pc_09 14 2000sub/
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 14,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the July 27,2000 (specialmeeting),August 3,2000 and August 17,2000 Meetings.The minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Craig Berry
Pam Adcock
Rohn Muse
Richard Downing
Fred Allen,Jr.Bill Rector
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Obray Nunnley
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 14,2000
I .DEFERRED I TEMS:
A.Montessori School —Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6096-B)—Referred to Planning Commission from
Board of Directors
B.Summit Mall —Revised PCD (Z-4923-A)
C.LUOO-01-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River
Mountain Planning District from Single Family to
Commercial
D.Accessible Space,Inc.—Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5110-C)
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Chenal Valley (Phase XIX)—Preliminary Plat (S-867-
HHHH)
2.Richdale/Hughey Replat —Preliminary Plat (S-1275-A)
2.1.Z-6908 4818 Baseline Road R-2 to C-3
3.Baseline Commercial Park —Preliminary Plat (S-1288)
3.1.Z-6911 South side of 10800 Block Baseline Road
R-2 to I-1
3.2.LUOO-16-06 -A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
Otter Creek Planning District from Mixed Office
Commercial to Service Trades District
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
4.THERE IS NO ITEM NO.4.
5.THERE IS NO ITEM NO.5.
6.MGM Properties —Short-Form PD-0 —Time Extension
(Z-5770-A)
Agenda,Page Two
III.PIdLNNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:(Cont.)
7.Wilson —Short-Form PCD (Z-6899)
7.1 LUOO-10-03 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
Boyle Park Planning District from Single Family
to Commercial
8.Novero —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6907)
8.1.LUOO-11-02 -A Land Use Plan Amendment in theI-430 Planning District from Single Family
to Neighborhood Commercial
9.Unleashed Innovations —Short-Form PD-0 (Z-6910)
9.1.LUOO-21-01 -A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
Burlingame Valley Planning District from Single
Family to Suburban Office
10.Gray —Short-Form POD (Z-6912)
10.1.LUOO-03-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the
West Little Rock Planning District from Single
Family to Mixed Use
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEW:
11.I-430 —Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision (Lot 22)Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1240-A)
11.1.Variance to allow off-site excavation for
S-1240-A
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
12.Harper Dollar Store —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6866-A)
13.Labee Accessory Dwelling —Conditional Use Permit(Z-6904)
14.Harrison Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6906)
15.Fellowship Bible Office Building —Revised Conditional
Use Permit (Z-6149-B)
H
10
CO
U
N
6
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
It
e
m
s
lj
.
jW
HW
/
s
8
8.
1
LE
E
Rt
vg
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
MA
HA
M
MA
R
K
M
Vl
1-
6
3
C
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
9
9.
1
KA
N
I
S
j
1-
6
3
0
K
AM
I
S
I
2T
H
12
T
H
E.
6
T
H
z
0
6p
&
h
CL
6'//
WR
I
G
H
T
4j
14
DA
M
+
IE
DI
V
E
(
I-
30
C)
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
j7
j
2
0
36
T
H
jj
.
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
FW
LA
W
S
O
N
42
~
1-
4
4
0
+~
—
4
o
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
N
S
O
I
Y
11
7
7.
1
ZE
U
B
E
R
DA
V
I
D
5
I-
0
O'
D
O
D
D
65
T
H
J~
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
K
VA
L
L
E
Y
17
8
IT
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
3 .1
YX
f
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
BA
S
E
L
NE
12
,
18
2
DI
X
O
N
HA
R
P
E
R
f
3
MA
VA
L
CU
T
O
F
F
CR
E
E
K
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
j
~
BL
I
N
K
E
R
WE
S
T
WN
S
O
N
I
1
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
c5
0
YE
R
SP
G
S
.
C
OF
F
e
j
CU
T
O
F
F
CU
T
O
F
F
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
o+
EL
65
16
7
36
5
AS
H
E
R
o~
PR
A
T
T
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
4,
2
0
0
0
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
NAME:Montessori School —Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Montessori School
PROPOSAL:To revise an existing conditional use
permit to add a building containing an
activity room,small kitchen,a
resources room,and three elementary
classrooms;abandon unused utility
easements;and increase the maximum
capacity of students to 98,on this
R-2,Single Family Residential zoned
property at 15717 Taylor Loop Road.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The existing school site is located at the southeast
corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed total site would include 0.62 acres of
property zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.It is
surrounded by R-2 properties with single family homes
to the south,northeast and west.The properties
directly across Taylor Loop to the north and adjacent
to the east are vacant.
The style of the current school building looks like a
large house and blends in well with the area.The new
proposed metal building unfortunately would not look
the same and would have a more institutional look.The
school use should remain compatible with the
neighborhood,but the building style would not blend
in as well.
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association,all property owners within 200 feet,and all residents
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
within 300 feet that could be identified,were
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site contains two existing drives from Taylor
Loop Road which form a one way flow and drop off
system in the parking lot in front of the building.
The applicant wishes to keep those two drives and add
a driveway passing in front of the new building and
connecting back to the existing parking area along
Taylor Loop.The new driveway would be used to drop
off the elementary children at the new building andstillkeepaseparateareatodropoffthe
kindergarten children at the current building.A small
asphalt area with six additional parking spaces would
be added in front of the new building.
Public Works believes that the two existing drives
onto Taylor Loop should be sufficient.
The existing C.U.P.allows the school to have up to 30
kindergarten children with 4 employees,and up to 48
total children from age 3-9.The new building would have
4 elementary classrooms,-which are larger than the
existing classrooms.Parking for a school is based on 1
space for each employee and each 10 children for
kindergarten,and 1 space for each elementary classroom.
That would result in a requirement for 13 spaces.
Thirteen spaces exist now and 4 new are proposed,which
would be 17 total.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wood fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings,is required along the southern perimeter.
2
September 14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6096-B
5.PUBLZC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Taylor Loop is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30
feet from centerline.
b.Montgomery Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way
to 30 feet from centerline.c.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is
recpxired at the corner of Taylor Loop and
Montgomery Road.
d.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.e.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.f.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.
g.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
h.Taylor Loop has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 1,400.
6.UTZLZTY FZRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if
larger and/or additional water meters are needed.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No affect.Site is not on a dedicated bus
route.
3
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to add a second building to
house a gymnasium and 4 classrooms,with a small paved
area in front containing 4 parking spaces.Included in
the request is an increase in the maximum capacity to
98 children.
The Montessori school has existed on this site since
August 1996.In April 1998 the Planning Commission
approved an amended C.U.P.to raise the student
capacity from 30 to 48.That was requested to be able
to continue to school the children into the elementary
grades.The requests for increased enrollment have
continued resulting in this request for more space and
increased capacity to 98 students.
The new two-story building would contain a small
gymnasium,kitchen,and four classrooms.The
application includes a request to abandon some unused
utility easements in the middle of the school property
and replace them with perimeter easements.The utility
companies approved the abandonment,but that request
will have to be forwarded to the City Board of
Directors for final approval.
All siting requirements are met by the proposal.The
owner of the property to the southeast has requested
that the screening fence adjacent to his property not
be required.He wishes the area to he left open so to
provide a more open appearance between his house and
the new school building,not divided in half by a
fence.A waiver or deferral would be required to
accommodate the neighbor's request.At the time of
this writing,Staff had not received any written
confirmation that the resident did not want the
screening.
The school would maintain a staggered drop off and
pick up schedule to minimize traffic congestion.
Operating hours are from 7:15 a.m.to about 6 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
4
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
Staff believes the request is a reasonable use of the
property and that it should continue to be compatible
with the neighborhood.However,we would encourage the
applicant to choose exterior finishes that would blend
with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible.
The issue of the third driveway will need to be
resolved by the Commission since Public Works still
opposes it.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments with the driveway
issue as decided by the Commission.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
If a written request by the neighbor to the immediate
south is received stating he does not want a wooden
fence screen,between his property and the new church
building,then Staff would support that waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JUNE 1,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Roy West were present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description
of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments and a short discussion
occurred regarding the driveways.The Committee asked the
applicant to meet with Public Works on the issue.
The screening fence on the southeast property line was also
discussed and the applicant was instructed to obtain a letter
from the neighbor about the fence and the Commission would
make a final determination.
5
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6096-B
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(JUNE 22,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Roy West were present
representing the application.There were two registeredobjectorspresent.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.Staff noted that the applicant and Public Works had
come to an agreement regarding the driveway question and no
driveway would be added on Montgomery.Zn addition,the
Commission was informed that Staff had received a letter
from the resident adjacent to the southwest corner of theschool's property stating that he did not want a screening
fence installed between his property and the proposed new
school building.Therefore,Staff stated they were in
support of the request to waive that screening requirement.
The Chair informed the applicant that the Commission was
down to eight members present and stated the Commission's
policy to offer applicants the opportunity to defer their
application since the applicant must obtain positive votesofsixoftheeightCommissionerspresent.The applicant
chose to proceed.
Mrs.Moffett gave a short summary of the school's request
and why the additional building was needed.
Jim Nettles spoke in opposition.He stated that the headsoftheHeatherbraeandWestchestersubdivisionsandseveral
people in those neighborhoods told him they did not know ofthisproposedexpansion.He also stated that these same
people stated they were not notified when the school wasfirstproposedin1996.He added that according to his
measurement,the Dyer's property at 15800 Taylor Loop Road
was 185 feet from the original school site and so they
should have been notified of each proposal.He continued bystatingthattheschooladdedaseconddrivewaysincethe
original construction and felt that permission to do that
should have been obtained from the Commission before it
occurred.He felt that was a substantial addition to,and
violation of,the original permit.He continued by statinghisbeliefthattheyshouldhavebeenmoreinvolvedinthe
review process and the development of Staff's
6
September=14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
recommendations.In addition,he stated concerns over the
increase to 98 students and the construction of the
gymnasium.He felt those two factors would increase traffic
on Taylor Loop significantly.He stated concern that thetrafficwouldbeturningaroundintheneighbor's driveways
and pulling onto neighbor's lawns.More over,he stated hecouldn't understand how the Planning Commission in 1998
could approve an amendment to the original C.U.P.without,
as he claimed,even the immediate neighbors being notified
and having input.
Deanna Rust,who lives across Taylor Loop to the northwestoftheexistingschool,also spoke in opposition.She
passed out a picture to the Commission showing the view
taken from her house looking towards the site.She asked
the Commissioners to imagine how a two story "gymnasium"
would look on the lot she showed in the picture.She statedthattheproposedstructurewouldclashwiththeresidentialnatureoftheareaandthatschoolslowerthe
property values of residences in the area.She explained
the concerns she had when she originally moved to this area
because of the current school,and why she moved there
anyway.She felt that the older children being added to the
school would bring more activity,noise and traffic,
especial at night,to the area and drastically disrupt the
peaceful pace and nature of this neighborhood.She did not
want a two-story gymnasium built across for her house.
Chairperson Adcock asked the school representatives why she
didn'find the names or letters from the immediate
neighbors among the support petition and letters.She also
stated that she found e-mail letters in support to be
worthless and like a chain letter.Therefore,she was
discounting those letters.She saw only one letter in
support from the immediate neighborhood and that person had
a student in the school.Mr.West,from the school,pointed
out that there were support letters from all three abutting
homeowners and the owner across Taylor Loop to the
northeast in the group the Chair had.He also brought to
the Chair's attention the support petition with 14 names of
people from Taylor Loop and Carter Lane.
Commissioner Rahman asked Mr.Turner,Director of Public
Works,if the school would be required to make street
improvements along the two street frontages.Mr.Turner
replied that they would.Commissioner Rahman receivedclarificationthatthetwoexistingdrivewayswouldremain,
a driveway would not be added onto Montgomery,that the new
building was about 5200 square feet,the existing building
was about 3800 square feet,and that the property size was
7
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6096-B
about 0.63 acres.He then asked how Staff could support theincreaseinstudentcapacityofwhathesawasacommercial
business use and he had a problem with the analysis thatStaffhadprovided.He added that if it had outgrown itsoriginalauthorizedspaceitshouldmove,that the scale
was out of proportion,and that the application didn't have
any merit.Staff was not given the opportunity to explainitsanalysis.
Commissioner Muse stated that he believed that a healthy
neighborhood has an elementary school,usually public,this
one happens to be private.He then asked about the exteriorofthebuilding.Mr.West stated that the original proposal
was brick and Dry-Vit,but that they would be willing to
make changes to have it look more like a home.Commissioner
Muse stated he would support the proposal if the exterior
surface and landscaping were made to blend in with the
neighborhood.Mr.West stated they would be glad to do that
and that they did already intend to use a shingle roof,not
a metal surface roof.
Commissioner Lowry received clarification that the school
currently has 48 students,their full authorized capacity,
and that they did want to raise that maximum capacity to
98,but they do not have 98 already enrolled.He asked Mr.
West if he didn't believe that increase would impact the
neighborhood.Mr.West said he didn'believe that would
because of the staggered drop-off times they used to
prevent traffic problems,and that even the noise from the
playground is minimal at a Montessori school because of thediscipline.
Commissioner Nunnley agreed with Commissioner Rahman about
the size and asked at what point do we say enough is
enough.This started as a small school of 30,went to 48,
and now they are asking for 98.He wondered at what point
does the Commission say it is time for them to move.Hedidn't see this as being an asset to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Berry stated that schools do go with
neighborhoods and that there are many public schools of a
much greater scale in residential neighborhoods alongcollectorstreetssuchasTaylorLoop.He added that thisisnotintheheartofaresidentialneighborhoodandthat
schools in neighborhoods are part of city life.He also did
not agree that the proposed site was over developed.He
said that was looked at during the Subdivision Committee
and he felt this was probably an ideal site for a school
and the size was fine.He also pointed out that the
neighbor most impacted by the new building,the one living
8
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
immediately next to it,not only supported the expansion,but didn't even want a screening fence installed.Hecontinuedthatifexpandingschoolsaren't located in
growing neighborhoods then where do you want them to be.Hestatedthataschoolof98studentsisnotalargeschool
compared to many of the public schools in Little Rock
neighborhoods.He concluded by stating he supported theproposal.He then asked where Mr.Nettles and Ms.Rustlivedinrelationtothesiteandthatwaspointedout onthezoningmapintheagendawrite-up.It was noted that
Mr.Nettles was speaking for Mrs.Dyer and her house wasidentified.
A motion was made to approve the application as submittedtoincludestaffcommentsandrecommendations.Commissioner
Nunnley asked that Commissioner Berry be allowed to finishapointhewastryingtomakeeaxlierwhenhewasshouted
down.He wanted to hear that point.Commissioner Nunnleysaidthatherealizedthatthiswasatouchyissueand that
he didn't want the Commission to rush to a vote because the
hour was late.
Chair Adcock called the question and the vote.The motionfailedbyavoteof3ayes,4 nays,Commissioner Nunnleyabstained,and 3 absent.
Mr.Lawson,Director of Planning and Development asked that
the record reflect that he was not allowed to speak
regarding this issue,particularly with regard to
Commissioner Rahman's questions regarding Staff's analysis
and recommendation.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Board of Directors reviewed this request on August 15,
2000.Comments were made by Jim Lawson,Director of
Planning and Development,to describe what had taken place
up to coming before the Board.Director Adcock commented
that she had affidavits from six individuals that said they
had not been notified of the proposed C.U.P.application
and hearing.After a short discussion of what had taken
place to date,and brief comments from the applicant and
the opposition representative,the Board voted to send the
item back to the Planning Commission for rehearing.
During the interim a meeting was held between the
neighborhood and the applicant to discuss the issue and
9
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
neighborhood concerns.The proposal is basically the same
as originally brought before the Commission except that the
intended uses and exterior appearance have been clarified
and updated for the proposed new building.The revised site
plan shows that the new building would contain three
classrooms,a small kitchen,a resources room and a59'x33'(1,947 square feet)activity room.The activity room
would have one or two basketball goals for play and
exercise,but not a regular basketball court,and would not
be used for games between other schools.The current
proposed exterior includes a mixture of siding and brick.
All concerns of Staff have been satisfied.
STAFF UPDATED RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's recommendation remains to approve the conditional
use permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards anyresidentialzonedarea.
Staff has received a written request by the neighbor to the
immediate south of the proposed new building stating he
does not want a wooden fence screen between his property
and the new church building.Therefore,Staff would support
that waiver,conditioned on an agreement that if the
property is sold and the new owner wishes a screening fence
to be installed,that the school do so.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Randy Frasier,
Attorney for the school,were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed
revised site plan.
The changes were a slightly different exterior appearance,
a clarification of the large room inside as an activity
10
September 14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6096-B
room,not a full gymnasium,dropping access to Montgomery
Road and revising the parking area in front of the new
building to accommodate not having access to Montgomery
Road.
Public Works mentioned that the traffic counts taken since
August 1,2000 were 1440 cars per day on Taylor Loop,and
97 cars per day on Montgomery Road.
There being no further new information or questions,the
Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Dorothy Moffett,school Director,and Randy Frazier,
attorney for the school,were the primary persons present
representing the application.There were two registered
supporters and three registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approvalsubjecttocompliancewiththeconditionslistedunder"Staff Updated Recommendation,"above.
Jim Lawson,Little Rock City Director of Planning and
Development,updated the Commission that the school and
City personnel had met a couple of times with members of
the neighborhood,which resulted in the school modifyingtheirapplication.He suggested the applicant present those
changes.Mr.Lawson also stated that as a result of these
changes,Staff feels this is a better application than theoriginalone,the building is not as large and many of the
concerns of the neighbors had been worked out.
Randy Frazier spoke for the applicant.He stated that two
meetings were held with neighborhood members,August 28 to
which persons on the mailing list and ones they knew were
opposed were invited,and September 12 at the request of
Deanna Rust.Agreement was reached at the second meeting
with Mrs.Rust on ten points requested to be part of the
C.U.P conditions.A list of those ten points was
distributed to the Commissioners.That concluded the
preliminary update comments.
11
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
Chair Adcock asked the Commissioners if they were
comfortable proceeding in light of these changes presented.
The Commissioners agreed they did want to proceed.
Commissioner Lowry asked if Staff had a map showing the
location of the people currently for and against the
proposal.Mr.Lawson stated there was not a current map
because it was not clear now who were for or against,other
than the few who attended the last meeting and the abutting
neighbors.Commissioner Lowry.asked about the neighbors
that Director Adcock mentioned at the Board meeting and
their current position.Mr.Lawson stated that he didn'
want to speak for those persons,but one of them was
present.He later showed the maps the Staff had created
showing those persons on the various petitions and letters
that Staff had received that were for or against the
proposal,but he reminded the Commission that this
information was at least two weeks old.The information had
not been updated since the neighborhood meetings had been
held because no new information had been received from any
neighbors,other than some verbal comments made by those at
the two meetings.
Mr.Frazier continued with their presentation.He began by
distributing to the Commissioners the letter that was
distributed in obtaining the names on the opposition
petition.He made the point that most people would probably
be opposed based on the contents of that letter.He
mentioned again the meetings held with the neighborhood,
and that he had invited Mr.Jim Nettles,spokesman for the
opposition,and the people he represented to both meetings,
but Mr.Nettles and most of the people he represented did
not attend.He then stated the current facts of what was
being requested in this application compared to what wasn'
being requested that was stated in Mr.Nettle's letter to
the neighborhood.Mr.Frazier stated that the school
currently has a total of 71 students,48 attending at thissiteand23attendingatCentralBaptistChurchschool
around the corner about two blocks away.The Commission
granted a C.U.P.in 1996 for up to 48 students.He then
stated he felt the impact of additional traffic would be
minimal since the added children is limited to only 78
for the first three years and there are 71 at the two
locations now.He again mentioned that the property owners
abutting the site are in favor of the proposal and that
12
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6096-B
Mr.Williams,the most affected,is present in support.His
property directly abuts the church site next to where the
new building is proposed.
Mr.Frazier explained that the new building would contain
6,010 square feet,have a residential look with a sloped
shingle roof and wood siding exterior,be compatible with
the existing school building,and that the highest point of
the building would be 33 feet.Zt would not be a metal.
building.Zt has been scaled down from an earlier proposalof7,800 square feet.He stated that the purpose of the new
building was to move the 23 students now attending Central
Baptist and to rearrange functions within the two buildingstobettermeettheneedsofthestudents.He clarified that
the building would not have a gymnasium,but it would have
an all-purpose room,which has also been scaled down from
59 feet by 33 feet to 49 feet by 33 feet.Zt would be usedforvariousinternalactivities,and may have a basketball
goal,but would not be a regular court or be used for games
with other schools.He added that the school has agreed to
limit night time activities to 5 school wide evening
meetings or events a year.He stated that the kitchen would
be small and would be used for the purpose of assisting
with meals for the students,not cooking and serving meals
on a daily basis.Some days Mrs.Moffett brings in some
food that could be served from the kitchen.Mr.Frazier
stated the school would meet the new landscape ordinance
requirements everywhere except the west side.There they
would meet current landscape requirements.
Next,Mr.Frazier explained that there should be only a
small impact on traffic by the increase in the number of
students.The increase will be gradual and spaced over
several years and the staggered start and stop times for
the different grades would lessen and spread out theaffect.The students would not be driving because they
would not be old enough.He concluded by saying that the
school feels it has done everything possible to balance
providing a good educational environment with the concerns
of the neighborhood and that the impacts of the expansion
would be minimal and regularly evaluated.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if there would be any off site
classrooms.Mr.Frazier stated no there would not.
13
September 14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:A (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6096-B
Commissioner Lowry asked if the school reaches its 88
maximum,would they go back to using space at the nearby
church.Mr.Frazier said no,that the school agrees to captheirenrollmentat88andallbelocatedatthisschoolsite.Commissioner Lowry also asked why the school couldn'
meet the new landscape requirements on the west side of the
property.Mr.Frazier answered that the new requirements
would eliminate all the parking spaces proposed along that
west side.That would negate the school's efforts to keep
parking off of Taylor Loop by providing more on site
parking.They can meet current landscape and buffer
requirements and still provide those spaces as shown in the
current request.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the Baptist Church school
size and about preventing the Montessori School from
growing more.Mr.Lawson stated that the church does have
an approved school with a maximum of 35 students and that
for either of them to increase those maximums,they would
have to come back to the Commission.Also,if a neighbor
was concerned that either school had violated their maximum
enrollment,they should call zoning enforcement and normal
enforcement action would be taken to ensure compliance.
David Williams spoke in favor of the proposal.He is the
owner/occupant of the house which abuts the school property
adjacent to where the new building would be located.He
stated he bought the property knowing the school was
already in place and feels that he couldn't ask for better
neighbors,and that Mrs.Moffett has always been very
responsive to,and satisfied any concerns he has had.
Rudy Bittner also spoke in favor of the proposal for he and
his two daughters.He lives across Taylor Loop Road,
northeast of the school.He added that one daughter lives
directly across from the school and the other daughter is
planning to build a house also across the street from the
school.He stated that the school is quiet and his wife who
is home most of the day has never heard any noise from the
school that has upset her and is very pleased with the
school.He said he thought the new building would be
attractive and improve the property.
14
September &14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
Mr.Frazier presented a petition of names in favor of the
proposal.
Mr.Jim Nettles began the presentation in opposition.He
asked if he could have an extra ten minutes to respond to
the changes in the application proposed by the applicant.
Chair Adcock said the opposition would have 20 minutes,and
based on the fact that there were 3 persons that wanted to
speak in opposition with equal time,the Chair stated that
each would have about 6 4 minutes.
Mr.Nettles said there was no way he could present all that
he felt the Commission would want to know with only 20
minutes to do it.So he would try to hit the highlights.He
began by referring to the size of the two buildings,about
10,000 square feet,being placed on less than the 2/3 of an
acre of land.His next point was that at the June Planning
Commission meeting,the applicant stated they had 48
students at this site,but today they stated they have 71
counting the 48 at this site and 23 at the Baptist Church.
Mr.Nettles felt the school was deceiving the Commission
about the enrollment numbers.He continued with reference
to other statements made at the June meeting which he felt
were misleading about the surrounding structures and that
the way the location was described was an attempt to makeitsoundlikeitwaswayoutinthecountry.He then
referred to comments made by the City Engineer in March of
1996 regarding the need to redesign stormwater detention
due to the change in runoff from the designed facilities.
The next point made by Mr.Nettles was that the school
had never dedicated any of the required right-of-way
before doing any construction.Another point made by
Mr.Nettles was that there were about 24 trips per day by
school buses on Taylor Loop Road and that the corner of
Montgomery and Taylor Loop Roads was a school bus pick uppoint.He then referred to a picture showing that the view
was obstructed coming towards that intersection traveling
west.Mr.Nettle's time expired.
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Nettles where his residence
was so he could understand his standing relative to this
development.Mr.Nettles stated he is at 15808 Taylor Loop
Road more than anywhere else,but his furniture is at
4710 Sam Peck Road.
15
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6096-B
had also heard statements that the proposed site was
unsuitable for a house and she couldn't understand how it
could be unsuitable for a house,but suitable for the
proposed school building.She still has the unsettling
feeling that maybe she still hasn't been told everything,that there may be more surprises later.She asked for
assurances that "all the cards are on the table"when a
vote is made.She wasn't confident that they were.Shestatedthatshewas"dismayed that people charged with
teaching our children would accept and even encourage thissortofbehavior".
William Bruton spoke in opposition.Commissioner Nunnley
asked to be shown where he and Ms.Rust lived.He stated
that he had never been notified about any school proposed,
original or expansions,on this site.He continued by
explaining that when the school filled in the current site
proposed,it greatly increased the flooding on the property
on the north side of Taylor Loop.He stated that area
served as a natural detention for the runoff before it
continued under Taylor Loop and onto the properties to the
north,including his.Since that is gone,flooding occurs
frecpxently.He asked that the current problems be resolved
before any more expansion be allowed.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
to include staff comments and recommendations,the 10
points agreed to at the meeting with the neighbors on
September 12,and to include a recommendation to waive the
screening recpxirement between the proposed building and
the property to the south.The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes,4 nays and 0 absent.
17
September ~~,2000
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
NAME:Summit Mall —Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and
Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Summit Mall Co.,LLC McGetrick and McGetrick
&Construction Developers,Inc.219 East Markham St.,Ste.202
c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock,AR 72201
115 West Washington Street
Indianapolis,IN 46204
AREA:97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Commercial/Office Mixed
Development
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 1,1987,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD,establishing the Summit Mall —Long-Form PCD.The approved site
plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall,three (3)office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet,a 190,000 squarefoothotel(250 rooms)and two (2)restaurant lease parcelstotaling20,000 square feet.A total of 5,945 parking spaces
was proposed,some of which were located in a parking deck for
the proposed office buildings.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD with an entirely new site development plan.The new
proposed site plan consists of the following:
September i~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
1.An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one-
half of the property.2.An 85,700 square foot,4,238 seat movie theatre located
near the southwest corner of the property.3.Three (3)retail/office buildings with a total area of
77,400 square feet,located between the mall building and
the theatre.4.Four (4)lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 squarefeettotal)at the southeast corner of the property.5.A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the
property labeled as office/hotel/retail.6.4,734 parking spaces.7.Three (3)access points from Shackleford Road.
The proposed buildings,parking areas,drives and
landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded,with
varying degrees of slope throughout the property.Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the
property,with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary.
Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to theeast.The property immediately south is also vacant and
wooded.
There is'a Comcast Cable office building and t'ower along
the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by
the proposed mall site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received comments and
concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives.The
John Barrow,Sandpiper and Sewer District ¹147 Neighborhood
Associations have been notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis.
2.Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial
street standards for access to commercial activity
around the site.This road should have access points
designed along the route with drive spacing at not less
than 250 feet on center.
2
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
3.Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with
and without development traffic to verify adecpxacy of
the interchange and recommend improvements due to
development.
4.Verify with plan and profile that adecpxate sight
distance is provided at all points of access.
5.Verify with capacity analysis that all site
intersections will operate at a minimum level of service
of "D"during the peak hour of the generator.
6.Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for
Shackleford Road adjacent to site.
7.NPDES permit from ADEQ,including Wetland Clearance will
be recpxired.
8.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline is recpxired.
9 ~Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
10.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
11.All internal streets must be designed to commercial
street standards.
12.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
13.Stozmwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
14.Easements for proposed stozmwater detention facilities
are recpxired.
15.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as recpxired by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code.All recpxests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
16.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
17.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 100 base flood elevation is recpxired.
18.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
recpxired.
19.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
recpxired.
20.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is recpxired.
21.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-
283 is recpxired.
3
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
22.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is
required.
,23.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work is required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main relocation and extension required
with easements.
AP&L:Underground easements will have to be negotiated at
a later date when transformers are located to make a loop
through the shopping center.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.An
acreage charge of $150/acre,plus a development fee based
on the size of connections,will apply in addition to the
normal connection charges.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for
information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant
placement.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:CATA Route ¹3 serves very near this site.This
location is in a key area for transit.CATA would like to
discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a
bus pullout(s)on the periphery of the site.Better
pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need
to be established.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-430 Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial.The
revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current
land use category.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This area is not
covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan.
4
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Because this property has significant variations in its
grade elevations,cross sections showing the proposed
method of treatment will be necessary.
Since this site is currently covered in trees,the CitybeautifulCommissionrecommendspreservingasmanyoftheexistingtreesasfeasible.This includes preserving trees
within the street buffers.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger.
G.ANALYS I S:
As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments,a greatdealofinformationregardingthisapplicationisneeded bystaff.Some of the additional information requested bystaffattheSubdivisionCommitteemeetingisasfollows:
1.Discuss phasing plan.Show proposed phasing on site
plan.
2.Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed
phases.Note areas within the site where existing treeswillbepreserved.
3.Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and
Shackleford Road.
4.Note proposed sign location(s)and provide details.5.Show dumpster locations.
6.Provide north/south and east/west sections and
elevations.
7.Show retaining walls on the site plan and providedetails.
8.There should be no grading or site work prior to
obtaining a building permit.
9.Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels atthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.The previously
approved site plan included only two (2)lease
parcels/restaurant sites,one (1)on each side of the
Comcast property.Provide proposed uses for the leaseparcels.
5
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
10.Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at
the northeast corner of the property.11.Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this
project (phases,proposed uses,etc.)and addressing the
design features as offered by the previous developer and
the conditions agreed to with the previous approval.
12.Define proposal.Is the proposed revised PCD site plan
requested for a three (3)year approval?Include this
information in the cover letter.
These are issues which need to be addressed by the
applicant in addition to the Public Works,Utility,Fire
Department,CATA and Landscape requirements and comments.
One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed
project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to
the overall site grading (cuts and fill,etc.).The
existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes
that the existing high point of the property is located
within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the
lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner
of the property.The proposed contour plan shows that the
high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75
to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building)
will be raised approximately 60 feet.An overall plan for
the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved,to
include information on street buffer treatment and tree
preservation.The effect of the proposed development on
the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate
property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be
discussed and resolved.
The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on
December 9,1999 that the applicant should make a
preliminary presentation of this item to the full
Commission on January 6,2000.This will allow the other
commissioners to express concerns that they might have withthisproposeddevelopment.Then the item would need to be
deferred to the February 17,2000 agenda to allow the
applicant to respond to the issues and concerns,and
present additional information to staff and the Subdivision
Committee (January 27,2000).It was also discussed by the
Subdivision Committee that a six (6)month time extension
of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable.This
6
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff
and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to
extend beyond the March 18,2000 expiration date.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this application to the
February 17,2000 Planning Commission agenda.
Staff also recommends that the expiration date of the
previously approved PCD be extended six (6)months to
September 18,2000.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 9,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing the
application.Staff described the proposed revised PCD site
plan,noting that a great deal of additional information was
needed.Staff noted that this item was a candidate fordeferral.
There was a discussion of the project which included topicsrelatingtophasing,grading,parking standards and the
conditions approved with the previous site plan.It was noted
that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between
the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corneroftheproperty.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It was
noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed.Phasing ofstreetimprovementswasalsodiscussed.Public Works
representatives noted phased development to include street
improvements could be supported.The grading of the site and
cuts into the hillside were also discussed.
The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make
a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6,
2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might
have.Then the item would be deferred to the February 17,2000
agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and
Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision
Committee on January 27,2000.
7
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
It was also determined that a six (6)month time extension on
the previously approved PCD would be appropriate,given the fact
that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the
March 18,2000 expiration date.The Committee then forwarded
the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary
discuss3.on.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 6,2000)
Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present,representing the
application.Staff explained that as a result of the
Subdivision Committee review of this item,the applicant was to
make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this
meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17,
2000 agenda.Staff noted that there was much additional
information which was needed.Staff also noted that since the
application needed to be deferred,an extension of time for the
previously approved PCD was in order.The previously approved
PCD expires on March 18,2000.
Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be consideredfirst.There was a brief discussion regarding the time
extension issue.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,explained the
time extension issue.There was a motion to grant a six (6)
month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration
date-September 18,2000).The motion passed with a vote of 9
ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary
presentation.
Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to
determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that
have not been addressed by staff.
Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary
presentation at this time.
Mr.Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had
concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked
out.
8
September l,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with
Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns.
There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17,
2000 agenda.There was a brief discussion of the deferral.The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 27,2000)
Pat McGetrick,Chuck Synder,Ernie Peters,Greg Simmons and
Merle Seamon were present,representing the application.The
applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the
Committee,noting that the most significant change in the plan
was within the southeast corner of the property.The drive
location was revised with the restaurants being on the south
side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive
and the Comcast property.The applicants then discussed the
phasing plan for the property.The new phasing plan limits thetotalclearingandexcavationtobedonewithPhaseI(cinema
building and restaurants).
There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut andfillthatwouldbedone.Mr.McGetrick noted that the maximum
cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point.He
also noted that the largest amount of fill would be
approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property.
Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction werebrieflydiscussed.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that the applicant had
submitted a traffic study.He noted that Public Works had
concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a positionatthistimetosupportthestudy.There was a general
discussion of this issue.The applicant stated that the
Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study,mostlikelywhencompletedtoPublicWorkssatisfaction.
The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project.
These were briefly discussed.
Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the
revised site plan,but was still negotiating with the applicant
on some issues (lighting,etc.).
9
September ,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
There was additional discussion of the site design.There was
also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a
vote from the Commission on February 17,2000.
The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolvealloftheoutstandingissuesandbereadyforCommissionaction
on February 17,2000.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 17,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthatthisitembedeferredtotheMarch30,
2000 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30,2000
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMarch23,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the June 22,2000 agenda.Staff noted that the
applicant,requesting a third deferral,would be required to
renotify property owners within 200 feet.Staff supported thedeferralrequest.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 22,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune7,2000 requesting that this application be
deferred to the September 14,2000 agenda.Staff supported the
10
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
deferral request.Staff noted that this would be the last
deferral request supported.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
September 14,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant reviewed a revised site plan with staff during the
week of August 14,2000 and with the Subdivision Committee on
August 24,2000 (see Subdivision Committee comments below).The
applicant also submitted development plan and a traffic study
booklets,which were delivered by staff to the individual
Planning Commissioners on August 29,2000 for review.Staff is
continuing to review the development plan and traffic study
and will make a recommendation at the public hearing on
September 14,2000.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Chuck Snyder,Merle Seamon,Pat McGetrick,Earnie Peters,Greg
Simmons and John Flake were present,representing the
application.The applicants presented the Committee with the
revised site plan and explained the changes that were made.
Chuck Snyder noted that the addition of a fourth anchor caused
the site plan to be revised.He also noted that there had been
no interest from a theatre user.
In response to a question from the Committee,Mr.Snyder noted
that the lease parcels along Shackleford Road would be for C-3
type uses (restaurant,specialty retail),but could includeofficeuse.Office uses for the lease parcels was discussed.
There was a brief discussion relating to the amount of parking
proposed.Vice-Chair Berry stated that the parking should be
calculated based on the gross leasable floor area and not thetotalgrossfloorarea.This was briefly discussed.
The proposed excavation associated with the development plan was
briefly discussed.Mr.McGetrick noted that the maximum cut
would be 90 to 100 feet.
11
September ~.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
The issue of retaining walls was discussed.The applicants
noted that there would be retaining walls on the south side of
the Comcast property and retaining walls to support the fill
material along the south and west property lines.
Stormwater detention was also discussed.
A topic of discussion also included which trees along the south
and west perimeter areas would be saved.The applicant
presented cross-sections for these areas showing the proposed
retaining walls.The applicant noted that if single taller
walls (higher than 15 feet)were allowed,rather than multiple
shorter walls,more existing trees within these perimeter areas
could be saved.This issue was discussed.
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,asked about the
relationship of the taller walls to I-430.Mr.McGetrick stated
that he would supply the appropriate drawings to show this.
There was a discussion of how the proposed site plan relates to
the new proposed landscape ordinance.Mr.Flake noted that the
previous site plan had to be revised very little to conform to the
proposed new ordinance.Interior landscaping was briefly
discussed.It was noted that more interior landscaping was needed
within the parking area on the east side of the Dillards building.
Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that the interior
landscaping needed to be more evenly distributed in this area.
Vice-Chair Berry noted that he would like to see plans forinteriorpedestrianwalkways.This issue was discussed.
Terri Davis,of CATA,noted that a public bus drop-off area was
needed for workers and customers who would come to the site bypublictransit.
The traffic issues were discussed.Bob Turner noted that Public
Works was in the process of reviewing the traffic study.Earnie
Peters reviewed the adjacent and off-site street improvements
which would have to be made.The Committee asked if the
developer planned to pay for all of the improvements.Mr.
Snyder noted that the developer would do all adjacent and off-site improvements and had no problem with this being a conditionofapproval.He noted that the developer was exploring
financing alternatives.Mr.Peters noted that the State Highway
Department and the Federal Highway Administration would have to
approve the design.
12
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
The proposed project was discussed in relation to the Aldersgate
property across Shackleford Road to the east.The applicants
noted that they had a meeting scheduled with Camp Aldersgate
representatives .
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Rod Vosper,Chuck Snyder,John Flake,Merle Seamon,Pat
McGetrick,Earnie Peters and Greg Simmons were present,
representing the application.There was one person present with
concerns.Staff described the proposed PCD site plan and noted
that the applicant had made changes since the Subdivision
Committee meeting.Staff recommended approval of the
application subject to compliance with the requirements as noted
in paragraphs D and E of the agenda report.
Staff noted that the applicant had added more interior landscape
areas,created a pedestrian circulation system,shown building
landscaping and sign locations,and had made a commitment to
provide a bus turn-out.Staff also noted that the applicant had
been working Camp Aldersgate on the project.
John Flake addressed the Commission in support of the project.
He noted that the project would create 1,600 new construction
jobs,2,500 permanent jobs and thirteen million dollars in
property taxes.He noted that the developers had made a strongefforttocomplywiththenewproposedlandscapeordinance
requirements.
Bob Billman,of the Arkansas Heart Hospital,addressed the
Commission in support of the project.He noted that the close
proximity of the mall to the Heart Hospital will benefit and
provide goods and services to the families and visitors of
hospital patients.
Bill Spivey,of Camp Aldersgate,also addressed the Commission
in support of the project.He noted that the previous developer
of the property had made assurances to Camp Aldersgate.He
noted that Camp Aldersgate had concerns with the quality of
13
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4923-A
their lake,landscaping and noise generation.He noted that the
developer had provided written proposals to Camp Aldersgate
which addresses these concerns.
Rod Vosper,of Simon Properties,addressed the Commission in
support of the project.He noted that Simon has been marketing
the project to potential tenants for the past three years.
Mr.Vosper explained the project.He noted that parking was
provided on the site plan at a rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000
scpxare feet of gross leaseable floor area.He noted that thesiteplanaddressesapedestriancirculationsystem.Mr.VosperdescribedthestreetscapealongShacklefordRoadandtheeast
elevation of the mall building.He noted that C-3 permitted
uses had been recpxested for the out parcels,but some specific
uses had been eliminated from the group of C-3 permitted uses,in response to concerns from Camp Aldersgate.He provided alistoftheprohibiteduses(for the out parcels)to the
Commission.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about a bus stop.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that the developerwillprovideabusturnoutandhasbeenworkingwithKeithJonesofCATA,but the exact location of the bus turnout has not yet
been determined.Commissioner Nunnley stated that he wanted a
user friendly bus turnout for the project.
In response to a cpxestion from Commissioner Nunnley,the uselistfortheoutparcelswasdiscussed.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the project hinged on Camp
Aldersgate approval and asked Mr.Vosper to discuss the benefitsthisprojectwillhavefortheCity.Mr.Vosper briefly
discussed these issues.Commissioner Nunnley stated that the
applicant had not talked to the citizen of Little Rock as a
whole.He further stated that if Dillards opens a store in this
mall,the store in Park Plaza will close.He noted additional
concern with public transit.He stated that he was concerned
that the development will be exclusionary.
Mr.Vosper stated that he could not speak for Dillards and their
future intentions,but felt that the mails on University Avenue
would remain strong.
Commissioner Downing asked about the staff recommendation.Bob
Turner,Director of Public Works,noted that his department was
14
September 14,2000
ITEM NO.:C PILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —River Mountain
Planning District
Location:14814 —14910 Cantrell Rd.
~Re est:Single Family and Transition to Commercial
Source:C.J.Cropper
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilyandTransitiontoCommercial.
The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail
and wholesale sales of products,personal and professionalservices,and general business activities.Commercialactivitiesvaryintypeandscale,depending on the trade
area they have.The applicant wishes to build a retail
commercial development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING
The property is currently zoned R-2 and is approximately26.6+acres in size.A large wooded area zoned R-2 Single
Family lies to the north with homes built on large lots.A
grocery store is located in a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development)zone located to the south of the area under
review.Homes built on large wooded lots typify the R-2
Single Family zone to the southwest.A tract of land zoned
C-3 General Commercial occupied by a picture frame shopliestothesoutheast.The property to the east is split
between C-3,developed as a strip shopping center along
Cantrell Road,and property zoned R-2 consisting of homesbuiltonlargelotstothenorth.The land to the west
zoned R-2 consists of homes built on large lots in a woodedarea.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999 a change was made form Single Family and
Low Density Residential to Park/Open Space,Multi-family,
Office,and Commercial about a mile to the east of the
properties under review.
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
The properties listed in the application are shown as
Single Family on the northern half and as Transition on the
southern half.Parks /Open Space is shown on the northern
boundary of the application area.The Parks /Open Space
covers the floodway of Ison Creek that runs roughly
parallel to Pinnacle Valley Road.Commercial and
Transition is shown to the south on the opposite side of
Cantrell Road.Directly to the east of the application
area,the land along Cantrell Road is shown as Commercial,
while the land adjacent to Ison Creek is shown as
Transition.Directly to the west of the area under
consideration,the land along Cantrell Road is shown as
Transition,while the remainder is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan.
Taylor Loop Road is shown on the plan as a Minor Arterial.
The Master Street Plan does not indicate any proposed
changes for these streets.
PARKS:
River Mountain Park is located about a mile east of the
property in question and is not accessed by Cantrell Road.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property in question is located in an area covered by
the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.One important
action statement included under the Sustainable Natural
Environment goal is a statement supporting the preservation
of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The
neighborhood action plan also recommends the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Cantrell Road
and Taylor Loop Road as well as the reconstruction of
Taylor Loop Road as a 4-lane Minor Arterial from Hinson
Road north to Cantrell Road.
ANALYSIS:
The site under review is located near an existing
commercial node at the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Road
intersection.The surrounding area is characterized by
2
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
both new residential subdivisions and homes built on largelots.
The area under review is located in the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District adopted in 1989.The purpose of thedistrictistopreservethescenicattributesofthe
Highway 10 corridor through more restrictive development
standards than applied to rest of the city.The Design
Overlay District has enhanced the design standards of
buildings along the corridor and covers 300 feet on each
side of the Highway 10 right-of-way.Some site design and
development standards of the Highway 10 Design OverlayDistrictincludeaminimumlotssizeoftwoacres,a 100footsetbackfromthepropertylineabuttingHighway10,a
rear setback of 40 feet,and a side setback of 30 feet.
The Highway 10 design Overlay District also has additional
landscaping,signage,curb cut,lighting,and maximum
density of buildings allowed in commercial developments.
Commercial developments are required to apply as one entiretractinsteadofindividuallotsandmustbereviewedbythecitythroughasiteplanreviewprocess.
Currently,the Land Use Plan shows 35+acres of Commercial
in the Vicinity of the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Roadintersection.The Commercial land use to the east (5.7 t
acres),southeast (.7 +acres)and south (6.9 t acres)of
the applicant's site are built-out and occupied bybusinesses.The shopping center anchored by the Kroger
super market to the east fills over half of the 13 t acresofCommerciallanduseareaproposedinthatlocation.The7.9 t acres of Commercial land use area south of the Krogerisoccupiedbybusinesses,leaving little room availableforfurtherexpansionofcommercialusesintheimmediate
vicinity of the applicant's site.
Currently the Cantrell Road /Taylor Loop Road intersectionisthesiteofasecondarycommercialnode.Two primary
commercial nodes already exist along Cantrell Road with
vacant property available for commercial uses.Such vacant
property is located at the intersections of:Cantrell Road
/Chenonceau Blvd,and Cantrell Road /Chenal Parkway.
Approval of this amendment will result in the developmentofathirdprimarycommercialnode.
3
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
If the amendment is approved,a strip of Park/Open Space is
recommended along the eastern boundary of the Single Family
located to the west.Such a Park/Open Space strip will
buffer the Single Family uses located to the west from the
proposed Commercial uses.
Approval of this amendment as applied for,coupled with an
extension of Taylor Loop Road,could encourage requests for
Land Use Plan amendments to change existing land uses along
Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road to Commercial land
uses.This could change the focus form Cantrell Road andshiftcommercialusesalongPinnacleValleyRoad.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Pankey Community Improvement Association,
Piedmont N.A.,Pleasant Forest N.A.,Pleasant Valley
P.O.A.,Secluded Hills P.O.A.,Walton Heights-Candlewood
N.A.,Westbury N.A.,and Westchester/Heatherbrae P.O.A.Staff has received 44 comments from area residents.Two
are in support,39 are opposed to the change and three were
neutral.Westbury and Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood
Associations,are opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
On March 27,2000,the applicant asked for deferral of the
item to the June 22,2000 hearing date "so that this
application can be considered at the same time as our PCD
application for the same property."Based on standard
Planning Commission procedures,this item is placed on the
consent agenda for deferral to the June 22,2000 hearingdate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the June 22,2000 meeting to coincide with a Planned
Development application.A motion was made to accept the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
4
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-01-01
STAFF UPDATE:
This is more than an expansion of an existing commercial
node;it results in a tripling of the commercial at thislocation.Significant expansion of the commercial areawithoutothersignificantchangesintheareasuchas
adding a forth arterial leg to the intersection orincreaseddensityinsurroundingresidentialareas to show
demand for more commercial in the area is not justified.Staff recommends denial as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral totheSeptember14,2000 meeting.A motion was made toaccepttheconsentagendaandwasapprovedwithavote of
9 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
On August 24,2000,the applicant requested that this itembewithdrawnfromtheagendawithoutprejudice.Staff
supports that request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
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 10 ayes,0 noes,0 absent and1abstention(Commissioner Bill Rector).
5
September,14,2000
ITEM NO.:D 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 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,just west of Dailey Street.
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 the zoning again becomes
commercial.
Staff believes the proposed multifamily use would be
compatible with this area and serve to provide a good
transition from potential standard office use in the
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.
September.14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:D (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-5110-C
3.ON SZTE DRZVES AND PARKZNG:
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.
Zn 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 recpxire 33 spaces
4 .SCREENZNG AND BUFFERS:
The proposed land use buffer along the western
perimeter is short of the minimum six foot width
recpxired.The full width recpxirement without
transfers is 9 4 feet.
A six foot high opacpxe screen,either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings,is recpxired along the southern and western
perimeters of the site.
Credit toward fulfilling this recpxirement can be given
when preserving existing dense vegetation,which
provides the recpxired year-round screening.
5 .PUBLZC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Right-of-way dedication recpxired per the "MSP"(90
feet is recpxired for Baseline Road)
b.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
recpxi red .c.Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are recpxired.
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".
2
September.14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
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 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)6 (d)is
required.
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.
QATA:Site is on bus routes 17 6 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
3
September,14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:D (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-5110-C
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 would be 1 foot
short of the minimum 6 foot land use buffer.There
would be room to provide the required minimum.Zn
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 RECOMMENDATZON:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until
the September 14 Hearing.
4
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
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 include building height,justification 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 14th,2000 Planning Commission public
hearing.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Kip Moore,project architect,was present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the revised
proposed site plan.It included a single access onto
Baseline and an increase in parking to 33 spaces to comply
with Staff requests.
5
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
Mr.Moore commented that they had worked hard in revising
the site plan to keep as many trees as possible and to
accommodate the concerns of the neighbors and Staff.They
moved the building back from Baseline Road and to the Easttoallowroomfortherequiredparkingandtomaintainmoretreesinthefrontofthebuildingandreducedaccessto
one driveway.
A short discussion took place regarding required screening
from residential zoned areas,a need to widen the access
driveway to 24 feet since it would be 2-way traffic,and a
need to construct a sidewalk along Baseline.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
STAFF UPDATED RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitsubjecttocompliancewiththefollowingconditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards anyresidentialzonedarea.
STAFF UPDATE:
A meeting was scheduled with the neighborhood organizations
on September 12 to discuss any further neighborhood
concerns.No information was available since the meetingwilloccurafterthiswriting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14 2000)
Matthew Crellin,Accessible Space Inc.,and Kip Moore,project architect,were present representing the
application.There were no registered objectors present.
6
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5110-C
Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval
subject to compliance with the conditions listed under"Staff Updated Recommendation,"above.The driveway may be
22 feet wide,but it must be located 10 feet from the west
property line from at least the north property line to the
edge of Baseline Road pavement in order to meet ordinance
radii requirements at the curb.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
revised to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
7
September i,2000
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-867-HHHH
NAME:Chenal Valley (Phase XIX)—Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Approximately 0.8 mile west of the future
intersection of Chenal Parkway and Chenal Valley Drive (west of
Gordon Road)
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Corp.White-Daters and Associates
¹7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S.Victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:79 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:79 FT.NEW STREET:9,000 lf
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance to allow a pipe-stem lot (Lot 18,Block 92)
2.Variance to allow 10 foot rear building lines
(Lots 1-3,6-13 and 17-18,Block 93)
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 79 acres into 79 lotsforsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopment.Access to the
subdivision will be from Chenal Valley Drive,which will beconstructedfromChenalParkwaytotheeastwiththis
development.The subdivision is proposed to be gated withprivatestreetsanddevelopedinonephase.
The applicant is proposing an alternate pedestriancirculationsystemforthissubdivision.Instead of
sidewalks along the interior streets,the applicant will
September ~.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-HHHH
provide a sidewalk within the interior open space areas
within this subdivision.Public Works supports the
pedestrian circulation plan.
The applicant is requesting a variance for a pipe-stem lot
(Lot 18,Block 92),at the south end of Allaines Circle.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a 10footrearyardsetbacklineforLots1-3,6-13 and 17-18,
Block 93.
The applicant notes that the entire length of Chenal Valley
Drive will be constructed with this development.ThisstreetwillstartatChenalParkwayandproceedwest,turn
southward west of this subdivision and loop back to theeastandconnecttoGordonRoad.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and heavily wooded,with
varying degrees of slope.Other phases of Chenal Valley arelocatedtotheeast,east of Gordon Road.There is
undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the north,west andsouth.There are single family residences on large tractsfurthertothesouthandsouthwestalongDennyRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from
surrounding property owners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Chenal Valley Drive is listed on the Master Street plan
as a collector.A dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline is required.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
6.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
2
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-HHHH
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by section 31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
8.Abandon part of Gordon Road at the time when Chenal
Valley Drive is completed and accepted for traffic.9.Street name Aston is a duplication of existing street
name.Submit alternate street names.
10.Public Works supports alternate pedestrian circulation.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
AP&L:No Comments.
ARKLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:This proposed development will likely require
extension of facilities within two pressure systems (West
Markham and Highland Ridge)due to the elevations covered.
The Water Works will work with the Engineer to develop a plantoservealllotswithadequatepressures.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Thereisonlyoneentrancetothissubdivision.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
3
September ~.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-HHHH
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat.
Staff noted that variances for a pipe-stem lot (Lot 18)and
10 foot rear building lines were needed.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Daters noted that
the subdivision would be created in one phase.He noted
that the entire length of Chenal Valley Drive would be
constructed with this development.Mr.Daters also noted
that the Public Works requirements would be complied with.
The alternate pedestrian circulation system was briefly
discussed.Mr.Daters noted that there will be pedestrian
connections between this subdivision and other subdivisions
in the area.Staff informed the applicant to meet with the
Fire Department to determine if a second,emergency
entrance to the subdivision is needed.
After the discussion,the committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H .ANALYSI S:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on August 30,2000.The revised plat addresses the issues
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
zoning of the property has been noted on the plat and 25
foot platted front building lines have been shown on all of
the lots.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a pipe-stem lot (Lot 18,Block 92).
Typically,pipe-stem lots are prohibited in residential
subdivisions.Based on the property's configuration at the
end of the cul-de-sac (Allaines Circle)it would be
difficult to meet the minimum lot width for this lot.
Therefore,staff will support the variance.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow 10
foot platted rear building lines for Lots 1-3,6-13 and
17-18,Block 93.This variance is requested based on thefactthatthelotsbackuptoopenspaceareasandnot
other lots.Staff supports the variance as requested.The
4
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-HHHH
ordinance would typically require a 25 foot rear building
setback for these lots.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the preliminary plat.The proposed
plat should have no adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a
pipe-stem lot (Lot 18,Block 92).
3.Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow
10 foot platted rear building lines for Lots 1-3,6-13
and 17-18,Block 93.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
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 11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
September ,2000
ZTEM NO.:2 FZLE NO.:S-1275-A
NAME:Richdale/Hughey Replat —Preliminary Plat
LOCATZON:North side of Baseline Road,approximately 120 feet
east of Stanton Road
DEVELOPER:ENGZNEER:
Richdale Development Co.McGetrick and McGetrick
9800 Maumelle Blvd.319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72201
AND
Margaret Hughey
4808 Baseline Road
Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:5.00 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONZNG:R-2/C-3
PLANNZNG DZSTRZCT:14
CENSUS TRACT:41.07
VARZANCES/WAZVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Stanton Road
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide five (5)acres near thenortheastcornerofBaselineandStantonRoadsintotwo(2)lots.An illegal subdivision was recently created when theareashownasLot2ontheproposedplatwassoldto
Margaret Hughey.Richdale Development Co.(owners of theareashownasLot1)was the previous owner of Lot 2.The
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275-A
proposed preliminary plat will correct the illegal
subdivision.
The applicant has noted that the 25 foot access easement,
which was dedicated when Lot 2 was sold,will be abandoned
with the proposed plat.The applicant is also proposing to
rezone the R-2 portion of the property to C-3 (see Item 2.1
on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing commercial building and parking area
within the south portion of Lot 1,with the north portionofthislotbeingundeveloped.The area shown as Lot 2 isalsoundeveloped.
There is a convenience store at the northeast corner ofBaselineandStantonRoads,with mobile home parks and anautorepairgarageacrossStantonRoadtothewest.ThereisaschoolandundevelopedR-2 zoned property to the
north,with a mixture of commercial and office uses to theeast.There are several single family residences to the
south across Baseline Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone callrequestinginformationonthisapplication.The UpperBaseline,SWLR United for Progress,Windamere and
Cloverdale Neighborhood Associations were notified of thepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Stanton Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.
2.Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45feetfromcenterlineisrequired.3.Provide design of Stanton Road conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements to this street including 5-foot sidewalk
with planned development.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
2
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275-A
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.Baseline Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
18,000.
9.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
10.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ord.18,031.
Show driveway locations on the plat.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comments.
ARKLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments.
Water:No Comments.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is on a bus route ¹15 and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
3
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST ,2000)
Bob Lowe and Larry Lester were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed
preliminary plat.Staff noted that the front platted
building lines could be 25 feet and that the existing
driveway locations needed to be shown.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.A
possible deferral of street improvements was discussed.
Public Works representatives indicated support of a
deferral.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for
final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on August 30,2000.The revised plat addresses the issues
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
revised plat shows the right-of-way to be dedicated for
Baseline and Stanton Roads and the existing driveway
locations.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of street
improvements for Stanton Road for 5 years,until further
development of Lot 1 or until adjacent development,
whichever occurs first.Public Works supports the deferral
as requested.The required improvements exist for Baseline
Road.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.The
plat should have no adverse impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the deferral of street
4
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1275-A
improvements to Stanton Road for 5 years,until further
development of Lot 1 or until adjacent development,
whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
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 11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:Z-6908
Owner:Richdale Development Co.and
Margaret Hughey
Applicant:Robert C.Lowe,Jr.
Location:4818 Baseline
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Future development,includingfacilitiesforL&M Concessions
Size:2.26+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Partially wooded,undeveloped;zoned R-2
South —Single Family;zoned R-2 and C-3
East —Barber and beauty shop;zoned C-1 and
nonconforming fence company;zoned R-2
West —Office and commercial;zoned C-3 and private
school;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
With Buildin Permit:
1.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
2 .Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.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.Baseline Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
23,000.
7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6908
8.Driveway shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the Windamere,Upper
Baseline,Cloverdale and SWLR United for Progress
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the rezoning
reques t.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs East PlanningDistrict.The adopted Plan recommends Commercial for thissiteandtheabuttingpropertieslocatedonthenorthside
of Baseline Road.The C-3 zoning request conforms to the
adopted Plan.The site lies within the area covered by the
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan which was adopted
by the Commission on September 2,1999 and the Board of
Directors on November 2,1999.There were no zoning or
Land Use changes proposed by the action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant
2.26+acre property from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3"
General Commercial.The property consists of two tracts
which are to be combined with the C-3 zoned property
adjacent to the west and replatted into a 2 lot
subdivision.See S-1275-A,Richdale/Hughey Replat-
Preliminary Plat.The smaller lot,fronting onto Baseline
Road is proposed for development as facilities for L 6 M
Concessions,possibly including offices and a storage
building for concession trailers and materials.The reartractwillbeaddedtotheproposedlargerlotofthe
subdivision which now has a small strip,office and
commercial center located on it.
2
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6908
The property is located in an area of Mixed Residential,
Institutional and Commercial uses.The previously
mentioned strip center is located on C-3 zoned property
adjacent to the west.A private school is located north of
the strip center,also west of the subject property.The
R-2 zoned property to the north is undeveloped.A
nonconforming fence company/contractor storage yard is
located on the R-2 zoned property to the east.The fence
company is a C-4 use.The C-3 and R-2 zoned propertiesacrossBaselineRoadtothesouthcurrentlycontainsingle
family homes.Other uses in the immediate vicinity include
churches,a barber/beauty shop,a convenience store,a
furniture store,several mobile home parks,mini-warehouses
and single family homes.The C-3 zoning request is
compatible with uses and zoning in the area.
The Geyer Springs East Land Use Plan recommends Commercialforthissiteandtheabuttingproperties.The C-3 General
Commercial zoning request conforms to the adopted Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.The Commission was informed that the UpperBaselineNeighborhoodAssociationhadvotedtosupport theC-3 zoning request.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by avoteof11ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
September -.,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1288
the floodway along the eastern property line will bededicatedtotheCity.
The applicant is also requesting a rezoning (R-2 to I-1)
and a Land Use Plan Amendment for the property (Items 3.1
and 3.2 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded.There is anautosalvageyardandundevelopedpropertytothenorthacrossBaselineRoad.There is also what appears to be asinglefamilyresidenceimmediatelywestoftheautosalvageyard,sitting several hundred feet north ofBaselineRoad.There are church developments east and westofthesite,with a mixture of office and commercial zonedpropertytothesouth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The SWLR United for Progress and Town andCountryNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Planasaprincipalarterial,dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline is required.
2 .Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031 Show driveway locations on the plat.3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stozmwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Easements for proposed stozmwater detention facilities
are required.
7.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
2
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1288
9.Baseline Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
5,600.
10.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City ofLittleRock.
11.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
AP&L:No Comments received.
ARKLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments.
Water:A water main extension will be required.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the preliminary plat.Mr.White noted
that he had no issues with the Planning Staff Comments.
The Public Works requirements were discussed.Bob Turner,
Director of Public Works,stated that driveway locations
needed to be shown on the plat.
3
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1288
The recpxested deferral of street improvements to Baseline
Road was briefly discussed.Mr.Turner noted that if the
applicant constructed a left turn lane to the property,
Public Works would support a deferral of the rest of the
improvements.
Mr.White asked if the section of Baseline Road adjacent to
the floodway dedication would have to be improved by the
developers.Mr.Turner stated that the developer would be
responsible for the improvements,as the floodway area
would be dedicated as an easement.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on August 30,2000.The revised plat addresses the issues
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
revised plat shows the driveway locations as recpxired.
Public Works supports the driveway locations as shown.The
revised plat also shows the lot dimensions and 70 foot
building lines as recpxired.
The applicant is recpxesting a deferral of street
improvement to Baseline Road for five (5)years,until
development of Lots 1 and 4,or until adjacent development,
whichever occurs first.The applicant notes that the left
turn lane in Baseline Road will be constructed as recpxested
by Public Works.Public Works supports the deferral as
recpxested.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the preliminary plat.The plat
should have no adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the recpxirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
4
September «,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1288
2.Staff supports the deferral of street improvements
(except the left turn lane)to Baseline Road for five (5)years,until development of Lots 1 and 4,or until
adjacent development,whichever occurs first.
3.The floodway along the east property line must be
dedicated as an easement to the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
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 11 ayes and 0 nays.
5
September.14,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 FILE NO.:Z-6911
Owner:Dickson,Fletcher,Thompson and
Bank of America
Applicant:Ronald Tabor
Location:10600 Block of Baseline Road;south
side
Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-1
Purpose:Future development including
office/showroom warehouse
Size:19.9+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Salvage yard;nonconforming,zoned R-2
South —Wooded,zoned R-2;equipment rental,
zoned PD-C;and church offices,zoned 0-3
East —Large church and floodway;zoned R-2
West —Smaller church;zoned R-2 and Warehouse;
zoned PD-I
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.West Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline is required.
8'i th Buildin Permit:
1.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Show driveway location on the plat.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
6.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6911
7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
8.Baseline Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
5,600.
9.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City of
Little Rock.
10.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bu~s Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet and the Town and Country and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The adopted Plan currently recommends Mixed Office
Commercial for the site.A land use plan amendment has
been filed asking that the Plan be amended to Service
Trades District (see item no.3.2,LUOO-16-06).It is
staff's opinion that the requested I-1 zoning,with its
requirement of Planning Commission site plan review,meets
the intent of the service trades district designation.The
site lies within an area not currently covered by a
neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped,wooded 19.9+acre tract from "R-2"Single
Family to "I-1"Industrial Park District.An associated
preliminary plat has been filed to subdivide the property
into 7 lots;see S-1288,Baseline Commercial Park—
Preliminary Plat.The applicant proposes future
2
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6911
development of the lot as an industrial park to include
office/showroom warehouse.
The property is located on the south side of Baseline Road,
midway between I-30 and Sibley Hole Road.Uses and zoning
in the immediate vicinity are varied.The R-2 zoned
property adjacent to the east is occupied by a large church
facility.The church occupies property extending from I-30
north to Baseline Road.A smaller church is located on R-2
zoned property adjacent to the west.A office-warehouse is
located on the PD-I zoned property also adjacent to the
west.The large,0-3 zoned tract southwest of the side is
occupied by the facilities of the Baptist Missionary
Association of America.The PD-C zoned tract south of the
subject property is occupied by Hertz heavy equipment
rental company which fronts onto I-30.A nonconforming
auto salvage yard is located on the R-2 zoned property
across Baseline Road to the north.A contractor'storage
yard and an RV and boat storage lot are located on I-2
zoned property northwest of the site.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan currently recommends
Mixed Office Commercial for this tract.A Land Use Plan
Amendment has been filed asking the Plan designation be
changed to Service Trades District.STD is the designation
of most of the properties fronting onto Baseline Road in
this area.(See LU00-16-06).
The I-1 Industrial Park district is established to provide
for modern,efficient and well-designed industrial
facilities within a "park-like"setting.It is the City'
most restrictive industrial district and requires site plan
review by the Planning Commission.
It is staff's opinion that the requested I-1 zoning is
compatible with uses and zoning in the area and,with the
requirement of site plan review,meets the intent of the
Service Trades District land use designation.
The eastern perimeter of the site lies within the
regulatory floodway.This area should be zoned "OS"Open
Space and protected by an easement dedicated to the City.
3
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6911
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-1 zoning withthatportionofthesitewhichlieswithintheregulatory
floodway to be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by avoteof11ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:3.2 FILE NO.:LU00-16-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning
District
Location:W.Baseline Road near Sibley Hole Road
~Re est:Mixed Office acd Commercial to Service Trades
District
Source:Joe White,Jr.,White Daters
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning
District from Mixed Office and Commercial to Service Trades
District.The Service Trades District category provides for
a selection of office,warehousing,and industrial park
activities that primarily serve other office service or
industrial businesses.The district is intended to provide
for uses with an office component.A Planned Zoning
District is required for any development not wholly office.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately 19.9+acres in size.The property to the
north is zoned R-2 Single Family.The property to the east
is zoned R-2 Single Family.The property to the south is
zoned R-2 Single Family and 0-3 General Office.The
property to the west is zoned R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On May 16,2000,multiple changes were made in the vicinity
of Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road about a mile west of
the applicant's property.
On December 20,1999,a change was made from Single Family
to Light Industrial on Mabelvale Pike about a 'e east of the
applicant's property.
On June 15,1999,a change was made from Single Family to
Suburban Office and Service Trades District on Baseline
Road at Mabelvale Pike about a half mile east of the
applicant's property.
On October 6,1998 a change was made from Community
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-06
Shopping to Commercial at the northwest corner of the
I-30/I-430 interchange about 8 of a mile southwest of the
applicant's property.
On November 4,1997,multiple changes were made in the
Mabelvale Community about one mile south of the applicant's
property.
The applicant's property is shown on the Future Land Use
Plan as Mixed office and Commercial.The property to the
north is shown as Service Trades District.The neighboring
property to the east is shown as Parks/Open Space along the
creek.The property to the south is shown as Mixed Office
and Commercial.The neighboring property to the west is
shown as Public Institutional.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan.There are no other streets or bikeways
shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by
this amendment.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows a Priority Two Open Space
along a creek that runs inside the area shown as Park/Open
Space on the Future Land Use Plan.Any zoning application
should address the creek and its floodway areas in relation
to the Parks Master Plan.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a
city recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property lies in an area characterized by
large amounts of open space and vacant land.
2
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3.2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-06
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 no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14 g 2000)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval.
A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
September 14,2000
THERE ARE NO ITEMS NO.4 AND NO.5.
Items 4 and 5 were withdrawn from the agenda by the applicantspriortothelegalad,but after agenda item numbers had been
determined and assigned.These items require no action by the
Planning Commission.
September,2000
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-5770-A
NAME:MGM Properties —Short-Form PD-0 —Time Extension
LOCATION:14,924 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Barksdale McKay White-Daters and Associates
River City Energy Co.401 S.Victory Street
¹5 Lacelle Court Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.80 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-0 PROPOSED USE:General/Professional Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On February 1,1994,the Board of Di rectors passed Ordinance
No.16,586 which rezoned this property from R-2 to PD-0 for
a two-building office development.On October 4,1994,the
Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.16,754 which amended
the previously approved PD-0 site plan.On December 2,1997,
the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,622 which
re-established the PD-0 for three (3)years.
The approved site plan included two (2)office buildings.Each
building is proposed to be two-story in height,with a basement.
Building I is placed 110 feet north of Cantrell Road.It is to
contain a total of 22,800 square feet (10,000 square feet on
each floor and 2,800 square feet in the basement).Building IIislocatedwithinthenorthernportionoftheproperty.It is
to contain a total of 20,300 square feet (8,750 square feet on
each floor and 2,800 square feet in the basement).
The site plan provides parking for 98 vehicles,with a single
access point from Cantrell Road.The ordinance would typically
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5770-A
require a minimum of 86 spaces.A monument sign is located near
the access drive and will conform to the Highway 10 overlay
standards.The permitted uses in the 0-3 zoning district were
approved for the site.
On July 20,2000,the applicant submitted a letter to staff
requesting a three (3)year time extension for the approved
PD-O.As of this writing,no building permit has been issued
for the project and no site work has taken place.
B.PLANNING DIVISION:
This request is located in the River Mountain PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Transition for thislocation.The applicant has applied for a time extension
on a current Planned Development —Office for a proposedofficedevelopment.The time extension for the Planned
Development —Office does not require a land use plan
amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The River Mountain Neighborhood Plan recommends maintaining
the Transition category along Cantrell Road to serve as abufferbetweenresidentialusesandothermoreintenseuses.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Secluded Hills,Westbury and
Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Associations werenotifiedtherequestedtimeextension.
D.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Staff explained the previously approved site plan to the
Committee.Staff noted that the previously approved site
plan conforms to the Highway 10 Overlay District standards.
A comparison between the Highway 10 Overlay District
standards and the new proposed landscape ordinance was
discussed.Vice-Chair Berry raised the question as to
whether the Highway 10 Overlay District will supersede the
new proposed landscape ordinance.Staff noted that this
question would be addressed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-0 time
extension to the full Commission for resolution.
2
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5770-A
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the three (3)year timeextensionasrequestedbytheapplicant.The applicantwillhaveuntilDecember2,2003 to submit the final
development plans for the building permit review and toobtainsaidpezmit.
Staff reviewed the previously approved site plan and notesthattheplannotonlyconfozmstotheHighway10OverlayDistrictstandards,but also confozms to the new landscapeordinancestandardsasapprovedbythePlanningCommission
and pending before the Board of Directors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission forinclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommended
by staff.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed
by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
3
September ,2000
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6899
NAME:Wilson —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:4520 Cobb Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Chester and Beverly Wilson Ollen Dee Wilson
4520 Cobb Street P .0.Box 604LittleRock,AR 72204 No.Little Rock,AR 72115-0604
AREA:Approx.0.698 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-3 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Single Family Residential
and a Beauty Salon
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 4520 CobbStreetfromR-3 to PCD to allow for the operation of abeautysalonwithintheexistingsinglefamilyresidentialstructure.The property owners,Chester and BeverlyWilson,will also live in the structure.The Wilsons notethattheresidentialappearanceofthepropertywillbemaintained.
The applicants propose the beauty salon to have two (2)operators and one (1)manicurist,with operating hours of9:00 a.m.—7:00 p.m.,Tuesday-Saturday.The applicantsproposetoutilize500squarefeetofthe1,161 square footresidentialstructureforthebeautysalonuse.
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
The applicants also propose to install eight (8)gravel
parking spaces on the south side of the existing structure
and utilize gravel drives (existing and proposed)to servetheproperty.The applicant has noted that an in-lieucontributionwillbemadeforthefuturestreet
improvements to Cobb Street.The applicant also notes thatahandicapentrancewillbeprovidedattherearofthebuilding.
The proposed site plan also shows a 35 foot by 35 foot
garage addition on the north side of the residentialstructure,which will be part of the residential use of theproperty.The site plan also shows a ground-mounted signalongthefrontpropertyline.The proposed sign will have
an area of approximately 6 'c square feet and a height of 4feet.
The applicant has also filed for a Land Use Plan Amendmentforthisproperty(Item 7.1 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one-story frame single familyresidentialstructureonthesite,with a gravel accessdrivefromCobbStreet.The areas of this propertyimmediatelynorthandwestoftheexistingstructure aretreecovered.
There are single family residences to the north,south andeastacrossCobbStreet.There is a mixture of commercialusesfurthersouthalongAsherAvenue.There is a singlefamilystructureandundevelopedR-3 zoned property to thewest,with the Rosedale Optimist Club baseball fieldsfurtherwest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The John Barrow and Westwood NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cobb Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
2
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted forapprovalpriortostartofwork.4.Show parking for customers and employees on the siteplan.
5.Pave driveway to prevent gravel dragging onto the publicstreet.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comments received.
AEUCLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if additionalwaterserviceisrequired.
Fire Department:No Comments.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is on bus route ¹14 and has no effect on busradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Boyle Park PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for thislocation.The applicant'property is currently zoned R-3SingleFamily.The applicant wishes to change the zoningtoaPlannedCommercialDevelopmenttodevelopthepropertyforatwo-chair beauty salon.A land use plan amendmentforachangetoMixedUseisaseparateitemonthisagenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan recommends reviewingtheappropriatenessofexistingzoningclassificationstodetermineifthoseclassificationscompromisetheinterest
3
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
to revitalize or stabilize the housing and infrastructure
and improve the overall appearance of the John Barrow
Neighborhood area.
Landsca e Issues:
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings,is required to help screen this site from theresidentialpropertiestothenorth,south and west.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST ,2000)
Beverly Wilson was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD and noted that theareaofthebuildingtobedevotedtothebeautysalonuseandsignagedetailsneededtobeprovidedbytheapplicant.In response to a question from staff,Mrs.Wilson notedthattherewouldbenodumpsteronthesite.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Theapplicantprovidinganin-lieu contribution for the street
improvements to Cobb Street was briefly discussed.BobTurner,Director of Public Works,stated that an in-lieucontributioncouldbeusedtopavethedrivewayapronfromCobbStreet.
The Committee noted that the applicant should contact theJohnBarrowNeighborhoodAssociationregardingtheproposedrezoning.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PCD tothefullCommissionforresolution.
H .ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 29,2000.The revised plan addresses the technicaldesignissueasraisedbystaffandtheSubdivision
Committee.The sign details,parking design and garageadditionhavebeenshownontheplan.The applicant hasalsonotedthat500squarefeetoftheresidentialstructurewillbedevotedtothebeautysalonuse.
The applicant has also noted that an in-lieu contributionwillbemadefortheCobbStreetimprovements.Public
4
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
Works noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting that thein-lieu amount could be used to pave the driveway apron
from Cobb Street.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing graveldrivesandparkingforthesite.Typical ordinance
requirements (Section 36-508)state that vehicular useareas"shall be paved where subject to wheeled traffic."Staff recommends that the drives and parking be paved.
Aside from the site design issues,there is the issue of
appropriateness of the proposed use.Staff believes thattheproposedrezoningisnotappropriate.Staff does not
support the intrusion of commercial zoning into this single
family residential area north of Asher Avenue.As noted intheLandUsePlanAmendmentanalysis(Item 7.1),there areunderutilizedparcelsoflandshownasCommercialonthefutureLandUsePlaninthisgeneralarea.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed PCD rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Chester and Beverly Wilson were present,representing theapplication.There were two (2)persons present with concerns.Staff described the proposed PCD with a recommendation ofdenial.
Chester Wilson addressed the Commission in support of the PCD.
He briefly described the proposed use of the property.
Beverly Wilson also addressed the Commission in support of theapplications.She stated that she would have approximately 8customersperdayandonecustomerperhour.She stated that
the proposed use of the property would generate very littletraffic.
Mr.Wilson gave a brief description of the general area.Hestatedthattherehadbeenadrugproblemintheneighborhood.
Norma Walker,of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association,
addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed PCD.Shereadalettersubmittedbytheneighborhoodassociation.
5
September 4,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
Commissioner Nunnley asked Ms.Walker for her assessment of the
neighborhood.She stated that beauty shops within residences in
this area are not appropriate.Commissioner Allen asked if it
would be more difficult to maintain a beauty salon in a house
than a commercial building.Ms.Walker indicated that it would
be more difficult to maintain a beauty salon in a residence,and
noted issues of concerns relating to chemicals,water pressure
and sanitation.Vice Chair Berry asked if this single family
residence could be maintained as a residence in the future.Ms.
Walker stated that the structure should remain as a residence.
Chair Adcock asked about the required street improvements and
the condition of the street.Bob Turner,Director of Public
Works,stated that the street needed to be improved,but an in-
lieu contribution would be supported because the street
improvements would cause a hardship on the property owner.He
noted that he supported having the driveway apron as an
alternative.Chair Adcock asked if Cobb Street was on the list
of streets to be improved by the City.Mr.Turner stated thatitwasnotonthelist.Chair Adcock asked if a bus could passifacarwereparkedonthestreet.Mr.Turner stated that a
bus could not pass.He stated that there should be no reason
for on-street parking.
Commissioner Nunnley noted that the area appears to be in
transition.He noted that adding a parking lot would destroy
the residential appearance of the property.He asked the
applicant if some landscaping could be provided to reduce the
visual impact of the parking area.Mr.Wilson noted that
landscaping would be provided on the south and east sides of the
parking area.
Commissioner Muse asked Mrs.Wilson if she currently had a
beauty salon and what portion of the house would be used for the
proposed salon.Mrs.Wilson stated that she currently has a
beauty salon in North Little Rock.She noted that the two front
rooms of the house would be used for the salon.
There was a brief discussion of the gravel parking area and the
garage addition.
Janet Berry,of Southwest Little Rock UP,noted opposition to
the development.
6
September c,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6899
There was additional discussion which pertained to the amount ofparkingandthenumberofoperatorsthesalonwouldhave.Mrs.Wilson stated that she would be the only operator initially,and
would have a total of two operators and one manicurist in thefuture.
Commissioner Allen asked how the site would be monitored.Jim
Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that the
Wilsons would have to obtain state and city licenses for the
beauty salon.This issue was briefly discussed.
There was additional discussion of the number of beauty salonoperatorsproposedandtheappropriatenessoftheproposeduse.
There was a motion to approve the PCD rezoning.The motionfailedbyavoteof0ayesand11nays.
7
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:7.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-10-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Boyle Park Planning
District
Location:4520 Cobb Street
Recexest:Single Family tn Mixed Use
Source:Chester &Beverly Wilson
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
from Single Family 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 the property
for a two-chair beauty salon.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning
Staff expanded the area of review.The expanded area
includes houses south of the applicant's property on Cobb
Street and Boyd Streets,and vacant land between the
.applicant's property and the Optimist Park.The last
review of this area was over three years ago.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is currently zoned R-3 Single
Family and is approximately 4.76 +acres in size.The
houses on Boyd Street and the vacant land to the west is
zoned R-3 Single Family.The property to the north is
zoned R-3 Single Family and occupied by single-family
homes.The property to the east is zoned R-4 Two-family
and is occupied by a duplex.The property to the south is
zoned C-3 General Commercial with a food bank store located
on the west side of Cobb Street and a cafe located on the
east side of Cobb Street.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 7,1998 a change took place from Single Family to
Mixed Office Commercial on the west side of John Barrow
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-10-03
Road about a half mile northwest of the applicant's
property.
On June 18,1996 multiple changes took place along both
sides John Barrow Road about a half a mile northwest of the
applicant's property.
On March 19,1996 multiple changes took place at the
intersection of John Barrow Road and W.36 Street about
2/3 of a mile northwest of the applicant's property.
The expanded area is shown as Single Family on the Future
Land Use Plan.The property to the west of the expanded
area is shown as Park/Open Space.The property to the
north and east of the expanded area is shown as Single
Family.The neighboring property to the south of the
expanded area is shown as Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
There are no streets or bikeways shown on the Master Street
Plan that would be affected by this proposed amendment.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows West End Park on the
southeast corner of the Walker Street /W.36 Street
intersection.The proposed amendment will not affect West
End Park.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan recommends reviewing
the appropriateness of existing zoning classifications to
determine if those classifications compromise the interest
to revitalize or stabilize the housing and infrastructure
and improve the overall appearance of the John Barrow
Neighborhood area.The plan also recommends the
identification of commercial areas to assure coordination
of service facilities,sign and advertising placement,
material of walls and trim and site layout,that will
provide efficient pedestrian movement.
2
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUQQ-10-03
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a fragile area of a
neighborhood near a commercial area.The area under reviewislocatedatthebottomofahill.The property located
up hill is protected from the Commercial uses to the south
by the natural barrier formed by the hill while the
property in the application area is not.The property in
the application area is also not protected by a buffer of
vegetation from the Commercial uses along Asher Avenue.A
buffer does not exist between the Commercial and Single
Family currently shown on the Future Land Use Plan.
Underutilized parcels of land shown as Commercial on the
Future Land Use Plan are located nearby along Asher Avenue
and John Barrow Road including property that is zoned C-3
that are currently used as single family residences.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:John Barrow N.A.,Broadmoor N.A.,Brownwood
Terrace N.A.,College Terrace N.A.,Point O'Woods N.A.,
University Park N.A.,and Westwood N.A.Staff has received
no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.This
amendment would allow the expansion of businesses north of
Asher Avenue into a residential neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.
Commissioner Mizan Rahman asked why the applicant applied
for Mixed Use.Brian Minyard,City Staff,responded that
the applicant wanted to use the property as a residence as
well as a business.
3
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-10-03
Commissioner Rohn Muse asked if Cobb Street was a
Commercial Street.Bob Turner,City Staff,responded that
currently Cobb Street is a residential street but would
become a commercial street if a business were established
on this street.If the street were to become a commercialstreetitwouldhavetobebuilttocollectorstreet
standards.
Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked if the proposed changes
attached to the property could be transferred to a new
owner.Stephen Giles,City Staff,stated that the new uses
would not necessarily transfer to new owners wishing toreceiveloansfromfinancialinstitutiontoimprovethe
property for continued use as a business.
Monte Moore made a presentation of item 7 so the discussion
could coincide with the discussion for item 7.1.See item
7 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form
Planned Commercial Development.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.
The item was Denied with a vote of 0 ayes,11 noes,and
0 absent.
4
September,2000
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6907
NAME:Novero —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:10800 Birchwood Drive
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Roman and Lita Novero Ollen Dee Wilson
10800 Birchwood Dr.P.O.Box 604LittleRock,AR 72211 No.Little Rock,AR 72115-0604
AREA:Approx.0.32 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Alterations/dressmaking shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 10800BirchwoodDrivefromR-2 to PD-C in order to convert theexistingsinglefamilyresidentialstructuretoanalterations/dressmaking shop.The applicant notes thatcustomerswillbebyappointmentonly,with hours ofoperationasfollows:
9:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Tuesday —Friday10:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m.,Saturday
The applicant notes that there will be one (1)employee inadditiontothebusinessownerwhichwillreporttothesite.The applicant also notes that the only signage willbeawall-mounted sign on the Shackleford Road side of thebuilding.This sign will be six (6)square feet in area.
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6907
The applicant notes that there will be no exterior physicalchangestotheproperty.The original site plan submittedincludedsmallbuildingadditionsandaparkinglotwithinthefrontyardarea.The applicant decided to make nophysicalchangestothepropertyontheadviceofPublicWorksandtheSubdivisionCommittee,based on the fact thatthepropertyisinthefloodwayandFEMAapprovalwouldberequiredforanyconstruction.The applicant also notesthattheexistingdrivewaywillbeusedforparking.TheapplicanthasalsorequestedaLandUsePlanAmendmentfortheproperty(Item 8.1 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains an existing one-story brick singlefamilyresidentialstructure,with accessory storagebuildingsintherearyard.Access to the property isgainedbyutilizinga20footwidedrivewayfromBirchwoodDrive.
Shackleford Road and I-430 are located immediately east ofthesite,with single family residences to the west alongBirchwoodDriveandtothesouthacrossBirchwoodDrive.There are office buildings located further south.There isadrainageareaimmediatelynorthofthesite,with amixtureofcommercialusesfurthernorthalongShacklefordRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)letter ofoppositionfromtheBirchwoodNeighborhoodAssociation,several phone calls expressing opposition and one (1)letter of support.The Birchwood Neighborhood Associationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of parking for customers and employees
without backing out to public street.
2.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.29-186 (b)will be required with building permit.3.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283
will be required with building permit.
2
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6907
4 .All property lies in the floodway,City of Little Rock
does not allow any improvements or house additions in the
floodway.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP &L:No Comments received.
2QQKA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if additional
water service is required.
Fire Department:No Comments.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is on bus route 45,proposed rezoning and use
has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this location.
The applicant'property is currently zoned R-2 Single
Family.The applicant has applied for a zone change to
Planned Development —Commercial to convert a single-family
house into an alterations and dress making shop.A land
use plan amendment for a change to Neighborhood Commercialisaseparateitemonthisagenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's
property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
3
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6907
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST ,2000)
Roman and Lita Novero were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the proposed PD-C andnotedthatinformationonsignageandnumberofemployeesneededtobeprovided.Staff noted that the property is inthefloodway.
The floodway issue was discussed.Bob Turner,Director ofPublicWorks,noted that if the applicant made any physicalchangestotheproperty(building additions,parking,etc.),FEMA approval would be required.He noted that the
FEMA review was lengthy and very expensive.He suggestedthattheapplicantsmakenophysicalchangestotheproperty.
In response to a question from staff,the applicants notedthattherewouldbenodumpsteronthesite.
The issue of parking was briefly discussed.The applicantsnotedthatcustomerswouldcometothesitebyappointmentonly.
The City's Home Occupation standards were brieflydiscussed.Staff noted that this property does not qualifyforthehomeoccupationstandardsbasedonthefactthatthebusinessownerwillnotliveinthestructure.
The Committee noted that the applicant should contact theBirchwoodNeighborhoodAssociationregardingtherezoning.The Committee also suggested that the applicant make nophysicalchangestotheproperty.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C tothefullCommissionforresolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 30,2000.The revised site plan eliminates thebuildingandparkingadditionsasshownontheplanoriginallysubmitted.The applicant notes that there willbenoexteriorphysicalchangestotheproperty.Theapplicantalsonotesthattheexistingdrivewaywill be
4
September ~~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6907
used for parking.The City's Zoning Ordinance would
typically require five (5)parking spaces for this proposeduse.
Aside from the site design related issues,the issue of
appropriateness of the proposed use must be discussed.Staff believes that the PD-C rezoning is not appropriate.
The Birchwood Subdivision is a single family neighborhood
which is isolated,entirely surrounded by non-residentialuses.Staff believes that intrusion into this single
family area would be a detriment to the neighborhood.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed PD-C rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Roman and Lita Novero were present,representing the
application.There were several objectors present.StaffbrieflydescribedtheproposedPD-C rezoning with a
recommendation of denial.
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,discussed the floodwayissuesassociatedwiththisproperty.Commissioner EarneststatedthattheCityatsometimeinthefutureshouldlook intotheremovalofstructuresfromthefloodway.
Commissioner Lowry asked where the drainage for the recently
approved Immanuel Baptist Church site would go.Mr.Turner
noted that it would not go to this area near Birchwood.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if there would be no exterior changes
allowed to this property.Mr.Turner stated that there would be
no changes allowed without FEMA approval,and that this approval
was a long and costly process.Commissioner Nunnley asked iftherewasaviableusefortheproperty.Mr.Turner stated thatallstructuresinthefloodwayshouldberemovedinthefuture.
Roman Novero addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He noted that he wished to move the alterations
business to this site to reduce overhead.He also noted thattherewouldbenophysicalchangestotheproperty.
5
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6907
Lita Novero also addressed the Commission in support of the
application.She stated that her alterations shop was a small
business and she felt that this was a good location for it.
Commissioner Nunnley asked where the business is currently
located and how many clients the business has.Mrs.Novero
noted that the business is currently located at 10500 West
Markham Street and that she had many clients.
Commissioner Lowry asked how many customers per day the business
had.Mrs.Novero noted that she had approximately 10 customers
per day on her busiest day.She noted that customers typically
make an appointment,have a fitting and pick up the garments at
a later date.
Commissioner Muse asked how many similar type businesses were in
the area.Mrs.Novero noted that there was one other
alterations business in the area and that the closest one was on
Green Mountain Drive.
Commissioner Faust asked if the Noveros would live at 10800
Birchwood Drive.The issue of a home occupation permit was
discussed.It was noted that if the Noveros lived on the site,
a home occupation permit might be appropriate.Mrs.Novero
stated that they would live on the site.Jim Lawson,Director
of Planning and Development,asked Dana Carney to read the home
occupation standards from the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Carney read
the restrictions and noted that variances from these standards
could be addressed by the Board of Adjustment.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that the Commission needed to make
sure that the Noveros understood the home occupation standards.
Mr.Carney took the Noveros aside and explained the home
occupation standards.
Mr.Carney stated that the Noveros wished to live on the site
and apply for a home occupation permit.He noted that the
zoning of the property would remain R-2.
Lita Novero requested that the PD-C rezoning application be
withdrawn.A motion was made to withdraw the application.The
motion passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
6
2-Gi&7Q4~I
8scwgis ~,W~k4et $0$
,HvoeA,cAVv
7MB'ugust
21,2000
Department of Planning 8 Development
Planning Division
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
I am writing to you regarding the application (Z-6907)that will be on the Subdivision
Meeting agenda on 8/24.It is an application to rezone property at 10800 Birchwood Little
Rock,72211 from R-2 to PD-C.I have had calls from some of our neighbors after the
rezoning/plan amendment signs were posted in the front yard of the residence at 10800
Birchwood.We totally oppose any rezoning or amendment to the plan from residential to
commercial at this entrance (Shackleford 8 Birchwood)to our neighborhood.What could
they possibly be thinking,making this request at an intersection that is already an
impossible situation?It would also be opening the door to further commercial intrusion
into our neighborhood.As the old adage goes,"give them an inch,they will take a mile."
The Noveros have only been here possibly a year,we have lived here for 30 years as
have many others and do not wish to see this type of commercialization at the entrance
to our neighborhood.I have attached a copy of the applicant's letter describing what they
envision for this property.It is ludicrous.
The only reason I can see that they would request this rezoning/plan amendment is to get
out from under the overhead at their current place of business at 10500 W.Markham in
a retail center only a few minutes from their home.
There have been previous applications at this locality for this type of rezoning in the past,
including the people the current residents bought the house from,all of which failed.I
hope this record will remain intact.
If you need any further information I can be reached at 569-3546 until 4:00 and 225-8580
after 4:30 or by e-mail:gkhenry@aristotle.net.Thank you for your consideration
Si cerely,
RECEIVED Georgi Henry
p,U(;p~oooo
BY:
g.pw p~
3716863
AUG —1 S —SS TUE.9 -87 PL4HH I NG 4HD DEV.57 1 6865 P.82
August.l l,2000
City of Little Rock
Dept.og Planning and Development
723 West Markiem St.
Litle Rodr„AR 72201-l334 +0 709
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a cover letter in compliance with the Deinutment of Planning and Developruent requirement
telmchug the request fur fcrmning of our property located at 10&00 Birchwood Drive Little Rock,AR.722 l l,
from residential tn eomntercinl.
'IMs will be the place for our alteration/dressmaking shop named,The Fitting Room,Hours of operation,
Tuesday-Friday:9anHipnt,Saturday:10am-3pm.An «verage of 3 osaumers at a time.About 10 minutes per
cushuner.%be business sign dimension is 3.6 ft.x 165.with neon light %e $~%bee
PROFESSIONAL ALTERATIONS".It will be above the grourul,on the soutluust of the property%ming
Shackfeford Road.Ne will put S additional pathng spaces in fmnt of the ye~rty.Enclose the northwest comer of
the stnttetnre and dedt on the northeast of the stnlctwe.
Reqecttblly Yours,
Roman C.Novero
Lrta L Novero
From:WAYNE d KAREN GRAY 'onti Moore Date:0/29/100 T:17:44:ime::r52 Page 1 of 1
g-Q /o 7
Monti Moore,
This letter is in support of The Fitting Room which has asked for rezoning at the address 10800 Birchwood
Drive.I live at 11417Birchwood Drive and I also do business with The Fitting Room.I would not see any
problem with the relocation of this business to the new location.It is a very quiet business with only a
couple of customers at the business at one time.I do know that you have asked the own to t teragreenoo
any 'tional parking spaces to the existing driveway,and to have the customers park in the street.I
would say that this is a hazard because of cars turning off of Shackleford Road trying to avoid the two lanes
turning from Birchwood Drive to Shackleford Drive.
This business is very quiet and clean.It is only open during the daylight hours which should not interfere
with the residential neighbors.This person is trying to lower her overhead by moving he b 'Thrusiness.ere
s o e no problem with this since it is quiet commercial,and she already owns the house.
I know that she has assured you that she would work by appointment only,which would lessen the
possibility of having multiple customers at her business at one time.
Please take a moment and consider this before making a hasty decision to not approve her request.She is a
very hard working individual who is only trying to make a living.She is not a trouble maker,as are some
of the individuals already residing in the neighborhood.She has live in the house for quite a while now and
has caused no problems in the neighborhood.
Thanks for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen Gray
11417Birchwood Drive
Little Rock,AR 72211
224-9834
PERCEIVED
AUG 3 0 2000
BY:
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:8.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-11-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-430 Planning District
Location:10800 Birchwood Drive
RecCuest:Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial
Source:Roman C.and Lita I.Novero
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment located in the I-430 PlanningDistrictfromSingleFamilytoNeighborhoodCommercial.
The Neighborhood Commercial category includes small-scale
commercial development in close proximity to a
neighborhood,providing goods and services to that
neighborhood market area.The applicant wishes to use the
property for an alteration and dress making shop.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the PlanningStaffexpandedtheareaofreviewtoincludetheproperty
directly across the street on the southwest corner of the
Birchwood Drive /Shackleford Road intersection.It has
been more than three years since the Land Use Plan was
reviewed in this area.With.this change,the entirety of
the Single Family located at the Birchwood Drive /
Shackleford Road intersection would be eliminated.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Two single family houses are located in the expanded area
which is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately .62+acres in size.The properties to the
north is zoned C-3 General Commercial and is filled with
various commercial enterprises.The land to the east is
occupied by the I-430 /I-630 freeway interchange.South
of the expanded area is a large tract of land zoned 0-2
Office and institutional at the northeast corner of the
Shackleford Road /Financial Center Parkway intersection
and is developed with office buildings.The property to
the west is zoned R-2 Single Family and occupied by houses
located in the Birchwood neighborhood.
September 14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:LUOO-11-02
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 2,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Suburban Office on the west side of Aldersgate Road between
W.17 and W.20 Streets one mile south of the applicant's
property.
On April 6,1999,multiple changes took place along Kanis
Road between Shackleford Road and Chenal Parkway about a
half mile south of the applicant's property.
On October 29,1998,a change took place from Single Family
to Commercial on Markham Center Drive a half-mile northeast
of the applicant's property.
On October 29,1998 a change took place from Single Family
to Suburban Office on the east side of Natural Resources
Drive north of Markham Street a half mile northeast of the
applicant's property.
On May 20,1997 a change took place on the north side of
Chenal Parkway from office to Commercial between Bowman and
Autumn Roads about 2/3 of a mile west of the applicant's
property.
On November 19,1996 a change took place from Office to
Commercial north of Timber Ridge Drive west of Chenal
Parkway about one mile west of the applicant's property.
On November 19,1996 a change took place from Office to
Park/Open Space on the north side of Timber Drive west of
Chenal Parkway about one mile west of the applicant's
property.
On January 16,1996 a change took place from LMF to
Suburban Office east of Bowman Road north of the Sandpiper
West subdivision about one mile southwest of the
applicant's property.
The expanded area under review is shown as Single Family on
the Future Land Use Plan.The property to the north along
Shackleford Road is shown as Commercial.The property to
the east is occupied by the Z-430 /Z-630 freeway
interchange.The property to the south of the expanded
area is shown as Office.The property to the west is shown
as Single Family.
2
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-02
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Birchwood Drive is not shown on the Master Street Plan.Shackleford Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as aminorarterial.There are no bikeways shown on the MasterStreetPlanthatwouldbeaffectedbythisamendment.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan is shown northwest of theapplicant's property.Birchwood Park would not be affected
by the proposed amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property is located in an area that is notcoveredbyaneighborhoodactionplan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a residential
neighborhood surrounded by intense,and incompatible,landuses.Both houses in the expanded area face BirchwoodDrive.The neighborhood is the only area shown as Single
Family in a larger area bounded by Shackleford Road,
Markham Street,Bowman Road,and Financial Center Parkway.
The area,shown as Single Family,is further reduced byBirchwoodParklocatedwithintheconfinesofthe
neighborhood.A large amount of land developed for
commercial and office uses form a virtual ring around theresidentialneighborhood.The applicant's property islocatedinthefloodwayforRockCreek.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhoodassociations:Birchwood N.A.,Birchwood N.A.,Campus PlaceP.O.A.,Kensington Place P.O.A.,Pennbrook/Clover HillPlaceP.O.A.,Sandpiper N.A.,Sewer District ¹147,Twin
Lakes "A"N.A.,Twin Lakes "B"N.A.,Westbrook N.A.,WalnutValleyN.A.,and Beverly Hills P.O.A.Staff has received
3
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-02
eleven comments from area residents.One is in support,ten are opposed to the change and two were neutral.
Birchwood Neighborhood Association,which covers this site,is opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.Approval ofthisamendmentwoulddecreasethesizeofanisolatedareaofSingleFamily.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to thecommission.
Bob Turner,City Staff,made a brief presentation
concerning drainage issues relevant to this item.Mr.Turner stated that the applicant'property is located in afloodwayandthatbusinessesshouldnotbelocatedinthefloodway.Mr.Turner closed his remarks by stating thatthelocationofthehouseinafloodwaywasunintentional
and that it was built before the current floodwayregulationswereimplemented.The applicant did notintentionallybuypropertyinthefloodway.
Commissioner Hugh Earnest made a statement concerning theneedtoopendialogtoaddressthelong-term future needforremovalofpropertieslocatedinfloodways.A briefdiscussionfollowedbetweenthePlanningCommissionandCityStaffaddressingthefloodwayissuesspecificallyrelatedtothisagendaitem.The conversation concludedthatbusinessesshouldnotbeestablishedinthefloodway.
The applicant'property is located in a floodway.
Monte Moore made a presentation of item 8 so the discussioncouldcoincidewiththediscussionforitem8.1.See item
8 for a complete discussion concerning the Short FormPlannedCommercialDevelopment.
4
September.14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-11-02
After extended discussion,Mr.Roman Novero,and Mrs.LitaNovero,the applicants,made a formal recpxest to have theapplicationwithdrawn.
A motion was made in favor of the withdrawal.Thewithdrawalofitem7.1 was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.
5
September,2000
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-6910
NAME:Unleashed Innovations —Short-Form PD-0
LOCATION:16921 Burlingame Road,at Yellow Brick Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Unleashed Innovations,Inc.James S.Aunspaugh10801ExecutiveCenterDr.510 4 South ClaremontSuite303Sherwood,AR 72120LittleRock,AR 72211
AREA:5.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Burlingame Road.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 16921BurlingameRoadfromR-2 to PD-0 in order to convert thesinglefamilyresidentialstructuretoanoffice.Theapplicantnotesthattheyarecurrentlydevelopingtwo (2)single family subdivisions in this area and wish to have anofficeclosertotheirbusinessconcerns.The applicanthasnotedthattheresidentialintegrityofthepropertywillbemaintained.
The applicant notes that there will be three (3)employeeswhichwillreporttothesiteeachdayandthatthehoursofoperationswillbe8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday-Friday.The applicant also notes that the only signage will be asmallwindowsign,approximately three (3)square feet inarea.
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6910
The applicant proposes to construct two (2)small pavedparkingareas.There will be a small visitor parking area(6 spaces)in front of the building and an employee parkingarea(5 spaces)at the rear of the building.The parkingareaswillbeconnectedbyapaveddrivealongtheeastsideofthebuilding.The applicant also notes that theexistingchip-seal driveway will be repaved.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of streetimprovementstoBurlingameRoad.The deferral is requestedforfive(5)years,until further development of theproperty,or until adjacent development,whichever occursfirst.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a one-story log single family residentialstructureontheproperty,which sets back approximately400feetfromBurlingameRoad.There is a paved accessdrivefromBurlingameRoad,with a covered drive-thru(bridge-like)structure under construction.There are two(2)ponds on the property,with a pavilion structure on thesouthernmostpond.This general area contains a scatteringofsinglefamilyresidencesonlargertractsofland.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment fromsurroundingpropertyowners.There was no establishedneighborhoodassociationtonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Burlingame Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as aprincipalarterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feetfromcenterlineisrequired.2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothisstreetincluding5-foot sidewalk with planneddevelopment.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted forapprovalpriortostartofwork.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilitiesarerequired.
2
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6910
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside Service Boundary.No Comment.
AP&L:No Comments.
Arkla:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No water service is available at this time.Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is not on an existing bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Burlingame Valley PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for thislocation.The property is currently zoned R-2 SingleFamily.The applicant has applied for a zone change toPlannedDevelopment—Office to convert a single-familyhouseintoofficesforapropertymanagement,sales,andlanddevelopedfirm.After evaluation,a land use planamendmentforachangetoSuburbanOfficewasnotneededforthisuse.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant'spropertyliesinanareanotcoveredbyacityrecognizedneighborhoodactionplan.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed land use buffer south of the proposedemployeesparkinglotdoesnotmeetthefullrequirement of25feetortheminimumrequirementatanygivenpointof6feet.
The proposed land use buffer east of the proposed on-sitepavedareadoesnotmeetthefullrequirementof20feet ortheminimumrequirementatanygivenpointof6feet.
3
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6910
A 6-foot high opaque screen is required to help screen
business activity from adjacent residential properties.
This screen may be a wooden fence with its face sidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 13,2000)
Genni Hoanzl was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PD-O,noting that
hours of operation,number of employees and signage details
needed to be provided.In response to a question fromstaff,Ms.Hoanzl noted that there would be no dumpster onthesite.The parking areas were briefly discussed.Staffnotedthatthesiteplanneededtoberevisedtoshowaspecificparkingplan(space size,maneuvering area,etc.).Staff recommended that the parking areas be paved.
Vice-Chair Berry asked what type of office was proposed.
The applicant responded that it would be a real estate—
type office.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Alternatives to the required street improvements werediscussed.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,notedthatawaiverofstreetimprovementswouldnotbe
supported.He noted that a deferral would be considered
and discussed an in-lieu contribution.
The buffer and screening issues were briefly discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-0 tothefullCommissionforresolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additionalinformationtostaffonAugust31,2000.The revised planaddressestheissuesasraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The applicant notes that the new small parkingareaswillbepavedasrequestedbystaff.The applicantalsonotesthattherewillbenodumpsteronthesite.
Based on the fact that the owner of this property also ownsthepropertytotheeastandsouth(as well as otherpropertyinthearea),the east and south boundary lines of
4
September a~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6910
the area to be rezoned have been adjusted to provide theappropriatebufferareasadjacenttotheproposedparkingareas.There is existing vegetation within these bufferareaswhichwillaidinprovidingtheappropriatescreening.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing atotalof11pavedparkingspaces.The ordinance wouldtypicallyrequireaminimumof4spaces.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting adeferralofstreetimprovementstoBurlingameRoadforfive(5)years,until further development of this property,oruntiladjacentdevelopment,whichever occurs first.PublicWorkssupportsthedeferralasrequested.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedPD-O.Staff feels thattheproposedofficeusewillhavenoadverseimpactonthegeneralarea.The owner of this property also owns thepropertytotheeast,west and south (several hundredacres).
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-0 zoning subject to thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphsD,E and F of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the deferral of streetimprovementstoBurlingameRoadforfive(5)years,until further development of this property or untiladjacentdevelopment,whichever occurs first.
3.Signage will be limited to the window sign as noted inparagraphA.
4.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on thisapplication,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were no objectors to this matter.
5
September i,2000
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6912
NAME:Gray —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:2001 N.Arthur Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Stanley M.Gray Donald W.Brooks
2001 N.Arthur Street 2 082 0 Arch Street PikeLittleRock,AR 72207 Little Rock,AR 72065
AREA:Approx 0.16 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Single Family Residential
and Office
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of right-of-way dedication for Arthur Street and
Kavanaugh Blvd.
2.Waiver of street improvements to Arthur Street and
Kavanaugh Blvd.
/
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 2001 N.
Arthur Street from R-2 to POD in order to use the 200
square foot accessory building at the southeast corner ofthepropertyasanoffice.The existing single familystructureonthepropertywillcontinuetobeusedas aresidence.
The applicant notes that the use of the accessory buildingwillbea"one-man office",with hours of operation being8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.Theapplicantnotesthattheproposedofficeusedoesnot.
involve clients coming to the site and that the officewillbeusedprimarilyforcommunicationsviaphone,fax
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6912
and e-mail.The only change to the existing accessorybuildingthattheapplicantproposestomakeistheadditionofarestroomfacility.There is no signageproposed.The applicant notes that the accessory buildinghasbeenusedasanofficeinthepast.
There are two (2)paved parking spaces immediately north oftheaccessorybuildingwhichareenclosedbyprivacyfencing.The parking spaces are accessed by way of a pavedalleyalongtheproperty's east boundary.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required right-of-way dedication for Arthur Street and Kavanaugh Blvd.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the requiredstreetimprovementsforthesestreets.
The applicant,Stanley Gray,has also requested that theproposedPODzoningbeforhisuseandownershiponly.Hestatesthatwhenhesellsthepropertyorwhenheceasestheofficeuseontheproperty,the property will revert tosinglefamilyresidentialuse.
The applicant has also filed a Land Use Plan Amendment fortheproperty(Item 10.1 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one-story frame single familyresidentialstructurewithinthewestone-half of thepropertyanda200squarefootaccessorybuildingnear theproperty's southeast corner.There is a paved alley alongtheproperty's east boundary,with two (2)paved parkingspacesimmediatelynorthoftheaccessorybuilding.
There are single family residences to the north,east,west(across Arthur Street)and south (across Kavanaugh Blvd.).There is a mixture of office and commercial zoning 1 '&
blocks further east at the intersection of Kavanaugh Blvd.and University Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received three (3)phonecallsfrompersonsrequestinginformationonthisapplication.The Heights,South-Normandy and Normandy-
Shannon Neighborhood Associations were notified of thepublichearing.
2
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6912
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Arthur Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofArthurStreetandKavanaughBlvd.3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.7.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
9.Improve alley and pave to 18 feet wide.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely af fected.
AP6L:No Comments received.
ARKLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:No Comments.
Fire Department:No Comments.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is on bus routes gl and 22 and has no effect
on bus radius,turnout and route.
3
September .,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6912
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the West Little Rock PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this
location.The applicant's property is currently zoned R-2
Single Family.The applicant has applied for a zone change
to Planned Office Development to operate an office in the
existing garage on the back of the property.A land use
plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a
separate item on this agenda.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's
property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Stanley Gray was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed POD.In response to a
question from staff,Mr.Gray noted that there would be no
signage.Mr.Gray also noted that he proposes to add a
restroom facility to the accessory building.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.
Gray indicated that he would request a waiver of right-of-
way dedication and street improvements for Arthur Street
and Kavanaugh Blvd.
The Committee discussed tying the zoning of the property to
Mr.Gray's use and ownership.Mr.Gray indicated no
problem with this suggestion.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted additional information to staff on
August 30,2000.As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant
4
September,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6912
has requested that the proposed POD zoning be for his
property ownership and office use only.He states that
when he sells the property or ceases to use the accessory
building as an office,the property will revert back
entirely to single family residential use.
Also noted in paragraph A.,there are two (2)paved parking
spaces on the north side of the accessory building.TheCity's Zoning Ordinance would typically require only one
(1)parking space for an office of this size.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required right-
of-way dedication for Arthur Street and the 20 foot radial
dedication at the corner of Arthur Street and Kavanaugh
Blvd.The applicant is also requesting a waiver of thestreetimprovementstothesestreetsaswellasthealley
along the property's east boundary.Public Works
recommends denial of the waivers as requested.Public
Works notes that a deferral of street improvements could be
supported.
Aside from the Public Works issues,the issue of
appropriateness of the proposed POD zoning must be
addressed.Staff does not believe that the rezoning is
appropriate.Staff feels that the rezoning would allowintrusionofanincompatible,non-residential use in an
area completely surrounded by single family residences.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the requested POD rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Stanley Gray was present,representing the application.There
were no objectors present.Staff briefly described the proposed
POD rezoning with a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Gray addressed the Commission in support of the application.It was noted that addition of a restroom facility to the
accessory building was part of Mr.Gray's application.It wasalsonotedthattherewouldbenosignage.
There was a motion to approve a waiver of required right-of-way
dedication and street improvements to Arthur Street,Kavanaugh
5
September -.,2000
SUBD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6912
Blvd.and the adjacent alley.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
There was a second motion to approve the POD rezoning subject to
the POD being for Stanley Gray's ownership and office use only.If Mr.Gray sells the property or ceases use of the accessory
building as an office,the property will revert back entirely to
single family residential use.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
88/38/2888 13:86 581-324-9433 UALR SCHCICIL OF LAW PAGE 82/82
Julie BaMridge Speed
11 Lombardy Lane
Little Rock,Arkansas 72207-4224
August 30,2000
Mr.Monte Moore
Little Rock Planning and Development
723 West Matkham
Little Rock,AR 72201
RE:Rezoning Request for 200l North Arthur
for Stanley Gray to change Rom R-2 to POD
to uti&w accessory buIlding as of6ce.
Dear Mr.Moore:
Thank you so much for your courtesy in visiting with me this morning by phone
regarding the above noted rezoning request.I am writing to reiterate my requests as
'xpressedtoyouverballyduringourconversation.
As a neighbor of Mr.Gray for a number of years,I have no concerns regarding his
use of his property as it now stands,nox do I hav'e a concexn xegaxdIng his upgracRg the,
plumbing in his accessory building.I would like to request,hArever,that the staff and
commission considex two conditions should the rezoning request be otherwise to their
standatds:
l.A condition that any zoning variance go with Mr.Gray and his speei6c use of his
property,and that when he vacates the building or sells the property,the zoning revert to the
original R-2;and
2.A conditIon that there be no signage ox other external changes connected with the
commercial use of the property by Mr.Gray
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely youxs,
'e Bald&3ge Speed
RECK'ED
AUG 3 0 2000
BY'
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:10.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-03-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —West Little Rock
Planning District
Location:2001 N.Arthur Street
Receest:Single Family tn Mixed Use
Source:Stanley M.Gray
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the West Little Rock Planning
District from Single Family to Mixed Use.Mixed Use
provides for a mixture of residential,office and
commercial uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is
recpxired if the use is entirely office or commercial or if
the use is a mixture of the three.The applicant wishes to
develop the property for a residence and an office.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately .16+acres in size.The applicant's propertyiscompletelysurroundedbyresidentialpropertyoccupied
by single family homes zoned R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE ~USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On June 20,2000 a change took place in the 200 block of N.
McKinley Street from Single Family to Suburban Office one
mile south of the applicant's property.
On March 16,1999 multiple changes took place northeast of
the Markham Street /University Avenue intersection one
mile south of the applicant's property.
On November 7,1996 multiple changes took place south of
Cantrell Road along Indiana and Bryant Street one mile west
of the applicant's property.
The applicant's property is currently shown as Single
Family on the Future Land Use Plan.All of the
neighboring property is also shown as Single Family on the
Future Land Use Plan.
Septemb~14,2000
SUBD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:10.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-03-02
MASTER STREET PLAN:
There are no streets or bikeways shown on the Master Street
Plan that would be affected by this proposed amendment.
Kavanaugh Boulevard at this location is a local street.
PARKS:
The Park System master Plan shows an open space located on
Cantrell Road between Garfield Street and Normandy Lane.
This park would not be affected by the proposed amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property is located in an area not covered
by a neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
All of the neighboring properties to the north have
accessory structures located in the back yards.None of
the accessory structures are readily visible from Arthur
Street.The applicant's garage is visible only from
Kavanaugh Boulevard.The exterior of the applicant's
accessory building is currently compatible with the other
accessory structures located in the neighborhood.The
accessory structures in this neighborhood are typical of
Single Family properties in this neighborhood.The area
under review is isolated from other land use areas in the
neighborhood compatible with the applicant's request.The
applicant's property is also two blocks from the nearest
collector street (University Avenue)and one block from the
nearest principal arterial (Cantrell Road).
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Andover Square R.A.,Apache Crime Watch,
Briarwood N.A.,Evergreen N.A.,Heights N.A.,Leawood N.A.,
Meriwether N.A.,Normandy-Shannon P.O.A.,Overlook P.O.A.,
Robinwood P.O.A.,and South Normandy P.O.A.Staff has
2
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-03-02
received two comments from area residents:one in support
and one neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The proposed
amendment would allow an intrusion of an incompatible land
use in an area completely surrounded by Single Family landuses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked what was located at the
northwest corner of the University Avenue and Kavanaugh
Boulevard intersection.City Staff replied that a dentistofficeoccupiesatthatlocation.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked if the Planned Office
Development would be tied to the applicant only.Monte
Moore,City Staff,stated that the POD would be tied to the
applicant only.
Monte Moore made a presentation of item 10 so the
discussion could coincide with the discussion for item10.1.See item 10 for a complete discussion concerning theShortFormPlannedCommercialDevelopment.
Mr.Stanley Gray,the applicant,spoke for the need to add
plumbing to the garage located on his property.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.
The item was Denied with a vote of 0 ayes,10 noes,and
1 absent.
3
September ~~,2000
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:S-1240-A
NAME:I-430 —Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision (Lot 22)
Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Interstate 430 and Colonel
Glenn Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Vogel Enterprises White-Daters and Associates
11219 Financial Centre Pkwy.401 S.Victory Street
Suite 300 Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:4.24 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-4 ALLOWED USES:Commercial —Open DisplayDistrict
PROPOSED USE:Auto Dealership
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance to allow off-site excavation for this project (Item 11.1
on this agenda).
BACKGROUND:
The property at the southwest corner of I-430 and Colonel Glenn
Road is zoned C-4 Commercial and the applicant is proposing to
develop an auto dealership on the property,which is a permitteduse.However,based on the fact that the applicant is proposingatwo(2)building site plan,the plan will require review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a subdivision site plan reviewforthedevelopmentofanautodealershiponLot22,I-430
September «,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240-A
—Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision.The applicant is
proposing two (2)buildings for the site.The first is a20,600 square foot new car sales and service buildinglocatedwithinthewestone-half of the property.Thesecondbuildingis2,000 square feet in area and will beforusedcarsales.The applicant notes that the maximumbuildingheightwillbe35feet,which conforms to the C-4
zoning standards.
The applicant notes that there will be a total of 320parkingspacesonthesite.Areas devoted to customer,
employee,service and display parking have been noted onthesiteplan.
The applicant is proposing a pylon sign along the eastpropertylineandamonumentsignnearthenorthwestcorneroftheproperty.The applicant notes that the monumentsignwillhaveaheightof4feetandanareaof40squarefeetandthatthepylonsignwillconformtotypicalordinancestandards(maximum height —36 feet,maximum area160squarefeet).The applicant is also proposing two(2)small information signs,one at each entrance from
Commercial Center Drive.
The applicant notes that a portion of Commercial CenterDrivewillbeconstructedwiththisdevelopment.The siteplanshowsatemporaryturnaroundwhichwillbeconstructedattheendofthestreet.The proposed site plan shows two(2)access drives from Commercial Center Drive,as the onlyproposedaccesstotheproperty.
The applicant has also requested a variance to allow off-site excavation in order to provide fill material for thisproject.Public Works will provide an explanation andanalysisofthisvariance(Item 11.1 on this agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property at the southwest corner of I-430 and ColonelGlennRoadisundevelopedandwooded,with varying degreesofslope.Interstate 430 is located along the property'seastboundary,with an office building and undeveloped C-2
zoned property to the north across Colonel Glenn Road.There is additional undeveloped property within the I-430ColonelGlennCommercialSubdivisionimmediatelysouthandwestofthissite.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The SWLR United for Progress NeighborhoodAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
2
September M,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240-A
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlineisrequired.
2.Commercial Center Drive is classified on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-
way to 30 feet from centerline.3.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.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Proposed driveways do not meet current ordinance
and approved driveway locations on preliminary plat.5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186 (e)will be
required with a building permit..
8.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.9.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty.
AP&L:No Comments received.
Arkla:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.A water main extension
and/or on-site fire protection may be required.
Fire Department:On site fire hydrants may be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
3
September ~~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.There is to be no vehicular display within the front 20feetofthepropertyalongColonelGlennRoadand
Commercial Center Drive.
3.The driveway issue must be resolved.
4.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff noted that the driveway location issue had been worked out
between the applicant and Public Works.
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 11 ayes and 0 nays.
6
September .,2000
ITEM NO.:11.1 FILE NO.:S-1240-A
NAME:Variance to allow off-site excavation for S-1240-A
LOCATION:South side of Colonel Glenn and West of I-430
The request.is to excavate approximately 140,000 cubic yards of
material from a designated borrow area south of the proposed Lot
22 I-430 Colonel Glenn Commercial site.The borrow area
excavation will "cut the top"off a 10.5 acre ridge to a maximum
depth of 26 feet and an average depth of 12 feet.Cross
sections show that the excavated area upon completion would
slope one foot in 250 feet or a .4%slope.
According to new ordinance the Planning Commission must approve
the entire development before a grading permit can be issued.
Section 29-186(1)of the draft Land Alternation Ordinance
requires that "all necessary city approval of all plans and
permits"before land alteration can be undertaken.
For this project that would mean that the borrow area would have
to have a development plan (site plan,plat,etc.)approved
before Public Works could issue a grading permit for the borrow
area excavation in order to fill Lot 22.A portion of the
borrow area lies within the I-430 —Colonel Glenn Commercial
Subdivision,but the majority lies outside the subdivision in an
area where no development plan has been approved.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the excavation
of the borrow area without a development plan in order to
provide fill material for Lot 22,for which a site plan is
requested.
The proposed Lot 28,I-430 —Colonel Glenn Commercial
Subdivision is zoned 0-3,with the remainder of the borrow area
being zoned 0-2 (refer to zoning map for Item 11).As noted on
the attached plan,the developer will leave a 50 foot buffer
area between the 0-2 property and the R-2 property immediatelyeast.This conforms to the new proposed ordinance,as a 50 foot
buffer is the maximum required under any circumstances betweenofficeandresidentialproperty(the current ordinance requires
a maximum of 40 feet).Staff recommends that this 50 foot
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240-A
buffer area remain undisturbed until a development plan is
approved for the 0-2 zoned area.There is no land use buffer
required between the 0-2 and 0-3 zoned property.
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the.variance subject to the 50 foot
buffer between the 0-2 property and the R-2 property being
undisturbed,with construction fencing in place prior to anysitework.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.There
were two (2)objectors present.Bob Turner,Director of Public
Works,explained the proposed variance.He noted that
approximately 140,000 cubic yards of fill material (excavation)
would be involved with this project.
Vice Chair Berry asked about restoration provisions associated
with the new proposed ordinance.Mr.Turner noted that if thereisnodevelopmentoftheexcavatedareawithin8months,the
buffers would have to be provided,if the buffers are disturbed.
He also noted that the area of excavation would have to be
grassed.
Mr.Daters noted that the area at the southwest corner of I-430
and Colonel Glenn Road which was approved for a site plan needed
to be filled.He noted that a 50 foot buffer along the east
property line of the excavation area will be provided and that
the excavated area will be seeded and stabilized.
Janet Berry spoke in opposition to the variance.She noted that
she would like for the developer to consider alternatives for
providing fill material.
Norm Floyd also spoke in opposition to the variance and noted
concerns with the proposed excavation.
Commissioner Lowry asked about the differences between the
existing and proposed ordinances dealing with excavations.
Mr.Turner explained that under the new ordinance requirements,
a plan would have to be approved for property prior to any
excavation.This issue was briefly discussed.
2
September ~,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240-A
Commissioner Lowry asked if the buffer requirements would be
adhered to with this excavation.Mr.Turner stated that they
would and that seeding and stabilization of the excavated area
should be required.Mr.Daters agreed to these conditions.
Vice-Chair Berry asked about the supply of available fill in the
area.Mr.Daters briefly described the cost of fill
transportation.
There was a motion to approve the variance as recommended bystafftoincludetheadditionalconditionsasagreedtoby
Mr.Daters and noted above.The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes,2 nays and 1 absent.
3
September 14,2000
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
NAME:Harper Dollar Store —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:10130 Mabelvale West Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Robert Ashcraft and Family /W.B.
Putnam
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
a Dollar General Store with
accompanying parking on this property
zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial,
located at 10130 Mabelvale West Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is on the southwest quarter of a5.23 acre tract on the north side of Mabelvale West
Road,just west of the intersection of Mabelvale West
and Mabelvale Main.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned 0-3,General Office,but
has been submitted to the Board of Directors for
rezoning to C-1,Neighborhood Commercial,which is
expected to be approved.The properties to the north,
southeast,and west are zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.The property to the north east is zonedC-3.The southwest corner of the proposed site touches
an I-2,Light Industrial,zoned area.
The property to the north,east,and most of the landtothewestisvacantandcontainsscatteredtreesand
brush.There are single family homes adjacent to the
southwest and to the south across Mabelvale West.
Further to the east,northeast is a Fina Gas station,
and there is some industrial uses to the southwest.
The single family house adjacent to the west has
recently been approved to be a day care center.
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
Staff believes this proposed use would cause little
adverse impact on the area as long as proper
screening,and low intensity lighting directed
downward and inward to the site are put into place.
The Mavis Circle,Pinedale Neighborhood Associations,
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all
property owners within 200 feet,and all residents
within 300 feet that could be identified,were
notified of the public hearing.
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed site would have one access driveway onto
Mabelvale West and shows 38 on-site parking spaces
with 4 handicapped accessible spaces.The ordinance
requires one space for every 300 gross square feet of
floor space.That would result in 29 required spaces
for this proposal,two of which would need to be
handicapped accessible.
While more than enough parking is shown on the
proposed site plan,two changes would be required.
First,the space on the east end of the double sided
parking rows closest to the building,which would
cause a vehicle to back out into the driveway,must be
eliminated or moved to the west end of that same row.
Second,the handicapped accessible spaces should be
located in the closest spaces to the front door.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The 20 foot wide OS zoned western strip along the
northern half of the property is not shown on the plan
submitted.
A three foot wide landscape strip between the public
parking areas and proposed building is required.
There is some flexibility with this requirement.
The proposed landscape strip along the eastern
perimeter meets the current landscape requirements but
drops one foot below the proposed minimum requirement
of 6.75 feet.
2
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
The proposed landscape ordinance will require a water
source within 75 feet of required planted areas if an
irrigation system is not provided.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Mabelvale West Drive is listed on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-
of-way 45 feet from centerline is required.b.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.
d.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.e.Easements for proposed stormwater detentionfacilitiesarerequired.f.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
g.Provide hydraulic study for floodway
channelization.Design channel for 100 year storm
event.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.A water main extension
and/or on-site fire protection may be required.
Wastewater:Existing 15"sewer main located on
property or along property line.Must be located
prior to construction of project.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for details.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
3
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has
no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to obtain a conditional
use permit for a Dollar General Store with
accompanying parking on this 5.23 acre property which
should be zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial.If the
zoning should not be approved,the conditional use
permit would not be allowed.
One single-story building would be built,
approximately 14 feet tall,containing about 8,674
square feet.All setback and siting requirements are
met by the proposed site plan.The proposed operating
hours are 9 a.m.to 7 p.m.Monday through Saturday,
and 10 a.m.to 6 p.m.on Sunday.The applicant
proposes 38 parking spaces versus the required minimumof29spaces.Two small adjustments as described in
paragraph 3 above,would be required in the parkingarea.
Staff believes that the proposed use would be
reasonable at this location.As long as proper
screening,and low intensity lighting directed
downward and inward to the site are put into place,
the proposal should cause little adverse impact to thearea.It is critical that all means possible be usedtominimizelightspill-over onto surrounding
residential property.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit subject to compliance with the followingconditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity anddirecteddownwardandinwardtothepropertyand not
4
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
towards any residential zoned area.
d.Conditions stated in paragraph 3 regarding the parking
area must be accomplished.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Bill Putnam was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.The only two areas
discussed were the screening and buffer requirements and
the comments made by Public Works.After the discussion the
applicant appeared to understand the requirements.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Bill Putnam was present representing the application.There
was one registered objector present earlier in the meeting.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approvalsubjecttocompliancewiththeconditionslistedunder"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.The Chair had
been informed that the opposing party had left.Since it
appeared there was no opposition,the Chair asked for a
motion.
A motion was made to approve the application as submittedtoincludestaffcommentsandrecommendations.The motion
passed by a vote of 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Towards the end of the discussion of the next item the
original opponent to item 12 identified herself to Staff.
Mr.Lawson informed the Chair that a mistake had been made,
the opponent had not left.
The Chair asked the opponent,Ann Schweitzer,if she wantedtomakeastatementandexplainwhatshewasopposedto.
Ms.Schweitzer lives at 10117 Nash Lane which abuts the
proposed site on the west side.She stated that she was not
5
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6866-A
opposed to the development itself,but rather her main
concern was about water runoff from this site to her pond.
She had lived there for 12 years and seen the site go from
dense tree covered land to the current cleared land.Shefeltthathadresultedinwatercomingontoherproperty
much faster from the proposed site.She said she's afraid
there would be more runoff coming even faster because of
this development.She asked that there be some assurance
from the Commission that there be a plan made for water
detention to protect her property and pond.
Bob Turner,Public Works Director,stated that storm water
detention requirements would apply to this development.
Those requirements would require the water to be held and
released in a way that it would not exit the property anyfasterthannow.
The Commission advised Ms.Schweitzer to contact Mr.Turnerifproblemsoccur.She appeared satisfied,but stated she
would be watching and would contact Mr.Turner if problems
occur.
6
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6904
NAME:LaBee Accessory Dwelling —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:11401 Sardis Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Kenneth &June LaBee
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
a single-wide manufactured home to use
as an accessory dwelling on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
located at 11401 Sardis Road.
ORD INANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located at the rear of a 0.76acrepropertylocatedontheeastsideofSardisRoad,
a short distance south of the intersection of Sardis
and DeWitt Roads.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site and all the surrounding property is
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.The propertiesacrossDeWitttotheeastarevacantandtreecovered.
The area to the north,south,and southwest consistsofsinglefamilyresidences.There are other single
and double-wide manufactured homes in the immediate
surrounding area,as well as several site-built.
houses.
Staff believes that if the accessory dwelling is
installed according to City standards,it would be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The Southwest Little Rock United for Progress
Neighborhood Association,all property owners within
200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could
be identified,were notified of the public hearing.
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Currently the property has one driveway from Sardis
Road,and an access gate to DeWitt Lane which abuts
the east property line at the rear of the property.
None of that would change.Normal single family
parking would be provided.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located along Sardis
Road.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a single-wide manufactured home to be used as an
accessory dwelling on 0.76 acres of property zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential.The applicant lives
in the existing site-built home on the property
fronting on Sardis Road.
2
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
This issue was originally raised through zoning
enforcement action which identified an unauthorized
installation of both a travel trailer,with permanentutilityhookups,and this regular manufactured homeallonthesameproperty.The applicant was informed
that he could have only one accessory dwelling,and
that a travel trailer did not qualify for permanentinstallationasanaccessorydwelling.The traveltrailerwasremoved.
Since this was intended as an accessory dwelling for
the primary house,Staff believes that the utilities
should come from the main house.The applicant was in
agreement for the water and sewer,but he asked that
the electricity be allowed to come from a nearbyelectricserviceneartheunit.He asked for that to
prevent the extra cost to run electricity all the way
from the house when service already existed right bytheunit.This closeness of existing utility service
does not exist for the water or sewer and would have
to come from the direction of the house anyway.Staff
believes this is reasonable.
All siting requirements are met or exceeded by the
proposed site plan.The unit,however,is a little larger
than the ordinance allowed square footage for an
accessory dwelling of 700 square feet.It has 728 gross
square feet.Therefore,a variance would be required for
the proposed square footage.There is already another
single-wide manufactured home next door to the south ofthisproperty,and a double-wide manufactured home is
located two lots north of this site.Therefore,Staff
believes this accessory dwelling would be compatible with
the neighborhood if installed according to City standardsformanufacturedhomes.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
3
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
(1)The accessory dwelling must be set up and anchored
according to City Building Code requirements andLittleRockCityOrdinanceSection36-254 (d)(5)as
follows:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.b.Removal of all transport elements.c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with
the neighborhood.e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
(2)Water and sewer are to be hooked-up to the
principal dwelling.Separate electric service is
permitted.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance to
allow the unit to have 728 square feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Kenneth 6 June LaBee were present representing their
application.Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal,briefly reviewing the comments provided to the
applicant.
The only item the applicant had any question about was theutilityhookups.A brief discussion took place regardingStaff's comment that the utility hookups for the accessory
dwelling must come from the main house except electric.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
4
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Kenneth LaBee was present representing his application.
There were two 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 third
condition was added:That the use be for this current owner
for the use of his mother.Once his mother no longer lives
in the manufactured home,it would be removed within 120
days.
Jeff Olive and his wife spoke in opposition.They live in
the house immediately to the north of the proposed site.
His main concerns were that the proposed manufactured home
would decrease his property value,that it was not nice to
look at,had no skirting,and was very close to their
property,right next to where they park their cars.He
added that there was also a travel trailer parked nearby on
the same property.His wife read a notarized letter from
another opposing neighbor,Walter Plumb,living at 11314
DeWitt Lane who was unable to attend.That letter requested
the accessory dwelling be moved toward the LaBee house so
that it would be behind the front of the other houses along
DeWitt where they could not see it.They showed several
pictures of the proposed manufactured home,their home and
the applicants property.
Chair Adcock raised a question about whether the home met
ordinance requirements for the manufactured date.Staff
responded that it did.
Commissioner Faust asked about the travel trailer parked on
the property.Staff responded that a travel trailer could
be parked on residential property as long as it is not
hooked to utilities and being lived in.
Mr.LaBee,the applicant stated that the travel trailer is
not hooked up to utilities.He then stated the manufactured
home was a 1991,and it was not skirted because he was told
not to do anything else with it until the use question was
5
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
decided by the Commission.He stated it would be skirted
and fixed up the way it is supposed to be once he is
released to proceed.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr.LaBee if the manufactured home
could be moved back further from DeWitt Lane.He said it
could,but it would cost more money to move it.
Janet Berry spoke on behalf of S.W.L.R.United for Progress
in stating concerns that other neighbors,and another
neighborhood association two to three miles away,had
expressed to her.Two of the points were that the home be
used only by a family member,never as rental property,andthatitberemovedwhennolongerneededbythemother.She
acknowledged that Mr.LaBee had already agreed to those twoconditions.She stated that the other neighborhood
association would oppose any manufactured home for any
reason and she wasn'in agreement with them.She concluded
by stating that there was a mixture of opinions in the area
and so she had not reached a firm statement for or against.
Mr.LaBee acknowledged that he would remove the
manufactured home once his mother no longer needed it.He
added that he would estimate that he could remove it withinfiveyears,but he couldn't say for sure how long his
mother would need it.
Commissioner Rector asked the applicant if he was aware of
what would be required to place the manufactured home
according to City standards.Mr.Labee stated he wasn'
sure what was required.The discussion then turned to what
could be allowed with the idea that this would be a
temporary placement.Mr.Lawson,City Planning Director,
responded that he felt tie downs with skirting,without
permanent foundation,could be acceptable for a temporary
placement if the Commission agreed.
Much more discussion took place trying to decide what could
be acceptable placement standards as a temporary use,and
whether the decision to permit this at all should be basedstrictlyontheuseingeneraloronthereasonfor,and
expected duration of,this specific request.Mr.Lawson
summarized acceptable placement criteria as follows:propertiedowns,skirting,porch,some landscaping,and then be
6
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6904
reviewed in five years.Steve Giles,City Attorney,
suggested the overall use question should be decided based
on the land use questions of compatibility,aesthetics,
what it looks like on the property,and what is required
under the accessory dwelling requirements in the ordinance.
Commissioner Rahman made the point that a manufactured homeisanallowableusewithintheCity,and that a single-wide
can be used as an accessory dwelling.The prime question he
stated was whether this particular manufactured home is
acceptable as is.He added that since this was being lookedatasatemporaryplacement,that some relief should be
granted because the applicant is trying to provide a home
for his mother which is not a typical case.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
to include staff comments and recommendations as revised.
The revised conditions would be that the home would be
properly tied down,skirted,have a deck porch on the
front,transport elements removed,setback from DeWitt
compatible with the other structures on DeWitt,limited to
five years and have some landscaping.All the improvements
would have to be accomplished in 60 days.The motion failed
by a vote of 5 ayes,5 nays and 1 absent.
7
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-6906
NAME:Harrison Church —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:4324 West 14 "Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Rev.O.V.Harrison
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
use an existing single family house for
a church with on site parking on
property zoned R-3,Single Family
Residential,located at 4324 West 14Street.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The existing house for the proposed church site is
located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Peyton and 14 Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This existing house is located on property zoned R-3,
Single Family Residential,and is surrounded by R-3
and R-4,Two Family Residential zoning.The area
consists of one and two family homes of varying size
on various size lots.The property immediately to theeastisvacant.
The proposed church is very small,maximum seating of
32,and fits the old concept of a neighborhood church,just large enough for church services,an occasional
fellowship meeting of church members,with a little
surrounding parking.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The Stephens Area Faith and Hope Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,and
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The house has one driveway from,14 Street which
would remain.A second drive is proposed from Peyton
into the parking area in the rear of the existing
building.Parking in the rear could accommodate up to
seven cars,and the existing driveway could
accommodate two unobstructed parking spaces and four
double stacked spaces.Parking for churches is based
on the seating capacity of the main sanctuary at arateof1parkingspaceforeveryfourseats.That
would result in this case of a requirement for eight
parking spaces.The street construction at this
intersection has no curb and gutter,but only open
ditches for drainage along the side of the streets.
Therefore,on street parking could also occur in this
area.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden good
neighbor fence or dense evergreen plantings,is
required along the eastern perimeter of the site.
A six foot wide on-site landscape strip is requiredeastandwestoftheon-site vehicular use area.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.West 14 "and Peyton Street are classified on the MasterStreetPlanasacommercialstreet.Dedicate right-of-
way to 30 feet from centerline.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofPeytonandWest14'"Street.c.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
2
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
f.A Grading Permit will be required with building permit
for parking lot.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if additional
water service is needed.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is near bus routes ¹3 and 9 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permittoconvertanexistingsinglefamilyhouseintoa
church with on-site parking on property zoned R-3,
Single Family Residential.
This site exists in an older neighborhood of the City,
two blocks south of 12 Street,at the intersection
with Peyton Street.The surrounding area consists of
one and two family homes of varying age,size,and on
various size lots.The property immediately to the
east is vacant.The applicant has purchased this
property through the delinquent tax program,has
gutted the inside,and is renovating it so it can be
used as a church.
Only the inside of the building is proposed to be
changed,so setbacks and siting are not issues.
However,screening,paving and street improvements are
open issues.The applicant has also asked to include
two signs in the approval.
The applicant has asked for a 5-year deferral of the
3
Septembe~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
requirements to pave and install screening around the
vehicle use areas to give his church time to acquire
additional funds,and possible the lot adjacent to theeast.Staff believes that is a reasonable request
based on the size of this church membership and thetrafficitwillgenerate.The applicant plans to make
an in-lieu payment for the street improvements.
Residential zoning allows for signs that are only one
square foot in area.The applicant proposes two signs.
One would be a ground mounted,4 feet by 4 feet insize,and six feet tall sign on the corner,visible
from both Peyton and 14 Streets.The second would be
a wall sign facing 14 Street.Both of the proposed
signs would comply with the sizes normally allowed for
churches,but would require a variance for this sitesinceitiszonedR-2.
Since this proposal includes renovating an old housetobeusedforpublicassembly,comments were
developed regarding the issues that would need to be
addressed from a building code perspective.Compliance
with those comments has been included as a conditionoftheC.U.P.Those comments are as follows:
~Compliance of all Zoning and Public Works
comments.Additional items may be morespecificthanexpressedintheConditional Use
Approval.These items will be considered as
part of the conditions of the Building Permit.
~A handicap route will be required from a HC
parking space into the structure.If parkingwillbeintherearofpropertyprovideaccessibilityintothereararea.Elevations
are unknown,the adequacy of the ramp design is
unknown,applicant should have a good working
knowledge of ramp construction.At least one
unisex restroom must be accessible and this
will require more detailed drawing.
~It is unknown if the proposed columns and the
elimination of load bearing walls are suitable.
These items can be field checked but if issues
4
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
arise,the applicant can be required to retain
a structural engineer to determine and design
an adequate design.What size beam will be
provided in conjunction with the columns?More
information about the roof loading would be
helpful.
~All exit doors,at least two are required,must
be marked with a lighted exit light and swing
to the outside.All exit doors are required to
have exterior landings at the same elevation as
the inside finish floor as per Section1012.1.3.
~Emergency lighting must be provided along the
path of exit access.
~A licensed contractor must perform any
mechanical,electrical,and plumbing work and
permits shall be issued and inspections
performed.All work must conform to commercial
standards.
~For building permit purposes a more detailed,
architecturally drafted plan will be required.It would be helpful to outline the proposed
construction to remodel this building.
~What is the maximum occupancy capacity of the
church?Depending on the size of the
congregation and events,additional items could
be required.
Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and
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 the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
5
Septembe,14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and
not towards any residential zoned area.
d.Comply with the comments from building codes.
Staff also recommends approval of the deferral of
paving and screening of the parking area for up to
five years,and the variance to allow the size of the
two signs as submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Reverend O.V.Harrison was present representing his
application.Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal,briefly reviewing the comments provided to the
applicant.
The applicant had several questions about Public Works
comments.It was suggested that he meet with them
separately on those issues.He then explained to the
Committee about the small size of his membership and why he
needed the deferral of screening and paving.He stated he
did want to put up some signs and the Committee suggested
he put together the specifics of what he wanted to do and
submit it to Staff.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
STAFF UPDATE:
Reverend Harrison said he misunderstood the requirements
for notification and did not follow the requirement to have
an abstract company assembly a list of the property owners
within 200 feet.He assembled the list himself from the
county tax records.He did accomplish timely notification
of the owners within the required 200 feet by certified
mail,but he developed his own list of the owners.
Therefore,he asks the Commission to waive its bylaws and
allow his list of property owners to be accepted as the
6
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
basis for notification.Staff has examined the list and
believes it does include the required owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Reverend O.V.Harrison was present representing his
application.There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approvalsubjecttocompliancewiththeconditionslistedunder"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.Staff also
reviewed the comments in the "Staff Update"above and noted
the Commission would have to waive its bylaws to accept thenotificationasaccomplished.
A motion was made to waive the Commission's bylaws as noted
by Staff and accept the notification as accomplished.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
At the request of Commissioner Nunnley,Staff explained its
support of the deferral of paving and screening of the
parking area.That support was based on Rev.Harrison's
plan to purchase the lot directly to the east of this site
and construct a paved parking area there.He has already
placed a bid on that property.If he does not acquire that
property he would then be required to pave the area in therearoftheproposedchurchforparking.He does understand
that he will have to come back to the Commission if he
proceeds with the plan to place the parking in the adjacent
property.
Commissioner Muse had several questions.He asked the
applicant where his congregation meets now,how largeitwas,and what he planned to do with this site if
his congregation grows too large for this location.
Rev.Harrison responded that he has eight members,they
currently meet in a rented facility at 1401 W.18th Street,
and his plan for the foreseeable future would be to expandatthissitebybuildingalargerchurchonlandincluding
the adjacent lot and a half that he has bid on.
Commissioner Muse also asked if the other churches in thevicinityusedthestreetsinhisareaforparking,andifhedoesoutgrowthisproposedsite,did he plan to
keep ownership and continue to use it in his ministry.
7
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6906
Rev.Harrison's response was he didn't believe there would
be any conflict with other churches,and he did not plan tosellthepropertybutwouldmaintainitasachurch.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
to include staff comments and recommendations,to include
the deferral for screening and paving the parking area for
up to five years,and the variance to allow the size of the
two signs as submitted.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
8
September 14,2000
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
NAME:Fellowship Bible Office Building—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1701,1711,1801,1811 Napa Valley
Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Charles Stein,Ray Rainey,AlberdeenLittle,Shane Smith /Fellowship Bible
Church
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit to allow expansion of church
property and to allow for a two story
church office building with on site
parking on property zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential,located at 1701,
1711,1801,1811 Napa Valley Drive.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This proposed site is located on the east side of Napa
Valley Drive,a short distance south of the
intersection of Napa Valley and Hinson Road,across
from Asbury United Methodist Church.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,andistotallysurroundedbyresidentialproperty.The
area to the east is a Planned Residential District
(PRD)containing single family residences,and across
Napa Valley to the west are two churches.The
applicant already has an "L"shaped parking area
around the northwest corner of the PRD to the east.
This proposal would enlarge the existing parking area
and add a two-story church office building.
Staff does not believe this proposal would be
compatible with the neighborhood.Staff feels that the
building is too large to be located this close to aresidentialarea,would leave too little separation or
Septembe 14,2000
SUBD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
transition between this large building and an
established residential neighborhood,and would
protrude past a clearly established line on the east
side of Napa Valley Drive that now divides the office
area to the north from the residential zoning.Staff's
position is that the office use should not encroach
further south.
The Rainwood Cove and Glen Eagles Property Owners
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 proposed plan includes a divided driveway in the
center of the additional area with 20 foot driveways
on either side.The plan shows 186 parking spaces.The
ordinance would require a minimum of 85 spaces based
on 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area on
a sliding scale after 10,000 square feet.The
applicant has stated the building square footage is
37,000.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
existing and proposed ordinance requirements.
Under the proposed ordinance this project would be
required to be irrigated.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Napa Valley is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45
feet from centerline is required.
b.Rainwood Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30
feet from centerline.
c.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the corner of Napa Valley and Rainwood.
d.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
2
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
e.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.f.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
g.Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are required.
h.Napa Valley has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 11,000.
6 UT IL ITY I FIRE DEPT AND CATA COMMENTS
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies
in addition to normal charges.On-site fire
protection may be required.Any relocation of
existing water facilities will be at the expense of
the developer.
Wastewater:Manhole adjustments will be done by the
developer to utility standards.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:A fifteen foot utility easement on either
side of overhead pole line is required if overhead
line is needed.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to allow expansion of church
property and to allow for a two story church office
building with on site parking on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
3
September.14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
The proposed plan would meet ordinance required
setbacks and siting requirements.The parking proposedismorethantwicetheminimumrequiredbyordinance,
186 versus 85.The overall building height is 48 feet
to the peak.However the ordinance measures the heighttothemid-point of the sloped roof which would be 33feetcomparedtothemaximumallowed35feet.Theofficeswouldbeopenprimarily8to5Mondaythrough
Friday.The applicant has agreed to use bollard style
lighting in the rear of the building and gate it off
so that it would be open only during office hours and
primary church services.
The church has tried to accommodate requests by the
City and has met with the neighborhood,listened totheirconcernsandmadesomeadjustments.However,Staff does not believe this proposal would be
compatible with the neighborhood.Staff feels that the
building is too large to be located this close to aresidentialarea.The addition of parking surrounding
the building would make the new use even more
overwhelming to the residents to the east,and leave
too little separation or transition between this large
building and an established residential neighborhood.
Even with proper shielding of the lighting and with a
board fence screen around the perimeter abutting the
residential property,the building would loom over
those houses.This office use would protrude past a
clearly established line on the east side of Napa
Valley Drive that now divides the office area to the
north from the residential zoning.Staff's position isthattheofficeuseshouldnotencroachfurthersouth.
Staff does not believe this is a reasonable use of
this property.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested office use.
4
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6149-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Mike Cruz was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.The applicant
provided the hours of operation,building square footage,
confirmation that they would gate the rear area and lock it
when the offices were closed and no main church services
were being held,and made a few comments about meetings
with neighbors.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,Randy
Frazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
were present representing the application.There were
several other church leaders and members also in
attendance.There were 2 registered objectors and two other
registered supporters present.
Due to the length of the agenda,and based on the projected
time for the Commission to reach this item,discussions
took place outside of the hearing about deferring the item.It was felt that the deferral would be better for all
parties by allowing the item to be considered earlier in
the agenda rather than at a late hour as would occur atthishearing.The applicant then requested a deferral until
the next hearing.
A motion was made to defer the application until
September 28,2000.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 nay and 0 absent.
5
Gyp vs~(
Cg--t'(sr -a)
August 30,2000
Mrs.Laurie Lee
Secretary
Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association
1721 Rainwood Cove Drive
Little Rock,AR 72212
Ms.Pam Adcock
Chairperson
LR Planning Commission
6205 Hinkson
Little Rock,AR 72209
Dear Ms.Adcock,
It has come to our attention through the posting of a conditional use permit that
Fellowship Bible Church (FBC)has made a request to change the land use of four single
family residential properties to that of a development which would include a two-story
office building and parking lot for church purposes.
The Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association,residents of Rainwood Cove,and
representatives of Fellowship Bible Church met together on August 14,2000 to discuss
this most recent proposal for the development of properties behind our homes.After this
meeting a ballot was distributed to each of the 50 homes in the neighborhood to poll the
residents'pinions about the proposed development.With a 94%rate of return,these are
the following results:2%were for the project,6%would support the project as long as
their conditions were met,and 92%were strongly against the proposed development.
There were a number of concerns raised by the residents of Rainwood Cove both during
the recent meeting and on the returned ballots regarding the Fellowship Bible Church
proposal.The first being that there does not seem to be a master plan in place for the
current and future growth of the church.The church representatives stated that the real
impetus for beginning to develop a master plan occurred when they were denied the
conditional use permit for the development of the 168 spaced parking lot behind our
neighborhood.In the most recent neighborhood meeting with FBC a suggestion was
made that the church purchase enough property in one location which would meet all of
their needs instead of adding to the church properties in piece-meal fashion as they
continued their growth into surrounding neighborhoods.The second item of concern
regards the dimensions of the proposed office building and parking lot that would be
directly behind our homes.The church proposes to build a two-story building which is
50-60 feet high,(equivalent to a 5 or 6 story office building),360 to 400 feet long,
(comparable to the length of a football field),and 100 feet wide.Remaining property in
the &ont and rear of the office building would be utilized for the development of 186
parking spaces.The dimensions and type of structure that is being proposed is enormous
and invasive.There would be no way to provide privacy for those whose homes border
RKCK F
AUG 3 1 2000
BY:
this property.Additionally,noise &om people and cars as well as security night lighting
would spill over into our backyards and bedrooms.Even though gated parking for night-
time hours is being proposed,our homes will be quite vulnerable to anyone who accesses
the parking lot on foot.Furthermore,traffic from cars entering or leaving the parking lot
&om this office building during the week,on Sunday mornings,as well as for other
services,meetings,or special events,will add to traffic congestion on Napa Valley Drive
and/or Hinson Road and make it more difficult for our residents to safely get in and out
of the neighborhood.
We the Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association and the majority of the RWC
residents oppose the conditional use permit request by Fellowship Bible Church to allow
the development of a church office building and parking lot on Lots 2,3,4,and 5 of
Rainwood Subdivision which is located off of Napa Valley Drive in Little Rock.We will
be in attendance at the September 14 public hearing before the Little Rock Planning
Commission as regards this request for use change and development of these properties.
Respectfully,
Laurie A.Lee
Secretary,Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association
Cc:Jim Lawson,Director
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
Jim Connell,Planner I
Department of Zoning and Planning
Craig Berry,Vice Chairman,LRPC
Richard Downing,LRPC
Hugh Earnest,LRPC
Judith Faust,LRPC
Fred Allen,Jr.,LRPC
Bob Lowry,LRPC
Rohn Muse,LRPC
Obray Nunnley,Jr.,LPRC
Mizan Rahman,LRPC
Bill Rector,LRPC
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-6913
NAME:Fellowship Bible Church —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:12824 &12900 Hinson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Bob Adkins /Fellowship Bible Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
a paved parking area for the church at
an off-site location at 12824 and 12900
Hinson Road on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the north side of
Hinson Road,northeast of Pulaski Academy School.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.The land
is currently vacant,but is surrounded by developed or
developing residential single family homes except for
Pulaski Academy.which is to the southeast of this site
on the opposite side of Hinson Road.
Staff believes this use would be compatible with the
surrounding area.Staff feels that the measures the
church has proposed to control traffic and use the
site only for church parking during primary church
services and activities,would minimize the impact to
the neighborhood.
The Marlow Manor and the Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Associations,all property owners within 200
feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
Septemb~14,2000
SUBD ZVZ S ZON
ZTEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6913
3.ON SZTE DRZVES AND PARKZNG:
The proposed plan would include improving an existing
gravel driveway that serves three houses on property
behind the proposed site by paving and widening it.
Access to the parking areas would be taken from that
driveway in order to maintain only one access point
onto Hinson.The parking areas would be gated in order
to maintain open access to the houses while keeping
the parking areas from being used other than for
church needs.The proposal would add 189 parking
spaces.
4 .SCREENZNG AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
current requirements.However,130 linear feet of the
western buffer drops below the proposed ordinance
minimum buffer width of nine feet.
5.PUBLZC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Hinson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45
feet from centerline is required.
b.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.Existing
street is less than 59 feet wide.c.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175
and the "MSP".
d.Dedicate Regulatory Floodway easement to the City.
Provide hydraulic study for floodway relocation and
submit to FEMA for approval.e.Provide 45 feet wide easement and 24 feet wide
pavement for property owners directly north.f.Hinson has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
15,000.
6.UTZLZTY,FZRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
2
Septembe 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AEKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has request a conditional use permit for
a paved parking area for the church at this off-site
location at 12824 and 12900 Hinson Road on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.
All siting requirements are met by the proposed plan.
The church'main sanctuary seats 1819,plus they canseat500studentsinserviceatthesametime.Many of
the students do drive their own cars.Giving themcreditforhalfofthoseseatsgeneratingparking
requirements,that would increase "seating"to 2,069.
That would generate an ordinance parking requirementof517spaces.The church currently has 790 spaces it
owns,plus an agreement with Pulaski Academy to use
253 spaces on the school's property for a total of
1,043 parking spaces.That represents a current ratioofaboutonespaceforeverytwopeople.
The additional parking requested in this proposal
would increase the total available spaces to 1,158.
That would result in a ratio of about one space for
every 1.75 people.However,Fellowship Bible has manyotherministriesgoingonatthesametimeasthemainservice.As many as 1200 volunteers and participants
are involved in the other Sunday activities during the
main sanctuary service.They also require parkingthatisn't accounted for by looking at only the
sanctuary seating capacity.The actual situation is
3
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
that current parking is inadequate on Sundays.The
church has stated they are currently busing members
from another parking area at Cypress Plaza with a
temporary arrangement until December 2000.There is a
good chance the church will loose that option (65
spaces)after December.That loss would make approval
of this requested area even more critical for the
church.
Staff realizes that increased traffic is a concern of
the neighborhood.The church intends to use this area
primarily for the main Sunday services and special
activities at Easter and Christmas.They have stated
in writing that they would limit the use of this
parking area for only Fellowship Bible Church
functions.While there certainly would be a spike in
traffic volume when this area is used,that would
usually occur on Sunday when other traffic is much
lighter and nearby Pulaski Academy is not in session.
The church would provide a policeman to direct traffic
whenever this area is used and the increased volume
would be for a short duration.Staff believes their
proposed measures to limit the frequency of use and
control the situation when it is used,would be
reasonable and minimize the negative impact.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
d.Ensure that traffic control is always used whenever
the parking area is in use.
e.The use of this parking area is limited to use for
Fellowship Bible Church functions only.
4
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Mike Cruz was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.
The applicant provided numbers for seating capacity and
existing parking spaces.A short discussion took place
regarding the Public Works comments.Of particular interest
were concerns over the size of the access driveway,
complying with floodway requirements on the site,limiting
the amount of lighting when the area was not in use,and
control of traffic when it would be in use.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,Randy
Frazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
were present representing the application.There were
several other church leaders and members also in
attendance.There were 11 registered objectors present.
Due to the length of the agenda,and based on the projected
time for the Commission to reach this item,discussions
took place with both sides outside of the hearing about
deferring the item.It was felt that the deferral would be
better for all parties by allowing the item to be
considered earlier in the agenda rather than at a late hour
as would occur at this hearing.The applicant then
requested a deferral until the next hearing.
One objector,Connie Hall,asked if she could make her
comments for the record now because she would not be able
to attend on September 28.The Chair agreed.
Mrs.Hall stated that she was also representing her mother
who has owned property to the north of the west half of the
proposed site for about 35 years.Mrs.Hall stated her
5
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
primary concerns and objections were:traffic from 185 cars
would be in their "driveway"when they enter or exit;
concern over Pulaski Academy using the area causing daily
use;increased traffic on Hinson;obstruction of her access
to Hinson,which she would need even on Sunday morning
since that is a work day for her as a nurse;noise from the
parking area;devaluation of their property resulting in
being "squeezed out"by the church.She then asked for all
persons present in opposition to stand,there were about
12 who stood.
A motion was made to defer the application until
September 28,2000.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 nay and 0 absent.
6
88/31/2888 15:1-581-225-2583 FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHU PAGE 83/83
S+p~,~7-06
«&z —8 F(3j&20i4 hlariha Drive
Vrrre kock,AR 722IZ
J.R.Andrews
August 1,2000
Mr.Michael L.Cruse
Fellowship Bible Church
12601 Hinson Road
Little Rock,AR 72212
M:Conditional Usc Permit
Dear Mr.Cruse:
l am in receipt of your notice of application for a Conditional Use Permit and want
to express my support for the project.The grounds of Fellowship Bible Church are
very well maintained and I am sure the proposed parking lot will be as well.My
family.has lived at our current address for two years and have been impressed by the
courteous manner in which Fellowship Bible Church conducts its business.
Please feel free to pass this letter along to the Planning Department as an expression
of my support for your project.
Sincerely /''
J.R.Andrews
r '
~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~I ~~~~
I
Dp&ns&7n STu.~g)g
(4-(&is)
6r z-44 /:6'am
a S/e~)~q g-p-sMi-
/K +ia7
imari
f8
4(/l;Qa~/&i
~f
Z 2&GO
/Po g'pg
r4 c u~Pdp
~
'(
~~V P/~K
~/WADS 4 TO N/g~g g
CE-6gyy)
~~~~A &tnnFic(d~~QJ~K Q~
~I ~—+c&clo—
G.Q)OMAHA '~~~tgpgg ~yq&
Q l l W l)~~~Qg
~
2-l
+l.a.c Q v z z,i z.
4~z-gpq
I
gp Qg4A A Q~+/6
CE-4 g~g3
Joyce 4 Marion Ahart
1905 Martha Dr.
Little Rock,AR 72212
Members of Planning Commission
c/o Planning 4 Development Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 722)%
August 12,2000
Dear Sirs:
We have been informed of the impending request for approval for parking lots at 12824
&12900 Hinson Road by the Fellowship Bible Church.This neighborhood and adjacent
neighborhoods who have to use Hinson have been besieged with enough traffic and do
not need any additional problems.We understood that those lots were to be used for
office buildings.I do not think the zoning is proper for parking lots.Please register this
letter as a protest against this action.Please inform us of any activity relating to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Joyce k Marion Ahart
I 70&&a~~$T
g 7&z/z
~-63G
oyer ~(&k.p&
CE-5 F/3)
From:Griffin,Michael,J [mjgriffin@Garverlnc.corn]
Sent:Thursday,August 17,2000 2:46 PM
To:'jconnell@littlerock.state.ar.us'ubject:
Opposition to Hinson Road Rezoning -Fellowship Bible Church/Pul aski Academy
Parking Lot
Mr.Connell:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of 2.2 acres at 12824 and 12900
Hinson Road.
As I understand the issue,the area is under consideration for a Fellowship Bible Church/Pulaski
Academy Parking Lot.My family resides in Marlowe Manor,and we deal daily with traffic
congestion caused by FBC and PA activities.FBC and PA have worked very well with our
neighborhood in addressing these concerns,and they have made every effort to alleviate traffic
problems casued by their operations.
However,'the addition of this parking lot is of a more serious nature since it will be on the opposite
side of Hinson Road from the church/school complex.Traffic will be stopped completely for left
turn movements out of the lot.The danger to pedestrians may be the most serious problem-
there is no sidewalk on the north side of the street,and foot traffic will be forced to cross Hinson
at the new lot entrance.Eastbound traffic crests a hill at this intersection,and the very short sight
distance of this traffic as they approach the lot entrance will be a danger to pedestrians.
I understand the need to accommodate FBC and PA traffic;however,this lot will cause more
problems than it will solve,and I respecffully request that the Planning Commission deny the
rezoning.
Michael J.Griffin
12909 Morrison
Little Rock,AR 72212
221.3834
7 &fg
Pp&s4 I&~&~~yg
Cz=&sg
C II ".iP fA -'-:,:m'"'~„'*,":=-''".''':';„j:-,ll ".4 EII
From:Charles.W.Shanks@am.pnu.corn
Sent:Wednesday,August 16,2000 11:00AM
To:jconnell@littlerock.state.ar.us
Subject:Conditional Use Permit-12824/12900 Hinson Road
$s a homeowner in Plesant Valley Estates,we are very much opposed to your granting a
Conditional Use Permit to Fellowship Bible Church for the aboved mentioned property for the
use as a parking lot.The traffic on Hinson caused by Fellowship Bible Church and Pulaski
Academy is already a health and traffic hazard.It is a health hazard because when church or
school is begining or letting out,there is no way a large emergency vehicle could navigate
through traffic.Traffic backs up,going East to Napa and going West to beyond our
neighborhood.Should someone need an ambulance or fire vehicle,valuable time would be
lost due to PA/FBC traffic.More is not needed!
The safety hazard is due to the blind hills and curves on Hinson and the speed of traffic.The
city informed our neighborhood association,after several days of checking traffic,that the
"average speed"of traffic was 50 mph.The speed limit is 35mph.With the current traffic,we
already have a mess and the police issued many tickets in their days patroling.More traffic
and congestion due to PA and FBC is not needed!Hinson is already a traffic problem.
Last but not least,the land in question is on a flood plain and converting this to a parking lot
would only further the flooding by the nearby creek when heavy rains occur.
I realize that FBC and PA need room to grow but Hinson is not the answer.Maybe they
could deck their lots or find another option such as bussing from an already existing Iot?
Regards,
Charles W.Shanks
Judy Shanks
2 Valley Estates Drive
8-('/(g
DPP 22 M '12~A (r.
Q -c ta)p~
zo o&
ate,~4w ~tPle~+~(
7
~p~~@zan
/2 g 2 g/I 2 g e D IV%
~~p~~/3m~&~~~J
h If&~
eA ~pc~~~~~~~"~
Mr.Richard Wilhelm
64 Valley Est.Ct.
Little Reek,AR 72212 8=irl3
Oyez 4.1 o '1z +./(
Cz-~y(z
From:Thomas A.Bruce [tabruce@aristotle.netI
Sent:Tuesday,August 22,2000 5:49 PM
To:jconnell@littlerock.state.ar.us
Subject:Hinson Road zoning request
Please relay my concern to the members of the Planning Commission about rezoning the 2.2
acres at 12824 and 12900 Hinson Road for use as a parking lot for the Fellowship Bible Church
and the Pulaski Academy.The proposed use would guarantee additional traffic tieups in the
area,something that already is a serious problem.I recommend that the zone remain residential
only.Thomas A.Bruce,6 Spy Glass Lane,Little Rock,AR 72212,228-4033.
8/pus~
August 28,2000 pD-0 fig
Don and Connie Hall
12918 Hinson Road
Little Rock,AR 72212
Email:cdhall@cswnet.corn
James Connell
Department of Planning 8 Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Mr.James Connell:
As residents at 12918 Hinson Road,we are writing in opposition to the application from Fellowship
Bible Church (FBC)for a Conditional'use Permit to develop 2.2 acres at 12824 8 12900 Hinson Road
into a parking lot.This property is zoned residential and we want it kept residential.
It has been our understanding that our home,which sits three acres back from Hinson Road,has an
easement access designated as a private drive from our house to Hinson road.,This proposed
parking lot would be on both sides of our driveway.
When we met with Michael Cruse,Campus Director at FBC,to go over their plans and drawings,our
private drive would be their entrance to both sides of the proposed parking lot.He said the parking
area would be open for use during three Sunday morning services,one Saturday evening service,
and other FBC services,as well as could be shared with Pulaski Academy (PA)during their activities.
We were told traffic congestion would be expected and a policeman would be needed to direct traffic.
Traffic has already been a problem.The Public Works Department,Alderman Brad Cazort,WARD 4,
and Alderman Michael Keck,WARD 5,have been meeting with homeowners in Marlowe Manor and
Pleasant Valley Estates to discuss resolution.Extra traffic would only add additional problems.
I am a nurse and work odd hours,including Saturdays and Sundays.My husband recently had a
stroke and I am the only person working.It is our concern that the extra traffic using our private drive
would prevent me from entering or exiting Hinson Road,at any time seven days a week.Vehicles
entering a parking lot in the midcHe of our easement access would be the same as blocking our
private drive.I cannot be delayed in going to work on time by having to wait till the policeman clears
our driveway.I do not want to risk losing my job.
Again,we are respectively requesting you deny the FBC's application for a parking lot,which could
potentially block our private drive and exit.
Respectively Submitted,
Don and Connie Hall RKCF:lVED
Concerned Residents AUG'Z000
BY:
g--&yo)August 29,2000
Mrs.Jane Rogers
221 Brookside Drive
Little Rock,AR 72205
James Connell
Department of Planning &Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Mr.James Connell
to the application from FellowshipAsaanown
12824 d 12900 Hi o Ro d 'oIamwritinginoppositionoe
it to develop 2.2 acres at anieur
'dential and I want it to stay resi en
'ldd
1 o rt.Atti ti
pop y
concerned that a parking lot wou eva ue
a o to be developed for our son s horn .me.After his
d h dh h b
this acre of land 35 years ago o e
and whoygo"'yuntimeyea
recen
fu 'fh'k 'dnthisland.Int e ture,iMf'1 has been the only ones using iyamiy
ter.When this acre was pure ase,we whdwere given an easement accesstouiabildahomenexttomydaughter.en is
a rivate drive to the home we ui .nb'lt.It never occurred to me this areatoourproperty.This became a priva e ri
would be anything but residential.
hin wild birds,planting a garden,and experiencing
u in rural Arkansas.This secluded area has alway
out there for a visit,watching wi ir s,p an '
sbeen
}1 d '1 }1peaceeaceful.I never wanted to loo at concrete with cars coming an
traffic in the driveway.
as inco orated into the City,which caused our taxes to go up.We only
d f}1 11 t }1 d lit}11weretoldwecouldhavecitywatterinsteaotewe
n desire that you consider my concerns.ld be OK for me to express my strong esireOKtopaymoretaxes,it should be or
b''do not want this residential areaunicatedmyojections,iIci
t it11 F 11o Ili Bibi Ch
&D lop tCo i io Bo dden„F 1 o
Co ditio 1U P ittob lid k't H'd dBibleChurch's application for a Conditiona se
private drive.
Respectively,
Jane Rogers
RECEIVEDLandownerandTaxpayer
AUG 3 o oooo
BY:
eLIG —51 —88 7HI I4:45 275.52e5747 4275e,287 Se89955
Dyosg To Z7e»+/4
(p-6 'I/3g
August 30,2000
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning 6 Development
723 West Narkham
Little Rock,Ar
Re:Proposed Parking Lot —Bob Adkina Fellowship Bible Church
City of Little RockIownlot11inPleasant Valley Estates which back up to the RESIDENTIAL
land where .the commeroial parking let iS prOposed,My family iS
adamantly opposed to the commercial parking lot for the following
reason.
1)Floodwaters First and foremost the existing floodway the church is
proposing ta pave over is part of the 343 feet on the south side of
my lot which 1 am in the proCess of designing our new 'home to go
there,(there is already 13 other homes with fixed floor levels along
this creek in our neighborhood.
The flood plain and required height for finished floor was
raised in 1993 due to development above and below our
neighborhood,
B.The culverts that are under valley Estates Drive are now
inadequate to support the 100 year flood according to Steve
Loop,increasing the risk for flooding in our neighborhood,
C.According to my calculations,residential development at a
minimum leaves 43%of the land with grass and landscape beds
which allow for considerable ground absorption of rain.
D.The proposed parking lot leaves very little area for ground
absorption and in fact will increase the amount of water the
creek is required to handle in a rapid fashion.
I thought that developments required retention ponds,This
development appears to have none.Flooding is a grave concern.
2)Traffic One expects.to have quiet enjoyment of their residential
property.This parking lot would increase the noise,lighting and
raise home safety concerns with the use of this parking lot.The
church currently has activities (car traffic)from 7:00 am on Sundaytillmidafternoo~.In addition with P.A.across the street,I
anticipate this lot being used every day and very often late into the
night with sports activities held at P A.There is already atrafficproblemonHinson,this will only aggravate this problem.
Also according to Mike Cruse in talking about how other churches they
have "planted"hold services on Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday,and Friday
evenings due to membership.Is fellowship next,think of the noise,etc?
You can imagine the amount of noise (car engines,radios,people),
lights (cars and parking lot lights),etc that will be right behind mylotlessthan6feetaway,with only a 6'ence separating all this from
my small children.
3)property values I visited with several Realtors and others and all
expect that a Commercial parking lot would have a negative effect on
our most important investment,our homes.
75 '2637A7+427D6.287 8689933AIJG—31 —88 THL l4:44 2 p.82
Finally,I am appalled that a,Christian Church would envision
constructing a parking lot on both sides of a,street that leads to
residential homes in the back.This effectively eliminates their
ability to resell as residential their homes,and makes the property
only attractive to the Church.If this is approved,what is next.The
church effectively forcing them out and since they would now have a
parking lot,what about church office buildings etc,squeezed into a
residential area with homes on three sides,forcing water runoff to
flood adj acent homes?
appreciate your careful consideration in regard to this parking lot.
I feel it is a bad idea for our city and could be quite a risk for
flooding for life and property.
Sincerely,
George Collins 6 Family
P.O.Box 25333LittleRock,Ar 72221
50l-960-l034
Gy.sd a z&
August 29,2000 (e-~~(~)
Russell Haney
12912 Hinson Road
Little Rock,AR 72212
Pam Adcock
Chairperson
6205 Hinkson
Little Rock,AR 72209
Ms.Pam Adcock
I am writing in direct opposition to the application from Fellowship Bible Church
for a proposed rezoning for a parking lot on 2.2 acres at 12824 S 12900 Hinson
Road.I own an acre of land northeast,v hich borders this area.The driveway to my
home is through an easement access,which is located in middle of their proposed
parking lot.I object for many reasons,especially a concern that a parking lot would
devalue my property.By the way,my property is for sale,but who would want to
drive through a parking lot to get to their home?When I purchased this land over
40 years ago,we had no traffic problems.
It has been my understanding that Fellowship Bible Church expects to use this
parking lot during several church services and activities.I have heard it discussed
at various meetings that Pulaski Academy allows Fellowship Bible Church to use
their parking lot and Fellowship Bible Church would probably allow Pulaski
Academy tp use the parking lot bordering my drive during their activities.I was told
traffic congestion would be great enough for Fellowship Bible Church to provide a
policeman to direct traffic.Neighbors have already voiced concerns to the City
regarding traffic congestion related to Fellowship Bible Church's and Pulaski
Academy's activities without adding more traffic on Hinson Road.
I am strongly opposed to a parking lot next to my property and request that the
Planning and Development Commission Board denies Fellowship Bible Church's
application for the proposed parking lot.
Respectively,
Russell Haney
Landowner and Taxpayer
HKCEIVKD
SEP O1 2000
BY:
Qpp os ed T~W:~~It
(~-~g(~)
8/29/00
Ci y of Little Rock Planning &Development
723 West Narkham StreetLittleRock,Ar
I purchased lot 8 of Pleasant Valley Estates in late Decembe 1999.I
have plans to build a home on this lot.Ny lot is 35'way from the
proposed parking lot.I have not been notified of this proposal and
only found out when contacted by other homeowners of this risk.Should
I not have been notified and given an opportunity to seek legal
assistance?It is my understanding this will go before you next week.
Ny lot has part of the creek and flood —way on the back side.I am very
concerned for mv lot and numerous othe"lots,most of which have homes
that could flood if this parking lot is approved as all the rain water
that falls on this lot will run off immediately through our
neighborhood,into a creek that during a heavy rain,fills to tne edges,
and has been known to back up into neighbors yards.
I am also concerned about noise and traffic,my new home will overlook
this parking 'ot,I expected to see houses and trees not aspha'nd
cars and noise and 'ights,etc.
As a builder,I know for a fact a parking lot adjacent to this new home
will hurt its property va'ue forever.
Please consider tne people who have invested in our City,our homes,our
neighborhoods and vote iNO on th's issue.
Thank you,
Susan Smith
/PdC
I'-0-So&,&&1 0 g g
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:Z-6893
NAME:Longley Baptist Church
LOCATION:8715 Oman Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Longley Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
add 43 parking spaces on the existing
2.41 acre church property located at
8715 Oman Road,which is zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This existing church site is located on the east side
of Oman Road,a short distance north of Baseline Road.
The proposed parking area is on the back of the
property,adjacent to the east property line.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This existing church site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded on three sides by
residential zoning,(north R-2,east R-2,and west R-5
Multifamily).Zoning to the south is 0-3,General
Office.Single family homes exist to the north and
west,an apartment building lies to the east,and
offices exist to the south along Baseline.
Staff believes the proposed parking area would have no
negative impact on the neighborhood,and would
discourage parking along the street.The area is in
the back behind the church and would hardly be visible
from Oman.
The Cloverdale Neighborhood Association and 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.
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6893
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
No changes to driveways would result from this
proposal.The new parking area would add 42 parking
spaces to the existing 49 spaces,for a total of 91.
The church seating capacity is 300,which would
require 75 spaces based on the ordinance ratio of 1
space for every 4 seats.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed new parking area does not provide for the
842 square feet of interior landscaping required by
the current Landscape Ordinance,nor the 1,123 square
feet required by the proposed ordinance.
The six foot high,opaque,wood screening fence is
required to be extended north of the proposed new
parking area.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Oman Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
b.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.c.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.,AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works if
additional water service is required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
2
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6893
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus routes ¹17 and 17A and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
to add 43 parking spaces on the existing 2.41 acre
church property located at Oman Road.Access to the
new parking would be through the existing parking
area.The access to Oman would not change.
The proposed spaces would bring the total spaces just
over the minimum required number,91 versus 75.The
proposed plan meets all siting requirements.The
applicant has requested a deferral for paving the new
area for up to four years.They have requested this
delay because they are planning to move to a new site
on Geyer Springs Road if Item 17 on this agenda is
approved.If they can't move they agreed to pave the
parking.The four years would provide time to raise
money and build the new church.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of the
property and is needed to provide adequate on site
parking.Based on the goal to relocate in the near
future,Staff also believes the deferral is
reasonable.However,if the relocation is not approved
or falls through for some other reason,Staff believes
the paving should be accomplished within one year.
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.
3
September.14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6893
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of the deferral,for up to
four years,of the paving of the proposed parking area.
However,the stipulation should be added that if the
church does not go forward with the relocation,then this
parking area must be paved within one year.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Troy Laha was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.
A brief discussion took place regarding the required
landscaping interior to the parking area,and the
justification for the deferral.The applicant agreed to
make the required changes.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Pastor Gerald Young and Troy Laha 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,including
the deferral of paving the parking area as stated.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations,
and the deferral of paving the parking area as stated.The
vote was 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
4
Septemb~14,2000
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:Z-6909
NAME:New Longley Baptist Church—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:9900 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:John Fleming /Longley Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
construct a new church with
accompanying on site parking on
property zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,located at 9909 Geyer
Springs Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed 16 acre site is located on the west side
of Geyer Springs Road at the intersection with Trenton
Lane,Liberty Cove,and Drexel Avenue.Those three
streets approach from the east and end at Geyer
Springs,on the opposite side of Geyer Springs from
the proposed church site.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.This
site is in a neighborhood consisting of mostly single
family homes with some multifamily complexes in the
area.This is a large 16 acre site,which the church
is not planning to fill up with facilities.Therefore,
there is room to provide generous buffers between the
developed area and the surrounding residential areas.
Staff believes this use would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
The Allendale and Santa Monica Neighborhood
Associations,the Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress,all property owners within 200 feet,and all
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6909
residents within 300 feet that could be identified,
were notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed site plan includes two access drives to
Geyer Springs Road.The applicant has proposed 189 on-
site parking spaces compared to the minimum
requirement of 175 spaces.The minimum is based on the
proposed seating capacity of 700 and one parking space
for every 4 seats.Eight handicapped accessible spaces
are shown versus a requirement for six.A small area
on the south side of the church is noted for future
parking and a continuation of the driveway along that
side.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
current and proposed ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence
or dense evergreen plantings,is required where
adjacent to residential property not screened by
existing natural on-site vegetation.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward
fulfilling ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of six inch caliper or larger.
The proposed ordinance would require landscaped areas
to be irrigated.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Geyer Springs Road is listed on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-
of-way 45 feet from centerline is required.
b.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.c.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
2
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6909
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.f.Dedicate right-of-way and construct turn around at
the end of Palto Alto Drive.
g.Geyer Springs Road has a 1998 average daily
traffic count of 9,600.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.On-site fire protection
may be required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AT@LA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free,371-3752,at
the fire department concerning turning radii.
CATA:Site is near bur routes ¹17 and 17A and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
to construct a new church on 16 acres of land with
accompanying on site parking on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
The Church would consist of one building containing a
700 seat sanctuary,with associated Sunday School
classroom space and offices.There would not be any
ancillary uses such as day care or regular school.
All siting requirements are met or exceeded including
height of the building and steeple.The applicant has
tried to preserve as many of the existing trees as
3
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6909
possible in laying out the facilities and paving,and
in providing natural screening from the adjacent
residential areas.
The applicant has included a sign in the request to be
installed five feet from the front property line.The
entire sign structure would be 10.5 feet tall and 16
feet wide,including the brick columns.The sign face
would be 10 feet wide and 6 feet tall.The square
footage of the sign face would fall within normal
allowed size for a church.However the height would be
four feet taller than the standard six feet.Since the
property frontage is 662 feet,Staff feels this size
of sign would be reasonable.The sign would have to be
made part of the C.U.P.since only a one foot square
sign is allowed in R-2 zoning.
One area of disagreement with the applicant is
regarding Public Works comment that a turn around
would be required at the end of Palo Alto Drive.The
applicant does not want to construct that and said he
would ask for a waiver of that requirement.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this land
and should be compatible with the surrounding 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.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 sign
described on the site plan.
4
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6909
Staff does not support the waiver request for a turn
around at the end of Palo Alto Drive.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Pastor Gerald Young and Troy Laha were present representing
the application.Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal,briefly reviewing the comments provided to the
applicant.
The applicant clarified the sign size he wanted and that
the classrooms mentioned were for Sunday School.He stated
that he has no intention of having a school at this site.
He also withdrew the portion of the request dealing with a
day care center.He stated they have not decided for sure
how large a center they would have,so they would come back
to the Commission at a later date once more firm plans are
made.
Pastor Young also stated they had concerns about the turn
around at the end of Palo Alto Drive,and that they would
probably ask for a waiver of that requirement.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Pastor Gerald Young and Troy Laha 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
noted that the applicant had changed their application from
a waiver to a deferral for 12 months of the construction of
the turnaround at the end of Palo Alto Drive.Public Works
stated they could accept the deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations,
5
Septemb~14,2000
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6909
the deferral of the construction of a turn around on Palo
Alto Drive,and the sign as revised to a height of ten
feet.The vote was 11 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
6
1
Septembe 14,2000
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:G-40-18
NAME:Chenal Park Drive/Chenal Valley
Drive —Water Main Extension
LOCATION:Rahling Road and future routes
of Chenal Park Drive and Chenal
Valley Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Chenal Properties and Little Rock
Municipal Water Works
PROPOSAL:In accordance with Act 186 of
1957,the Little Rock Water Worksisrequestingapprovalofa10,300l.f.,20-inch water main extension
along a portion of Rahling Road
and the future routes of Chenal
Park Drive and Chenal Valley
Drive.
1 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Comply with utility cuts ordinance recpxirements.
Location of water main must be outside of future
arterial and collector road construction.
2 .UTILITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
No Fire Department comments,Water Works Comments are
as follow:
In keeping with the master plan for proposed water
facilities,there is a 20-inch water main extension
proposed in Rahling Road,the future routes of Chenal
Park Drive ahd Chenal Valley Drive to the recently
constructed water tank at St.Margaret'Church.This
water main extension will be the primary supply line
for the tank and pump station.Its purpose is to
enhance reliability and add redundancy for areas
currently being served by the water system.
3.STAFF ANALYSIS
In accordance with Act 186 of 1957,the Little Rock
Municipal Water Works is requesting approval of a
20-inch water main extension.The water main is
10,300 linear feet in length and is proposed to extend
along a portion of Rahling Road and the proposed
routes of Chenal Park Drive and the northern leg of
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
+
2Q
~
ME
M
B
E
R
D
t2
2
l
5
&I
3%
4
9
J
g
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
'T
6
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
~L
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
&8
G
C
I
L
d
R'
~l
e
)
-H
e
k
e
s
ME
M
B
E
R
A
B
7
7.
I
8
0
t
lO
tO
.
l
IL
li
t
%
lC
II
'
q
ll
.
l
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
~
o
y
F
8
a
y'
e
f
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
e
o
8
Y
y
~
8
A
v'
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
fo
~
~
v'
'
4
v'
0
~
y
y'U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
~
&
~
0
y
r
v
I
V'
y
y
y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v
~
~
y
~
v
4
F
(
&
f
y
v
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
~
~
e
o
y
y
g
y
F
~
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
eF
~
e
t'
Y
/
4
Ã
v
&
y
y
o
v
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
~
~
~
v
v
r'
v'
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
v
~
~
y'
8
Q
P
~
/
y
FA
U
S
T
;
JU
D
I
T
H
~
~
z
y
Y
y
f
y
y
y
v
MU
E,
RO
H
N
~
~
y
y
y
y
~
~
AY
E
+
NA
Y
E
4
AB
S
E
N
T
cs
AB
S
T
A
I
N
&
RE
C
U
S
E
September 14,2000
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
0
Dat
Chairman e retar