pc_05 27 1999subMay 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4731-A
Staff noted that the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,217 on April 25,1996 which waived the street improvements toBatteryandWestMarkhamStreets.
Commissioner Berry asked if the issue of waiver of street
improvements could be reopened as part of this time extensionrequest.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated the waiver of street
improvements is not an issue that can be revisited at this time.
Commissioner Berry expressed an issue with over-development ofthissite.
Commissioner Hawn expressed concerns with the proposed
development and the current condition of the site.
Commissioner Putnam asked what the delay has been with obtainingabuildingpermitforthissite.
Mr.McGetrick stated that Mr.Mears has been in poor health
which was the main reason for the delay.
There was a brief discussion regarding the requested timeextension.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated that the only issue before the Commission is to vote fororagainsttherequestedtimeextension.He stated that anyredesignofthesiteplancannotbedoneatthistime.
There was brief additional discussion relating to the previously
approved PD-C.
A motion was made to approve the time extension for the PD-Cfor90days.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,2 nays and3absent.
4
May 27,1&~9
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
NAME:Pinnacle Bank —Short Form PD-0
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and North Rodney
Parham Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Pinnacle Bank The Wilcox Group
2610 Cantrell Road 2222 Cottondale Lane,¹100LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:0.88 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 .ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Branch Bank
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None proposed.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.88 acre site at thenortheastcornerofRodneyParhamandNorthRodneyParhamRoadsfromR-2 to PD-0 to allow for the construction of abranchbankfacility.
The applicant proposes to construct a 3,580 square foot,two-story building to be located within the south one-halfoftheproperty.Drive-thru teller lanes are proposed onthewestsideofthebuildingwithanATMmachineonthenorthside.An area of parking (16 spaces)is locatedwithinthenorthone-half of the property.Two (2)accesspointsareproposedfromNorthRodneyParhamRoad.
The applicant is proposing to channelize grassy flat creekwhichrunsthroughtheeasternportionofthepropertyandrevisetheexistingfloodwayline.The applicant intendstoobtainapprovalsfromtheCorpsofEngineersandFEMA on
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
the floodway line revision.
The applicant notes that the hours of operation will befrom8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 9:00a.m.to noon on Saturday.The applicant also notes thatsignagewillconformtotheCity's Zoning Ordinancerequirementsforofficezoning.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 0.88 acre site is currently overgrown with brush andsmalltrees.There is a creek located within the eastportionoftheproperty.
There is an office building and a commercial buildinglocatedadjacenttothispropertytotheeast,with single-family residences immediately north.A new office building(Cypress Plaza)is located across North Rodney Parham Roadtothewest,with a small commercial strip center to thesouthacrossRodneyParhamRoad.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has received no comments from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Pleasant Valley and Rainwood CoveNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Rodney Parham and North Rodney Parham are listed on theMasterStreetPlanasaminorarterials.Traffic on
North Rodney Parham is 13,000 vehicles per day.Adedicationofright-of-way to 45 feet from centerline isrequired.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofRodneyParhamandNorthRodneyParham.3.Dedicate additional 10 feet of right-of-way for rightturnlaneimprovements.Contact Traffic Engineer,Bill
Henry,for layout and design.4.Provide "in-lieu"contribution for North Rodney Parham
improvements.
5.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City.6.Obtain Conditional Letter of Map Revision before
beginning construction in floodway prior to development
permit for work in Special Flood Hazard Area.Contact
Ronny Loe at 371-4817 for details.7.After construction of channel improvements in floodway,
2
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
obtain Letter of Map Revision to update mapped floodway
boundary.This letter is required for issuance of
building permit.
8.City Ordinance requires no structure closer than 25 feet
from floodway boundary (new or old).9.Minimum finished floor elevation of one foot above basefloodelevationproposedshallbeshownonplans.Elevation certificate must be completed and submitted toPublicWorksDepartmentforeachstructurepriortoCertificateofOccupancy.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:15"sewer main located on site.Location of
main should be shown on plat.Relocation of main will
be required prior to start of construction if proposedprojectconflictswithmainlocation.Contact Jim
Boyd at 376-2903 for details.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies inadditiontonormalcharges.Contact the Water Works
regarding meter size and location.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Plan approved as submitted.Bus may make a rightturnontoRodneyParhamRoadNorthinthefuture,so radiiisimportant—o.k.as is.This site will be served by
CATA Route ¹8 —Rodney Parham.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Rodney Parham Planning District.
The proposed change from R-2 to PD-0 for a branch bank isconsistentwiththeOfficecategoryasshownontheLand
Use Plan.Residential uses are abutting the site to thenorthandcareshouldbetakentoscreenthenorthern
property line with landscaping,signage should be placednearthecorner,lighting should be directed away from theresidentialareasandthedumpstershouldbeasfaraspossiblewayfromtheresidentialareas.In light of theadditionalparkingspaces,parking should be pulled away
3
May 27 1'-9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
from the residential areas.
This site is in the River Mountain Neighborhood Plan area.In the sustainable Natural Environment section,one of thegoalsandobjectiveswasto"Promote protection of naturalareasandsystemsandurbanforestry.""Preserve GrassyFlatCreekinitsnaturalstate.If changes becomejustified,work with Pleasant Valley Neighborhood to
develop methods to minimize the impact."The creek shouldbesoftenedwithripariantypevegetationtohelpmitigatethechannelization.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed southern street buffer along Rodney Parham
Road drops at one point to a width of only five feet.The
minimum width at any given point allowed by ordinance issixfeet.The full street buffer width required in thisareaissixteenfeet.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
There are two major issues related to this site which needtoberesolvedpriortothisapplicationbeingpresentedtothefullCommission.These issues involve channelizationofGrassyFlatCreek,including revision of the current
floodway line,and relocation of the 15-inch sewer mainlocatedonthesite.
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 31,1999requestingthatthisitembedeferredtotheMay27,1999
agenda to allow time to address these outstanding issues.Staff supports the deferral request.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred to the
May 27,1999 Planning Commission agenda for the reasonsstatedinparagraphG.of this report.
4
May 27,
1'UBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Ross McCain was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
There was a lengthy discussion relating to the major issues of
floodway and sewer main location.Staff noted that these issues
needed to be resolved prior to the application being presentedtothefullCommission.Staff stated that a deferral was
probably in order and this issue was discussed.Mr.McCainstatedthathewouldinformstaffofadeferralrequest.
The question was asked as to whether a left turn lane on North
Rodney Parham Road was needed to accommodate the proposednorthernmostdrive.Public Works representatives stated thatthisissuewouldbereviewed.
After the discussion,the Committee determined that a deferral
would be in order,to allow the applicant time to work out theissuesrelatingtofloodwayandsewermainlocation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthattheitembedeferredtotheMay27,1999
agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Frank Riggins and Ross McCain were present,representing the
application.There were two persons present with concerns.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
Frank Riggins addressed the Commission in favor of the
application.
Randy Alexander expressed concerns with how the floodway (creek
channelization)would be designed and how it would effect his
property to the east.The concerns related to width and depthofthechannelization.
5
May 27,1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5282-A
Ruth Bell also expressed concerns with the creek channelization.
She stated that she felt that the property would not support the
proposed development and the property should be left in its
natural state.She stated that FEMA approval should be obtained
prior to the PD-0 being approved.
Commissioner Putnam asked if flood waters had ever gotten on the
southern part of Mr.Alexander's property.
Mr.Alexander responded that water had been on the north part of
the property.
Commissioner Putnam expressed concerns with the creek
channelization.He stated that a study should be completed
before the site plan is approved.
Frank Riggins stated that enough work had been done to know that
the proposed channelization will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent property.He stated that the property owner to theeastwillgainsomepropertywiththechannelization.He alsostatedthathehadmetwithPublicWorksandthatPublicWorks
had some level of comfort with the work that has been done.
Commissioner Muse shared the concerns relating to the floodway.
He also expressed concerns with internal vehicular circulation
and access to the property.
Ross McCain stated that the northernmost drive could be
increased to a width of 14 feet to improve access.
David Scherer,of Public Works,stated that the Public Worksstaffisverycomfortablewiththesiteplanandtheamount ofvehiclestackingspaceproposed.He stated that the proposedaccessshouldnotcreatea"bottle-neck"on the property.
Commissioner Muse also expressed concerns with ingress.
Mr.Scherer stated that the left turn movement would yield to
the right turn lane and that no conflicts should occur.
Commissioner Faust noted that the Land Use Plan identified the
property as office use.She asked what the advantage would beinapprovingthesiteplanpriortoFEMAapproval.
6
May 27,15
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated that if
FEMA approval changes the site plan,a building permit would not
be issued.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that if the Commission
approves the site plan,any change in the plan as a result of
FEMA approval will have to be brought back before the
Commission.
Mr.Scherer briefly reviewed the FEMA application process.
There was a brief discussion relating to the floodway
calculations which will be done and what the effects on the
general area would be.
Mr.Scherer stated that a large portion of this basin had
already been built out.He also stated that Public Works is
recommending approval of a 20 foot setback from the floodway.
Commissioner Berry stated that if FEMA approval is not obtained
and if the site plan fails,the property would be ideal for a
conservation area.
A motion was made to approve the PD-0 subject to the
requirements as noted in the agenda report and the condition
that FEMA approval be obtained without altering the site plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,2 nays and 3 absent.
7
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-6641
NAME:Homes at Granite Mountain —Long-Form PRD
LOCATION:East side of Gilliam Park Road,approximately 700
feet south of Confederate Blvd.(Hwy.365)
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Housing Authority of the Brooks Jackson
City of Little Rock 2228 Cottondale Lane
1000 Wolfe Street Little Rock,AR 72202LittleRock,AR 72202
AREA:approximately 9.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:Approximately 1,280 linear feet
ZONING:R-2/R-5/C-3 ALLOWED USES:Single-family,
multifamily,commercial
PROPOSED USE:Multifamily
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 9.6 acre site from R-
2/R-5/C-3 to PRD to allow for development of a housingproject.The applicant proposes to construct 26 buildings
on the site,each to contain two (2)single-family unitsforatotalof52units.Twenty-six of the units will be
two-bedroom units (approximately 1,000 square feet)and
twenty-six will be three-bedroom units (approximately 1,200
square feet).
May 27,
1'UBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Each of the buildings will be single-story,wood framestructures.The materials to be used on the exteriorconsistsofcementioushardboardsidingandcompositionshingleroofs.Each unit will have a single-car driveway,covered carport and adjacent exterior storage room.Afrontporchisalsoproposedforeachunit,thereby
promoting neighborhood interaction.
As part of the development,the applicant is proposingthree(3)new streets which run from Gilliam Park Road easttoEdgeStreet.The new streets are proposed to align withexistingstreetsinthisarea.
The applicant is proposing a planted landscape buffer areawithinthenorthportionofthepropertyandtomaintaintheexistingnaturalwoodedbuffertothesouth.There are
two (2)playground areas proposed as noted on the siteplan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The south one-half of the property contains an abandonedschoolbuilding,with the north half being vacant.Thepropertyiscurrentlyfenced.
The property to the north contains a church and two smallcommercialbuildingsalongthesouthsideofConfederateBlvd.,with the property to the south being vacant and
wooded (Gilliam Park).The property to the west acrossGilliamParkRoadcontainsseveralsingle-family residencesandalargehousingproject.The property to the eastacrossEdgeStreetalsocontainsseveralsingle-familyresidencesandthreechurches.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comments from theneighborhood.The Granite Mountain NeighborhoodAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
New streets are proposed.Preliminary plat is required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required to serve allunits.
APGL:No Comment received.
2
May 27,1b-9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:There is a 36"water main that crosses this site
and it appears to be under several of the buildings.
Either the water main must be relocated or the buildingsitesmustbemodified.Contact Marie Dugan at 377-1222
for details.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Site is served by Route ¹6
Granite Mountain.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the College Station Sweet Home PlanningDistrict.The Plan shows Public Institutional and Multi-
Family for this site.When an area of Public Institutionalistobechanged,the PI is judged to be the same as the
surrounding use.Therefore,the PI would be judged to beresidential.The proposed plan of a lower density multi-
family development is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
This area is not covered by a neighborhood plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
As of this writing,there is one issue remaining to be
resolved.As noted in paragraph E.of this report,theLittleRockWaterWorksnotesthatthereisa36-inch water
main located on the property.The water main will need to
be relocated or some of the building sites will need to be
revised.Staff will attempt to have this issue resolved
prior to the public hearing.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
proposing three (3)new streets to serve this development.
The applicant will need to complete a staff level
preliminary and final plat based on the proposed plan.
3
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Otherwise there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the site plan and the proposed PRD should have no
adverse effects on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PRD rezoning withthefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.A preliminary/final plat must be completed in order todedicatethenewstreets.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Brooks Jackson was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Jackson noted thattherewouldbenodumpstersonthesite.Standard city garbagepickupwouldbeutilized.
Staff noted that a final plat of the property would need to be
done in order to dedicate the new streets.
In response to another question,Mr.Brooks noted that theexterioroftheproposedbuildingswouldbeconstructedofsidingandbevariouscolors.
The water main issue was briefly discussed.Staff noted that
some of the building locations may change based on the water
main location.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application tothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthattheitembedeferredtotheMay27,1999
agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
4
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were several persons present to object to this
application.However,the Commission inadvertently overlooked
the cards that were submitted and included this item in the
consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.A motion
was made to approve the consent agenda.The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
Staff made sure that all concerned persons that were present
submitted their names and addresses so that they could be
notified of the Board of Directors meeting.
5
May 27,lf
ITEM NO.:D DEFERRED MATTERS
~sub'ect:1998 Subdivision and M.S.p.Amendments,Public
Hearing
RecCuest:That the Planning Commission receive the draft presented,
hear comment from the Public and direct staff as to follow
up action.
~Sister:Zn January of 1998,the Plans Committee began a year long
review process,working with Planning Staf f and the Public
Works staff.Public input was requested,little offered.
In the beginning the single task assigned the committee
was to perform a review of the Subdivision Ordinance with
respect to problem areas or updating text.During the
course of its review,the committee received a request
from Public Works staff to consider removal of all street
related design from the Subdivision Ordinance and place it
in the Master Street Plan text.This was favorably
received and ovee the summer and fall months.Public
Works produced two ordinance drafts to accomplish thetask.
The first of these was an ordinance extracting certain
text elements from the Subdivision regulations and
inserting in their place a reference to the Master Street
Plan.
The second was reconstruction of the M.S.P.text toredirectitfromageneralplandocumenttoaspecific
design regulation.
All of the basic committee and staff work was finished
before the end of the year with only one element remainingtoberesolved,that being resolution of certain design
standards.These were street curvature,sidewalks,and
sight distance in particular.Public Works staff met with
various engineers and development community persons in
January and the instruments now before the Commission are,
we think,representative of the common committee,staff
and developer position with the exception of the increase
in sidewalk standards.
Planning and Public Works staff will be available to
answer questions.
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The Chair introduced this item by saying that Commissioner Adcock
requests the amendments be deferred for further discussion.
Several commissioners asked for clarification of the request.It
was reported that there were some street issues that required
more work.
Richard Wood,of the staff,suggested that a deferral was not a
problem.The Ordinance will be held over to the next meeting,
April 29,1999.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning Staff received a verbal note from Mr.Turner of Public
Works Department that an afternoon was spent with Commissioner
Adcock to discuss her concerns.It appears at this writing that thelastissuesofconcernhavebeenaddressedsatisfactorily.PlanningStafffeelsthattheordinanceamendmentsarenowreadyforfinal
action by the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The staff reported to the Commission that concerns have been raised
about certain elements of the Master Street Plan Ordinance andalliedsubdivisionregulations.Staff suggested that the amendment
package be divided with the first ordinance of general amendments be
forwarded to the Board and the second and third ordinances be
deferred.Public Works staff suggested four weeks to May 27,1999.
The Chairman noted two cards from speakers.These were on the
deferred ordinances.There were several persons present but
appeared to accept the deferral and offered no comment.
The Chairman placed the issue on the floor for discussion.A motion
was made to split the hearing on this item with part 1 being added
to the Consent Approval agenda and parts 2 and 3 being placed on
Consent Deferral for four weeks (May 27,1999).
After a brief discussion of the proposal a motion was made to
approve the Consent Agenda as presented.The Consent Agenda was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
May 27,19-a
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has concerns with the added cost and need for proposed
additional sidewalk requirements proposed by the Plans Committee
and included in package.Residential streets do not need dual
sidewalks to guide residents to controlled intersections for
crossing as are needed on arterial roadways.Minor residential
streets are dead-end (Cul-de-sac)or short loop streets with
access not being provided for through traffic.There may be
occasions where at the time of preliminary plat approval,when a
variance is requested on the length of a minor residential street,
that staff will recommend standard residential street width with a
sidewalk.This has been past practice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The Chairman identified this item for public hearing and
requested that staff present matter.
David Scherer of Public Works Department came forward and stated
that he would speak for the amendment package.Mr.Scherer
offered a brief outline of proposal which reduces to two
elements;one that extracts street design requirements from
Subdivision Ordinance and a second that installs them in Master
Street Plan while restructuring that ordinance to accommodate
other design changes.
Mr.Scherer closed his remarks by saying that staff has a
recommendation of approval of both ordinances with the additional
recommendation to leave the required number of sidewalks required
on various classifications of streets per current ordinances.
Arterials (both sides),collectors with commercial segments
abutting both sides requires both sides.Collectors in
residential subdivisions (one side),industrial streets (both
sides),residential streets (one side),minor residential streets
(none required).
Commissioner Berry asked that Mr.Scherer give examples of the
reduced standards that are included in these ordinances.Mr.
Scherer first that street widths are not being reduced,but that
centerline curve radii are being reduced.
He stated this is in keeping with an urban standard rather than a
rural standard.This allows roads to more closely hug terrain
saving hillside cuts and possibly saving trees.Also to reduce
3
May 27,19
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
speeds traveled on streets.However,cost savings are tied toeffectonindividualsites.Mr.Scherer discussed the numbers in
adjustment in these radii.Commissioner Adcock asked whether
Public Works was comfortable with access by emergency vehicles.
Again,Mr.Scherer stated these ordinances do not reduce width
standards.He said that Public Works has not had any problems he
was aware of and that removal of parking is an option.Public
Works is willing to restrict parking when access is a problem.
A brief discussion followed involving Commissioners Adcock,Berry
and Mr.Scherer about alleys and sidewalks,their widths and
appropriate need based on street and traffic.A result of this
discussion being Commissioner Berry stating that reducing design
of streets to accommodate less than the largest vehicle to use
them saves a developer money.Mr.Scherer said it is less impact
on the environment and provides traffic calming.
Commissioner Faust then asked of the Chairman that Mr.Scherer
expand on his comments about the sidewalks proposal.
Mr.Scherer presented a lengthy discussion of the Master Street
Plan Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance as they pertain to
sidewalks,their location,width,and numbers per street.He
offered at Commissioner Faust request some examples of streets
that require certain standards.He talked about the need for
sidewalks based on the volume and speed of streets and the need
to move pedestrians safely.He discussed mid-block versus corner
controlled crossing.He discussed existing streets and how
current standards would be applied.At the conclusion of this
lengthy discussion,Mr.Scherer stated that staff is pulling back
from the suggested increase in number of required sidewalks and
retain the current requirements.
A lengthy discussion then followed between Commissioner Faust and
Mr.Scherer about sidewalk placement on one versus both sides of
a street.Commissioner Putnam then posed a question about
maintenance of sidewalks.Mr.Scherer explained that it was a
property owners responsibility.
Chairman then recognized three persons present to discuss the
item.First of these was Mr.Robert Schultz who identified
himself as a developer.He offered comments on development and
his history of building.He stated he was opposed to increase in
sidewalk requirements.He said this was a market issue to belefttobuyers.He felt sidewalks would not be a top item for
home buyers,if people wanted them developers would build them.
He stated some people may consider sidewalks a nuisance.
4
May 27,19
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
Mr.Tim Daters was then recognized for his comments.Mr.Daters
offered comments on reduction in standards for streets.He said
he felt the standards were being returned to where they were in
the 1980's.The position taken by Public Works he said he
supports.
Russ McDonough was then recognized for his comments.Mr.
McDonough said he was supporting the position now taken by Public
Works to not change the sidewalk numerical standards.Further,
he identified himself as president of Winrock Development
Company.
Mr.McDonough discussed clients not including sidewalks in homes
purchased.He extended his comments to discuss appropriate
placement as to which side of street,relative to driveway access
and effect on terrain.He said most people would say two
sidewalks were better than one,but when offered the $1,000.00 or
more cost it would not be a priority.
He concluded his remarks by discussing cost effect on marketing
homes and on builder to remain competitive with other cities
outside Little Rock.
The Chairman then recognized Mrs.Ruth Bell representing the
League of Women Voters.Her first comment was that League was
very supportive of additional sidewalks.She stated that,from
her participation in Planning Commission committee meetings that,
every one was gung ho for sidewalks on both sides of streets.
She said she felt the neighborhoods with best staying power were
those that offered ability to walk and for kids walk to school.
She said sidewalks are a safety and social feature in a
neighborhood and the League is supportive of sidewalks.
At this point Commissioner Berry asked the Chairman if it would
be possible to have a separate vote on sidewalks.It was decided
to do vote that way.Commissioner Berry then proceeded to offer
some points as his comments on this matter.One being a
price/cost issue and secondly,what is standard and how change in
road design standards would be a benefit to buyers.
Mr.McDonough came forward to say,"If people want to do this
then its in my interest to do it (provide sidewalks)."He
offered comments on building,terrain and first time buyerscosts.He said he didn'have a number answer,as to what curveradiiwillsavebutwouldbeminimalonentrylevelsubdivisions.
This discussion continued at length.Commissioner Berry offered
5
May 27,19
ITEM NO.:b (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
comments on market and surveys on effects.He felt there was a
void in information.
Commissioner Hawn then requested that Mr.Scherer answer a
question,which was:restate the proposal and the current
recommendation.Mr.Scherer offered current ordinances before
Commission with proposal to change sidewalk numerical requirement
to existing standards which Public Works recommends.
The Chairman,Mr.Earnest,offered that perhaps another option
that has not been discussed is some form of variance requirement
to deal with clear topography issues,and leave the requirement
of two sidewalks on residential streets.
Mr.Scherer then offered comments on legal actions that the cityisdealingwithconcerningwaivingsidewalkswithcurrent
standards.He further stated the City Board has a policy to not
waive sidewalks.
At this point Commissioner Adcock offered her thoughts on one and
two sidewalk streets and the Cloverdale subdivision problems.
She discussed the costs attendant to building two and that one
sidewalk served her neighborhood adequately.
The discussion proceeded at length with Adcock and Berry offering
thoughts on one versus two sidewalks on a residential street.
The Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn.Commissioner Hawn
suggested he had some thoughts on how to deal with the proposals
and with Commissioner Berry's comment on split vote.
Commissioner Hawn was recognized for a motion after the Chairman
declared that additional discussion could occur after the motion.
The motion being:That the Commission vote on the proposal in
item "D"(both ordinances)with the exception of the section
dealing with sidewalks and that section be voted on separately as
to accommodating the new standards or by default keeping the old.
The motion was seconded.
The Chairman recognized Commissioner Putnam for questions.He
asked Mr.Scherer for staff recommendation.Mr.Scherer againstatedstaffpositionwhichis,approval of the package minus the
sidewalk numerical standards being expanded.This discussion
continued briefly followed by the Chairman'offering perspectiveofthePlansCommitteefromlastyear.
Chairman Earnest said the Committee discussed and heard
presentation by Public Works staff on street design and sidewalks
6
May 27,19
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
and he said this is a policy issue.He said it was not then and
not now a design criteria requirement.The current national
trend is to design to neotraditional and that there are several
developments in this area conforming to this standard.
He felt that Public Works staff was perhaps not receiving enoughcreditfordealingwiththisissue.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Hawn.
Commissioner Hawn stated he would like to clarify his motion that
being:"That,we adopt the plan as outlined in item "D«(both
ordinances)and move it to the Master Street Plan with the
exception of the Section dealing with sidewalk numbers but
maintaining all other items."
Commissioner Hawn followed that by saying:"He suspects the
Commission will,have to vote on whether to adopt the suggested
numbers and if that is denied,vote to move the current numbers
standard into the Master Street Plan.The Chairman recognized
Commissioner Adcock for comment.She asked if everyone is all
right on all other matters such as "T«turnaround and such inthisordinance.After some comment by Mr.Scherer it was evident
no concerns existed.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Faust.She stated that
she wanted to commend Public Works Department for their work onthismatter.
Commissioner Hawn was asked again to state his motion following
the Chairman having called the vote.
The vote on the motion produced 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Hawn for a second
motion.
The motion being that the provisions in item "D«dealing with the
expanded numbers of sidewalks to be required on variousclassificationsofstreets,adopt that and include it as part of
the Master Street Plan.
The motion was seconded.
Commissioner Hawn noted his was a positive motion as required,
which is adoption of recommendations as presented in item "D«
dealing with numbers of sidewalks on various streets.
7
May 27,19
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
A brief discussion followed with commissioners gaining
understanding of the motion.The confusion of what the motion
did or didn'do was resolved by staff stating,the action would
be set forth in the minutes.
The motion as offered by Commissioner Hawn was in three distinct
elements:1)approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendments to
extract street design criteria and 2)to adopt Master Street
Plan as modified minus sidewalk numerical standards enhancements.
3)A vote on the inclusion of enhanced sidewalk numerical
standards in the Master Street Plan.
The effect of the motion was to approve the two ordinance package
as one and to then vote on the sidewalk numbers issue.The
recommendation to the Board of Directors will then be that design
standards be moved from the Subdivision Ordinance and placed in
the Master Street Plan but retain the current sidewalk
requirements.
Commissioner Hawn's motion to accomplish parts 1 and 2 was voted
on with approval resulting from 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
Then,commissioners voted on item 3 to inclusion of enhanced
numerical sidewalk structures —vote 4-4.Then commissioners
voted to install existing numerical standards 8-0-3.
8
May 27,
1'TEM
NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1247
NAME:Glenndale Village Commercial Subdivision—
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and
Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Leonard Boen McGetrick and McGetrick
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3
PLANNING DISTRICTS:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 4.23 acres into three
(3)lots.The proposed lots range in size from 0.826 to2.081 acres.The property is zoned C-3 and is beingplattedforafuturecommercialdevelopment.The applicantisproposinga60footwideaccessandutilityeasement
extending north from Colonel Glenn Road,which will
accommodate a single shared driveway for the three (3)lots.All lots will be final platted at the same time.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is partially wooded (north and west portions),
with the southern portion of the property sloping gradually
upward to the north from Colonel Glenn Road.There is a
May 27,1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1247
more severe slope within the northern portion of the
property,particularly at the northwest corner of the
proposed Lot 3.
The vacant Sam's store building is located immediatelyeast,with I-430 right-of-way to the west.There is vacant
wooded property to the south across Colonel Glenn Road,and
a water works site,including two monopole towers,to thenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The John Barrow Neighborhood Association wasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
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
55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Driveways as shown at 60'ccess is acceptable.No
other access will be allowed.One shared driveway
permitted at the lot line.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets,including 5 foot sidewalks,with planned
development.Include right turn lane for I-430.
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.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
7.Limit cut and fill to 30'ith terraces,unless approved
by Planning Commission.
8.Obtain permit from District 6 AHTD.
9.Colonel Glenn Road traffic count is 6,900 vehicles per
day ~
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
2
May 27,1b 9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1247
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal connection charges.On site Fire
Protection will be required.Care must be taken to
protect Water Works'acilities in the area.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route 514 serves near this site.Approved as
submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on May 13,1999.The revised plat addresses most of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
However,there are two additional notes which need to be
made on a revised plat drawing and submitted to staff.The
source of title and PAGIS monuments need to be shown.
All three (3)lots comply with the minimum lot area and
width as required by ordinance.Adequate access is
proposed to all lots.
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 area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttotherequirementsnotedinparagraphsD,E and G of thisreport.
3
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1247
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the preliminary plat,noting several
items which needed to be shown on a revised drawing.
Mr.McGetrick stated that all lots will be final platted at the
same time.
The required right-of-way for Colonel Glenn Road and the
proposed shared driveway was briefly discussed.Mr.McGetrick
indicated no issues with the Planning staff or Public Works
requirements.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to the
full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
May 27,1&~9
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-3792-B
NAME:Sysco Foods —Revised PD-I
LOCATION:5800 Frozen Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Sysco Food Services of McGetrick and McGetrick
Arkansas,Inc.319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202
5800 Frozen Road Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:28.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-I ALLOWED USES:Office and Warehouse
and R-2
PROPOSED USE:Office and Warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved the Sysco —Long-Form PD-I on
July 23,1998 with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.On August 11,
1998,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,787
approving the PD-I.
The PD-I was approved to allow the phased expansion of the
existing Sysco Foods warehouse and office development.Phase I,
which is currently under construction,consists of a 80,000
square foot building expansion.Phase II will consist of a
11,750 square foot building expansion and Phase III will include
a 103,600 square foot building expansion and additional parking
near West 65 Street.The building expansions will be primarily
warehouse and dock space with a small amount of additional
office space.The applicant noted that a future revised plan
would include a parking area on the east side of Battle Road.
May 27,15~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3792-B
The Board also passed Ordinance No.17,788 on August 11,1998,
deferring boundary street improvements to Battle Road for five
(5)years or until Phase II construction whichever occurs first.
During Phase II construction,a cul-de-sac will be constructed
on Battle Road and a portion of Battle Road will be abandoned.
The applicant noted that no access (except construction access)
to the site will be taken from Battle Road until the street
improvements are in place.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously
approved PD-I by adding two (2)areas to the site plan.
The first area to be added is the 1.42 acre vacant churchsitewhichisimmediatelysouthofPhaseIconstruction,
along the west side of Battle Road.This area contains
three (3)existing buildings which will be used as office
space with some storage.The small building near the
northwest corner of the church property will be used as anofficeforMayConstructionCompanyduringthephasedconstruction.
The second area to be added to the site plan is 6.16 acresoflandalongtheeastsideofBattleRoad.The applicant
proposes to construct a parking area in this area for
passenger vehicles (44 spaces)and large trucks (60 spaces)
with Phase III construction.The applicant is also
proposing to leave a 100 foot undisturbed buffer area along
the east property line of this area.Several single-family
residences which existed along the east side of Battle Road
have been removed.The applicant has also filed a Land Use
Plan Amendment for this portion of the property (see item2.1.on this agenda).
Otherwise,the portions of the site plan which were
previously approved will not change.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted earlier,construction has begun on Phase I and the
single-family residences have been removed along the east
side of Battle Road.
There is one single-family residence immediately south of
the old church site on the west side of Battle Road.Thereisamixtureofcommercialandindustrialusesandamobile
home park along West 65 Street to the south.Railroad
right-of-way is located immediately north of the site.
2
May 27,1b~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3792-B
The southern portion of the proposed 100 foot buffer areaisheavilywooded.There are some mature trees within the
northern portion of the proposed buffer.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Geyer Springs and Wakefield Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received two (2)phone calls from persons
requesting information on this project.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Add cul-de-sac on Ballinger or abandon right-of-way.
2.Geyer Springs Road traffic count is 9,800 vehicles per
day.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer mains located on site.Sewer main
relocation required prior to construction.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Retain utility easement for telephone
cable when Battle Road is closed.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding
access to property.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Routes 417 and 17A are very near this site.
Approved as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the 65 Street East Planning District.It is shown as Mixed Commercial Industrial to the west of
Battle and Single Family to the east of Battle.There is
an existing PD-I on the property and the expansion of the
3
May 27,1b~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3792-B
current use is consistent with the MCI.This is the
subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment,LU99-13-01 to be
heard on this same agenda.
Landsca e Issues:
Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Any portion of the eastern 100 foot wide undisturbed buffer
zone that does not provide year-round screening must be
supplemented with additional screening.This screen may be
evergreen plantings.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
May 11,1999.The revised plan addresses most of the
issues as raised by the Subdivision Committee.
The revised site plan shows 199 parking spaces for
passenger vehicles (100 existing,99 with Phase III)and
161 parking spaces for large trucks (71 existing,90 with
Phase III).Typical ordinance parking requirements based
on the amount of office and warehouse space proposed would
be approximately 120 spaces (passenger vehicles).Staff
feels that the parking plan proposed should be adequate to
serve this site.
The revised plan does not show fence locations as requested
by staff.The applicant needs to submit a revised plan
noting fence locations and height.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge,there are no unresolved
issues associated with this site plan.With additional
evergreen plantings within the 100 foot buffer area along
the property's east boundary,the proposed revised site
plan should have no adverse effect on the property to the
east or the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PD-I subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
4
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3792-B
2.A portion of Battle Road must be abandoned with a cul-
de-sac constructed with Phase II construction.3.The portion of Ballinger Road adjacent to this property
must be abandoned.4.Any site lighting shall be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.5.A revised site plan must be submitted showing fence
locations and height.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the revised PD-I,noting several
items which needed to be shown on a revised plan.
Mr.McGetrick noted that a right-of-way abandonment application
would be filed at a later date for the portion of Ballinger Road
which is adjacent to this property.
The 100 foot undisturbed buffer area along the east propertylinewasbrieflydiscussed.Staff noted that additional
evergreen plantings would be recpxired within areas of the buffer
which do not provide year-round screening.
After the presentation,the Committee forwarded the PD-I to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
May 27,19s9
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:LU99-13-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —65th Street East
Planning District
Location:5800 Frozen Rd.
R~e eat:SF to PK/OS and MCI
Source:SYSCO Foods
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
The request is a Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street East
Planning District from SF to PK/OS and MCI.The proposed use for
the property is expansion of an existing business operated by
SYSCO Foods.Park/Open Space (PK/OS)category includes all
public parks,recreation facilities,greenbelts,flood plains,
and other designated open space and recreational land.Mixed
Commercial and Industrial (MCI)category provides for a mixture
of commercial and industrial uses to occur.Acceptable uses are
commercial or mixed commercial and industrial.A Planned ZoningDistrictisrequirediftheuseismixedcommercialand
industrial.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The majority of the property requested is currently zoned R-2
Single Family 6 MF6 Multi-Family and is approximately 2.1 acres
in size.A mix of industrial and commercial land uses lies to
the south and west of the property.A few residences are mixed
in with the previously uses to the south of SYSCO Foods.A
large area of homes are to the east and north.SYSCO Foods is
separated from the uses to the north by the Union Pacific
Railroad track.
Neighboring areas to the north are zoned R-2 Single Family and
C-3 General Commercial.The properties to the east are zoned R-
2 Single Family,and MF6 Multifamily.The areas south of the
SYSCO property are zoned I-2 Light Industrial,C-3 General
Commercial,and R-2 Single family.Areas to the west are zonedI-2 light Industrial and C-4 Open Display Commercial.
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-01
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The property in question lies near a Mixed Commercial and
Industrial (MCI)land use area that extends to the south and
west.The neighboring property to the north and east is Single
Family Residential (SF).
February 20,1996,a small area of Commercial (C)changed to
Suburban Office (SO)and Mixed Use (MX)on Geyer Springs Road
near the intersection of Forbing Road.June 4,1996,a
Commercial (C)area was changed to Industrial (I)on Forbing
Road west of the Geyer Springs intersection.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Geyer Springs Road is shown as a minor arterial on the plan.
Battle Street is shown on the Master Street Plan map as a local
street.Frozen Road is a private drive serving SYSCO Foods.
PARKS:
There are no parks shown on the master parks plan close enough
to be effected by a land use change at this site.
BACKGROUND:
SYSCO Foods is south of the Union Pacific Railroad with
residential uses to the north of the railroad tracks and east of
the SYSCO property.Intense commercial and industrial uses
occupy areas to the south and west along 65 Street.This siteislocatedfurthernorththanotherindustrialuses.This
proposed land use amendment would recognize existing plans for
expansion of the existing industrial use.The proposed PK/OS
land use area can create a transition area between the
industrial land uses and the residential land uses.The
property located in the area of the proposed PK/OS area is
heavily wooded and abuts the residential area to the east.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
None.
2
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-13-01
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Wakefield Neighborhood Association and Geyer Springs
Neighborhood Association.Staff has received no comments from
area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
This item was placed on consent for approval and was passed with
a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
3
May 27,1&~9
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-5223-B
NAME:Carter —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:1400 S.Bishop Street
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
James H.Carter Ollen Dee Wilson
14624 Sara Dr.P.O.Box 604
Little Rock,AR 72206 North Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:0.162 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Barber shop and residence
PROPOSED USE:General Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On February 20,1990,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.15,820,rezoning the property 1400 S.Bishop Street from R-3
to PCD.The approved PCD was for a barber shop which would
utilize approximately 800 square feet of the 1,800 square foot
building,with entrance from West 14 Street.The remainder of
the house was to be utilized for living quarters,with an
entrance from Bishop Street.Eight (8)parking spaces were
provided on the site.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from PCD to
POD in order to use the entire building for office use.
The applicant proposes to have a mortgage office within a
portion of the building and a future general/professionalofficeintheremainderofthestructure.
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5223-B
The applicant proposes to make no exterior changes to the
existing building or parking area.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains an 1,800 square foot structure
with a residential appearance and a parking area for seven
(7)vehicles on the west side of the building,which is
accessed from an existing alley.There is one parking
space on the east side of the building,accessed from
Bishop Street.
There is vacant C-3 zoned property to the north across West
14 Street,with the Children's Hospital South Campus and
Immanuel Baptist Church just further north.The vacant
west side Junior High School building is to the northwest.
There are single-family residences across the alley to the
west,across Bishop Street to the east and to the south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no negative comments
from the neighborhood.The Central High,Downtown and
Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofBishopandWest14Street.
2.Pave alley to 18 feet width.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional and/or
larger size meter is required.8"is the largest size
available off the existing water mains.
Fire Department:No Comment.
2
May 27,1=
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5223-B
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Routes ¹9 and 11 serve this site.Approved as
submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This proposal is in the Central City Planning District.ThesiteisshownasSingleFamilyontheLandUsePlan.There
are no land use plan issues because of the existing PCD on
the site.The change to a POD would be a less intensive
use in the structure.Signage should residential in scale.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff on
May 11,1999.The letter contained the following
additional information as requested by staff:
1.The hours of operation will be from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00
p.m.,Monday through Friday.
2.Signage will consist of five-inch lettering on an awning
which will be attached to the north side of the
building.
3.There will be no commercial dumpster on the property.A
residential sized trash container will be used.
4.The applicant also notes that all Public Works
conditions and concerns will be complied with.
The ordinance would typically require five (5)parking
spaces for this proposed use.There are eight (8)existing
parking spaces on the site,as noted in paragraph B.of
this report.
To staff'knowledge,there are no unresolved issues
associated with this application.Staff feels that the
proposed use of the property will have no adverse effect on
the area.
3
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5223-B
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions as noted in paragraphs D,
E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff gave a brief descriptionoftheproposal.Staff noted that additional information was
needed (hours of operation,signage,etc.).
The Public Works requirement to pave an 18 foot wide section of
the alley was briefly discussed.
Staff noted that the applicant would be contacted and the
Planning and Public Works requirements would be discussed with
them.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
4
May 27,1b
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-5505-H
NAME:Bryant —Revised PCD
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Johnnie and Sandra Bryant White-Daters and Associates
3606 Rocky Lane 401 Victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.76 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Grocery store with gas pumps,
natural stone business,
residence
PROPOSED USE:Same,with the addition of a
specialty shop (retail)and
auto repair garage
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road and
Rocky Lane
BACKGROUND:
This property was rezoned from R-2 to PCD in 1992,in order to
recognize the existing uses of the property.These existing
uses included a grocery store with gas pumps,a natural stone
business and a single-family residence (mobile home).The
property is outside the city limits but within the city'
extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD.The applicant proposes to utilize approximately 480
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)'ILE NO.:Z-5505-H
square feet of the existing 1,875 square foot grocery store
building for general commercial (retail)use as a separate
business.The applicant also proposes to construct a 1,380
square foot addition to the south side of the existing
building.This building additional would accommodate a
two-bay auto repair garage and an office for the auto
repair business.Also proposed are two (2)storage bins
near the southwest corner of the building to be used for
the existing natural stone business.
The applicant is also proposing additional paved and
landscaped areas along the east,west and south sides of
the building.These areas are proposed to improve vehicle
circulation within the site,provide additional parking and
improve the site's appearance.
Access to the site is currently gained from Colonel Glenn
Road and Rocky Lane.The applicant is proposing no changes
in access,other than widening the drive from Rocky Lane.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property currently contains a grocery store building
with gas pumps located within the northern portion of the
property.There is a stone works business located near thecenteroftheproperty,with a single-wide mobile home
located within the southern portion of the site.The
mobile home is used as a residence.
There are single-family residences on larger lots located
across Rocky Lane to the east,across Colonel Glenn Road to
the northwest,to the south along Rocky Lane and to the
west along Colonel Glenn Road.There are several mobile
and manufactured homes in the area.
There is a grocery store with gas pumps located across
Colonel Glenn to the north.There is also a beauty shop
and a pet grooming/boarding business to the west.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several phone calls
from persons who live in this area expressing concerns
about this proposed development.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
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
2
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-H
55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Rocky Lane is a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-
way to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofColonelGlennRoadandRockyLane.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
8.Comply with driveway ordinance.Maximum width is 40feet.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water
service is required.Approval of the City is required
for water service.
Fire Department:If this property is annexed in the
future,a private fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route ¹14 serves near this site.Approved as
submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District andisinanexistingbusinessnodeasshownontheLandUse
Plan.There is an existing PCD on the site.The expansion
of uses are of the same intensity as the existing.The new
uses are consistent with the Land Use Plan.Concerns arise
3
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-H
over the screening and buffering on the west towards the
single family houses.Dumpsters should not be visible from
the street or the residential uses.Long term storage of
cars awaiting repair should not be allowed.
Landsca e Issues:
A six foot high opaque screen is required along the western
perimeter of this project adjacent to residential use.
This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward or dense evergreen plantings.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscaping plan providing for a landscape upgrade equal to
the expansion proposed must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on May 12,1999.The revised plan
addresses the concerns as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The revised plan shows a proposed
parking layout.The ordinance would typically require 20
parking spaces for this site.Adequate area exists on thesitetoprovidethe20parkingspaces.
The applicant has provided the following additional
information to staff:
1.Hours of operation:Store —6:30 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.,
daily.
Auto repair —7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.2.No dumpster will be on the site.
3.No new signs are proposed.There are existing signs on
the building.
4.Screening will be provided along the west property line.
5.Any site lighting will be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
6.All vehicular use areas will be paved and landscaped.
The applicant has noted that right-of-way will be dedicated
as required by Public Works.However,dedication of the
full right-of-way along Colonel Glenn Road would be into
the existing gas pump canopy and over the existing
underground gas tanks.Public Works recommends that the
dedication go around the existing gas pump canopy and
4
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-H
underground gas tanks and that the right-of-way in this
area be deferred for five (5)years,until redevelopment of
this property or until development of adjacent property,
whichever occurs first.
The applicant is requesting a 5-year deferral of street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane.As of
this writing,Public Works has not made a recommendation on
this request.
Based on the fact that a stone works business (C-4 type
use)has existed on the site for a number of years,staff
feels that the building addition with the auto repair use
as proposed will not increase the intensity of the use of
this property.Staff feels that with proper screening
along the west property line and with the additional
restrictions (related to the auto repair use)as
recommended by staff in paragraph H.of this report,the
proposed use of the property should have no adverse effect
on the area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.All vehicle repair shall be done within the enclosed
building.4.There shall be no outside storage of vehicles or vehicle
parts.5.Public Works will present a recommendation on the
deferral of street improvements at the public hearing.6.Staff recommends approval of a deferral of a portion of
the right-of-way dedication for Colonel Glenn Road as
noted in paragraph G.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Joe White and Johnnie Bryant were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed
revised PCD.Staff noted several items which needed to be shown
on a revised site plan.
5
May 27,19&9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5505-H
Mr.Bryant noted that the portion of the existing grocery store
building would be a general retail use,probably a specialty
shop for the sale of seasonal items.
The applicant also noted that a deferral or waiver of street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane would be
requested.
Other issues relating to the proposed site plan and the existingsitewerebrieflydiscussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Joe White and Johnnie Bryant were present,representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff gave abriefdescriptionoftheproposedrevisedPCD.
Joe White addressed the Commission in support of the
application.
Commissioner Berry asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr.White noted that the grocery store would be open from
6:30 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.,and the auto repair and natural stone
businesses would be operated from 7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Hawn expressed concerns with the appearance and
maintenance of the property.
Johnnie Bryant stated that the property will be cleaned up with
the additional development.Mr.Bryant noted that only minor
auto repair would be done on the site.
Mr.White stated that additional paving and landscaping would be
done around the building which would improve the appearance of
the property.
Commissioner Putnam asked what the manufactured home structureisusedfor.
Mr.White stated that it was a single-family residence (rental).
6
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5505-H
Mr.Bryant stated that the manufactured home was to be removed
from the property.
Mr.White stated that the application would be amended to remove
the manufactured home.
Commissioner Faust asked if there would be any outside storage
of vehicles or parts.
Staff noted that conditions of approval included no outside
storage of vehicles or vehicle parts,other than vehicles
awaiting servicing or owner pick-up.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,noted that these conditions would
be enforced by the zoning staff.
A motion was made to approve the application as recommended bystaffandwiththeconditionthatthemanufacturedhomebe
removed from the site.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays,3 absent and 1 abstention (Putnam).
7
10 May,1999 2-55-~-A
Rodney Faust
3401 Rocky Lane
Little Rock,AR 72210
501-821-4859
Pulaski County Planning &Development Office
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
ATTN:Monte Moore
Dear Mr.Moore,
I am writing this for my mother in opposition to the proposed expansion of the business
located at the corner of Col Glenn and Rocky Lane.We fill that the expansion to include
and automotive repair shop is a detriment to the local community and will only benefit
the owner,who coincidentally lives a quarter mile away and suffer no ill effects of the
establishment.Additionally,our other reasons for opposing this business are;
h db '
likely to fail.Several others have tried this venture in a location across the
street &om the site and all have failed.In the event of such failure,the
surrounding area will be forced to look at the refuge of this venture.Junk
cars,car parts,trash and other associated items will mostly likely find a home
in this area,near our homes.I invite you to look at the rental property behind
the current business,where a broken down piece of furniture has been laying
upside down in the yard for over 6 months and is now a back stop for target
practice &om a gun happy policeman in-waiting.This alone provides
evidence that no attempts have been made to keep the area clean and if the
area has not been kept clean in the past,then it will surely not be kept clean in
the future.Then there is the current store,which displays numerous gaudy
hand-painted signs,reminiscent of a souvenir stand on the road to Branson.
The &ont of the store sticks out like a sore thumb;it is obtrusive and ill
conceived.It can only be imagined what the proposed expansion would look
like,most likely much worse than the current state.My family's home is near
the proposed site (less then 20 yards),we have worked long and hard to make
it look nice,the proposed expansion would ruin all of our efforts.
2.Noise pollution —An automotive shop is a noisy place.A residential
neighborhood is supposed to be a quiet place to relax after a hard day's work.
If this expansion is approved.It will destroy the current quiet and peaceful
surroundings.I can foresee loud noises into the night;bright spotlights
I
re&acting through the air as workers try to finish up work on beat up old cars.
I can foresee noisy Saturdays and Sundays,racing car motors,the smell of
exhaust and the crash of junk parts as they are thrown into an ever-growing,
forever stagnant,pile o f used material.
3.Environmental ollution —Thisproposal without adoubt will lead to
contamination of the environment.Just a look at the current site will lead
anyone to conclude the same opinion.Ifjunk furniture lies around for over 6
months,just imagine how long junk cars and parts will lie around.With junk
auto's you also get junk oil,anti&eeze,PCB's,broken glass,old tires,used
fuel,used metal and paper garbage.The proposed site of this venture is
located on high ground,so that means the entire neighborhood will get the
pleasure of receiving the contaminated run-off &orn this operation.It is bad
enough that area around the current business is a haven for broken beer
bottles,crushed beer cans,discarded cigarette butts,and the paper trash,but to
let an auto repair shop (a very large producer of hazardous materials)enter the
neighborhood will undoubtedly drive down the property values as well as
make the environment unsafe.
~fC i —h dt 'll'f dt's
on a very small road.Rocky Lane is not nearly wide enough for 2 cars to pass
each other.Currently,the business already in place has created an illegal
drive for cars to exit onto Rocky Lane through the residence behind the store.
This short cut has already created some problems,because Rocky Lane is not
wide enough for someone to pull out while someone drives by.The proposed
business will only add to this current congestion and make driving even more
troublesome.
Before writing this letter I drove around to get a look at where other auto shops are
located,I was not able to find another one in the area located in a residential area so close
to houses.This proposed venture lacks clarity,consideration and conservation.While
the owner of the proposal might think he can make money with this plan,the question
arises "would he want the business next door to his home"?I think not.I invite you-to
drive out and look at the present business in all its glory and then imagine what the
proposed one would look like,then ask your self would you want to live across the street
&om it.Also,take a look at the rental property this individual owns and see how these
properties are maintained.Just looking at the condition and upkeep can clue you in on
what this business would look like in the future.
My mother's house is located not more than 20 yards &om the proposed site;she is a
senior citizen as are all o f her neighbors.She and her neighbors have lived here a long
time and deserve the right to be able to set on their porch,deck or yard and be able to
listen to birds sing and not be forced to hear impact wrenches,racing motors,pounding
hammers and mechanics profanity.They deserve the right to be able to walk down the
street and not worry about having to dodge traffic &om &antic motorist trying to get the
car fixed before the end of the day.They deserve the right to be able to let their pets
1
walk in their yards without having to worry about them being poisoned by contaminated
run off &om the auto shop.They deserve the right to keep the present neighborhood
intact and not subjected to the whimsical ventures of an uncaring individual,who lives
away &om the mess he is willing to create.
I will be unable to attend your meeting on 27 May 99,but rest assured that my mother
and I am completely opposed to this venture.If needed,you can contact me at the above
address and number or you can contact my mother at:3401 Rocky Lane,LR,72210.
Thank you for reading my letter,I hope you address my concerns at your meeting and
please inform me of the results.
Rodn y Faust
RECEIVED
MAY 1 3 1999
BY:
t
J $&e„
g-/go&RECEP(ED
MAY &sic
~g 188.
z~v
/Q,~g~~~~'
c'L ~
Qw~.~J ~M p
~i gg'w J~
r-g~~%77~'&~~'
m~zZ'~'/M.(M
J
p CL ~r ~gw&pcLM~~
/
)
~
I
l
o
'I
c~
4~%P~
l
G'
G'
-+
P
)V'J~iy
May 27,1b
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
NAME:Embassy Suites —Revised PD-C
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Embassy Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
John Q.Hammons White-Daters and Associates
300 John Q.Hammons Pkwy.401 Victory Street
Springfield,MO 65806 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:Approx.10.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:320
ZONING:PD-C ALLOWED USES:Hotel and Single-Family
and R-2 Residential
PROPOSED USE:Hotel
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Requested
BACKGROUND:
On February 7,1995,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
16,842 establishing the Embassy Suites —Short-Form PD-C.The
site plan included an eleven-story building containing 251
suites,10,000 square feet meeting area,a 12,000 square foot
convention center and a two-level parking garage.(The
applicant has noted that there is currently 14,000 square feet
of convention/meeting rooms).
On October 17,1995,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
16,991 which amended the previously approved PD-C.The amended
PD-C added a 2.31 acres tract to the site for use as a parkinglot.The additional area is located east of the original area.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PD-C by constructing a nine (9)story,130 foot tall,
addition (approximately 189,264 square feet)to the
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
existing hotel building and additional parking as noted on
the attached site plan.The proposed expansion will
include the following amenities:
a)a six story hotel tower (66 suites)
b)a three story parking structure (first 3 levels of the
building)and additional surface parking (totaling 704
new spaces)
c)14,400 square feet of conference center space
d)3,900 square feet of meeting room space (6 rooms)
The applicant notes that the exterior construction of the
building addition will be of the same material as the
original facility.
The building addition is proposed to be located on the
south side of the existing hotel building.Additional
surface parking will be added along the east,west and
south sides of the proposed building addition.
There are currently two (2)access drives from Embassy
Drive.A third driveway near the southwest corner of the
property is proposed with the expansion.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area to be used for the expansion is currently wooded
and contains two single family structures and accessory
buildings which will be removed with the planned expansion.
The property to the south is mostly wooded with three
single family structures along the north side of Kanis
Road.The property to the east and west of the proposed
expansion area is wooded and undeveloped.
This general area along Chenal Parkway contains a mixtureofofficeandcommercialusesandzoning.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a person expressing concerns related to traffic.The
Birchwood and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
2
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Embassy Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.(Move most southern drive to meet
300'eparation.)
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.Extend Embassy Drive to the property line.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street
lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock
Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
7.Provide temporary turnaround for Embassy Drive.
8.Cut and fill ordinance applies at southeast corner of
property.
9.Close unlisted right-of-way on east side of property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
APSL:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the L.R.Fire Department regarding needed
additional on site fire protection.Contact the Water
Works if larger and/or additional water meters are
required.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route ¹5 serves this area;approved as
submitted if sidewalks connect the northern portions of the
entire site.
3
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5887-B
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the I-430 Planning District and is shown
as Office on the Land Use Plan.This is an expansion of
the existing use and will be an expansion of the existing
facility.This will not be an independent use or building,
therefore there is no Land Use Plan issue.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
landscaping,will be required to help screen this project
from the residential properties to the south.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May
12,1999.The revised plan appears to address the concerns
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.Public
Works staff has indicated that all Public Works issues have
been resolved.
The following additional information was provided by the
applicant:
1.No new signage is proposed.
2.The existing trash compactor on the site has sufficient
capacity to handle the expansion.
3.Height of the proposed expansion will be 130 feet.The
existing building height is 143 feet.
4.The proposed facility will have 189,264 total square
feet (95,808 hotel and conference/meeting rooms and
93,456 for parking garage).The existing facility has
303,223 square feet.
4
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
The applicant is requesting a deferral of half street
improvements for a small portion of Embassy Drive right-of-
way near the southwest corner of the property.This is due
to the fact that there is a small sliver of land between
the Embassy property and the proposed alignment of Embassy
Drive which Embassy Suites does not own.The deferral
would be for five (5)years or until development of
adjacent property.Public Works has indicated support of
the requested deferral.
The applicant is also requesting two (2)variances related
to the proposed driveway near the southwest corner of the
property.The first variance is for driveway spacing.The
ordinance requires a minimum spacing of 300 feet between
driveways on a site.The applicant is proposing a spacing
of 260 feet for the southernmost two (2)driveways along
Embassy Drive.
The other requested variance is to allow the "T"type
crossing where the southernmost drive from Embassy Drive
enters the property.The ordinance typically does not
allow this type of crossing relationship where access
drives are concerned.Public Works is recommending
approval of the variance requests.
The ordinance would typically require 348 parking spaces
for this development (existing development and proposed
addition).There are 429 existing parking spaces on the
site with 704 additional spaces proposed,for a total of
1,133 parking spaces.
The applicant has provided the following formula as
justification for the proposed number of parking spaces:
"Industry Standards for Meeting and Conference Facilities—
15 square feet per person with 1.5 persons per car
average."This would be equal to 1,436 parking spaces for
conference/meeting rooms (existing and proposed)with 348
spaces for the hotel rooms (required by City Ordinance),
for a total of 1,784 spaces.This would be the total
number of parking spaces required by industry standards
when facility is 100%utilized.The applicant has noted
that the on-site parking is designed for utilization of
63.5 percent of the capacity,as 100 percent utilization of
the facility is not anticipated.Staff feels that the
5
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
number of proposed parking spaces is reasonable based on
the fact that there will be 32,300 square feet of
convention/meeting space in addition to the 317 hotel
rooms.
Staff feels that the proposed expansion of the
hotel/conference facility will have no adverse effect on
adjacent property or the general area,With compliance with
the requirements and conditions noted in paragraph H.of
this report.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PD-C subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.Staff recommends approval of the deferral of half street
improvements for a portion of Embassy Drive for five (5)years or until development of adjacent property.4.Staff recommends approval of the variance of driveway
spacing and "T"type crossing of access drives.5.The applicant will need to file a right-of-way
abandonment for Hardin Road right-of-way along the east
side of this property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Joe White and Dan Robinson were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the revised PD-C
and noted that additional information needed to be shown on a
revised site plan.
The applicant noted that the building height of the proposed
building addition would be approximately the same as the
existing building.The existing and proposed heights would be
provided to staff.
Proposed parking for the project was briefly discussed.Staff
asked for information pertaining to the existing number of
parking spaces on the site and the justification for the total
number of parking spaces after expansion.Staff suggested
reviewing the seating capacity of the existing and proposed
convention/conference facilities as a basis for the total number
of parking spaces.
6
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5887-B
There was a lengthy discussion pertaining to the proposed
southernmost driveway.Public Works noted that the drive did
not meet the 300 foot minimum spacing recpxired from the existing
driveway.Mr.White noted that the proposed driveway was needed
in this location based on the future alignment of Embassy Drive,
which curves away from the southwest corner of this property.
Based on this alignment there would be a sliver of property
which Embassy Suites does not own,and the driveway cannot cross
someone else's property.Mr.White also explained that the
southernmost drive could act as a "T"type turnaround for the
temporary end of Embassy Drive.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised PD-C
to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
7
May 27,ls 9
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6639
NAME:Gyst House Car Wash —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Wright Avenue and Park Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Gyst House McGetrick and McGetrick
2200 Wright Avenue 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.436 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-3 6 C-3 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
and Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Car Wash
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Gyst House currently operates a car wash/detail shop at the
northwest corner of Wright Avenue and Park Street.The propertyiszonedC-3 and the car wash has a nonconforming use status.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Gyst House proposes to redevelop the site by removing theexistingbuildingandconstructinganew4,450 square foot
automated car wash building,expanding onto the R-3 zonedlotimmediatelynorthoftheexistingcarwashsite.The
applicant proposes to access the site by utilizing a
divided driveway from Park Street.There are nine (9)
parking spaces proposed as noted on the attached site plan.
The applicant has noted that the hours of operation will be
from 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.The
applicant has also noted that all work will be done within
the enclosed building.
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6639
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted previously,Gyst House currently operates a car
wash/detail shop on the property,utilizing a single
existing building.
There is a church and single-family residences to the south
across Wright Avenue and two commercial buildings
immediately west of the site.Additional single-family
residences are located to the north,northwest and east
across Park Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Wright Avenue,Central High and Downtown Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received several phone calls from
persons with concerns relating to this proposed
development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Wright Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.Traffic is 12,000 vehicles per day.A
dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline is
recpxi red .
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is recpxired
at the corner of Wright Avenue and Park Street.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Contact Traffic Engineer,Bill Henry,for redesign of
entrance.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact Water Works regarding meter size and
location.RPZ backflow protection will be recpxired for
the car wash.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
2
May 27,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6639
CATA:CATA Route ¹16 serves this site.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Central City Planning District and
was the subject of a Land Use Plan LU99-0807 that is
pending before the Board of Directors.The use is
consistent with the proposed Mixed Use category.Concerns
arise over the layout of the site.The vehicular entrance
should be off of Wright Avenue not the residential Park
Street.Buffering should be greater to the north to buffer
the residential uses to the north.Dumpsters should be
screened and not visible from the front of the property.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed land use buffer along the northern perimeter
of the site is two feet short of the minimum width
requirement of six feet.A six foot high opaque screen is
required along the northern perimeter.This screen may be
a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May
7,1999.The revised site plan shows the minimum six foot
wide land use buffer along the north property line as
required.The revised plan also shows the right-of-way
dedication for Wright Avenue and the 20 foot corner radial
dedication.
As of this writing,the following site plan design issues
have not been addressed by the applicant:
1.Staff feels that the dumpster should be oriented away
from the street.
2.Existing/proposed signage with details.
3.Type of screening to be utilized along the north
property line.
4.Design of entry drive from Park Street.
The ordinance would typically require 22 parking spaces for
an automotive service type use of this size.The proposed
site plan shows nine (9)off-street parking spaces.Based
3
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6639
on the fact that the applicant is proposing an automated
car wash and not a hand-wash facility as is currently on
the property,the parking proposed should be adequate to
serve the use.
Staff feels that redevelopment of this site should prove to
be a positive aspect for this general area and should have
no adverse effects on the surrounding property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-C with the following
conditions:
1.Resolution of the site plan design issues as noted in
paragraph G of this report.2.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E,and F of this report.3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.4.The dumpster must be serviced during daylight hours
only.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
Mr.McGetrick noted that the proposed use would be an automatedcarwashwithhoursof7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.He also notedthatalloftheworkwouldbedonewithintheenclosedbuilding.
Parking and screening/buffer issues were briefly discussed.
Access to the property was also discussed.Public Works
representatives noted that access to the site from Park Street
was preferred.They also noted that the entry drive should be
redesigned.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C to thefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.
Mr.McGetrick requested that this item be deferred to the
July 8,1999 Planning Commission agenda due to the fact that
4
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6639
there were only eight (8)planning commissioners present.The
Commission offered a deferral to all applicants.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 8,1999
Planning Commission agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
May 27,1s
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6670
Name:Charles --Short-Form POD
Location:2405 S.Battery Street
2901 Timber Creek Ct.
North Little Rock,AR 72116
The applicant,Lynda B.Charles,determined that she did not
wish to pursue the planned zoning development,based on the fact
that the Board of Directors denied the Land Use Plan Amendment
application for the property.Mrs.Charles instructed staff to
withdraw the item prior to the legal ad being published and Mrs.
Charles'iling fee was refunded.Therefore,no Planning
Commission action is required on this item.
May 27,
1'TEM
NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6671
NAME:Grubbs —Shor t-Form PD-I
LOCATION:South side of Baseline Road,approximately 1,000 feet
east of Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Grubbs,Garner,Hoskyn,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
10501 Stagecoach Road 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:3.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office,testing laboratory,
maintenance facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 3.0 acre site on the
south side of Baseline Road (1,000 feet east of I-430)from
R-2 to PD-I.The applicant proposes the following
development of the property for the Grubbs,Garner and
Hoskyn,Inc.Engineering firm:
l.A 6,048 square foot office building with a 3,960 squarefootfutureaddition.
2.A 5,000 square foot testing laboratory for the testingofconcrete,paving and soil samples.
3.A 2,800 square foot facility for maintenance of vehicles
and equipment.
4.Parking for 37 vehicles.
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6671
5.No development is proposed within the south 0.84 acresoftheproperty.
A single access drive is proposed from Baseline Road,with
building and parking locations as noted on the attachedsiteplan.The applicant has noted that a dump truck will
be parked on the site to collect the used test samples.
The hours of operation are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m.to6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.A single wall-mounted
sign is proposed to be located on the north side of theofficebuilding.The wall sign will not exceed 10 percentofthefacadeareaofthebuilding.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains two single family residences,
one of which is a mobile home,within the north one-half of
the property.The southern portion of the property is
undeveloped and wooded.
The property to the west contains two mobile homes and a
mini-storage/RV storage business,with Gator Park (go-carttracks,etc.)just further west.The property to the southisundevelopedandwooded,as is the property to the east.
There is an existing state highway department maintenancefacilitytothenorthacrossBaselineRoad,along Sibley
Hole Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no negative comments
concerning this rezoning.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Baseline Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street
lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock
2
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6671
Code.Request should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
6.Baseline Road traffic count is 4,500 vehicles per day.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available in Baseline Road,not
adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.
Fire Department:Private fire hydrants may be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA does not currently serve the proposed site;
there does not seem to be very much internal circulation
room for larger vehicles,however only CATA vans,not
larger buses would serve this site internally.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District.The site is shown as Service Trades District on
the Land Use Plan.The use is in conformance with the Land
Use Plan category.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen is required along the eastern
perimeters.This screen may be a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many
existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward compliance
with the Landscape Ordinance can be given when preserving
trees of six inch caliper or larger.
3
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6671
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required
to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May
7,1999.The revised plan addresses the concerns as raised
by the Subdivision Committee,and meets the staff
requirements.
The revised site plan notes the right-of-way dedication as
required by Public Works.The dumpster location and
screening fences are also shown.
The ordinance would typically require 37 parking spaces for
this use.The applicant has provided 37 spaces on the site
plan.
Staff feels that the proposed use of the property is
reasonable and should have no negative effect on the area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-I zoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
Mr.McGetrick noted that 37 parking spaces,dumpster location
and screening fences would be shown on a revised site plan.Mr.
McGetrick also noted that a dump truck would be parked on thesitetocollecttheusedconcrete,pavement and soil samples to
be discarded.
There was a brief general discussion relating to this property
and the general area.After the discussion,the Committee
forwarded the PD-I to the full Commission for resolution.
4
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6671
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
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 applicant stated that the south 0.84 acre
will not be developed at this time and left in its natural state
(there will be no clearing in this area).
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
May 27,1b-9
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-6669
NAME:L.T.Care Ministries —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:2615 West 15 Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Love,Truth,Care,Inc.White-Daters and Associates
2615 West 15 Street 401 Victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72216 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.07 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-4 and I-2 ALLOWED USES:Single and Two Family
Residential,Light
Industrial
PROPOSED USE:Various public/
institutional type uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Love,Truth,Care,Inc.,a community service organization,moved
to the facility at 2615 West 15 Street in November 1996.The
organization is involved in Christian community development in
the inner city neighborhood around Central High School.The
property at 2615 West 15 Street was previously used as autilitysubstationandmaintenancefacility.
Based on the fact that most of the existing and proposed future
uses of the property are not permitted by right in R-4 and I-2
zoning,a rezoning to POD is required.This rezoning will
legitimize the existing uses of the property and allow the
proposed future uses as outlined in the next paragraph.
May 27,1t
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6669
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-4 andI-2 to POD to allow for the continuing operation of the
Love,Truth,Care,Inc.facilities on the site with
additional proposed uses.The current and proposed future
uses on the property are as follows:
Currentl the facilit is bein used for:
~Administrative offices for the ministry (Bldg.I;2,000
sq.ft.)
~Adult Bible Studies (Bldg.I;portion of 900 sq.ft.
reception area;12/15 people)
~Children/Youth Development Center (Moving to Bldg.III;
2,500 sq.ft.50 children)We operate an after school
program,a Saturday program and a Monday night programforinnercitychildrenages5through18.We have
classrooms,computer lab,and recreation areas.A
building permit for renovation of an exterior building,
which will house this part of the ministry,will be
requested.
~An apartment for security personnel (Bldg.I;900 sq.ft.)
~A Urban Community Garden (South/East corner of property)
~A warehouse for distribution of used clothing,furniture
and food to needy people in the neighborhood as well as
other areas of Pulaski County.(Bldg.I;10,000 sq.ft.)
Future use of the site will include:
~JobStart Training Program (job readiness and placement)
(Bldg.I;1,000 sq.ft.15/20 people,days)
~Adult Education (GED,literacy,computer,etc.)(Bldg.I;
240 sq.ft.12/15 people,nights)
~Preschool Programs (Bldg.I;900 sq.ft.;10/12 children)
~Day Care (Bldg.I;900 sq.ft.;10/12 children)
~Elder Care (Bldg.I;900 sq.ft.;10/12 children)
~Medical Clinic (Bldg.I;225 sq.ft.)
~Vocational Training (Bldg.II;2,000 sq.ft.)
~Home Ownership &Housing Renovation (Bldg.II;portion of
2,000 sq.ft.)
~Thrift Shop (Bldg.II;portion of 2,000 sq.ft.)
~Worship,church training and counseling center (Bldg.I;
900 sq.ft.;Sundays or nights;30/40 people)
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains three (3)existing buildings as noted
on the attached site plan.A large portion of the propertyisconcreteorasphaltforvehicularuse.There are
2
May 27,14~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6669
existing driveways on the West 15 ,West 16 and JonesStreetsidesoftheproperty.
The Central High School campus (stadium)is located across
Jones Street to the east.Vacant I-2 zoned property islocatedacrossWest16Streettothesouth,with single-
family residences across West 15 Street to the north.
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located along the
property'west boundary,with commercial and industrial
buildings on the west side of the railroad right-of-way.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no negative comments
from the neighborhood.The Central High,Stephens Area
Faith and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations werenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Two 20 feet radial dedications of right-of-way are
required at Jones Street's intersections with West 15
Street and West 16 Street.
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 thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4.Close 20-feet alley.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.Request should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional waterfacilitiesarerequired.
Fire Department:No Comment.
3
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6669
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route g9 serves this site.Approved as
submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Central City Planning District.The
proposed use is in conformance with the Public
Institutional shown on the Land Use Plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 12,1999
with the additional information as requested at the
Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant notes that
the hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday.The applicant also notes that
there will be no dumpster on the site.
There are two existing wall-mounted signs on the property,
each being approximately 32 square feet in area.One is
attached to the side of Building g1 and the other is
attached to Building g2.
The applicant is proposing one (1)ground-mounted,monument
type sign ("L"shaped).The sign will have a maximum
height of six (6)feet and be approximately 40 square feet
in area.The sign will be located at the southeast corner
of the property.
The applicant also notes in the letter that Love,Truth,
Care,Inc.has been working with Ms.Ambrose and the
Central High Neighborhood Association concerning future
landscaping plans for the property.The applicant states
that a landscaping upgrade for this property will be
designed as to blend in with the long range plans of the
neighborhood association for this general area.The
applicant also states that they will meet with Bob Brown,
4
May 27,1.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6669
Site Plan Review Specialist,in developing the landscaping
upgrade plan.
The ordinance would typically require approximately 56
parking spaces (office-type zoning)for this site.This
typical requirement could be slightly more if each
individual proposed use were figured separately.With the
large amount of this property which is currently paved and
concreted,there should be adequate area for parking to
serve this use.
The survey of this property shows an existing east-west
alley right-of-way within this block.The applicant will
need to abandon this right-of-way as part of this
application.
As noted earlier,Love,Truth,Care,Inc.has been
operating from this site since November 1996.To staff's
knowledge,there have been no problems or issues associated
with this operation.Staff feels that the continuing
operation of this organization at this site (with the
additional uses proposed)should have no adverse effect on
the neighborhood.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The east-west alley right-of-way within this block must
be abandoned.3.The applicant must meet with Bob Brown,Site Plan ReviewSpecialist,and develop a future landscape upgrade planfortheproperty.Staff suggests that the upgrade be atleast50%of the current full ordinance requirements (ifthiswereanewdevelopment).4.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1 999)
Joe White and Jim Phillips were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the POD.Staff
noted additional items which needed to be shown on the site
plan.
5
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6669
The applicant noted that a deferral of the radial right-of-way
dedication would probably be requested.This was briefly
discussed.
There was a question as to whether an upgrade in landscaping on
the site could be required.Staff responded that landscape
upgrades are typically tied to new building construction and
that since there are no new buildings or building additions
proposed,there would be no upgrade in landscaping typically
required.However,staff noted that the PZD ordinance would be
reviewed to determine if an upgrade in landscaping could be
required.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:S-1231-A
NAME:Office Max —Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:South side of Chenal Parkway,between Gamble and
Atkins Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Realm Realty White-Daters and Associates
900 Town and Country Lane 401 Victory Street
Suite 210 Little Rock,AR 72201
Houston,TX 77024
AREA:5.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3 ALLOWED USES:General Commercial
PROPOSED USE:General Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance for reduced number of parking spaces.
2.Variance for reduced front setback for 6,000 square feet
retail building (west side).Twenty-five (25)foot setback
required,22 feet proposed.
BACKGROUND:
A building permit was recently issued (September 1998)for this
site which included construction of a single commercial building
and associated parking area.The building permit was issued for
the 23,492 square foot Office Max portion of the commercial
building shown on the attached site plan and 118 parking spaces
within this eastern section of the property.It was noted on
the site plan that there would be a future building addition(s)
to the Office Max building and additional parking.The building
permit included an approved landscape plan for this eastern
section of the property.
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-A
On January 21,1999,the Planning Commission approved a multiple
building site plan for the property.The site plan included the
larger Office Max commercial building and a smaller 3,682 square
foot restaurant building at the northwest corner of the
property.
As part of the site plan,the Commission also approved a
variance from the ordinance requirement for minimum number of
parking spaces.The applicant proposed 266 parking spaces for
the site.This was 29 spaces short of the minimum ordinance
requirement of 295 spaces.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously
approved site plan.The applicant proposes to increase thesizeoftheadditiontotheOfficeMaxbuildingfrom39,000
square feet to 44,495 square feet.The applicant also
proposes to increase the size of the smaller building from3,682 square feet to 6,000 square feet and use this
building for retail use rather than a restaurant.
The applicant is proposing two (2)variances with this siteplan.The first variance is a setback variance for the6,000 square foot retail building.The ordinance requiredsidesetback(west side)is 25 feet.The applicant
proposes a 22 foot setback along this property line.
The second requested variance is for a reduced number of
minimum parking spaces.With the increase in building area
proposed,the new ordinance requirement for minimum numberofparkingspacesis328spaces.The applicant proposes
268 parking spaces with this revised site plan,60 spacesshortoftheordinancerequiredminimum.The applicant hassubmittedaparkingstudydonebyPetersandAssociatestojustifythereducednumberofspaces(see copy of studyattached).
The applicant is also proposing to construct a retaining
wall along a portion of the south and west property lines.
The retaining wall will run approximately 250 feet east and
approximately 130 feet north from near the southwest corneroftheproperty.The tallest point of the wall will be
approximately 14.5 feet at the southwest corner of the
property.The wall will decrease in height running north
and east to the natural grade of the land.
The site will have a single access point from Gamble Road,
one access point from West Markham Street and a shared
2
May 27,1»
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-A
access drive from Chenal Parkway.The applicant previously
submitted a written reciprocal access easement agreement
between the two property owners (Office Max property and
Bank of the Ozarks)which was recorded in 1997 for the
shared Chenal Parkway access.
The applicant is also proposing to abandon the section of
undeveloped Atkins Road right-of-way which abuts this
property on the east side.Public Works has indicated
support of the proposed abandonment.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted previously,a building permit has been issued for
this site.The Office Max portion of the proposed buildingiscomplete.The remainder of the site has been preparedforparkingareasandadditionalbuildingconstruction.
The site sits below the grade of West Markham Street and a
portion of Gamble Road.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning.
There is an auto dealership to the west across Gamble Road
and a new bank office building to the east.Commercial
property is located across Chenal Parkway to the north.
There is a church and undeveloped 0-3 zoned property to the
south across West Markham Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber
Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.As of this writing,staff has spoken with three
(3)persons who expressed concerns regarding the
development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Some aspects of design review are limited by absence of
proposed finish grade information.
2.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
3.Close unused right-of-way on eastside of property.
4.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6.Chenal Parkway traffic count is 18,000 vehicles per day.
3
May 27,1S
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-A
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:A 15 foot easement is requested along the south and
west property lines for existing overhead facilities.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding meter size and
location.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route ¹5 serves this area.Approved as
submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comments.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed buffer along Gamble Road meets ordinance
requirements when the transfers allowed are considered,
however,it is ten feet below its full requirement of
thirty feet in width.
Another location should be found for the proposed dumpster
location at Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road.
A three foot wide building landscaping strip is required
between the proposed buildings and public parking areas.
Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
G.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A,the applicant is requesting a side
yard setback variance for the small commercial building and
a variance from the ordinance required minimum parking
standards.Staff received a parking study on May 11,1999
from Peters and Associates as justification for the parking
variance.A copy of the study is attached for commission
review.
4
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-A
Staff feels that with the increase in building area and the
variances proposed,the applicant is attempting to over-
build the site.Staff feels that the parking proposed will
not be sufficient to serve the site,especially if some of
the anticipated uses (Office Max,bridal shop)leave and
are replaced by higher volume commercial uses,such as a
restaurant or department store.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the site plan as proposed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave
a brief description of the revised site plan.Staff noted that
the applicant had requested a variance for a reduced number of
parking spaces and needed to submit written justification for
the variance.The parking issue was briefly discussed.Staff
suggested eliminating the smaller building which would decrease
the minimum number of parking spaces required.Staff noted that
the proposed site plan (with the variances requested)gave the
impression of overbuilding the site.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Public
Works under that finish grade information was needed.
Staff noted the following requirements with the previously
approved site plan:
1.One (1)evergreen tree must be planted every 20 feet along
the south and west property lines to help screen the building
in areas where the building is below the grade of thestreets.
2.Evergreen trees must be planted at the southeast corner of
Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road,to replace trees that were
removed during site preparation.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan to
the full Commission for final action.
5
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a
letter on May 20,1999 requesting that the item be withdrawn.
Staff supported the withdrawal request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion to that
effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays
and 3 absent.
6
z'4 ~4(a
PETERS &ASSOCIATES g-/g g t -4
ENGINEERS,INCORPORATED
O
April 21,1999
Mr.Jeff Yates
Realm Realty
900 Town &Country Lane
Suite 210
Houston,TX 77024
Bus:(713)463-0001
Bus Fax:(713)465-3856
Re:Parking Analysis
Chenal Commons
Chenal Parkway &Gambel Road
Dear Mr.Yates:
As you have requested we have prepared this report on research and analysis relative to parking
generation or demand associated with the referenced project in Little Rock.
We have reviewed the site plan for this development (a copy is attached)and the specific land
uses planned.The site plan calls for the construction of 269 parking spaces.Of the uses shown,
the Office Max has been constructed and is open for business.The other uses indicated are:
~Gap /Old Navy
~David's Bridal
~Noodle Kidoodle
~Retail
Often local parking codes require parking supply to be constructed as a part of a development,
based on zoned uses.This is the case with the City of I.ittle Rock.Parking rode for Little Rock
requires one parking space per 225 square feet of gross space,or 4.44 spaces per 1,000 square
feet.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)has assembled comprehensive data on Parking
Generation for various land uses and publisher this data in "Parking Generation,"2nd Edition.
The uses planned for Chenal Commons are typical of those commonly found in the ITE
"Shopping Center"category.At least two of the planned tenants (David's Bridal and Noodle
Kidoodle)are likely to be very low traffic and parking generators.The parking generation rates
therein published for shopping centers are widely accepted and are based on over 140 site studies.
The average PEAK parking rate in the for this land use in "Parking Generation"for this land use
is 3.23 spaces per 1000 square feet or one parking space per 310 square feet.
The ITE rates and City of Little Rock code requirements are compared on the following table.
P.O.BOX 21638 LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72221 (501)225-0500 FAX:(501)225-0602
Page 2
05/07/99
Parking per lTE ITE
Leasable City Code Pauli Parking Rate Peak Parking Spaces
Use Area @1/225 SF Weekday Weekday
Office Max 23492 104 3.23/1000 76
Gap/Old Navy 25000 111 3.23/1000 81
David's Bridal 11500 51 3.23/1000 37
Noodle Kidoodle 8000 36 3.23/1000 26
Retail 6000 27 3.23/1000 19
Totals:73992 329 239
As can be seen in this comparison,City of little Rock Code for this development would normally
require 329 parking spaces to be provided.This parking provision would be 90 parking spaces in
excess of the peak parking generation which could be expected for this development,based on the
referenced ITE rates.
We conclude the development can be well and sufficiently served with approximately 239
parking spaces.This will require a parking variance to be granted by the Planning Commission.
We believe these findings are good basis for this variance to be granted.
If there are any questions concerning these findings,or if additional information is needed please
contact me.We will be available for any questions by the City planning staff or the Planning
Commission.
Sincerely,
PETE &SSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC.
rnest J.Peters,P.E.
President
RECEIVED
MAY 1 1 1999
BY:
634-/etter-report.doc
Peen +/CI
Ze ',R,Pgq;,N-~I/(.y Amp 8 9 /'/g'f -(Pj9CX /4+
$40"QlX~4((i'„;iigk/11';(~i(~~a,'
l/~-K~ck .C~.~(ii((//;;~~~&8rea.P(;/«~(.&~a.
k2fiby X u'PER/~,.$g P i W 5 CC/,(/YAFMPJ,7TH(/
.PVM~/+6+~26/(8 ((/C&W M PEP//(+ig fHAC/S~s wd(IJP@ 'kA//Jkv(/~~~l~&ll'+4 /18@4 pwf'lPf&
i/1 OPPO~i~v0.&S &:Pld(.(1gc5Y I&d&MX~
P-'g~'2('/&Llnj(~(&V j PC]~i/Pig&-/'-ngi7S.X ~)~)'~P
5ngY~R CLAP-,Q I;f(&+i-V(W~~g&Z'-H.i&?;~&Zg+C'r Ci~iCl&LWC(~
C6(ZC@(C'I&1./+if'll &il866./&~4!+~(~4/:C'/'S /+&&I C4O(~AA 8
y'-,g~C(/P'(It'&g)/(lg(C.Ron,n,((n(4 .HS tlag c7n"g
1
C '
V~rgl(iaaf
(Yn;(;1 ea~a(rgl(i'&4''-I(-(~+'JC(Pr,'c»r,~/~
O I;/rYiPrOC(Q +RtL64g 7&/-~~--I'rt'l.~
I Vg/g~rgC/6+~i4fm~~™~~y~g S(C(2&C/~CkO-QRVH
(~i(/t~A&/E.VlC'&PP(.PAw~g
C'/1 V I/'0(1/(1 gpss
P((I~~cy '~!if'J fihqJ AbcD (DC'/o&/g/./Cr~/
6/(t'H4 '4(~id'8&P-Ai'i/r7i:eC CAo l&r7g&rue&~VP&CPiliC WMS~CI—
I~jl//n ~(P/Ol/lgA C/CMMlg ice~,q C(.4 (&ZDPZ:
p~c~ica CI'c(~n 6/(-'n=l po'o((c/i1('ling((+Nvil /~lily'E 'cf"n'~.
f("/(~~a (/1C i (1go~&5 ~/o/14 &+~c'(d/ck~~&
Q~~C&C//Of-
%~,P //(/C'r~(,r+War g(a 4g(/ya POPu/C+(N~~Tn(Cm
C4~(n+lC (~C~C1I(Ã~CC(Plg~uP',~g~c PEN7ii
S(/&i//C//k"I (-"~7(8 P(~V'((be C~
=-(~tm"6 a ('~vnm(~(=//-1-d~p~fo(~/1 ceo's /~der"/
i
i
I
I(Zw'&~A ~8 pg &J
iV)O)OglMJ Pp C)g&~qy ~yp
COY i p65ffDf ~~,~Cg/gC'/~/jag
lf)I 7%+D P'A~&bar ~i~lie
/l~&5M &7~&yg,q
Dll:Ce~
FAw~QM
glbf'ID kh &t"7(uH6yl"IMQ 1 gpjgg~g&+pg~P~~g
c)~&M'L
RECEIUED
MAY 19 1999
BY:
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:S-1248
NAME:Otter Creek Town Center —Subdivision Site Plan Review
and Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Interstate 30 and Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Otter Creek Land Co.McGetrick and McGetrick
¹2 Otter Creek Court 319 East Markham St.,Ste.202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:258 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2
FT.NEW STREET:Approximately 9,000 linear feet
ZONING:C-3 and C-4 ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a multiple building site plan
for the 258 acre property at the northwest corner of I-30
and I-430.The property is zoned C-3 and C-4 and the
applicant is proposing C-3 type uses for the entire
property.The applicant has noted that no auto dealerships
are planned for the property.The only exception to thisisthe128,650 square foot building (with 49,150 square
foot garden center)which faces I-30.The applicant is
requesting a conditional use permit for this building to
allow for the operation of a home center due to the fact
that most of the building falls within the C-3 zoning (a
home center is a conditional use in C-3 zoning).
The applicant is proposing building,parking areas,access
and street design as noted on the attached site plan.
May 27,1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1248
There are also areas noted as being reserved for future
development.
The applicant is proposing a total of 994,531 square feetofcommercialbuildingareaand5,610 parking spaces.
The proposed Lot 1 as noted on the attached site plan shows
three (3)large retail buildings and three (3)smaller
commercial buildings,totaling 264,480 square feet.There
are 1,390 parking spaces proposed for this parcel.
Lot 2 as noted on the site plan contains multiple
commercial buildings totaling 610,051 square feet and a
120,000 square foot theatre (5,000 seats).A total of
4,220 parking spaces is proposed for this parcel.
The applicant has noted that a revised preliminary plat
would be submitted as part of this application.A
preliminary plat for this property was approved by the
Planning Commission on August 6,1998.None of the
property has been final platted.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 258 acre site is currently undeveloped and mostly
wooded.The property is the former proposed Otter Creek
Mall site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Otter Creek Neighborhood Association was notified of
the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received
no comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.AHTD approval required.
2.Traffic impact study will be required.
3.The inner road needs to be named and approved by thisoffice.Avoid any name with "Otter Creek"attached toit.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:Utility easements (30 feet)requested along the
north and west property lines and 10 foot easements
requested along both sides of the proposed street.
2
May 27,19~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1248
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Installation of water facilities is required
including off site water mains.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Express Route ¹30 serves near this site;too
much parking in the front of buildings on the south side of
the site.Could some parking spaces be re-located to the
back of the facilities or does the pond offer views for the
garden offices?
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed street buffer along Interstate 30 does not
meet the average width requirements of sixty feet.The
proposed width is about twenty feet for the most part.The
minimum requirement with transfers would be forty feet.
The proposed average street buffer width proposed along
Creek Road falls about ten feet below the minimum width
requirement of twenty-three feet.The full requirement
without transfers is thirty-four feet.
The proposed street buffer width for the street planned to
go through the center of the two developments meets the
ordinance requirement of twenty feet when averaged out,
though it drops to a width of about ten feet in areas.
A three foot wide landscape strip is required between
public parking areas and the buildings.Some flexibility
with this requirement is allowed.
Dumpsters location must be shown.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many
existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling
3
May 27,1&~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1248
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of six inch caliper or larger.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
May 13,1999.The revised plan addresses some of the
concerns raised by the Subdivision Committee.The revised
plan shows the 45 foot setbacks and building lines within
the C-4 zoned portion as required.Dumpster locations are
also shown.
One of the concerns that staff has with the site plan is
the uninterrupted traffic flow from one end of the proposedstreettotheother,in front of the grocery,home center
and entertainment complexes.Staff felt that traffic
calming devices should be designed to break up this drive.
The revised plan shows a single traffic circle near the
southeast corner of the property between the grocery and
home center complexes.Staff feels that this is not
adequate and that additional traffic calming devices should
be installed.
As noted earlier,total proposed parking for Lot 1 is 1,390
spaces,with 4,220 spaces proposed for Lot 2.The minimum
ordinance requirement for Lot 1 is 1,175 spaces,215 spaces
over the minimum requirement.The minimum requirement for
Lot 2 is 3,711 parking spaces,509 spaces over the minimum.
Staff feels that the total number of parking spaces should
be reduced,with additional landscaping provided,
especially within the street buffer areas.
There are also Public Works issues which need to be
resolved,primarily the issue of traffic and circulation.
The applicant has submitted a traffic study to Public
Works,but as of this writing no response from Public Works
has been received.Staff will attempt to have this issue
resolved prior to the public hearing.
Although staff is relatively pleased with the concept of
the proposed site plan,there are issues which need to be
resolved.Issues relating to internal traffic circulation,
number of parking spaces and Public Works Traffic issues
4
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1248
need to be resolved before this plan can be fully supported
by staff.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.3.A revised preliminary plat must be submitted to staff.
4.The issue relating to internal traffic circulation must
be resolved (traffic calming).5.Staff feels that the total number of parking spaces
should be reduced with additional landscaping provided.6.The Public Works traffic issues must be resolved.7.Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitforthehomecenter.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MAY 6,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Tommy Hodges were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the site plan
and noted additional information which needed to be shown on a
revised site plan.
Mr.Hodges noted that the garden offices shown on the originalsiteplansubmittedwouldberemoved.
Staff noted that the drives in front of the grocery store
complex and the home center complex needed to be broken-up to
provide traffic calming in these areas.
The Public Works requirements were briefly reviewed.Public
Works Staff noted that a traffic impact study for this proposed
development would be required.The future one-way service roads
for I-30 were briefly discussed.
Mr.Hodges noted that the service road issue and the future
off-ramp issue (I-430)had been worked out with the State
Highway Department.
Staff noted that many of the proposed street buffers do not meet
the average width requirements.Mr.McGetrick indicated that
the appropriate buffers would be shown on a revised site plan.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan to
the full Commission for final action.
5
May 27,15
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1248
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Tommy Hodges were present,representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff gave a
detailed description of the proposed site plan.
Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He noted that he was available to answer any
questions.
Frank Riggins,representing the City Beautiful Commission,
encouraged the developer to save as many mature trees within the
site as possible.
Commissioner Muse asked for clarification on the landscaped
areas and tree preservation.
Mr.Hodges noted that a number of the trees around an existing
pond on the site would be preserved.He stated that 90 to
100 acres of the property would be given to the Arkansas Game
and Fish Department for preservation.He noted that there would
be a park-like setting around the pond area.He also noted that
this property was cleared several years ago and the trees which
are currently on the site are young,small trees.Mr.Hodges
stated that 300 to 400 parking spaces were eliminated on the
site plan in order to provide increased landscape buffers and to
redesign the internal traffic circulation.
Commissioner Adcock asked when the project construction would
begin.
Mr.Hodges stated that construction was anticipated to begin in
late summer of 1999.
A motion was made to approve the site plan as recommended bystaff.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent
and 1 abstention (Lowry).
6
May 27,1b
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO:2-5931-A
NAME:Lewis Street Church of Christ —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2716 S.Lewis Street
OWNER/APPL I CANT:Lewis Street Church of Christ
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit at 2716 S.Lewis Street to allow
for small additions to the front of the
church and an additional 150 seating
capacity.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The existing church is located on the west side of Lewis
Street,between 27th and 29th streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This mixed zone R-3,0-3 and C-3 property is bordered on
the north and east by residential R-3 zoning,to the east
across Lewis Street by a PCD,on the southwest by 0-3
office zoning and to the south by C-3 commercial zoning.
This church has been at this location since 1962 and
appears to have fit into the neighborhood well.The
additional on-site parking that is being added as part of
the overall project will help reduce the need to park off-
site and/or on the street,which should be of benefit to
the neighborhood.Staff believes this use would continue
to be compatible with the neighborhood.
The Midway and Curren-Conway Neighborhood associations were
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the parking areas is mostly undefined.The
paving covers all the area up to the curb all along LewisStreet.There are a couple of areas where asphalt was
added into the gutter to ease the transition into the
parking areas at other areas other than at existing curb
cuts.
May 27,1S-9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5931-A
The Main Sanctuary seating capacity is 540.The 1995 CUP
file stated that the requirement was for 54 spaces based on
the standards in 1962 when the church was first built,but
that the Board of Adjustment approved a parking variance
allowing for only 24 on-site required parking spaces in
conjunction with an agreement from the owner across Lewis
Street allowing church members to use that parking lot.
This proposal increases seating by 150,and therefore,
increases required parking by 37 spaces using today'
standard of 1 space per 4 seats.Considering the 1995
adjusted requirement for 24 and the additional requirement
now for 37,the total required parking would be 61 spaces.
The current plan shows 59 parking spaces south of the
church plus about 18 spaces in the north parking area.The
church paved additional parking in conjunction with the
last CUP in February 1995,and they have installed
additional parking again with this proposal.Those parking
areas must meet current design and construction standards,
including screening and buffers and interior landscaping.
The applicant has requested a variance to downgrade the
requirements approved in 1995 to asphalt and railroad
timbers within the parking areas instead of concrete curb
and gutters.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
a.The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum of six
percent (1,557 square feet)of the interior of the
vehicular use area be landscaped with interior landscape
islands.The proposed revised plan would meet this
requirement.
0
b.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings are required along the western perimeter of
the site.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Lewis and 29 Streets are both commercial streets.th
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline for
both.
b.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.c.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements
2
May 27,1)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5931-A
to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
d.Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.f.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water
service is required.The water main in Lewis Street is
only a 2-inch main and the largest meter available off this
main is a W-inch.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route 416 serves this site;approved as
submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit to expand the seating capacity within the existing
sanctuary by 150 seats,and add some small additions to the
front of the main church building for a vestibule and
bathrooms.The increased seating will generate an increase
in required parking by 37 spaces.The building additions
encroach into the front setback by 10 feet,generating the
need for a variance to reduce the front setback to 15 feet
for 59 feet of the front 130 feet frontage along Lewis
Street.The reason for building onto the front was stated
to be that they had no other direction to build what they
wanted.
Part of the requirements of the C.U.P in 1995 were to build
parking areas in accordance with City ordinance standards.
3
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5931-A
standards.That was never done and will have to be
corrected as a condition of this revised CUP and to obtain
a building permit for the additions proposed.The
applicant has also requested to use railroad ties to
border the parking area and outline interior landscape
areas rather than curb and gutter.Staff feels that would
be satisfactory.
The applicant has asked for waivers to two of Public
Works'equirements,ie.dedication of right-of-way,and
street improvements.
The church is located at the southern fringe of a large
residential net.ghborhood and is located in an area
bordering mixed zoning containing uses ranging from
offices to retail to light manufacturing.Staff believes
that the proposed building additions and additional
parking lots will not have a negative impact on the
adjacent neighborhood.The additional parking should ease
the parking impact,and bring the church into compliance
with the City's on-site parking requirements as adjusted
by the Board of Adjustment.
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 &Buffer ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Correct parking areas south of the church to meet City
ordinance standards.
d.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must be
directed downward and inward to the property and not
directed toward any residential area.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance for a
reduced front setback to 15 feet,and using railroad
timbers and asphalt rather than concrete curb and
gutters.Public Works just received the waiver request
and had not determined a recommendation for the waivers at
the time this was written.
4
May 27,1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5931-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999 )
Earnest Smith from the Architecture Innovations Group was
present representing the application.Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments.
Staff and Committee members reviewed with Mr.Smith the
screening and buffer requirements,the parking lot corrections
needed,and the need for an updated property survey.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded it on to the full Commission for final
resolution.
However,two issues remained open regarding Public Works
requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
Ron Woods was present representing the application.There were
no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval of the application and of the
variances requested subject to compliance with the conditions
listed under "Staff Recommendation."Staff also recommended
approval of the waiver requests regarding dedication of right-
of-way,street widening,and driveway spacing.The applicant had
agreed to install a sidewalk built to ordinance standards.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff including the variances for reduced
setback,using railroad timbers and asphalt rather than concrete
curb and gutter,and a recommendation to approve the waivers as
stated above.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
5
May 27,1.9
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO:Z-6300-B
NAME:Parker Dealership -Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Shackleford and
Shackleford West Roads
OWNER/APPLICANT:Shackleford West L.L.C./Frank Riggins
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
a car dealership at the southwest
corner of S.Shackleford and
Shackleford West Roads on property
zoned C-2,Shopping Center District.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is a vacant lot at the southwest corner of S.
Shackleford and Shackleford West Roads.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is on property zoned C-2,Shopping CenterDistrict.To the north and west is zoned C-2,to the southiszoned0-3,General Office District,and to the east
across Shackleford is zoned 0-2,Office and InstitutionalDistrict.The main reason this proposal requires a CUP is
because of the outside storage of merchandise in the form
of cars for sale.This site lies in a developing
office/commercial area and it and the tract immediately to
the west are currently undeveloped and tree covered.
Across Shackleford West a clinic is under construction.
The uses surrounding the area range from office buildings
to clinics to a nearby hospital.Staff believes this use
will be compatible with the neighborhood.
There are no neighborhood associations currently active in
this area.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal contains only one access drive from
Shackleford West.The applicant agreed that off loading of
vehicles would be done on the property.
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6300-B
Automotive service areas require 5 spaces plus 1 space per
250 sq.feet of gross building area,which would result in
73 required spaces.The office area (to include the inside
car display area)would require 1 space per 400 sq.feet of
gross floor area or 21 required spaces.The total required
spaces would be 94 including 4 handicap accessible spaces.
The site plan shows 27 spaces designated for employee and
customer parking,and a total of 206 spaces including four
handicap accessible spaces.The 15 spaces designated for
employees seems inadequate.The ordinance does not have
any standard for car dealership display parking for cars.
However,174 display spaces seems like a lot for this type
of highend car.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
a.The street buffers along Shackleford West and
Shackleford Roads meet ordinance minimum requirements
when averaged out and with the transfers allowed by
ordinance.The full street buffer width along
Shackleford West Road is twenty feet and along
Shackleford Road twenty-two feet.Minimum widths with
transfers are thirteen feet and fourteen and one-half
feet respectively.The Plans Review Specialist believes
the width of these street buffers should not drop below
the minimums.In C-4 zoned outdoor displays,no displayisallowedwithinthefronttwentyfeet.
b.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many existing trees as feasible.Extra credit toward
fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given
when saving trees of six inch caliper or larger.
c.Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.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 required.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofShacklefordRoadandShacklefordWest.c.Staff has concerns about drainage crossing private
property.Obtain easement or relocate pipe.
2
May 27,1)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6300-B
d.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.e.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.f.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.
g.Property frontage needs to have sidewalks and ramps
brought up to ADA standards.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Fire Department about possible
requirements for on-site fire protection.Contact the
Water Works about requirements for water service.An
acreage charge of $150/acre applies in addition to normal
connection charges.
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Requested a 10 foot easement along the entire
west side of the property.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route ¹3 is near this site;approved as
submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
construct a Parker Lexus car dealership on this 4 acre C-2
zoned property.There would be a single building located
generally in the center of the property consisting of
approximately 17,000 square feet of service area and 8,500
square feet of office and inside display area.Much of the
area around the building would be paved for customer,
employee,and car display areas.There would be a single
entry from Shackleford West into the site.The property
slopes upward significantly from Shackleford West to the
southern property line.A large cut will be made into the
3
May 27,1)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6300-B
slope towards the south.A 20 foot undisturbed buffer will
be maintained at the top of that cut adjacent to the office
zoned property to the south.The proposed site is
surrounded on the other 3 sides by commercial or office
zoned property.
This 4.0 acre tract is part of a larger 8.207 acre tract,
the other 4.2 acres being to the west and also currently
vacant and zoned C-2.The Planning Commission approved a
zoning site plan for the west 4.207 acres of this tract on
October 15,1998.The approved site plan was for the Little
Rock Cardiology Clinic,with the east 4.0 acres being noted
as future development.Based on the fact that two separate
ownerships are proposed for this 8.207 acre tract,and that
the resulting lots will be less than five acres in size,a
staff-level preliminary and final plat will be required as
part of this conditional use permit.
The proposed revised site plan does meet or exceed the
ordinance setback requirements,screening and buffer
requirements,and parking requirements.
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 &Buffer ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must be
directed downward and inward to the property and not
directed toward any residential area.
d.A staff-level preliminary and final plat will be
required as part of this conditional use permit.e.All off loading of transport vehicles must be done on
the site,not in any surrounding streets.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1998 )
Wes Lowder and Frank Riggins were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments.Staff reviewed the
buffer,parking and setback issues,plus the requirements under
"Other"comments.The applicant felt they could meet the
requirements noted.
4
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6300-B
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded it to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
Frank Riggins was 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."
Commissioner Berry stated his concern over the site having more
display parking spaces than needed.He suggested that the
applicant and staff work together to reduce the total number of
display parking spaces.He also made the point that he felt the
car purchasing methods are changing as more people take
advantage of the internet to purchase and the need for large
inventory of on site cars is decreasing.
Mr.Riggins stated that they would comply with all of Public
Works and City Staff requests.One of those requests by Public
Works that had been added was to align the driveway into this
site with the driveway into the property directly to the north.
Mr.Lawson,City Planning Director,suggested that the
Commission approve the proposal with the understanding that the
applicant and Staff would work together to eliminate 20 parking
spaces.He added that Mr.Riggins could not himself commit to do
that for the owner,but that by making it a condition of the
approval,then Staff and the owner should be able to make that
reduction.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations which would include
aligning the entry driveway with the one across Shackleford West
which enters the property to the north,and reducing the total
number of proposed uncommitted parking spaces by 20.The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and 4 absent.
5
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO:Z-6658
NAME:Western Hills Golf Course —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:5207 Western Hills Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:52 Equity Members of the Western Hills Golf
Course/James Renfrow
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for the
Western Hills Golf Course located at 5207
Western Hills Avenue for an additional
building for golf cart storage on this
existing golf course property which is zoned
R-2 ,Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The golf course is on the east side of Western Hills
Avenue,between Fairways and Lakeside Drives.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This golf club has existed at this site for many years.ItissurroundedbyR-2 zoned property to the north,west and
south.To the east,near University,is some MF 12 and
commercial zoned property.The golf cart storage building
would be about 80 feet from Western Hills Avenue with some
trees and shrubbery decreasing its view.The construction
materials would be toned down to blend in and doors would
face the golf course.Staff believes this additional
building will not have a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood when toned down and properly screened.
The Westwood Neighborhood Association was notified of the
public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The golf course has two existing entrances from Western
Hills Avenue.No changes to those are proposed in this
application.Access to the new building will be from paths
along the golf course and from the existing north side
parking lot.No additional parking requirements are
generated by this building.
May 27,1S
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6658
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
It is recommended by the Plans Review Specialist that
additional evergreen screening,such as Burford Hollies,be
planted between the proposed maintenance facility and
Western Hills Avenue to help soften its impact.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Driveways shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.Eliminate one drive to meet 300'eparation.
Provide concrete apron at gravel driveway.
b.Western Hill Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.c.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.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
e.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the
Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.f.A sketch grading and drainage plan,a special flood
hazard permit,and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas are required.Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ)and NPDES permits are also
required.
g.Dedicate floodway easement to the city.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water service
is required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
2
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6658
CATA:Not currently served by CATA;approved as submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
(C.U.P.)to add a one story golf cart storage building on
an existing tennis court pad just north of the north side
parking lot along Western Hills Avenue.The proposed
building would have to have a residential siding style or
look to it,and have a non-reflective roof and skin for all
areas that can be seen from residential areas.
The site plan exceeds setback requirements and does not
generate any parking requirements.Access will be from
paths from the golf course and the existing north side
parking lot.Currently the site is set up to be used as a
tennis court,but doesn't get used.The deteriorated
fencing and tennis court lighting would be removed.The
new building will take up most of the current pad.Any
excess pad will remain in place.
The area surrounding the site where the new building would
be located is R-2 residential across Western Hills Avenue.
The existing golf course is to the north and immediate
east.A parking lot and club house is to the south.
Abutting the golf course property to the east is a mixture
of MF12 and commercial zoning,but those areas are far from
the actual building site.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of the site
and be compatible with the neighborhood as long as the
exterior features of the building are toned down and
required screening is installed.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Additional evergreen screening is to be planted between
the proposed building and Western Hills Avenue to help
soften its impact.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.
3
May 27,1.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6658
c.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must be
directed downward and inward to the property and not
directed toward any residential area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999)
Jim Renfrow was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments.The applicant plans to
pay 15%inlieu to the City for the street improvements.
A brief discussion took place with the Committee regarding three
issues:locating the new building where the carts are stored
now,subduing the look of the new building,and how much of the
current tennis court and existing fence and lighting would be
used.The applicant explained that the current area couldn't be
used because this building would provide additional storage
capability,not replace what they had now.The applicant agreed
to tone down the building.The applicant stated that the
existing tennis court fence and most of the lighting would be
removed.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
Jim Renfrow was 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."
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
4
May 27,1'
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO:Z-6665
NAME:Divine Revelation Institute —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:4400 W.28th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Bernice Lasley
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to use an
existing residential house located at 4400
W.28th Street for up to 25 people for
church or religious/spiritual related
activities such as lectures,discussions
question/answer sessions and plays about the
Bible,and also weddings,on property zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located at the northwest corner of W.28th and
Peyton Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located on,and surrounded by,R-3 zoned
residential property.The actual use surrounding this site
is single family houses.Peyton Street is very narrow,
fairly busy,and has open ditches on both sides,no curb
and gutter;and 28th Street is a standard residential
street with curb and gutter.The lot is a small 50 foot by
139 foot lot.
Staff believes this type of use at this site would not be
compatible with the neighborhood and would have negative
impacts on the area.Those impacts include weekly
intensive use and increased concentrated traffic and
activity much greater than normal residential use.The
amount of paving required to provide the minimum on site
parking would negatively impact the residential nature of
the site,and most likely not contain much of the actual
parking.The overflow parking would end up on the street.
Peyton is narrow and has no room for on-street parking.
Parking on 28th would negatively impact the neighbors and
area traffic flow.
May 27,1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6665
The Midway and Curran-Conway Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site would be at two points from PeytonStreet.One point is an existing driveway and the other
would be from the alley into a parking area.The minimum
requirement for parking can be met,but only by paving much
of the rear yard.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
a.A minimum on-site landscape strip is required between
the proposed paved areas and Peyton Street by the
Landscape Ordinance.
b.A six foot high opaque screen is required along the
western perimeter.This screen may be a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings.
c.Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.West 28 and Peyton Streets are commercial streets.th
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of West 28 and Peyton Street.th
c.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
d.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
e.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.f.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
g.Redesign parking to meet city standards.
2
May 27,1 9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6665
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Routes ¹14 &16 serve this site;approved as
submitted.
7.STAFF UPDATE:
On May 12,1999,Staff received a letter from the applicant
requesting withdrawal of this application.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for withdrawal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999)
Bernice Lasley was present representing her application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff and the Committee reviewed all of the comments with the
applicant clarifying the content and reasons and answering her
questions.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
The applicant requested in writing withdrawal of the item on
May 12,1999.The withdrawal was supported by Staff and the
3
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6665
Commission placed the item on the Consent Agenda under Consent
Withdrawal.The withdrawal was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays,3 absent.
4
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO:Z-6666
NAME:Church of Jesus Christ —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1123 W.34th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Addie Bailey/Sandra L.Walker
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to use a
house located on R-4,Two Family zoned
property,at 1123 W.34 Street,for bibleth
study.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the southeast corner of 34th and Cross
Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located on,and surrounded by,R-4 zoned two-
family residential property.The actual use surrounding
this site is one and two family houses.Cross Street is
very narrow,and has deep open ditches on both sides,no
curb and gutter;and 34th Street is a standard residential
street with curb and gutter and a sidewalk.The lot is a
small 50 foot by 140 foot lot.
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site would be from the alley into a parking
area on the property.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
a.A six foot high opaque screen either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreen
plantings are required along the eastern perimeter of
the site.
b.Prior to a building permit,a detailed landscape plan
must be approved by the Plans Review Specialist.
May 27,1s~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6666
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Cross Street and West 34 Street are commercialth
streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Cross and West 34 Street.th
c.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.
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 AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route ¹11 serves this site;approved as
submitted.
7.STAFF UPDATE:
On May 6,1999,just prior to the Subdivision Committee
meeting Staff received a letter requesting withdrawal of
this application.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal.
2
May 27,1 9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6666
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999)
The applicant had delivered to the Committee meeting a letter
requesting withdrawal.Staff advised the Committee of the
withdrawal request.Therefore,the item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
The applicant requested in writing withdrawal of the item on
May 6,1999.The withdrawal was supported by Staff and the
Commission placed the item on the Consent Agenda under Consent
Withdrawal.The withdrawal was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays,3 absent.
3
May 27,1"9
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO:Z-6667
NAME:Edna Wise —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:5820 Posey Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT:Clyde 6 Edna Mae Wise/Ruth Ann Minton
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to use a
manufactured home for an accessory dwelling
at 5820 Posey Lane on property which is
outside the Little Rock City Limits,but
within the City's extraterritorial zoning
area,and is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located at the end and on the north side of
Posey Lane.Posey Lane is on the west side of Crystal
Valley Road near the intersection with Red Bud,
approximately 0.3 mile south of Lawson Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is on,and surrounded by,R-2 zoned single family
residential property.Posey Lane is a rural style road
which ends at the applicants property.The lots are one
acre in size and some of the other lots on this lane have
single wide manufactured homes on them.
Staff believes this use would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
There are no neighborhood associations currently active in
this area.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is a single unpaved driveway to the house which would
also serve the accessory dwelling.There is an area already
being used to pull off the driveway next to the carport.
That would provide the required one parking space.
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6667
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Water main extension required.Approval of the City
required for water service.
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:This site is outside the Little Rock
service area.
CATA:Not currently served by CATA;approved as submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
locate a new 16 by 80 foot single wide manufactured home to
be used for an accessory dwelling on this R-2 single family
residential zoned property located outside the Little Rock
City limits,but within the extraterritorial zoning area.
There is a 984 square foot main stick-built house on the
property.The accessory dwelling is to be used for the
granddaughter to live on the property and take care of her
grandmother who owns the property.
The proposed location of the accessory dwelling exceeds all
setbacks required,but it also exceeds the 700 square foot
gross floor area permitted by ordinance for an accessory
dwelling.In addition,it also is about 300 square feet
larger than the main house which also violates the
ordinance.The applicant has requested to not be held to
the ordinance siting standards of "removal of all transport
elements,"(they wish to leave the tongue on);and
2
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6667
"permanent foundation,"which includes anchoring standards,
the block piers are not cemented together or mounted on
concrete in-the-ground footings,nor are the anchors bolted
to the frame.Variances would be required for these
issues.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of the
property and not be detrimental to the neighborhood.Staff
supports leaving the tongue on if properly screened,but
does not support varying from the permanent foundation and
anchoring for safety reasons.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit,
subject to installing a permanent foundation.Staff also
recommends approval of variances to leave the tongue on
with proper screening and to allow the larger gross floor
square footage.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance to the
requirements for a permanent foundation and anchoring
because of concerns about safety to the occupants if the
standards are reduced.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999)
Ruth Ann Minton was present representing the applicant.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff clarified what the siting standards were in regard to a
"permanent foundation."Ms Minton stated that since the home
was already in place,and she considers its placement temporary,
she prefers not to change the foundation and anchoring.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
There were only eight Commissioners present.Therefore,as is
policy,the Chairman offered all applicants the opportunity to
defer their item to the next regular Subdivision Planning
3
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6667
Commission Hearing without any penalty or prejudice.The
applicant chose to defer this item until July 8,1999.
4
May 27,19~9
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO ~.'-6680
Owner:Stephens Group,Inc.
Applicant:Robert M.Brown
Location:500-600 Block of East 3'treet
Request:Rezone from PD to GB
Purpose:Office Development
Size:2.07 acres
Existing Use:Vacant block
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Parking lot and freeway access ramp;zoned HDRSouth—Post office and parking lot;zoned GBEast—I-30 right-of-way
West —Older industrial building being remodeled for
mixed residential/business use;zoned GB
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1 .A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of -way is required at allcorners.
2.Improve corner curb radius to 31.5 feet radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 10 feet).3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master StreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to thesestreetsincluding5footsidewalkswithplanneddevelopment.4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
5.As part of the building permit,repair or replace any curb andgutterorsidewalkthatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way
prior to occupancy.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work at the time of building
permit.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA bus route.The new CATA
consolidated transfer station is to be constructed 1 block west,of this site.
May 27,1999
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The Downtown,East End Civic League,River Market and MacArthur
Park Neighborhood Associations,all owners of property within
200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet of thesitewerenotifiedoftherezoningrequest.Additional notice
was sent to the Little Rock Housing Authority and Little Rock
National Airport Manager.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Downtown Planning District.The Land
Use Plan currently recommends multifamily for both blocks
proposed for development,although the eastern block is now
zoned GB.The Downtown Little Rock Framework for the future
includes a proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for this area.
Staff believes the applicant's proposed office development meets
the intent of the proposed Urban Mixed Use designation
contemplated for the area.The Land Use Plan changes will be
considered by the Planning Commission and City Board at a nearby
future date.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Axciom Corporation is proposing to construct a major new office
development on the blocks bounded by East 3',East 4 ,Commerce
and Ferry Streets (Blocks 14 and 15,Pope'Addition).The
eastern block,Block 14,is now zoned GB,General Business.The
western block,Block 15,is currently zoned PD,Planned
Development.On November 18,1980,Sherman Oaks Planned
Development was approved for Block 15 and some residential units
were constructed.They were subsequently removed.The
applicant is now asking that the PD be revoked and the block
rezoned to GB.The three requests before the Commission are to
revoke the PD (restoring the zoning to HR),to rezone the
property from HR to GB and to review a site development plan.
Section 36-408(b)of the Zoning Plan for the Central Little Rock
Urban Renewal Project states:
Additional areas may be included in the general
business district subject to a public hearing,a
written recommendation by the housing authority or
the department of housing and urban development
within thirty (30)days,recommendation by the
2
May 27,19&9
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
planning commission,and approval by the board of
directors provided the following requirements are
met:
(1)The land covers either a minimum area of forty-
five thousand (45,000)square feet or one-half a
city block exclusive of any alley.
(2)The area is adjacent to,not diagnal from,the
general business district.
(3)Site development plans are submitted to the
planning commission.
Block 15 is appropriate for rezoning to GB.The blocks adjacent
to the south,east and west are zoned GB.The land includes the
entire block,90,000 square feet and the zoning is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area.
As was stated earlier,the block east of Block 15 is included in
Axciom's development plans.This GB zoned block currently
contains a small vacant building.The HDR zoned block to the
north was developed as a parking lot to support uses in the
River Market District.Interstate 30 and a freeway entrance
ramp also border the proposed development on the north and east.
A large post office facility occupies the two blocks south of
the site.The block to the west contains parking lots and the
old Tuf-Nut building which is being remodeled for a mixed
residential/commercial occupancy.
A recommendation of approval of the rezoning has been received
from the Housing Authority.
Axciom has submitted a "conceptual"site development plan.The
plan proposes the construction of an office development which
may include one building or "twin"buildings occupying the two
blocks.The total maximum height proposed is seventeen stories,
seven floors of parking and ten floors of office space.No
setback is required in the GB district unless the property abuts
a residential district.In this case,the development includes
the entirety of two blocks with no abutting residentialdistrict.No surface parking has been proposed.The applicant
has suggested that a building will be built on one of the
blocks,with the second block being developed as a lawn/park-
like area as Phase I.A second phase could include development
of a second building.Since the GB district allows for full
coverage of the site,very little in the way of a site
development plan is necessary.
3
May 27,19&9
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
The GB district has a floor/area ratio of 5.0 which would limit
a building occupying the entire property to 5 stories.AxciomisreqllestingavariancefromtheBoardofAdjustmentforthe
increased height (floor/area ratio).
The Downtown Planning District Land Use Plan currently
recommends Multifamily for the site,including the block already
zoned GB.A proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for this area of
downtown will create a new Urban Mixed Use designation.Staff
believes Axciom's development meets the intent of the new
designation.The Commission and City Board will consider the
Land Use Plan Amendment at a nearby future date.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION
Staff recommends approval of the revocation of Sherman Oaks
Planned Development for Block 15,rezoning of Block 15 to GB and
the site development plan for Blocks 14 and 15.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 6,1 999)
Robert Brown was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item.Mr.Brown stated that Axciom was proposing
to construct one building on Block 14 and that Block 15 would be
used as a park/lawn area at this time.He stated that Axciom
was aware that further approval,either from the Planning
Commission or the Board of Adjustment,would be necessary prior
to development of another building on the second block.It was
noted that the proposed building occupied the entire block,
leaving very little in the way of a site plan to review.An
elevation showing a concept of the proposed building was
presented.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,
stated that he had been in contact with the applicant's
representatives,urging them to be sensitive in the building's
design due to the site's proximity to the River Market and
MacArthur Park neighborhoods.Public Works Comments were
acknowledged by Mr.Brown who stated that there appeared to be
no issues out of the ordinary.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
4
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
Robert Brown,Don Shelton and Recce Rowland were present
representing the application.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Robert Brown addressed the Commission and briefly described the
proposal.In response to a cpxestion from Commissioner Putnam,
Mr.Brown stated that the elevation drawing presented to the
Commission was representative of the general appearance of the
proposed building.
Commissioner Berry stated that he felt Axciom's proposal was a
good project but that he did have some concerns related to the
site plan.Mr.Berry stated that because of recent development
in the downtown area,he would like to see the ground level of
Axciom'parking deck designed to be more pedestrian friendly,
with retail space for example.Recce Rowland,the project
architect,stated that he had proposed ground level retail in
the parking deck but that it would ultimately be up to the owner
to decide.Mr.Rowland also stated that the availability ofretailspacewouldbedictatedbythenumberoflevelsofthe
parking deck and the number of parking spaces needed by Axciom.
Mr.Rowland also stated that he was looking at designing the
facade of the parking deck to be more pedestrian friendly,with
a "shop-like"appearance at the ground level.
Chairman Earnest asked if the parking deck would be available to
patrons of the Alltel Arena currently under construction in
North Little Rock.Mr.Rowland responded that such a decision
was up to Axciom.
Commissioner Berry asked if the Plaza area located in the middle
of the site would be accessible to pedestrians.Mr.Rowland
responded that the Plaza would be gated after hours to limit
access.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,stated that the League
had concerns about the building height.
Commissioner Faust asked for further clarification of the issue
of pedestrian access through the Plaza.Statements had been
made that the plaza would be open and also that the plaza would
be gated.
During the ensuing discussion between staff,the applicant and
the Commission,Robert Brown stated that Axciom's desire was to
5
May 27,1s
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
secure the entire site and,as such,Axciom could not make a
commitment to allow access through the site.
Commissioner Berry stated that pedestrian access in downtown wasvitalandthatitwasinappropriateforAxciomtoproposeatwo
block wide barricade in the area.Mr.Berry stated that Axciom
was proposing a development that would be more appropriate in a
suburban setting.
Commissioner Putnam observed that the applicant felt security
was a high priority and he urged the Commission not to "kill"
the issue over access through the Plaza.
Commissioner Berry responded that he was not out to "kill thedeal"but that he felt pedestrian access was an important issue
in the area.He stated that he felt it was a minor design issue
that Axciom should be able to address.
Commissioner Lowry noted that Axciom had stated that they would
try to keep the plaza open as much as possible.Mr.LowrystatedthathetrustedAxciomtodoastheysaid.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated that
the Commission could direct staff to work with the applicant to
address the issue of access through the site.
Don Shelton addressed the Commission and stated that Axciom
desired to work with the City on the development.He stated
that traffic through the site should not be an issue since
Sherman Street does not extend south of this site.The postofficeoccupiesthetwoblockssouthofthissiteandShermanStreetwasclosedtoaccommodatethatfacility.Mr.Shelton
emphasized the need for security on the site.
Commissioner Faust reiterated her concern that pedestriantrafficbepermittedtohaveaccessthroughthesite.
Mr.Shelton stated that Axciom would work with City Staff to
reach a compromise.
Commissioner Berry asked if there was a time during the day that
the plaza could be left open,perhaps gating the area at night.
Mr.Shelton responded that security was needed 24 hours a day,
7 days a week.
After a further discussion,Mr.Lawson informed the Commission
that staff had a clear understanding of what the Commission
6
May 27,1b
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6680
desired and would work with the applicant to arrive at a
satisfactory arrangement.
Commissioner Faust commented that she believed Mr.Shelton to be
an honorable man and she would take him at his word to work withstaff.
A motion was made to revoke Sherman Oaks Planned Development,
rezone the block to GB and to approve the site plan with an
exhortation to work out concerns regarding pedestrian traffic
through the site.The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
7
HOUSING.'AUTHORITY:OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
1000 Wolfe St:«L'ittle Rock,AR 72202;.„,(501)340-4821 ~Fax.,(501)-340-4845
May 10,1999
Dana Carney,Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning 8 Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1334
Dear Mr.Carney:
The Housing Authority of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas welcomes the opportunity to
support your efforts to rezone the block bounded by East 3rd,East 4th,Commerce and
Sherman Streets (block 15,Pope's Add.)from PD to GB.
Please feel free to contact me,should you need further information.
Sincerely,
L.Lee Jo es
Executive Director
May 27,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:G-23-293
Name:Sherman Street between
3'nd4StreetandAlley in
Block 14 Pope's Addition-
right-of-way Abandonment.
Location:Approximately 300 feet of
Sherman Street south of East3'treet and Alley in Block
14 between South of 3'nd
4 Streets.
Owner/A licant:Axciom Corporation /DCI
Robert Brown
geest:To abandon the 60 feet wide
by 300 feet long street
right-of-way and 20 feet
wide by 300 feet long Alley
in Block 14 Pope's Addition.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Sherman Street is currently constructed as a publicstreetwith36feetwidepavementprovidingaccess to
I-630 and adjacent property.
2.Master Street Plan
There is no need for existing street on the Master
Street Plan.Commerce and Ferry Streets can provide
adequate access.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
There is sufficient right-of-way for East 3'nd 4
Streets.A 20 feet radial dedication will be requiredatthecornerofCommercewith3'nd 4""and Ferry
Street with 3'nd 4 Streets.
4.Develo ment Potential
Axciom Corporation plans to construct multi-story
office building at this location.
1
May 27,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:G-23-293
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is made up of a mixture of office,
commercial and industrial uses.
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and tenants were notified
of the public hearing.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Entergy —has no objection to the abandonment.
ARKLA —has active gas line,which can be relocated.
Southwestern Bell —has no objection to the
abandonment.
Water Works —has 24 and 6 inch water mains in Sherman
Street R-0-W that needs to be relocated at the
developer expense.If developer desire to
retain existing mains 20 feet easement would be
required.
Wastewater Utility —has no objection.
Fire Department —has no objection.
Neighborhood and Planning —has no objection to
abandonment.
8.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this street will have no adverse effects on
the public welfare and safety.
2
May 27,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:G-23-293
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Sherman Street,between 3'nd
4 Streets,and alley in Block 14 abandonment subject to:
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of R-0-W at the corner of
Ferry and 3'nd 4 Streets and Commerce and 3'nd
4 "Streets.
2.Construction of all abutting street improvements in
conjunction with building permit.
3.Public Works approval of street construction plans and
providing maintenance bond for all abutting streets
in conjunction with building permit
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(May 6,1999)
Robert Brown was present representing the applicant.This
item was discussed as a part of the rezoning on the same
agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application.This item was discussed in conjunction with
rezoning item on the same agenda.The vote on the motion to
approve the application was 6 ayes,1 nay ,4 absent.
3
May 27,1
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO.:Z-4985-C
NAME:Mid-America Center --Short-Form POD —Revocation
LOCATION:North side of West Roosevelt Road,between S.Wolfe
and S.Battery Streets
DEVELOPER:Emma Jean Rogers
AREA:1.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:POD ALLOWED USES:Day Care and Residential
PROPOSED USE:Church and Residential
A.BACKGROUND:
On April 19,1988,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.15,460 rezoning this property from R-4 and R-5 to PRDtoallowaresidentialandchildcarefacility.On January16,1990,the Board passed Ordinance No.15,801 revisingthePRDtoeliminatetheresidentialcarefacilitypart oftheprojectandreplaceditwithanadditionaldaycarefacility.
On June 20,1995,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.16,919 which rezoned the property from PRD to POD.TheuseswhichwerepermittedinandonthePODsiteweretobelimitedtothetwo-family dwelling which is located at 2407S.Battery Street and the day care facility which wasauthorizedbyOrdinanceNo.15,801,plus the following usesfromthe0-1 and C-2 list of permitted uses:church;clinic (medical,dental,or optical);community welfare orhealthcenter;day nursery or day care center;lodge orfraternalorganization;nursing home or convalescent home;office (general or professional);photography studio;private school,kindergarten,or institution for specialeducation;school (business);school (public or
denominational);studio (art,speech,drama,dance,orotherartisticstudio);barber and beauty shop;and,eatingplace,limited to the ground floor of the existingbuilding,with a maximum of 800 square feet,to be a sit-
down facility without drive-in or drive-thru service and
May 27,1)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4985-C
with carryout permitted,but with no delivery serviceallowed.
The approved site plan which included building and parkinglayoutsisattached.To this date,the property has nevercompletelydevelopedandthebuildingiscurrentlyvacant.There is some evidence of recent fire damage to thebuilding.The parking lot within the southern portion ofthepropertywasneverconstructed.
B.PROPOSAL:
The applicant,Emma Jean Rogers,submitted a letter tostaffonApril28,1999,requesting that the existing PODberevokedandthepropertyreverttoitsoriginalR-4 andR-5 zoning.Mrs.Rogers is planning to sell a portion ofthepropertytoGospelTempleBaptistChurchfor
development of a church facility (Item 20.1 on thisagenda).
If approved,Lots 2,4-10,Block 9,McCarthy's Addition,Lot 10 and the South 'c of Lot 11,Block 8,Oak TerraceAdditionwouldreverttoR-4 zoning.Lots 11 and 12,Block9,McCarthy's Addition would revert to R-5 zoning.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the POD be revoked;that OrdinanceNo.16,919 be repealed and that the property be returned toR-4 Two-Family district and R-5 Urban Residence district asnotedinparagraphB.of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 27,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
2
May 27,1)9
ITEM NO.:20.1 FILE NO:Z-4985-A
NAME:Gospel Temple Baptist Church —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Battery Street and
Roosevelt Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Emma Jean Rodgers/Ron Woods
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
construct a new church with accompanying
parking at the northeast corner of Battery
Street and Roosevelt Road on property which
will be zoned R-4,Two Family Residential,if item 20 is approved.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the northeast corner of BatteryStreetandRooseveltRoad.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located on property which is surrounded by R-4
two-family residential zoning.Currently this site is zoned
Planned Office Development (POD).Item 20 of this agendaisarequesttorevokethatPODandallowthepropertytoreverttoitspreviouszoning,R-4,Two Family Residential.
Across Battery to the west is James Mitchell school.
Immediately adjacent to the north is a duplex.To the
northeast is an unoccupied two story structure for which
the current POD was created.Across Wolf and Roosevelt are
one and two story,one and two family houses.
The applicant intends to purchase lots 4-8 and to leaselots9andpartof10forparking.Staff believes this is
an appropriate use of this site and that it would be
compatible with the neighborhood.
The South Little Rock Community,Southend,Downtown,
Southend Neighborhood Development,and Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
May 27,1b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4985-A
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site would be served by a two-way driveway from Wolf
Street and a one-way out driveway from Battery.
The specified seating capacity in the proposal is 243.That
would generate a parking requirement of 60 spaces.Thesiteplanshows39spacesonsiteand28spacesonthe
leased lots which would be considered off site.Therefore,
36%of the required parking would be off site compared to
25%that the ordinance allows.A variance would be required
to permit that off site parking.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
a .A portion of the proposed land use buf fer along the
northern perimeter is below the minimum requirement ofsixfeet.
b.Those areas within the vehicular use area shown as open
space must be used for interior landscaping to meet
Landscape Ordinance requirements.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Roosevelt Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial;dedication of right-of-way to 35feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornersofRooseveltandBatteryandRoosevelt
and Wolfe Street,at the time of building permit
application.c.At the time of building permit application,property
frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought
up to the current ADA standards.
d.At the time of building permit application,repair or
replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged
in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.e.Improve corner curb radius 31.5 feet radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 10 feet),
both Battery and Wolfe intersection with Roosevelt.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.
2
May 27,1)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4985-A
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available on north side of property.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater for details.
Southwestern'ell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Routes 514 &11 serve this site;approved as
submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to usethisR-4 zoned property for a church with accompanying
parking.Part of the parking area would be on leased
property which would make it off site parking.CurrentlythisentiresiteisvacantandissurroundedbyR-4 Two
Family Residential zoned properties.There is an
elementary school across Battery Street to the west.
Required setbacks are 25 feet front and rear,and 5 feet on
each side.Staff considers Battery as being the front since
the lots face that direction.Since the applicant is
leasing,not purchasing,lots 9 &part of 10 for parking,
the required rear setback from the church structure to the
property line at lot 9 is not met.A variance would be
required to allow for the rear setback to be reduced to 20feet.
Parking requirements are for 60 spaces and 67 are provided
with the adjacent leased lots.However,since 36%of the
spaces are on the leased lots,and therefore,consideredoffsite,a variance would be necessary to exceed the
allowed 25%off site parking.Adequate access and on site
flow is provided in the proposal except at the point of
entry from Wolfe.The site plan will need to be modified
to limit the flow into the entry driveway from the north
parking area.The preferred way to do that would be with
3
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4985-A
the same kind of construction as is on the south side ofthisdriveway.
There is a desire by some residents in the neighborhood to
increase the residential use of property in this area.
However,Roosevelt is a busy road and probably would not beattractiveforresidentialuse.Staff believes a church is
a reasonable use of this site and that it is compatible
with the neighborhood as long as all buffers and screeningareputinplace.
The applicant has requested waivers to corner radial
dedication and corner street improvements.This remains an
open issue.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitsubjecttocompliancewiththefollowingconditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape &Buffer ordinances.b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must bedirecteddownwardandinwardtothepropertyandnotdirectedtowardanyresidentialarea.
Staff also recommends approval of the variances for a
reduced rear setback to 20 feet and the increase to 36%foroffsiteparkingaslongasawrittenleaseagreementis
provided prior to obtaining a building permit that allows
the church to use the parking on the leased lots for atleast10years.
Recommendation has not been made at the time of this
writing regarding variances for corner radial dedications
nor corner improvements since that request just came in the
day this was written.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(May 6,1999)
A representative from Architecture Innovations Group was present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposal.
4
May 27,1.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4985-A
Public Works reviewed their comments.Parking was reviewed to
explain why the variance was needed.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(May 27,1999)
Ron Woods was 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."
Public Works (represented by David Scherer)reviewed the openissuesregardingright-of-way dedication,improved corner radii,
and building a sidewalk along Roosevelt Road meeting ADA
standards.The requirements include dedication of five feet ofadditionalright-of-way along Roosevelt to bring it to 35 feet,
20 feet radial right-of-way at the two corners with Roosevelt,
and constructing a 30 foot corner radius on both corners with
Roosevelt.Mr.Scherer stated that Public Works would grant afranchisesotheexistingretainingwallalongRooseveltcould
remain as is.
Mr.Woods stated that the applicant wished waivers to items
'b'nd'e'nder Public Works comments.He passed out to the
Commissioners copies of pictures,a partial site plan sketch
showing the features at the corners that would be impacted,and
a cost impact summary.The main concern to the church was thecostimpactofthecornerworkinvolved.The church has a verylimitedbudgetandhadtorelocatefromthecurrentlocation
because of airport expansion.Because of an existing drop inlet
and fire hydrant,the cost is high for the corner changes.
Commissioner Berry opened,and Commissioner Faust joined into,adiscussionforacompromisetotherequirementsinordertomeet
minimum needs and reduce costs to the church where possible.
This resulted in Public Works agreeing to support a waiver to
not improve the corner at Wolfe and Roosevelt.Improvements atBatteryandRooseveltwouldstillberequired.In summary,the
resulting compromise was that Mr.Woods agreed to the
requirements for dedication of right-of-way,to obtain a
franchise to keep the retaining wall in place,and to go forward
5
May 27,1s
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4985-A
with the waiver request to not change the corner radius at Wolf
and Roosevelt,but the church would change the radius at Battery
and Roosevelt to meet Public Works'equest.
A motion was made to approve the application as applied for with
the conditions stated by staff and with a recommendation for
approval of the waiver request to not change the radius at the
corner of Wolfe and Roosevelt.The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes,0 nays,and 4 absent.
I
6
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
Re
S
o
l
u
+
l
o
n
on
an
n
e
@
8
*
'
o
n
DA
T
E
WV
z~
&s
o
s
CO
N
S
E
N
T
~U
L
4
R
ME
M
B
E
R
IQ
(g
l&
C
$
4,
P.
&-
~
[q
3
5
g
9
lP
l4
;
ge
&
8
D
'4
ll
l5
(8
lS
~
l
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
yy
'
y
'
y
'
y
'
V
V
f
v
w
f
VV
V
f
~
y'
v
e
r
y
'
(
y
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
vy
'
V
y
y'
Y
y'O
W
N
I
N
G
RI
C
H
A
R
D
A
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
~
0
y
y'
y
/
~
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
A
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
vv
VV
Ve
r
V
y'
y
y
y
y
7
/
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
v
VV
v
Vf
r
Vr
f
VV
V
y'
yy
'
f
A
AA
A
A
A
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
VV
VV
V
V
y
y'
'
'
y''U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
RA
Y
A
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
V
f'
V
vv
v
sl
f
y
'
8
y'
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
V
v
r
y'v
y
y
'
b
AD
O
HS
W
5I
O
~
C%
+
O
A
Ã
p
S
I&
4
M.
S
.
I
.
7
L&
L
V
8
SI
O
P
W
k
U
C
$
A5
IS
IN
AI
.
S
P.
AP
l
f
H
P
l
H
B
V
7
TI
M
E
IN
'A
N
D
TI
M
E
OU
T
0
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v'A
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
4
A,
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
v'A
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
4
A
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
e
y'D
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
e
y'U
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
A
A
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
e
V
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
6'
f
0
P.
M
.
v'
Y
E
e
NA
Y
E
~
AB
S
E
N
T
H
AB
S
T
A
I
N
May 27,1999
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,themeetingadjournedat8:10 p.m.
7
ate
Chai an Sec eta