pc_08 19 1999subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 19,1999
I .DEFERRED I TEMS:
A.Boyle Park Master Plan —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6697)
B.WCF Landscape Ordinance Amendment
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Berta —Preliminary Plat —Time Extension (S-1110)
2.Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat (S-1257)
3.Otter Creek and I-30 Commercial Addition —Preliminary Plat(S-1258)
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
4.Stagecoach Place —Short-Form PD-0 and Preliminary Plat(Z-4325-D)
5.Seven Acres (Lot 4)—Revised POD (Z-5038-D)
6.Bussell —Short-Form LCD (Z-6719)
7.Chenal Acura —Long-Form PD-C and Preliminary Plat (Z-6720)
8.Lands —Short-Form PCD (Z-6721)
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
9.Eagle Hill Apartments (Phase IV)—Subdivision Site PlanReview(S-1212-B)
10.Office Max —Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review(S-1231-B)
11.Arkansas Farm Bureau —Subdivision Site Plan Review(S-1254)
Agenda,Page Two
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
12.MEM'Station,Colony West —Conditional Use Permit(Z-2039-B)
13.MEM's Station,Geyer Springs —Conditional Use Permit(Z-3644-B)
14.Hidden Valley Mini-Storage —Conditional Use Permit(Z-3727-D)
15.Holy Souls Church Addition —Revised Conditional Use Permit(Z-4184-A)
16.Catholic High School Addition —Revised Conditional UsePermit(Z-4285-A)
17.Best Car Wash —Revised Conditional Use Permit (Z-4423-D)
18.Miles Chapel Addition —Revised Conditional Use Permit(Z-5491-A)
19.Nellie Stephens —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6705)
20.House of Harmony Home Day Care —Conditional Use Permit(Z-6717)
VI.OTHER MATTERS:
21.Northwest Territory Water Main Extension (G-40-15)
22.Chicot Road curb cut/access driveway variance (S-332-B-1)
23.1999 Planning Commission Calendar revision
24.Urban Services Boundary Resolution Discussion
25.Smart Growth Discussion
PU
E
I
L
C
HE
A
R
NG
TE
M
S
EL
10
RI
U
E
p
PR
I
D
E
AL
L
E
Y
o
1-
6
3
I-
6
3
0
KA
N
I
S
7
N6
5
12
T
H
R
Q
6
~~
18
a.
WR
I
C
H
T
1
2
11
z
&„
D
A
M
A
4
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
Cq
O
V
I-
30
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
~M
LA
W
S
O
N
8
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
W
S
O
N
lE
U
B
E
R
9
5
DA
V
O
Bi
13
65
T
H
65
T
H
LW
I=
RA
I
N
E
S
+
VA
L
L
E
Y
I-
36
TY
UM
I
T
S
2
9
TX
6'
2
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
4
3
DI
X
O
N
HA
R
P
E
R
19
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
VA
T
F
K
WE
S
T
K
VI
N
S
O
N
8
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
5
YE
R
SP
C
S
.
CU
T
O
F
F
N
S
Ao
CU
T
O
F
F
o+
EL
65
AS
H
E
R
QT
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
I
67
PR
AT
T
SU
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
AG
E
N
D
A
AU
G
U
S
T
3
9,
3
99
9
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO:Z-6697
NAME:Boyle Park Master Plan —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:Boyle Park on Boyle Park Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:City of Little Rock/Mark Webre,Parks
Department
.~PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
Master Plan to upgrade and improve the parkfacilitiesonpropertyZonedR-2,Single
Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This proposal includes several areas throughout theexistingpark.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This property was deeded over to the City in May of 1929andhasexistedasa"Park"since then.As far as Staff isaware,the park has been compatible and appreciated by theneighborhood.The improvements would be done within theexistingboundariesoftheparkandupgrade,improve andexpandthefacilities.Staff believes the park willcontinuetobecompatiblewiththeneighborhood.
The Parks Department has been meeting regularly since 1994withtheBoyleParkAdvisoryCommitteetoworktogethertodevelopthisproposedMasterPlan.The advisory committeeconsistsofneighborhoodassociationmembers,and soneighborhoodinputisanintegralpartofthisplan.
The John Barrow and Broadmoor Neighborhood AssociationswerenotifiedofthePublicHearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There are six existing access points to the park by way ofexistingcitystreetsthatpassthroughthepark.TheproposalincludesclosingtheoneatWest24'"Street.
August 19 I J 999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6697
The ordinance does not specify parking requirements forparks.The proposal does show parking adjacent to or nearmostareasthatwouldgenerateparkingneedsexceptforthetrailheadatthenorthBoyleParkDriveentrance.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Provide sketch grading and drainage plans per Section29-186,obtain grading permits per Section 29-186(c)(d)including Special Flood Hazard,development permitSection29-186(b)for Flood Hazard area per Section8-283.Contact ADEQ and Corps of Engineers prior tostartofwork.There are floodway,flood plain andwetlandissues,which require certification and permitspriortowork(including clearing,fill,dredgingoperationsplanned).
b.Recommend Public Meeting be held with affected
neighborhood due to plans to modify and eliminate accesstoexistingstreetsservingtheseneighborhoods.FormalclosureofWest24'"will be required through petitionprocess.
c.New structures are not permitted in Floodway (includingbuildings,gazebo or large fountain structures)perSection8-305.
d.Changes to street alignment or construction of bikewayswillberequiredtoresultinnoincreaseingradeorsignificantsurfaceareaincreaseinfloodway.FEMA andCorpsnotificationswillberequired.
e.Parking "Area 25"will need access modified to provide90'ntersections with Boyle Park Road.
f.Parking area shown on plans in floodway is a rework ofexistingparkingandappearsnottochangesurfaceareaornumberofspaces.As long as grades and area do notchangeandCorpandFEMAapprovalsareobtained,thisappearstonotbeinconflictwithBoardofDirectorsPolicyofnoNewParkinginRegulatoryFloodways.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6697
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding any additionalwaterserviceneeded.
Wastewater:Existing sewer main outfalls (24"and 42")located within Boyle Park.Contact the Wastewater Utilityfordetailspriortofinalizingconstructionplans.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Any new roadway or street must be notlessthan24feetwidewithnoparkingoneitherside.Additional fire hydrants may be required.Check with FireDepartmentbeforefinalizingconstructionplans.
CATA:Bus service is not currently provided to this site.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for aMasterPlantoupgradeandimprovetheBoyleParkfacilities.The area is Zoned R-2,Single FamilyResidential,and is surrounded by primarily R-2 propertyandsomeMF-6,Multifamily,at the northwest corner.Theimprovementswouldincludenewandupgradedtrailsandpavilions,a small amphitheater,road and parking lotchanges,plus new open play/practice fields and playgroundequipment.
All the facility work would be well within existingpropertylinesexceedingsetbacksandmeetingsitingrequirementsaslongasnoneofitiswithinfloodwaydesignatedareas.
The ordinance does not specify parking requirements forparks.The proposal does show what appears to be adequateparkingadjacenttoornearmostareasthatwouldgenerateparkingneeds.Any roadways that are changed or added wouldneedtomeetthefiredepartmentrequirementof24feetwidewithnoparkingoneitherside.
3
August 19,=999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6697
Staff believes this plan would not have a detrimentalaffectontheneighborhoods.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitsubjecttocompliancewiththefollowingconditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape 6 Buffer ordinancesfornewparkingandbuildingsorstructures.b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(June 17,1999)
Parks Director Bryan Day was originally present during the
meeting to represent the item but had to leave before it wasdiscussed.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments and responded to a
Committee question regarding the issuing of a clearing permit.
The Committee had concerns about two issues.One was what,if
any,restrictions existed in the original Will/deed regardingthedonationofthepropertytotheCity.The second was
regarding the tree clearing that had already begun and if that
had been properly permitted,particularly in relation to anyrestrictionstohowtheparkwastobeused.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted theproposal,but recpxested that their two question be answeredbeforethefullCommissionproceedonfinalresolutionof theitem.
STAFF UPDATE
Upon investigation,Staff concluded that none of the actionslistedintheproposalappeartoviolateanylimitationsstatedinthedeedofthisproperty.The Will was used for the
requirements in the deed as best as Staff could determine.Staffalsobelievesthetreecuttingpermitwasrecgxestedandissuedproperly.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6697
Ken Oberste,the registered objector,started his statement bysayingthathewasnotopposedtotheproposedplan,but to
emphasize that he felt this is an important,beautiful park fortheCityandthatithadbeenallowedtogodownhillsincehischildhoodinthe1940's.He added,that particularly since theCityopened28thstreetasanaccesstothepark,over theobjectionofmanycitizens,that the traffic has greatlyincreasedthroughthecenteroftheparkandthedeteriorationacceleratedinhisview.He stated he was glad to see a revivedinterestinthepark,but he also emphasized his concern overtheamountoftreecuttingthathasalreadyoccurredinpreparationfortheworktocome.
Ruth Bell,League of Woman Voters,emphasized the point that shefelttheParksDepartmentwasputtingtoomuchemphasisonactiverecreationalfacilitiesatthecostofpassiverecreationalareas.She described passive recreational areas asthosewhereonecanwanderaroundingreenspacetoadmirethetrees,creeks,animals,etc.She asked if the City had any planstoaddthegreenspacepassiverecreationalareasasshedescribedthem,and how does the Planning Commission plan todealwiththisneedforincreasedgreenarea.She added that herintenthereistoagaincalltheCommission's attention to thisneedassheseesit.
Commissioner Putnam asked about putting a basketball court intheparkwhichotherwiseisorientedtomore"passive"activitywithpicnicareasandtrails.Mark Webre explained how theyconsideredthetypeofactivityinarrivingattheproposedlocation.
Commissioner Downing asked if the current basketball court waslighted,or if the new one would be.Mr.Webre responding no tobothquestionsaboutlighting.
Chairman Earnest directed a question to Mr.Turner from Public
Works regarding their statement in the write-up regarding notbuildingstructuresinafloodwayandaskediftherewerenotexceptionswhichwouldallowbuildingstructuresinafloodway.Mr.Turner responded that there were exceptions as outlined inSection8-305 and their point was to direct the applicant tomeettheordinancerequirements.
Bryan Day,Director of the Parks Department,stated that therewereanumberofcitizenspresentthatdosupportthisproject
6
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6697
and would answer questions regarding their support.No questionsweredirectedtothem.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mr.Webre if they would abide by thefiredepartment's comment regarding street requirements.Mr.
Webre said they would.She further inquired about the ParksDepartment's ability under current budget limitations to fundthisworkandtomaintainit,and the maintenance on the otherparkstoo.Mr.Webre responded that they do feel they canaccomplishthisbycuttingbackonthemaintenanceofminorparks,the less used parks.In response to his explanation sheaskedhowthatwouldaffecttheneighborhoodparks.He answeredthatthosewouldbetheparksforwhichtheywouldbelookingforpartnershipstohelpmaintainthem.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted toincludestaffcommentsandrecommendations.The motion passed byavoteof6ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
7
August 19,s99
ITEM NO.:B
Name:Zoning Ordinance Amendment for revised landscapestandardsforWirelessCommunicationFacilities.
Receuest:To remove the current standards derived from LandscapeOrdinanceandestablishnewstandardswithintheWCFsection.
Source:Citizen request and Board of Directors
This amendment is the result of various persons pointing out thelackofsitetreatmentonanumberofWCFsitesaroundthecity.
These were typically located such that abutting zoning or usedidn'require screening or landscape materials.
This circumstance is directly related to the standard's being
provided by an ordinance not geared to towers or small sites.
A request was made of staff to develop new language for WCFsthatwilladdressthesmallsitedimensionsbutincorporate someoftheminimumtreespacing,shrub placement and opaque
screening employed on commercial sites.
The staff developed the landscaping and tree placement with afixedsitescreeningfenceonallsides.This fence will act asabackdropforthelandscapingwhilethegreenerywillbreakupthesolidfenceface.
Copies of the ordinance have been mailed to the local WCF
providers with notice of the Commission meeting date.Also,all
persons on the ordinance review list (38)plus Plans Committee
were notified and provided ordinance draft.
Plans Committee Re ort:
At its meeting on June 30,the Plans Committee briefly discussedtheproposedordinance.There were several comments about the
need for change and several persons offered wording change.The
changes were made and draft 2 is attached to this agenda item.
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
PLANS COMMITTEE:(JULY 22,1999)
The Chairman advised all interested persons in attendance thatlatefilingofconcernsbytheproviderfirmsrequiredthis
matter be deferred to August 19,1999.
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral.A
motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 28,1999)
At its meeting on July 28,the Plans Committee reopened
discussion of the proposed ordinance.Present to speak on theissuewerefourmembersoftheCommittee,Planning Staff andseveralpersonsrespondingtothestaffnoticetoattend.
Staff pointed out that Mr.Stodola representing SouthwesternBellwasnotpresentbutthatanoticewassenttohisoffice ofthetimeandplace,others notified were in attendance.
A lengthy discussion followed with concerns offered about someofthelanguageintheordinancedraftasaddressedbyMr.Stodola,such as provision of a water source and what that
meant.Staff will pursue that point with Steve Giles.
Commissioner Hawn pointed out that the group of people working
on the landscape ordinance intended to make this issue apart oftheirordinanceifpossible.Discussion followed as to the
appropriateness of that action.The consensus approved to bethatthisamendmentshouldbepursuedsincethelandscaperewriteprobablywilltakelongerandbecontroversial.Another
lengthy discussion involved Mr.Norm Floyd,a registeredobjectorandattendeeattheJuly22meeting.He presented
thoughts on what he understood the amendment was to cover.Attheconclusionofhiscomments,Commission Downing and others
commented this item should be placed on the August 19 agenda forfulldiscussionandMr.Stodola was advised to be there.StaffdeterminedthatsinceMr.Stodola was absent that another notice
would be mailed advising him of the meeting and a need for himtobepresent.
Copies of the materials presented to the Plans Committee areincludedinthisagendaforfullcommissionreview.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The Chairman asked that staff present item B.
Richard Wood of staff presented an overview of the material
offered in the agenda.He commented on this being an ordinance
directed by the Board of Directors and that it dealt with W.C.F.
only and then those new or modified structures.This ordinance
does not deal with existing circumstance.By use of a small
sketch,Wood pointed out the typical site plan of a 50'
50'easeareaandatreatmentthisordinancecouldimpose.
Wood also noted the changes made to the ordinance by Stephen
Giles,Deputy City Attorney,that having to do with a water
source.After closure of Wood's comments,Commissioner Faust
noted that she had a somewhat different take on the committee
discussion.She said the committee had expected Mr.Stodola to
attend and discuss the text and his proposals.She followed
that by saying the ordinance was acceptable with Mr.Giles
change.
Chairman Earnest noted the reason the Commission deferred thislasttimewassoMr.Stodola could meet and discuss with the
committee his changes.
Wood then indicated a page in the attachments to item B is a
Public Works suggestion that would be appropriate to add and
covers maintenance.
Commissioner Adcock then raised the issue of coverage of
existing tower sites.The issue was directed to Mr.Giles,"ls
there a way to go back and pick up all those existing?"Mr.
Giles responded by outlining how such might be accomplished
through amortization.He said it would be very complicated.
There followed some comments by several commissioners with noresolutionofthequestion.
A question was then posed as to collocation and whether that
would trigger this ordinance,given that most of the towers to
be erected are in place.Mr.Giles responded,that,due the
permitting process in place most collocation would not triggeritunlesstowerheightorsomestructuralchangewasmadesuch
as height,simply attaching a new antenna array would not.
Giles reminded the Commission,the ordinance existing was a
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
statement that the city wanted fewer towers and encouraged
collocation.Collocation would not be an amendment to a site.
A brief discussion followed with comment by Commissioner Putnam
about the e-mail to Tony Bozynski and the ordinance
construction.Staff explained that the language is proposed and
for the Commission to accept or reject.Mr.Giles pointed out
he will rewrite those anyway.
The Chairman then recognized Mr.Norm Floyd who stated he was
presented for himself.He continued by saying he was a
proponent for stronger cell tower regulation.He stated that he
understood from staff that the Commission would receive a copyofarevisedcelltowerordinance,he was directed to write.
This was a 14 page draft,and he would provide them with copies.
The Chairman and others commented on having heard that a rewrite
was working.Mr.Floyd continued by saying he was against this
ordinance as being too little,too late.He suggested that the
current regulations were not enforced and he offered more
comments on codes enforcement.Additional thoughts were
identified such as abandoned towers and removal.
Following Mr.Floyd was Mr.Mark Stodola,attorney for
Southwestern Bell Wireless.Mr.Stodola offered a brief historyofhisinvolvementanproceededtodiscusstheseveralparagraphs
he submitted at the earlier meeting.Mr.Stodola stated that he
would echo Mr.Floyd's comment that it's a matter of enforcement
not a need for new regulation.He continued in response to the
Commission'apparent desire to hear his thoughts on his written
material.He discussed the current city code application of
buffers and landscaping,and how they apply.He talked about
occasional physical or practical impossibilities.He then movedhiscommentsto8feetfencesasproposed.He said that isn'
a landscaping feature and is different than existing
requirements.The fence could be complied with if necessary butthatthefencecreatesanewsetofproblems,such as security.
He said,perhaps if not in a residential area there may be somerationalreasontousechainlink.
The presentation then moved to discussion of "provision of a
water source.Mr.Stodola offered comments as to how this is
contrary to the manner in which other use/development is
4
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
regulated.He expanded his thoughts on vegetation and
replacement as well as the practical difficulty in water supply
on rural type locations.
He closed his comments by addressing the retention of trees
within the usual 50'50'se area as primary use area.He
pointed out concerns with leaves and limb problems withsensitiveelectronics.Further,that,perhaps this is an
enforcement issue as opposed to a new ordinance.
The Chairman then recognized commissioners for questions.
Commissioner Muse offered a question on collocation loss bytheseregulations.
Mr.Stodola responded by discussing the proposed tree spacingaffecteddrivewayandequipmentbuildings.There would be
problems with modifying the footprint of the site and
maintaining the mandated 30 foot spacing.Mr.Giles added
thoughts on this problem.
Commissioner Faust pointed out that since the ordinance doesn'
place a zero point,the providers using common sense coulddictatehowtheyallocatedthetrees.A lengthy discussion
followed with no specific solution resulting.
Commissioner Adcock,in response to a brief discussion of Mr.Stodola's committee absence,asked how many other providers werenoticed.Staff responded by saying that there were four,threeinadditiontoSouthwesternBell.
Wood addressed the notice question by saying he notified fourcurrentprovidersthatwereviewandissuepermits.There being
no additional questions for Mr.Stodola the Chairman identified
one more speaker.
Mrs.Dottie Funk,identifying herself as speaking for the CityBeautifulCommission.Mrs.Funk offered a lengthy commentary
which touched on comments of Mr.Putnam and others.
Mrs.Funk said she sent copies of the ordinance draft to variouspersonsonthetreetaskforcetogaincommentfromthemonthisissue,and the attachments added by staff are hers.
5
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
Mrs.Funk then moved her comments to height of towers and how
trees of 20'eight or so would not screen much.She said Bob
Callans,a landscape architect,recommended larger trees be
used.Three inch instead of two inch on 30 feet intervals with
30 feet height.She offered examples of how smaller trees don'
work.Chairman Earnest inserted comments on the current task
force efforts and how they might want to incorporate this
material.
Mr.Giles said the Board wants an ordinance from them cpxickly
and at a meeting the night before,the task force realized that
towers have some idiosyncrasies that do not apply to general
commercial uses.He further offered comment on Mr.Stodola's
design concerns.
There then followed discussion of 8 feet screening and security,
followed by another discussion of water source.
The Chairman then recognized Ms.Janet Berry for comments.Ms.
Berry indicated her objection to the ordinance is that there is
no provision for current,in use,towers to be brought up to
these standards.She said she has always objected to what she
saw at the base of towers.She urged the Commission to deal
with existing towers.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock for a cpxestion
to what happens if the item is voted down and one vote would doit.Mr.Lawson said that would be up to the Commission,torecallitlaterorsenditbacktothecommittee.
A lengthy discussion followed on deferral with Commissioner
Adcock moving to defer.(The motion was not seconded.)
Wood then asked permission to respond to some of the points made
by various speakers.This dealt with enforcement,tree spacingetc.
Commissioner Adcock then restated her position which was,lets
see if there are more people with ideas that might be used.
The Chairman asked Wood if draft 4 in today's packet is thedraftcomingforwardatthistimeanddoesitincludeallof the
suggestions that have come forward.The response was "no"thatistheversionapprovedbythePlansCommitteeandthenmodified
by Giles concerning water source.
6
August 19,999
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:B (Cont.)
Commissioner Faust then stated that the committee did not draft
the ordinance but did ask that Mr.Giles review the water
section.Wood agreed with Commissioner Faust that was correct
and the committee had worked through an earlier draft that waslateramendedbyMr.Giles.
Commissioner Faust then offered concerns about the Board's
charge to the Planning Commission and its history.She stated
she didn't want to defer it but with 6 present,absent 6 votes
to do something it will be back on some table somewhere.
The Chairman then voiced what those present were feeling andthatbeingsomeleveloffrustration.He addressed Mr.Giles byaskingifMr.Giles hadn'said he was receptive to making
changes.Giles said he had not really considered that,but if
the Commission feels he should look at it,he could.
Commissioner Downing said he is experiencing the same sense offrustrationthatCommissionerFaustexpressed.That is,the
Board has conveyed to staff a request for immediate return of an
ordinance to deal with this issue.
Downing said his understanding was the Board of Directors can do
what it wants in this matter but wants commissioner input.Zf
the Commission failed to approve this draft,then staff would
report that to the Board.Commissioner Downing then asked whenthisitemwouldgototheBoardofDirectors.Wood responded bysayingprobablythesecondBoardofDirectorsmeetingin
September.
Commissioner Downing then asked Giles if he thought a redraft
could be done,reviewed by Plans Committee and then to the BoardofDirectorsbythatdate.
A discussion then followed between Commissioners Faust and
Downing about not having a draft with the suggested changes.
Wood suggested that,since next Wednesday is Plans Committee
meeting (August 25)that he could set aside the regular items todealwiththis.Commissioner Faust said that is OK but,are we
going to be better prepared on Wednesday than now?
7
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
Wood then offered comment to the effect that staff has
reservations by the subjective nature of some of Mr.Stodola'
comments and problems inserting them.
Jim Lawson then identified a staff member from the Water Works,
Marie Dugan who wanted to comment on water source.
The Chairman at this point said,"This hearing will have two
more minutes then we will move on."
Marie Dugan offered her thoughts as to the expense of a sourceforsomeofthetowersites.
Stephen Giles followed by stating his redraft dealing with water
source intended that to mean something as simple as a neighbor's
garden hose.He said the previous draft was too rigid.
Commissioner Muse was recognized for a comment.He asked Mr.
Stodola how he would respond to Ms.Funk's remark about how to
provide water.
Stodola indicated he thought that those sites are different from
overlay zones and site plans and that this ordinance draft would
require some kind of hydrant and a water line to serve the siteregardlessofwherethesiteislocated.He said that theexistingrequirementisreplacementofdeadvegetation.He
extended his thoughts by saying they would like to keep all thetreesonasitebutthattheyhavetostayalive.He said
providers are already supposed to be maintaining the sites
monthly.He said this ordinance presents a unique and
extraordinary expense.In response to a statement of Chairman
Earnest,Mr.Stodola said he could do some drafting on this.Hesaidhehadnotbeenpresumptiveenoughtovolunteerthatbut,that he would work with staff.
The discussion expanded to fences and other ordinance features.
Commissioner Faust commented to Mr.Giles that staff has said
the earlier draft didn'mean other than that water be provided
by some means.
Giles responded by saying that he Highway Department uses a
water truck to water highway vegetation.
8
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)
Commissioner Putnam offered that large sites like Wal-Mart
didn'have to do it by sprinklers,etc.but if it died they
were required to replant.
At the conclusion of Putnam's remarks,the Chairman said he was
ready for someone to make a motion to defer to Plans Committee
or vote on the ordinance before us.
Chairman Earnest continued by saying that he kept hearing Mr.
Giles say that there is some tweaking of this ordinance that he
would like to make.
Mr.Giles said that when the staff wrote the original ordinance
we had to learn about the industry keeping both neighborhood and
provider interests in mind.He said he hadn'had time to dothatherethroughthethreedrafts.Chairman Earnest said that"the current ordinance is landmark but we need some direction."
A brief discussion followed with comments on the Board requested
immediate ordinance return and need to be more thorough.GilessaidthatprobablyheandMarkStodolacouldcomeupwith
something that would satisfy the industry concerns and still not
water down the text.
Commissioner Downing then offered a motion to defer the
ordinance to the next Plans Committee for further discussion.
A brief review of calendar indicated the next best committee
meeting would be September 8.
It was stated a draft would be expected for committee review on
September 8.
A second was made,the motion passed by vote of 6 ayes,0 noes
and 5 absent.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mr.Norm Floyd to provide the
commission members with copies of his ordinance.
9
~Jupe.(8+9-JVI)
CATLETT,YANCEY &STODOLA 2,95+/.'~p/u@
'-A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED COMPANY
H.B.STUBBLEFIELD (I 907-I 99 I)ATTORNEYS AT LAW l 03006 MOSCOW,RUSSIAS.GRAHAM CATLETT THE TOWER BUILDING,EIGHTEENTH FLOOR MALAYA DMITROVKA STR.3/I 0H.LAWRENCE YANCEY LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS /220 l ENTRANCE I/I,5TH FLOORMARKSTODOLATELEPHONE(501)372-2121 TEL (7-095)755-9590YEVGENIYV.BOUREIKOT FAX/TEL (7.095)755-959 IlAMESD.R/tu%CIN,III EMAIL:lawlaquality.ruCHRISTIANC.MICHAELS EiVIAIL ADDRESS:littlerockCtt c~law.corn
f registered in rhe Russian Federation only:
all orhers licensed in Arkansas
Please respond to:
Little Rock Office
July 22,1999
Dept.of Planning and Development
Attn:Jim Lawson
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1334
Re:Proposed Revisions to Chapter 36,Article XII,Section 36-593 (C)
Dear Jim:
Please accept my apologies for not being able to be personally present to make comments
on behalf of Southwestern Bell Wireless concerning suggestions for revisions to Section 36-593
(C)of the City of Little Rock's Cell Tower Ordinance.With regard to Section 36-593 (C)
Landscaping and Screening,my comments are as follows:
[1.]Section 36-593 (C)(1).While I understand the motivation for using the language
"in every instance,"it seems to me that there may be some conditions where the requirements of
Section 36-593 (C)are either physically or practically impossible or inappropriate.I would
prefer to see language which is substituted as follows:"shall be screened and landscaped in every
instance where possible as follows."
[2.]Section 36-593 (C)(1)(a).The requirement of an eight-foot landscaping strip is
actually a two-foot increase over the buffer requirements contained elsewhere in the City Code
under the current ordinance requiring a six-foot buffer strip.I see no rationale for requiring an
increased landscape strip over the already existing requirements contained in the Tower
Ordinance.Since Section 36-593 (C)(1)(c)requires the planting of trees,I would question the
necessity for requiring any type of landscape strip.In fact,Southwestern Bell Wireless would
prefer to plant additional trees as opposed to have to maintain the eight-foot landscape strip as
pi'oposecl.
I
[3.]Section 36-593 (C)(1)(b).This section requires an eight-foot opaque fence be
constructed with the finished side facing outwards,etc.Again,while this provision may be
appropriate for any one particular location involved,requiring an opaque fence in every instance
creates a security problem in that a trespasser who scales the fence is then hidden from the
neighborhood.Likewise,since this section currently does not require barbed wire at the top of
the fence,it makes the ability to scale the fence quite easy.Should Section 36-593 (C)(1)(b)be
added to the ordinance,the Commission should also recommend the amendment or deletion of
Section 36-593 (F)in the existing ordinance which provides for security fencing as a conflict in
interpreting these provisions may arise.
[4.]Section 36-593 (C)(1)(c).This provision requires the planting of trees every
thirty (30)linear feet.Typically the fenced area is a fifty by fifty square foot piece of property
with the fenced gate located on one corner.This provision will inevitably create "entrance
problems"for wireless communication providers.The reason for this is that to place the gate in
the center of the fenced area eliminates many co-location possibilities with other providers.
Thus the thirty linear feet planting requirement will interfere with gate location.Certainly
Southwestern Bell Wireless has no objection to the planting of trees around the fence,but we
would request that more flexibility be provided in the ordinance.As currently written,this sub-
section also requires that a water source be installed.This is an extremely expensive requirement
to impose on wireless communication providers and we believe it is unfair.There is currently no
such requirement under the City Landscape Ordinance:The requirement in the Landscape
Ordinance is that vegetation and trees which die must be replaced.We feel that this is an
adequate provision to ensure the City's desire that the landscaping and vegetation surrounding
these facilities remains presentable to the neighborhood.
[5.]Section 36-593 (C)(2).This subsection requires that existing mature trees be
retained essentially in the primary use area of the cell tower.As mentioned above,this area is
typically a fifty by fifty square foot piece of property.It is absolutely critical &om a safety
standpoint that this area be cleared of trees and vegetation.To do otherwise will create a
dangerous risk of limbs falling on towers and the electrical and technical lines which provide for
transmission.We would ask that this language be modified so that the maintenance of existing
trees in the primary use area be eliminated.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments.Please let me know if I
can be of any other assistance to you or to staff.
Most Sincerely,
CATLETT,YANCEY &STODOLA
Original Signed By:
Mark Stodola
Mark Stodola
MS/smb
cc:Richard Wood
-2-
Boz nski,Ton
From:DFunkLR@aol.corn
Sent:Wednesday,July 07,1999 11 27 AM $)ad'el+en D isle ls./Q
To:TBozynski@littlerock.state.ar.us;JBaker@mwsgw.corn;bob callans@mail.snider.net;
105702.241@compuserve.corn;76503.1622compuserve.corn;ralyn@swbell.net;
DGillespie@williamsanderson.corn;devereaux@aristotle.net;rtrevino@littlerock.state.ar.us;
bturner@littlerock.state.ar.us;BBrown@littlerock.state.ar.us;HRHAWN@ualr.edu;
RamsayBall@aol.corn;robertbdci-lr.corn;RUSSMAILaol.corn;
bday@littlerock.state.ar.us;bell@snider.net;lahaengrlsmsn.corn
Subject:Land AlterationTask Force
The following is the ordinance proposed to address the issue of landscaping
around wireless towers in LR.If you have any suggestions,let Herb and me
know.This appears to be right down our alley.Hearing set on July 22.
Dottie
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinance of the city of
Little Rock,Arkansas.Wireless communication facility regulations,
providing for modification of the landscaping and screening provision of
article XII and for other purposes:
Whereas,it has been determined by the Planning Commission of the City of
Little Rock,that the current landscape standards for wireless communication
sites are inappropriate;and
Whereas,it has been determined that a consistent set of standards that
apply specifically to all Wireless Communications Facility sites is needed.
Now,therefore be it ordained by the Board of Directors of the City of
Little Rock,Arkansas.
SECTION 1.(delete current language and add:
(c)Landscaping and screening
(1)New WCF with support structures and new attached WCF with equipment
facility installation or construction shall be screened and landscaped in
every instance as follows:
(a)every leased or owned site for WCF,ground mounted,shall provide a
permarient 8 foot landscape strip parallel to the primary use area on all
sides and outside of the screening fence required by (c)(1)b.below.
(b)An 8-foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use site enclosing the use and providing a
background for required landscaping within the 8 -foot landscape strip.
(c)Each 30 -linear feet of boundary landscape strip shall be planted
with one tree of at least 2"caliper with an expected mature height of a
minimum 20 feet.The spacing between trees shall be planted with a minimum
of 3 evergreen shrubs with a 30 -inch haight at planting.A suitable ground
cover will be required,as will a water sounce.
(2)Existing mature trees shall be retained as possible within both the
primary use area and the 8-foot landscape strip.Vegetation that causes
interference with antennas or inhibits access to the equipment facility may
be trimmed.
(3)Existing vegetation on a WCF site may be used in lieu of required
landscaping where approved by the planning commission for T.U.P.applications
or by the staff for by right permits.
My suggestions are:
(I)No mention of maintenance,replacement
(2)Is an 8-foot strip deep enough for a fence and trees?
(3)One tree every 30 feet?Doesn't say at least one tree every 30 feet.
(4)Expected mature height of min 20 feet means more crepe myrtles and pear
trees.
(5)Only 3 evergreen shrubs per 30 feet?
(6)How about one tree every 25 feet,min 3"calipher,planted
zig-zag/staggered pattern.Tree must attain mature height of min 30 feet.
1
Put suggestions in for types of trees to be pJanted.Trees,not shrubs,
around base.10 foot deep landscape strip.Perpetually maintained;trees
replaced if dead.
What do you think?What's the point of the ordinance?Screening,
right?Towers are really tall.3'hrubs won't get it.Anything else?
Dottie
2
~B*k,r
From:Bob Callans [bob callans@mail.snider.net]
Sent:Thursday,July D9,1999 1D:57 AM ~Isa'rI ~/~
To:DFunkLR@aol.corn;TBozynski@littlerock.state.ar.us;JBaker@mwsgw.corn;
105702.241@compuserve.corn;76503.1622@compuserve.corn;ralyn@swbell.net;
DGillespie@williamsanderson.corn;devereauxOaristotle.net;rtrevino@littlerock.state.ar.us;
bturner@littlerock.state.ar.us;BBrown@littlerock.state.ar.us;HRHAWN@ualr.edu;
RamsayBall@aol.corn;robertb@dci-lr.corn;RUSSMAIL@aol.corn;
bday@littlerock.state.ar.us;bell@snider.net;lahaengrls@msn.corn
Subject:Re:Land AlterationTask Force
Dottie,
In response to the wireless communication facility.
1.I think this needs to be worked in with our current landscape ordinance
revisions.
Comment:If we are just talking about the area around the base of a tower,
maybe we require at least (1)tree on each of the four sides.If the tower
base site is larger than 30'x30'han kick in the (1)tree every
30'equirement.Question:Does there tend to be a standard size and shape for
the area at the base of the towers?If so,it might be easier to determine
how it should be planted and screened.
2.If we have to respond now,here are my spur of the moment suggestions:
a.Require year around maintenance
b.Replace any trees and shrubs that die.
c.Plant (1)3"caliper tree every 30 linear feet of boundary with an
expected min.mature height of
30'.
Plant (6)evergreen shrubs between trees with a min.mature height
of 72"and a min.planting height of 30".With no less than 5'etween each
shrub.
e.The planting beds,for shrubs and trees,should be the
8'andscapingstriparoundsiteandincludeedgingwithmulch4"deep.
f.Vegetation that causes interference with antennas or inhibits access
to the equipment facility may be trimmed ACCORDING TO ARKANSAS EXTENSION
SERVICE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES.
Comment:Zig-zagging the trees within an 8'lanting strip,every thirty
feet,around the base of a tower is probably not needed.Maybe you could
zig-zag shrubs.Remember mature shrubs will get wider than an 8'lanting
bed.
I will bring this issue up with the landscape sub-committee's next meeting.
Bob
Bob Callans,FASLA
Bob Callans 8 Associates
PO Box 22468
Little Rock,Arkansas 72221
Ph:501-771-7657
Fax:501-758-7470
P'ic43o~ks ~5„gm+4 addi%ong
(c)
(4)The permanent eight (8)foot landscape strip as set forth in (l)a.,b.and c.above
shall be maintained in such a manner as will assure that vegetation grows to mature
height.Any planting within the strip shall be replaced if dead or diseased.
Replacements shall be of the minimum number type and size as required by (l)c.
above.
(c)
(5)All new or amended WCF sites-whether a tower use permit for Planning Commission
review or by right placement for staff review shall submit a detailed landscape plan
for placement and maintenance.The use of existing vegetation within the landscape
strip shall be noted on the plan as to how it will fulfill Ordinance requirement.
-2-
Drait 4
August 2,i 999
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
REGULATIONS,PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROVISION OF
ARTICLE XII AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS,it has been determined by the Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock,
that the current landscape standards for wireless communication sites are inappropriate;and
WHEREAS,it has been determined that a consistent set of standards that apply specifically
to all Wireless Communications Facility sites is needed.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.That chapter 36.,Article XII,Section 36-593.(c)be amended to provide for deletion of
current language in (c),(1),(2),(3)and the introduction of new language as follows:
(c)Landscaping and screening
(1)New WCF with support structures and new attached WCF with equipment facility
installation or construction shall be screened and landscaped in every instance as
follows:
a.Every leased or owned site for WCF,ground mounted,shall provide a
permanent eight (8)foot landscape strip parallel to the primary use area on all
sides and outside of the screening fence required by (c)(1)b.below.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use site enclosing the use and providing a
background for required landscaping within the eight (8)foot landscape strip.
c.Each thirty (30)linear feet of boundary landscape strip shall be planted with
one tree of 2"caliper with an expected mature height of a minimum twenty (20)
feet.The spacing between trees shall be planted with a minimum of three (3)'"w e )'"
4s suggested toy~cover shall be re uired,as shall a water source which is suffiecient to maintain~.Gi Tes
(2)Existing mature trees shall be retained as possible within both the primary use area
and the eight (8)foot landscape strip.Vegetation that causes interference with
antennas or inhibits access to the equipment facility may be trimmed.
(3)Existing vegetation on a WCF site may be.used in lieu of required landscaping
where approved by the Planning Commission for T.U.P.applications or by the staff
for by right permits.
SECTION 2.That this Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
tp
~~&"'aR
20~g ne30,19
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARIMNSAS.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
REGULATIONS,PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROVISION OF
ARTICLE XII AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS,it has been determined by the Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock,
that the current landscape standards for wireless communication sites are inappropriate;and
WHEREAS,it has been determined that a consistent set of standards that apply specifically
to all Wireless Communications Facility sites is needed.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD.OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.That chapter 36.,Article XII,Section 36-593.(c)be amended to provide for deletion of
current language in (c),(1),(2),(3)and the introduction of new language as follows:
(c)Landscaping and screening
(1)New WCF with support structures and new attached WCF with equipment facility
installation or construction shall be screened and landscaped in every instance as
follows:
a.every leased or owned site for WCF,ground mounted,shall provide a
permanent eight (8)foot landscape strip parallel to the primary use area on all
sides and outside of the screening fence required by (c)(1)b.below.
b.An eight (8)foot opaque fence shall be constructed,finished side facing
outward,around the primary use site enclosing the use and providing a
background for required landscaping within the eight (8)foot landscape strip.
c.Each thirty (30)linear feet of boundary landscape strip shall be planted with
one tree of at least 2"caliper with an expected mature height of a minimum
twenty (20)feet.The spacing between trees shall be planted with a minimum
of three (3)evergreen shrubs with a thirty (30)inch height at planting.A
suitable ground cover will be required,as will a water source.
(2)Existing mature trees shall be retained as possible within both the primary use area
and the eight (8)foot landscape strip.Vegetation that causes interference with
antennas or inhibits access to the equipment facility may be trimmed.
(3)Existing vegetation on a WCF site may be used in lieu of required landscaping
where approved by the Planning Commission for T.U.P.applications or by the
staA'or
by right permits.
SECTION 2.That this Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1110
NAME:Berta —Preliminary Plat —Final Plat time extension
LOCATION:13702 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Robert Hawkins Ollen Dee Wilson
13702 Kanis Road 2523 North WillowLittleRock,AR 72211 No.Little Rock,AR 72114
AREA:2.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:18
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
A.BACKGROUND:
On October 10,1996,the Planning Commission approved apreliminaryplatforthesubdivisionofa2.75 acre parcelwithanexistingsingle-family home into two lots.The
approval was subject to conditions noted by staff.
On November 7,1996,the Board of Directors approved aconditionalwaiverofstreetimprovementstoKanisand
Asbury Roads,and on April 15,1997 a resolution was passedgrantingadrivewayaccesstoKanisRoad.
According to Chapter 31 of the Little Rock Code ofOrdinancesSection31-94(e),"A preliminary plat approved
by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding
upon the Commission for one (1)year from the date of
approval or as long as work is actively progressing,at theendofwhichtimethefinalplatapplicationforthesubdivisionmusthavebeensubmittedtothePlanningStaff."
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1110
preliminary approval,for a period not to exceed one (1)year from the date of approval,when it can be demonstratedthattherearenochangesintheplatdesignor
neighborhood that warrant a complete review."As of thisdate,the final plat application for the subdivision has
not been submitted to the Planning Staff.On April 30,1998,the Planning Commission granted a one (1)yearextensiontofinalplat,until April 15,1999.
B.PROPOSAL:
On June 17,1999,the applicant submitted a letter to staff
requesting an extension for the submittal of a final platapplication.The reasons and justification for the time
extension are outlined in the attached letter.There have
been no changes to the original plat design as previously
approved by the Planning Commission.The applicant has
informed staff that an extension until the end of this yearwillbesufficient.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the time extension as
requested by the applicant.The preliminary plat will.bereinstatedandtheapplicantwillhaveuntilDecember31,1999 to submit the final plat application to staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
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 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
2
S-II I o
June 16,1999
Mr.Monte Moore
Subdivision Administrator
Department of Neighborhoods &PlanninCityofLittleRock
s arming
Re:Case S-1110
Dear Mr.Moore:
On March 13,1998 I delivered to ou aoyo lette equest g an
plat o a es dent al s b-
The rerequest was necessary due to thehadcancer.The l o e illness of my wife,whor.e p arming commission agreed to a 12whichwouldbetoApril1999.1 On December 26 19
o a 1 month extension
passed away,and becaus f th
98 my wife
property,plus it d'd use o is we could not dotdo anything with the
line approaching in April.
i i n t register with me thahat we had the dead-
We are now ready to build a residence on Lot 1 ofThisistheEastlot.This will be aresidence.is will be a one story single family
Will you present a request to the PlanninWoePlanning Commission at theirmeetingtopermitustofileafinall
y g at we
tiling requirements of the final latliterature.e ina plat,as outlined in your
Thanking you in advance,I remain
Sincerely yours,
Robert L.Hawkins
RECEIVED
JUN 17 1999
August 19,~999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1257
NAME:Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Freeway Park Properties,LLC White-Daters and Associates
100 Morgan Keegan Dr.401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway spacing for
the driveways proposed for Lots 1 and 2.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.9 acres of propertyatthesouthwestcornerofKanisRoadandCenterviewDriveintotwo(2)lots.The area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 2acres,with Lot 2 being 4.9 acres in size.The property iszoned0-3 and will allow future office developments.Theapplicantproposestofinalplatthelotsoneatatime,beginning with Lot 2.No new streets are proposed.
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded.The propertyimmediatelysouthandeastacrossCenterviewDriveisalso
undeveloped and wooded.There are two single-familyresidencesonlargelotstothenorthacrossKanis Road.
There is a mixture of commercial and residential uses tothewestandeastalongKanisRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Sandpiper Neighborhood Association was notified of thepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no
comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline is required (includes additional 10 feet
for turn lane per Master Street Plan).
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofKanisRoadandCenterview.3.Provide design and construct improvements for right turn
lane to Centerview from Kanis Road.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Streetlights to be provided on Centerview by Developer
with underground service.
6.Show driveway locations on the plat.Shared drive on
Centerview with Lots 1 and 2 will be required per
Ordinance ¹18031.No access to Kanis is allowed by
Ordinance.
7.Provide in-lieu for traffic signal (25%of construction
and engineering cost).
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
9.Grading Permit per Sec.29-186(c)and (d)is required.10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply in
addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Very near CATA Route ¹5—West Markham;approvedfortransitpurposesassubmitted.
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 August 5,1999.The revised plat addresses most of the
concerns as raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff.
The revised plat shows the required platted building lineforLot1,names of abutting recorded subdivisions and
names of abutting property owners.The sources of title
and the addresses of the property owners for this property
need to be shown on a revised plat.The 25 foot buildinglineonLot1alongKanisRoadneedstobemeasuredfromthenewpropertyline,after right-of-way dedication.
The revised plat also shows the driveway locations asrequired.Two (2)one-way drives are shown for Lot 2 along
Centerview Drive and two (2)drives are shown for Lot 1,one on Centerview and one on Kanis Road.The applicant is
requesting a variance for driveway spacing as the drives do
3
August 1 9 g J 999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257
not conform to current ordinance standards.
The northernmost drive on Lot 2 is located 75 feet from the
north property line (125 foot spacing required)and the
southernmost drive is also 75 feet from the south property
line (125 foot spacing also required).The spacing between
the two drives is approximately 235 feet (chord distance).
The required spacing is 250 feet.A lot along a collector
street requires a minimum street frontage of 500 linear
feet for two drives.The property frontage for Lot 2 is
just under 400 feet.
The proposed drive along Centerview Drive on Lot 1 is
approximately 73 feet from the south property line and
approximately 205 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way.
The minimum required spacing from the south property lineis150feetand250feetfromtheKanisRoadright-of-way.
The proposed drive along Kanis Road is 30 feet from the
west property line and approximately 260 feet from the
Centerview Drive right-of-way.The required spacing is 150feetfromthewestpropertylineand300feetfromthe
Centerview Drive right-of-way.According to ordinance
standards,no independent drive would be allowed for Lot 1.
A shared drive between Lots 1 and 2 would be recommended.
All of the drives shown are 40 feet in width.The maximum
allowed width for a driveway,according to ordinance,is 36feet.As of this writing,Public Works has not made a
recommendation on the variance request.
In a letter provided to staff,the applicant notes that the
developer of the property does not agree with the 25%
contribution to the traffic signal at Kanis Road and
Centerview Drive as requested by Public Works.The
applicant notes,"Should an office building be constructed
on both of the proposed lots,warrants for a signal would
not be met.Therefore,the developer does not think it is
appropriate that he contribute any amount of money to this
signal especially when considering this property is 7 acresattheintersectionofacommercialcollectorandanarterialstreet.Development of this property would
insignificantly contribute to the traffic counts on these
two streets."The traffic signal issue needs to be
discussed and resolved by the full commission.
Otherwise,the plat is in generally good order.The
4
August 19,i999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257
proposed lot areas and widths conform to ordinance
standards.The proposed plat should have no adverse effect
on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The issue relating to driveway locations must beresolved.Public Works will make a recommendation on therequestedvariancefordrivewayspacingpriortothepublichearing.3.The issue relating to in-lieu contribution for trafficsignalconstructionmustberesolved.4.The applicant must submit a revised preliminary platnotingthesourcesoftitle,addresses of property
owners,and 25 foot building line for Lot 1 measured fromthenewpropertyline(after right-of-way dedication for
Kanis Road).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave
a brief description of the preliminary plat,pointing out
several notations which need to be shown on a revised plat
drawing.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed,
specifically driveway locations and traffic signal
participation.Mr.White noted that one (1)driveway would be
shown on Lot 1 and two (2)driveways on Lot 2.Bob Turner of
Public Works,indicated that the driveways would not conform to
the ordinance spacing requirements and variances would need to
be requested.
Traffic signal participation for the intersection of Kanis Road
and Centerview Drive was briefly discussed.Mr.White stated
that he would meet with the property owner regarding the
participation and respond to staff.
There being no further issues for discussion,the preliminaryplatwasforwardedtothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
5
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Mr.White
requested that this application be deferred to the September 2,
1999 agenda due to the fact that only six (6)commissioners were
present.The deferral opportunity was offered by the Commission
and will not be charged to the applicant.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 2,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
6
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1258
NAME:Otter Creek and I-30 Commercial Addition
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Interstate 30 and Otter
Creek Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ray Jones Petroleum Development Consultants,Inc.
Route 1,Box 11 2200 N.Rodney Parham Rd.,Ste.220
Malvern,AR 72104 Little Rock,AR 72212
AREA:7.93 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-4
PLANNING DISTRICT:16
CENSUS TRACT:41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.93 acres at the
southwest corner of Interstate 30 and Otter Creek Road intofour(4)lots.The lots range in size from 1.165 acres to3.008 acres.The property is zoned C-4 and will allowfuturecommercialdevelopments.The lots will be finalplattedoneatatime,as they are sold.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is relatively flat and overgrown with weeds
and brush.There are no trees on the site.
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1258
Interstate 30 is located along the property's southern
boundary,with Otter Creek Road to the north.There is atruckingfacilitytothewestalongI-30.Undeveloped
commercial property is located to the north across OtterCreekRoad.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Otter Creek and Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
l.Otter Creek is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from ADTD,District VI.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start work.
5.Show curb cuts on the plat.Suggest internal street
system along west with additional street along lot lines
with cul-de-sac.Drives on Otter Creek and Service Road
have conflicts with interchange.
6.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval 10-foot base flood elevation is
required.
7.A Sketch Grading and Draining Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
8.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard area per Sec.
29-186(b)is required.
9.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1258
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply in
addition to normal charges.A development fee applies
for connections to the main along the northerly side of
Interstate 30.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Express Route ¹30—Southwest Express serves
this site;approved for transit purposes 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 August 4,1999.The revised plat addresses most of the
concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plat shows the correct zoning and platted
building lines as required by staff.
The applicant has noted proposed driveway locations on the
revised plat.Two (2)driveway locations are shown along
Otter Creek Road,one for Lot 1 and one for Lot 2.Two (2)
driveway locations are also shown along the I-30 service
road,one for Lot 1 and one for Lot 4.The applicant has
noted that Lot 3 will have internal cross access,however,
no access easements are shown on the revised plat.The
applicant needs to make a note on the plat to the effect
that Lots 1 and 4 will not be final platted without cross-
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1258
access easements for Lot 3.Public Works has indicated
concern with the proposed driveway locations.Staff will
attempt to have this issue resolved prior to the public
hearing.
To staff's knowledge,there are no other outstanding issues
associated with the preliminary plat.The proposed plat
should have no adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATZONS
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The issue of driveway locations must be resolved.3.The applicant must note on the preliminary plat that Lots
1 and 4 will not be final platted without providingcross-access easements to Lot 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Kevin Yates was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the preliminary plat,noting several minor
changes which needed to be made to the plat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed,primarily
the issue of curb cuts and the suggestion of an internal street
system.Mr.Yates informed the Committee that the requirements
would be forwarded to the project engineer and he would meet
with Public Works to resolve the issues.
After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a
letter on August 18,1999 requesting that this item be deferred
to the September 30,1999 agenda.Staff supported the deferral
request.With a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent the
Commission voted to waive the bylaws and accept the deferral
request being made less than five (5)days prior to the public
hearing.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1258
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 30,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-4325-D
NAME:Stagecoach Place —Short-Form PD-0 and Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:West side of Stagecoach Road,approximately 2,000feetsouthofBaselineRoad
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ark Best Realty,Inc.White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 1300 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72203 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:15.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:500 lf
ZONING:MF-12 &R-2 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily residential
PROPOSED USE:Post Office facility for
Lot 3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST
The applicant proposes to subdivide 15.18 acres along thewestsideofStagecoachRoadintofour(4)lots.The
property is currently zoned MF-12 and R-2.The applicant
proposes a 500 linear foot cul-de-sac to serve the lots.
The lots will be final platted one at a time as they aresold,beginning with Lot 3.
The applicant is also proposing to rezone Lot 3 from MF-12toPD-0 to allow for the development of a new post officefacilitywhichwillservethe72210zipcodeareaofLittleRock.The applicant proposes to construct a 10,338 squarefootbuilding,with parking,landscape,and buffer areas asnotedontheattachedsiteplan.
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4325-D
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded.The
Westfield Subdivision is located to the south and west,
with a golf driving range to the north.There is a church
and undeveloped property to the east across Stagecoach
Road,with three (3)single-family residences to thenortheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Otter Creek and Crystal Valley Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has heard from two (2)persons with
concerns and questions about the proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Hwy.5 is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial;dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from new
centerline will be required.
2.Proposed street must have sidewalk on both sides.
Construct sidewalk on Hwy.5 per Master Street Plan.3.Construct right turn lane on Stagecoach Road.(150 feet
storage with 125 feet transition).
4.Maximum driveway width 36 feet.
5.Comply with driveway Ordinance ¹18,031on plat.Show
driveway location for approval by Planning Commission.
6.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 10 feet base flood elevation.
7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
8.A Grading Permit per Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186(b)is required.
9.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283isrequired.
10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
11.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4325-D
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A development fee applies for connections to the
main in Stagecoach Road.A water main extension will be
required.
Fire Department:Fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Not currently served by the CATA system;site is
not amenable to transit use.A public building (Federal,State or local)should be more accessible to the public
through alternative transportation modes.Although CATA
does not currently serve this site,it may in the future.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Otter Creek Planning District.
There is a pending Land Use Plan Amendment on the propertytochangefromMulti-Family to Mixed Use.Buffering to the
adjacent residential areas to the south and west should be
addressed;i.e.the fencing should be increased to 8 feettoaddressthestorageoflargedeliveryvehiclesandtall
evergreen vegetation should be used.Parking for delivery
trucks and other noise generating activities should be
moved away from Single Family areas.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The Otter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Plan is currently being
formulated.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed land use buffer width along the southern
perimeter is 7 feet short of the full requirement of 19feetwithouttransfers.It is one foot short of the
minimum requirement.
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4325-D
The land use buffer along the western perimeter meets thefullrequirementof13feetwhenaveragedoutbutdropsto
only 9 feet part of the way.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wood fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings
will be required adjacent to the residential properties to
the south and west.
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 letter to staff on August 4,1999
requesting that the preliminary plat and PZD rezoning
request be withdrawn.Staff supports the withdrawal as
requested.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the withdrawal as requested bytheapplicant.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White and Carrie Holyfield were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the preliminaryplatandPD-0 rezoning site plan.Staff noted several items
which needed to be shown on a revised preliminary plat drawing.
The PD-0 site plan for Lot 3 was the primary focus of the
discussion.Internal traffic circulation and the number of
parking spaces were briefly discussed.It was noted that this
proposed post office would be a new zip code distributionfacilitywithalargenumberofpostaltrucksthustheneed for
the amount of parking area proposed.
Due to the fact that a number of postal trucks will be on thesite,staff recommended that an eight (8)foot screening fence
be constructed along the south and west property lines,where
adjacent to single-family zoning.Staff also noted that the
parking area along the east side of the building should be used
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4325-D
for parking of the postal trucks,furthest away from the single-
family zoning.The applicant noted that the post office
representative would be informed of these suggestions.
Commissioner Berry asked if the post office had a specific
policy in locating facilities off main roadways.Ms.Holyfield
was not sure of a specific policy,and stated that she would
have a post office representative contact Mr.Berry.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,asked if there would be a phasing
plan for the proposed cul-de-sac street.Mr.White noted that
the south side of the street,including sidewalk,would be
constructed first and the north side would be constructed with
the final platting of Lots 1 and 4.
The land use buffers were briefly discussed.It was noted that
the buffers along the south and west property lines should be
increased.
The CATA comment relating to access was briefly discussed.It
was noted that public transportation vehicles would not travel
down the proposed cul-de-sac,but would let persons off along
Stagecoach Road,with a possible future route.It was also
noted that the proposed cul-de-sac would have sidewalks on both
sides.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the preliminary
plat and PD-0 to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a
letter on August 4,1999 requesting that this 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 6 ayes,0 nays
and 5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-5038-D
NAME:Seven Acres (Lot 4)—Revised POD
LOCATION:¹5Seven Acres Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Comcast Cablevision of LR Hoch Associates
801 Scott Street 809 S.Calhoun St.,Ste.500LittleRock,AR 72201 Fort Wayne,IN 46802
AREA:Approx.1.3 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:POD ALLOWED USES:Auto body shop and
telecommunications tower
with equipment building
PROPOSED USE:Same with the addition
of a 613 square foot
equipment building
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Seven Acres Business Park was established by the Board ofDirectorswithOrdinanceNo.16,319,passed on December 15,1992.This followed a recommendation of approval by the
Planning Commission on November 3,1992.The approved POD
allowed office,showroom/warehouse uses with a limited amount of
commercial use on four (4)lots.
On February 20,1996,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.17,118,amending the POD to allow the Golden Collision
Center (auto repair business)to be constructed on Lot 4.On
September 23,1997,the Board passed Ordinance No.17,580
allowing construction of an Alltel tower and equipment buildingalsoonLot4.The site plan for Lots 1 and 2 (west side of
Seven Acres Drive)was revised by Ordinance No.17,764,passed
on July 7,1998.
August 19,999
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-5038-D
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the site plan for Lot 4 byconstructinga613scgxarefootequipmentbuilding.ThebuildingisproposedtobelocatedalongthesouthpropertylineofLot4asnotedontheattachedsiteplan.
The applicant has noted that the purpose of the building istohousesignalequipmentspecificallydesignedforinteractionwithComcast's underground fiber optic cablingsystem.The building will be unoccupied and maintenance
crews will inspect the equipment approximately once perweek.
The proposed building will be a prototype designconstructedofprecastconcrete.The building will be26.83 feet long by 22.83 feet wide and 9.38 feet in height.Adjacent to the proposed building will be a 10 foot by 13footconcreteequipmentpadtosupportaself-contained,diesel generator.
B.EXZSTZNG CONDZTZONS:
Lot 4 contains an existing auto repair business and anAllteltowerandequipmentbuilding.Existing buildings,
parking,drives and landscaped areas are noted on the
attached site plan.
There is floodway property located along the south boundaryofLot4,some of which is wooded.An office building is
currently under construction across Seven Acres Drive to
the west,with single-family residences further west alongBellaRosaDrive.There is an existing office building
immediately north of Lot 4 at the southeast corner of Seven
Acres Dr.and Cantrell Road.A plant nursery is located
immediately east of the site.
C.NEZGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Secluded Hills and Westchester/Heatherbrae NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.
D.ENGZNEERZNG COMMENTS:
PUBLZC WORKS CONDZTZONS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5038-D
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Stormwater detention applies to this property.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Service available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA,approved for
transit purposes as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN
Plannin Division:
This proposal is in the River Mountain Planning District.
The site is shown as Transition on the Land Use Plan.
There is an existing POD on the site and the addition of an
unmanned mechanical building at the rear of the site does
not constitute a conflict with the plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The River
Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan does support the use of
underground utilities in new residential developments.
Landsca e Issues:
The loss of landscaping with this proposal must be made up.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 4,1999.The revised plan addresses the concerns as
raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff.The revised
plan notes the building height and labels the existing
telecommunications tower as requested by staff.The small
landscape island which will be removed with the placement
of the equipment building will be relocated to the
northeast corner of the property.
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5038-D
The applicant has also noted that the existing power lines
along the west side of Seven Acres Drive will be extended
to provide electric service to the proposed equipment
building.The applicant states that the extension of the
power lines will not disrupt any of the existing landscaped
areas.
Otherwise,to staff'knowledge there are no other issues
to be resolved.The proposed equipment building should
have no adverse effect on the area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised POD subject to
compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and F of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Jason Branstetor was present,representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposed revision to the
previously approved POD site plan for Lot 4,Seven Acres
Subdivision.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Branstetor noted thatallfiberopticlinestotheproposedequipmentbuildingwould
be underground.Mr.Branstetor also noted that the proposed
building would be of a precast concrete construction.
The Public Works Comments were briefly discussed.
Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that the interior
landscape area eliminated by the proposed building would have to
be relocated.
There being no further issues for resolution,the Committee
forwarded the revised POD application to the full Commission for
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
4
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5038-D
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 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
5
August 19,~999
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6719
NAME:Bussell —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:17201 Lawson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Stan Bussell None
5204 Sullivan Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:0.9 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-1 ALLOWED USES:Neighborhood Commercial
PROPOSED USE:C-1 permitted uses and a
furniture upholstery shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of the required right-of-way dedication to Lawson and
Sullivan Roads.
2.Waiver of the required street improvements to Lawson and
Sullivan Roads.
3.Waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws to accept notification
without an abstract list.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at the
southwest corner of Lawson and Sullivan Roads from C-1 to
PCD to allow for the current uses located on this site.
There is a commercial building (3,330 sq.ft.),a double-
wide manufactured home (28 X 60)and a garage structure
(under construction)currently on the property as noted ontheattachedsiteplan.There is a flea market (1,800 sq.ft.)and a furniture upholstery business (1,200 sq.ft.)located in the commercial building.The typical hours of
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
operation will be from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.The property owners live in the existing
manufactured home.
The furniture upholstery use is not a permitted "by right"
use in C-1 zoning.Therefore the applicant is proposingtherezoningtoallowallC-1 permitted uses and thefurnitureupholsteryuseforthecommercialbuilding.
The only physical change to the property is a second 28footby60footmanufacturedhomewhichtheapplicant
proposes to place near the property's southwest corner.
The manufactured home will be a residence for the propertyowners'aughter so that she can help care for one of the
owners who is in ill health.The daughter will also
operate a small beauty shop within the commercial building
which will occupy approximately 330 square feet.
Access to the residences will be from an existing graveldrivefromSullivanRoad.Access to the commercial
building is gained from Sullivan and Lawson Roads,near thecorner,as there is no street curb and gutter in this area.
The applicant is requesting three (3)waivers with thisapplication.The first two are waivers of Public Works
requirements.The applicant requests a waiver of therequiredright-of-way dedication for Lawson and Sullivan
Roads and a waiver of the required 4 street improvementsforthesestreets.As of this writing,Public Works hasnotmadearecommendationontheserequests.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the Planning
Commission bylaws,Article IV.A.4.b.,which requires that
an applicant obtain an abstract list of property owners
within 200 feet of the tract for which rezoning has beenpetitioned,and notify said owners.In this case theapplicant,on his own,determined the property owners
within 200 feet of the property and mailed (certified)notices of the public hearing.The notices were mailed onJuly17,1999.A total of five (5)property owners werenotified.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property contains a commercial building,a double-wide
manufactured home and a garage structure,as noted on theattachedsiteplan.
There is a car wash and a contractor's maintenance yard tothenorthacrossLawsonRoad,with single-family residences
on large lots to the northeast.There is vacant propertyimmediatelywestofthissite.There are also single-
2
August 19,599
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
family residences on large lots to the east across Sullivan
Road and to the south along Sullivan Road.There is a
large amount of manufactured homes of various sizes in this
general area.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood,with the exception of one (1)informational
phone call.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Lawson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
will be required (includes 10 feet additional feet for
right turn lane).Clearance of soils from APCE required
prior to dedication.
2.Sullivan 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.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Lawson Road and Sullivan Road.
4.Public Works do not support building expansion at the
close proximity of the intersection.
5.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.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.One driveway (36 feet wide)is recommended for center of
property versus two shown on plan.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
3
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
requesting waivers of right-of-way dedication and 4 street
improvements for Lawson and Sullivan Roads.Public Works
will make a recommendation on these waiver requests priortothepublichearing.
Also explained in paragraph A.is the applicant's requested
waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws,ArticleIV.A.4.b.,which requires that the applicant obtain anabstractlistfornotification.The Commission will needtohearfromtheapplicantanddetermineifthisbylaw
waiver is appropriate,or if a deferral is warranted,priortothepublichearingonthisrezoningcase.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD rezoning subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.The issue of waivers of right-of-way dedication and 4streetimprovementsmustberesolved.Public Works will
make a recommendation prior to the public hearing.3.The uses of the property will be limited to C-1 permittedusesandafurnitureupholsteryshop.4.No outside storage of merchandise will be permitted.5.The manufactured homes must be used as residences only.6.The septic system must be approved by the Pulaski CountyHealthDepartment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
The applicant was not present.Staff gave a brief descriptionoftheproposedPCDsiteplan,noting that additional
information was needed from the applicant.
It was noted that staff would attempt to meet with the applicant
and work out Planning and Public Works issues prior to the
public hearing.The Committee forwarded the application to thefullCommissionforresolution.
5
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6719
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The Commission informed the staff that a waiver of the Planning
Commission bylaws would not be supported and that the item
needed to be deferred to the September 30,1999 agenda to allow
time for proper notification.Staff informed the applicant,
Stan Bussell,of this situation.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 30,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
6
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6720
NAME:Chenal Acura —Long-Form PD-C and Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
The Winrock Group,Inc.The Mehlburger Firm
1590 Union National Plaza 201 S.Izard Street
P.0.Box 1280 Little Rock,AR 72201LittleRock,AR 72203
AREA:11.85 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-18/0-2/C-3 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily,Office,
Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Auto dealership (Lot 1)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 11.85 acres at thenortheastcornerofChenalParkwayandKirkRoadinto five
(5)lots.The property is currently zoned MF-18/0-2/C-3.
The applicant proposes an interior private drive to serveLots1and2.The lots will be final platted one at a timeastheyaresold,beginning with Lot 1,at the east end oftheproperty.The proposed lots range in size from .79acreto5.3 acres.
The applicant is also proposing to rezone Lot 1 from MF-
18/0-2 to PD-C to allow for the development of an autodealership.The applicant proposes to construct two (2)buildings on the site,within the southern one-half of theproperty.The easternmost building is proposed to be
12,700 square feet in area,with the building to its west
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6720
being 6,600 square feet.The proposed height of thebuildingsis28feet.The site plan shows a garden plazaareabetweenthetwobuildings,part of which will be usedforvehicledisplay.
The applicant is proposing a very limited amount of vehicledisplaybetweenthebuildingsandChenalParkway.The bulkofthevehiculardisplaywillbetothenorthofandbehindtheproposedbuildings.The applicant has also noted
customer,employee and service parking on the site plan.
One access point from Chenal Parkway is proposed to servetheautodealership.The access consists of a privateshareddrivealongthelotlineofLots1and2asshown ontheattachedsiteplanandplat.One (1)monument signlocation,dumpster location and landscape/buffer areas arealsonotedontheattachedsiteplan.
The following hours of operation are proposed:
7:30 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday-Friday8:30 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Saturday
At the present time,the dealership has no plan to be openonSunday,however,the company would like to reserve therighttoadjustthehoursofoperationtomeetfuturecustomerneeds.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains several vacant buildings of various sizeswhichwillberemovedwithconstructionoftheindividuallots.There are commercial uses to the south across Chenal
Parkway and west across Kirk Road.There is a churchimmediatelyeastofthesite,with undeveloped multifamilyandofficezonedpropertytothenorth.There is a mini-
warehouse complex and an office building currently underconstructiontothenortheast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The St.Charles and Parkway Place
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6720
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
l.Existing median opening for Kroger Shopping Center is
scheduled to be closed per Master Street Plan with PhaseIIIofShoppingCenterDevelopment.
2.Kirk Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan and Chenal 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 work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Driveway spacing shall comply with Ordinance ¹18,031and
Chenal Parkway Plan.
8.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 10 feet base flood elevation.
9.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
10.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)is
required.
11.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
APEL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:There is a 50'ide right-of-way strip crossingthispropertytowhichwehaveadeed.The Water Worksisintheprocessofworkingoutthedetailsofan
agreement regarding protection of the raw water main thatcrossesthissite.
Fire Department:Fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6720
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is not currently served by CATA,approved.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Chenal Planning District and is
shown as Commercial with a PZD required on the Land Use
Plan.Concerns include access easements to Kirk Road;
location of the sign(s);and the buffering to the less
intense uses to the north and east.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is
located in the Rock Creek Neighborhood Area Plan.That
plan states to "Aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts
(PZD's)to influence more neighborhood friendly and better
quality developments."
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesasfeasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when
preserving trees of six inch caliper or larger.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat and site
plan to staff on August 5,1999.The revised plat
addresses most of the issues raised by the Subdivision
Committee.There are still several items which need to be
noted on a revised plat drawing and are as follows:
1.Address of landowner and source of title2.Dimensions along all lot lines
3.All driveway locations
4.Platted building lines
5.Names of all abutting property owners
6.Location of PAGIS Monuments
7.Street widths
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6720
The revised site plan also addresses the issues raised bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The revised plan
notes the area and height of each building,sign location,
dumpster location and designated vehicle display areas.
The revised plan also notes that several trees along the
east and south property lines will be saved.
The property is located within the Chenal/Financial Center
Design Overlay District.The following DOD ordinance
requirements will apply to this development:
1.Ground-mounted sign(s)must be monument type with a
maximum area of 100 square feet and a maximum height of 8feet.
2.All lighting must be directed to the parking areas and
not reflected onto adjacent parcels.3.No overhead utilities within 100 feet of Chenal Parkway
right-of-way.
4.All lighting and utilities located in front of the rear
line of the building must be underground.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with this application.Staff feels that
the proposed development of this property will have no
adverse effect on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and PD-C
rezoning subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.A revised preliminary plat must be submitted with theadditionalitemsnotedasoutlinedinparagraphG.3.The development must conform to the Chenal/Financial
Center Design Overlay District regulations,also noted in
paragraph G.4.The existing trees along the east and south propertylinesmustbepreservedasofferedbytheapplicant.5.No unloading of vehicles in the public right-of-way.IftheprivateaccesseasementisevercontinuedthroughtoKirkRoad,vehicles must be unloaded on the dealership
property and not within the access easement area.6.An overall final plat will be required when the last lotwithinthisproposedsubdivisionisfinalplatted.
5
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6720
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Frank Riggins was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the preliminary plat and PD-C site
plan.Staff noted several items which needed to be shown on a
revised preliminary plat drawing.Staff also noted that
signage,site lighting and utilities must conform to the Chenal
Design Overlay District Ordinance.
There was a brief discussion relating to the number of parking
spaces/vehicular display area shown on the site plan.Mr.
Riggins noted that the amount of vehicular display area shown
was required by the specific auto dealers which would occupy the
property and was typical of their other dealerships.He also
noted that a portion of the "Garden Plaza"area would be used
for vehicular display.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Riggins noted that
vehicles would be initially unloaded along the private drive
along the west property line.He stated that if the private
drive is connected to Kirk Road,the vehicles would be unloaded
within the site.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.
Riggins noted that all the requirements would be complied with.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the preliminary
plat and PD-C to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,addressed the Commission.He noted
for the record that if the joint access drive fram Chenal
Parkway is ever extended to Kirk Road,the drive will need to
meet the Master Street Plan standards for a service drive.
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 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
6
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6721
NAME:Lands —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:North side of Colonel Glenn Road,at Rocky Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Sammie and Susie Lands White-Daters and Associates
17201 Colonel Glenn Road 401 S.Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential,
nonconforming convenience store
with gas pumps
PROPOSED USE:Convenience store with gas
pumps,car wash,mini-warehouses
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Deferral of street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road.2.Variance from the ordinance requirements for driveway spacing.
BACKGROUND
The property along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road at Rocky
Lane is zoned R-2 and has a nonconforming commercial status.
There is an existing convenience store with gas pumps on thesite.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
PCD to allow for a complete redevelopment of the site.Theproposedredevelopmentincludesthefollowingasnotedon
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6721
the attached site plan:
1.A new 2,400 square foot convenience store building.2.Relocation of existing gas pumps.3.An automated and self-serve car wash building with vacuumstations.4.Two (2)mini-warehouse buildings.5.Associated drives and parking areas.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing convenience store with gas and diesel
pumps on the site,as noted on the attached site plan.The
property to the north is vacant and wooded.There is another
convenience store with gas pumps to the southwest at thecornerofColonelGlennRoadandRockyLane.Single-familyresidencesonlargerlotsarelocatedtothesouthacross
Colonel Glenn Road and to the east along Colonel Glenn.
There is a beauty shop,a pet grooming/boarding business andsingle-family residences to the west along Colonel Glenn
Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet on Colonel Glenn
Road.Clearance of soils from APCE required prior to
dedication.
2.Driveways must conform to ¹18,031 (spacing and width).3.Construct half-street improvements as per Master Street
Plan.
4.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 10 feet base flood elevation is
required.
5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
6.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)(d)is required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
2
August 19,i999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6721
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works if service is needed.If
this property does not have existing water service,
execution of a pre-annexation agreement will be required.
Fire Department:Outside city limits.If property is ever
annexed,private fire hydrants may be required.
Count Plannin
1.Remove gas tanks from right-of-way.
2.Provide proper water control for car wash to prevent
water from flowing onto Colonel Glenn Road.
CATA:Not currently in CATA service area.No comment.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The use of a convenience store and other uses are
consistent with the existing Business Node and the overall
size of the parcel is consistent.Concerns are buffers onallthreesidestoSingleFamilyareas;Signage locations
and size;Topography differences and cuts into the
hillside.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:There is not a
neighborhood plan for this area at this time.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed land use buffers for the eastern and western
perimeters are 13 feet short of the 19 feet full width
required by ordinance.
The proposed width of the land use buffer for the northern
perimeter is 9 4 feet short of the full width requirement
of 15 4 feet.
The proposed width of the street buffer is 9 4 feet short
of the full requirement of 15 4 feet.
3
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6721
A six foot high opacpxe screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardordenseevergreenplantings
will be recpxired adjacent to residential properties to the
north,east and west.
A small amount of building landscaping will be required
between the public parking areas and building they serve.
At least 60%of the land use buffers must remain in its
natural state.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesasarefeasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance recpxirements can be given when
preserving trees of 6 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:
There are several design related issues associated with the
proposed site plan which need to be addressed and resolved
by the applicant.The issues which need to be resolved
include,but are not limited to:building locations,
driveway locations,landscape and buffer areas,vehicular
circulation and phasing plan.
Given the amount of site plan redesign work that needs to
be done,staff suggested to the applicant at the
Subdivision Committee meeting that this item be deferred.
A deferral will allow staff and the Subdivision Committee
adecpxate time to review a revised plan.The applicant
submitted a letter to staff on August 4,1999 requesting
deferral of this item to the September 30,1999 agenda.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the recpxested deferral of this
item to the September 30,1999 Planning Commission agenda.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6721
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave
a brief description of the PDC site plan,noting a number of
concerns with the proposed site design.Staff noted that thesiteplanshouldbetotallyredesignedtoprovideforimproved
vehicular circulation and use of the property.Staff suggested
that the application be deferred to allow adequate time to
review a revised site plan and bring the revised site plan to
the Subdivision Committee.Mr.White agreed with the deferral
as suggested by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted alettertostaffonAugust4,1999 requesting that this item be
deferred to the September 30,1999 agenda.Staff supported'the
deferral recpxest.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to September 30,1999.A
motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:S-1212-B
NAME:Eagle Hill Apartments (Phase IV)—Subdivision Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Baseline and Colonel Miller Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Lindsey Management Co.White-Daters and Associates
300 Front Street 401 S.Victory Street
Fayetteville,AR 72702 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:236 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-6 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily
PROPOSED USE:Multifamily
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site plan for Phase I of the Eagle Hill Apartments and the
conditional use permit for the golf course were approved by the
Planning Commission on October 10,1996.Phase I included 32
apartment buildings with 384 units along the north side of
Baseline Road at the northeast corner of Baseline and Colonel
Miller Roads.Ordinance 17,299 passed by the City Board ofDirectorsonNovember7,1996 deferred a portion of the one-halfstreetimprovementstoBaselineRoadandallofColonelMiller
Road for three (3)years or until construction of Phase II of
the apartment complex.
The site plan for Phase II of the apartment development was
approved by the Planning Commission on September 3,1998.PhaseIIincluded14apartmentbuildingswith168unitsatthe
northwest corner of the property.Improvements to Colonel
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1212-B
Miller Road were required with Phase II construction,and are
currently under construction.
On January 21,1999,the Planning Commission approved the site
plan for Phase III of the apartment development.Phase III
included 11 apartment buildings with 132 units immediately east
of Phase II.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct Phase IV of the
Eagle Hill Apartment complex.This phase will consist of
three (3)two-story buildings near the southwest corner of
the property.There will be a total of 36 apartment units
(12 one-bedroom and 24 two-bedroom).A total of 72 parking
spaces is proposed with this phase.Access to this phasewillbegainedthroughPhaseItothenorthandsouth.
This phase will bring the total number of apartment unitsforthisdevelopmentto720.Ordinance No.17,285 passed
by the Board of Directors on October 15,1996 rezoned this
property to MF-6 and limited the total number of apartmentunitsto1,050 for the entire 236 acre site.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area proposed for Phase IV construction is vacant and
grass covered.There are two small churches and a mini-
storage business to the west across Colonel Miller Road.
The Eagle Hill golf course is located immediately east ofthisproposedphase,with Phase I development to the north
and south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Otter Creek and Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.A sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
2.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1212-B
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No objection.A contract with the Water Works
will be required to install the proposed fire hydrant.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Not currently in CATA service area,approved fortransitpurposesassubmitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements when averaged out.However,the
proposed parking area projects 32 feet over into the full
required street buffer width of 40 feet.Additionally,the
proposed parking lot needs broken with interior landscapingtosoftenitsimpactasaseaofasphalt.This will also
allow for the required interior trees of one tree for eachfifteenparkingspaces.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 2,1999.The revised plan addresses the concerns asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The
building heights and dumpster locations have been shown ontherevisedplan.The revised plan also shows interior
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1212-B
landscape islands and an increased street buffer as
required.
To staff'knowledge there are no further issues for
resolution.The proposed Phase IV of the Eagle Hill
Apartment complex should have no adverse effect on the
general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to
compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,
E and F of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave
a brief description of the proposed site plan,noting that the
building heights and dumpster locations needed to be shown on
the site plan.
Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,noted that the street
side buffer needed to be increased to at least 12 feet and that
interior landscape islands were required.Mr.Brown noted that
new trees at a rate of one (1)tree per each 15 parking spaces
would need to be planted within the landscaped areas along
Colonel Miller Road.Mr.White stated that these landscape
requirements would be complied with.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
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 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
4
August 19,1999
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:S-1231-B
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 S.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:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
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 (62,492 square feet)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.
On May 27,1999,the applicant withdrew an application for a
revised site plan.The revised plan proposed additional area
Augus t 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-B
for the larger commercial building and a parking variance for 60spaces.~/
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously
approved site plan.The applicant proposes to increase thesizeofthelargercommercialbuildingfrom62,492 squarefeetto67,992 square feet.The applicant also proposes todecreasethesizeofthesmallerbuildingfrom3,682 squarefeetto2,100 square feet.The smaller building is nowlabeledasretailinsteadofrestaurantuse.The overallincreaseinbuildingareaisapproximately5.6 percent.
With the increase in building area proposed,the newordinancerequirementforminimumnumberofparking spacesis311spaces.The applicant proposes 284 parking spaceswiththerevisedsiteplan,27 spaces short of the
ordinance required minimum.As noted previously,on
January 21,1999 the Commission approved a variance for 29
parking spaces for this site.The 27 space deficiency in
parking is within the previously approved variance,therefore no additional variance is required.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Office Max portion of the larger commercial building iscomplete.The remainder of this building is currently
under construction.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 publichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment
from the neighborhood.
2
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONSs
Building permit for this application will be held untilclosureofAtkinsright-of-way has been finalized as
previously requested.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Site is near CATA Route ¹5—West Markham;
sidewalks are adequate,will have to have pedestrian
crosswalks clearly identified from sidewalks to building
entrances;approved for transit purposes as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
August 2,1999.The revised plan addresses the concerns as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The smaller
commercial building meets the required minimum setbacks and
the applicant has noted that the Atkins Road right-of-way
will be abandoned.As noted in the Subdivision Committee
comments,the applicant has expressed a willingness to
identify pedestrian crosswalks as suggested by CATA.
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-B
The proposed site is located within the Chenal/Financial
Center Design Overlay District.Signage,site lighting andutilitiesmustconformtothefollowingDODrequirements:
1.Ground-mounted signs must be "monument"type with a
maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 100 squarefeet.
2.Parking lot lighting must be directed to the parking
areas and not reflected to adjacent property.3.No overhead utilities shall be constructed within 100feetoftheChenalParkwayright-of-way.
4.All lighting and utilities in front of the rear line of
the building must be underground.
As noted with the previously approved site plan,the
applicant will be required to plant one (1)evergreen tree
every 20 feet along the south and west property lines to
help screen the building in the areas where the building is
below the grade of the streets (W.Markham Street and
Gamble Road).The applicant will also be required to plant
evergreen trees at the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway
and Gamble Road where several small evergreen trees were
removed during site preparation.The applicant will work
with Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,regarding the
placement.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues.The
proposed revised site plan should have no adverse effects
on the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Signage,site lighting and utilities must conform withtheChenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District asnotedinparagraphG.2.Staff recommends approval of the Atkins Road right-of-way
abandonment.3.Clearly identified pedestrian crosswalks from the
sidewalks to the building must be provided as requested
by CATA.
4.The evergreen trees must be replanted at the southeast
corner of Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road as noted in
paragraph G.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1231-B
5.Evergreen trees (1 every 20 feet)must be planted alongthesouthandwestpropertylineswheretheproposed
commercial building is below the grade of West MarkhamStreetandGambleRoad.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White and Jeff Yates were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the revised site
plan,noting the differences between this plan and the
previously approved site plan.
Staff noted that the side yard setback for the small commercial
building needed to be increased from 23 to 25 feet.Staff also
noted that signage,site lighting and utilities must conform to
the Chenal Design Overlay District Ordinance.Public Works
noted that the Atkins Road right-of-way along the east property
line must be abandoned.
The CATA recpxest to have clearly identified pedestrian
crosswalks from the sidewalks to the building was briefly
discussed.Mr.Yates indicated a willingness to comply with
this recpxest.Debbie Allen,of CATA,stated that she could
supply Mr.Yates with suggestions as to how to delineate these
areas.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the revised site plan to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
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 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
5
August 19,1999
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:S-1254
NAME:Arkansas Farm Bureau —Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:10720 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Arkansas Farm Bureau Wittenberg,Deloney and Davidson
10710 Kanis Road The Mehlburger Firm
Little Rock,AR 72211 400 West Capitol,Suite 1800
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:13.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:General Office
PROPOSED USE:General Office and Daycare
Center
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED
1.A variance to allow a 6 foot high fence/wall along the south
(Kanis Road)property line.
2.A variance to allow placement of a sign on the proposed
fence/wall.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct a second building on
the site at 10720 Kanis Road to serve as a child carefacilityprimarilyfortheemployeesoftheArkansas Farm
Bureau.The proposed day care use is a permitted 0-3 use,
however,a site plan review is required based on the fact
that there will be more than one building on the site.
The proposed day care building will have an area of 9,000
square feet and a height of 22 feet at the building's
highest point.The building will be located along the
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1254
Kanis Road side of the property where a parking areacurrentlyexists.The west entry drive from Shackleford
Road will be partially relocated to reduce the drive's
existing steep grade.The applicant will also revise theexistingparkingareasalongtheproposedbuilding's north
and east sides and provide a drop-off area along the eastsideofthebuildingasnotedontheattachedsiteplan.
The applicant is also proposing a six (6)foot high stonewall/fence along the Kanis Road property line and toenclosetheplayareasonthenorthsideofthebuilding.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the portionofthestonewall/fence along Kanis Road,between the
building line and the right-of-way with a height of six (6)feet.The ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four
(4)feet between the building line and the street.Theapplicanthasstatedthatthesixfootwall/fence isrequestedprimarilyasachildsafetyissued.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a signtobeplacedonthestonewall/fence on each side of the
Kanis Road entry drive.Typically,the City's Zoning
Ordinance does not allow signs on fences.These signs willreplaceanexistingmonumentsignattheKanisRoadentrance.
The applicant has noted that the day care facility will
have a maximum of 141 children and 15 employees.Theapplicanthasalsonotedthatthedaycarefacilitywill beprimarilyforFarmBureauemployeesandexcesscapacity
would be available to non-Farm Bureau employees.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing five-story Arkansas Farm Bureau office
building (114,000 square feet)and associated parking areas(361 total spaces)are currently located on the site.
There are a number of mature trees on the site.Theapplicanthasnotedthatonlyone(1)tree is anticipatedtobelostwiththeproposedconstruction.
Interstate 430 abuts the property to the east,with Kanis
Road along the property's south boundary and Shackleford
Road to the west.There is I-430 right-of-way (access
ramp)immediately north.There is a mixture of office,
commercial and residential uses in this general area.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The John Barrow and Sewer District ¹147
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1254
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline will be required (includes 10 feet
additional right-of-way turn lane per Master Street Plan
required).
2.Provide design of Kanis Road conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks
with planned development.Construct half of left lane
and add right lane (total of 17 feet pavement)on Kanis
Road.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Remove unused apron and reconstruct curb on Shackleford
Road.
7.Provide design and construct traffic signal
modifications.
8.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval l0-foot base flood elevation is
required.
9.A Sketch Grading and Draining Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
10.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186 (c)and (d)is
required.
11.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is
required.
l2 .Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District IV.
3
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1254
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding new water
service needs.If any water facilities require
relocation,that work will be done at the expense of the
developer.
Fire Department:Fire hydrant may be required.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:CATA Route 53 —Baptist Medical Center is near thissite;approved for transit purposes as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping far exceed
ordinance requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesasfeasible.
G.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on August 4,1999.The revised plan
addresses the concerns as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.
As noted in paragraph A,the applicant is requesting a
variance for fence height and a variance to allow signs on
the proposed stone wall/fences at the Kanis Road entrance.Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested as
they should create no adverse impacts.
4
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1254
The ordinance requires a total of 268 parking spaces for
the site,including the proposed day care use.There are atotalof401spacesshownonthesiteplanfortheentiresite.There is ample parking on the site to accommodate
the proposed day care use.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there should be no
outstanding issues associated with the site plan.The
proposed day care facility should have no adverse impact on
the general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.2.Staff recommends approval of the variance for fenceheight.3.Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allowsignstobeplacedonthefenceattheKanisRoadentrance.4.The existing trees on the site will be preserved asofferedbytheapplicant.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999)
Bill Donald was present,representing the application.Staffbrieflydescribedthesiteplan,noting additional information
which was needed.Staff noted that a variance needed to be
requested for the sign on the proposed stone fence/wall.
Mr.Donald stated that there would be no problem conforming to
the Planning and Public Works requirements.He noted that a
revised site plan and the additional information requested would
be supplied to staff.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Donald noted that
almost all of the existing trees on the site would be preserved.
He stated that possibly one (1)tree would be lost with the
proposed construction.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for final action.
5
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1254
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the site plan for this
project had been revised substantially and submitted to staff on
August 17,1999.Staff noted that the revised site plan needed
additional review from the Planning and Public Works staffs and
should also have additional review by the Subdivision Committee.
The Commission agreed that the item needed to be deferred to
allow the additional review.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 30,1999
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
6
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO:Z-2039-B
NAME:MEM's Station,Colony West —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:10,300 Rodney Parham Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Dole Rodgers Company/Gregory Thompson
(MEM's)
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
operate a MEM's ambulance post at 10300
Rodney Parham in the Colony West Shopping
Center,Suite Q,which is Zoned C-3,General
Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This ambulance post would be in Suite Q,lower level of the
north side building of the existing Colony West Shopping
Center.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This ambulance post has been at this site for quite some
time and to Staff's knowledge has not generated any
particular conflict with the surrounding area.This site is
Zoned C-3,General Commercial.Across Breckenridge to the
north is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential There is some
open space between this site and the houses in the
residential area.To the northeast is Zoned 0-3,General
Office.Staff believes that continued use of this site as
an ambulance post will not pose any detrimental effect on
the neighborhood.
The Colony West and Sturbridge Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is a driveway in close proximity to this suite
directly onto Breckenridge so the ambulance does not have
to drive through the shopping center parking lot when
August 19,'999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2039-B
making a run.There is one parking spot directly in front
of the suite reserved for ambulance parking.No changes are
proposed.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.This is a developed property.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
With any construction the following items would be required
as part of the building permit approval.
a.Construct sidewalk along Rodney Parham frontage to bridge
including improvements to islands.AHTD approval
required.
b.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.c.Construct sidewalk along Service Drive to adjacent
apartment complex.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.f.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval base flood elevation is required.
g.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route ¹8,Rodney Parham,serves this site;
approved for transit purposes as submitted.
2
August 19,'999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2039-B
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to use
an office suite in the shopping center as a post from which
to stage an ambulance.The suite is located on the lower
level in the back of the north side building,out of sightofmostoftheshoppingcenter.One crew would use theofficeasaplacetowaitforacallandnothavetosit in
the ambulance.They would not live there.
There is one parking space marked off in front of the suite
reserved for ambulance parking.That will not have a
detrimental effect on parking.The suite is located in
close proximity to an existing driveway directly onto
Breckenridge.So the ambulance does not have to travel
through the shopping center parking lot when making an
emergency run.
There is no construction or change to the existing shoppingcenterpropertyconnectedwiththisrequest,so there are
no siting requirements to review.Staff believes this is a
reasonable use of this site and should not cause a negative
impact on the surrounding area or residential area to the
north and northeast.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as
submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Greg Thompson was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
There were no issues or concerns discussed.In response to the
Committee,Public Works verified that their comments applied
only if new construction was involved,which was not the caseforthisapplication.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2039-B
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Greg Thompson was present representing the application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval as submitted.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO:Z-3644-B
NAME:MEM's Station,Geyer Springs —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:6917 Geyer Springs Road,Southwest Plaza,
Suite 7
OWNER/APPLICANT:Josef Villiger/Greg Thompson
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
operate a MEM's ambulance post at 6917 Geyer
Springs Road in the Southwest Plaza,Office
Suite 7,which is Zoned C-3,General
Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the south end of the existing Southwest
Plaza building in office suite 7.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This ambulance post has been at this site for calcite some
time and to Staff's knowledge has not generated any
particular conflict with the surrounding area.This site is
Zoned C-3,General Commercial.To the east the zoning isI-2,Light Industrial.Zoning to the north,west,and southisC-3.To the southeast there is R-2,Single Family
Residential zoning,but there is cpxite a bit of space
between this site and any residences.
Staff believes that continued use of this site as an
ambulance post will not pose any detrimental effect on the
neighborhood.
The Wakefield Neighborhood Association was notified of the
Public Hearing.
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3644-B
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is a driveway to Geyer Springs at the south end of
the Plaza which provides quick direct exit for the
ambulance without having to drive through the parking area.
For this location the ambulance is parked in marked parking
places directly across the driveway that is next to the
south end of the building.That should not cause any
detrimental or shortage effect on parking for the Plaza.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
With any construction the following items would be required as
part of the building permit approval.
a.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
b.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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 gl7 6 gl7A,Mabelvale serve this site;
approved for transit purposes as submitted.
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont ~)FILE NO.:E-3644-B
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to use
an office suite in the existing office plaza as a post from
which to stage an ambulance.The suite is located on the
south side of the building,out of sight of most of the
plaza.One crew would use the office as a place to wait for
a call and not have to sit in the ambulance.They would not
live there.
The ambulance would park in a marked parking place directly
across the driveway that is next to the south end of the
building.That should not cause any detrimental or shortageeffectonparkingforthePlaza.The suite is located in
close proximity to an existing driveway directly onto Geyer
Springs.So the ambulance does not have to travel through
the plaza parking lot when making an emergency run.
There is no construction or change to the existing plaza
property connected with this request,so there are no
siting requirements to review.Staff believes this is a
reasonable use of this site and should not cause a
substantial negative impact on the surrounding area or
residential area to the southeast.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as
submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Greg Thompson was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
There were no issues or concerns discussed.In response to the
Committee,Public Works verified that their comments applied
only if new construction was involved,which was not the case
for this application.
The applicant clarified that the parking for the ambulance would
be directly across from the suite,not in the rear of the
building as shown on the site plan submitted.
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3644-B
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19 1999)
Greg Thompson was present representing the application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval as submitted.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
4
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO:Z-3727-D
NAME:Hidden Valley Apartments Mini-Storage
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:225 Keightly Drive,Hidden Valley Apartments
OWNER/APPLICANT:Property Partners I/Patrick McGetrick
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
construct a small mini-storage area
primarily for the residents of the Hidden
Valley Apartments at 225 Keightly Drive,but
with the option to rent space to the public.
This site is Zoned C-3,General Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the north side of Cantrell Road,just eastoftheintersectionofKeightlyandCantrell,at the back
end of the Hidden Valley Apartment complex.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned C-3,General Commercial,and is bounded
on the east,south,and west by C-3 Zoning.To the north is
the rest of the apartment complex property which is Zoned
R-5,Urban Residential.The area to the south and west
contains fast food restaurants and their parking areas.The
area to the north and east is vacant land that drops off
into a deep ravine which is tree and vine covered.
Staff believes this use would be compatible with the
surrounding area and not cause a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood.
The Meriwhether Neighborhood Association was notified of
the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to this site would be from Keightly Drive through
the apartment complex.There is not a specific ordinance
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-3727-D
requirement for parking for mini-storage areas.The siteisrathertightwiththespacebetweentheproposed
building and the property line being as little as 15 feet
at two of the corners.Therefore,staff believes that no
parking/storage should be allowed outside of the storage
units except possibly at the south east corner where the
property expands out to some degree.The rest of the area
should be only for loading/unloading of the storage units.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS
The fifteen percent building expansion would require a
fifteen percent upgrade in landscaping to comply with the
Landscape Ordinance.
The site would require a four foot landscape strip around
the west,south,and east property lines.No landscaping
would be required on the north side.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.b.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
d.Stormwater detention applies to this property.e.Provide maneuvering room for SU vehicle around storage.f.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval base flood elevation is required.
g.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.20-186(e)is
requi red.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate
this site to determine whether additional public or privatefirehydrantswillberequired.
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-3727-D
Wastewater:A six (6")inch sewer main is located in the
area of this site.No construction will be allowed over the
existing main.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility fordetails.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.A private fire
hydrant will be recpxired.
CATA:CATA Routes ¹1,Pulaski Heights and ¹22,Pleasant
Valley,serve this site;approved for transit purposes as
submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is recpxesting a conditional use permit to
construct a mini-storage building on the southeast corneroftheHiddenValleyApartmentComplexproperty.This would
be one single story building containing 19 units,primarily
intended for the use of apartment residents,but with the
option to offer it to the public if all the units aren'
used by the residents.
Access to the units would be through the apartment complex.
The applicant proposes to not have any fence around the
storage building,but it would have a six inch curb arounditplusalandscapestriptopreventaccessbeingtaken
from the adjoining businesses to the south and west.This
area is surrounded by C-3 Zoning except for the R-5 Zoningfortheapartmentcomplexpropertyonthenorthsideofthissite.Therefore,no screening would be recpxired by the
ordinance.A guardrail would be installed on the north and
northeast edges of the site since there is a deep drop offintoaravine.No outside lighting was proposed around the
building.
Staff believes the setbacks are adecpxate and the site plan
meets ordinances recpxirements as long as no parking is
allowed around the building.No parking around the building
has been agreed to by the applicant.Since the site has
easy access from three sides through adjoining business
3
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-3727-D
parking areas,the ll foot minimum spacing between the
building and property lines should not present a problem
for fire department access.However,the fire department
has requested a private fire hydrant be located near thissite.
Regarding an issue of a six inch sewer line existing in the
area,the applicant has agreed to relocate that line if itistooclosetothebuildingconstruction.
Regarding signage,the only signage proposed is a small
addition to the existing apartment complex sign mentioning
the availability of mini-storage.A specific proposal with
a drawing will be presented to the Commission for approval
as part of the C.U.P.Since this usage is commercial it
cannot by-right be advertised on a sign on residential
property.Therefore,in order for the complex to add this
use to their sign,it must be approved in the C.U.P.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this property
and that it should not create a negative impact on the
surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with Public Works Comments.
b.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances.c.All exterior lighting,if any were to be installed,must
be directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential area.
d.Install a guardrail along the steep drop-off areas
adjacent to the north and northeast edges of the pavement
around this site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-3727-D
Public Morks briefly reviewed their comments and raised the
issue of a guardrail along the edge where the property droppedoffsteeply.
In response to questions noted,the applicant stated to the
Committee that they would try to pinpoint where the sewer line
was,that they would not build over it and would relocate it if
they had to.The applicant also agreed to no parking around the
building and to meet ordinance landscaping requirements.
Questions about signage and fencing were also brought up.The
applicant stated that final decisions hadn't been made regarding
those issues,but they anticipated wanting a small sign added to
the existing complex sign.The Committee reminded the applicantthatthesignwouldneedtobepartoftheC.U.P.since it is
not authorized by-right because it would be a C-3 use being
advertised in an R-5 Zone.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Pat McGetrick 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,"plus the
added condition that the applicant complies with the sign
ordinance and places the sign where shown on the approved site
plan and as described in the file.Staff updated the Commission
that the applicant would place a guardrail as shown on the
revised site plan and does not intend to fence around the Mini-
storage building,but install a six inch curb instead.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO:Z-4184-A
NAME:Holy Souls Church Addition —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1003 N.Tyler Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/Dale
Hornbeck
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use permit.
to construct small additions to the main
church building and make some changes to the
main entry plaza area at 1003 N.Tyler
Street on property Zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 5.1 acre site is located in a residential area on the
north side of H Street,covering the two block area between
Polk and Harrison Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located in an older well developed residential
neighborhood Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and is
surrounded by residential zoning and single family homes.
The church and school have existed at this location for
many years,and while the number and size of the buildings
have increased,it has blended in well with the
neighborhood.
The additions and changes proposed are minor and do not add
seating capacity to the sanctuary.Therefore,there should
not be any impact to the neighborhood and this use should
continue to be compatible.
The Hillcrest and Prospect Terrace Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4184-A
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This application proposes no changes to the existing
driveways or parking areas.No change in sanctuary seatingisproposed,so no change in parking would be generated.
However,the existing driveways on Harrison,'I'nd N.
Tyler Streets do not meet current ordinance spacing
recpxirements and recpxire variances.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.b.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
d.Stozmwater detention 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 Routes ¹8,Rodney Parham and ¹21,University
Avenue,serve this site;approved for transit purposes as
submitted.
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4184-A
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting amendment of an existing
conditional use permit granted March 1984 to allow for
approximately 1500 square feet of additions to the main
church building for auxiliary space,and to change the
front plaza area to enhance access and to add an outside
garden columbarium with approximately 200 vaults.
The proposed changes are minimal and will hardly be visible
to the surrounding neighborhood on this 5.1 acre site.All
siting requirements are met with regard to the additions.
However,the existing driveways on Harrison,'I'nd N.
Tyler Streets do not meet current ordinance spacing
requirements and require variances.Also,normally the
applicant would be required to complete sidewalks along the
various sections of the perimeter of the property where
they are now missing.The terrain in the area of the
missing sidewalks would make construction of the sidewalks
extremely expensive and actually disruptive to the area.Staff would support variance requests for the driveways and
the sidewalks.
Staff believes these changes are reasonable enhancements to
the current use and should not change the compatibility
with the neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with Public Works Comments.Staff
also recommends approval of variances for driveway spacing
along Harrison,'I'nd N.Tyler Streets,and for not
expanding the existing sidewalks.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Dale Hornbeck were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly discussed their comments and added the
issues of driveway spacing and sidewalks which do not meet
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4184-A
current ordinance requirements.They stated that they would
support variances for both the driveways and sidewalks.
A question of rear yard setback was discussed by the Planning
Staff.The applicant stated that the rear setback was met and
that the survey provided which showed the setback to be less
than the required 25 feet was in error and would be corrected.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Pat McGetrick 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."Staff also
recommended approval of the variances for driveway spacing to
leave the driveways as they are along Harrison,'I'nd North
Tyler Streets,and for not expanding the existing sidewalks.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO:Z-4285-A
NAME:Catholic High School —Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:6300 Lee Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/Bartlett and
West Engineers
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use permit
to construct a 5700 scpxare foot science
building on the existing campus at 6300 Lee
Avenue on property Zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 23.25 acre site is on the north side of Lee Avenue,on
the northwest corner of Lee and University Avenues.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is located adjacent to a developed residential
neighborhood Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and
abuts R-2 Zoning to the north and west.To the south,and
east across University,the zoning is primarily 03,GeneralOffice.The school has existed at this site for many years
and is compatible with the neighborhood.Staff believes
that this additional building will not change that
compatibility.
The Evergreen and Hillcrest Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site currently has three access driveways to Lee
Avenue and 372 parking spaces.Parking recpxirements for
secondary grades (7-12)are based on the number of
classrooms (6 parking spaces per classroom),and a need for
stacking space for buses and autos.The 31 classrooms which
would exist after the addition would recpxire 186 parking
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4285-A
spaces,6 of which would need to be handicapped accessible,
plus stacking space.The existing area is more than
sufficient.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.University Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlineisrequired.b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofUniversityandLeeAvenue.c.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
Construct 5 feet wide sidewalk along University Avenue at
right-of-way line.
d.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.e.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Details need to be worked out to provide adequate
water service to this expansion.Also,a contract will be
required for the existing fire service that was apparentlyinstalledsometimeagowithoutourknowledge.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AIBA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Routes ¹8,Rodney Parham,and ¹21,University
Avenue,serve this site;approved for transit purposes as
submitted.
2
Augus t 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4285-A
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting amendment of an existing
conditional use permit,granted August 1984,to allow for
the addition of a one story 5700 square foot science
building on the existing 23.25 acre campus which is Zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential.
Current ordinance requires a five foot wide sidewalk be
installed by the applicant along the adjacent street
frontages.This would apply along University Avenue and a
small area at the west end of the property near the
intersection of McKinley Street and Lee Avenue.
All siting and parking requirements are exceeded.Staff
believes this proposal should not negatively impact the
current compatibility with the surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with Public Works Comments and the
Water Works Utility Comment.Public Works Comments would
include the added sidewalk at the west end of the property
near the intersection of McKinley Street and Lee Avenue
along the north side of Lee.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Thomas Graham and Jim Hamrin were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments and added a
requirement for a sidewalk extension at the west end of the
property near the intersection of McKinley Street and Lee Avenue
along the north side of Lee.
A short discussion took place to clarify with the applicant
exactly what was required along University and their concerns
over possible difficulties in completing that work.Public Works
stated that the sidewalk could be worked in with the existing
school sign without changing the sign.They added that they
could not support building the sidewalk immediately adjacent to
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4285-A
the curb on University,it required a minimum four foot
landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalk.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Ed Ebbing from Bartlett &West Engineers 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."That included the requirement for an
extension to the sidewalk at the west end of the property on the
north side of Lee at the intersection of McKinley Street and Lee
Avenue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
4
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO:Z"4423-D
NAME:Best Car Wash —Revised Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:620 South Bowman Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Chenal Parkway Carwash LLC/James Alessi
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use permit
to enclose an existing detail area and add a
second story over it at 620 South Bowman
Road on property Zoned C-3,General
Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.99 acre site is located on the west side of Bowman
Road,one lot south of Chenal Parkway.
The property is one of the out parcels associated with the
Wal-Mart development.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned C-3,General Commercial,and is
surrounded by C-3 property except for a PCD across Bowman.It is part of the large commercial development at the
intersection of S.Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway which is
occupied by uses ranging from a gas station,to
restaurants,to large discount stores and a home center.
The additions proposed are designed to enhance the existing
operation of this car wash and quick lube combination.
Staff does not believe that the proposed uses stipulatedfortheincreasedspaceshouldcausemuchofanincrease intrafficoractivityatthisexistingsite.Therefore,Staff
believes the compatibility with the surrounding area should
not change.
The Gibralter/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Association was notified of the Public Hearing.
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4423-D
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is one access into the site from an interior drive on
the Wal-Mart side of the site.There is no access directly
to Bowman.No changes to the access or the parking are
proposed.
Parking for this type of facility is based on a requirement
of 5 spaces plus 1 space for each 250 square feet of gross
building area.That would result in a requirement for 47
spaces.Currently the site has 56 parking spaces when you
count the spaces in the stacking lanes and work bay areas.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Repair or replace any curb or gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AEUCLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route ¹5,West Markham serves this site;
approved for transit purposes as submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting to amend an existing
conditional use permit that was approved November 1994 to
allow for enclosing an existing detail area and adding a
second story over it.
2
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4423-D
The additions proposed are designed to enhance the
operation of this existing car wash and quick lube
combination by providing more office space,a training room
and storage area,plus add a small amount of product
display area.The training room is for employees of this
location and therefore,shouldn't increase the employeetrafficatthissitebymuch.
The addition would be within the footprint of the existingfacility,but would add a second story over the currentdetailarea.There are no changes proposed to the current
setbacks,and parking requirements are met.The
construction style would match what is currently there.
Based on the specifics which the applicant has presented of
how the additional space would be used,Staff does not
believe this proposal would change the compatibility with
the surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with Public Works Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
James Alessi was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
The applicant explained to the Committee what the addition would
look like,what the upstairs would be used for,and that it
would be only for the existing operation and employees,not to
bring in employees from other locations for training.
Brief discussions took place regarding parking,including what
could be counted as parking spaces for this type of operation,
and about the intention of the increase in inside product
display.Neither issue seemed to be identified as a problem.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-4423-D
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
James Alessi 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 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
4
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO:Z-5491-A
NAME:Miles Chapel Addition —Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:1800 East Capitol Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:Miles Chapel C.M.E.Church/White-Daters &
Associates
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use permit
to allow for additions to the main church
building and for revisions and additions to
the parking areas at 1800 East Capitol
Avenue on property Zoned R-4,Two Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This is a 1.21 acre site located on the north side of east
Capitol Avenue at Bender Street.The total site includes
one lot on the northwest corner of Capitol and Bender and
one lot on the south side of 4th Street,midway between
Bender and Reichardt.The main church is located on the
northeast corner of east Capitol and Bender Street,and
consumes most of the block between Bender and Reichardt.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This church has existed in this neighborhood for many years
on R-4,Two Family Residential,Zoned property.Most of the
area surrounding this site is also zoned R-4 except to the
southwest,which is Zoned I-3,Heavy Industrial and houses
a barber shop,and north of the site on the southeast
corner of Bender and 4th Streets,which is Zoned C-3,
General Commercial.Across Capitol,south of the site is
the Little Rock School District's Purchasing Dept.Office.
Staff believes this proposal will not negatively impact the
compatibility with the neighborhood,and the additional
parking should improve things by helping to decrease theon-street parking.
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-5491-A
The East Little Rock and East End Civic League Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The applicant is proposing two driveways on Capitol,one
into each parking area and then one driveway into each of
the other two parking areas.The two on Capitol would
require a variance to driveway spacing criteria.
Parking requirements are based on one space per four seats
in the main sanctuary.The existing seating would not be
changed and requires 49 parking spaces.The proposal meets
ordinance requirements and includes 52 total spaces with
11,or 22%,being located off site at the northwest corner
of Bender and Capitol.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed parking lots must have a minimum 5 foot
landscape area along the eastern and western perimeters and
be screened from all adjacent residential properties.This
screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings.All proposed parking
area street buffers must be at least 6 feet wide.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornersofBenderStreetandCapitolAvenue.b.Redesign parking lot to provide maneuvering room for all
parking spaces.c.Improve corner curb radius to 25 feet radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 10 feet).
d.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.f.Remove drive on westerly most parking area on Capitol
Avenue.
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-5491-A
g.Request variance on driveway spacing for Capitol Avenue.
h.Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot
contour interval 10 feet base elevation is required.i.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.j.A Grading Permit per Sec.29-186(c)and (d)is required.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water serviceisrequired.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route 512,East Sixth,serves this site;
approved for transit purposes as submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
amend their existing C.U.P.to allow for additions to theexistingmainchurchbuilding,plus modify existing and addadditionalparkingareas.
This church has existed in this neighborhood for many years
and obtained a C.U.P.in October,1991,to build their
current sanctuary.Now they wish to modify that C.U.P.to
add 4350 square feet for classrooms and a fellowship hall.
No change to sanctuary seating is proposed.Additional
parking capacity would be added bringing it to 52 spaces
versus a requirement of 49 spaces.A variance would be
required for driveway spacing on Capitol as well as for thedistanceofthedrivewayfromthecornerofCapitoland
Bender.The proposal meets all other siting requirements.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of this
property and is compatible with the neighborhood.The
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-5491-A
additional parking should be helpful to the area by
reducing the amount of on-street parking.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances
especially as noted above.
b .Comply with Public Works Comments .c.All exterior lighting must be directed downward and
inward to the property and not towards any residential
area.
Staff also recommends approval of variances for the
driveway distance from the intersection of Capitol and
Bender,and for the driveway spacing on Capitol,as shown
on the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29 1999)
Joe White was present representing the application.Staff gave abriefdescriptionoftheproposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments including the requirements
for variances for the driveways on Capitol.Staff also covered
the screening,buffer,and parking requirements with the
applicant.There appeared to be no difficulties with any of
these issues.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Joe White 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."Staff also
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-5491-A
recommended approval of variances for the driveway distance from
the intersection of Capitol and Bender,and for the driveway
spacing on Capitol,as shown on the site plan.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by Staff.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO:Z-6705
NAME:Nellie Stephens —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:4408 Bruno Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Everett Wilson/Nellie Stephens
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to
install a two-section manufactured home as
the primary residence at 4408 Bruno Road,
property which is Zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the north side of Bruno Road,fourlotseastofReckRoad.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is about a half acre in a residential
neighborhood of mixed size lots Zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by that same zoning.The
structures on this street consist of a mixture of site-
built and manufactured single section single family homes,
including a six unit mobile home park about six lots
further east on Bruno.
Considering the type of multi-sectional unit and the typeofinstallationproposed,along with the existing mix of
homes already along this street,Staff believes this
proposed home would be compatible with this neighborhood.
The Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association was notified of
the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed site would have a 16 foot wide driveway from
Bruno Road with a one car carport adjacent to the front of
the unit.That would meet the recpxirements for a residence.
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6705
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comment.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:A development fee applies in addition to normal
charges for water service to this property.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AIBA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:CATA Route ¹15,65th Street,serves this site;
approved for transit purposes as submitted.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
place a new 32 x 80 foot,two-section manufactured home,onthishalfacreR-2 Zoned residential lot to be used as the
primary residence.All site requirements are met.
The proposed site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
and is surrounded by that same zoning.The first 4 or 5lotsonthesouthsideofBrunoRoadarevacantandtree
covered,as is this proposed site.The structures on thisstreetconsistofamixtureofsite-built and manufactured
single section single family homes.About six lots further
east on Bruno,there exists a small mobile home park
containing about six single-wide units.In between thissiteandthatmobilehomeparkthereisanadditional
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6705
single section manufactured home on each side of the
street.The applicant has stated they plan to do everything
they can that is monetarily feasible to make this home look
like the others on the street and like a site-built home.
Considering the type of multi-sectional unit and the typeofinstallationproposed,along with the existing mix of
homes already along this street,Staff believes this
proposed home would be compatible with this neighborhood as
long as the style is similar to other homes in the
immediate area and is installed in conformance with City
Siting Standards for manufactured homes.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Ordinance Siting
Standards for manufactured homes in Section 36-254(d)(5)as
follows:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
(14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the
neighborhood.e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.All homes shall be multisectional.
h.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
The home should be oriented so that the front broad side
faces Bruno Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 29,1999)
Nellie Stephens was present representing her application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
There were no issues from staff to be discussed.The applicant
explained to the Committee members why she wanted to use a
3
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6705
manufactured home,generally how she planned to install it,and
that it would be a very nice looking unit and that she wanted to
make it look like any other house on the street.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The applicant,Mrs.Stephens,was not present due to the seriousillnessofhermother,nor was she able to find someone else onshortnoticetorepresentheratthemeeting.There were three
registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the CitySitingStandardsformanufacturedhomesinSection36-254(d)(5).
Pat Gee,President of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Association,presented a petition with 26 names opposed to the
proposal.She raised concerns that this type of home would hurt
property values,detract from the neighborhood,and not helptheireffortstoimprovetheneighborhood.
Oley Rooker,President of the Crystal Valley Property Owners
Association,spoke in opposition to the proposal.He stated that
manufactured homes according to "the real estate people"
deteriorate in value,and therefore,lower the value of
surrounding property.He added that according to discussions he
had with building code inspectors,the type of construction used
in manufactured homes would not pass building code criteria.
Therefore,he feels it is not fair to the citizens who live in"stick-built"homes to permit a manufactured home to be set upintheirneighborhood.
Carroll Strickland,a nearby resident on Bruno Road,spoke in
opposition.He stated that you can look at the other
manufactured homes in the area and see why the people in the
neighborhood wouldn't want any more there.He added that few of
them are maintained properly,and they tend to be associated
with drugs and other problems which they don't want in their
neighborhood.
4
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6705
A question of deferral was raised by Jim Lawson,Planning
Director,and Commissioner Muse,since the applicant was not
represented.Commissioner Downing stated that now or later he
would vote against this type of proposal until the Board of
Directors or a court tells him that the policy of the City as he
understands it has changed regarding placing manufactured
housing within a subdivision where stick-built style homes
predominately exist.Based on the Board's past action of
usually denying those requests,he believes the City's policy is
not to permit them.Steve Giles,City Attorney,stated that the
Commission could vote to defer the item.He also stated that
current City ordinance allows manufactured homes in all
residential zones by a conditional use permit as long as the
eight setup criteria are met and the applicant can demonstratethatthehometheyproposeiscompatiblewiththeexisting
neighborhood.
Commissioner Muse asked if there was a neighborhood action planforthisareaandwhatwastheprevailingpolicyforthis
neighborhood regarding manufactured homes.Ms.Gee respondedthattheywereworkingonaplan,but that the policy was that
manufactured homes were not acceptable.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted toincludestaffcommentsandrecommendations.The motion failed byavoteof3ayes,2 nays,abstention by Commissioner Muse,and
5 absent.
5
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO:Z-6717
NAME:House of Harmony Day Care Center—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:513 Thayer Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Latarsha &John Epperson
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to allow
a single-section manufactured building to be
installed on the rear of property Zoned R-3,
Single Family Residential at 513 Thayer
Street,to provide more space for the
existing home daycare,turning it into a Day
Care Center for 18 children maximum.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the east side of Thayer Street,at the
intersection with 6th Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned,and surrounded by other property also
Zoned R-3,Single Family Residential.It is a residential
neighborhood consisting of single and two family
residences.This lot is long,but not very wide.It would
be very crowded to try and put parking,a playground,and
an additional 12 x 32 foot structure in the back yard.The
primary drop-off access would be through a partially paved
10 foot wide alley in the rear because of the distance from
the street and rise in grade approaching from the front.
Staff believes that because of site size and access
constraints at this location that this increase in child
capacity from a Day Care Family Home to a Day Car Centerfor18childrenisnotagooduseofthissiteor
compatible with the neighborhood at this location.
The Capitol Hill and Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6717
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is only walk up access from Thayer street in thefront.There is a partially paved 10 foot wide alley
accessing the rear from 6th Street.Since the alley is only
10 feet wide,access and maneuvering in and out of parkingintherearwouldbedifficult.
The parking requirements would be four spaces,two for
employees and two drop-off spaces for the 18 children.Thesitecanaccommodateamaximumofthreespacesintherear
without severely cutting into the limited rear yard.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The playground area should be screened from the residential
property to the north.This screen can be a 6 foot high
opaque wood fence with its face side directed outward or
dense evergreen plantings.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a ~Dedication of right-of-way is required to 10 feet from
centerline of alley.
b.Pave alley for total length from 6'"Street to Thayer Street to
allow access to parking lot and sufficient backup space (30feetrequiredfor45-degree parking).
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.
2
August 1&,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO:Z-6717
CATA:CATA Route ¹1,Pulaski Heights,¹8,Rodney Parham,
and ¹22,Pleasant Valley,are near this site;approved fortransitpurposesassubmitted.
7.STAFF UPDATE:
On August 6,1999,Staff received a letter from the
applicant requesting withdrawal of this application.
Therefore,Staff did not complete any further analysis.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for withdrawal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 29,1999)
Latarsha and John Epperson were present representing their
application.Staff gave a brief description of'he proposal.
Staff'eviewed with the Committee and the applicants the
constraints and requirements to use this site as proposed.
Providing enough parking,playground,and drop-off area,plus
paving the alley to provide adequate access were presented as
the most difficult and expensive parts of the challenges withthissite.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The applicants submitted to Staff on August 6,1999,a written
request for withdrawal of their proposal.Therefore,no one waspresentrepresentingtheapplication.There were no registered
supporters or objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval of the applicant requested
withdrawal.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 6 ayes,0 nays,and 5 absent.
3
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:21 FILE NO:G-40-15
NAME:Northwest Territory —Water Main Extension
LOCATION:East side of Chenal Parkway North of Highway
10;beginning 500 feet north of Highway 10,
running for approximately 1685 linear feet.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock Municipal Water Works
PROPOSAL:In accordance with Act 186 of 1957,theLittleRockWaterWorksisrequesting
approval of a 16 inch water main extension
of 1685 linear feet along the northeast side
of Chenal Parkway,north of Highway 10.
1 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Comply with utility cuts ordinance requirements.Locationofwatermainmustbeoutsideoffuturedividedarterial
road construction.
2.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
No objections received.
CATA:No comment.
3.STAFF ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Act 186 of 1957,the Little Rock Water
Works is requesting approval of a 16 inch water main
extension of 1685 linear feet along the northeast side of
Chenal Parkway,north of Highway 10.Any water main
extension with pipe larger than 12 inches requires review
and approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
This extension is intended to serve mainly the Northwest
Territory subdivision along Chenal Parkway.This area is
within the City limits and so this action does not have to
go on to the Board.The developer of the Northwest
Territory will pay the entire cost of the extension.
The Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Association was notified ofthepublichearing.
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO:G-40-15
4.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
Public Works Comment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 29,1999)
Joe White was present representing the application.Staff gave a
brief description of the proposal.
There being no issues for discussion,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
Marie Dugan,City Water Works,was present representing the
application.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to
compliance with Public Works Comments regarding utility cuts
ordinance requirements and locating the main outside of future
divided arterial road construction.
Chairman Earnest stated that as part of the Commission's
responsibility for a comprehensive plan for the City which
incorporates looking at issues of annexation and sprawl,that
they should look at the implications of the request of a water
main extension of this size.He feels that the developer is
asking for a line of this size in anticipation of future
requests regarding annexation of areas along Highway 300.
Chairman Earnest stated he would like to see more explanation
from Staff in situations like this as to the reality of what is
expected to occur with respect to future land use outside the
City's immediate boundary.He also asked if this proposed
extension would serve land in the Little Maumelle Water Basin,
to which the answer was no.
Ms.Dugan stated that a 12 inch main would be sufficient to
serve the lots in question for this development,however it
would not serve the hilltop to the northeast.That would take a
16 inch main looped around the hill and back.The City Water
2
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO:G-40-15
Works would support serving that hilltop area if requested
whether it was annexed into the City or not.Therefore,this
extension will prepare for that capability when it is necessary.
Tim Daters from White-Daters Engineering stated that the
developer had concerns regarding the ability of a 12 inch line
to adequately serve his development over the long range.
Commissioner Earnest emphasized that by putting in this size
line now,it will remove any question in any future debate over
annexation as to the need for water main expansion and that cost
impact on the proposed future annexation.
Commissioner Downing pointed out that the developer chose the
size of line to best serve his development with no pressure from
any City agency to put in this size line to support future City
growth.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations.The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent.
3
August 19,999
ITEM NO.:22
Ries&:&bicot Road driveway and curb cut variance to uae
buffer xone,appeal of Public Works accessconditions.
Location:East off intersection of Chicot Road at Mabelvale
Pike behind Otis Pack Property.(North 40 feet oftract)
h%—
'n
July 12,staff received a letter from Mr.Hathaway requesting
a hearing before the Commission on a request to access Tract "C"
of Orbit Subdivision by way of a forty (40 feet)strip of land
on Tract "F."Tract "F"lies between "C"and Chicot Road and
also fronts on I-30 Frontage Road.
The circumstance creating this request is the potential sale of
Tract "C"and the Highway Department changing the frontage road
to one way traffic (west).
Mr.Hathaway's comments in support of his request are:
1)My clients are the Orbit Valve Profit Sharing Plans "A"and"B",Plan Administration Committee of Cooper Cameron
Corporation,Trustee ("OVPSP")and Mr.Odus Pack ("Pack")
who own contiguous properties facing the north side of I-30
immediately east of Chicot Road.
2)Pack owns property which was platted as Tract F,Orbit
Subdivision.Tract F originally contained 7 acres +.
Today,Tract F contains 3.5 acres +because the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department ("AHTD")recently
purchased 3.5 acres +for the right-of-way required for the
overpass now under construction on the north side of I-30 at
Chicot Road.Tract F is zoned C-4.
3)OVPSP owns Tract C,Orbit Subdivision.Tract C is a plattedlotwhichcontainsSa2acres;is zoned C-4;and which has
over 300'f frontage on the I-30 service road which is
currently a two-way road.
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
4)OVPSP has elected to dispose of its real estate assets and
has entered into a conditional sales contract to sell Tract
C to a real estate investor who intends to hold Tract C for
future resale or for the development of a building for a
tenant yet to be identified.The sales contract is
conditional upon the Seller's ability to gain access to
Chicot Road.
5)AHTD's plan to convert the I-30 service roads in this area
to one way status will severely impact the access to Tract C
unless Tract C can gain access to Chicot Road and,in turn,
to the Chicot Road overpass.
6)OVPSP and Pack have entered into an agreement under which
Pack has agreed to grant to OVPSP an easement across the
northern 40'f Tract F so as to allow the owner of Tract C
or its tenant to construct a private drive for the purpose
of accessing Chicot Road on the western end of the easement
at a point opposite where Mabelvale Pike turns west.(See
Exhibit A attached.)The 40'idth for the easement was
chosen due to the fact that there is a fence presently
installed along the common boundary line of Tract F and the
Village Green Apartments and there is another fence
presently installed parallel to the northern boundary of
Tract F along a line which is 40'outh of the northern
boundary of Tract F.Both Pack and OVPSP believe that this40'trip between the two existing fences is of sufficient
width to construct a 26'ide private drive between the
northwest corner of Tract C and Chicot Road.Both parties
also feel that a paved 26'ide private drive without
sidewalks or curb and gutter will be sufficient to provide
this auxiliary access to Tract C.
7)After agreement was reached between Pack and OVPSP to grant
the easement,Public Works was asked to approve a curb cut
on Chicot Road.Public Works responded that this curb cut
would be approved conditioned upon a 45'ide easement and
the construction of a private drive with a design which must
include curb and gutter as well as sidewalks on both sides
of the private drive.Public Works'etter dated June 24,
1999 (see page 5 this agenda)cites pages 15-17 of Ordinance
18,031 as the source of the conditions which they are
2
August 19,~999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
seeking to mandate.When asked to reconsider its position,
Public Works suggested that my clients pursue their case
before the Planning Commission.
My clients feel that the conditions mandated by Public Works are
unreasonable and unwarranted for the following reasons:
1)The agreement by Pack to grant a 40'asement to OVPSP has
been made primarily because a 40'trip of land has already
been defined by the existing fencing.This width is clearly
sufficient for the construction of a 26'ide private drive.It makes no sense to tear down over 300'f fence to rebuildit5'urther south.As a practical matter,Pack will not
agree to do this and,unless a variance of 5's granted,
OVPSP will be denied access to its property except as via
the soon-to-be one-way service road.This would have a
serious impact on the value of Tract C for no good reason.
2)Public Works has cited Ordinance No.18,031 as its authorityforstatingtheconditionswhichmustbefulfilledinorder
for my clients to obtain the curb cut they are seeking.As
you know Ordinance 18,031,which was passed by the Board of
Directors on June 1,1999,is an ordinance amending Chapter
31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock
providing for modifications of various procedures,
definitions and design standards.Public Works has further
referenced pages 15-17 of Ordinance No.18,031 as the
authority for its decision.However,all of the language on
pages 15-17 follows under a heading on page 15 entitled
"Section 31-144.Planned Development."It is my
clients'ositionthatwearenotrequestingaplannedunit
development and that the language contained on pages 15-17
of the Ordinance does not apply to our circumstances.
3)Furthermore,Subsection (mm)of the Ordinance beginning on
page 15 states in part,"Service easements and on site
circulation.Nhere a commerci al or office subdivision
re ires the creation of an int:ernalized circulation s stem
t:o rovide access t:o multi le lots and buildin sit;es,the
Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service
easement in lieu of public commercial streets."The design
3
August 19 I J.9 9 9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
standards mandated by Public Works follow this statement.Myclientscontendthatthelanguageunderscoredabovedoesnot
apply to their request.No subdivision is being requested as
both Tracts F and C are already platted.
In addition,we have not requested access to multiple lots
and building sites.Instead,we are requesting secondary or
auxiliary access to Tract C via a private drive to be built,
at the expense of the owner of Tract C,within an easement
to be granted within Tract F next door.In short,we do not
believe the facts surrounding our application are consistent
with those provisions of Ordinance 18,031 which deal with
either "Planned Unit Developments"or "the creation of an
internalixed circulation system to provide access to
multiple lots and building sites."
4)Even if the Ordinance did apply to the facts surrounding our
case,we feel that the design standards requested by Public
Works are unreasonable.The private drive to be constructedisnotintendedtoservethegeneralpublic—only Tract C
and only as partial,not primary access to Tract C.
Provided that the design for the private drive includes
adequate drainage,we see no valid reason to place curb and
gutter along the paving which is essentially serving as an
alley-way.To force the construction of sidewalks here is
really most unreasonable.What pedestrian traffic is
anticipated for this private drive?In reality,none.
5)In the broader sense,we would request a decision from the
Planning Commission and/or the City Attorney as to whether itisproperforPublicWorkstoapplytheSubdivisionOrdinance
where no subdivision is being requested.Both the properties
involved are platted now.One property owner has agreed to
grant the adjacent property owner an easement for the purposeofconstructingaprivatedrivesoastoimprovetheadjacent
property owner's access,not to provide its sole access.
These two property owners are attempting to work together to
solve a problem which has been caused by AHTD's decision to
convert the service road to one-way use.It would seem that
city government should try to work with the property owners
rather than to insist upon conditions which are both costly
and inappropriate given the circumstances.
4
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO ACCESS REQUEST:
"RE:Tract "C"at I-30 and Chicot Road
Addressed to Mr.Hathaway.
This is a follow-up to our meeting Tuesday,June 22,1999
regarding recpxirements for access to property described
as Tract "C"just east of the new overpass at I-30 and
Chicot Road.We discussed potential access into Tract"C"through the Pack property.The access easement was
proposed along the north boundary line of the Pack
property and would intersect proposed Chicot Road
directly across from the intersection of Mabelvale Pike.
This access easement would be permitted providing it
conforms to the recent Ordinance No.18,031 passed
June 1,1999 by the Board of Directors.This
Ordinance would recgxire a minimum 45-foot easement,
26-foot curb and gutter street,and 5-foot sidewalks
on both sides.This is more clearly detailed in the
attached full copy of the Ordinance located on pages15-17 (not included in this agenda).A single
driveway to the Pack property from this access road
would be permitted provided the driveway is located
near the center of the property."
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 28,1999)
The Subdivision Committee received a lengthy report from Mr.
Hathaway and from City Staff.The history of the two tracts and
the effect of future one way frontage roads supported Mr.
Hathaway's contention that a drive access is imperative if hisclient's property is to be developed.
Staff provided file history on the 40'pen space buffer now in
place.It was pointed out that the buffer was attached to the
preliminary plat approval and not a specific site plan on Tract"F"(Mr.Pack'property).The 40'as a fence on both sides
and is not maintained as well as could be for a natural space.
Someone has been driving vehicles over the area and it is mostly
covered by weeds.
5
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
Mr.Turner of Public Works presented staff thoughts on
improvement requirements as directed by ordinance.He pointed
out that Public Works could support one sidewalk with two
driving lanes in the 40 feet.
Richard Wood of staff stated Planning Staff could support Public
Works if some portion of the strip is provided with plantings tooffsetthedrivewayintrusion.Mr.Hathaway indicated the
neighboring apartments to the north should have no problem with
this drive.
There was some discussion of possible controlled access by the
Highway Department.Mr.Hathaway reported that the State has
offered to work with the owner on access.There is no
prohibition.
The discussion ended with some comments by staff and Hathaway on
use of Tract "C"as to type and intensity.
The committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for
review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999)
The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of staff for the
presentation of Item 22.
Wood reported that Mr.Hathaway,the applicant,has responded to
issues raised by Public Works and Planning Staff by developing a
position we can support.
The Chairman then recognized Mr.Hathaway for his presentation.
Mr.Hathaway briefly outlined his several conditions that he is
willing to attach to approval of this access easement.
These are:
1.Within the area identified as the North 40 feet of Tract "F".
There is to be a 40 foot wide private drive easement serving
Tract "C".
2.The developer of Tract "C"when developing that tract and
using the 40 foot easement would construct as a private drive
a 26 foot road with curb and gutter with sidewalk on one side.
6
August 19,999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 (Cont.)
3.The buffering as discussed at Subdivision Committee meeting
would consist of the installation on 6 foot centers,5 gallon
red top phoetinia,about four feet high,all along the total
east-west dimension of the easement.This would occur only
when the drive is required by Tract "C"owner and
constructed.
4.The placement of the plantings between the new drive and the
north property line is contingent on placement allowance by
waste water utility.There is a 10 foot utility easement
against the north line,but the pipe underground will control
placement of plants on one side against the north fence or
between the sewer pipe and the curb of the new drive.
Mr.Hathaway concluded his remarks by saying he believes this is
what staff and Public Works can support.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the request as amended
by Mr.Hathaway.The motion passed by vote of 6 ayes,0 noes
and 5 absent.
7
City of Little Rock
epar men o arming an eve opmen Planning
Zoning and
723 West Markham Subdivision
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1334
(501)371-4790
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Planning Staff
The attached calendar includes changes requested by the Commission at the
July 22,1999 meeting.The December 30,1999 meeting has been moved to
January 6,2000.As a result of that change,subsequent meeting and filing
dates were changed as well.
ADOPTED:October 29,1998
AMENDED:April,29,1999
AMENDED:July 8,1999
AMENDED:
PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR -1999
SUBDIVISION HEARINGS:
Subdlvtston
~F(lin Date ~t.e at Ad Committee (2)HHearin i Date (t)(3)
12-07-98 12-18-98 12-30-98 01-21-99
01-25-99 02-05-99 02-11-99 03-04-99
03-08-99 03-12-99 03-25-99 04-15-99
04-19-99 04-30-99 05-06-99 05-27-99
06-01-99 06-11-99 06-17-99 07-08-99
07-12-99 07-23-99 07-29-99 08-19-99
08-23-99 09-03-99 09-09-99 09-30-99
10-04-99 10-15-99 10-21-99 11-11-99
11-15-99 12-03-99 12-09-99 01-06-00
01-10-00 01-21-00 01-27-00 02-17-00
PLANNING &REZONING HEARINGS:
~F(lin Date ~t.e al Ad ~Hearin Date (t)(3)
12-21-98 01-08-99 01-04-99 01-25-99 02-04-99
02-08-99 02-26-99 02-22-99 03-08-99 03-18-99
03-22-99 04-09-99 04-05-99 04-19-99 04-29-99
05-03-99 05-21-99 05-03-99 05-17-99 06-10-99
06-14-99 07-02-99 06-14-99 06-30-99 07-14-99 07-22-99
07-26-99 08-13-99 07-28-99 08-11-99 08-25-99 09-02-99
09-07-99 09-24-99 09-08-99 09-22-99 10-06-99 10-14-99
10-18-99 11-05-99 10-20-99 11-03-99 11-17-99 12-02-99
12-06-99 12-22-99 12-08-99 12-22-99 01-12-00 01-20-00
AVAILABLE INFORMAL MEETING DATES:
(to be scheduled as required)
MMeetin i Date (5)
01-07-99
02-18-99
04-01-99
05-13-99
06-24-99
08-05-99
09-16-99
10-28-99
12-16-99
02-03-00
NOTE:(1)All public Hearings shall be held at 4:00 P.M.unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(2)All meetings shall be held at 1:00 P.M.unless changed by the Subdivision Committee.
(3)An agenda meeting will be held prior to each public hearing date and will begin at 3:30 P.M.in.the Sister
Cities Conference Room.
(4)Reserved.
(5)All informal meetings shall be held at 3:30 P.M.unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(6)All meetings shall be held at 12:00 NOON unless otherwise changed by the Plans Committee.
NOTICE:AN INTERPRETER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED UPON REQUEST.
REQUEST SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AT
LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE.
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
V
O
T
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
~
~
&
v
D
A
T
E
1
9
1
9
y
y
C
E
6
l
J
L
4
P
M
E
M
B
E
R
+
'
-
.
C
g
I
g
7
.
I
t
(
p
I
O
~
l
l
Z
l
3
|
$
;
I
"
,
:
,
g
3
3
f
8
4
,
"
'
'
.
,
.
:
4
-
.
-
;
:
:
:
.
:
8
;
:
:
:
:
:
,
f
'
T
2
1
:
2
2
-
-
-
;
:
.
.
.
'
'
;
.
-
:
"
-
'
;
-
'
:
.
'
'
:
:
"
B
E
R
R
Y
,
C
R
A
I
G
A
A
A
4
A
4
A
A
@
A
R
A
B
S
A
A
4
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
A
R
N
E
S
T
,
H
U
G
H
f
f
f
f
y
f
v
'
&
+
V
y
v
r
y
v
&
v
y
v
D
O
W
N
I
N
G
,
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
f
/
f
'
f
f
f
'
f
f
v
v
'
v
-
g
v
-
v
f
v
v
.
~
v
'
y
M
U
S
E
,
R
O
H
N
y
f
~
f
Y
y
v
v
w
&
~
v
v
&
r
v
v
&
A
p
R
A
H
M
A
N
,
M
I
Z
A
N
A
A
4
4
A
4
8
4
4
8
&
w
a
e
W
4
z
w
~
w
w
Z
g
F
A
U
S
T
,
J
U
D
I
T
H
/
y
f
f
f
V
y
f
Y
f
/
v
'
v
f
v
'
'
'
D
C
O
C
K
,
P
A
M
y
f
f
f
f
f
f
y
f
'
v
f
v
y
f
v
'
v
~
8
y
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
f
v
g
f
f
y
'
y
f
f
f
y
'
y
f
y
v
y
v
'
'
v
'
y
f
N
U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
O
B
R
A
Y
A
A
p
A
A
A
~
A
~
4
n
w
g
A
A
c
l
w
z
A
g
A
g
A
L
O
W
R
Y
,
B
O
B
A
4
4
4
+
/
4
l
l
A
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
A
A
A
4
A
H
A
W
N
,
H
E
R
B
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
&
4
4
w
4
&
&
w
~
,
&
&
+
4
'
A
A
b
l
a
~
@
d
e
-
m
e
(
v
e
r
T
I
M
E
I
N
A
N
D
T
I
M
E
O
U
T
3
B
E
R
R
Y
,
C
R
A
I
G
A
E
A
R
N
E
S
T
,
H
U
G
H
v
D
O
W
N
I
N
G
,
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
V
M
U
S
E
,
R
O
H
N
R
A
H
M
A
N
,
M
I
Z
A
N
A
F
A
U
S
T
,
J
U
D
I
T
H
A
D
C
O
C
K
,
P
A
M
y
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
v
N
U
N
N
L
E
Y
,
O
B
R
A
Y
L
O
W
R
Y
B
O
B
A
H
A
W
N
,
H
E
R
B
A
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
7
~
-
S
P
.
M
.
A
Y
E
+
N
A
Y
E
R
A
B
S
E
N
T
+
'
B
S
T
A
I
N
1
August 19,1999
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
/v
Date
Chai n e etaQ
(