:Z-6863
NAME:Michael —Short-Form PCD
LOCATZON:1701 Rebsamen Park Road
DEVELOPER:ENGZNEER:
Anthony Michael Don Johnson
1701 Rebsamen Park Rd.300 Spring St.,Ste.215LittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.0.30 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONZNG:R-3 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential/
Nonconforming C-3 Nonconforming Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARZANCES/WAZVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The property at 1701 Rebsamen Park Road is currently zoned R-3
and has a nonconforming C-3 status.There is an existing 1,075
square foot commercial building on the site which contains a
cigar shop.There is also an existing 900 square foot deck
structure which is attached to the south side of the existing
building.The deck structure is currently used for outdoor
dining and is served by a mobile catering trailer which is
located on the site.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-3 to
PCD in order to construct a permanent 500 square footkitchenadditiontotheexistingbuildinganddeckstructure.The mobile catering trailer which is on thesitewillbeeliminatedwiththekitchenaddition.The
June 22,2i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
proposed kitchen addition will be at the deck level,withstorageunderneath.
As part of the proposed plan,the applicant is proposing a
new paved access drive along the north side of the existingbuildingandanewareaofpavedparkingwithintherearportionoftheproperty.The applicant has noted that this
new area of parking will tie in with future new parkingareasonthepropertiestothesouthandthatcross-accesseasementswillbeprovided.The new parking area willeliminateasmallareaofhead-in parking in front of thebuilding.
The existing building,proposed addition,parking area andlandscapedareasarenotedontheattachedsiteplan.Theapplicanthasnotedthatacorrugatedtinroofstructurewillbeconstructedovertheexistingdeckareaandwillsurroundanexistingtreewhichthedeckwasconstructedaround.The existing and proposed building heights rangefrom12feetto15feet.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing commercial building (cigar shop)onthesite,as well as a mobile catering trailer and a deckusedforoutdoordining.There is an unpaved parking areaintherearyard.
There are commercial uses immediately north and south ofthispropertyalongtheeastsideofRebsamenParkRoad.There are also commercial uses (including a parking lot)across Rebsamen Park Road to the west,with single familyresidencestothenorthwest.There is railroad right-of-
way and a drainage ditch immediately east of the property,with a mini-warehouse development further east.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Hillcrest,Sherrill Heights and Cedar Hill TerraceNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no commentfromtheneighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Rebsamen Park Road is listed on the Master Street Plan asacollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothisstreetincluding5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Minimum corner curb radius is 10 feet for commercial
driveways.Redesign and resubmit.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if larger
and/or additional water meters are needed.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect;site is not on a dedicated bus route,
but it is close to bus route ¹21.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This recpxest is located in the Heights/Hillcrest PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this
location.The property is currently zoned R-3 Single
Family Residential and the recpxest is a change to Planned
Commercial Development.The applicant wishes to construct
an indoor kitchen.The proposed use is consistent with the
adopted Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This property is
located in an area that is not covered by a city recognized
neighborhood action plan.
3
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
Landsca e Issues:
A total of six (6)percent of the interior of the on-site
vehicular use areas must be landscaped with interior
landscape islands.The plan submitted does not provide forthisinteriorlandscapingarea.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Chris Travis,Anthony Michael,Don Johnson and Pat
McGetrick were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD and noted that
some additional information was needed.
Chris Travis noted that C-3 permitted uses would be
requested as alternate uses for the property.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It
was noted that the driveway width along the north side of
the building needed to be increased.Mr.Michael notedthathewouldlookintoeliminatingthethree(3)parking
spaces along the north side of the building in order to
provide the increased drive width.The typical ordinance
requirement for number of parking spaces was discussed.Staff noted that the number of spaces proposed appeared to
be close to the typical ordinance minimum.
The required street improvements to Rebsamen Park Road were
briefly discussed.Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that
the applicant could meet with Public Works to work out thestreetconstruction.
Staff noted that six (6)percent of the proposed parking
area needed to be landscaped and suggested areas where this
landscaping could be provided.This issue was briefly
discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD to
the full Commission for resolution.
H .ANALYSI S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on June 6,2000.The applicant has
addressed all of the issues as raised by staff and the
4
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
Subdivision Committee.The applicant provided the
following information:
1.Hours of operation will be from 11:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.daily.
2.No ground-mounted signage is proposed.An additional
wall-type sign will be placed on the deck structure.3.The dumpster area will be screened.
4.The applicant will coordinate cross-access easements with
the property owner to the south.5.C-3 permitted uses are requested as alternate uses for
the property.
6.The applicant has noted that the Public Works
requirements will be complied with.
The revised site plan submitted shows 14 parking spaceslocatedontheeastsideoftheexistingbuildingand
proposed building addition.The ordinance would typically
require 17 parking spaces for this development.Staff has
no problem with the parking plan as proposed.There is anexistingparkinglotacrossRebsamenParkRoadtothewest
which several of the businesses along the east side of thestreetutilize.Based on the fact that the applicant is
proposing only 14 parking spaces,there is no interior
landscape requirement.
As noted above,the applicant is proposing C-3 permitted
uses as alternate uses for the property.Based on the factthatthepropertyhasanonconformingC-3 status and the
property to the north and south is zoned C-3,this requestisappropriate.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with this application,as the applicant has done a good jobofaddressingthequestionsposedbystaffandthe
Subdivision Committee.The proposed PCD should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PCD subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions as noted in paragraph D
and E of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from the residential property to the northwest.
5
June 22,2i,0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6863
3.C-3 permitted uses are approved as alternate uses for thesite.4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sideswithan8footopaquefenceorwall.5.The applicant along with the property owner to the southmustfiletheappropriateeasementdeed(s)if there is tobecross-access.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
June 22,2l 0
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6671-A
NAME:Grubbs Revised PD-I
LOCATION:11329 West Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:John P.Hoskyn /Nextel Partners,Inc.
PROPOSAL:The applicant has requested that a Wireless
Communication Facility Permit be granted toinstalla150foottowerfacilityonthis
property.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff has determined that this proposal will not have to bereviewedbytheCommission.The proposed site would meet allordinanceDevelopmentStandardsandcanbereviewedadministrativelyforanapprovaldecision.Therefore,Staff
recommends the item be withdrawn from this agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that it was determined that thisapplicationcouldbereviewedadministratively.Staff
recommended that the application be withdrawn.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforwithdrawal.A motiontothateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
June 22,2i~0
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:S-1096-C
NAME:Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:1012/1014 Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Central AR Land Development,LLC Central AR Engineering
1012 Autumn Rd.,Ste.1 1012 Autumn Road,Ste.2LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:2.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
A variance is requested for driveway setback from a side propertyline.
BACKGROUND:
On May 11,2000 the Planning Commission approved a preliminary
plat for the Autumn Subdivision.Lot 2 of the Autumn
Subdivision contains a 5,590 square foot (1 story)office
building and 24 parking spaces within the northeast portion of
the property.There is also a single story frame structure,
located on the south side of the existing office building,which
will be removed with the proposed development of Lot 2.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a multiple-building site plan
review for Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision.The proposed
development is proposed in the following phases:
Phase I —A 7,014 square foot (single-story)office
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-C
building and 58 parking spaces.
Phase II —A 15,000 square foot (two-story)officebuildingand38parking.
The applicant has noted that the maximum building heightwillbeapproximately20feet.
As part of the proposed development (Phase I),theapplicantwillclosetheexistingdrivewayfromAutumn Roadandrelocatethedrivetonearthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.This drive will line up with the existing drive
on the east side of Autumn Road (Kidsports).The applicantisrequestingavariancefortheproposeddrive.Theordinancerequiresadrivetobesetbackatleast125 feetfromsidepropertylines.The proposed drive is
approximately 18 feet from the south property line.
A ground-mounted sign location has been shown on the siteplan.The applicant notes that the sign will conform totheordinancestandardsforofficezoning.
The existing building and parking,proposed buildings,parking areas,drive,landscaped areas and other proposed
improvements are shown on the attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office building and a single storyframestructureontheproposedLot2,Autumn Subdivision.There is a mixture of office and commercial uses to thenorthalongChenalParkwayandtotheeastacrossAutumnRoad.There is undeveloped property immediately south ofthissite,with an office building and two single familyresidencesfurthersouthalongthenorthsideofKanisRoad.There is a contractor'maintenance yard to the westandanoffice/mini-warehouse development to the northwest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Birchwood and Gibralter Heights/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Autumn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.
2
June 22,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-C
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothisstreetincluding5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Autumn Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of3,300.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comments received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:No effect;Site is not on a dedicated bus route,
but is close to bus route ¹5.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
A three (3)foot wide building landscape strip is required
between the public parking area and building it serves.
There is considerable flexibility with this requirement.
However,additional building landscaping will be necessary
above what is shown on the plan submitted.
A six (6)foot high opaque fence,either a wood fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the southern perimeter
adjacent to residential property.The property to the westisalsozonedresidentialbutitsuseisforacontractor's
outdoor storage area,therefore,screening along the
western perimeter may not be deemed practical.
3
June 22,2i J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-C
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 1,2000)
Randy Alberius was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed site plan and notedthatsomeadditionalinformationwasneeded.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Tad
Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that Public Works was OK
with the proposed driveway location.He noted that a
variance for the drive location would need to be requested(setback from property line).
The landscape requirements were also briefly discussed.
Mr.Alberius noted that evergreen screening would be
provided along the south property line,where adjacent toresidentialproperty.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded thesiteplantothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
H .ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
June 7,2000.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The
applicant has made the following notes on the revised plan:
1.A 6 foot opaque fence or dense evergreen screening willbeprovidedalongthesouthpropertyline,whereadjacenttoresidentialproperty.2.The dumpster area will be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall.3.Building landscaping will be provided and will conformtoordinancestandards.
The applicant is proposing a total of 120 parking spacesforthisproposeddevelopment.The ordinance minimum
requirement for an office development of this size is 65spaces.Staff is comfortable with the parking plan as
proposed.
4
June 22,2L 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-C
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting avariancefortheproposednewdrivewaylocation.Public
Works supports the variance as requested due to the factthatthenewdrivewillalignwiththeexistingdriveway ontheeastsideofAutumnRoad.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no understandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedsiteplan.With theexceptionofthedrivewaylocation,the site plan conformstoordinancestandards.Staff feels that the proposed siteplanwillhavenoadverseimpactonthegeneralarea.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphsD,E and F of this report.2.Staff recommends approval of the variance for drivewaysetback.3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentresidentialproperty.4.The dumpster area must be screened as three (3)sideswithan8footopaquefenceorwall.5.The proposed ground-mounted sign must conform to theordinancestandardsforofficezonedproperty.6.Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision must be final platted prior toabuildingpermitbeingissued.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
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 Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
5
June 22,2i~0
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-4650-A
NAME:Parkway Place Baptist Church —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:300 Parkway Place
OWNER/APPLICANT:Parkway Place Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:To revise an existing conditional use permit
located at 300 Parkway Place to add
additional parking to this site which is
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This existing church site is located on the southwest
corner of West Markham and Parkway Place.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and is
surrounded by a mixture of zoning.The property to the
south and southeast is zoned R-2 and contains several
single family homes.The properties to the northeast are
zoned 0-3,General Office,and contain small offices.The
property to the north is zoned C-3,General Commercial,andispartiallydevelopedwithabankonthecorner.
Staff believes the church would continue to be compatible
with the neighborhood,and the additional parking should
help reduce the traffic and parking congestion.
The Parkway Place Property Owners Association,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:
There are existing single drives from both Parkway Place
and W.Markham,plus a rear drive from Markham Place.All
those would remain the same except for widening of the one
from W.Markham from 22 to 36 feet.
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4650-A
The request primarily involves increasing the parking from
the current 100 to 332 spaces.The current requirement is 135
spaces based on a current seating capacity of 540 and the
ordinance ratio of 1 parking space for every 4 seats.The
church plans to expand the sanctuary in the future to a
capacity of 900,which would require 225 spaces based on the
ordinance requirement of 1 space for each 4 seats.Based onthechurch's own study,they feel that a ratio of 2.5
represents their actual person to car ratio.That would
require 360 spaces.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The areas set aside for interior landscaping within the
large parking lot are short of the six (6)percent (7,368
square feet)required by the Landscape Ordinance by 1,156
square feet.
It is recommended that the small proposed parking lot to
the southeast be deleted in order to preserve the existingtreesandprovideadditionalbufferingtotheresidential
area immediately to the south.All buffers should be
measured from the property line,not the curb.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wood fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the southern perimeter.
Credit toward satisfying this requirement can be given forexistingvegetationthatcanprovidetheyear-round
screening necessary.
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.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
d.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.e.Provide existing topographic information at maximum five-foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation.f.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)will be required with a building permit.
2
June 22,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4650-A
g.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186 (c)6 (d)will be
required with a building permit.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer located on site,contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility prior to construction.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to increase the number of parking
spaces from the current 100 to 332.
The current ordinance requirement is 135 spaces based on
the current seating capacity of 540 and the ordinance ratio
of 1 parking space for every 4 seats.During services
currently,members park on the grass in front of the church
and along the street.The church plans to expand the
sanctuary in the future to a capacity of 900,which would
require 225 spaces by City standards.The church determined
through their own study that a 1 space per 2.5 seats would
more accurately reflect their car-to-person ratio.That is
the ratio they used to plan their parking area and justify
the 332 spaces.At that ratio,the 900 proposed seating
capacity would require 360 spaces.They have room for only
332 spaces.They wish to build all the parking capacity now
to take advantage of today'costs and eliminate the
additional cost for a contractor to come back later for
future parking construction.Doing all the work now would
also prevent disrupting the traffic and parking flow a
second time with future construction.The proposed design
does meet ordinance standards.
3
June 22,2~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4650-A
The church did remove an additional future parking area
near the southwest portion of the property from their
proposal.That would have eliminated a large part of a
natural tree covered buffer between the church and a single
family residential area.
The church proposes to also modify and relocate their
existing sign to the corner of Markham and Parkway Place.
Therefore,the sign has also been made part of this proposal
with a maximum size of 64 square feet.It would include an
area where the copy could be changed to display current
information,and probably be lighted.It would be located
according to the required minimum of 5 feet from the
property line and be coordinated with the City's traffic
department to ensure no sight hazard is created at the
corner.
Staff believes the proposed parking expansion is reasonable
and would help manage the parking and traffic congestion
that occurs now.By complying with the City's screening,
landscaping,and buffer requirements,and maintaining as
much of the natural vegetation as possible,the proposal
should be compatible with the neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends 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.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards anyresidentialzonedarea.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Allen Greer,Pastor,and Joe Gallamore,Project Engineer were
present representing the application.Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal.
Public Works and other Staff members reviewed their comments.A
discussion took place about removing the island in the MarkhamStreetentrance,and how the church arrived at the amount of
proposed parking.
4
June 22,20~~
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4650-A
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Allen Greer,Pastor,and Joe Gallamore,Project Engineer,were
present representing the application.There were no 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.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
5
June 22,2uu0
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
NAME:Montessori School —Revised Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Montessori School
PROPOSAL:To revise an existing conditional use permit
to add a building containing a gym,small
kitchen,and four elementary classrooms;
abandon unused utility easements,and
increase the maximum capacity of students to
98,on this R-2,Single Family Residential
zoned property at 15717 Taylor Loop Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The existing school site is located at the southeast corner
of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed total site would include 0.62 acres of
property zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.It is
surrounded by R-2 properties with single family homes to
the south,northeast and west.The properties directly
across Taylor Loop to the north and adjacent to the east
are vacant.
The style of the current school building looks like a large
house and blends in well with the area.The new proposed
metal building unfortunately would not look the same and
would have a more institutional look.The school use should
remain compatible with the neighborhood,but the building
style would not blend in as well.
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association,all
property owners within 200 feet,and all residents within
300 feet that could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
June 22,2v~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site contains two existing drives from Taylor Loop
Road which form a one way flow and drop off system in the
parking lot in front of the building.The applicant wishestokeepthosetwodrivesandaddonedrivewayfrom
Montgomery passing in front of the new building and
connecting to the existing parking area along Taylor Loop.
The new driveway would be used to drop off the elementary
children at the new building and still keep a separate areatodropoffthekindergartenchildrenatthecurrent
building.A small asphalt area with four additional parking
spaces would be added in front of the new building.
Public Works believes that the two existing drives onto
Taylor Loop should be sufficient,and that the driveway infrontofthenewbuildingconnectingtoMontgomeryshould
be eliminated.
The existing C.U.P.allows the school to have up to 30
kindergarten children with 4 employees,and up to 48 total
children from age 3-9.The new building would have 4
elementary classrooms,which are larger than the existing
classrooms.Parking for a school is based on 1 space for each
employee and each 10 children for kindergarten,and
1 space for each elementary classroom.That would result in a
requirement for 13 spaces.Thirteen spaces exist now and 4 newareproposed,which would be 17 total.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wood fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the southern perimeter.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Taylor Loop is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
b.Montgomery Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30
2
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
feet from centerline.c.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofTaylorLoopandMontgomeryRoad.
d.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.e.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Eliminate one driveway.f.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
g.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.h.Taylor Loop has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
1,400.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if larger
and/or additional water meters are needed.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.Site is not on a dedicated bus route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to add a second building to house a
gymnasium and 4 classrooms,with a small paved area in
front containing 4 parking spaces.Included in the requestisanincreaseinthemaximumcapacityto98children.
The Montessori school has existed on this site since August
1996.In April 1998 the Planning Commission approved an
amended C.U.P.to raise the student capacity from 30 to 48.
That was requested to be able to continue to school the
children into the elementary grades.The requests for
increased enrollment have continued resulting in this
3
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
request for more space and increased capacity to 98
students.
The new two-story building would contain a small gymnasium,
kitchen,and four classrooms.The application includes a
request to abandon some unused utility easements in the
middle of the school property and replace them with
perimeter easements.The utility companies approved the
abandonment,but that request will have to be forwarded to
the City Board of Directors for final approval.
All siting requirements are met by the proposal.The owner
of the property to the southeast has requested that the
screening fence adjacent to his property not be required.
He wishes the area to be left open so to provide a more
open appearance between his house and the new school
building,not divided in half by a fence.A waiver or
deferral would be required to accommodate the neighbor'
request.At the time of this writing,Staff had not
received any written confirmation that the resident did not
want the screening.
The school would maintain a staggered drop off and pick up
schedule to minimize traffic congestion.Operating hours
are from 7:15 a.m.to about 6 p.m.Monday through Friday.
Staff believes the request is a reasonable use of the
property and that it should continue to be compatible with
the neighborhood.However,we would encourage the applicant
to choose exterior finishes that would blend with the
neighborhood to the greatest extent possible.The issue of
the third driveway will need to be resolved by the
Commission since Public Works still opposes it.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends 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 with the driveway
issue as decided by the Commission.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
4
June 22,20vJ
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
If a written request by the neighbor to the immediate southisreceivedstatinghedoesnotwantawoodenfencescreen,
between his property and the new church building,thenStaffwouldsupportthatwaiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Roy West were presentrepresentingtheapplication.Staff gave a brief description oftheproposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments and a short discussion
occurred regarding the driveways.The Committee asked the
applicant to meet with Public Works on the issue.
The screening fence on the southeast property line was alsodiscussedandtheapplicantwasinstructedtoobtainaletter
from the neighbor about the fence and the Commission would makeafinaldetermination.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Roy West were presentrepresentingtheapplication.There were two registeredobjectorspresent.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with theconditionslistedunder"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8aboveincludingthemodificationsinthebalanceofthisparagraph.Staff noted that the applicant and Public Works hadcometoanagreementregardingthedrivewayquestionandnodrivewaywouldbeaddedonMontgomery.In addition,theCommissionwasinformedthatStaffhadreceivedaletter fromtheresidentadjacenttothesouthwestcorneroftheschool'spropertystatingthathedidnotwantascreeningfenceinstalledbetweenhispropertyandtheproposednewschoolbuilding.Therefore,Staff stated they were in support of therequesttowaivethatscreeningrequirement.
The Chair informed the applicant that the Commission was down toeightmemberspresentandstatedtheCommission's policy toofferapplicantstheopportunitytodefertheirapplication
5
June 22,20~J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
since the applicant must obtain positive votes of six of the
eight Commissioners present.The applicant chose to proceed.
Mrs.Moffett gave a short summary of the school's request and
why the additional building was needed.
Jim Nettles spoke in opposition.He stated that the heads of the
Heatherbrae and Westchester subdivisions and several people in
those neighborhoods told him they did not know of this proposedexpansion.He also stated that these same people stated they
were not notified when the school was first proposed in 1996.He
added that according to his measurement,the Dyer's property at
15800 Taylor Loop Road was 185 feet from the original schoolsiteandsotheyshouldhavebeennotifiedofeachproposal.He
continued by stating that the school added a second drivewaysincetheoriginalconstructionandfeltthatpermissionforthatadditionshouldhavebeenobtainedfromtheCommission
before it occurred.He felt that was a substantial addition to,
and violation of,the original permit.He continued by statinghisbeliefthattheyshouldhavebeenmoreinvolvedinthe
review process and the development of Staff's recommendations.
In addition,he stated concerns over the increase to 98 students
and the construction of the gymnasium.He felt those two factors
would increase traffic on Taylor Loop significantly.He stated
concern that the traffic would be turning around in the
neighbor's driveways and pulling onto neighbor's lawns.More
over,he stated he couldn't understand how the Planning
Commission in 1998 could approve an amendment to the originalC.U.P.without,as he claimed,even the immediate neighbors
being notified and having input.
Deanna Rust,who lives across Taylor Loop to the northwest oftheexistingschool,also spoke in opposition.She passed out apicturetotheCommissionshowingtheviewtakenfromherhouse
looking towards the site.She asked the Commissioners to imagine
how a two story "gymnasium"would look on the lot she showed in
the picture.She stated that the proposed structure would clash
with the residential nature of the area and that schools lower
the property values of residences in the area.She explained theconcernsshehadwhensheoriginallymovedtothisareabecauseofthecurrentschool,and why she moved there anyway.She feltthattheolderchildrenbeingaddedtotheschoolwouldbring
more activity,noise and traffic,especial at night,to the area
and drastically disrupt the peaceful pace and nature of this
neighborhood.She did not want a two-story gymnasium builtacrossfromherhouse.
Chairperson Adcock asked the school representatives why she
didn'find the names or letters from the immediate neighbors
among the support petition and letters.She also stated that,she
found e-mail letters in support to be worthless and like a chain
6
June 22,2L.J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
letter.Therefore,she was discounting those letters.She saw
only one letter in support from the immediate neighborhood andthatpersonhadastudentintheschool.Mr.West,from the
school,pointed out that there were support letters from allthreeabuttinghomeownersandtheowneracrossTaylorLoopto
the northeast in the group the Chair had.He also brought to theChair'attention the support petition with 14 names of people
from Taylor Loop and Carter Lane.
Commissioner Rahman asked Mr.Turner,Director of Public Works,if the school would be required to make street improvements
along the two street frontages.Mr.Turner replied that they
would.Commissioner Rahman received clarification that the twoexistingdrivewayswouldremain,a driveway would not be added
onto Montgomery,that the new building was about 5200 squarefeet,the existing building was about 3800 square feet,and thatthepropertysizewasabout0.63 acres.He then asked how Staffcouldsupporttheincreaseinstudentcapacityofwhathesawasacommercialbusinessuse,and he had a problem with theanalysisthatStaffhadprovided.He added that if the school
had outgrown its original authorized space it should move,thatthescalewasoutofproportion,and that the application didn'
have any merit.Staff was not given the opportunity to respond
and explain its analysis.
Commissioner Muse stated that he believed that a healthy
neighborhood has an elementary school,usually public,this one
happens to be private.He then asked about the exterior of thebuilding.Mr.West stated that the original proposal was brick
and Dry-Vit with a metal roof,but that they would be willing to
make changes to have it look more like a home.Commissioner Musestatedhewouldsupporttheproposaliftheexteriorsurfaceandlandscapingweremadetoblendinwiththeneighborhood.Mr.
West stated they would be glad to do that and that they didalreadyintendtouseashingleroof,not a metal surface roof.
Commissioner Lowry received clarification that the schoolcurrentlyhas48students,their full authorized capacity,andthattheywantedtoraisethatmaximumcapacityto98,but theydonothave98enrolled.He asked Mr.West if he didn't believethatincreasewouldimpacttheneighborhood.Mr.West said hedidn'believe that it would because of the staggered drop-offtimestheyusedtopreventtrafficproblems,and that even thenoisefromtheplaygroundisminimalataMontessorischoolbecauseofthediscipline.
Commissioner Nunnley agreed with Commissioner Rahman about thesizeandaskedatwhatpointdowesayenoughisenough.Thisstartedasasmallschoolof30,went to 48,and now they areaskingfor98.He wondered at what point does the Commission sayitistimeforthemtomove.He didn'see this as being anassettotheneighborhood.
7
June 22,24
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
Commissioner Berry stated that schools do go with neighborhoods
and that there are many public schools of a much greater scale
in residential neighborhoods along collector streets such as
Taylor Loop.He added that this is not in the heart of a
residential neighborhood and that schools in neighborhoods are
part of city life.He also did not agree that the proposed site
was over developed.He said that was looked at during the review
by the Subdivision Committee and he felt this was probably an
ideal site for a school and the size was fine.He also pointed
out that the neighbor most impacted by the new building,the one
living immediately next to it,not only supported the expansion,
but didn't even want a screening fence installed.He continued
that if expanding schools aren't located in growing
neighborhoods then where do you want them to be.He stated that
a school of 98 students is not a large school compared to manyofthepublicschoolsinLittleRockneighborhoods.He concluded
by stating he supported the proposal.He then asked where
Mr.Nettles and Ms.Rust lived in relation to the site.It was
noted that Mr.Nettles was speaking for Mrs.Dyer and her house
was identified along with Ms.Rust's house,to the north,
northwest of the school.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations.Commissioner Nunnley
asked that Commissioner Berry be allowed to finish a point he
was trying to make earlier when he was shouted down.He wantedtohearthatpoint.Commissioner Nunnley said that he realized
that this was a touchy issue and that he didn'want the
Commission to rush to a vote because the hour was late.
Chair Adcock called the question and the vote.The motion failed
by a vote of 3 ayes,4 nays,Commissioner Nunnley abstained,and
3 absent.
Mr.Lawson,Director of Planning and Development asked that the
record reflect that he was not allowed to speak regarding thisissue,particularly with regard to Commissioner Rahman's
questions regarding Staff's analysis and recommendation.
8
June 22,2~~0
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-6857
NAME:St.Paul United Methodist Church —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:9721 Pinnacle Valley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:St.Paul United Methodist Church of Maumelle /
Fred Perkins
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a phased
master plan for growth and development of the
church facilities to include classrooms,
parking,sanctuary expansion up to 340 seating
capacity,and a family life center located at
9721 Pinnacle Valley Road,on property zoned R-
2,Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the north side of Pinnacle
Valley Road,between Richard and Wilkens Roads.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This proposed site is located outside the City Limits in theextra-territorial zoning district.It is zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential,and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.It is in
a rural area with scattered pockets of houses in between
undeveloped areas.The properties to the north,west and south
are currently vacant.There is a single family house
immediately to the east.
The church has existed at this site for 52 years through
several changes,and should continue to be compatible with the
neighborhood through the proposed development.
The River Valley Property Owners Association,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that
could be identified,were notified of the public hearing.
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6857
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is one existing driveway onto the church property from
Pinnacle Valley Road,which goes all the way to the back
parking area and parsonage.Where the driveway connects to the
road is actually located on the neighbor's property to the
west.The proposal includes one additional driveway on theeastsideofthepropertyfromthenewfrontproposedparkingareaontoPinnacleValley.New parking areas would also be
added in the rear of the church.
Parking requirements for a church are based on the seating
capacity of the main sanctuary at 1 parking space per 4 seats.
The proposed capacity of 340 would require 85 parking spaces,87
are proposed.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A portion of the western driveway does not allow for the
minimum six (6)foot wide land use buffer.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen is required along the
northern,eastern and western perimeters.This screen may be
a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings and may be accomplished in each area as
these areas are developed.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Pinnacle Valley Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet
from centerline is required.
b.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.
Eliminate proposed new driveway.c.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street
Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to thesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.f.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)will
be required with a building permit.
g.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.29-
186 (b)will be required with a building permit.
2
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6857
h.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 will be required with a building permit.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.The site has an existing 5/8"meter.
Contact the Water Works if larger and /or additional water
meters are needed.
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AEUCLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted,but a private hydrant
may be required.
CATA:Outside service area.No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
phased master plan for growth and development of the churchfacilitiestoincludeclassrooms,parking,sanctuary expansion
up to a 340 seating capacity,and a family life center.
The church has existed at this site for 52 years.It was
rebuilt in 1985 after being destroyed by a tornado.A new
sanctuary seating 100 was built in 1991.The parsonage was
built in 1994.
The proposed master plan includes a 1,680 square foot two
story classroom addition in Phase 1,and in future phases
additional parking,sanctuary expansion for seating of
approximately 340,and a 12,000 square foot family life center
with additional classrooms.The family life center is expected
to be open normally from 7:30 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.The proposed
parking reflects 87 spaces versus an ordinance minimum of 85.
The timing of future phases is uncertain and dependent on
funding.
The proposed additions and new building all meet ordinance
siting requirements except for the driveways.The existing
3
June 22,2uv0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6857
driveway is located on the neighbor's property,but that will
be corrected by buying a 48 by 83 foot parcel of land so the
driveway can remain as is and be located on church property.
However,the street frontage of 258 feet does not support two
driveways,300 feet is required for each driveway.Also,both
driveways would be too close to the side property lines.
Therefore,Public Works recommends the new driveway be
eliminated and the existing driveway remain as it is on the
newly purchased property.The applicant has agreed to
eliminate the second driveway.
The proposed purchase of the small 48 by 83 foot parcel would
require a waiver of the subdivision ordinance for platting
when less than 5 acres of land is sold.The applicant has also
requested a waiver of the requirement to accomplish street
improvements on Pinnacle Valley.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of the property and
that the church would remain compatible with the neighborhood.
However,Public Works does not support the waiver of street
improvements.They would support a deferral of the street
improvements until development occurs on adjoining property orforuptofiveyears,whichever occurs first.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends 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 anyresidentialzonedarea.
Staff recommends approval of the waiver for platting in this case
even though less than five acres is being divided and sold in
order to accommodate the existing driveway
Staff would also support a deferral of accomplishing street
improvements until such time as adjacent development occurs or uptofiveyears,whichever occurs first.Staff could not support a
waiver.
4
June 22,20vV
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6857
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Fred Perkins,project engineer,was present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments emphasizing their position
that the new driveway should be eliminated,and that the required
right-of-way on Pinnacle Valley should be dedicated.
The applicant explained that the purchase of the small amount of
land to the west which contains the current entry drive would makeitpartofthechurchpropertyandeliminatethatconcern.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the proposal
and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Fred Perkins,project architect,was present representing theapplication.There were no registered objectors present.Staffpresentedtheitemwitharecommendationforapprovaltoinclude
the requested platting waiver and the deferral of street
improvements,subject to compliance with the conditions listed,andasdescribedunder"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
I
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as submittedtoincludestaffcommentsandrecommendations,the platting waiver
recommendation and the deferral of street improvements.The vote
was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
5
June 22,2u~0
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-6860
NAME:Perritt Massage Clinic —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:5300 West Markham
OWNER/APPLICANT:Dr.Bert O.Miller /Rob Perritt
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to use
part of an existing building for a massage
therapy clinic at 5300 West Markham on
property zoned 0-3,General Office.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the north side of West
Markham on the northwest corner of Markham and Harrison
Street in the Miller Plaza Building.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is located on property zoned 0-3,General
Office.The other building in the Miller Plaza houses an
Optometric Physician's Office.The front part of the
building this use would be located in,contains a hospital
pharmacy lab.Across Harrison Street to the east the
property is zoned C-3,General Commercial,and contains a
motel.Across Markham to the south there is a Golf Course
on R-2 zoned property.A Masonic Lodge lies directly to the
west and the second property to the west contains an
insurance office.The zoning continues to be 0-3 to the
west.The properties to the north across 'A'treet are
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential and they contain
single family homes.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the neighborhood and would not have any adverse effect on
surrounding properties.
The Hillcrest Residents Association,all property owners
within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that
could be identified,were notified of the public hearing.
June 22,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6860
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There are two parking spaces adjacent to the building along
Harrison Street.Five more parking spaces exist immediatelytothenorthofthissitealongthealley.To the northwest
on the other side of the alley is a 17 space parking area.
Those 24 spaces would be shared by all occupants of the two
buildings.Business and professional offices have a parking
requirement of one space for each 400 square feet of grossfloorarea.The two buildings would generate a requirementfor17parkingspaces.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if larger
and/or additional water meters are needed.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.Site is located near bus route 45.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
massage therapy clinic in the existing building located in
the Miller Plaza which is zoned 0-3,General Office.
The purpose of the use would be for a professionally
licensed massage therapy clinic which would provide
2
June 22,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6860
therapeutic,sports,relaxation,and stress relief massage
treatment,and paraffin treatment for arthritic problems.
There clinic would not be doing showers,jacuzzis,hair,or
anything pertaining to a "Day Spa"type of operation.Theclinicwouldoperatefrom10:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.Monday
through Friday,and 10 a.m.to 3 p.m.on Saturday.
No exterior changes to the building would be accomplished
so there are no siting issues.Parking and vehicle accessisadequate.The Miller Plaza consists of two buildings
with a total of 6,726 square feet,divided into three
sections.The Optometric Physician occupies the largest
section with 4,160 square feet.Central Pharmaceutical
Medicine occupies the second section with 1,439 squarefeet.The massage clinic would occupy the third section
with 1,127 square feet.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable added use to thissiteandwouldnotcauseanyadverseeffectonthe
surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to ensuring the two-space parking area immediately
east of the building is used as designed,and that cars do
not block the sidewalk there.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Rob Perritt and Vicki Kapaun,the therapists that would operate
the clinic,were present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Since there are no proposed changes to the exterior of the
building,there were no siting issues.The applicant was asked
to provide the proposed operating hours,and was asked if any
additional signage was anticipated.He stated that the proposed
use would be added to the existing sign which already contained
enough space within the current sign area.
Staff commented about the excessive number of vehicles that were
currently using the two parking spaces directly to the east of
the building,and blocking the sidewalk.
3
June 22,2G
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6860
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Rob Perritt and Vicki Kapaun were present representing the
application.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to
compliance with the condition listed under "Staff
Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 22,2bv0
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-6864
NAME:Cricket Communication Switching Station—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1723 Merrill Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Boyle Realty Company /Sally Getz of
MAGTECH Services
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to use an
existing building for a communication
switching station and offices for the
Cricket Communications Company at 1723
Merrill Drive on property zoned C-4,Open
Display Commercial.All communications
equipment will be inside the building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the east side of Merrill
Drive,between Rodney Parham and Arcade.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned C-4,Open Display Commercial,
but because it is a communication facility,it must be
approved by the Planning Commission.The properties to the
north and northeast are zoned C-4,while to the southeast
and south the zoning is C-3,General Commercial.Across
Merrill to the west The properties are zoned R-5 and
consist of a townhouse complex.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of this site
and would not have any adverse effect on the surrounding
area.
The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association,all
property owners within 200 feet,and all residents within
300 feet that could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
June 22,2m~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (CONT)FILE.:Z-6864
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There are two existing driveways that access this site from
Merrill Drive.The southern drive is shared with the lot to
the south,the northern one serves only this site.No
changes are proposed to the driveways.
The building contains 5760 square feet which would require 14
parking spaces at a 1 per 400 square foot standard.There are
about 22 spaces existing.The stripping needs to be redone in
conformance with city standards to include the required
maneuvering area,particularly around the area where the
emergency generator would be located.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
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 thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected..
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Require a 10 foot utility easement across the
entire east side of the property.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.Site is on bus route 58.
2
June 22,2m~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (CONT)FILE.:Z-6864
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to use
an existing building as a switching station with offices
for the Cricket Communications Company.
No changes to the exterior of the one story building are
proposed,so there are no siting issues.An emergency
generator pad with a noise and sight screening wall would
be installed at the northeast corner of the building.
Parking and drives would meet City standards with the
proper striping accomplished.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of the site
and be compatible with the neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with Public Works Comments.
b.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Sally Getz and Emil Miller were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
The applicants briefly outlined that the intended use of the
building was primarily for switching equipment and some office
space for technicians.They stated that there would be a very
low activity level involved,that there would not be any
antennas or satellite dishes on site,and that this would not be
a sales office for customers to sign up for service.
Staff commented on two points.One was the parking layout around
the building and how it needed to conform to the City'
standard.The second was the comment made by Entergy in the
write-up which asked for a ten foot easement.It was suggested
that the applicant contact Entergy to discuss that request.
Since the existing building would be used with no exterior
3
June 22,~000
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:Z-6862
Name:Williams Day-Care Family Home
Location:9320 Loetscher Lane
Owner/A licant:Evelyn Williams
~Pso osal:A special use permit is
requested to allow the
owner/occupant of the residenceat9320LoetscherLaneto
operate a day-care family home.
The property is zoned R-2.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The owner/occupant of the single family home located on the
R-2 zoned property at 9320 Loetscher Lane is requesting
approval of a special use permit to allow her to operate a
day-care family home.
9320 Loetscher Lane is located on the northwest corner of
Loetscher Lane and McClellan Drive.The properties to the
immediate north are zoned R-4 two-family residential and
contain single family homes and duplexes.An R-5 zoned
apartment development is just further north,beyond
Southboro Drive.Single family homes are located on the
R-2 zoned properties to the west and south.A wooded,R-2
zoned tract is located across Loetscher Lane to the east.
Single family homes on large tracts are also located across
Loetscher Lane.
The applicant's home is typical of those in the
neighborhood;one-story,brick and frame construction.The
property has only a single-wide driveway with room for two
vehicles parked one behind the other.The rear yard is
enclosed by a 4 foot tall,chain link fence and will
provide a safe play area.The applicant proposes to
operate the day care from 6:00 a.m.until 6:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.
The principal use of the property will remain single familyresidential.No signage will be permitted beyond that
allowed in single family zones.The maximum number of
children permitted under the special use permit is 10,
including the care givers.
June 22,F000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6862
Section 36-54 (e)(3)of the Code establishes the site and
location criteria for day-care family homes as follow:
a.This use may be located only in a single-family home,
occupied by the care giver.
b.Must be operated within licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas.c.The use is limited to ten (10)children including the
care givers.
d.The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six
(6)children from households other than the care
givers.
e.This use must obtain a special use permit in alldistrictswheredaycarecentersarenotallowed byright.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.
Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner,location
to location or use to use.
Although staff is supportive of the request,there is one
outstanding issue of concern.The site has limited parking
available for drop-off/pickup of children.Loetscher Laneisarelativelynarrowstreetwithopenditchesalongmuch
of its length.Staff observed traffic traveling at a highrateofspeedonthestreet.Staff is concerned that
parking on Loetscher Lane for the purpose of dropping-
off/picking-up of children would be an unsafe situation.Staff recommends that drop-off/pick-up be limited to the
McClellan Drive side of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Use
Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the site and location criteria
established in Section 36-54(e)(3).
2.There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in
single family zones.
3.Outdoor activities,including playground use,are to be
limited to day-light hours.
4.All drop-off/pick-up is to be limited to the McClellan
Drive side of the property.
2
June 22,000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6862
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
The applicant was present.There was one objector present.
A letter of support had been received from Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress.Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation."Staff
noted that all residents within 300 feet of the site,
property owners within 200 feet and the O.U.R.,Windamere
and SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations had been notified of
the request and none had voiced any objections.The
objector present at the meeting was not a resident of the
neighborhood but was opposed to special use permits for
day-care family homes in general.
Jan Taylor,of 29 Pleasant Cove,spoke in opposition to thecurrentregulationsforday-care family homes.She noted
regulations from other cities in the state which were morerestrictivethanLittleRock's.
Commissioner Lowry interrupted and questioned if Ms.
Taylor's statement was germane to the specific applicationathand.
Ms.Taylor responded that she was passionate about theissueandtookeveryopportunitytospeakaboutit.
Commissioner Nunnley told Ms.Taylor that she could make
her comments at Citizen Communication or she could continueifshewasnearingcompletion.
Ms.Taylor concluded her comments.
Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,commented that theissueofSpecialUsePermitsandday-care family homes was
on the Planning Commission'2000 Ordinance Review Work
Program for consideration of possible amendments to the
regulations.
A motion was made to approve the Special Use Permit subjecttocompliancewiththeconditionsrecommendedbystaff.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe and
3 absent.
3
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:G-23-304
Name:4822 Country Club Blvd inLot8,Block 14 Newton
Addition-right-of-way
Abandonment.
Location:Approximately 100 feet EastofJacksonStreetand
Country Club Blvd.
Owner/A licant:Marcelline Giroir
~Re est:To abandon the 15 feet wide
by 50 feet long street
right-of-way in front of
4822 Country Club Blvd.andincorporatewithexistinglot.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Country Club Blvd.is currently constructed as a publicstreetwith28feetwidepavementprovidingaccesstoresidentialproperty.
2.Master Street Plan
There is no need for more than 50 feet residential
standards right-of-way at this location.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
This is mid block property with frontage on Country
Club only.
4.Develo ment Potential
Owner plans to construct single garage and parking.
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is made up of a residential homes.
1
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:G-23-3046.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners were notified of thepublichearing.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Entergy —has no objection to the abandonment.
ALLA —has no objection to abandonment.
Southwestern Bell —has no objection to theabandonment.
Water Works —has no objection.
Wastewater Utility —has no objection.
Fire Department —has no objection.
Neighborhood and Planning —has no objection toabandonment.
8.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this street will have no adverse effects onthepublicwelfareandsafety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of 4822 Country Club abandonmentasfiled.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(Jun 1,2000)
Applicant was not present.This item was discussed briefly.Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission fozfinalapproval.
2
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:G-23-304
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 22,2000)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for
resolution.The Chairperson placed the item before the
Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for
approval as recommended by staff.The motion to approve the
application passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,2 absent.
3
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
Ju
n
e
2Z
Zd
o
o
co
l
g
S
E
R
T
ME
M
B
E
R
6
K
Co
l
o
K
F
Hr
Se
ll
.
t
4
5
4;
l
7
f
st
l
i
a
g
l4
is
t4
.
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
A
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
A,
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
WG
S
ME
M
B
E
R
8
D
9
L,
W
l5
I
7
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
A.
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
V
V'
'
Y
p
p
0*
4
e;
Sa
n
~
el
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
RA
Y
v
R
W
W
p
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
y
v'
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
v
~
~
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
e
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
0
&
v
~
0
v
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
v'
0
v'
&
0
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
A
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
0
v
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
~.
l
~
P.
M
.
+A
Y
E
~
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
4
AB
S
T
A
I
N
R
RE
C
U
S
E
June 22,2000
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
ate
Chairman Se reta y