pc_08 03 2000subI
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 3,2000
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 June 22,2000 andJuly6,2000 Meetings.The minutes were approvedasmailed.
III.Members Present:Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Craig Berry
Pam Adcock
Rohn Muse
Richard Downing
Fred Allen,Jr.Bill Rector
Judith Faust
Members Absent:Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 3,2000
I .DEFERRED I TEMS:
A.LUOO-19-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal
Planning District from Office to Commercial
B.Mini-Storages at Chenal —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6829)
C.LUOO-16-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District from Single Family to
Commercial
D.St.John Baptist Church —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4686-A)
E.Master Street Plan Amendments in the 36 Street
Corridor
I I .PREI IMINARY PLAT S:
1.Stagecoach Village —Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1273-A)
1.1.Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)-Short-Form PCD
(Z-6178-C)
1.2.Stagecoach Village (Lot 2)—Short-Form POD
(Z-6178-D)
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
2.Fence World —Revised PD-C (Z-6643-A)
3.Gill —Short-Form PRD (Z-6883)
3.1.LUOO-04-03 -A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
Heights/Hillcrest Planning District from Low
Density Residential and Single Family to
Multi-Family
4.Jones —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6884)
Agenda,Page Two
5.Petkovsek —Short-Form PD-I (Z-6885)
6.The Church at Rock Creek —Long-Form POD (Z-6886)
6.1~LUOO-11-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
I-430 Planning District from Low Density
Residential to Mixed Use.
7.The Village at Rahling Road (Lots 9A and 9B)
Revised PCD (Z-6323-B)
IV.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
8.Otter Creek Assembly of God —Revised Conditional Use
Permit (Z-3987-C)
9.Rusk/Dearborn Office/Warehouse —Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4328-B)
10.Accessible Space,Inc.—Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5110-C)
11.FINA Convenience Store —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6876)
12.Crutch Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6890)
V.OTHER MATTERS:
13.Planning Commission Ordinance Amendment Packagefor2000-2001
0
3
C
F
E
R
N
D
A
L
E
U
Q
(
~
C
w
~
C
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
a
I
M
0
S
T
E
W
A
R
T
S
U
L
L
I
V
A
N
C
O
m
q
h
~
O
I
T
c
D
'
A
O
c
0
n
(
c
o
a
z
0
F
l
8
L
Y
S
O
S
P
H
n
o
Q
V
I
M
Y
R
I
D
G
E
C
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
0
)
S
B
O
A
N
R
O
D
N
E
Y
P
A
R
H
m
I
O
C
'
L
J
I
O
O
I
S
H
K
L
E
R
'
I
S
H
A
C
K
L
E
F
O
R
D
I
H
E
I
N
K
E
R
E
S
E
R
V
Q
R
E
J
O
H
N
B
R
R
O
W
C
H
C
O
T
M
l
S
S
I
P
P
I
C
I
O
0
H
U
G
H
E
S
G
E
Y
E
R
P
R
I
N
G
S
U
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
F
A
I
R
P
A
R
K
I
«
O
g
C
o
l
S
'
P
T
A
,
3
A
'
G
S
s
S
C
O
T
T
A
M
I
L
T
O
N
D
A
R
Q
m
P
I
N
E
C
M
S
P
P
F
2
O
P
I
K
E
O
D
R
W
o
C
I
'
O
L
V
T
I
n
c
n
C
O
M
L
K
I
N
G
o
n
7
D
R
E
H
E
R
C
H
E
S
O
V
)
T
O
W
A
R
C
H
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
n
n
M
A
I
N
O
~
O
G
E
R
M
A
N
C
C
U
)
D
I
I
B
A
U
L
T
G
3
F
R
A
Z
I
E
R
f
Q
O
O
O
August 3,2000
ITEM NO.:A 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
applicant's property.
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (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 wit 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.
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
3
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-01
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.
A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
4
August 3,~JO
ITEM NO.:B 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 Street
Little Rock,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 of
eight (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 around
the perimeter of the site.
The applicant has noted that the typical building height
will be as follows:
Buildings A and B —19 feet
Buildings C thru H —8.5 feet
August 3,~30
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
The applicant has noted that the roofs of the structures
will be constructed of a nonreflective material.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 at
the southwest corner of Champlin Dr.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 to
the west.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
There was no established neighborhood association to
notify.As of this writing,staff has received several
calls in opposition to the proposed project.
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"(Master
Street Plan).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
August 3,~&0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (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.ANALYS I S:
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 public
hearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 20,2000)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the PD-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
August 3,JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a
letter on May 11,2000 recpxesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
deferral recpxest.
With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent and 1 open position,the
Commission voted to waive the bylaws and accept the recpxest 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 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 and
cross-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 property
boundaries.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 is
not supporting the land use plan amendment due to the fact that
the amendment would result in erosion of the office buffer
between Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road and the residential
property to the east and south.
5
August 3,2 &0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6829
Although the applicant is proposing an intense landscape planfortheproposeddevelopment,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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronAugust1,2000 requesting that this item be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request.
With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent,the Commission voted
to waive the bylaws and accept the applicants'equest for
withdrawal being less than 5 working days prior to the public
hearing.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion tothateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
6
GILL ELROD RAGON
OWEN SKII INER &SHERMAN,P.A.
ATIORNEYS
W.W.EUtoD II,PA.JUDY P.McNEIL
JoHN P.Gri.i.'-CHRIsmF HER L TRAvts
DRAKE MANN RoGER H.FiizctsttoN,JR.
MARIE-B.MII.IER,P&
CHAttiEs C.OwEN,PA.JoHN A FociEMAN oF CoUNsEL
HEARISILL RAcoN III,PA.
W.BRADFoRD SHHIMAN May 1,2QQQ
H.EDWARD SKINNER,PA.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:
0ur law firm represents LEcW 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 applica'tions to amend the City of Little Rock Land Use Plan and to re-zone property on
Champlin Road in Little Rock (the "Property")from an 0-3 zoning classification to a planned
commercial district ("PCD")for miniwarehouses.
Wellington is located on Wellington Hills Road,approximately 3,000 feet f'rom 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 ofcommercial 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,Ar~72201
Telephone (501)376-3800 Telefax (501)372-~~9
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
Rom 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 of 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 &om Wellington,one of those
businesses will likely fail.Guardsmart is only about.two miles away,and the proposed
P MXKUMENDCLVLEcVAZONE.LTR
Little Rock City Planning Commission
Page 3
May 1,2000
miniwarehouse would adversely effect it as well.In the event that the ro
Wll o o G d artf'1 th Co 'bai,e ommission,by granting these applications,will have violated
e purpose o e Ordinance by creating a prospect for abandoned buildings.In fact,the
Commission may well have caused a negative eff t th fuecupone ture development of the area.To
avoid that negative effect,the Commission should d thoueny ese applications.
On behalf of my clients,thank you for the opportu
'
a li"..e
oppo niLy to express their views regarding these
app ications..Please feel &ee to contact m-if any f --h „'i .r-i any o you ave questions ol desire funh r
information.Mr Fred Langford with Wellington Mr.Chri Thnor.s ornton with Guardsmark will
ollow up with a phone call in a few days to answer an t'swer any questions that you may have.
Sincerel,
John P.Gill
PMXKUMENTICLllLdc WIZONE.LTR
RECK!VED
MAY 1 7.000
BY:
9 p~p'v
PADOCUM ENT1CL'DLEcVAZONE.LTR
85/88/2888 88:56 8182163156315 MAIL BOXES ETC 83775 PAGE 81/81
May 5,2000
Z]~8
2-(R'P /
MR DANA CARNEY
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING CCOMMISSION
Dear Mr.Carney:
This letter is to e ressxpss our opposition to rezo
for MINI STORomOfBceZoningtoC-4Zo '.o ne
d elopme t by Ch
and the haey ve plenty of vacancies Wh
y o henal at Highwa
ancies.y build another one7
Sincerely,
Larry R.Campbell
17314 LaMarche Blvd.
Little Rock AR 72223 RE~@.CAVED
MAY 0 82000
BY-
Davis Development
250 Corporate Center Court g-c.8'z'I
Stockbridge,Georgia 30281
(770)474-4345
May 9,2000
Via Overni ht Delive 501 371-4790
City of Little Rock
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
RKCEIVED
MAY l 0 OOOO
BY:
06/21/00 WED 16:4 &X 501 821 5656 AG CHENAL/DELTIC lR 005
ZC-~8R.WINGEIELD MARTIN REAL ESTATE ~/@godPYRAIsRDPLACE
221 WES'1 SECOND
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72201
501/374-2010
20 June 00
City of Little Rock Plarming Commission
City Hall
Little Rock,Arkansas72201
RE:File Number "F",Item Number Z-6829,Mini Warehouse
Gentlemen:
At the request of the Sbackleford Family,as their Agent for their lands,
please accept this letter Ltt ~an ort of the above captioned zoning application.
'j.ice land set forth in the zoning application is adjoining and adjacent to
the Shackleford Families North Forty at the Northwest portion thereof,
Your support/vote for this needed development is requested.
Sincerely,
cc:Shackleford 1'amily R,Wingfield Martin,Agent
bcc E Paul Dixon
RECEIVED
JUN 9 8 2000
BY:4
06/21/00 WED 1B:44 F 501 821 5B5B AG CHENAL/DELTIC ii)002
Gun-2l-00 02 =42r-(501 )227-&99 P 01
RIVERCI'FV
E b 2—
Ind'apendence Square ares
3801 Woodland Heights Road,Suite 125 I P Q.Box 22837 ~Little Rock,AR 72221-2837
(501 }227.7001 ~Fax',(501)227-9899
Mr.Paul Drxon June 2$,2000|henal Properties,inc.
7 Chenal Club Blvd.
Little Rock,AR 72223
Re.Z&829,Mini Warehouse Project
BY FACSIMILE 821 5656
Dear Paul:
Per our phone conversation this date,we have no objection to the referenced project near
our Rahling Road property.
Please cell me lf there are any questions.
S'ely,
arkadaie McKay
President
HECnvED
JUN RR 2000
&ir BY
06/21/00 WED 14,'47 [TX/HX NO 9980]Q)001
August 3,2000
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning
District
Location:12800 County Line Road.
Rectcest: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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (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 Line 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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (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
4
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (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 13,2000)
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 May 25,2000 requested a deferral to the
August 3,2000 planning commission hearing.This is their
third deferral for this item.The applicant states that
"We will also be filing a PZD application for the same
5
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant on July 18,2000 requested that this item be
withdrawn without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.
A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
6
August 3,2000
ZTEM NO.:D 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 sideofRooseveltRoad,between S.Main and S.LouisianaStreets.
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 sidestreet.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 spacesectiononthewestsideoftheblockandasmaller,14
space section on the east side.The larger section
will take access from an existing parking lot which
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-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 30
feet from centerline.
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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
6.Uti.lit 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 parkinglotthatoccupiestheentiretyofthesouthernhalf 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 parkinglotstoexpandthelandscapestripbytherequired1
foot to bring those strips up to the minimum width of 6feet.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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
8.Sta'ff 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
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (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 Works
issues.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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item and recommended approvaloftheconditionalusepermitandthewaiversofstreet
5
August 3,2000
SUBDIVI SION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4686-A
improvements and right-of-way dedication on West 26 and
Louisiana Streets,subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
There were no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
as recommended by staff.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes and
3 absent.
6
August 3,2000
ITEM NO.:E
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Master Street Plan Revision on the 36'"Street 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 cement 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 ril 13 2000
Planning Commission requested more information for propose West 36 Street re-th
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.
2
Plannin Commission Action:Ma 25 2000
The Staff reported to the Commission that the Master Street Plan Amendment for the
proposed realignment of 36'"Street 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 &om 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'treet 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 Street
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 iinplemented 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.
Plannin Commission Action Au ust 3 2000
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works presented the item to the Commission.
Ch.airwoman Pam Adcock asked if further studies relating to the north/south corridor
had been conducted.
Mr.Turner stated that due to topography,the opportunities to go north and south
with reasonable grade and alignment are very limited.
Conimissioner Craig Berry stated that,topography not withstanding;there will be a
tral i ic need for a north/south arterial.He recommended that the Board of Directors
obtain a second opinion on the feasibility of a north/south arterial from an
independent Engineering firm,develop a Use Plan fir the major corridors,and
complete the Kanis Road Plan.He further recommended that all of the proposed
arterials be completed in the same time period,and financing be obtained by public
bond issues and/or impact fees on building permits for the area.
4
Covimissioner Bob Lowry concurred completely with Commissioner Berry's
recommendations.
Conimissioner Bill Rector stated that the north/south arterial issue should not delay
the project.He stated that financing should be an issue for the Board of Directors.
Commissioner Hugh Earnest stated public discussions should be held on financing
artc i ial construction.
Commissioner Richard Downing stated that the 36'"Street Corridor is only part of
the planning that needs to be done for that area.He stated that he does not want to
see piece mill street construction.He stated that Kanis Road is going to suffer
enormous pressure from developing community,due in part to the passage of the
36'treet Corridor changes.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that new arterials in undeveloped areas should be
done at once.She stated that the financing issue should be referred to Vision of
Little Rock for study.
Coi',missioner Bob Lowry moved the Commission approve the 36 Street Corridor
Stu ly and recommend to the Board of Directors:
l.An second opinion on the possibilities of north/south minor arterials be
obtained from an independent Engineering Firm
2.An updated Land Use Plan be completed
3.The Kanis Road Plan be completed
4.The Board of Directors require that all north/south and east/west arterials be
built at one time
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absents.
5
L
P'
;
-
'
.
~
.
'
v
LY
N
N
RO
A
D
I
I
CI
IQ
:
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
5
I=
.
S
~O
sl
I
I
)
~s
,
Pi
I
l
~p
i
I
lg
&
,
I
I
'j
s
s
e
,
s
sI
I
II
B
S
7
I
%
PR
O
M
MA
S
T
E
I
SI
R
E
S
T
PI
A
H
aa
a
s
s
a
a
a
a
a
s
a
s
s
a
a
PR
O
P
O
S
E
O
NN
S
I
AR
I
B
I
P
L
~
~
~
~
k
i
g:
PR
O
P
O
S
D
O
O
L
L
E
C
I
O
R
ss
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
e
0(
!
!
CO
Y
LN
T
UN
N
A
M
E
D
I
s~
I
Fl
l
l
s
r
s
l
8
NN
A
M
E
D
L
,.
..
i
„C
T
I
Y
UM
I
T
J
is
e
d
,
+
El
a
a
s
s
r
Di
r
e
s
t
Pl
e
a
Re
e
e
p
a
m
e
a
g
e
4
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
I
la
a
:s
ap
~~
P
„
„
,
„
I
"g
~
'6
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
P
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
St
u
d
y
p~
I
LC
I
I
Y
+
I
Li
t
t
l
e
Ro
c
k
,
Ar
k
a
n
s
a
s
I
I
I
g
I
'I
IL
l
DE
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
OF
PU
E
U
C
WD
R
I
,
i
LE
N
N
AD
EN
O
S
I
E
E
R
S
I
E
DM
S
O
TO
T
K
MA
R
K
H
A
M
UT
T
L
E
RO
C
K
,
AR
K
A
N
S
A
S
72
2
N
'F
T
U
T
Y
FF
!
F
a
Ss
a
J
I
I
O
'
F
i
'
T
U
I
'
Y
l
RE
-
'
.
BO
l
l
I
I
O
"
.
F
i
r
WS
O
August 3,2 JO
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1273-A
NAME:Stagecoach Village —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:West side of Stagecoach Road,approximately 1,600
feet south of Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Stagecoach Village,LLC McGetrick &McGetrick
9222 Stagecoach Road 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:19.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 lots,FT.NEW STREET:400 lf
1 tract
ZONING:R-2/PCD (Lot 2)
PLANNING DISTRICT:16
CENSUS TRACT:42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance from the minimum required centerline radius for two
(2)points on Staley Drive
2.Variance from the minimum horizontal tangent distance between
two (2)curves on Staley Drive.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this
property on February 17,2000.The approved plat included four
(4)lots,one (1)large tract and one (1)new street,Staley
Drive.
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1273-A
As part of the original review,staff recommended that the
future uses for the property be tied to the preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission approved C-2 permitted uses for Lots 1
and 2,and 0-3 permitted uses for Lots 3 and 4.The land use
plan shows mixed use for this portion of the property.Tract Aistoberetainedforafuturesinglefamilydevelopment.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
preliminary plat for this property.The applicant proposestorevisethealignmentofStaleyDriveandswitchthe
future uses for two (2)of the lots.
The new alignment of Staley Drive has a reverse curve
between Stagecoach Road and Tract A.Staley Drive had a
straight alignment on the previously approved plat.
The applicant has requested two (2)variances for the
proposed street.The first is a variance from the minimum
required centerline radius at two (2)points on the
proposed street.The ordinance requires a minimum radius
of 250 feet.The first curve has a proposed radius of 160feetandthesecondcurvehasaproposedradiusof75feet.
The second variance requested is from the minimum
horizontal tangent distance requirement between two curves.
The minimum horizontal tangent distance as required by
ordinance is 200 feet.The applicant is proposing a zero
horizontal tangent distance.
The applicant is also proposing to switch the proposed
future uses of Lots 2 and 4.The applicant proposes 0-3
permitted uses for Lot 2 and C-2 permitted uses for Lot 4.
The revised preliminary plat showing the proposed newstreetdesignisattachedforPlanningCommissionreview.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing building on the site (Lot 2),with anexistingdrivewayfromStagecoachRoad.The property waspreviouslyusedasagolfdrivingrange.
The property to the south,along Stagecoach Road,is vacant
and wooded.There are three single family residences to
2
August 3,2~JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1273-A
the north along the west side of Stagecoach Road,with
single family residences to the northwest.There are three
single family residences to the east across Stagecoach
Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a neighbor with concerns.The Otter Creek,Crystal
Valley and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified
of the public hearing.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP",curve
radii,and tangent distances violate MSP.
2.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP"(buffered).
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
5.Direction of flow for watercourses leaving the propertyisrequired.
6.Drainage area size and runoff coefficient for
watercourses entering the tract is required.
7.Proposed ditch sections are required.
8.Description of existing surface features including soil
type and vegetation is required.
9.Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by
Sec.31-403.
10.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
11.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway
right-of-way.
12.Cul-de-sac required at end of Staley Drive prior to
entry gate for public to turnaround safely.
13.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required with a building permit.
14.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per
Sec.29-186(b)will be required.
15.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per
Sec.8-283.
16.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.
17.Construct Staley Drive to MSP standards.
3
August 3,2&&0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1273-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
APSL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A development fee applies,based on the size of
connection,in addition to normal charges for water
service.A water main extension will be required for thelotthatdoesnothavefrontageonStagecoachRoad.
Fire Department:Check with Water Works regarding the
nearest fire hydrant.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route;however,the
proposed development should be designed to allow
bus/transit access.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Pat McGetrick and Olan Asbury were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the revised
preliminary plat.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.
Mr.McGetrick stated that he had no issues with the staff
comments or requirements.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for final action.
4
August 3,2~&0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1273-A
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on July 19,2000.The revised plat shows the proposed
driveway locations along Staley Drive and a cul-de-sac at
the end of the street,as requested.Public Works does not
support the two (2)drives nearest to Stagecoach Road (Lots
2 and 4).These drives are proposed to be right in/right
out only and will be discussed further with the site plans
for the lots (Items 1.1 and 1.2 on this agenda).
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting variances from the minimum required centerline
radii and the minimum horizontal tangent distance for
Staley Drive.Public Works does not support the variance
requests and requests that the developer redesign the
street.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the preliminary plat.With the Staley Drive design
issues and the driveway locations being resolved,the
revised plat should have no adverse effect on the general
area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The two (2)drives nearest Stagecoach Road (Lots 2 and 4)
must be removed.3.The design of Staley Drive must be resolved.Public
Works recommends denial.of the variances as requested.
4.The existing access drive from Stagecoach Road to Lot 2
will be closed and removed when Staley Drive is
constructed.5.The uses for the proposed lots will be as follows:a.Lots 1 and 4 —C-2 permitted uses
b.Lots 2 and 3 —0-3 permitted usesc.Tract A —single family residential
5
August 3,2~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1273-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.There
was one (1)person present with concerns.Staff briefly
described the revised preliminary plat,with a recommendation of
approval with conditions.Staff noted that the applicant had
worked out the street alignment and driveway issues.
David Henning addressed the Commission with concerns.He stated
he had no objection to the development,but was concerned with
the impact it would have on the area.He stated that conditions
should be placed on the development restricting signage,hours
and allowing no external pay phones or vending machines.Mr.
McGetrick addressed Mr.Hennings concerns.Staff noted thatrestrictionsincludedinstaff's recommendation for Lots 2 and 4
(Items 1.1 and 1.2)covered Mr.Henning's concerns.
Chair Adcock asked Mr.McGetrick about Henning'letter
pertaining to the south buffer and the large oak tree near the
southeast corner of the property.Mr.McGetrick noted that he
would work to save the oak tree.He noted that the required
sidewalk could go around the tree if the tree is in the right-
of-way.
The signage issues associated with Lots 2 and 4 were briefly
discussed.
Staff noted that the Staley Drive and driveway issues had been
resolved.Staff noted that no variances were needed for the new
Staley Drive alignment.Staff also noted that the drive for Lot
2 which is nearest to Stagecoach Road will be removed and the
drive on Lot 4 nearest to Stagecoach Road will be an "exit only"
drive.
There was a motion to approve the revised preliminary platsubjecttotheconditionsasnotedbystaff.
Chair Adcock asked about drainage issues.Bob Turner,of Public
Works,noted that the applicant will have to provide on site
detention and explained what would be required.
The Chair called for a vote on the previous motion.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
6
August 3 2 v0
ITEM NO.:1.1 FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
NAME:Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)—Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:West side of Stagecoach Road,approximately 1,600
feet south of Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Stagecoach Village,LLC McGetrick &McGetrick
9222 Stagecoach Road 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office/Commercial Mix,
C-2 Permitted Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the proposed Lot 4,
Stagecoach Village Subdivision from R-2 to PCD.The
applicant proposes to construct a 3,600 square foot branch
bank building with drive-thru lanes (Building A),a 9,000
square foot commercial building (Building B)and associated
parking areas.
The applicant proposes to utilize Building A as a branch
bank and if a bank tenant cannot be secured for the
building,the applicant will remove the drive lanes from
the site plan and utilize the building for C-2 uses.
Building B will be 80 percent commercial (C-2 uses)and 20
percent office use.The applicant notes that there will be
no exterior speakers on the site.
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
The proposed hours of operation are as follows:
8:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.,Monday-Saturday
10:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Sunday
The applicant is proposing a ground-mounted sign near the
northeast corner of the property.The sign will have a
maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 80 squarefeet.
The applicant is proposing to access the property byutilizingtwo(2)drives from Staley Drive.The
easternmost drive is proposed to be right in/right out
only.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area of Lot 4 has been mostly cleared.There are some
trees along the property's south boundary.
The property to the south,along Stagecoach Road,is vacant
and wooded,and contains a large Entergy power line.Tract
A (zoned R-2)of this development is located immediately
west,with Lots 1-3 located across the proposed Staley
Drive to the north.There are three single family
residences to the east across Stagecoach Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a neighbor with concerns.The Otter Creek,Crystal
Valley and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified
of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP".(Curve
radii and tangent violates "MSP").
2.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP"(buffered).
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.(Lot 1 drive from rear access).Eliminate
driveways shown first from Stagecoach must be 250 feet
back.
4.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
2
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
5.Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by
Sec.31-403.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway
right-of-way.
8.Construct Staley Drive to MSP standards.
9.Only one (1)driveway will be permitted.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A development fee applies,based on the size of
connection,in addition to normal charges for water
service.A water main extension or on site fire
protection may be required.
Fire Department:Check with Water Works regarding the
nearest fire hydrant.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route;however,the
proposed development should be designed to allow
bus/transit access.
F .ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning
District.The Future Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for
this location.The request is for a zon'e change from R-2
Single Family to a Planned Commercial District.The
applicant wishes to develop the property for a mix of
commercial and office uses.This change does not require a
land use plan amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This request is located in an area covered by the Otter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The OC/CV
Neighborhood Action Plan contains an action statement
3
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
calling for the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts
to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality
development under the Office and Commercial Development
Goal.The plan contains an action statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along
Stagecoach Road between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.
The plan also contains another action statement of
requiring businesses to be accessed by loop streets to
minimize curb cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with
its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings,is required along the southern and western
perimeters.The screen along the southern perimeter may be
deemed nonfunctional because of the adjacent wide power
line easement.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Pat McGetrick and Olan Asbury were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the PCD.
Mr.McGetrick noted that he had no issues with the staff
comments.The Public Works requirements were briefly
discussed.The driveway locations for this development
were discussed.The driveway nearest to Stagecoach Road
being right-in/right-out only to eliminate a possible
traffic congestion problem was discussed.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD
to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
July 19,2000.The revised plan addresses the concerns as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The proposed site plan shows a total of 54 parking spaces.
The City's Zoning Ordinance would typically require a
4
August 3,2.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
minimum of 45 spaces for a development of this size.Staff
supports the parking plan as proposed.
To staff's knowledge,the only outstanding issue relates to
the proposed easternmost access drive.Public Works does
not support this driveway location,as the drive is located
too close to Stagecoach Road and could cause traffic
congestion problems.The drive is located approximately
120 feet from the centerline of Stagecoach Road.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the PCD.With compliance to the conditions noted in
the next paragraph,the proposed development should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The proposed ground-mounted sign will have a maximumheightof8feetandamaximumareaof80squarefeet.Staff recommends that the sign be monument-type.3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.4.The dumpster location must be screened on 3 sides with a
8 foot opaque fence or wall.5.The driveway location issue must be resolved.Public
Works does not support the easternmost drive location.6.Staff suggests that the following conditions be placed onthisPCDastheywereconditionsofapprovalforLot2:a.No external pay phones,ice machines,vending
machines or speakers.b.No signage other than the ground-mounted signproposedandpermanentwallsigns.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.StaffbrieflydescribedthePCDsiteplan,with a recommendation of
approval with conditions.
See the preliminary plat file (S-1273-A)minute record for
further discussion.
5
August 3,~.i0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-C
There was a motion to approve the PCD application as recommended
by staff.The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and
2 absent.
6
August 3,2~JO
ITEM NO.:1.2 FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
NAME:Stagecoach Village (Lot 2)—Short-Form POD
LOCATION:9222 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Stagecoach Village,LLC McGetrick and McGetrick
9222 Stagecoach Road 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.62 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:C-2 Permitted Uses
PROPOSED USE:0-3 Permitted Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On March 21,2000,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
18,234 which rezoned the proposed Lot 2 Stagecoach Village
Subdivision (formerly Staley Subdivision)from R-2 to PCD.C-2
permitted uses were approved for the property,with the uses for
the entire development being tied to the preliminary plat
application.
The applicant proposed to utilize the existing 3,230 square foot
building on Lot 2 (18 feet in height)and construct 15 parking
spaces to serve the building.The applicant also proposed to
utilize on existing driveway from Stagecoach Road to serve Lot 2
temporarily,until the new street for this subdivision is
constructed.At that time the existing driveway will be closed
and a shared drive between Lots 2 and 3 will be used.The
timing of the new street construction will be tied to the
preliminary plat and the final platting of Lot 3 or 4,or the
development of the large single family tract.
August 3,2 &0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from PCD to
POD,to allow 0-3 permitted uses for the site.The
applicant is proposing a revised preliminary plat for
Stagecoach Village Subdivision (Item 1.on this agenda)and
wishes to have C-2 permitted uses for Lots 1 and 4 and 0-3
permitted uses for Lots 2 and 3.Based on this,the uselistforLot2mustbechangedfromC-2 to 0-3 permitteduses.
The applicant is proposing to make two changes to the
previously approved site plan for Lot 2.The applicant
proposes to remove the drive-thru window on the north sideofthebuildingandisproposingaseconddriveway(rightin/right out)from Staley Drive.The new proposed drivewayislocatedapproximately120feetfromthecenterlineof
Stagecoach Road.Otherwise,the applicant is proposing to
adhere to the conditions as previously approved.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing building on the site,with an existing
driveway from Stagecoach Road.The property was previously
used as a golf driving range.
The property to the south,along Stagecoach Road,is vacant
and wooded.There are three single family residences to
the north along the west side of Stagecoach Road,with
single family residences to the northwest.There are three
single family residences to the east across Stagecoach
Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Otter Creek,Crystal Valley and SWLR UP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the revised
preliminary plat application.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:(Previously approved)
1.Stagecoach Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline is required.
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Stagecoach Road and Staley Drive.
2
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements
to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks on both
sides with planned development.
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.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
7.Stagecoach Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 8,000.
8.Temporary driveway on Stagecoach Road to Lot 2 will be
closed at the time Lot 3 is developed and Staley Drive
is accepted by the City.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
(Previously Approved)
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property if necessary.
AP&L:No Comment received.
ARE:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A development fee applies,based on the size of
connection,in addition to normal charges for water service.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use and Single
Family for this location.The Planned Office District
is consistent with the Land Use Plan.The resulting R-2
Single Family Residential zoning for the rest of the
applicant'property due to the revocation of the
pre-existing PCD is also consistent with the Land Use Plan.
3
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in an area covered by the Otter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The plan
includes the goals of concentrating businesses on
Stagecoach Road between Crystal Valley Road and Otter Creek
Road,as well as using Planned Zoning Districts to promote
neighborhood friendly commercial development.It also
states that businesses be accessed by loop streets to
minimize curb cuts.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements with the exception of the absence of building
landscaping.The Landscape Ordinance requires a three foot
wide landscape strip between the public parking areas and
building.Some flexibility with this requirement is
allowed.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
This application was not reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee,as there were no new site design issues to
discuss.The second (new)driveway (right in/right out)on
Staley Drive was not shown on the site plan at the time of
Subdivision Committee.
H .ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to rezone
the property from PCD to POD in order to change the
permitted uses from C-2 to 0-3.The applicant proposes to
remove the drive-thru window on the north side of the
building and add a second driveway (right in/right out)
from Staley Drive.Public Works does not support the new
(second)driveway location as the driveway is too close to
Stagecoach Road,and possible traffic congestion problems
could occur.
The previously approved site plan included a ground-mounted
sign near the northeast corner of the property.The sign
was approved with a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum
area of 80 square feet.Based on the fact that the
applicant is proposing office uses for the property,staff
4
August 3,2 i0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
feels that the sign should be reduced to typical office
standards (maximum height —6 feet,maximum area —64
square feet).The sign will be monument-type.
As noted previously,the applicant proposes to use the
existing drive from Stagecoach Road to access Lot 2 until
Staley Drive is constructed.When this drive is removed,
staff suggests that the asphalt driveway area (between the
parking lot and Stagecoach Road)be removed and replaced
with landscaping.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed POD.With resolution
of the driveway issue,the proposed development plan for
this property should have no adverse effect on the general
area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD rezoning for Lot 2,
Stagecoach Village Subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E,and F of this report.2.0-3 permitted uses as a use mix for the property (Lot 2).3.The existing access drive from Stagecoach Road to Lot 2
will be closed and removed when Staley Drive is
constructed.This area is to be replaced with
landscaping.4.The proposed ground-mounted sign shall be monument-type
with a maximum height of 6 feet and a maximum area of 64
square feet.5.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.6.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides
with an 8 foot opaque .fence or wall.7.The following additional conditions were required by the
Planning Commission with the previous approval:a.Hours of operation —8:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.b.No external pay phones,ice machines,vending
machines or speakers.c.No signage other than the ground-mounted sign
proposed and a wall-mounted sign.8.Public Works recommends that the driveway nearest
Stagecoach Road be removed from the site plan.
5
August 3,2.0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-D
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the POD site plan,with a recommendation of
approval with conditions.
See the preliminary plat file (S-1273-A)minute record for
further discussion.
There was a motion to approve the POD application as recommended
by staff.The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and
2 absent.
6
August 3,2~F0
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
NAME:Fence World —Revised PD-C
LOCATION:5810 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Harold Joyner Edward Lofton
8105 Louwanda Dr.15415 Oakcrest
Little Rock,AR 72205 Little Rock,AR 72206
AREA:Approx.2.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-C ALLOWED USES:Commercial —fence
construction business
PROPOSED USE:Commercial —fence
construction business
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On May 18,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
18,017 which rezoned this property to PD-C to allow for the
operation of a fence construction business.The approval
allowed for the use of the existing 1,860 square foot single
family style structure as an office/showroom and the existing
600 square foot barn structure for a shop and storage.The
approval also included the construction of a 3,600 square foot
warehouse building between the two existing structures and a
small paved parking area on the south side of the single family
structure.Interior privacy fencing was shown around an area to
be used for storage and employee parking.Screening fences were
also shown along the property lines where adjacent to R-2 zoned
property,with an ornamental iron fence along the two street
frontages.
The previously approved site plan also showed a ground-mounted
sign,which was to be incorporated into the ornamental iron
August 3,2 &0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
fence at the corner of Shackleford and Stagecoach Roads.The
sign will have a maximum height of six (6)feet and a maximum
area of 64 square feet.The approved hours of operation are
8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PD-C site plan.The applicant proposes to revise the
interior wood screening fence locations.The interior
entry gates will be of chain-link construction with black
strips inserted for screening.The perimeter fences,where
adjacent to R-2 zoned undeveloped property,are shown as
chain-link security fences.The fences as shown on the
revised site plan have been constructed.
The applicant has also removed the 3,600 square foot
warehouse building from the site plan and instead proposes
to construct an addition to each end of the existing barn
structure.The two (2)additions total approximately 1,500
square feet.The applicant has noted that these additions
will match the existing barn structure.
The applicant has also shown an area for employee parking
along the drive from Shackleford Road.The applicant has
requested that the drives and parking areas be gravel.
The revised fence locations,additions to the existing barn
structure,drives and parking areas are shown on the
attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a one-story residential style structure
and an accessory building.Access to the property is
gained by utilizing driveways from Stagecoach and
Shackleford Roads.There is new perimeter and exterior
fencing which has been constructed.There are a number of
existing mature trees on the site.
There is undeveloped (R-2 zoned)property immediately west
and northwest of the site,with a new office/warehouse
building to the north across Shackleford Road.There are
single family residences to the south and southeast along
Stagecoach Road.An auto salvage yard is located to the
east across Stagecoach Road.
2
August 3,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)phone calls
from neighbors with concerns.The Stagecoach-Dodd,Pecan
Lane and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:(Previously approved)
1.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP"(55 feet
from centerline on Stagecoach and Shackleford due to need
for additional right-of-way lane).
2.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"is
required.
3.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175
and the "MSP".
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5.Stozmwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
6.Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by Sec.31-403.
7.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
8.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-
of-way.
9.Move gates back 25 feet,to allow appropriate area for
vehicles to pull off street.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
AEUGA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrant may be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect;not on a dedicated bus route.
3
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the 65 Street West PlanningDistrict.The Future Land Use Plan shows Service Trades
District for this location.The request is for a revision
of an existing Planned Development-Commercial to modify a
storage building and changes in fencing.This change does
not require a land use plan amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This application is in an area covered by the Pecan Lake,
Westwood,Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Action Plan.The
chapter addressing Stagecoach-Dodd Zoning and Land Use
contains an action statement of encouraging new non-
residential development west of Shackleford Road and northofDavidO.Dodd Road.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the northern,southern and
western perimeters of the site.Credit toward fulfilling
ordinance requirements can be given for existing natural
vegetation which will be preserved and that will provide
the year-round screening necessary.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Harold Joyner was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the revised PD-C site plan.Mr.
Joyner briefly explained the revised site plan.He notedthathewasremovingthepreviouslyapprovedwarehouse
structure from the plan due to a willingness to preserveexistingtrees.
The parking areas and fencing within the site were brieflydiscussed.Mr.Joyner noted that the interior gates would
be chain-link with black strips inserted for screening.
4
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
PD-C to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
July 19,2000.The revised plan addresses most of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plan shows areas along the north and west
property lines (where adjacent to undeveloped R-2 zoned
property)where existing trees will remain.The applicant
has noted that additional evergreen plantings will be
provided in these areas where required for screening
proposes.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant requests that the
drives and parking areas,as shown on the site plan,be
constructed of gravel.Staff feels that the drives and
parking areas between the streets and the interior fenced
area should be paved or concreted.Staff has no problem
with the maintenance yard area within the interior fencing
being gravel.This issue must be resolved by the
Commission.
The applicant has also noted that there is a portable
toilet located within the interior fenced area,which is
used by his construction crew.The applicant proposes to
remove the portable toilet when the first addition,which
will include a restroom,is made to the barn structure.
The applicant anticipates this first barn addition to be
made within six (6)months.
The applicant has also noted that the required right-of-way
for Shackleford and Stagecoach Roads was previously
dedicated.The applicant also proposes to make an in-lieu
contribution for future street construction,based on the
construction cost for the barn additions.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the revised PD-C.With resolution
of the paving issue,the revised plan should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
5
August 3,2 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PD-C subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E,and F of this report.2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.The proposed ground-mounted sign will have a maximumheightof6feetandamaximumareaof64squarefeet.4.The facades of the proposed building (barn)additions
must match the existing barn structure.5.The applicant must preserve the existing mature trees onthesite,as proposed.6.All vehicular use areas (drives and parking areas)
between the streets and the interior fenced area must be
paved or concreted.7.The portable toilet on the site must be removed when thefirstadditiontothebarnstructureismade,within 6months.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Harold Joyner was present,representing the application.There
were no objectors present.Staff briefly described the revised
PD-C application,with a recommendation of approval with
conditions.One of the conditions included paving the drives
and parking areas between the streets and the interior privacy
fenced area.
Chair Adcock asked Mr.Joyner if he had any objections to pavingtheareasasdescribedbystaff.Mr.Joyner noted that he was
not against paving the areas,but would need to look into it.
Chair Adcock stated that at least the driveway aprons would needtobepavedtoeliminategravelfrombeingpulledontothestreets.Mr.Joyner stated that he had no problem paving the
aprons.Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the drive
aprons needed to be paved.
Commissioner Muse asked about landscape requirements.Staff
noted that new paved parking areas were required to be
landscaped.Mr.Joyner stated that he had no problem with the
landscaping.
6
August 3,2i.0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643-A
There was a motion to approve the revised PD-C subject to the
conditions as noted by staff.The motion passed with a vote of
9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
7
August 3,2.0
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6883
NAME:Gill —Short-Form PRD
LOCATION:5209/5215 "J"Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
John P.Gill Donald W.Brooks
3801 TCBY Tower 20820 Arch Street Pike
Capitol and Broadway Hensley,AR 72065
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.5 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2/R-4 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
and Two Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Multifamily
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Waiver of right-of-way dedication and street improvements
for "J"and "I"Streets
BACKGROUND:
The property at 5209 "J"Street contains a six-unit apartment
building (40 foot height),with an access drive from "J"Street
and a small area of gravel parking in the rear yard.There arefour(4)garages within this structure,which are accessed from"J"Street.
The property at 5215 "J"Street contains a single familyresidentialstructureandthepropertyat5212"I"Street
contains a duplex (33 foot height).These structures are served
by on-street parking.
Augus t 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 5209/5215"J"Street and 5212 "I"Street from R-2/R-4 to PRD.The
applicant proposes to remove the single family residential
structure at 5215 "J"Street and construct a two-story (30feetinheight),four-unit townhouse structure with
associated parking along the proposed building's east side.
The applicant also proposes to upgrade the parking for the
existing six-unit apartment and duplex structures.The
applicant proposes to construct a new parking area behind
the six-unit apartment building,with a second access point
(from "I"Street).A total of 20 parking spaces is shown
on the proposed site plan.There are four (4)existing
garage parking spaces on the "J"Street side of the six-
unit apartment building.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of right-of-way
dedication and street improvements for "J"and "I"Streets.
The applicant has noted that a section of sidewalk will be
constructed along "J"Street adjacent to where the new
townhouse building is proposed.
The proposed and existing buildings,access drives and
parking plan are noted on the attached site plan.The
applicant has submitted an east (front)elevation for
Planning Commission review.
The applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment for
this property (Item 3.1 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are three (3)existing residential structures on thissiteasexplainedintheprevious"Background"paragraph.
There are single family residential style structures to the
east,west,south across "I"Street and north across "J"
Street.A number of the residential structures in this
area contain more than one dwelling unit.Mount St.Mary'
School is located further east across Kavanaugh Blvd.Holy
Souls church and school are located further west across
Harrison Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)calls from
persons expressing concerns with the proposed development.
The Hillcrest,Heights and Prospect Terrace Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
2
August 3,2~JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Right-of-way dedication recpxired on "I"and "J"Streets
per the "MSP"(60 feet recpxired.).
2.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage is recpxired.3.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"is
recpxired.
4.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".(Buffered)
5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.(One way exit to I Street with parking as shown)6.Prepare a letter for streetlights as recpxired by Sec.
31-403.
7.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is recpxired.
9.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
recpxired.
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:8"is the largest meter size available off the
existing 2"water main.
Fire Department:Check with Water Works regarding the
nearest fire hydrant.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect;Near routes 1,21 and 22.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This recpxest is located in the Heights/Hillcrest PlanningDistrict.The applicant's property is shown as Single
Family and Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Plan.The recpxest is for a zone change from R-2 Single
Family and R-4 Two-Family to a Planned Residential
3
August 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
Development.The applicant wishes to add four townhouses
on the property in addition to the existing 8 units.
This change will require a Land Use Plan Amendment for a
change from Single Family and Low Density Residential to
Multi-Family.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This request is located in an area covered by the Hillcrest
Neighborhood Plan.The chapter on housing issues contains
objectives of regulating construction and redevelopment.
The objective also contains an action statement of creating
a Design Overlay District that would require Planned Unit
Development (PUD)for reclassification of land use,
density,or other infrastructure improvements.
Implementation mechanisms included review by the Board of
Adjustment and Planning Commission as well as revision of
Building Codes,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,and
Environmental Codes.Factors to be considered in reviewing
Planned Unit Developments for Hillcrest are listed as
construction/property maintenance,density,and character.
The site plan submitted does not provide for the minimum
six foot wide land use zoning buffer nor the minimum four
foot wide landscape strip required along the eastern and a
portion of the southern perimeters.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the southern,eastern and
western perimeters of the site.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
John Gill was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the PRD.The landscaping and screening
requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.Gill noted that
he also owned the property immediately east of this site
and could replat a portion of that property into this
property to satisfy the landscape and buffer requirements.
The Public Works requirements were also discussed.The
required dedication of right-of-way was briefly discussed.
4
August 3,c i0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
It was noted that Mr.Gill could request a waiver of the
dedication if desired.
Commissioner Berry asked Mr.Gill if he had met with the
Hillcrest Neighborhood Association.Mr.Gill responded
that he had not yet met with the association.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PRD to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
July 19,2000.The building heights have been noted on thesiteplan.The applicant also shows a dumpster location
behind the existing duplex structure.The dumpster area
must be screened on 3 sides with an 8 foot opaque fence orwall.
The revised plan also shows a revised parking plan which
provides for a four (4)foot landscape strip along aportionoftheeastpropertyline.The three (3)parkingspacesnearestto"I"Street should be removed from the
plan based on the fact that the required landscape strip
and maneuvering area cannot be provided.A four (4)foot
landscape strip is also required along the west side of the
parking space behind the existing duplex unit.The City'
Zoning Ordinance would typically require 18 parking spacesforamultifamilydevelopmentofthissize.
The revised site plan also shows a six foot high screeningfencealongthepropertylineswestandsouthofthe
proposed townhouse building.The applicant has noted thattherewillbenosignageonthesite.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
waiver of right-of-way dedication and street improvementsto"J"and "I"Streets.Public Works recommends denial oftherequestedwaiver.
Also noted in paragraph A,the applicant has filed a land
use plan amendment for this property.Staff believes thatthelanduseplanamendmentandtheproposedPRD
development are not appropriate for this property.Stafffeelsthattheproposeddevelopmentwillresultinanincreaseinuseintensityinthisareaandisinconflict
with the scale and character of the neighborhood.Inaddition,several large mature trees would have to be
removed due to the proposed construction.
5
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed PRD rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
John Gill was present,representing the application.There were
several persons present with concerns.Staff briefly described
the proposed PRD,with a recommendation of denial.The PRD and
associated Land Use Plan Amendment were discussed
simultaneously.
John Gill addressed the Commission in support of the
applications.He described the general area and explained the
proposed development plan for the property.In response to alettersubmittedbytheHillcrestResidentsAssociation,Mr.
Gill stated that he had no problem eliminating the driveway onto"I"Street and decreasing the amount of parking.He noted that
the exterior of the structure would look like other structures
in the neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Berry suggested accessing the property from "J"
Street only,with only a residential drive from "I"Street to
serve the duplex.Mr.Gill indicated no problem with that
suggestion.
Keith Thompson addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposed PRD and presented a petition to that effect.He noted
concern with the maintenance of the property.He stated that
the property is often overgrown with trash on the site.He
objected to the removal of the large oak tree next to the
existing single family structure.
Doug Greenwood also addressed the Commission with concerns.He
noted concerns with the drive onto "I"Street and traffic.He
was also concerned with the maintenance of the property and
property values in the area.
Keith Lynch also addressed the Commission with concerns.He
stated that the development was not in character with the
neighborhood.He also noted concern with the driveway onto "I"
Street.
6
August 3 &2 ~&0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
W.M.Robertson also addressed the Commission with concerns.He
noted concerns with the driveway onto "I"Street and the removal
of trees.
Jim Linsky also noted concern with the proposed development.He
noted traffic'oncerns.
Neil Dobbins noted concern with the maintenance of rental
property in this area.
Patricia Thompson presented photos of the property to the
Commission.She was also concerned with the maintenance of the
property.She also noted concerns with traffic and on-street
parking in the immediate area.She noted that the applicant was
proposing to overbuild the site and was concerned with the rear
and side building facades.
Dewitts Shotts expressed concern with parking in this area.
Commissioner Faust asked how many curb cuts there were along
this block of "I"Street.Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted
that there were curb cuts,but did not know how many.
Commissioner Faust commented on the orientation of the proposed
four-unit building (facing the side yard).She noted that the
orientation was uncharacteristic of the neighborhood.She
stated that she did not agree with the density objection and
noted concern with the driveway onto "I"Street.
Commissioner Lowry stated that the proposed development would
not create a traffic problem.He noted that the complaints were
primarily with the maintenance of the property and he discussed
this issue.He noted that he supported the application.
Mr.Gill noted that the existing six-unit structure housed one-
bedroom units.He noted that one of his goals was to have moreoff-street parking.He discussed the maintenance of the
property and noted that some of the responsibility for
maintenance is placed on the tenants.
Chair Adcock asked Mr.Gill what he would do with the propertyifthisapplicationwerenotapproved.Mr.Gill noted that he
would look into building a duplex on each lot and explained.He
noted that the four units in one building would be a better
solution.
7
August 3,2~i0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that the
property would have to be rezoned for duplex structures.
Commissioner Lowry asked if Mr.Gill would amend the application
to have the driveway from "J"Street only serve the 6-unit and
4-unit buildings,with the drive from "I"Street only serving
the duplex structure.Mr.Gill stated that he would amend the
application.
Commissioner Berry offered additional comments regarding access
and parking.
The density for multifamily land use and this property was
briefly discussed.
Commissioner Muse noted concern with the size of the property
and the proposed density.
Commissioner Rector questioned having the drive from "I"Streetatall.Commissioner Berry responded that it would provide off-street parking to the duplex structure.This issue was briefly
discussed.
Commissioner Rector asked if the existing parking area would be
improved with adding more parking.Mr.Gill noted that the
existing parking would be upgraded.The issue of having moreoff-street parking was briefly discussed.
Commissioner Rector asked Mr.Gill why a four-plex was proposed
instead of a duplex.Mr.Gill noted that two units would not becosteffective.He noted that trees would have to be removed
regardless of what was constructed on the property.He also
noted that he would eliminate the drive onto "I"Street.
Commissioner Rector noted that there should be no driveway onto"I"Street.Mr.Gill noted that he would amend the application
to remove the driveway onto "I"Street and the three
southernmost parking spaces.
Mr.Lawson discussed other options that were available to Mr.Gill and discussed the staff concerns with the proposed
development (density,building orientation,etc.).
The design issues associated with the parking area were briefly
discussed.
8
August 3 &2s &0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6883
Commissioner Faust asked the City Attorney if the land use plan
amendment was necessary for the PRD rezoning.Stephen Giles,
City Attorney,noted that the land use plan would not have to be
changed in order to approve the PRD.This issue was briefly
discussed.
Commissioner Rector noted that Mr.Gill needed to eliminate the"I"Street driveway and the three southernmost parking spaces
from the site plan and work out a turnaround with staff.Mr.
Gill agreed to the changes.
Mr.Robertson expressed additional concerns with the "I"Street
driveway.
Mr.Thompson asked what the parking requirements were.Staff
noted that the typical parking requirement was 18 spaces and
eliminating the three spaces would leave 17 spaces.
A motion was made to approve the PRD,with the site plan
amendments as agreed to by Mr.Gill.The motion included a
waiver of the street improvements to "I"and "J"Streets.Staff
noted that Public Works supported the waiver of street
Improvements and that no additional right-of-way dedication was
required.The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes,3 nays and
2 absent.
9
August 3,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Heights/Hillcrest
Planning District
Location:5209 &5215 J Street
Reccnest:Single Family and Low Density Residential to
Multi-Family
Source:John P.Gill
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District from Single Family and Low Density Residential to
Multi-Family.The Multi-Family category accommodates
residential development of ten (10)to thirty-six (36)
dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to build
apartments.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The approximately 0.5+acres is currently zoned R-2 Single
Family and R-4 Two Family and is occupied by a duplex,a
single family house and a six-unit apartment building.The
property on the north and east sides of the applicant's
property is zoned R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two Family and
is occupied by single family houses and duplexes
respectively.The properties to the south and west are
zoned R-2 Single Family and R-4 Two Family and are occupied
by single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 16,1999,multiple changes took place about a mile
to the southwest of the applicant's property on the east
side of University Avenue between Markham and Lee Streets.
On July 16,1996,multiple changes took place about a mile
to the southeast of the applicant's property on Pine and
Cedar Streets south of Markham Street.
The applicant's property is shown as Low Density
Residential.The property on the north and west is shown
as Single Family and Low Density Residential is shown to
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
the east.The neighboring property to the east of the
applicant is shown as Low Density Residential.The
property on the south side of "I"Street is shown as Single
Family to the west and Multifamily to the east.The
applicant's property is also between two nearby areas shown
as Public Institutional.The Mount St.Mary Academy is
located on the east side of Kavanaugh Blvd.Our Lady of
the Holy Souls Church and School is located on the west
side of Tyler Street.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
No adjacent streets are shown on the Master Street Plan as
a collector or above.
PARKS:
Allsopp Park is shown on the Park System Master Plan about
4 of a mile northeast of the applicant's property.The
Park System Master Plan also shows Prospect Terrace Park
about 1/8 of a mile northwest of the applicant's property.
Allsopp Park and Prospect Terrace Park are not affected by
this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This request is located in an area covered by the Hillcrest
Neighborhood Plan.The chapter on housing issues contains
an objective of regulating construction and redevelopment
to encourage new development,which fits into the scale and
style of the neighborhood.The objective also contains an
action statement of creating a Design Overlay District that
would require Planned Unit Development (PUD)for
reclassification of land use,density,or other
infrastructure improvements.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in an urban area
originally developed in the 1920's.A balance between houses,
duplexes and apartments characterizes this section of
Hillcrest.Small single-family houses near Harrison Street
and small duplexes located near Kavanaugh Boulevard
characterize the neighboring property.Small apartment
2
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
buildings of varying size are located to the south along
Kavanaugh Boulevard.Approval of this amendment will increase
the density of dwelling units located on the property from 16
units per acre to 24 units per acre.An increase in density
of dwelling units on the applicant'property will increase
the amount of multifamily units available in this section of
the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Heights N.A.,
Hillcrest Residents N.A.,Prospect Terrace N.A.Inc.,and
Sherrill Heights Garden Club.Staff has received no
comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT IONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.Approval ofthisamendmentwillresultinanincreaseinintensityof
use in this area that is in conflict with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked if there was a Single Family
house facing south fronting "I"Street as well as the one
in the plan amendment.Brian Minyard,City Staff,stated
that the house in the plan amendment is a duplex and listed
the properties in the amendment area and adjacent to it.
John P.Gill the applicant stated his case before the
commission with a description of the current condition of
the property and presented his proposal for the property.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked the applicant if there was
any objection to keeping the access to the 4-plex only fromJStreetandconstructinganewdrivewaytotheduplexfrom"I"Street and eliminating access from both properties.
The applicant stated that he would have no objections for
doing so.
3
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
Keith Thompson spoke in opposition to the application and
presented a petition of homeowners opposed to the
application.Mr.Thompson then listed neighboring
properties owned by the applicant located in the
neighborhood and described a history of poor maintenance of
said properties.Mr.Thompson also objected to the
potential removal of any trees located on the property in
question.
Doug Greenwood spoke in opposition to the application and
opposed the new location for an entrance to the property.
Mr.Greenwood described a history of poor maintenance of
the applicant's properties and expressed concerns abouttraffic.
Keith Lynch spoke in opposition to the application and
objected to the removal of trees.Mr.Lynch also stated
concerns about altering the grade of the property to
accommodate a new driveway as well as the effect of the
proposal on traffic.
W.M.Robertson spoke in opposition to the application and
described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's
properties.Mr.Robertson also stated objections to a new
driveway and to the removal of trees.
Jim Linsky spoke in opposition to the application and
described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's
properties.Mr.Linsky stated worries about introducing
new multi-family units in an area surrounded by single-
family housing in the area.The speaker also expressed
concerns about traffic and stated that the closure of "I"
Street for Holy Souls Church and School coupled with thetrafficgeneratedbyMountSaintMary's Academy already
caused traffic problems in the neighborhood.
Neil Dobbins spoke in opposition to the application and
stated concerns about traffic.Mr.Dobbins also described
a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties
in the neighborhood.
Patricia Thompson spoke in opposition to the application
and presented pictures of the applicant's property to the
commission.Ms.Thompson listed concerns regarding the
4
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
lack of off street parking in the neighborhood,the density
of neighborhood,the difficulties of garbage pick-up caused
by traffic congestion.
DeWitt Shotts spoke in opposition to the application and
stated concerns about traffic.Mr.Shotts also stated
concerns about the density of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Judith Faust asked if there were curbs cuts
currently on the north side of "I"Street.Bob Turner,Public
Works,stated that this application did not have a curb cut
but that there were curb cuts on this block of "I"Street.
Commissioner Judith Faust asked a cpxestion about the
eastward orientation of proposed 4-plex that is not
characteristic of the neighborhood.Jim Lawson City Staff
stated that the proposed building could not be turned
because of its size.She continued that she was not
concerned about density of the proposed development but
about traffic problems.
Commissioner Bob Lowry stated that he did not think the
application would add to traffic problems in the
neighborhood because most of the traffic problems are
caused by other uses in the area.
Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked the applicant if he had
any comments to make in response to the opposition.The
applicant stated that the current apartment building on the
property contains six units.The applicant described the
parking as adecpxate and that he has a goal of providingoff-street parking for his tenants.Mr.Gill also stated
that the renters of single-family homes were responsibleforthemaintenanceupkeepofthepropertywhilethe
apartment building was under contract maintenance.Mr.
Gill also addressed the alternative of duplexes but that
duplexes would spread problems and that the problems would
remain the same.Mr.Gill said that if not approved he
could put either two single-family houses or duplexes on
the property.
Jim Lawson,city staff,stated that the applicant's only
option without rezoning the property would be to construct
two single-family homes on the two separate lots.
5
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would be
willing to amend his application according the conversation
between the applicant and Commissioner Berry regarding the
driveway.The applicant said he would be willing to amend
his application.
Commissioner Craig Barry stated that the opposition was
based on perceptions of the residents concerning the
applicant's property.The real problems concerning traffic
in the area are caused by nearby institutions that generatetraffic.Commissioner Berry stated his support for off
street parking with the parking placed in the interior of
the applicant's property and added that a second access to
the property was not necessary.Commissioner Berry closed
by stating that the neighborhood association submitted aletterstatingthatitdidnotopposetheremovalofthe
single family house as long as a 2"access to the property
was not permitted.
Commissioner Rohn Muse asked staff how many units the
applicant could have if the application was approved.
Monte Moore,city staff,stated that the applicant could
have more than 10 units but the specific request for the
long form POD was for 12 units.The resulting density
would be 24 units per acre.Mr.Moore added that the
planned residential development specifically committed the
applicant to the proposed 12 units.
Commissioner Rohn Muse asked the applicant how large the
property was.The applicant replied that the property was
considerably less than an acre.Commissioner Muse stated
concerns about the size of the property.
Commissioners Bill Rector and Commissioner Berry began a
discussion about access to the property.
Commissioners Bill Rector asked the applicant why he wanted
to build a 4-plex on the property.The applicant stated
that his reasons were economics and that any new single-
family house would destroy trees on the property.
Commissioners Bill Rector stated that he did not want to
approve any new access to the property from "I"Street.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would you
6
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-04-03
be willing to amend application according to the
discussions between the applicant and the commissioners.
The applicant said he was willing to amend the application
according to discussions held and not place a second
entrance to the property on "I"Street.
Planning Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked Mr.Lawson about
the type of development allowed on the property according
to the current zoning of the property.Mr.Lawson,citystaff,stated that one small house would be allowed by
right on each lot and added that the proposal before the
commission requested a new use that is too intense for the
neighborhood.Monte Moore,city staff,added that the
applicant would have to change the configuration of his
parking lot.The applicant stated that he did not intend
to mislead anyone at the meeting concerning his
application.
Commissioner Judith Faust asked if a land use plan
amendment was necessary for a Planned Residential
Development.Stephen Giles replied that a land use plan
amendment was not legally required and added that the
Planned Residential Development is a combination of a land
use plan,zoning and subdivision review.Jim Lawson,citystaff,stated that the current use of the applicant's
property is non-conforming.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The
item was denied with a vote of 5 ayes,4 noes,and 2
absent.The item failed because of a lack of 6 votes for
the change per the commission's bylaws.
7
August 3z 2 a'0
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6884
NAME:Jones —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:3222 West 12 Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Bonnie Jones Ollen Dee Wilson
1872 Schiller Street P.O.Box 604
Little Rock,AR 72202 No.Little Rock,AR 72115-0604
AREA:0.2 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-3 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Beauty Salon
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Recpxested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 3222 West
12 Street from R-3 to PD-C in order to convert theexistingsinglefamilystructureintoabeautysalon.The
proposed beauty salon will be a four (4)chair operation.
The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m.—7:00p.m.,Tuesday through Saturday.The applicant has notedthattherewouldbeawallsignonthe12Streetsideof
the building which would occupy no more than 10 percent ofthebuilding's facade.
The applicant is proposing to asphalt a small area in therearyardforthree(3)new parking spaces.There is one(1)existing parking space within the existing garagestructure.The property will be accessed by utilizing anexistingdrivewayfromBrownStreet.
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6884
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one-story frame single family
structure on the site.There is an accessory garagestructureintherearyard,accessed by an existing
driveway near the northwest corner of the property.Thereisanexistingpavedalleyalongtheproperty's north
property line.
There are single family residences to the north and east.
A commercial building is located to the west across BrownStreet.There are also single family residences to the
south across West 12 Street,with a commercial building to
the southeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Central High,Stephens Area Faith,PinetoWoodrowandCapitolHillNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP"(70 feet
required on 12 Street and 60 feet on Brown).Minimum
alley dedication to 20 feet width.
With Construction
2.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"is
required.
3.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
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.
2
August 3,2~F0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6884
Water:Contact Carroll Keatts (phone 377-1241)at theLittleRockMunicipalWaterWorksregardingbackflow
prevention requirements for beauty salons.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect.On bus route ¹3 and close to ¹9.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the I-630 Planning District.
The applicant's property is located in an area shown as
Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Plan.The request is for
a zone change from R-3 Single Family to a Planned
Development-Commercial.The applicant wishes to redevelop
the property for a beauty shop.This change does not
require a land use plan amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This request is located in an area covered by the Stephens
Area Neighborhood Action Plan.The Stephens Area
Neighborhood Action Plan contains the economic development
goal of enticing local businesses to locate in the Stephensarea.An action statement relevant to this application is
working with Economic Development and Chamber of Commercetoestablish12andWoodrowStreetsasahighpriority
Economic Development Concentration area.
Landsca e Issues:
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings,is required along the eastern site perimeter.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Bonnie Jones and Sandra Giles were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the PD-C.Mrs.
Jones noted that there would be no dumpster on the site andthattheproposedsignlocationwouldbeprovidedtostaff.
3
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6884
The required right-of-way dedications were briefly
discussed.It was noted that a waiver of this requirement
could be requested.
Staff noted that a revised site plan needed to be submitted
to provide on-site parking and the appropriate landscaped
areas.
It was also suggested that Mrs.Jones contact the
neighborhood associations in the area.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C to
the full Commission for resolution.
H .ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
July 24,2000.The revised plan addresses the concerns asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The parking
plan with landscaped areas (street and building)and
screening along the east property line has been shown.Therevisedplanalsoshowstheright-of-way to be dedicated as
required by Public Works.
The proposed site plan shows a total of four (4)parkingspaces,three (3)new spaces within the rear yard area and
one (1)existing space within the existing garagestructure.The ordinance would typically require six (6)
parking spaces for a beauty salon of this size.Staff has
no problem with the parking plan as proposed.
To staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding issuesassociatedwiththeproposedPD-C.The applicant has done
an adequate job in addressing the issues as raised by staff
and the Subdivision Committee.Staff feels that the
proposed PD-C zoning will have no adverse effect on the
general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-C zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
4
August 3,2 .0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6884
3.Signage will be limited to a wall sign on the 12 Streetsideofthebuildingnottoexceed10percentofthebuilding's faqade.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
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 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
August 3,2v JO
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6885
NAME:Petkovsek —Short-Form PD-I
LOCATION:North side of East 2"Street,approximately 400 feet
east of John Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Glenn Petkovsek Donald W.Brooks
521 East Markham Street 20820 Arch Street Pike
Little Rock,AR 72201 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:approx.1 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-4 ALLOWED USES:Single Family and Two-Family
Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office/Warehouse,I-2
Permitted Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property on the north
side of East 2"Street,approximately 400 feet east of JohnStreetfromR-4 to PD-I.The applicant proposes to
construct a 24,080 square foot office/warehouse building on
the site along with an associated parking area for 21
vehicles.The applicant has noted that up to 5,000 squarefeetofthebuildingwillbeusedforofficespaceandthe
remainder for combined production and warehouse space.The
maximum building height as noted is 33.5 feet.
The proposed use of the property is a laser printing
business with services for delivery of certified mailing
and compliance notices.The applicant is proposing I-2
permitted uses as alternate uses of the property.The
proposed hours of operation are as follows:
August 3,2~JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6885
8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday —Friday
The applicant is providing for the 20 foot building area as
requested by the Parks and Recreation Department.This
area is between the curb line of East 2"Street and the
proposed building.
The proposed site plan shows a deck along the north side of
the proposed building.The applicant notes that the deck
will only be used by the property owners as a scenic
outside viewing area.
The applicant is proposing two (2)curb cuts on East 2"
Street.The westernmost drive will access the building's
parking area and the east drive will access the proposed
covered dock.There are no ground-mounted signs or
dumpster area shown on the site plan.
The applicant has also submitted a west side building
elevation.This elevation is attached for Planning
Commission review.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and mostly covered with small
trees and brush.The Arkansas River is located along the
property's north boundary.The Fraternal Order of Police
lodge is located immediately east,with undeveloped
property further east.There is undeveloped property to
the south across East 2"Street,with a mixture of
industrial and residential uses further south and
southeast.There is an office/warehouse type building
immediately west of this site and an office building
further west along the north side of East 2"Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Downtown,East Little Rock,Hanger Hill
and River Market Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"is
required.
2.Sidewalks shall be conforming to Sec.31-175 and the
AIMS P II
2
August 3,2i~'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6885
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,487 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.5.Prepare letter for streetlights as required by Sec.31-403.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)is required.
8.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area perSec.29-186 (b)will be required.9.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
10.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work.
11.Current ordinance does not permit two drives.A lot
requires a minimum frontage of 625 feet for two drives.12.Driveway for dock is not acceptable.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available for property.Exact location of
development required by Little Rock Wastewater Utility duetoexistingmainsinthearea.
AP&L:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A water main extension will be required to provide
water service and fire protection to this building.
Fire Department:Locate nearest fire hydrant.Check to
see if address is in fire district.If so,no wooden
decks will be allowed.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752fordetails.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No effect;near bus route ¹12.
3
August 3,2%-SO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6885
L.R.Parks and Recreation:
Parks and Recreation requests that a 20 foot wide corridor
measured from the curb line of East 2"Street to the north
be provided for the construction of a bikeway.The
corridor would consist of a four (4)foot wide grass strip
beginning at the curb line,with a six (6)foot concrete
sidewalk/bikeway and a 10 foot landscape strip between the
sidewalk/bikeway and the building.The Department of Parks
and Recreation has noted no objections to removing this
property from the master park plan,as long as the
applicant agrees to provide the above described
sidewalk/bikeway and landscaping.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning
District.The applicant's property is located in an area
shown as Industrial on the Future Land Use Plan.The
request is for a zone change from R-4 Two Family to Planned
Development-Industrial.The applicant wishes to develop
the property for Industrial uses.This change does not
require a land use plan amendment.However,the Park
System Master Plan shows a chain of parks,open spaces
connected by trails (Both existing and Proposed)along the
south bank of the Arkansas River.The applicant's property
is located along a portion of the Arkansas River shown as a
Priority Two Open Space where a trail is proposed to link
parks and open spaces located next to the river.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is not
covered by a city recognized neighborhood.plan.
Landsca e Issues:
The site plan submitted is short of the 429 square foot
interior landscaping requirement by the Landscape Ordinance
by 153 square feet.
4
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6885
typically require a minimum of 26 spaces to serve the
proposed use.Staff supports the parking plan as proposed.
The applicant has informed staff that there will be verylittlecustomertraffic.
The original site plan submitted for staff review showed a
covered dock area with access drive on the east propertyline.Public Works requested that the dock and driveway he
moved to the west.The revised plan shows a dock area with
driveway further to the west,but leaves the first dock
with a label of "Alternate covered dock"and "Alternate
Drive".Staff feels that this alternate dock area and
drive should be removed from the site plan.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed PD-I.The proposed
development should have no adverse effect on the general
area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-I rezoning subject to
the following conditions:
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 away
from adjacent property.3.The 20 foot wide bikeway area must be provided as
requested by Parks and Recreation.
4.Staff will draft an ordinance removing this property from
the Master Parks Plan and submit to the Board of
Directors with the rezoning request.5.I-2 permitted uses will be allowed as alternate uses for
the development.6.The easternmost covered dock area and driveway must be
removed from the site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Andy Francis was present,representing the application.There
were no objectors present.Staff briefly described the PD-I
with a recommendation of approval with conditions.Staff noted
that the applicant had removed the easternmost dock area and
drive from the site plan,and that the applicant had agreed to
construct a 9 foot bike path.
6
August 3 z 2i &0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6885
Commissioner Earnest discussed the issue of this property and
the Parks Master Plan.He discussed what this area along the
river would look like in 20 to 30 years.He noted that a few
years ago the City spent $50,000 to purchase the property
immediately east of the FOP property.He noted that the Parks
Department supported obtaining this property,but that the funds
were not available.
Commissioner Earnest asked if the City would have to purchase
this property if the Planning Commission and City Board denied
the application.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and
Development,noted that the City must declare an intent to
purchase the property and do so within one year.This issue was
briefly discussed.
Commissioner Earnest noted that the long-term use of the
property and the general area should be discussed.He also
noted that the potential development of the properties further
east should be discussed.
Commissioner Rector noted that it was ultimately up to the City
Board as whether or not to purchase the property.
Commissioner Faust also commented on the future development of
the properties further east and noted that this rezoning would
not be in the best interest of the City.
Commissioner Berry asked about the Presidential Library
boundary.Stephen Giles,City Attorney,briefly discussed thedistrictboundaries.
Commissioner Berry discussed removal of the property from the
Parks Master Plan.He did not support the removal of the
property from the Plan.
There was a motion to approve the PD-I rezoning as recommended
by staff.The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,5 nays,
3 absent and 1 abstention (Adcock).
7
August 3,2~JO
ZTEM NO.:6 FZLE NO.:Z-6886
NAME:The Church at Rock Creek —Long-Form POD —Conceptual Plan
LOCATZON:Northwest corner of Znterstate 430 and West 36 Street
DEVELOPER:ENGZNEER:
The Church at Rock Creek McGetrick and McGetrick
4217 S.Shackleford Rd.,319 East Markham St.,Suite 202
Suite 1 Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72204
AREA:40 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:Construction of new
collector street
ZONZNG:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Church Facility and
Ancillary Uses
VARZANCES/WAZVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 40 acre site at the
northwest corner of Znterstate 430 and West 36 Street from
R-2 to POD.The applicant is proposing a conceptual site
plan for a church facility and related ancillary uses.
The development plan includes construction of a collectorstreetfromWest36Street,at the southwest corner of the
church property,to Bowman Road.Access to the church
development will be gained by utilizing a private boulevardstreet,which will run from near the southeast corner of
the church property to the proposed collector street near
the center of the site at the west property line.
August 3,2 JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
Please see the attached conceptual site plan for the
applicant's approximate proposed placement of the various
buildings,parking areas,softball fields and street
design.Attached is the church's description of
development,which includes a list of the buildings
proposed (with maximum building area)and other site
features within the proposed church campus.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded,with varying degrees of
slope.Interstate 430 is located along the property's east
boundary.There are single family residences to the south
and southeast along West 36 Street.There is also an
animal clinic on the south side of West 36 Street.There
are also single family residences immediately north of this
property.The property immediately west of this site is
also undeveloped and wooded.The property further west,
along the west side of Bowman Road,is zoned R-2 and
contains a scattering of single family residences on largelots.There is also a nonconforming plant nursery business
along the west side of Bowman Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has met with three (3)of the
adjacent property owners to the north who have expressed
concerns with the proposed development.The Sandpiper,
John Barrow and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Collector Street connecting Bowman to 36 must be shown
on plan and constructed.36 Street is a minor
arterial.Improve to standards and as'a minimum improve
under I-430 to allow right turn and center left turn
into proposed driveway.
2.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP".Right-
of-way required is 45 feet from centerline.(36 Street
arterial right-of-way cuts southwest corner)
3.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage.
4.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities.
5.Proposed design of street conforming to "MSP"is
required.
2
August 3,2~JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
6.Street cross-sections of proposed streets at 100 feet
stations are required.
7.Street profiles showing existing and proposed
centerlines are required.
8.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
9.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
10.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
11.Direction of flow for watercourses leaving the propertyisrequired.
12.Drainage area size and runoff coefficient for
watercourses entering the tract is required.
13.Proposed ditch sections is required,with easements.
14.Description of existing surface features including soil
type and vegetation is required.
15.Prepare letter for streetlights as required by Sec.
31-403.
16.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
17.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation.
18.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)
will be required with a building permit.
19.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186 (b)will be required.
20.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
21.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.
22.Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed facility.
Address how the proposed facility affects turn movements
at the intersection of Bowman and 36 Street.
23.Skewed intersections cause safety and maneuvering
problems.All streets must be designed to intersect at
90-degree angles.
24.The circulating road around the facility must be built
to collector street standards.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
AP&L:No Comment.
3
August 3,2 JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.A
development fee applies,based on the size of connections
and an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies,in
addition to normal charges for water service.These fees
will apply for the fire service connection and for any
meters whether they are off the public water main or the
fire service line.Other special conditions apply if the
meter(s)are off the private fire service line.Backflow
prevention will be required on the domestic service for
the medical clinic and possibly other connections.
Contact Carroll Keatts (phone 377-1241)at the Water
Works regarding backflow prevention requirements.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrants will be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route;however,the
proposed development should be designed to allow bus/transit
access.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.
The applicant's property is shown as Low Density
Residential on the Future Land Use Plan.The request is
for a zone change from R-2 Single Family to Planned Office
Development.The applicant wishes to develop the property
for facilities to serve the needs for a variety of church
ministries that include recreation,counseling,automobile
repair shop,auditorium,atrium,and class rooms.The
proposal will require a Land Use Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood
plan.
4
August 3,2 v0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
Areas set aside for land use buffering along the western
perimeter and portions of the southern perimeter do not
meet the minimum width requirement of 27 feet.The full
width requirement without transfers is 40 feet.
The proposed street buffer width along I-430 meets
ordinance requirements when averaged out,however,in one
area it drops to a width of 10 feet.The full width
requirement without transfers being 56 feet.
Since this is a heavily wooded site,the City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees
of 6 inch caliper or larger.
This site will be required to be screened from the
residential properties to the north,south and west.This
screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings.Credit toward
fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing
vegetation that provides the year-round screening
necessary.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Pat McGetrick and John McMorran were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the proposed
conceptual plan.
In response to questions from staff,Mr.McMorran noted
that the north buffer area would be undistur'bed and that
the softball fields would be lighted.The location of the
softball field was briefly discussed.
The Public Works requirements were discussed at length,
including the collector street location.Tad Borkowski,of
Public Works,noted that a traffic impact study was needed.
This issue was briefly discussed.
The required land use buffers were also discussed.It was
noted that additional buffer width was needed along the
western and portion of the southern perimeters.
5
August 3,2..0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised conceptual plan drawing
to staff on July 20,2000.The revised plan addresses some
of the concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The collector street between West 36 Street
and Bowman Road has been shown on the plan.The softball
fields have been moved further north away from the single
family residences along West 36 Street and the total
parking figure has been reduced from 2,000 to 1,750.A
church facility with a seating capacity of 7,000 would
typically recpxire a minimum of 1,750 parking spaces.
Although staff has no initial objection to the proposed
church development at this location,there are several
issues relating to site design features which need to be
worked out and resolved prior to the public hearing.There
are also several Public Works issues (traffic impact
information,stormwater detention facilities,etc.)which
need to be resolved.
As noted in paragraph C.,staff has met with several
concerned neighbors who own property immediately north of
this proposed development.Staff has suggested that the
church meet with these neighbors to attempt to resolve some
of their concerns.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Although staff has no initial objection to the proposedchurchdevelopmentofthisproperty,there are several sitedesignandPublicWorksissuesthatneedtoberesolvedpriortoPlanningCommissionconsideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3 2000)
Mark Evans,John McMorran,Pat McGetrick and Kevin Hutchinson
were present,representing the application.There were several
persons present with concerns.Staff briefly described the
proposed conceptual site plan and noted that the church had
submitted a revised site plan and a phasing plan.Staff offered
6
August 3,2 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
a recommendation of approval with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,
E and F of the agenda report.
2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.The 100 foot buffer along the north property line must be
undisturbed,with construction fencing in place prior to
any site work.
John McMorran addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He reviewed the overall site plan and the
proposed phases of the development.
Mark Evans,senior pastor of the Church at Rock Creek,
addressed the Commission in support of the application.He
discussed the proposed ancillary (ministry)uses and explained
each of these specific uses.He noted that the proposed
Church of the Rock Creek ministries are modeled after a church
in Florida,where he was recently employed.
James Woods addressed the Commission with concerns.He noted
that the neighborhood is not opposed to a church being located
on the site.He stated that the neighborhood wished to have
additional time to consider the revised site plan and phasing
plan.He noted concern with liability issues associated with
some of the ancillary (ministry)uses.
Lisa Byrum also addressed the Commission with concerns.She
noted that she was not opposed to a church being located on
the property,but would like additional time to discuss and
work out the issues that the neighborhood has with the
proposed development.
Reggie Clow also addressed the Commission with concerns.He
noted that he does not oppose the church use,but has concerns
with some of the ministry uses.He stated that he felt the
church would have no control over the persons who will be
temporarily housed on the property.He asked the Commissiontodefertheapplication.
A deferral of the application was briefly discussed.Pastor
Evans stated that if the Commission wished to defer the
application,the church would request a deferral for two (2)
weeks.
7
August 3,2i 0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
Commissioner Lowry asked about the current church attendance.
Pastor Evans noted that the church currently has an average
attendance of 1,200 persons.Commissioner Lowry asked Pastor
Evans when the church anticipates having a 7,000 membership.
Pastor Evans stated that at the present growth rate,it would
be 15 to 18 years.
Commissioner Lowry asked if any thought had been given to thetrafficissues.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the church would front
on a minor arterial (West 36 Street)and that Bowman Road is
also classified as a minor arterial.He noted that these
streets would eventually be constructed to minor arterial
standards and be able to handle the future traffic for the
church,with 7,000 projected members.Mr.Turner noted that
he is comfortable with the street phasing plan and how thestreetswillhandlethefuturetraffic.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that
he anticipates the land around the church property to develop
by the time the church reaches the 7,000 member mark,with astreetsystemthatwillhandlethefuturetraffic.
Mr.Clow also commented on issues related to traffic,parking
and building size.
Vicky Foti addressed the Commission with traffic and noise
concerns related to the proposed development.She also noted
concern with property values in the area and with the church
ministry uses.
Mr.Lawson commented that the Church had obtained enough
property (at the suggestion of staff)to support a long-term
plan and accommodate the church'long-term goals.
Vice-Chair Berry commented that the applicant had made changes
in the site plan as recommended by the Subdivision Committee.
He commented on how a single family development could include
as much traffic and building area as the proposed church
development,with less buffer area.
Commissioner Rector noted that the intersection of Bowman Road
and a 36 Street will be a major intersection in the future
and briefly discussed.He also noted that the church made anefforttorevisethesiteplanbasedontheSubdivision
8
August 3,2 .0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6886
Committee review.He encouraged the neighborhood to work with
the church in resolving their issues.
Mr.Turner estimated a traffic count of 50,000 vehicles per
day at the intersection of Bowman Road and West 36 Street,at
build-out.
Commissioner Muse asked how far this site was from the
Immanuel Baptist Church site and how large that church siteis.Mr.Turner noted that this site is approximately 3.5
miles from the Immanuel Baptist site and that the Immanuel
Baptist property is approximately 20 acres in size.
Mr.Turner noted that a single family development on this
property would create a large amount of traffic.The traffic
issues were briefly discussed.
A motion was made to defer the application to the August 17,
2000 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays
and 3 absent.
9
~'e~A g~-Csh 0
g 7~~
The Church at Rock Creek
Conceptual Planned Office Development
19 July,2000
The Church at Rock Creek is currently in the planning stages of its permanent facilities
master plan.The property the church has selected to pursue is a 40-acre tract on the
corner of I-430 and West 36 Street.Due to the time constraints on the purchase of the
property,a Conceptual POD has been advised.
The Church at Rock Creek is a mission-oriented church that seeks to reach out and make
an impact on the community.Main church activities are primarily on Sunday mornings and
Wednesday evenings.The church property would house not only the main church
facilities,but also a chapel;centers for youth,children and families;food bank;welfare to
work training center;pregnancy care center;medical clinic;apartments;dorms for visiting
groups;maintenance storage building for church vans and equipment;and two outdoor
recreation softball fields.All of the different ministry buildings mentioned about will be
owned and operated by the church.
The following is a detailed description of each portion of the Master Plan:
1.The Main Church Facilities:370,000 total sq.ft.
a.Worship center for 7,000 with balconies and exterior day-lighting
80,000 sq.ft.
b.Large foyer atrium which will house a bookstore,restaurant and a coffee
shop
30,000 sq.ft.
c.Activities and fitness area with two basketball courts,a stage and a kitchen
20,000 sq.ft.
d.Preschool and Children education areas
60,000 sq.ft.
e.Youth education area
10,000 sq.ft.
Ministry offices and conference rooms
20,000 sq.ft.
g.Conference classrooms
10,000 sq.ft.
h.Additional foyer spaces
10,000 sq.ft.
i.Corridor and mechanical
100,000 sq.ft.
The main church facilities will be loca
it 'gh visibili from I-
ocated on the NW corner of the property giving
main levels will have direct
-430.There will be multiple levels of which the I deoweran
ave irect ground access.The church is looking far into th futu
p an and will build in phases starting with the activities buildin
and an entrance fo er.Buildiny.'ng materials will include brick,stone,precast,metal,
glass and exterior insulation finish system.
2.The Ministry Campus:
a.One buildin for a Wg elfare to Work Training program,a Pregnanc Care
facility and a Food Bank
ancy are
5,000 sq.ft.
b.One building for a Medical Clinic
5,000 sq.ft.
c.One apartment building housing 4 one bedroom apartments
4,000 sq.it.
d.One Homeless Family Care Center for 4 families
6,000 sq.it.
e.One Children's Emergency Center for 15 children
5,000 sq.it.
f.One Teenage Care Center for 10 teenagers
5,000 sq.it.
Each of these minieministry buildings will be one or two level.Parkin 'll bar'
wi e available
a eac building and will be part of the total parking for the church.
3.Additional Church Site Features:
a.A 4,000 sq.it.Chapel
b.R.V.hookup locations for 5 vehicles
c.Maintenance Storage Building
d.AnAn 8,000 sq.ft.lodge type dorm that sleeps 50 people
e.2 softball fields with lights
f.Playgrounds,Picnic Areas,Walking trails
g.An 80'-0"bufFer zone along the north property line.
h.Parking for 1,750 cars including the required number of accessible spaces
i.ignage at the streets and around the site to meet all city requirements and
restrictions.
j.On site fire protection.
k.Landscape screening from adjacent residential properties.
The existing site has a natural drainage pattern that will be maintained d '.Thanimprove.e
the natural settin
e eve oped in a manner that will maintain as many existing t d h freesanasmuco
se ing as is feasible for the church to minister to the communi".».Add 'l
landsca in will be in
communi".».ition
be will be I
p'e in accordance with the city of Little Rock ordinanc .S't light will
m h 'bl .
ow level and will be focused inward away from the
d'uc
as possible.
e surroun ing property as
RECEI
JUL 'F 0 ~~~II
BY:
11607 Shady Ridge Drive
Little Rock,AR 72211
(V01)221-1273
July 22,2000
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street 2-6S'
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Mr.Carney:
I am writing in regards to the notification I received to rezone the property at the northwest
corner of Interstate 430 and West 36'"Street.The request has been made to rezone the
property from R-2 to POD to allow for the construction of a church and associated facilities.
My husband and I reside in Sandpiper Creek subdivision on a lot that borders the above
mentioned property.This zoning change will have a direct NEGATIVE EFFECT on our home now
and in the future.We purchased our land based on the fact that the land behind our home was
to be zoned residential.We also chose to build within the city limits to have the security of
knowing that our land and interests were protected by city authorities such as the Department
of Planning and Development.
I hope your department will consider how our property value will decrease,traffic will increase,
and vandalism/theft will be of greater concern when you make your recommendation to the
Planning Commission.Our property will lose value and be harder to sell if there is a HUGE
church COMPLEX visible from our backyard.The church sanctuary is planned to seat 7,000
people.36'"street has no exit off interstate 430 and is barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass
safely,much less that many people traveling on it weekly.The church is planning to serve
battered women and troubled youth,in addition to refurbishing junk cars to give to the poor.
As admirable as their plans are,it would be a detriment to our neighborhood to allow this to
happen!
My husband and I urge you to recommend that the above referenced land remain zoned R-2.
Sincerely,
I
67K HECEIVED
Johnny "Shane"and Melissa "Lisa"Byrum
JUl 25 2000
BY'
August 3,2000
ITEM NO.:6.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-11-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-430 Planning District
Location:Northwest corner of I-430 and W.36th St.
Rectcest:Lcw Density Residential and Mixed Office
Commercial to Mixed Use
Source:The Church at Rock Creek
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment located in the I-430 Planning District
from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides
for a mixture of residential,office and commercial uses to
occur.A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is
entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of
the three.The applicant wishes to develop church and
ministry facilities.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning
Staff expanded the area of review to include the area
between I-430 and Bowman Road and the area shown as Mixed
Office Commercial at the northeast corner of the W.36
Street /Bowman Road intersection.With these changes,
the entirety of the Mixed Office Commercial would be
eliminated.The additional area would result in Mixed Use
along the north side of W.36 Street from I-430 to Bowman
Road and along Bowman Road north of 36 Street.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The expanded area is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and
the applicant's property is approximately 40.00+acres of
the 75 +acres under consideration for amendment.The
entire expanded area is zoned R-2 Single Family.Three
houses are located in the expanded area on W.36 Street
just south of the applicant's vacant property.The rest of
the expanded area is vacant.The residential subdivision
to the north is zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of
single-family houses.A nursing home in a Planned
Commercial Development zone is located on Bowman Road next
to the northwest corner of the expanded area.The vacant
property east of I-430 is zoned R-2 Single Family.The
southeast corner of I-430 and W.36 Street is vacant
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-01
property zoned Open Space where Panther Branch flows into
Brodie Creek.The property to the south of W.36 Street
is zoned MF-12 Multifamily and R-2 Single Family.The land
zoned MF-12 Multifamily is vacant.The land zoned R-2
Single Family is occupied by single-family houses built on
large lots.The vacant property to the west of the
expanded area located on the west side Bowman Road is zoned
R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 16,1999,a change was made from Single Family to
Suburban Office on Aldersgate Road north of W.20 Street
about a mile northeast of the applicant's property.
On June 18,1996 multiple changes took place along
Shackleford Road between W.36 Street and Col.Glenn Road
about a half mile east of the applicant's property.
On January 16,1996,a change from Low Density Multifamily
to Suburban Office east of Bowman,south of Kanis about a
mile north of the applicant's property.
On August 1,1995 a change took place from Single Family to
Suburban Office about a half mile east of the applicant's
property.
On June 20,1995 multiple changes took place along Bowman
Road about a third of a mile west of the applicant's
property.
The expanded area is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as
Low Density Residential and Mixed Office Commercial.North
of the expanded area is shown as Single Family with a small
area shown as Low Density Residential on Bowman Road.The
property on the east side of the freeway is shown as Mixed
Office Commercial with Park /Open Space shown where
Panther Branch flows into Brodie Creek.The south side of
W.36 Street is shown as Mixed Office Commercial with a
strip of Park /Open Space shown along Brodie Creek.The
property to the west of the expanded area is shown as Low
Density Residential and Suburban Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN
I-430 is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Freeway while
W.36 Street and Bowman Road are shown as minor arterials.
A proposed collector is shown located west of the
2
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-01
applicant's property to connect W.36 Street to Bowman
Road.The Master Street plan does shows a proposed
interchange between W.36 Street and I-430.On January
1991 the Arkansas State Highway Commission denied approval
of a City of Little Rock request for an interchange at this
location due to a lack of need.The Arkansas State Highway
Commission stated that it would reconsider its decisions if
the need should arise.A Class II Bikeway is shown along
W.36 Street connecting Bowman Road to Rock Creek.A
second Class II Bikeway is shown along Bowman Road
connecting Executive Center Drive to Colonel Glenn Road.
PARKS:
However the Master Parks Plan shows a Priority One Proposed
Open Space along Panther Branch and Brodie Creek.Panther
Branch is not affected by this proposed amendment.Brodie
Creek flows near the southeast corner of the expanded area
on the opposite side of W.36 Street.Proposed parkland
is shown on the Master Parks Plan about a mile upstream on
Brodie Creek west of Bowman Road.The proposed parkland is
not affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property does not lie in an area covered by
a neighborhood plan.
ANALYSIS:
The expanded area is located at the intersection of two
minor arterials in an area characterized by some low-
density development and an abundance of vacant land.A
change to Mixed Use could complement the mix of uses in the
two neighboring areas shown on the Future Land Use Plan as
Mixed Office Commercial and Suburban Office.This change
will leave a small buffer of Low Density Residential at the
northwest corner of the expanded area between the proposed
Mixed Use and the current area shown as Single Family.The
most intense use in the area is the Single Family located
on Shady Ridge Drive.The greatest effect this amendment
could have would be on property located west of I-430.Any
development in this area will most likely have an impact on
the subdivision north of the applicant's property.Any
change in this area is not likely to effect property
3
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-01
located east of I-430 since the freeway would serve as a
physical buffer between uses.Since most of the
neighboring properties to the south and west are vacant,
this amendment will effect any future development or land
use changes that could occur.Approval of this amendment
does not necessarily mean that non-residential development
will take place.A Varity of single family and other
residential developments could take place without a Planned
Zoning Development.Any mix involving non-residential
components would require a Planned Zoning Development.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Birchwood N.A.,Campus Place P.O.A.;
Kensington Place P.O.A.,Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place
P.O.A.,Sandpiper N.A.,Sewer District 4147,Twin Lakes "A"
N.A.,Twin Lakes "B"N.A.,and Westbrook N.A.Staff has
received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.This item was followed immediately by the
presentation of item 6 by Monte Moore so the discussion of
item 6 could coincide with the discussion for item 6.1.
See item 6 for a complete discussion concerning the Long
Form POD Conceptual Plan.A motion to defer item 6 and 6.1
to the August 17 meeting and was approved with a vote of 8
ayes,0 noes,and 3 absent.
4
August 3,c JO
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6323-B
NAME:The Village at Rahling Road (Lots 9A and 9B)
Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road
(Rahling Circle)
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timer Corp.White-Daters and Associates¹7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S.Victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.0.92 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:C-2 Permitted Uses
PROPOSED USE:C-2 Permitted Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5,1997,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,542 which rezoned 33.27 acres from C-2 to PCD,with an
approved site plan for Lots 1 and 2 of the 14 lot development.
C-2 permitted uses were approved for the site,with the intent
that the site plans for the remaining 12 lots will be brought to
the Planning Commission with the proposed individual lot
development.
The applicant presented a document titled "Architectural Design
Elements"(June 11,1997)which was made part of the original
approval.This document regulated building design and color,
signage,lighting,landscaping and other site design related
issues.
On March 21,2000,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
18,235,which approved a site plan for Lot 9 of this
development.The approved site plan included the following:
Augus t 3,2 a0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6323-B
Phase I:~a 3,545 square foot building
~15 parking spaces
~a shared access drive for Lots 9 and 10
Phase II:~a 3,349 square foot building
~16 parking spaces
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
plan for Lot 9 as follows:
1.Incorporate approximately 10,000 square feet of Lot 8
(unrecorded)into Lot 9.2.Split Lot 9 into two (2)lots (Lots 9A and 9B).3.Construct an 8,600 square foot (2 story)office
building on Lot 9A,with 24 parking spaces.
Phase I of the previously approved site plan is shown on
Lot 9B.The 3,545 square foot office building is currently
under construction.The applicant also submitted a revised
preliminary plat drawing for this development,noting the
proposed Lots 9A and 9B (see attached sketch).
The previously approved hours of operation are as follows:
7:00 a.m.—9:00 p.m.,Monday —Friday
7:00 a.m.—noon,Saturday
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is currently an office building under construction
within the proposed Lot 9B of this development.
Other vacant lots within the Village at Rahling Road
development are located to the east,west and north,with
phase one of the commercial development being just further
north along Rahling Road.The property to the south is
undeveloped and tree-covered.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment
surrounding property owners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
2
August 3,2vv0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6323-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Easements on front building lines where sidewalks are
constructed were to be for pedestrian access along with
utilities to cover walk area-survey and plats do not
reflect this;please modify to show.Easements shown
for proposed storm drainage are required.
2.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
3.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
6.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 af fected.
AP&L:A 15 foot utility easement is requested along the
south (rear)property line.A PADMTD Transformer Pad
will be needed to serve these lots.It may be necessary
to turn the transformer.The pad is to be 8 feet by
12 feet.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route;the proposed
development should be designed to allow bus/transit access.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping at this
3
August 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6323-B
location.The request is for a revision of the existing
Planned Commercial District for two new office buildings.
This change does not require a land use plan amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood
plan.
Landsca e Issues:
Area set aside for landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the revised PCD for this lot.
Mr.White noted that he had no issues with the Planning
Staff or Public Works requirements.He noted that there
was adequate area within the public parking area across
Rahling Circle for bus access (as part of the overall PCD
development).
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
PCD to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
July 18,2000.The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The
revised plan notes that the maximum building height will be
35 feet.The revised plan also labels the front building
setback area as "utility and pedestrian access easement",
as requested by Public Works.
The applicant is proposing a total of 39 parking spaces
(Lots 9A and 9B).The ordinance would typically require a
minimum of 53 parking spaces for a shopping center
development and 30 spaces for an office development of this
size.Staff is comfortable with the parking design
proposed,as the applicant is proposing office uses for the
buildings.
4
August 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6323-B
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the revised PCD for Lots 9A and 9B.
This development should have no adverse effects on the
general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site development plan forLots9Aand9B,the Village at Rahling Road subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph
D and E of this report.2.Compliance with the "Architectural Design Elements"as
previously approved for the overall PCD.3.The dumpster areas must be screened as three (3)sides
with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall.4.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.5.Lot 9 must be replatted (Lots 9A and 9B)prior to a
building permit being issued for Lot 9A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
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 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
Augus t 3,~00
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-3987-C
NAME:Otter Creek Assembly of God —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:9415 Stagecoach Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Otter Creek Assembly of God Church
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing C.U.P.to add a new 960
seat sanctuary and increase the parking area
through a three phase process on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
located at 9415 Stagecoach Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This existing 4.9 acre church site is located on the east
side of Stagecoach Road,a short distance north of Otter
Creek Parkway.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This existing church site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.The properties to the east and south are
wooded,vacant and also zoned R-2,but the area immediately
to the east is a floodway containing Fourche Creek and
won't be developed.The property to the north is vacant and
zoned 0-1,Quiet Office.The properties to the northwest
and southwest contain single family houses and are zoned R-
2.Directly west across Stagecoach Road the zoning is MF-
12,Multifamily for apartments,but single family houses
are there now.
The church has been at this location for several years and
this proposed addition should not have an adverse impact on
the surrounding properties or area.
The Otter Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress,all property owners within 200
feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
August 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3987-C
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is one existing driveway from Stagecoach that enters
at the northwest corner of the site,65 feet from the north
property line.The proposal includes a second driveway from
Stagecoach,just below the middle of the property,280 feet
from the current driveway.A variance has been requested
for the distance from the north property line for the
existing driveway and the spacing between the two
driveways.
The parking would be expanded in phases as seating capacity
increases.Phase 1 results in a total of 170 parking
spaces,Phase 2 would require no additional parking,and
Phase 3 would result in a total of 241 spaces.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements when averaged out.However,
portions of the proposed land use buffer width along the
southern perimeter drop to a width of only 15 feet.The
full width requirement without transfers is 28 feet and the
minimum average width requirement is 19 feet.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is
required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the
site.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many
existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of six inch caliper or larger.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP"is
required.
b.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.c.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
d.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".Construct 5 feet buffered to right-of-way
line.
2
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-3987-C
e.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.The minimum driveway spacing allowed is 300 feet
as per current ordinance.f.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
g.Prepare letter for streetlights as required by Sec.
31-403.
h.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.i.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-
of-way.j.Show existing topographic information at maximum five-
foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation.
k.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)
will be required with a building permit.l.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186 (b)will be required.
m.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283
will be required.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional and/or larger
meter(s)are required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrant may be required.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route;however,the
proposed development should be designed to allow
bus/transit access.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the
church facilities on their 4.9 acre site.They have
proposed a new main building in Phase 1 containing
approximately 14,280 square feet,consisting of a 660 seat
3
August 3,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3987-C
sanctuary and an office area.A steeple over the front
entrance with a height of 70 feet from the finished ground
floor level would be a part of the new building.Parking
would be increased from 70 to 170 spaces.During Phase 2
the offices would be completed.During Phase 3 the
sanctuary balcony would be completed adding 300 seats for a
total of 960 seats,and parking would be increased to a
total of 241 spaces.The increase in facilities is
intended to be for primary church use.No day care or
school use is planned at this time.
All building siting requirements would be met.Proposed
parking matches ordinance requirements.The second driveway
located 280 feet south of the existing driveway would not
quite meet the required spacing of 300 feet,and the
existing driveway is closer to the north property line than
allowed (actual 65 versus 150 feet required);however,
Staff supports the variance to leave the existing driveway
as is,and place a second driveway as proposed.The
proposed sign must be part of the C.U.P.since only a one
square foot sign is allowed in residential zoning.The
applicant has proposed a 50 square feet sign compared to a
normal maximum allowed of 64 square feet for churches.It
would be a "monument"style sign with brick columns
supporting it on either side.
Staff believes the proposed expansion is reasonable and
would be compatible with the neighborhood with proper
screening particularly to the south.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised 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,but with the driveway
spacing variance.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested variance of
driveway spacing and distance from the north property line.
4
August 3,2i J
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-3987-C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 13,2000)
John Tracy,the Pastor,and James Ferris were present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments and emphasized that a
sidewalk would need to be constructed along the church frontage,
and a variance would be needed to approve the two driveways.
Comments about required screening and buffers along the south
side were mentioned.Also,Staff requested more details about
the proposed sign.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
John Tracy,the Pastor,and James Ferris 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.
A motion was made to approve a waiver of the bylaws to allow the
notification of two individuals accomplished in person with less
than the normal 15 day required notification.Staff had receivedlettersfrombothindividualsstatingtheywereawareofthe
project.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3
absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
August 3,c JO
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-4328-B
NAME:Lusk-Dearborn Office Warehouse —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:1200/1202 Rose Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Ray Lusk &John Dearborn
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to build
a two-building office/warehouse complex in
two phases on property zoned C-3,General
Commercial located at 1200,1202 Rose
Street.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 2 acre site is located on the north side of Kanis
Road,between John Barrow Road and Michael Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned C-3,General Commercial.The property to
the east is MF-12,but is currently vacant and tree
covered.The properties to the south and west are zoned
C-3.There is currently a commercial facility to the south,
but the property to the west is vacant.To the north the
vacant,tree covered property is zoned 0-3,General Office.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
The Brownwood Terrace and John Barrow Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,and all
residents within 300 feet that could be identified,were
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes extending a private drive off the
end of the existing Rose Street,which ends at the edge of
this property.There would be a parking area on the north
and south sides of the two-story building to be completed
in Phase 2.Phase 1 would consist of the southern-most
August 3,c.JO
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-4328-B
one-story building with a parking lot on the north side
of it.
The proposal includes 32 parking spaces in Phase 1 and 20
additional spaces in Phase 2.Using the breakdown provided
of approximately 80%warehouse and 20%office,the minimum
required parking would be 19 spaces total per floor,(8 for
office 6 11 warehouse).That would result in a grand total
of 57 spaces required for the entire project versus 52
shown.There would be room to add spaces as parallel
parking spaces along the north side of the proposed north
parking area to meet the require minimum.
4 .SCREENZNG AND BUFFERS:
A total of six percent of the on-site vehicular use area
must be landscaped with interior islands.Loading and
unloading areas are excluded from this requirement.
A three foot wide building landscape area between public
parking areas and the building are required.Some
flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
5 .PUBLZC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP".
b.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.c.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
d.Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"is
required.e.Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerline
is required.f.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
g.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.
h.Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by
Sec.31-403.i.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.j.New Cul-de-sac Street shall be public right-of-way or
petition to have complete length revert to private.
k.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot,
contour interval 100-year base flood elevation is
required.
2
August 3,2~F0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4328-B
l.A Sketch Grading and Drainage plan per Sec.29-186 (e)is
required.
m.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186 (c )6 (d)is required.
n.Parking areas need back out space for end spaces.o.Name of Rose Street needs to be changed to avoid conflict
with other Rose Street.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:A water main extension will be required.Also,
on site fire protection or a private fire hydrant will be
required.An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve this property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrant may be required.
CATA:Site is near bus route ¹3 and the proposed
development should be designed to allow bus/transit access.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
build a two-building office/warehouse complex in two phases
on just under 2 acres of property zoned C-3,General
Commercial.
This site is nestled in a developing area of mixed
commercial and office zoning.Currently only the south side
of this site has developed.The applicant has proposed an
office/warehouse development with space for approximately
12 occupants in two buildings,allowing 4200 square feet
each,and operating generally between 7 a.m.and 6 p.m.
Monday through Friday.The use mix would be approximately
80%warehouse 20%office.The proposed layout does not meet
ordinance requirements with respect to the rear setback,10feetproposedversus25feetrequired.In addition about
half of the one-story building has only a 14 foot setback
3
August 3,2~~'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4328-B
after right-of-way is dedicated for the hammerhead turn
around.However,Staff believes that would not cause an
adverse impact for future surrounding development,and
supports a variance for the reduced setbacks.The proposed
landscaping would be satisfactory.
Parking requirements for the mix of office and warehouse
would be 57 spaces.That number could be met by adding five
parallel spaces on the north side of the north parkingarea.Otherwise the driveway and parking would be
satisfactory.The proposed landscaping would be
satisfactory.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the area.
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.Provide 57 parking spaces total.e.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards anyresidentialzonedarea.f.The applicant must petition to change the name of Rose
Street to a name not repeated elsewhere in the City.
Staff also recommends approval of a variance for the
reduced setback to the rear for both buildings and for the
front of the one-story building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 13,2000)
Ray Lusk,John Dearborn and Sam Davis were present representing
the application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works comments and the Screening and Buf fer comments were
the primary areas reviewed.The applicant was also asked to
provide additional information regarding the proposed exterior
features of the buildings including height and access doors,the
4
Augus t 3,2.0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4328-B
square footage mix of office and warehouse,and proposed hours
of operation.Changing the name of Rose Street was also
discussed.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Ray Lusk and John Dearborn 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 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
August 3,2~~0
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
NAME:Accessible Space,Inc.—Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:7009 Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:7009 Baseline Partnership/Matthew Crellin,
Accessible Space,Inc.
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to build
a two-story,22 unit apartment building for
physically disabled persons on property
zoned 0-3,General Office,located at 7009
Baseline Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 2.23 acre site is located on the south side of
Baseline Road,immediately west of Dailey Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned 0-3,General Office,and is surrounded
by R-2,Single Family Residential zoning on the north,
west and south sides.Those properties are being used for
single family residences.The zoning to the east is 0-3,
but a trailer park exists there now.Further to the west
along Baseline the zoning again becomes commercial.Other
uses in the immediate vicinity to the east include a
DHS Facility and a post office.
Staff believes the proposed multifamily use would be
compatible with this area and serve to provide a goodtransitionfrompotentialstandardofficeuseinthe rest
of the office zoning to the east,and the residential
zoning currently surrounding this property on the other
three sides.
The Chicot and Cloverdale Neighborhood Associations,the
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet
that could be identified,were notified of the public
hearing.
August 3,c JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes two driveways entering the property
from Baseline Road at the east and west corners of the
property.The ordinance would only support one driveway for
the 190 foot frontage.
In addition,is proposed a parking area with 22 spaces in the
front of the building along Baseline.The standard for
multifamily housing is 1.5 parking spaces per apartment.The
22 apartments would require 33 spaces.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed land use buffer along the western perimeter is
short of the minimum six foot width required.The full
width requirement without transfers is 9 w feet.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with
its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings,is required along the southern and western
perimeters of the site.
Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given when
preserving existing dense vegetation which provides the
required year-round screening.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP"(90 feet
is required for Baseline Road)
b.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.
c.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
d.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
e.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.f.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual".
g.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
h.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-
of-way.i.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
2
August 3,c.JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
contour interval 100-year base flood elevation is
required.j.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)is
required.
k.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186 (c )&(d)is required.l.Current ordinance does not allow two driveways if the
property frontage is less than 600 feet.
m.There is insufficient maneuvering space for trucks to
access the dumpsters.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Construction of a water main extension from
Dailey Drive will be required.On site fire protection may
be required.An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
Wastewater:Sewer available for this property.Exact
location of the development is required by Little Rock
Wastewater Utility due to existing mains in the area.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at the
fire department concerning turning radii.Private fire
hydrant may be required.Explain how fire access will be
constructed.
CATA:Site is on bus routes 17 &17A;the proposed
development should be designed to allow bus/transit access.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
build a two-story,22-unit apartment building on 2.23 acres
of property zoned 0-3,General Office.The apartments would
be used by adults who are physically disabled,but are able
to live independently.The owner would not provide medical
care.
Building siting requirements would be met by the proposal,
but the west side driveway as proposed would be 1 foot
3
August 3,~JO
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
short of the minimum 6 foot land use buffer.There would be
room to provide the required minimum.In addition,proper
screening would be required along the west and south
property lines.That screening would need to be an opaque
wooden fence or evergreen plantings.
The proposed parking would be 11 spaces below the minimum
requirement of 33 spaces.While it is acknowledged that
many of the proposed residents would not drive,Staff
believes the ordinance required minimum number of spaces
should be provided to accommodate visitors,care providers,
and maintenance workers.Staff does not support the
variance for reduced parking.
Public Works does not support the proposed two driveways from
Baseline Road since the ordinance does not support two
driveways with only a 190-foot street frontage.The distance
of those driveways from the property lines as proposed is also
below ordinance standards.Public Works recommends a single
driveway located in the center of the property.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the area,but some modifications would be needed to the
site plan before rendering full support.
STAFF UPDATE:
On July 26,2000,Staff received a letter from the
applicant requesting this item be deferred until the
September 14 hearing.Staff supports the deferral.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until the
September 14 Hearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 13,2000)
Kip Moore was present representing the application.Staff gave a
brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments.A discussion took place
regarding the need for two driveways and the proposed reduced
parking.The screening and buffer requirements were also
reviewed.Some additional information was requested by Staff to
4
August 3,2 i'0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
include building height,substantiation of the 40 foot building
line shown on the site plan,and more justification for the
reduced parking.Committee members asked the applicant to re-
examine the location of the dumpster in relation to the patio,
and to think about the benefits of fencing in the entire
property.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
No one was present representing the application since it was
recommended for deferral.There were no registered supporters or
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for deferral to the September 14,2000 public
hearing.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
September 14,2000 Planning Commission public hearing.The vote
was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
5
August 3,2c
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-6876
NAME:Fina Convenience Store —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:7200 West 12 Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:R.J.Properties,LLC/Doug Hendrix
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to build
a car wash in combination with a gas station
and convenience store facility on property
zoned C-3,General Commercial,located at
7200 West 12 Street.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 2.1 acre site is located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of Rodney Parham Road and 12 Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned C-3,General Commercial,and is
surrounded by commercial and industrial zoned properties.
To the east the zoning is R-2,Single Family Residential,
and contains a cemetery.The properties to the north,
northwest,immediate west and southwest are zoned C-3,
General Commercial.They all have commercial uses on them
except to the north,which is vacant.To the southeast and
further to the west the zoning is I-2.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
The University Park Neighborhood 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:
The proposal contains one driveway onto 12 Street and two
onto Freeway Drive.Parking spaces required for the gas and
convenience store part of the facility would be 5 plus 1
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6876
per 250 square feet of floor area.That results in 17
required spaces.Those would be provided when counting the
spaces at the fuel pumps.The proposed plan includes two
stacking spaces for each of the two auto washes,and one or
two for each of the self-serve and vacuum bays,which
should be adequate.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed six foot wide street buffer along 12 Street
meets the requirement when averaged out.However,it drops
six feet below the full width requirement without transfers
most of the way.
A three foot wide building landscape strip between the
public parking area and building is required.Some
flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.
b.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
c.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
d.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
e.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual"is required.f.Prepare letter for streetlights as required by Sec.
31-403.
g.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
h.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)is
required.i.A grading Permit per Secs.29-186 (c)&(d)is required.j.Construct a right-turn-lane on 12 Street for efficient
movement of traffic.
k.Make the driveway on 12 Street right-in-right-out only
by constructing a triangular island.
1.Current ordinance does not allow two driveways on the
north side of the property.Close driveway closer to the
Northwest corner of the property or request a variance.
2
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6876
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding meter size and
location.A RPZ backflow preventer is required prior to
the first outlet on the waterline serving the carwash.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AT%LA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Check with water works for location of
nearest fire hydrant and include it on site plan.
CATA:No comments.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
build a combination gas station,convenience store,and car
wash facility on 2.1 acres of property zoned C-3,General
Commercial.The facility would be open 24 hours per day.
The car wash along the east side of the site necessitated
the need for the conditional use permit request.It would
consist of two automatic wash bays,plus six self-serve and
three vacuum bays.
The proposed plan meets all siting,parking,and
landscaping requirements except for the second driveway on
Freeway Drive.The justification the applicant provided for
the second driveway was for ease and safety of movement for
the 18-wheel tanker servicing the fuel pumps.The proposed
plan would allow the tanker to come to the site straight
from I-630 and allow it to enter and exit the site from
Freeway Drive without ever having to enter 12 Street.
Staff does support a variance to allow that second
driveway.
The applicant proposes one pole sign located as shown on
the site plan,sized within C-3 sign criteria.It would be
35 feet tall and contain a sign area of 147 square feet or
3
August 3,2~~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6876
less compared to ordinance maximums of 36 feet tall and 160
square feet respectively.
This site is located in an area of mixed uses including a
cemetery,offices,commercial,and industrial.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with
the area.
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,but with a variance
for the driveways onto Freeway Drive.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow two
driveways along Freeway Drive.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 13,2000)
James Huff and Doug Hendricks were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments.A short discussion took
place regarding justification of the two driveways on Freeway
Drive.Staff also explained the screening and buffer
requirements,and asked for clarification of some of the lines
and notes on the site plan and survey.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
Ronald Madding was present representing the application.There
were three registered objectors present.Staff presented the
4
August 3,2i~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6876
item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance
with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"
paragraph 8 above.
Ronald Madding briefly reviewed the proposal,commented on the
upscale nature of the proposed development,and a few comments
about how the exterior would look.He stated that the size of
the convenience store would be approximately 3,177 square feet.It would include a Deli and a Baskin Robbins.
Commissioner Lowry asked about the hours of operation,for an
estimate of the number of customers expected daily,what made
this a good location for this type of use,and he asked if
Public Works saw any traffic problems and if a traffic signal
was projected for the exit off of I-630 near this site.Mr.
Madding stated that it would be open 24 hours per day,but he
wasn'sure about the traffic volume.He estimated maybe about
1000 cars per month just for gas.He felt it would be a good
location because it'close to I-630,and there aren'any other
gas stations or convenience stores nearby.Public Works stated
they did not see this use causing any particular traffic
problems,but they weren't sure if the exit asked about was on
the list for a traffic signal.
Commissioner Rector commented that the proposed uses were
allowed by right except for the car wash,and asked if the owner
would go ahead and build even if he couldn't have the car wash.
Mr.Madding said he didn't know for sure,but he expected that
he would since the applicant had already bought the property.
Commissioner Muse asked if there would be a drive-through for
the Deli.Mr.Madding stated there would not be a drive-through.
The opposition began with Mr.Ralph White,President of the
University Park Neighborhood Association,speaking.He stated
that their Association was 100%against this project,which
would be backed up by a signed petition.Their main concerns
were:increased traffic which they feel is already terrible;the
proposed uses attracting drug activity;the car wash attracting
loitering;and that the uses would decrease the safety of the
University Park neighborhood.Mr.White also stated that the
projected usage mentioned by Mr.Madding would generate about
10,000 not 1000 car trips per month.
5
August 3,2.~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6876
Estelle Matthis spoke in opposition making the added point that
they felt that the convenience store and gas station were not
needed at the proposed site and would be out of synch and
character with the area.She stated that there were enough of
the proposed services already near by,and the competition from
this location would cause some of the others to have to close
down,especially at Asher and University,creating vacant
businesses.She also brought up the safety concern and agreed
that the car wash would create a place to "hang out"and lead to
a drug problem.
Madame Chair Adcock complimented the quality of the University
Park neighborhood and how she felt they looked at issues very
carefully and weren'quick to oppose everything.
Commissioner Berry acknowledged the heartfelt concern of the
members of the neighborhood.He then reviewed the type of uses
that were already allowed "By Right"with the current zoning.He
stated he felt it would be "arbitrary and capricious"to deny
the car wash when the gas station and convenience store are
allowed "By Right"already.He also commented that he felt the
car wash aspect of this proposal wasn'related to the concerns
and feelings of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Lowery disagreed with Commissioner Berry that a
denial would be "arbitrary and capricious",primarily because of
the traffic he believes would be added to an area already
congested.
Commissioner Earnest brought up a concern that many of these
type of uses install much too much lighting and he hoped the
applicant would be sensitive to that lighting excess.He also
stated that he was against the car wash.
The applicant stated that they planned to use downward directed
lighting that contains a feature that does focus the lighting
downward very tightly.So he was sensitive to that concern.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted.The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,8 nays and 3 absent.
6
August 3,2~~0
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-6890
NAME:Crutch Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:12501 Chicot Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:David B.Crutch
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
install a two-section 1984 manufactured home
as an accessory dwelling on property zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential,located at
12501 Chicot Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 4.2 acre site is located on the east side of Chicot
Road,immediately south of Bunch Road and north of the Citylimits.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and is
surrounded on three sides,(north,east and south),byresidentialzoning.Directly across Chicot to the west the
zoning is C-2,Shopping Center District.The next closest
manufactured home would be on Bunch Road,a few hundredfeettothenorthwestofthissite.
Staff believes this accessory dwelling would not have an
adverse impact on this neighborhood.
The Deer Meadow and Legion Hut Neighborhood Associations,
the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet
that could be identified,were notified of the public
hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The property has two existing drives from Chicot Road,
forming a circle drive in front of the existing house.
August 3,2 ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6890
Access to the accessory dwelling would be taken from that
circle drive.Normal residential parking would be provided.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Driveways shall be asphalt or concrete within the right-
of-way and minimum 5 feet from property line.b.Chicot is listed on Master Street Plan as principalarterial;thus,right-of-way is required to be 55 feet
from centerline of Chicot Road.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding reestablishing
water service at this location.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:No comments.
CATA:No comments.
7.STAFF ANAI YSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit toinstallatwo-section 1984 manufactured home as an
accessory dwelling on 4.2 acres of property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
A 1148 square foot site built house exists on the property.
The proposal is to add a 1056 square foot manufactured hometobeusedforarelativetolivein.
The proposed plan exceeds all siting requirements.The
applicant has agreed to set up the home according to City
2
August 3 (2a i0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6890
standards.The proposed 1056 square foot home is larger
than the ordinance standard of 700 square feet,and would
require a variance for the size.The size of the site would
support two homes without any appearance of crowding.There
currently are no other homes on the properties to the north
or east.There are single family homes to the south.
Staff believes the proposed use would 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.The home should be set up and anchored according to City
Building Code requirements and Little Rock City
Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5)as follows:1.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
2.Removal of all transport elements.3.Permanent foundation.
4.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
5.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
6.Underpinning with permanent materials.
7.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance for the size
of the proposed accessory dwelling to be 1056 square feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 13,2000)
David Crutch and Ben Eagle were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff briefly commented on the need for the applicant to use
existing access to Chicot and not create any additional access
points.The need for a variance for the size of the home was
also reviewed.
3
August 3 &2 i ~0
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6890
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
David Crutch and Ben Eagle 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.Staff also supported a
waiver of the bylaws to allow the notification accomplished two
days less than the required 15 days.
A motion was made to approve the waiver of the bylaws to allow
the notification accomplished two days less than the required
15 days.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and
3 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
4
Le -&SF)~
Hello,our names are David and Johnnie Crutch.We live at 12511
Chicot Rd.We had an old run down white fi.arne house that wasn'
liveable on our property that ~e have tom down recently.We
would like to make an improvement on the property by moving a
mobile home over the site.A 24 by 44 double wide,1984 model
in good condition,as an accessory dwelling for family and fiends.
Building codes and regulations will be adhered to,and we will
further beautify the home and site to give a nice and neat
appearance to our neighborhood.We are going around to our
neighbors asking that if they don't mine us making an
improvement with this mobile home,that they please sign our
petition to aid us in obtaining our permit.
Thank you for taking time out to read this and for your support.
/4 /PD i'k 6L 5-lpcg
/Z zv io+5 -oYB
W 5
l ta.DC-7t&z
o//~w fW&~~++(p f'J g g 'I Q,f7 ~!7A
l-l I&H-MXaMr .~Sc,&-Iw(9
A'i'Q-Wo+eel~+~~a,
a.g.f@&p~S@a &,p.
X+/~
POP f +75~+(g
(g-Gg(o)
,
T&lP
C'2
/fK
A~~
C~~ULJ
(w(gg +l(c~[
August 3,2 ~0
ITEM NO.:13
SUBJECT:Planning Commission receipt and acceptance of an
ordinance amendment work program for 2000-2001;
directing the Plans Committee to proceed with review
and forwarding the results of that work for public
hearing.
STAFF REPORT:
The eleven subjects included in this proposal were offered by
City Board or Staff over the last several months.The Plans
Committee on June 28 briefly reviewed the proposals and directedstafftoproceedwithpreparationofanagendaitemonAugust3
for commission endorsement.If the Commission accepts this
material as the 2000 work program for ordinance amendment,staff
will immediately distribute the material to contact persons.
Comments received will be inserted within the Committee's draft
materials for discussion.
Given the City Board'interest in the first two items,it isstaff's plan to expedite the review and possibly complete the
ordinance for public hearing in early 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 3,2000)
The Chair recognized Richard Wood of Staff as presenting this
item.Wood stated this is the list of issues noted by staff and
accepted by the Plans Committee as the Ordinance Work Program
for 2000.After a brief discussion,the Commission voted to
accept this list of issues as presented.
The motion to approve passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and
3 absent.
ZONING ORDINANCE
2000 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
~Suh crt ~Pricrit
A.Division 4.,Conditional Use Review 1.
Sections 36-101.through 36-109.require a
thorough review for modification of:1)
use placement standards;2)attachment of
conditions,how many,when,etc.3)how to
control continuity of occupancy,run with
land or occupant.
B.Division 1.,Special Use Permits Section 2.
36-54.require a thorough review for
modification of siting standards,
revocation procedure,hearing notice and
procedure.Concentrate on day care.
Consider making tougher than state
regulation.
C.Article VII Planned Zoning District 3.
Sections 36-451 .through 36-462 .requires
review of variances.Time limits,
revocation,transfer of use rights and
conditions as may be imposed by the
Commission and/or Board of Directors.
D.A review of the use structure of C-3 to
determine proper placement of truck
lease/rental as a small scale use,limited
number of vehicles on mixed use site.
Trucks and small office only.
E.Clarify where Massage and/or Physical 5.
Therapy are allowed.
Define them separately or more clearly
under health studio.
F.Article VIII.Off-Street Parking and 6.
Loading,Section 36-502 (b)(2)f 2-4,require
a through review to update realistic
parking standards for schools.
Priority:
(1)Urgent need
(2)Need
(3)Text Cleanup can wait.
'00,ORD.ZON.Page
ZONING ORDINANCE
2000 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
~ecb 'ect ~Priorit
G.Article XII.Wireless Communication 7.
Facilities,requires a through review to
update and clarify the wording and
requirements based on experience gained
from applying the original ordinance.
H.Division 2.Residential Districts.8.
Section 36-252(2)Review the size
limitation for accessory dwellings for
currency and determine whether to modify or
remove the limitation,or increase the
size.
I.Division 2.Residential Districts.9.
Section 36-253 (b)(2)g.The chapter
referred to should be corrected to read
"Chapter 36."
J.Church use and related activities and 10.
intensity of development.The effect of
mega church development within residential
zones.Should they be placed by intensity
or effect.
K.Article V.District Regulations.Division 11.
I,Section 36-201(a).Add to the end of
the definition:"specifically exempting
wireless communication facilities which are
covered in Section 36-590."
Priority:
(1)Urgent need
(2)Need
(3)Text Cleanup can wait.
'00,ORD ZON
Page 2
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
-DATE Jul 12,2000
PROBLEM:An identifiable absence of SOURCE:Plannin Commissioners
s ecific lan ua e that ermits the Board of Directors
P.C.and Board of Directors to set
s ecial conditions on use lacement,-
site standards,continuit of use
and transferabilit
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(Div.4,Sec.36-101)
Sec.36-106.Planning commission action.
(a)The planning commission shall review conditional use applications at its
regular scheduled monthly meeting at which time interested persons may appear
and offer information in support of or against the proposed conditional use.
The planning commission shall then take one (1)of the following actions:
(1)Approve the conditional use as submitted.
(2)Approve the conditional use with modifications.
(3)Defer the conditional use.
(4)Deny the conditional use.
(b)The planning commission may impose conditions and restrictions upon the
premises benefited by the conditional use permit as may be necessary to reduce
or minimize the injurious effects of the conditional use.The conditional use
must ensure compatibility with the surrounding property to better carry out
the general intent of this chapter.
(Code 1961,Ch.43,5 4-102(g);Ord.No.15,247,51,2-17-87)
STAFF REPORT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 1
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
SUGGESTED TEXT:(Sec.)
I
'00,ORD.ZON ~
Page la
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Within S ecial Use Permit SOURCE:Board of Directors
Sec.36-54,an inabilit to recall
or cause revocation of a ermit for
other than strict corn liance with
a roval conditions.Also,look at
how this use fits the home occu ation
use t e.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(Sec.36-54.(a)thru (d))
None
STAFF REPORT:()
A number of neighbors and city board members have discussed how a use of this
nature might be found to be a nuisance and/or ordered to cease business with
or without a hearing.
Some involved persons on specific site problems have suggested to the City
Board that any abutting owner/neighbor could or should be empowered to file an
objection and have a permit reopened and voided for cause.
There are legal issues here staff can't deal with until the City Attorney
renders guidance.
I
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
00 I ORD ~ZON Page
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
"DATE Jul 12,2000
PROBLEM:A erceived need to ex and SOURCE:Carr over from 1999
on the general lan ua e in the PZD Amendments
section (36-451 —36-462)in order
to better regulate transfer of
ri hts,s ecial conditions and
a roval of variances.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:()
None
STAFF REPORT:()
Staff offers no written comments at this time.We will after receiving
directions produce recommendations for starting point.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
&00 ORD ZON ~
Page
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:A review of the use SOURCE:Dana Carne
structure of C-3 to determine ro er
lacement of truck lease/rental as a
small scale use limited number of
vehicles on mixed use site.Trucks
and small office onl
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(Sec.36-3.)
Auto rental or leasing (no service,sales or repair)means a facility
limited to an office space,with display of automobiles which for a fee are
rented or leased.
Auto or truck rental and leasing means a facility which for a fee provides
automobiles,trucks and trailers for rent or lease.This may include
ancillary activities,such as:repair,maintenance,washing and sales of used
units.
STAFF REPORT:()
The staff has received requests for placement of U-haul and similar truck
rental business on developed sites as a secondary activity.We see some of
these on mini-storage sites and are typically included in a PZD or conditional
use application.The current activity requested is a reduced level of service
that includes an office and parking space for several trucks or trailers.No
repair,service,trailer hitches or similar C-4 activities.
These requests are for C-3 sites.The ordinance permits auto leasing or
rental (no service,sales or repair)as a C.U.P.in C-3,but no truck or
trailer.
The staff feels the issue here is one of intensity or how many trucks,how big
and do we permit trailers since they typically require a shop to install
hitches.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 4
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Clari.f where Massa e SOURCE:Jim Connell
and/or Ph sical Thera are allowed.
Define them se aratel or more
clearl under health studio.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-3)
Health studio or spa means a facility other than a regularly licensed
hospital,operating for a profit to promote physical fitness or weight
control,and where manipulated massage or manipulated exercises are practiced
upon the human body by anyone not a duly licensed physician or chiropractor,
whether with or without use of mechanical or therapeutic devices.
STAFF REPORT:()
If they are defined separately,then they probably should be listed separately
in the uses.If they remain under the definition of Health Studio,then no
change in use listings should be required,but the words "Physical Therapy"
should be added before "manipulated massage".
People in the business do not like being listed under "Health Studio or Spa".
They feel that since what they do is taught as a specialty it should not be
lumped.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'0,ORD.ZON.Page 5
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Article VIII.Off-Street SOURCE:Jim Connell
Parkin and Loadin ,Section
36-502 (b)(2)f 2-4,re ire a throu h
review to u date realistic arkin
standards for schools.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-502.(b)(2)f .)
(2)Office and institutional uses.f.Schools and institutions.
1.Nursery,kindergarten and day care centers,1.0 space per employee
plus on-site loading and unloading spaces to be required at a rate
of one (1)for each ten (10)children accommodated.
2.Elementary (grades 1-6),1.0 space per classroom.Stacking sp'ace
for drop-off and pickup shall be required on the site.
3.Secondary (grades 7-12),6.0 spaces per classroom.Stacking space
for buses and autos shall be required on site.
4.College,university,business college or trade school,1.0 space for
each three hundred (300)square feet of gross floor area,or one (1)
space per four (4)students,whichever is greater.
5.Dance school/studio,one (1)space per employee plus on-site loading
and unloading spaces to be required at the rate of one (1)for each
five (5)students,based on the maximum number of students at any
one time.Loading and unloading spaces may be provided in a drive
through lane with stacked stalls as may be approved by the public
works department.
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 6
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
STAFF REPORT:()
The changing characteristics of the various types of schools requires an
update of the ordinance.These standards for parking have not been reviewed
in at least twenty years.Many more students in high school and college drive
now.Current standards for elementary and secondary grades include no
allowance for teacher aid parking or employee parking plus required space for
stacking for drop-off and pickup is left undefined in paragraphs 2,3 and 4.
Day care for both adults and children are not operated today as in the past
with a growing emphasis hy state regulators on smaller,home-based and less
commercial characteristics.After school drop-off,in some cases increases
the allowed number above what is now allowable,with van delivery making that
effective.
Some kindergarten or day care uses now offer late night or night shift
childcare which causes overlapping of workers shifts and changes peak times
for drop-off/pickup.
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 6a
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Article XII.Wireless SOURCE:Jim Connell
Communication Facilities,re ires
a throu h review to u date and
clarif the wordin and re irements
based on e erience ained from
a 1 in the ori inal ordinance.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-590.through 36-598.)
Too lengthy to install here.
STAFF REPORT:()
This ordinance has been in place since January of 1998.The staff that
administers this ordinance has a number of issues or problems with both siting
standards,setback requirements from residential uses,definitions,and
current wording in several areas.We feel a little tune up at this time would
be useful.
Mr.Connell will develop a list for inclusion here if it is determined the
review should be done.
2
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 7
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT
SUGGESTED TEXT:(Sec.)
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 7a
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Division 2.Residential SOURCE:Jim Connell
Districts.Section 36-252(2)Review
the size limitation for accesso
dwellin s for currenc and determine
whether to modif or remove the
limitation,or increase the size.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE (36-252.1 thru 5)
Sec.36-252.Accessory buildings in certain districts.
Accessory dwellings within the R-2,R-3,R-4 and R-7A districts shall conform
to the following area requirements:
(1)No accessory dwelling shall exceed the permitted height of the district.
(2)The maximum permitted floor area shall not exceed seven hundred (700)
square feet nor shall it exceed when added to the principal dwelling
thirty (30)percent of the total lot area.
(3)In the R-2 district,one (1)of the dwelling units must be occupied by
the land owner.
(4)In the R-4 district,an accessory dwelling is expressly prohibited when
a duplex exists on the lot.
(5)In R-2,R-3,R-4 and R-7A districts,a single-family dwelling or
manufactured home must be on the site prior to approval of location of
an accessory dwelling.
STAFF REPORT:()
This is a provision of the zoning ordinance that could be easily described as
abused.The ordinance,when originally drafted had a somewhat narrow use
application in the view of staff.The 700 sq'uare foot maximum floor area is
almost never adhered with some of the authorized units being four or five
times that size.What that does is allow a 2"principal dwelling on the same
lot which violates a basic tenant of the ordinance.One principal with
accessory or subordinate buildings.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 8
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Division 2.Residential SOURCE:Jim Connell
Districts.Section 36-253(b)(2)
The cha ter referred to should be
corrected to read "Cha ter 36."
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-253.(b)(2)g.)
g.Signs in compliance with Chapter 35,Article X.
STAFF REPORT:()
Change as indicated.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.Page 9
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 1
PROBLEM:Church use and related SOURCE:Walter Malone
schools,da care etc.as an
im act on R-2 and R-3 districts
b traffic and activities.A C.U.P.
vs.b ri ht location.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-253.(b)(4)a.)
(4)Conditional uses.The following uses may he permitted in this zone
subject to the approval of a condition use permit and all required
showings and conditions thereof:
a.Churches and other religious institutions and their accessory
buildings and uses.
STAFF REPORT:()
This proposal could very well bring us closer to performance zoning because
the issues problems are not whether hut how a religious institution is placed.
The Immanuel Baptist Church plan review is a good example of the siting
problems attendant to mega churches.
When the zoning ordinance of 1937 was developed,few church organizations
could boast of 2000 plus members,especially in this part of the country.In
1987-89 when Little Rock embarked upon a revision of the ordinances,churches
were retained in single family with the only material change being the C.U.P.
required.No attempt was made to divide this use by intensity or effect.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
'00,ORD.ZON.
Page 10
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
PROBLEM:Articles V.District SOURCE:Jim Connell
Re lations.Division I,Section
36-201(a).Clarif where idance
for WCF is found.
CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE:(36-201 (a).)
Sec.36-201 .Broadcas t media and amateur radio towers .
(a)Definition.In this section "tower"means any mast,brace,or other
structure used for the support of amateur radio,radio,television or
broadcast media,specif ically exempting wi reless communication facilities.
STAFF REPORT:()
Staff often receives questions as to location or placement for WCF's.People
look under broadcast media where it says WCF's are exempted,but then it does
not say that WCF's are covered under another article.Staff feels it would be
helpful to this definition as to where WCF's are governed.
SUGGESTED TEXT:()
Add to the end of the definition as follows:--"specifically exempting
wireless communication facilities which are covered in Article XII,Section
36-590.
'PP,ORD ZON Page 11
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
V
O
T
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
D
A
T
E
C
M
~
T
~
d
d
t
%
g
f
v
l
O
O
O
H
~
~
o
v
l
4
-
+
4
.
M
E
M
B
E
R
A
S
c
t
O
D
4
7
8
9
I
2
.
F
.
F
t
t
-
I
t
.
X
2
5
-
I
3
6
y
I
C
3
'
5
1
1
R
E
C
T
O
R
,
B
I
L
L
y
f
r
Y
y
g
y
8
r
y
'
Y
8
v
'
f
Y
Y
r
4
D
O
W
N
I
N
G
,
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
y
'
'
'
v
r
v
'
'
y
'
y
E
A
R
N
E
S
T
,
H
U
G
H
y
'
'
r
&
1
&
y
'
l
+
4
N
U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
O
B
R
A
Y
A
B
E
R
R
Y
,
C
R
A
I
G
~
y
'
r
y
'
A
D
C
O
C
K
,
P
A
M
v
v
'
o
v
8
o
R
A
H
M
A
N
M
I
Z
A
N
A
L
O
W
R
Y
,
B
O
B
r
r
v
y
y
y
&
p
v
'
y
r
o
A
L
L
E
N
F
R
E
D
J
R
.
y
'
'
V
'
y
0
y
y
~
F
A
U
S
T
,
J
U
D
I
T
H
y
&
&
0
~
0
g
y
'
U
S
E
,
R
O
H
N
y
'
g
y
v
v
~
r
r
r
y
'
r
V
4
4
0
g
g
r
~
Q
g
)
~
v
c
h
t
h
M
E
M
B
E
R
A
a
a
(
Z
R
E
C
T
O
R
,
B
I
L
L
y
y
v
'
O
W
N
I
N
G
,
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
L
K
F
T
A
T
7
:
+
~
a
~
'
v
'
a
u
m
E
A
R
N
E
S
T
,
H
U
G
H
y
'
~
y
y
N
U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
O
B
R
A
Y
A
A
A
B
E
R
R
Y
,
C
R
A
I
G
y
A
D
C
O
C
K
,
P
A
M
R
A
H
M
A
N
,
M
I
Z
A
N
A
A
A
A
L
O
W
R
Y
,
B
O
B
y
'
L
L
E
N
,
F
R
E
D
,
J
R
.
P
0
C
&
Y
:
Z
S
~
-
t
a
A
Y
0
W
G
6
F
A
U
S
T
,
J
U
D
I
T
H
M
U
S
E
,
R
O
H
N
v
'
e
e
t
i
n
g
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
8
-
&
R
P
.
M
.
+
A
Y
E
~
N
A
Y
E
+
A
B
S
E
N
T
4
A
B
S
T
A
I
N
K
R
E
C
U
S
E
August 3,2000
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
/A)ad
Date
C
Chairman e reta