pc_08 07 1997subI.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 7, 1997
4:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of both June 26, 1997 and July 10, 1997
were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Larry Lichty
Hugh Earnest
Bill Putnam
Sissi Brandon
Herb Hawn
Craig Berry
Pam Adcock
Ronald Woods
Suzanne McCarthy
Mizan Rahman
Doyle Daniel
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 7, 1997
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Bristow Subdivision Replat (S -208-B)
B. Dairyland Shopping Center PCD (Z-6318)
C. Charleston Heights Replat (S -767-C)
D. Brown -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6312)
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Madison Heights, Preliminary Plat (S-1146)
2. Habitat, Preliminary Plat (S-1147)
3. The Village of Rahling Road (S-1149)
4. Mabelvale Business Park, Preliminary Plat (S -993-A)
5. Northwest Territory, Preliminary Plat (S -200-D)
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
6. Clevenger Short -Form PD -O (Z -6232-A)
7. G.C.C. Revised POD/Plat (Z -6324-A)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
8. Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center (S-1148)
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
9. Eary -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -2198-A)
10. Montgomery -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -3359-A)
11. Wal-Mart -- Revised Conditional Use Permit (Z -3442-E)
12. Alltel (Kirk Road site) -- Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Z -6147-A)
Agenda, Page 2
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: (cont.)
13. Mulkey -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6345)
14. Roselawn -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6353)
15. Ciment -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6354)
16. Alltel (Gordon Road site) -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6355)
VI. OTHER MATTERS:
17. Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment - Block 6, Woodruff's
Addition (G-23-270)
18. Valentine Street, "I" Street - Right -of -Way Abandonments
(G-23-271)
19. Z-6348 - 2226 Wilson Road - Rezoning from R-2 to R -7A and
Site Plan Review
v,
3HId
Y W
W
d
vIl
U
S
Y
cc
N
h
Q
BoNp T
�
H
�
O
x
o
�
o
0
p1Npbi
5 w
x
J
1
M
NOlIIWVH OOS
�
2
5 SJN/bds
rr^^
z
0 OA)
a a hi
NLLO
NINdS 3A—
O
� d
N �y�
O
31
2
�
z
N
l"
ul
coO
w w
z
H b0
o u
Op,O
Q
�u
R
~`
M
g
W
fQ
a
2
O
aZa
K
O
coil
Lr
,^
LO
y O
k
yJ?
JU�
zo
1 1
�Q
o4i2
y�
g
rlv�^,
- V
y0.(n0
August 7, 1y97
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -208-B
NAME: Bristow Subdivision Replat
ENGINEER:
Jane Bristow Pat McGetrick
14,600 Cooper Orbit Road McGetrick Engineering
Little Rock, AR 72211 11,225 Huron Lane
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/DEFERRAL REQUESTED:
• Waiver of street improvements for Cooper Orbit Road
A. PROPOSAL•
To subdivide 6.99 acres into two residential lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area to be subdivided is vacant and wooded. There are
scattered single family homes along Cooper Orbit Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
This item was referred to the Spring Valley Manor Property
Owners Association. Staff has received no public comment on
this preliminary plat.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline for
frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 for this minor
arterial.
2. Construct % of street improvements for frontage of Lots
1, 2, A-1, and A-2 to minor arterial standards including
sidewalk.
3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
August 7, 1Y97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -208-B
4. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if it disturbs more than one acre.
5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section
31-403.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7. Cooper Orbit has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
990.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Outside service area affected.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: No Comment.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment.
Water: Execution of a pre -annexation agreement and
approval of the City will be required prior to obtaining
water service. Pro rata front footage charges of
$15/foot and acreage charge of $300/acre apply in
addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: No response.
CATA• N/A
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Issues• None
Planning Division: N/A
Landscape• N/A
G. ANALYSIS•
This applicant was granted a previous 3 lot preliminary plat
on this site. A waiver of boundary and street improvements
was granted as part of that September 9, 1986 Planning
Commission action.
The applicant now seeks to replat this property and create
additional residential lots. She has again requested a
waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road. Public
Works Department may wish to comment on this waiver request.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of the replat subject to conditions in paragraphs D
and E of this report. Planning Staff does not support the
request to waiver boundary and street improvements.
Granting of a waiver would be the second for this applicant.
E
August 7, lv97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S -208-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997)
Pat McGetrick presented the replat to the Committee. Planning
Staff requested the follow changes to the exhibit:
• Show footprints of all existing structures.
• Name of adjacent owners and zoning
• Developers' name and address on plat
• Topographic information on plat may be incorrect
• Addresses of existing house within plat.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the Planning
Commission meeting on June 26, 1997 for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997)
The Chairman recognized Mr. Jones of the Staff and asked that he
present this item. Mr. Jones briefly identified the request as a
two lot replat out a 7+ acre parcel. He stated that the staff
supports the application and recommends the plat; however, the issue
here to be dealt with by the Commission is the request for waiver of
street improvements and dedication which is attached to this replat.
These improvements and dedication would be for Cooper Orbit Road
frontage.
Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the previous platting on this
property stating that there were originally some exceptions made
when this original holding was divided into two large parcels and
that the original Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements
were for collector street at that time. In the intervening years,
the Master Street Plan has been modified and the street is now a
minor arterial. He stated that he believed that the original
waivers or exceptions were made based upon the fact that there were
only two lots out of the original holding and there would possibly
not be additional subdivision of the property. However, the owner
is now before the Commission asking that the property be extended to
four lots. Mr. Jones closed his remarks by stating the staff
recommendations of approval for the plat and denial of the waivers
as requested. He then pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Pat
McGetrick, engineer of record, on this project was in attendance at
today's meeting and could speak to these issues.
Mr. McGetrick came to the microphone and presented his client's
case. He begin by stating that the issue before the Commission
today as he understood it was reduced to a 7+ acre parcel being
divided into two lots and that two of the ownerships were already in
the hands of others and beyond the control of these applicants. He
indicated as did Mr. Jones that these several lots that were on the
original holding by the applicant have a significant frontage along
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B
Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. McGetrick stated that the way the lots were
originally divided with one lot excised from the middle of the
ownership leaving a wrap around parcel. So that what they are doing
here is trying to clean that up and create one lot on each side of
the existing lot that has been sold which is Lot 2 of Bristow
Subdivision�andWrecorded Lots A-1 and A=2 would be created out of
this larger tract. He pointed out that this plat is for single
family development.
The Chairman then asked if there were others present which wish to
speak for the application. There was a brief discussion with one
gentleman present that had not filled out a card. He was instructed
to do so. The gentleman identified and came forward and offered
some comments to do with access to the property the point at which
access would be taken and from what road. A response was from
Cooper Orbit.
The owner then came forward and identified herself and proceeded to
tell the Commission the history related to having sold a portion of
this property to a gentleman that proposes to build a residence upon
it. The history is related to attempting to obtain water service.
She also stated that this person did not propose to buy the entire 7
acres but that he would purchase the larger portion and leaving
approximately two acres that her family would build a home on.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving both staff, Commission,
the applicant and Mr. McGetrick attempting to identify which parcels
were owned by what parties and which lots were proposed to be
platted at this time. Once the Commission, applicant and staff
became comfortable with exactly what had been proposed in this plat,
the Chairman then asked if there were comments from the
commissioners. There being none by others, Chairman Lichty asked if
Mr. Maxwell is the current owner of part of the proposed plat, and
the size.
The owner responded to Chairman Lichty's question by stating that
the lot that the gentleman is buying or has purchased for his home
site is a little over 5 acres. The balance would be her homesite and
to further clarify her answer. She stated that 5.2 acres has already
been sold. Mr. Jones stated that the sale of the lot in the
division is what caused this action. The sale was in violation of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Chairman then asked the gentleman that identified himself as Mr.
Maxwell to come forward and answer questions of the Commission. The
question posed to Mr. Maxwell was would their just be one residence
built upon the 5+ acres that he has apparently purchased. The
response was yes there would be one. Mr. Maxwell identified the
property that he is purchasing as being somewhat hilly and that the
house that he proposes to build would be right on top of that land
mass. Again, a lengthy discussion followed involving all of the
4
August 7, 1-497
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B
parties present. The Chairman at this point recognized Commissioner
Rahman.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he would like to hear the comments
of David Scherer, of the Public Works Department. Mr. Scherer then
came forward and offered a history of the -property as he understood
it explaining the Public Works Department's position relative to a
tradeoff. The tradeoff being that if the applicant would gain the
additional right-of-way across both the lots she currently owns and
the parcel she has sold, dedicate that to the city, the Public Works
Department would support a conditional waiver of the street
improvements required for the arterial street on all of the lots.
This recommendation with the understanding that, two of the parcels
fronting the road this owner no longer controls or has an ownership
relationship.
At this point, a discussion was had concerning a proportional
relationship between the city's assessment of improvements and
right-of-way on a project and the kind of improvements or value that
would be assessed against. There was no specific resolution of that
issue. One point of clarification offered by Mr. Scherer is that
what the City is offering, is swapping the street improvement
requirements for obtaining the full right-of-way for the arterial
street. A lengthy discussion involving whether or not the two
outlot owners had been involved properly, whether they had been
instructed to what was proposed and what the City's requirements
were. It produced a response from the owner saying that she was not
sure that these owners understood the issue but that some contact
had been made.
The point made by the owner was that it was not her responsibility
to go to these owners and ask that they involve themselves in
dedicating right-of-way to extract her from the circumstances in
which she is involved. At the end of this lengthy discussion,
someone suggested perhaps a deferral might be in order. A specific
time for deferral was then discussed. The deferral discussion also
entered the area of discussing the appropriate value for in -lieu and
how you would assess such against this property. Mr. Jones, of the
Staff, suggested that attempting to work this out with the various
problems presented indicates that a deferral was perhaps in order
and that staff, with all of the various parties, attempt to work
something out and then bring that back to the Commission for final
decision.
The Chairman then directed a comment to the applicant that the
Commission could at this time proceed to vote on this issue in a
state of flux or that a deferral could be accomplished. A brief
discussion then proceeded to determine how the issue would be
handled by staff in the approach to outlots that had been sold. The
appropriate materials and the persons to discuss the issue and much
specifically that someone from the City should be involved in that.
Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, indicated that staff would happy
5
August 7, 1y97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -208-B
to participate in any discussions. A motion was then made to defer
(to August 7th) this item and follow-up on the previous discussion.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Staff of the Planning Office has had one telephone contact with
one of outparcel lots expected to dedicate right-of-way. This
person indicated they were not interested in giving up 15 feet and
were somewhat irritated at this applicant's comments on the subject.
David Scherer of Public works and Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer, have had further discussions and more information is being
developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Chairman asked that staff present the case and its
recommendation. Richard wood, of the Staff, presented a brief
history of the item. wood indicated the primary reason for the
deferral on the last occasion was to permit the owner and Public
Works and other staff to work out the issue of roadway dedication
for Cooper Orbit Road. wood closed his comments by stating that
staff recommends approval of the plat as it is in good order.
The Chair then recognized Mr. David Scherer, of Public works. He
came forward at wood's suggestion to offer what the staff deems
to be equitable solution to the requirements for improvements
and/or right-of-way dedication.
Scherer stated that he would rather hear from the applicant what
they were offering relative to the requirements rather than offer
his presentation at this time. The Chair asked Mrs. Bristow to
come forward and speak on the issue. Mrs. Bristow offered a
lengthy commentary on what she understood was the reason for
deferral at the last meeting and what she expects will be the
result of meetings between the City and property owners. Mrs.
Bristow then moved her comments to updating the issue by stating
since the last meeting she has been successful in gaining the
involvement of one of the two outparcels.
Mr. Jim Alberson, the owner of the easternmost lot in the plat,
committing to her that he would dedicate the required 15 feet.
Mrs. Bristow stated that Mr. Alberson owns a total of 430 feet of
frontage on Cooper Orbit Road. She then moved her commentary to
additional history of the plat. She offered a lengthy commentary
on the appraisal that she had accomplished on the various sites
within this plat offering the dollar values that had been
reported to her. Concluding those specific remarks, she
indicated that she was in a position to offer the value of the
purchase of the additional 15 feet from the non -participating
L
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -208-B
parcel based upon the appraisals offered. Prior to concluding
her remarks, Mrs. Bristow responded to a question as to Mr.
Alberson's involvement. She responded by saying that he had
committed to this dedication only if this plat and her request
goes through the Commission and is approved.
The Chair then recognized a gentleman, Mr. Chet Maxwell, who
advised from the audience that he had nothing further to add.
Mr. Maxwell is apparently the gentleman who has acquired the
acreage from Mrs. Bristow which has created this plat
circumstance.
The Chair then passed discussion to the Commission and asked if
there were questions. The Chair then recognized David Scherer,
of Public Works. Scherer came forward with a graphic to
illustrate the plat and the various circumstances attached to the
plat. Scherer offered a lengthy discussion of the issue and the
several possible dollar amounts and figures that Public Works was
offering as potential in -lieu. This is based upon a 15% hardship
in -lieu contribution. He stated that it adds up to be about
$15,000. He again restated Public Works' original offer that if
the applicant would provide all of the 15 foot dedication for all
of the frontage, then Public Works would support a hardship
waiver of the street improvements. Scherer concluded his remarks
by stating that Public Works would approve a final plat with a
contribution of $4,690 as in -lieu and include the dedication of
right-of-way on Lot 1, Mr. Alberson's lot. Scherer stated that
he believes this is quite close to what the applicant was
discussing.
The discussion then moved back to Mrs. Bristow. She and the
Chairman briefly discussed the involvement of the owner of Lot 2.
The result of that brief conversation being there is an
understanding the owner of this lot does not desire to contribute
to this plat effort through the dedication of property for right-
of-way. She did state that in a conversation of Monday this week
with this gentleman she had offered to purchase the 15 feet at
the appraised amount which then would be dedicated with this
plat. She stated that his response was no. Apparently, this
indicates he is not willing to sell part of his property.
The Chairman then asked David Scherer, of Public Works, to return
to the lectern and clarify once again the Public Works'
recommendation. He stated first off the dedication of right-of-
way on Lot 1, the contribution of $4,690 as in -lieu contribution
to Cooper Orbit Road, in -lieu of boundary street improvements.
Discussion then followed between Chairman Lichty and David
Scherer concerning Lots 1 and 2 and their relationship to
attempting to gain right-of-way and provide improvements.
Scherer again stated for the record that Public Works would have
supported waiving street improvements if they had received
dedication from both Lots 1 and 2 as was suggested thereby giving
Id
August 7, 1-497
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S -208-B
a 15 feet dedication for the entire frontage of this plat.
Public Works would have supported a hardship waiver of the street
improvements, thereby allowing this plat without the construction
of roadway.
The Chairman again addressed a question -to Mr. Lawson, of the
Staff, what is your recommendation? Lawson responded by stating
that the contribution stated by David Scherer of $4,690 plus the
dedication of right-of-way on Lot 1 as offered by the gentleman
and approval of the preliminary plat.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving several
commissioners, David Scherer, and others. The discussion
meandered from the various parcels and who owns what land and the
location of the roadway to be involved. Out of this
conversation, Chairman Lichty asked who is going to pay the
$4,690. Scherer said the applicant would since she is the
subdivider of the property and required to provide dedication and
the improvements.
Another lengthy discussion involving the Chairman and Mrs.
Bristow resulting in her responding to his question about paying
the $4,690. Mrs. Bristow stated that the money is not there. At
this point, she introduced a conversation about a plat previously
approved by the Commission on Kanis Road approximately an half
mile or more to the east. Her point being that person was not
required to dedicate or build any street improvements.
Another lengthy conversation followed involving Commissioner
Putnam and David Scherer. This conversation resulted in Scherer
stating that, should the applicant not be forthcoming with the
dedication of right-of-way on Lot 1 and a provision of the in -
lieu of $4,690 for Cooper Orbit Road. Then, Public Works,
recommendation is an in -lieu contribution of $15,000.
At this point, a brief conversation between the Chairman and
Commissioner Hawn concerned whether the vote should be first on
the plat or the waiver. It was determined that a motion offered
by Commissioner Hawn on the approval of the plat as filed should
be voted upon first. The motion to approve the plat as submitted
was the Chairman declared that motion to be approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
Another lengthy discussion followed involving the applicant and
several commissioners. A question was posed to David Scherer and
he responded, "if the waiver of street improvements fails, the
dedication of the right-of-way from this plat plus the Master
Street Plan requirements for construction of Cooper Orbit Road
including curbs, gutters and sidewalks would apply. -
At this point, another lengthy discussion involving the applicant
and David Scherer about the misunderstanding the applicant had
8
August 7, 1>97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S -208-B
about what Public Works was going to support. Again David
Scherer restated Public Works' position. At this point, the
Chairman determined the Commission had spent sufficient time and
had sufficient information on this issue and it needed to move
along. The Chairman then recognized a motion that the Commission
recommend waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road.
The motion was seconded and failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 nays
and 3 absent.
9
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: H-1
NAME:
City Land Use Plan Amendment --
Ellis Mountain District
LOCATION: South of Chenal Parkway, west of
Kanis
REQUEST: Mixed Office Warehouse to
Commercial
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Property Owner
At the request of a property owner, planning staff developed
an amendment to commercial for an area south of Chenal
Parkway, west of Kanis Road. The property owner wishes to
allow commercial uses for the site. As stated in the letter
of request, this location is an appropriate location for a
grocery store. Currently the Land Use Plan recommends Mixed
Office Warehouse. The land use pattern in the immediate area
(along Chenal Parkway) has not changed in the last ten years.
However to the North there have been several changes. In
1995, a Neighborhood Commercial and Suburban Office area was
moved south from the Loyola --Wellington Village Road
intersection to north of the Methodist Church. Also in 1995,
south of the West Loop a Multifamily and Community Shopping
area was changed to Office, Mixed Office Commercial and
Multifamily -- an urban village'. To the East of Rock Creek,
an area was changed from Low Density Multifamily to Suburban
Office and Single Family.
The Chenal Parkway/Kirk Road area is currently not fully
developed. There is vacant commercial (C3), office (03) and
multifamily (MF18) areas to the North and west. Rock Creek
provides a barrier to the South; however, with single family
across the creek care should be taken along the creek edge.
There is available vacant commercially zoned property to the
East and west. The City has consistently been opposed to
commercial zoning of the area in question. Concerns about
strip commercial, etc. have been the issues.
This request would significantly increase the commercial areas
in the vicinity. There has not been any indication of need
for more commercial land. Large areas remain undeveloped and
new residential or intensification of residential have not
occurred. In addition to the size of the commercial
expansion, there is an additional area to the West that may
also ask for commercial if this is granted. The result is
likely to be another Bowman/Markham/Chenal/Kanis area -- large
box commercial. The Plans intent to have a mix of uses would
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.)
be lost in the Kanis/Chenal/Kirk area as it has been in the
Bowman/Chenal/Markham/Kanis area.
If this area is changed to commercial over a mile stretch of
Chenal Parkway would be commercial. This will effectively
strip the parkway way. Considering comments from citizens
about previous commercialization of Chenal Parkway, Staff
believes the mixing of uses is still to preferred development
pattern. To that end Mixed Office Warehouse is appropriate or
a change to Mixed Office and Commercial would be appropriate.
Such a change would permit to a grocery store as suggested by
the application as long as other non-commercial using are also
included in the development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends deferral as filed. A change to Mixed
Office Commercial is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 1997)
Walter Malone, Planning Manager, presented the item. Mr.
Malone reviewed the Land Use Plan in the area. Staff's
concern is that if this location is changed to Commercial, the
result would be in strip commercial for over a mile in both
directions along Chenal Parkway. In addition, staff is
concerned that the commercial could continue to the west to
the West Loop at Kanis Road. At the request of the Plans
Committee, the Land Use Plan for a two mile radius is shown as
well as a map of commercial with acreage. These maps show
numerous commercial sites (vacant) both to the northwest and
east -- several are over 10 acres.
Staff wishes to prevent another commercial strip and believes
that Mixed Office Commercial is a good compromise. As long as
there is some office in the development than the request would
be in conformance. Commissioner Earnest read a section of the
staff report dealing with need for more commercial.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the requirements of Mixed
Office Commercial. There was some discussion of the use
pattern allowed - Office or Mixed Office and Commercial with a
PZD.
Robert Brown, Development Consultants, spoke for the applicant.
Mr. Brown reviewed the reason why this site had been selected for
the request - access, visibility, spacing, growth potential. This
site would reduce trip distance and provide a destination point,
with larger retailers.
2
August 7, 1-497
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.
Joe Whisenhunt, the developer of the shopping center, stated other
sites were reviewed but none met the requirements. This would be
a destination center providing all shopping needs. Kroger is
opposed to a mix with Office due to traffic volumes, etc.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, asked that the Plan be
followed. Ms. Bell raised concern about traffic intensity,
stripping with commercial, creating another bottleneck.
There was discussion about the Kanis Study and having that group
review the implication. Commissioner Berry and Tony Bozynski,
Assistant Director of Planning, provided information on the status
of the Kanis Study. In response to a question by Chairman Lichty,
there was discussion about service area, etc. Commissioners
Daniel and Berry discussed the need for commercial and in
particular a grocery. Also discussed was the reduced trip length.
The Commission discussed deferral to allow the Kanis "Public
Meeting" to occur first. There was discussion about the
employment to be added, etc. After much discussion about
potential deferral dates and whether that would work for the
applicant. The applicant asked for a vote.
Commissioner Hawn moved the Plan be amended to Commercial (Daniel
seconded). By a vote of 4 for, 5 against the item failed to be
approved. Based on the vote, the item is forwarded to the Board
with a recommendation of denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Richard Wood, Manager of Subdivision and zoning, informed the
Commission that the Board of Directors forwarded the Land Use
Plan Amendment on the Dairy Land site back to the Commission.
Walter Malone, Manager of Planning, reviewed the original
request, MOW to Commercial which the Commission voted 4 for,
5 against. The applicant has amended their request to Mixed
Office Commercial. At the previous hearing, staff had
indicated this use was a reasonable compromise.
Commissioner Earnest asked that the map showing commercial
areas around the site be shown. Mr. Earnest distributed
copies of the Board communication on this item and pointed the
Commission's attention to several sections. (The significant
increase in commercial in the area where no additional need
has been shown). Mr. Malone reviewed the map showing
commercial acreage in a 2 mile area around the site.
Commissioner Earnest next referred to a second section dealing
with concern of further commercialization with "Big Box" type
uses. Mr. Malone stated staff hoped with the Mix Office
Commercial use this could be prevented. To the question about
what percentage of office, Mr. Malone stated there was no
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.)
specified percentage in the Plan. Mr. Lawson, Director,
confirmed this.
Commissioner Earnest asked if there was sufficient commercial
in the area to meet the needs. Mr. Malone responded that
based on'the Extraterritorial Plan there should be sufficient
area since the use pattern has not significantly changed.
There was additional discussion about this issue.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the amount of commercial shown
at Kirk and Chenal. Mr. Malone indicated the area was just
short of thirty acres. To a second question from Mr. Putnam,
Mr. Malone indicated staff felt Mixed Office Commercial was
appropriate.
Commissioner Hawn, asked what was the need to "compromise"
with Mixed Office Commercial. Mr. Malone stated staff felt
this was a "business" area and as long as there was a mix it
would work. Commissioner Hawn stated that does not express a
need to compromise.
Commissioner Berry asked about the ratio of office in past
MOC areas. Mr. Malone responded that the MOC definition had
just been changed (last 6 months) to require at least some
office in all MOC areas. Therefore, there is no track record.
Commissioner Berry expressed the need to have a minimum
threshold for office as part of the Plan. Mr. Lawson
explained the problems with doing this in a Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Earnest read the following in to the record:
I would ask that we consider the following
information in our deliberations today.
The land use plan of the city should be supported
unless there is an overriding public interest in
and need for change. It must be clearly
demonstrated that insufficient areas have been
identified to accommodate growth and expansion.
In this particular issue that is before you,
the map that is attached clearly shows the
existence of sufficient commercial land that
is available on the market. Our staff report
states "There has not been any indication of
need for more commercial land."
The developer has made a decision, based on
his interests, that this parcel is needed and
necessary for the anticipated development of
a grocery store. It is probable, given the
abundance of suitable and appropriately
4
August 7, IY97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.)
classified land in the area that his decision
was based solely on the price of the land in
question.
Support of the land use plan is of benefit to the public
and the developer. A clear and defined public policy
that reduces or eliminates confusion is of benefit to all
parties.
Support of an existing land use plan sends a
clear message to all parties that speculation
on undeveloped parcels will be minimized.
Changes to the land use plan will be made
based on a publicly identified need. In
addition, as changes are made they should not
occur incrementally, but rather as part of a
comprehensive review of existing land use
patterns over a large area.
It is imperative that all parties adhere to one set of
rules that is consistently and evenly applied.
Commissioner Putnam made a motion the Land Use Plan be amended
as proposed. Mr. Putnam followed with a statement of why this
area will be commercial. By a vote of 5 for 3 against the
item failed.
5
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-6318
NAME: Dairyland Shopping Center
a) Rezoning to Long -Form PCD
b) Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South of Chenal Parkway and east of Kirk Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Joe D. Whisenhunt Development Consultants, Inc.
Whisenhunt Investments 2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Rt. 2, Box 150 Little Rock, AR 72212
Bee Branch, AR 72013
AREA: 25.29 acres
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT•
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: N/A
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
#18 Ellis Mountain
VARIANCES/WAIVERS/DEFERRAL REQUESTED:
1. Reduced spacing of driveways along Kirk Road.
2. Additional driveway on Kanis Road for service access.
3. Median cut on Chenal Parkway for western driveway.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has requested a change in the Land Use Plan from
Mixed Office Warehouse to Commercial. Planning Staff recommended
a change to Mixed Office Commercial. The item was heard by the
Planning Commission on June 12, 1997. A motion to change the
Land Use Plan to Commercial failed with 4 ayes, 5 nays and
2 absent.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a one lot preliminary plat and a
rezoning to PCD on 25 acres. Phase I will be constructed
upon approval. Phase II will be initiated within a 3 year
period.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
Phase I
• 64,650 sq. ft. Kroger market
• 6,000 sq. ft. retail shops
• 9,100 sq. ft..freest.anding retail_
• 1.07 acre lease parcel #1
• 702 parking spaces
Phase II
• 125,000 sq. ft. multiple use retail
• 1.25 acre lease parcel #3
• 1.17 acre lease parcel #2
• 318 parking spaces
Proposed uses are compiled from an edited listing of C-3
users and are as follows:
I. PERMITTED USES
a. Amusement, (commercial, inside).
b. Animal Clinic (enclosed).
C. Antique shop.
d. Appliance repair.
e. Auto parts and accessories.
f. Bakery or confectionary shop.
g. Bank or savings and loan office.
h. Bar, lounge or tavern.
i. Barber and beauty shop.
j. Beverage shop.
k. Book and stationery store.
1. Butcher shop.
M. Cabinet and woodwork shop.
n. Camera shop.
o. Catering, commercial.
P. Church.
q. Cigar, tobacco and candy store.
r. Clinic (medical, dental or optical).
S. Clothing store.
W. Community welfare or health center.
X. Convenience food store with gas pumps and enclosed
car wash.
aa. Custom sewing and millinery.
bb. Day nursery or day care center.
CC. Drugstore or pharmacy.
dd. Duplication shop.
ee. Eating place without drive-in service.
ff. Establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic or
psychiatric patients.
gg. Establishment of a religious, charitable or
philanthropic organization.
2
August 7, 1-497
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6318
hh. Feed store.
ii. Florist shop.
jj. Food store.
kk. Furniture store.
MM. Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork.
nn. Hardware or -sporting goods store.
oo. Health studio or spa.
pp. Hobby shop.
qq. Hospital.
as. Jewelry store.
tt. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting.
uu. Rey shop.
VV. Laboratory.
Ww. Laundromat or pickup station.
yy. Lawn and garden center, enclosed.
ZZ. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use.
bbb. Medical appliance fittings and sales.
ccc. Mortuary or funeral home.
eee. Office (general and professional).
fff. Office, showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,
enclosed.
ggg. Office equipment sales and services.
hhh. Optical shop.
iii. Paint and wallpaper store.
111. Pet shop.
mmm. Photography studio.
nnn. Private school, kindergarten or institution for
special education.
000. Private club with dining or bar service.
ppp. Recycling facility, automated.
qqq. Retail uses not listed (enclosed).
rrr. School (business).
sss. School (commercial, trade, or craft).
ttt. School (public or denominational).
uuu. Seasonal and temporary sales, outside.
www. Service station.
xxx. Shoe repair.
yyy. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other
artistic endeavors).
zzz. Shoe repair.
cccc. Tool and equipment rental (inside display only).
dddd. Travel bureau.
II. CONDITIONAL USES (TO BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT)
a. Ambulance service post.
e. Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair).
i. Car wash (full service).
k. Glass or glazer. Installation, repair, and sales.
1. Home center.
M. Landscape service.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
B.
C.
n. Lawn and garden center, open display.
P. Miniwarehouse (conditioned space).
r. Office warehouse.
t. Service station with limited motor vehicle repair.
V. Swimming pool sales and supply.
Chenal Parkway driveways are requested to be as follows:
• The western drive is proposed to have a median cut and be
a full functioning access for right and left turn
movements. A left turn lane is shown to be painted in
with the street improvement work.
• The eastern drive will be right turn in and out and will
be constructed per Master Street Plan (MSP) standards.
No median cut is requested.
Two driveways are shown with access to Kanis Road. The
southern drive is primarily a service drive for trucks. The
northern drive is the main access to Kroger and lease parcel
#1. Both Kanis driveways serve the 9,100 square feet
freestanding retail/restaurant.
There are two phase II access points from the proposed
extension of Kirk Road via Chenal Parkway. These driveways
allow traffic to flow into the proposed phase II parking
areas.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is vacant. Portions of the parcel have
recently been filled with dirt from the new target site on
Chenal Parkway at West Markham.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place Neighborhood
June 4, 1997 of this rezoning.
adverse public comments on this
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS:
Association was noticed on
Staff has received no
matter.
1. Construct Chenal Parkway curb to 33 feet from
centerline, the entrances are to have deceleration
lanes, islands and are limited to right -turn -out only
per adopted Master Street Plan. Construct 7 foot island
(1/2 of complete island for length of property).
Dedicate right-of-way to 60 feet from centerline.
2. Lease parcels #1, 2, and 3 will not be allowed access to
public streets per ordinance. Future drives should not
create "T" intersections.
4
August 7, 1-997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6318
3. Kirk Road intersection shall be constructed to Master
Street Plan adopted standards with islands and
acceleration lanes. Kanis Road intersection shall be
constructed to same standard.
4. Two driveways will be acceptable on Kanis Road, as long
as, -South Drive is 27 feet wide and has limited access
for vehicles and is designated as trucks only - remove
parking and parking isle connections.
Kirk Road Drives are acceptable as long as - south
driveway is 27 feet wide and marked "trucks only.•°
5. Dedicate easement for floodway.
6. A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area are required prior to construction.
Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.
Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work.
7. All driveways shall have concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
8. Provide striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
9. Master Street Plan revision for Kirk Road alignment
required prior to Planning Commission approval of 2-
6318.
10. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
11,000.
11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
12. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section
31-403.
13. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
14. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Section 31-175
and the "MSP•• .
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
SID 247 Reimbursement Fees required for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: No Comment.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment.
Water: On site fire protection required. Pro rata front
footage of $15/ft. applies, also acreage charge of
$300/acre. If relocation of any water facilities is
required relocation will be done at the expense of the
developer.
Fire Department: Are buildings to be sprinkled?
5
August 7, lv97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
CATA•
Outside service area though long-term we believe will be
asked to extend service to these growth areas perhaps using
large buses 35`' to 401, or maybe -with smaller buses or vans.
For transit to be effective, provisions should be made for
pedestrian access to and within the development. For future
transit service, there should be an appropriate circulation
pattern within the development for buses, or a clear,
accessible, and well-defined pathway from Chenal to the main
part of the retail building. There should be a bus turnout
on both sides of Chenal if there is the possibility for a
safe pedestrian crossing at the location.
In general, we would like to see developments sited so that
bus patrons can access the development within a reasonable
walking distance of the major street.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Issues•
• Applicant has not requested possible use of drive-thru
facilities. Drive-thrus will not be permitted.
• Adjacent landowners within a 200 foot radius were noticed
14 days prior to hearing date. Fifteen day minimum is
required by Planning Commission By -Laws Article IV
4b.(2).
• The Land Use Plan Amendment issue has not been resolved.
Landscape•
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Opaque screening, either a wood fence, wall or dense
evergreen plantings are required to also help screen this
site from the residential property to the southeast.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving a many
existing trees, including those along Chenal Parkway, as
feasible. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when existing trees of
six inch caliper or larger are saved.
Planning Division: Major Land Use Plan change required to
Commercial to accommodate this rezoning request. Planning
Commission hearing June 12, 1997.
6
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6318
G. ANALYSIS•
Staff is not prepared to proceed with this requested
rezoning. The Land Use Plan designation for the site is not
resolved at the time this staff report is being prepared.
Adjacent land owners were not noticed as required by
Planning Commission Bylaws. The Subdivision Committee
concurred with staff's request for a deferral.
The applicant's representative offers the following written
response to the request for a deferral:
"We do not wish to have our PCD hearing
deferred unless there are further design issues
that could be resolved. If the plan amendment
we proposed is not approved as commercial, we
will still want to proceed through the PCD
process for a hearing at the Planning
Commission."
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
DEFERRAL of the rezoning request to PD -C and a one lot
preliminary plat. The Planning Commission should determine
an appropriate public hearing date.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997)
Dairvland Shopping Center (Z-6318)
a. Rezoning to Long -Form PCD
b. Preliminary Plat
Planning Staff Comments:
• Show city boundary line on exhibit.
• Show adjacent owners and zoning.
• Provide a list of proposed uses.
• Elevations and design.
• Number all parking spaces.
• Chenal Parkway driveways should be right turn in and right
turnout.
• Only one driveway will be allowed on Ranis.
• Possible deferral of item. The applicant has requested a
change in the Land Use Plan from Mixed Office Warehouse to
Commercial. Staff has recommended denial and suggested Mixed
Office Commercial. The public hearing at the Planning
Commission is June 12, 1997. If anything other than
7
August 7, 1y97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6318
commercial is approved by the Planning Commission than the
rezoning and plat will be deferred.
• Dumpster locations.
Planning Staff requested a deferral of this item. Chairman
Putnam agreed that the item be deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 26, 1997)
Staff presented the project by indicating that the applicant did
not agree with the staff request for a deferral. Chairman Lichty
stated that the Commission initially would discuss if a deferral
was appropriate.
Robert Brown and Joe Whisenhunt stated that they wanted to
proceed with the hearing on the PCD request. Chairman Lichty,
Hawn, Brandon and Rahman all stated during a discussion period
that the item should be deferred.
Mr. Whisenhunt said that he might add a small percentage of
office to the project. Jim Lawson said the applicant has taken a
all or nothing approach in respect to the proposed commercial
uses. After more discussion back and forth the applicant agreed
to a deferral to examine a mixed office and commercial
development.
Motion to defer the item to August 7, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Motion passed with 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention, and
3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
(JULY 17, 1997)
The matter of the Land Use Plan change will be presented to the
Board of Directors on August 5, 1997, two days preceding the
rehearing by the Commission.
Staff will report at the August 7th meeting on the Board action.
COMMUNICATION UPDATE FROM DEVELOPER:
(JULY 18, 1997)
Mr. Robert Brown representing the applicant has submitted to
staff three letters to update the application and amend certain
elements. The first of these letters is as follows:
8
August 7, 1-997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
(Letter No. 1 dated June 27, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
DCI Project #97-105
Dear Richard:
I provided three copies of our revised PCD Site Plan to Larry
Jones yesterday, prior to our Planning Commission Hearing. I did
not have time to prepare my usual cover letter recapping the
specific changes that were made. This letter is provided for
your information to cover those items.
1. Phasing: I have added an additional phase for a total of
three. The Phase 2 now includes only the first retail
building, west of the Kroger Store. Phase 3 involves the
construction of Kirk Road and the balance of parking and
building areas west of Phases 1 and 2. The total time
frames remain the same.
2. Median Cut on Chenal Parkway: We have agreed that the
median cut would be eliminated when the western part of the
project is completed and an alternative access is available
by Kirk Road. A note is added to the drawing to specify
this feature is temporary.
3. Service Drive: We have reduced the width of entry points
at each end of the service drive. We have also revised the
parking and drive layout for the Retail/Restaurant building
to limit the use of the service drive as an access to that
site. The Retail/Restaurant building shape was amended and
the building area reduced slightly.
4. Project information: All items affected by the change in
parking spaces and building area have been revised to
reflect the revised plan proposal.
S. Chenal Median: Our plan now indicates construction of the
south half of the median with a permanent curb on the south
edge and a temporary asphalt curb along the north edge
(center line) that would later be removed when the north
half of the median is built to a full 14 foot width.
6. Usage: We also need to specify on our proposed list of
users to provide for drive-through window pick-up
facilities. This would primarily support eating
establishments, however, could also be utilized in other
businesses (such as banks, cleaners, video stores, etc.).
Larry Jones had previously stated this element of use was
not allowed as we did not define it specifically in our
original request.
August 7, 1.997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6318
(Letter No. 2 dated July 18, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
DCI Project #97=105
Dear Richard:
I am providing this letter as our formal notification to amend
part of our PCD application. we are requesting a change to the
land use limitations of the application to incorporate office
uses within the Phase 3 portion of the project. We will commit
fifteen percent of the overall building/s areas to be developed
for office uses. This percentage may be achieved by qualified
office use to be allowed include those listed under the C-3,
General Office District regulations.
To coordinate with this change to our PCD application, we have
notified the City Clerk's Office of to our request to change our
Land Use Plan Amendment application. We have revised our
original request to propose amending the land use designation to
Mixed Office and Commercial. This will comply with the staff
recommendation given at the Planning Commission level of review.
A copy of the letter to Robbie Hancock is attached.
(Letter No. 3 dated July 18, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
Land Use Plan Amendment Request
DCI Project #97-105
Dear Robbie:
Pursuant to our conversation, we request that you amend our
original request to change the Land Use Plan from Mixed Office
and Warehouse (MOW) to Commercial (C). We are now asking for a
change to Mixed Office and Commercial (MOC). This will be in
compliance with the recommendation made by the planning staff, in
response to our original request to change to Commercial.
10
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
Whisenhunt, to come forward and offer comments on his
application.
Mr. Whisenhunt identified himself as the developer and offered a
brief description of the proposal and referred to basic
information on the plan and the proposalasdiscussed-in the land
use plan amendment. He believed that all of the various elements
of the plan had been worked out with staff such as the street,
points of access, use mix and that sort of thing. Following his
presentation, Commissioner Adcock posed a question as to what
might possibly be located here other than the proposed Kroger
store. His response was basically large box type retail stores.
He offered a comparison commentary with his center on Hwy. 10
and potential uses that could possibly have been placed there and
lost opportunities. He also stated that in his plan in an
agreement with the Planning Staff he had changed his plan to
reflect that by the time he reached phase 3 of the project they
would have 15% of the gross floor area devoted to office space.
Mr. Robert Brown then took the microphone and proceeded to give
further description of the project, the phasing and how various
elements would work. In a response to a question from
Commissioner Hugh Earnest, Mr. Brown again restated the phasing
scheme of the project indicating on a graphic where the lines
would be drawn. Mr. Brown also indicated that all of the various
points of discussion are indicated in the letter attached to and
presented with the staff's agenda. At this point, the Chairman
recognized Mr. Ronald Hopper.
Mr. Hopper identified himself as an adjacent property owner. His
first comment was a question as to what the Commission is doing
now relative to what it did earlier on the land use and what
ramifications are attached. His concern was why was the
Commission permitting the hearing on this case when they had just
voted not to allow the land use change which would allow this
use. It was pointed out to Mr. Hopper that appeals would require
that some consideration be given to both should the applicant
desire to pursue those. The conversation then moved to Mr.
Hopper's comments on the area in general and his having lived
there in an earlier time. Mr. Hopper offered some history on the
neighborhood. A lengthy discussion followed between Mr. Hopper,
staff and some commissioners relative to the development of
various properties along Chenal Parkway. Mr. Hopper concluded
his remarks by stating that he was supportive of this project.
The Chairman then directed a question to staff. If the Commission
acts on this item and if it is approved given what happened with
the land use plan vote what is staff position. Jim Lawson, of
the Staff, briefly stated that staff was not going to change its
recommendation. He stated that staff still wants to recommend
the MOC when this item goes before the City Board of Directors
and if the Board denies the MOC, then that will be City policy.
11
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318
In that instance, the staff would be willing to drop its support
for this action.
Lawson stated that he felt it puts everyone in a bind, but the
Commission needed to proceed. He also stated that the
Commission, even though they denied the MOC land use change, they
can go ahead and support this action. The City Hoard of
Directors in the final analysis will have to deal with this.
Chairman Lichty pointed out it looked like we were going to have
a quorum problem. It was pointed out that once the applicant
receives some action on this case, he can proceed onto the City
Hoard.
The discussion then turned to the action that was taken by the
Commission and the closeness of the vote. At this point, Jim
Lawson, of the Staff, again restated that the Commission was not
bound by the plan and could go ahead and vote to deny or
recommend approval of the rezoning.
After a brief discussion between Commissioner Adcock, Chairman
Lichty and Jim Lawson, the Chairman determined that it was
appropriate to ask the applicant if he desired a vote on this
item at this time. Mr. Whisenhunt stated that yes he wanted a
vote today. At this point, several commissioners discussed with
the applicant the design of the project, the appropriateness of
it considering its location specifically design elements such as
wrap around parking were discussed as being better designed for
access. Mr. Whisenhunt responded to Commissioner Berry's
questions about design by stating that Kroger only had a design
approval on this and he and the architect had the design
responsibility and much like the Hwy. 10 location they would
design a project that would be consistent with the area. This
project will not look anything like the Hwy. 10 project. Mr.
Whisenhunt then entered upon a lengthy discussion of design.
At the conclusion of his remarks, the Chair recognized
Commissioner Brandon who raised the question of berms along the
roadways for purpose of shielding from view some of the
automobiles. Mr. Whisenhunt responded by stating that he had
provided for a large landscape buffer area all around the
perimeter of the property that will be 45 feet wide with berms 3
1/2 to 4 feet tall.
A discussion then moved to design consideration such as the
outparcels containing structures with loud or bright colors. At
this point, Mr. Whisenhunt also injected comments concerning
signs. He said there would be no pylon signs only ground
monument type signs. A question was then offered by a
commissioner as to the median cut that was proposed. Mr.
Whisenhunt pointed to the graphic illustration and indicated the
various points of access including Kirk Road and the points
between that and Kanis Road intersection. The question was posed
12
August 7, 1!97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE_ NO.: Z-6318
during this discussion as to the timeframe for constructing Kirk
Road. Robert Brown, representing the applicant, stated that it
was covered in the letter of information which is provided in the
commission's packet.
Commissioner'Adcock then posed a question as to the area behind
the shopping center. would there be screening? Mr. Brown
addressed this by saying that the specifics of the landscape plan
were not in place yet, but it is part of their landscape area and
screening plan. Commissioner Adcock then moved her comments to
the site preparation and she pointed out the significant amount
of foliage trees and natural growth had been removed or
destroyed. Mr. Whisenhunt's reply was that on the rear portion
of the property where most of the vegetation existed has been
filled as deep as 25 feet to bring it up to usable grade.
Commissioner Adcock then moved her conversation to the area of
screening. Once again Mr. Brown representing Mr. Whisenhunt came
forward and stated that there would be a six foot high privacy
fence along the entire southern edge of the project. He stated
there would be almost 38 feet of green space offered along the
south boundary where some additional vegetation can be planted
including trees. Mr. Brown stated also there was probably 200 to
300 feet of floodway running across the south side of this
project which could not be built upon which offered additional
separation and buffer.
After another brief discussion of miscellaneous matters, the
Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn for purposes of a motion.
Commissioner Hawn moved that the Commission approve the
application as filed and amended by various letters, discussions
and agreements of record at this hearing today. The motion was
seconded. A vote on the motion produced 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3
absent. The motion failed and the application was denied.
13
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S -767-C
NAME: Charleston Heights Replat (5-767-C)
LOCATION: South of Taylor Loop on both sides of proposed
Outer Loop Road
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Rector, Phillips, and Morse Joe White
1601 N. University Avenue White-Daters Engineering
Little Rock, AR 72207 401 victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 43.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 96 FT. NEW STREET: 6,560
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: The setback requirements to 15 feet
on Lots 59-68 and Lots 89-92.
A. PROPOSAL:
The Planning Commission previously approved a preliminary
plat for this site. The applicant seeks to add one
additional lot (#85A) and reduce the front yard building
setback to 15 feet for Lots 59-68 and 89-92. The applicant
states that the site topography necessitates a reduction in
the setback lines.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is vacant and partially wooded. The
subdivision improvements have not been constructed.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester Neighborhood Association was noticed of this
replat. Staff has received no responses from the public on
this proposal.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS•
The basic subdivision engineering has been approved by
Public Works Department.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -767-C
E. UTILITIES•
The utility requirements have been previously determined for
this plat.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape• N/A
Issues• None
Planning Division: N/A
G. ANALYSIS•
The applicant seeks to reduce the front yard minimum
setbacks from 25 to 15 feet. One additional lot will also
be created with access through an easement. Staff supports
the request of the applicant. The replat as submitted
conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of the replat as shown in the revised exhibited
stamped reviewed on April 17, 1997. There are no additional
conditions
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 24, 1997)
The item was not heard by the Subdivision Committee. There are
no additional staff conditions.
The replat was scheduled for the May 15, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 15, 1997)
This item was included in the Consent Deferral Agenda. Motion to
defer the item to the June 26, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion passed with 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 26, 1997)
This item was included in the Consent Deferral Agenda. Motion to
defer the item to August 7, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion passed with 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -767-C
STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 18, 1997)
At this writing, there has been no further information develop.
Mr. Bill Hastings will report at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that there were no remaining issues and that
the plat should be placed on the Consent Agenda with approval of
the setback variances.
A motion to place the item on Consent Approval was made. The
motion to approve the revised plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
Q
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6312
LOCATION•
Brown - Conditional Use Permit
2100 Vancouver Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Harold and Brenda Brown
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
continuation of a 16 -child day
care center within the
existing residence at 2100
Vancouver Drive, zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Vancouver
Drive, north of West 28th Street. This residential
area is located west of Boyle Park and east of Barrow
Road within the John Barrow Neighborhood Association.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This residence/day care center is located in an area
exclusively residential in nature. Uses and zoning in
this area range from single-family to multifamily (MF -
6).
The continuation of the existing day care center (which
has existed at this location for two years) should have
no adverse effects on the surrounding properties.
The John Barrow Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing
residential driveway.
The City's Zoning Ordinance requires three (3) parking
spaces: one (1) for the single-family residence and
two (2) for the day care use. The applicant states
that four (4) vehicles can be parked on the existing
driveway. Although these parking spaces do not meet
the ordinance requirements (minimum size and
maneuvering area), parking has apparently not been a
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6312
problem during the past two (2) years of day care
operation.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
No Comments.
5. Public Works Comments:
Parking is not recommended on the public right-of-way.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No Comments.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for the continuing operation of a day care
center for 16 children at 2100 Vancouver Drive, zoned
R-2.
This item is before the Planning Commission as a result
of a recent zoning enforcement action. The City's
Zoning Office conducted a survey of all day care uses
within residences in the City of Little Rock based on
information obtained from the State Department of Human
Services. The City's zoning Office found that a number
of these day care uses did not have the appropriate
city permits. That is the case with this item.
The Browns have operated the day care center at this
location for the past two (2) years. The Browns are
licensed to care for 16 children at this location and
have cared for 16 children for the past two (2) years.
The operating hours are 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. One employee (the Brown's daughter)
will come from off site.
There is a playground area located in the rear yard of
the residence. The rear yard is enclosed by a privacy
fence. The applicant is proposing a two (2) square
foot ground sign.
This use requires a total of three (3) parking spaces:
one (1) for the single-family residence and two (2) for
the day care center. The applicant states that four
(4) vehicles can be parked on the existing driveway.
Although the parking spaces do not meet ordinance
requirements (minimum size and maneuvering area),
parking apparently has not been a problem during the
past two (2) years of day care center operation.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6312
Given the fact that the day care center has existed
within the residence for the past two (2) years, the
continuing use as a day care center should have no
adverse effects on the neighborhood. However, staff
does recommend that a staff -level -review be conducted
after one (1) year to determine whether or not there
have been any problems with the day care center's
operation (primarily parking and drop-off). If
problems are detected, the issue will come back to the
Planning Commission for further review.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
2. There is to be no signage on the site. This will
help maintain the residential character of the
property.
3. Staff recommends a staff -level review after one
(1) year to determine if any problems exist on the
site.
4. There is to be a maximum enrollment of 16
children.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997)
Brenda Brown was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff noted that the applicant is licensed by the state to
care for 16 children and has been caring for 16 children at
this location for the past two (2) years.
Staff also noted the hours of operation and the parking
situation.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the conditional use permit to the
full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997)
The staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed
to send proper notification to property owners within 200
feet of the site. Staff recommended deferral of the
application to the August 7, 1997 Subdivision Agenda.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • z-6312
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
August 7, 1997 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and
4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval
as noted. The applicant was not present. There was one
person present with concerns.
Betty Synder, president of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission. She stated that the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association had concerns about the
number of day care uses being proposed recently and the
regulation of these uses.
Jim Lawson, Planning Director, suggested that the item be
deferred due to the applicant not being present. The
Commission decided to proceed with the application.
There was a brief discussion between the Commission and
Mrs. Synder concerning day care uses, regulation and other
pending day care applications.
Chairman Lichty pointed out that one of the conditions of
approving this application would be a staff -level review of
the property after one (1) year.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
4
ca
173
4
C
xCD
I
(D
r
CD
CD
3
O
O'
(D
7
(D
CDD
A
fi
O
r:
�-v
r
H
C]
tij
z
Co
tij
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1146
NAME: Madison Heights Preliminary Plat
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
McCormick Baron and Assoc. Delbert Van Landingham
Hadley Square - AMI Engineering
1101 Lucas Avenue 201 Markham Center Drive
St. Louis, MO 63101-1179 Little Rock, AR 72221
AREA: 34.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: Relocated
Streets
ZONING• PRD
PLANNING DISTRICT: #9 I-630
CENSUS TRACT: 18
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSAL:
To provide for the lot arrangement for placement of a
residential development. The first phase to be on Lots 1
through 5 and Tracts A, B and C to be future development as
provided for on the approved PRD site plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is under demolition to remove the former streets,
utilities and drainage structures and begin constructing the
new facilities once the plat and final plan are recorded.
The land area at this time contains no buildings, they have
been removed or demolished. The terrain is generally flat
with some significant drainage running through the area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
There have been several persons call about the project but
once identified as the plan needed for the land use
approval. There was no further interest.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Previous comments apply. Staff has worked with developer
and engineer to satisfy Ordinance requirements.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1146
2. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec.
31-403.
3. Provide striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
4. Variances have been granted by Planning Commission and
Board of Directors for cul-de-sac diameters.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Existing system must be relocated, sewer main
extension required with easement.
AP&L: No response.
Arkla: No response.
Southwestern Bell: OK as filed.
Water: New system design - mains, etc., as a new plat.
Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations to conform
with PZD.
CATA: Two bus routes serve the area #3 along West 12th
Street and #8 along West 16th Street. All day service
provided.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape: No comment required.
Issues:
Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan
G. ANALYSIS•
The plat is in excellent condition. There are only six
items to follow up:
1. Owner certificate
2. Source of title
3. Align Jefferson Street.
4. Phase 1 open space, tie to ownership and maintenance.
5. Tracts A, B and C will require further preliminary
action.
6. Provide Bill of Assurance in part to dedicate streets
and easement.
Remedy of the few items will prepare the plat for final
approval and recording.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendation is approval as there is little or nothing
to be said about this plat. It provides the proper
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1146
framework for the continuance of what appears to be a good
project.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
The applicants were present. Staff briefly reviewed their
comments and discussed them with both Committee and applicant.
The plat was determined to be in very good presentation form.
The engineer was directed to make the few minor plat notations
and resubmit by Thursday, July 24.
The request was forwarded to the full Commission for final
determination.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported the plat to be in excellent condition and that
it should be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. All
issues have been resolved a motion to place the item on Consent
Approval was made. The motion to approve the preliminary plat
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1-997
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1147
NAME: Habitat Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: On the south side of West 24th Street about one block
west of Walker Street (John Barrow Neighborhood).
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Habitat for Humanity of McGetrick, Engineering
Pulaski County, Inc. 11225 Huron Lane
P. O. Box 1326 Little Rock, AR 72221
Little Rock, AR 72203 223-9900
376-4434
AREA: 2.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 160 feet
ZONING: R-2 Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: #11 I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 24.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
A. PROPOSAL:
To plat 8 single family lots out of acreage land with no
prior use or occupancy. The plat will provide resource for
the Habitat Organization on which to build homes.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land in this 2.25 acres as well as on all sides is
sparsely developed with a couple of homes within a block and
Parkview High School on the 20 plus acres adjacent to the
west. The streets in this area are basically chip seal and
narrow. There is little or no curb and gutter except in a
couple of plats several blocks to the east and south. There
is little or no prospect for 24th Street being extended to
Barrow Road since the school has barricaded the street with
an earth berm a cable and such.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
At this writing, there has been no comment from neighbors.
Those persons owning property abutting the plat will receive
notice.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1147
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if it disturbs more than one acre.
2.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
3. west 24th Street is a 17 foot chipseal pavement,
dedication of right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline
will be required.
4. Improve west 24th to one-half of a 26 foot wide
residential street with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and a
"T" turn around, at the west end of the development.
5. Eliminate open ditches on west 24th Street frontage.
6. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31-
403.
7. Show the following:
a) Easements shown for proposed storm drainage.
b) Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities.
c) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the
property.
d) Drainage area size and runoff coefficient of
watercourses entering the tract.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements.
AP&L: No response.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted.
Water: water main extension required.
Fire Department: Need 50 feet turning radius on cul-de-
sac.
CATA: The Rosedale Route is the near Route approximately
16 blocks south on West 36th area.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape: No comment required.
Issues:
Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan
G. ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this application and finds
little fault. There are few items that require notation on
the plat:
E
August 7, 1.997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1147
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Source of title (current owner)
State plane coordinates.
Is "The Cove" a plat name?
R.O.W. on west 24th Street
Internal angles on lots to
establishment.
North dimension on Lots 1
Abutting owners should be
Flood plane note
(Tie of plat to SW corner)
- source of dedication.
aid survey location and lot
and 8.
shown.
Tule as #1 on this plat in plat name.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
After review and discussion by staff, we recommend approval
of the plat subject to resolving the street improvement
issue along west 24th by abandonment or by construction and
dedication.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer. Staff presented its comments and briefly discussed
them with both committee and McGetrick. The plat was found to be
in good presentation form except for a few notations on the plat.
David Scherer of Public works Department injected into the
conversation the only issue of debate, that being a means of
terminating 24th Street in a manner to allow vehicle turnaround.
This discussion developed two principal points: The street is
apparently not now dedicated; and the Parkview School property
has sealed its campus from this access.
Mr. Scherer felt that it would be good resolution of the issue if
this owner worked with adjacent owners to abandon the west 1/2 of
the block and turn the street into the cul-de-sac proposed.
This was accepted by all present as a workable solution, Mr.
McGetrick was encouraged to pursue this action and be prepared to
report on August 7.
There being no other significant issues the plat was forwarded to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the plat was in good order, all issues
resolved, and that it should be placed on the Consent Agenda. A
motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for
approval. A motion to approve the preliminary was passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1y97
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1149
NAME: The Village of Rahling Road Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: SE corner of Rahling Road at Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Company White-Daters Engineers
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
AREA: 33.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 2,200
ZONING• PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None - Dealt with on PCD by City Board
A. PROPOSAL•
To provide the physical and legal infrastructure to support
a unique commercial development within the core of a plat.
There are proposed a number of conventional lots arranged
around a core street with setbacks, sidewalks, drives,
parking and streets controlled by the PCD plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This land like much of the surrounding area is generally
undisturbed and will require selective removal of trees and
other vegetation in order to maintain the character
presented by prior development.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
No comment received. Most, if not all, of the abutting
lands are owned by the developer.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1149
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Plat does not indicate requirements of approved PCD. See
Planning Commission record.
2. Road needs to be named on Preliminary Plat contact
"Special Programs Division of Public Works".
3. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec.
31-403.
4. Provide striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: Lot line easements between all perimeter lots
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: water main extension required. Easements will be
required for water facilities and fire hydrants will be
private if street is not public. Acreage charge of
$300/acre applies in addition to normal connection
charges.
Fire Department: Indicate fire hydrant locations.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape: No comment required.
Issues:
Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan.
G. ANALYSIS•
The Planning Staff has reviewed this plat and finds little
to comment on except for issues raised by Public Works on
PCD and not reflected here: Street design, access and
easement ties with other streets.
The plat requires:
1. Show owner and source of title.
2. Abutting owners
3. Phasing plan
4. PAGIS Monuments
5. Bill of Assurance
6. Note public or private streets.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1149
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the plat with modifications.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present for the applicant. Staff
presented the several comments on the plat. There were briefly
discussed with Mr. White and the Committee. Mr. Scherer of
Public Works Department noted that there were deficiencies in
this plat that should be corrected by aligning the plat with the
previously approved PCD. Mr. White indicated that would be done.
He was directed to produce revised copies by July 24.
There being no further discussion of the item, it was passed to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the plat was in good order, all issues
resolved, and that the plat should be placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. A motion was made to place the item on the
Consent Approval agenda. A motion to approve the item passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: 5-993-A
NAME: Mabelvale Business Park Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South side of Baseline Road at I-30
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Conservative Development White-Daters Engineers
2851 Lakewood Village Dr. 401 Victory Street
No. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201
758-7745
AREA: 61.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 and I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: #15 Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Approval of Private Street System
2. Frontage Road Improvements
A. PROPOSAL•
To convert a single tract lease lot arrangement to a
conventional commercial plat, but, with a private street
system. The request specifically requests Planning
commission authorize private streets. This is an authority
granted by ordinance and is done occasionally. A second
variance is to eliminate curb, gutter and sidewalk along the
I-30 frontage. The owner does not desire to change his site
plan of record but, sell the sites not lease them.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This large parcel of land is mostly cleared and occupied by
two buildings that were authorized by a prior site plan.
There is little or no grade on the land. Abutting uses are
a mix of residential to the west and Wal-Mart to the east.
Highway commercial exists around the interchange.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None received at this writing.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -993-A
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide -striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
2. Proposed ditch sections.
3. Developer shall contribute 50% to fund installation of
traffic signals at Mabelvale Pike at I-30 Frontage Road.
Mabelvale Pike at I-30 frontage is the highest priority
on traffic signal warrant study.
4. I-30 Frontage Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count
of 19,531.
5. Mabelvale Pike has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
15,570.
6. Sidewalks on I-30 Frontage Road will be required with
development or developer may contribute in -lieu fees for
construction.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Show the following:
a) Easements shown for proposed storm drainage.
b) Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities.
9. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: No response.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Hell: Approved as submitted.
Water: Water main extension to each parcel will be
required. On site protection will be required. Some
existing fire service lines may cross more than one
parcel. Modifications will be required to rectify that
situation.
Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations.
CATA: Bus routes 17 and 17-A serve this site with all day
service.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape: No comment required.
Issues:
Planning Division: No comment - plan conformance
2
August 7, 1:07
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -993-A
G. ANALYSIS•
There are not many plat deficiencies to correct and these of
plat notation requirement. There are no issues of
consequence except -the waivers and staff takes their usual
approach of approval of private streets and denial of
waivers. The plat needs are:
1. Indicate feet of new street.
2. Average lots size and platting format (one at a time)
3. where is lot #1 and show?
4. Will there be additional lots in phases II and III.
5. Lot dimensions on Lot 6
6. Building line from easement/ROW not curb line.
7. Drive spacing on lots 2 thru 6
8. Phases II and III will later require more information.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of the plat as requested with private streets but
denial of Frontage Road improvements entirely. We defer to
Public Works on specifics.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe White, Jr. The staff
presented its comments and briefly discussed the plat with both
applicant and committee. In general the staff comments dealt
with basic items that need to be added to the drawing. David
Scherer of Public Works Department raised a couple of issues that
he felt were of particular note, these were: The priority
traffic signal at Mabelvale Pike and I-30 and the construction of
sidewalks along I-30 Frontage Road.
These matters were discussed at length. Mr. White was instructed
to make the plat changes and resubmit by July 24th.
The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission of
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the applicant has removed the only
variance request. (Street improvements) and that the plat is in
good order and should be placed on Consent Agenda. A motion to
place the preliminary plat on Consent Agenda for approval was
made. A motion to approve the preliminary plat passed by a vote
of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: 5-200-D
NAME: Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 between Chenal Parkway
and Hwy. 300 intersection
-ENGINEER•
Pfeifer Development Co. White-Daters Engineers
400 East 13th St. 401 Victory Street
No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72201
375-1246 374-1666
AREA: 43.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,500
ZONING: R-2, MF -18, C-2, 0-3 and C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: #20 Pinnacle
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSAL:
The owner received plat approval in 1991 but allowed it to
lapse after one year. This resubmittal is basically the
same lot arrangement. The only changes are in the area of
Lot 1 that was recently approved for a mini -storage, as a
PCD.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This 40 plus acres is varied terrain with the steep slopes
and more difficult land in the large future development
tract. There is nothing constructed on the property at this
time except the Chenal Parkway extension. The land is in a
sparsely developed area with a few scattered houses along
Hwy. 10 and a church at Hwy. 300 intersection.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this writing, no organized neighborhoods nearby.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -200-D
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide for street lights contact Traffic Engineering.
2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading
permits are required prior to construction, site grading
and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. Inclusion of Chenal Parkway in the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial should be a part of this approval
process.
5. An additional 10 feet right-of-way will be required west
of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 north of Chenal Parkway
at Hwy. 300 and at all planned commercial streets for
future right -turn -lanes.
6.A minor arterial with a median is recommended as the
adopted cross-section with cuts in the median limited to
shown street locations.
7. Show the following:
a) Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100,
stations.
b) Street profiles showing existing and proposed
centerlines.
c) Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175
and "MSP".
d) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the
property.
8. Contact the AHTD for work at Hwy. 300, Hwy. 10, within
the State Highway right-of-way.
9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment.
Entergy: Easements required.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted.
Water: This area is outside the City. Annexation or
execution of a Preannexation Agreement will be required
prior to service. A water main extension will be
required. On site fire protection will be required on
several sites.
Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations.
CATA: Hwy. 10 express only - no all day service
F
August 7, 1:97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -200-D
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscaipe: No comment required.
Issues:
Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan - no change
proposed.
G. ANALYSIS•
There is little to be said about the plat except that the
various items noted by Staff should be added in order to
bring the plat up to code. These are:
1. Need Bill of Assurance.
2. Water and sewer source
3. More detail in vicinity map
4. Lot dimensions
5. Show lot 1 recorded.
6. Building lines
7. Lot 10, zoning current
8. Show Hwy. 10 and 300 current ROW.
9. Dimension AP&L easement.
10. Remove proposed zoning label.
11. Need phase plan.
12. Contour internal.
13. Show abutting owners.
14. Show PAGIS locations.
15. Mete and bounds description of plat.
16. Show city limits if abutting.
17. Wrong preliminary survey certificate
18. Utility service will require annexation.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the plat subject to staff and Public Works
Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 17, 1997)
Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present representing the applicant. The
Staff presented its comments and discussed the plat deficiencies
with Mr. White and the Committee.
It was suggested at one point that there are significant number
of basic items missing that require refiling after correction.
The Committee and Mr. White discussed how deferral could be
avoided. Mr. White indicated that he could correct the filing
deficiencies by Thursday the 24th if permitted to go forward.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -200-D
The Committee accepted his promise. The plat will be considered
on August 7th only if he corrects the items noted.
There was no serious discussion of specific points.
STAFF UPDATE•
(JULY 23, 1997)
The staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a
deferral of the plat until September 18, 1997 in as much as Mr.
Pfeifer will be out of town. More time to upgrade the drawing
will be provided.
Staff recommends the deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the owner has requested a deferral until
September 18th agenda and that this item should be placed on
Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion was made to place the item
on Consent Deferral. A motion to approve the deferral of the
plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -6232-A
NAME: Clevenger Short -Form PD -O
LOCATION: 9624 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR:
Michael Clevenger Donald Brooks
10025 West Markham St. 1611 Main Street
Little Rock, AR 72205 No. Little Rock, AR 72114
227-8292
AREA: .25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT: #2 Rodney Parham
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSAL•
The owner proposes to remodel a run down dwelling into an
office for an insurance agency office. Several parts of the
building will be removed and two new rooms added as well as
off-street parking. The owner will remove overgrown
property line vegetation, replant and also save one
exceptional tree in the rear yard.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A one family dwelling occupies the lot currently. It has
been vacant several months and is deteriorating rapidly.
The lots to the east and north are single family, well
maintained and oriented to streets off Markham or Sante Fe
Drive. To the south is a large church complex on the south
side of Markham Street. Abutting the lot on the west is an
office use as are the next several lots running west.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this writing, the Sante Fe Heights neighborhood was
notified as well as those persons within 200 feet.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6232-A
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Grading permit will be required on -this new development,
if it disturbs more than one acre.
2.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
3. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged during
or prior to construction with construction.
4. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
5. Markham Street has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
19,000.
6. Provide 8 feet back out space for rear parking area.
7. Applicant proposes a third parking space in front yard.
Rec. denial.
8. Reconstruct apron with improved radii.
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer available - not adversely affected.
Entergy: No response.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: No issues.
Fire Department: No response.
County Planning: No involvement
CATA: Markham Street is served by Route No. 5, all day
service.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape:
The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum four foot wide
landscape strip west of the proposed vehicular use area
unless a variance is approved by the City Beautiful
Commission. The plan submitted only provides for a width of
two feet.
The full on site buffer width requirement along West Markham
Street is eight feet. A portion of this requirement may be
transferred to other areas of the site but is required to
not drop below a width of six feet. The plan submitted only
provides for a width of four feet.
A six foot high opaque screen is required to screen this
site from the residential properties to the north and east.
Existing natural vegetation can count toward fulfilling this
E
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6232-A
requirement where it provides the required year-round
screening. The site must meet with Landscape Ordinance
requirements.
Issues:
Planning Division:
The site is in the Rodney Parham District. The Plan
recommends Suburban Office. The request is for an Office
use. The requested zoning is PDO. The request appears to
be in conformance with the Plan.
G. ANALYSIS•
The staff review produces several items that require
followup but the plan as presented we think will produce an
office site that works and will not adversely affect the
neighborhood. The several items yet to be dealt with are:
1. Limit parking in front yard to two spaces.
2. Save all large trees outside marked parking spaces.
3. As much as possible leave north boundary undisturbed.
4. Cleanup eastern property line but retain useful plants.
5. Work with Public Works on drive apron.
6. Revise plan to clean up drawing. (Remove as is.)
7. Note building exterior finish after remodel.
8. Note signage desired. (Possible office district limit)
9. Provide copies of any agreements on common property line
landscape maintenance.
10. Check Bill of Assurance conflict.
11. Provide list of uses for possible future conversion or
occupancy.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Staff supports the efforts of Mr. Clevenger to salvage
this property and return the structure to a useful function.
We recommend approval subject to Staff and Public Works
Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 17, 1997)
The application was represented by Mr. Clevenger, the owner of
the property. The Staff presented its comments on the proposal.
The site plan was discussed at length relative to parking, tree
retention, landscaping and buffer requirements. Mr. Clevenger
was very receptive to addressing these design items. He stated
that he could only save one of the large oaks in the back yard
because of the root problem and condition of one tree.
3
August 7, Iv97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6232-A
Mr. Brown, of the Staff, offered suggestions about landscape
design and possible variances from City Beautiful Commission.
Mr. Scherer, of Public works, discussed his remarks in the staff
report indicating such as the drive entry deficiencies,
disallowing a third parking space in front and parking design in
the rear yard. Mr. Clevenger said the staff and Committee issues
would be addressed.
The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the development proposal has been revised
to meet staff and ordinance requirements. The staff recommended
that the item be placed on Consent Approval. A motion was made
to place the item on the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to
approve the item was approved by vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
4
August 7, 1-997
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B
NAME: G.C.C. Short -Form POD/Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Hwy. 10 at Sam Peck Road, north side of street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
E.W.I., Inc. White-Daters, Engineers
220 North Knoxville 401 Victory Street
Russellville, AR 72801 Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 968-5432 374-1666
AREA: 2.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: O-2/Change to POD ALLOWED USES: Offices
PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None/except PZD process is utilized
here because the current 0-2 requires two acre minimum lot size.
BACKGROUND:
This application was filed to follow-up on a site plan review
approved earlier this year. During the course of the review, the
applicant was told that two lots could not be created due to the
0-2 district minimum two acre lot size. The site plan review was
completed and there is construction beginning on the site. The
owner was advised, the only way to replat the property and stay
within the Hwy. 10 Overlay Guidelines is to do so as a POD.
A. PROPOSAL:
To replat the current 2.9 acre lot as a lot of 1.3059 acres
and a lot of 1.645 acres.
The site plan previously approved would remain unchanged and
serve as the POD site plan. Therefore, the only reason for
a PZD application is to create the substandard size lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has been cleared, graded and some construction
activity has begun.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6324-A and S -978-B
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this time. The Walton Heights Neighborhood
Association was notified.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: None
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: Sewer available - not adversely affected.
Entergy: No response.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: Easements required as a plat on east and
north line.
Water: The rear lot cannot receive water service without a
water main extension. Private on-site hydrants will be
required. A pro rata front footage charge of $15.00 per
front foot applies on Cantrell Road.
Fire Department: OK as submitted.
CATA: Served by Hwy. 10 express only, no all day service.
F. PLANNING DIVISION:
Use wise it is in conformance. However, it appears to be a
means of getting around the Overlay District. Care should
be given to signage if approved and reduce to assure overall
goal.
G. LANDSCAPE: No additional comment. This was resolved on
the prior site plan review.
Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan
H. ANALYSIS•
There is little more to be said on this issue. It comes to
a matter of the Commission deciding whether it is
appropriate to further reduce the platted lot. The proper
time we feel would have been when the church plat was
created and perhaps enough land could have been added to
make two lots on this corner. Typically, along Hwy. 10 the
sites approved less than two acres were pre-existing and PZD
was offered to allow development as nonresidential.
2
August 7, i-797
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6324-A and S -978-B
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Denial of the application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Mr. Joe white was present, representing the applicant. Staff
presented its comments which were few in as much as the plat is
in good form and the site plan is not proposed for change. The
discussion centered on the only issue of substance and that being
the creation of a second lot on this parcel and that action
creating two lots below the minimum Hwy. 10 Overlay District size
of 2 acres.
Staff and Committee felt that this is a matter for the full
Commission to debate and determine. It is not a typical site
design issue. Therefore, the issue is forwarded for commission
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Chairman asked Richard wood, of the Staff, to present this
item and the staff recommendation. Richard wood identified this
application as an amendment to a previous site plan review in an
0-2 Office District which is now proposed to be a Planned Office
Development with a 2 lot replat of the current lot.
Wood stated that the staff view of this application is that it is
inappropriate in as much as the Commission reviewed and approved
a subdivision of this property at such time as the church on the
rear of the site created two front parcels. These parcels were
created at 2+ acres each in order to meet the Hwy. 10 Design
Standards. Staff feels that is the appropriate level for limit.
At the conclusion of wood's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked Joe
White, the agent for the application, to come forward and present
his case. Mr. White's comments were generally in line with those
offered by the staff, except that the owner of this property
desires to separate these lots for purposes of selling the rear
most building and the practical effect of the plat will not be
visually noticed on the development. Mr. white stated that the
site plan will not be changed and that all of the requirements
that were placed on the property in the site plan review process
remain and will be adhered to. He stated that to accomplish what
the owner wants to do is to simply strike a line diagonally
across the property through a parking lot to create separate
lots.
At the conclusion of Mr. White's remarks, Chairman Lichty asked
if there was any one else who wished to address this issue. At
3
August 7, iy97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B
this point, Commissioner Putnam offered comments. The comments
basically dealing with the location of various uses or structures
about the site. He indicated that it was already pretty much
surrounded with development. He stated that he felt that if they
complete the project as it was approved in phases 1 and 2, then
everything will -remain the same -except - that you -will have a lot
line which is not visible traversing the site. Mr. Putnam stated
that even though we have a 2 acre limitation, we are allowing
them to build two buildings there and it somewhat penalizes them
with respect to leasing or selling.
Following the conclusion of Commissioner Putnam's remarks,
Commissioner Berry offered that it was his inclination at this
point to go ahead and approve the two lots. However, the owner
with the 2 acre parcel developing a portion of it and retaining a
piece for later sale, he felt might be creating a precedent here.
At this point, Jim Lawson, of the Staff, posed a question to the
Commission. What if in this situation the two lots were created
with a provision that no additional buildings be constructed on
the site and would that work? At the conclusion of Lawson's
comments, the Chairman asked Mr. Joe White his reaction to this
statement. Mr. White stated that he was completely receptive to
the idea and at this point a motion was attempted to approve it
in such fashion as the staff and Mr. White had discussed. Prior
to action on the motion, Richard Wood pointed out this was
rezoning and a POD application would reclassify it from the
current 0-2 zoning and would create the plat as well. Therefore,
two motions are required at this point.
The Chairman recognized Mr. Hugh Earnest for comment. Mr.
Earnest offered additional comments following up on Commissioner
Berry's statement about precedent. He concluded his statement by
saying that the Hwy. 10 Overlay District was a long hard fought
issue to develop the design standards that we have or we should
be cautious. Commissioner Putnam responded to that statement by
saying that is what the Commission is here for, to guard against
precedent and such.
This statement led to a discussion between staff and
commissioners concerning lease vs. owner occupied buildings.
Lawson's closing remark was that he felt if we do this, it would
be all right so long as we make reference in these minutes that
this is not setting a precedent. Although we make this record if
someone comes in the future with a parcel with two buildings and
want to split it up, he did not find a problem with that.
At this point, Commissioner Adcock was recognized and she made a
statement asking if the Walton Height's people had responded to
this issue. Staff responded by saying they were notified but
they did not respond. The Chairman then addressed the floor and
stated that two motions are now needed. The first one being the
rezoning of the property to POD and then the second motion to
4
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6324-A and S -978-B
approve the replat. Commissioner Putnam then offered a motion to
the effect that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
POD for this lot. The motion was seconded. The vote taken
reflected a vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The POD
application was denied. For the record, the Chairman stated that
the application failed -for a -lack of affirmative 6 votes. The
Chairman then posed a question of staff as to whether or not the
motion was required at this point on the platting.
Richard wood indicated that the plat would not function without
the POD. It is an integral part; therefore, the motion should
not be made. For the record the Chairman noted there would be no
vote on the platting element of this application.
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S-1148
NAME: Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center for Children,
a Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 3900 Block of Woodland Heights Road,
west side of street
ARCHITECTS•
Ark. Easter Seal Society The Fletcher Firm
3920 Woodland Heights Rd. 910 Boyle Building
Little Rock, AR 72212 103 W. Capitol Avenue
227-3600 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 11.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 0-3 ALLOWED USES: Office and Institutional
PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
At some point in discussion with staff, it was determined that
the addition of a building would require a plan review. The site
history of this corner tract is tied to an adjacent parcel to the
west that contains two large buildings and provides a second
access.
A. PROPOSAL•
To add a second building to this site with approximately
44,000 square feet. (At this writing staff is aware a
revised building layout may be filed prior to commission.)
The parking spaces will primarily be placed on the existing
large parking lots. Access to the new building is by way of
the current driveway off Woodland Heights and off Fairview.
The use mix is primarily residential of a type associated
with rehabilitation and therapy uses. The building is one
story as are the other building on this side of Woodland
Heights Road.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1148
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is overgrown with brush and trees in the area of
the new building. The north half of the lot is developed as
an outpatient services building with attendant parking and
drives. The property across Woodland Heights Road is
occupied by multistory office buildings and Christ the King
Church and School. Residential property abuts along most of
the south boundary.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this writing. Pleasant Forest Neighborhood was
notified.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPES) and grading
permits are required prior to construction, site grading
and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved.
3. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged during
or prior to construction with construction.
4. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7. Show the following:
a) Easements shown for proposed storm drainage.
b) Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities.
8. Eliminate back out at east entry drive.
9. Increase width of drives to provide left turn capacity.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: Capacity analysis required prior to conenction
to existing system, contact Wastewater Utility.
Entergy: No response.
Arkla: OK as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: Easements required - 5 feet along
south line.
Water: On site fire protection may be required.
Fire Department: Show new and existing fire hydrants.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1148
F.
G.
County Planning: No involvement
LATA: Served by special Route 22, rush hour service to
Easter Seals at end of line.
Planning Division:
Landscape:
No comment - plan conformance
The full buffer width required along Woodland Heights Road
is 20 feet (minimum of 13 1/2 feet with transfer). The plan
submitted provides for a width of 11 feet next to the
parking area. Unless there are to be no doors or windows
along the southern side of the building, a six foot high
opaque screen is required along the southern perimeter of
the site adjacent to residential property. This screen may
be a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings.
A three foot wide building
between the public parking
flexibility is allowed with
ANALYSIS•
landscape strip is required
area and proposed building. Some
this requirement.
There is no use issue here if the applicant provides the
information offered at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
The site plan presented at the committee meeting offers some
answers. However at this writing, staff must present the
list of deficiencies produced by our review plus delivery
vehicles appear to be a potential problem for the
neighborhood. The list thus far:
1. The site plan requires additional detail, especially
with respect to: South building setback from property
line actual dimension.
2. How does easement along south line affect project.
3. Remove five parking spaces at east drive entrance.
4. More detail on use mix before parking can be firm as
shown, especially residential.
S. Show dumpster sites.
6. Show any new pole lighting for security, etc.
7. H/C and fire door points
8. Service entrance detail. Truck dock, overhead door,
etc.
9. Signage changes in current signs or new proposed.
10. Where is handicap access for this building and parking?
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1148
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of the request conditioned upon staff having
sufficient time to review a revised plan and provide an
update to the Commission prior to the meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 17, 1997)
The applicant was present as was his engineer. The Staff
presented its comments on the site design. The applicant
presented a revised site plan that staff had not reviewed. Many
of the concerns pointed out by staff remained on the new plan,
plus, traffic circulation, access and building use remain
unresolved. After a lengthy discussion the applicant was
directed to work with staff and attempt to produce answers by the
agenda deadline on July 24th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff reported that the site plan as been amended to comply
with staff and ordinance requirements and that the item should be
placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to place the
item on Consent Approval was made. A motion to approve was
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -2198-A
NAME:
LOCATION:
Eary - Conditional Use Permit
5316 W. Markham Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Thelma Theresa Glover/
Herman Eary
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the
operation of a beauty
shop/nail salon within the
existing office building at
5316 W. Markham Street. The
property is zoned 0-3.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the north side of W. Markham
Street, 1 1/2 blocks west of Van Buren Street.
2. Compatibility with Neiahborhood:
The properties immediately east and west of this site
contain existing office buildings, with other office
and commercial uses further east and west along the
north side of West Markham Street. War Memorial Golf
Course is located to the south, across West Markham
Street. Single-family residences are located further
to the north, across "A" Street.
The use of this existing building as a beauty shop/nail
salon should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
The Hillcrest Residents' Association was notified of
the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkina:
Primary access to the site is gained by utilizing a
driveway from West Markham Street. Access can also be
achieved from "A" Street through an adjacent parking
lot. However, this property does have a different
ownership.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -2198-A
Six (6) parking spaces are required by ordinance for
the proposed salon. There are seven (7) existing
parking spaces on the site which are paved and striped.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No Comments.
5. Public Works Comments:
1. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged
during or prior to construction with construction.
2. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards with
any planned construction.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
4. Markham Street is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way
will be required to 35 feet from centerline for this
4 lane minor arterial.
5. Markham Street has a 1995 average daily traffic
count of 14,000.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start work.
7. Obtain an SFHA Development Permit prior to
construction.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
L. R. Water Works - No objection. Reduced pressure
zone backflow prevention is required for beauty
shops.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the operation of a beauty shop/nail salon
within the existing office building at 5316 West
Markham Street. The property is zoned 0-3.
This property contains a 1,300 square foot, one-story
building which was converted to an office from a
residence a number of years ago. There is an asphalt
drive from West Markham Street and an asphalt parking
area at the rear of the building.
The applicant proposes to operate the salon from 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There is
one existing awning sign on the building. Any
additional signage must comply with the city ordinance
requirements for office zoning.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2198-A
The City's zoning ordinance requires six (6) parking
spaces for the proposed beauty shop/nail salon use. A
total of seven (7) parking spaces exists within the
asphalt parking area at the rear of the building. It
is staff's understanding that vehicles have also been
parked along the east side of the building in the past.
Staff recommends that there be no parking along the
east side of the building, as this will shift the
traffic flow onto the asphalt drive which is on the
adjacent property to the east. Staff recommends that
"no parking" signs be posted in this area. Staff also
suggests that the applicant post restricted parking
signs on the seven (7) parking spaces at the rear of
the building, limiting their use to the salon business
only.
If the applicant can operate the beauty shop/nail salon
business within the parking guidelines as described
above, then the proposed business should have no
adverse effects on the surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
2. Compliance with the Little Rock Water Works Comment
3. There is to be no vehicle parking along the east
side of the building. The applicant will post signs
prohibiting parking in this area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Herman Eary and Kimberly Mensie were present, representing
the application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He stated that the appropriate right-of-way
will need to be dedicated for West Markham Street. He also
stated that floodplain issues would need to be resolved with
any planned construction/remodeling and that his office
could be contacted for further details.
Staff reviewed the parking issues associated with this
property with the Committee.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -2198-A
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval
as noted. Herman Eary and Kimberly Mensie were present,
representing the application. There was one person present
to oppose the application.
Herman Eary spoke in favor of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Eary stated that he understood the parking and traffic
concerns related to the proposed use. He stated that the
existing number of parking spaces on the site complies with
ordinance requirements. He stated that parking along the
east side of the building would be prohibited.
Steve Stevens, part owner of the building immediately to the
east, addressed the Commission. He stated that his only
opposition is to the parking and traffic situation. He
stated that at many times there are more cars on the lot
than there are spaces. He stated that the amount of traffic
that the business creates is excessive.
Commissioner Berry asked about other uses permitted by right
within 0-3 zoning. Staff responded with a list of uses.
Chairman Lichty asked if the asphalt area in the corner of
the lot could be used for employee parking.
Mr. Eary stated that it was currently being used for
employee parking.
Chairman Lichty asked if post barriers could be installed
along the east side of the building to prohibit parking.
There was a general discussion concerning the treatment of
the asphalt area along the east side of the building. There
was additional discussions regarding the parking for the
business.
Chairman Lichty asked how many employees the salon had.
Kimberly Mensie stated that there are four (4) employees.
She also stated that customers from the office building to
the east use her parking spaces.
There was additional discussion concerning the parking
situation.
E
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2198-A
A motion was made to approve the application as filed with
the suggestions that the applicant stripe the driveway area
and that the employees of the building park off-site. The
motion passed with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
5
STEVE-DELL & ASSOCIATES
(ip
5312 WEST MARKHAM • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 • (501) 664-6587 • FAX (501) 664-3574
6/23/97
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Planning Dept.
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, Ar. 72201 Attn: Dana Carney
Re: Re -zoning of 5314-16 (?...Our West neighbor) from 0-3/Office
Dear Dana,
_As discussed today, we would like to recommend
you deny the request by Thelma Glover to re -zone this location!
We have occupied this location as an insurance office since
1979, and feel strongly that a beauty and/or nail salon is not consis-
tent with the neighborhood! This entire section of West Markham is
physician's offices, or 'quiet office', and has been for years. Since
they have moved in about 60 days ago, there has been constant activity
with traffic in and out all day.
They have far too much traffic all day for the parking spaces
provided by the facility, and as a result, have cars parked in the drive-
way exiting the lot. This presents a real hazard for cars coming
both in and out of our drive, onto busy Markham St. We have asked them
to moniter this, but with no success.
All of these buildings along W. Markham have adequate parking for the
usual office staff, but when people are coming and going into a
'retail setting', it simply doesn't work out! We believe that these
objectives should be maintained, as they have for so many years, and that
the 0-3 'quiet office' zoning class should remain.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know if we should
attend the August 7th meeting to discuss our views further. We do
appreciate your efforts to plan and direct our city's activities!
Regards,
f� .
S i ELL - ASSOCIATES,
YOUR pPRdeRI -
5312 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205-•_ (501) 664-6567 -- FAX (501) 664-3574
June 24, 1997 -
City of Little Rock, Planning e✓i�
Dept. -
Attn: Dana Carney
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Ar. 72201
Subj: Re -zoning of 5314 W. Markham `
Dear Dana,
I would like to recommend denial of request to re -zone this location.
Since this business has operated for the last 30-45 days there has been a lot of
in and out traffic. Almost always there are more vehicles than parking spaces
available and therefore vehicles are parked in the shared driveway. This
creates a traffic hazard with cars trying to turn in- and exit.
I feel there is far too much vehicle_activity.for the type of business being
applied for.
Therefore I would recommend -that the 4-3 "quiet, office" remain as is. .
S,mcer ly,
J• Morehead
Independent Agent
AA
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -3359-A
NAME•
LOCATION:
Montgomery - Conditional Use
Permit
1. 5900 W. 56th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist
Church/Earnestine Montgomery
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the
operation of a day care center
(maximum enrollment of 25
children) within the existing
building at 5900 W. 56th
Street. The property is zoned
R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the northwest corner of West
56th Street and Daley Circle, one block east of Geyer
Springs Road.
2. Compatibility with Neiahborhood:
The properties north and east (across Daley Circle) of
this site consist of single-family residences. There
is a church located to the south, across West 56th
Street. The church includes a day care center and a
playground located directly across West 56th Street
from this proposed site. Commercial uses including a
screen printing business are located immediately west
of this proposed site, along the east side of Geyer
Springs Road.
The proposed use of this property as a day care center
should have no adverse effects on the surrounding
properties.
The Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkina:
Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a new
driveway from west 56th Street.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3359-A
Five (5) parking spaces are
the proposed day care use.
construct a new parking area
(6) vehicles.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
required by ordinance for
The applicant proposes to
which will accommodate six
A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings are required to screen this site from the
residential properties on the north and west.
The proposed parking lot will need to be landscaped in
conformance with the Landscape Ordinance.
5. Public Works Comments:
1. Existing street is a 17 foot chipseal with open
ditches and no sidewalk.
2. Grading permit will be required on this new
development if it disturbs more than one acre.
3. Daley Circle is a private street.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance located 25 feet from property line.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
6. Improve frontage to commercial streets standards.
7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
8. Provide 8 foot back out space for end parking space.
6. utility and Fire Department Comments:
L. R. Water Works - No objection. The L. R. Fire
Department needs to evaluate the fire protection in
this area. This main in 56th Street is too small to
support a fire hydrant or a meter larger than 3/4".
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow the operation of a day care center within the
existing building at 5900 West 56th Street. The
property is zoned R-2.
The property, which is owned by Geyer Springs First
Baptist Church, contains a 2,000 square foot one-story
building and a single -car driveway from West 56th
Street. The building has been used as a church and for
church related activities in the past.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3359-A
8.
The applicant proposes the day care center to have a
maximum enrollment of 25 children. The day care center
will be operated from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and have three (3) employees.
The applicant has proposed no signage with this
application. Staff suggests the following limits on
signage: one (1) ground -mounted sign with a maximum
of 32 square feet in area and 6 feet in height and one
(1) wall sign not more than 10% of the front facade
area.
The City's Zoning Ordinance requires five (5) parking
spaces for the proposed day care center. The applicant
proposes to construct a new parking area on the south
side of the existing building, along West 56th Street.
The parking area will contain six (6) parking spaces.
The applicant proposes to initially construct the
parking area of gravel and pave the area within one
year. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a one
year deferral of paving requirements. Staff supports
the one year deferral with the understanding that a
concrete apron for the new driveway will be constructed
initially according to Public Works requirements.
The applicant is also requesting a deferral of half
street improvements to West 56th Street. The applicant
is requesting a three (3) year deferral of this
requirement. Public Works has indicated support of
this request.
With proper screening of this site from the adjacent
residential property, the proposed day care center
should have no adverse effects on the surrounding
properties.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinance
2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
3. Compliance with the Little Rock Water Works Comment
4. Staff recommends the following limits on signage:
a. One (1) ground -mounted sign not to exceed 32
square feet in area and six (6) feet in height.
51
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -3359-A
b. One (1) wall sign not to exceed 10% of the front
facade area.
5. Staff recommends approval of the one (1) year
deferral of paving requirements for the new parking
area. A concrete apron will need to be constructed
for the new driveway as required by Public Works.
6. Staff recommends approval of the three (3) year
deferral of half street improvements for West 56th
Street frontage.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Ren6 Montgomery was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He stated that Public Works would like to
see a few minor revisions in the proposed parking area.
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, also reviewed his
comments with the Committee, primarily the requirement to
screen the property from adjacent residential properties.
Staff reviewed the parking requirements for the property.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval
as noted. Earnestine Montgomery was present to represent
the application. There were several persons present in
opposition to the application.
Earnestine Montgomery addressed the Commission in favor of
the application.
Verlene Williamson, president of the Geyer Springs
Neighborhood Association, presented the Commission with a
petition opposing the application.
Barbara Milani addressed the Commission, opposing the
application. She stated the increased amount of traffic was
her concern.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3359-A
Winnie Mandrell also spoke in opposition to the application.
She stated that the traffic and the safety of the children
playing in the area was her concern.
Earl Rowan spoke in opposition to the application. He
stated that the°church across West 56th --Street already had a
day care program and he felt that there was not a need for
another day care center.
verlene Williamson stated that the residential nature of
this general area should not change.
James Mandrell also spoke to oppose the conditional use
permit. He also stated traffic concerns.
There was a general discussion regarding the drop-off area
and other day care centers in the general area.
Chairman Lichty asked Mrs. Montgomery if she would consider
limiting the number of children.
There was additional discussion regarding day care uses and
the number of children permitted.
Jim Lawson stated that the staff recommendation would be to
limit the number of children to 16.
Chairman Lichty stated that the staff -level review after one
(1) year would be appropriate in this case.
Mrs. Montgomery stated that she could limit the number of
children to 16.
A motion was made to approve the application with a maximum
enrollment of 16 children and a staff -level review after one
(1) year. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays and
4 absent; the application was denied.
5
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -3442-E
NAME: Wal-Mart - Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: - 8801 -Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc./CEI
Engineering by Todd Butler
PROPOSAL: A revised conditional use
permit is requested to allow
for an area of outside
seasonal/temporary display of
landscape merchandise within
the existing parking area and
to allow seasonal/temporary
trailer storage units at the
rear of the building. The
property is zoned I-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the south side of Baseline Road,
one block east of Interstate 30.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
Commercial uses are located to the west and north,
along Baseline Road. Undeveloped, heavily wooded
property is located to the south. There is an open
space buffer along the east property line with single-
family residences located further east. There is a
concrete wall and screening fence, approximately 15
feet in height, located along the south property line.
The proposed area of temporary outside display and
temporary trailer storage should not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
The West Baseline Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the property is gained by utilizing two (2)
existing driveways from Baseline Road.
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -3442-E
A total of 404 parking spaces is required by ordinance
for the existing retail use. 861 parking spaces
currently exist on the site. The proposed outdoor
seasonal display will eliminate 31 parking spaces,
leaving a total of 830.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
The outdoor display materials should not be placed over
the interior landscaped islands.
5. Public Works Comments:
Recommend paved inert in detention ponds to facilitate
better drainage in area.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
SW Bell - Telephone cable entrance in this area will
require protection. Contact utility for details.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Wal-Mart, is requesting a revised
conditional use permit to allow for an area of
temporary outdoor storage/display of landscape supplies
within the parking lot of the existing retail facility
and to allow seasonal/temporary trailer storage units
at the rear of the facility at 8801 Baseline Road. The
property is zoned I-2 and has a conditional use permit
for the retail center.
On February 25, 1992, the Little Rock Planning
Commission approved the conditional use permit for the
Wal-Mart retail facility. The site plan included a
10,000 square foot fenced garden center. The site plan
did not include an area for seasonal/temporary outdoor
display.
As a result of a recent zoning enforcement action, the
applicant is requesting an area of temporary outdoor
display of landscape supplies. That inspection
revealed an area within the parking area of this
property being used for temporary outdoor display.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a revised
conditional use permit to include an area for temporary
outdoor display on the revised site plan.
In addition, the applicant is requesting an area of
temporary trailer parking at the rear of the building
within the loading dock area. These trailers are
needed during the Christmas season for lay -away
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 wont.) FILE NO.: Z -3442-E
storage. The area within the loading dock area
proposed for temporary trailer parking is adjacent to a
15 foot retaining wall/fence and a 25 foot buffer to
the south with a screening fence and 50 foot open space
buffer approximately 360 feet to the east. The area
proposed for temporary -trailer -parking will not be
visible from adjacent properties.
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows seasonal and
temporary sales, outside, for a maximum of 120 days per
year. The outside display of merchandise is allowed in
an area equal to one-half of the facade area of the
front of the building.
Staff feels that the ordinance established guidelines
for seasonal and temporary outdoor display are very
generous. If the applicant can operate the temporary
outdoor display under these guidelines and limit the
temporary trailer parking to the area shown on the site
plan and a maximum of 120 days per year, then the
revised conditional use permit should have no adverse
effects on the general area.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional
use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comment
2. Compliance with the Public Works Comment
3. Compliance with the Southwestern Bell Comment
4. The seasonal/temporary outdoor display is to be a
maximum of 120 days per year in an area no greater
than one-half of the facade area of the front of the
building.
5. The temporary trailer storage is to be limited to
the area shown on the site plan and a maximum of 120
days per year.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Todd Butler was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff explained that the number of parking spaces to be
utilized with the outdoor display would not be into any of
the required parking for the site.
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3442-E
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that the
outdoor display should not be within any of the interior
landscape islands.
Staff also reviewed 'the Zoning Ordinance guidelines
pertaining to seasonal/temporary outdoor display.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
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 was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and
3 absent.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -6147-A
NAME•
Alltel (Kirk Road site) -
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 708 Kirk Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles W. Logan/Alltel by
Carrick Inabnett
PROPOSAL: A revised conditional use
permit is requested to allow
for the co -location of
antennas (130 foot level) on
an existing 150 foot tall
Sprint monopole and the
placement of a 12 foot by 20
foot equipment building. The
property is zoned 0-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The existing monopole is located on the west side of
Kirk Road, approximately 850 feet north of Chenal
Parkway.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The land north, south and west of the lease area is
zoned 0-2 and is vacant and wooded. The property to
the east is also zoned 0-2 and contains an auto repair
garage. The new Arkansas System development is located
a short distance north of this property. The proposed
co -location will have no adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing a 20 foot
drive running west from Kirk Road.
Parking will be provided at the tower site for a
service technician who will occasionally visit the site
for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No Comments.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6147-A
5. Public works Comments:
No issues.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Fire Department - Need a 20 foot wide access drive.
Show nearest fire hydrant.
SW Bell - A utility easement is required. Contact
utility for details.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Alltel, is requesting a revised
conditional use permit to allow for the co -location of
antennas on the existing 150 foot tall Sprint monopole
which is located on the 0-2 zoned property at 708 Kirk
Road. A 12 foot by 20 foot equipment building will
also be placed on the site.
On June 6, 1996, the Little Rock Planning Commission
approved the conditional use permit for the 150 foot
tall monopole tower. As part of the proposal and
approval, the tower was to be constructed to allow a
future co -location of a second wireless carrier.
The Planning Commission also approved a height variance
for the 150 foot tall monopole. Alltel proposes to
locate their antennas at the 130 foot level of the
tower. Therefore, the height of the tower will not be
increased. Alltel also proposes to place a 12 foot by
20 foot equipment building at the base of the tower on
its west side.
Given the fact that the Sprint monopole was constructed
to allow a co -location of second wireless carrier and
Alltel•s co -location on this structure will satisfy
their coverage needs for the area and eliminate the
need for a second tower (Gordon Road site), Staff
supports this revised conditional use permit.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional
use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6147-A
2. The co -location of antennas will be at approximately
the 130 foot level of the existing monopole.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Alissa Coffield of Alltel was present to represent the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Staff noted that the co -location would be at the 130 foot
level of the tower. The applicant noted that the equipment
building would be 12 foot by 20 foot.
Alissa Coffield explained that this site is an alternate
site to the Gordon Road site (Item No.: 16 on this agenda).
She stated that one of the two applications would be
withdrawn prior to Planning Commission action.
Staff also noted that letters of authorization from Sprint
and the property owner were needed.
After further discussion, the Committee accepted the
application and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval
as noted. Alissa Coffield was present to represent the
application. There was one person present to speak in
opposition to the application.
Alissa Coffield, of Alltel, addressed the Commission in
favor of the application. She gave a brief description of
the proposal.
Hank Kelley, co-owner of the property immediately west of
this site, spoke in opposition to the application. He
stated that the 150 foot tall tower with the additional
antennas and equipment building would hurt the development
of his property.
Commissioner Hawn asked if Alltel could provide a more
effective screening of the equipment building from the
property to the west.
Mrs. Coffield stated that a wood screening fence would be
constructed.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6147-A
A motion was made to approve the application with the added
condition that a wood screening fence be constructed to
screen the building from the adjacent property. The motion
passed with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1
abstention (Putnam).
ADDENDUM: (AUGUST 20, 1997)
The owner of the property at 708 Kirk Road has informed
Alltel that he will not allow construction of the wood
screening fence along the west property line of his
property. Therefore, Alltel proposed to install landscape
screening along this property line. This would consist of
an evergreen shrub every three feet, at least 30 inches high
at planting, with the ability to grow to a minimum height of
six feet within three years (these are city ordinance
requirements for landscape screening).
On August 14, 1997, staff conducted a formal poll of all
Planning Commissioners regarding this issue. The consensus
of the Commission (10-1) was no objection to Alltel's
proposal to install landscape screening along the west
property line in lieu of the wood screening fence.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6345
NAME: Mulkey - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 208 Rose Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Hank of Cabot/Lila Mulkey
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the
construction of a 25 foot by
25 foot accessory garage with
loft apartment (accessory
dwelling). The property is
zoned R-3.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The property is located on the west side of Rose
Street, 1 1/2 blocks north of West Markham Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property is located just north of the University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences campus, in an area made
up primarily of single-family and multifamily uses. A
mixture of Office and Commercial uses exists to the
south, along the north side of West Markham Street.
There are other similar accessory dwellings in this
general area, and construction of this accessory
garage/apartment should have no adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
The Hillcrest Resident's Association was notified of
the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing
driveway from Rose Street.
Parking will be provided on the site to accommodate
both dwellings. There are no other parking issues.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No Comments.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345
5. Public Works Comments:
Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged
during or prior to construction with construction.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No Comments.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of 25 foot by 25 foot
accessory dwelling garage with a loft apartment
(accessory dwelling). The property is zoned R-3.
The proposed accessory building/dwelling is to be
located approximately 15 feet from the rear property
line and four (4) feet from the north side property
line. The building is to be one (1) story in height.
The proposed building exceeds all setbacks for the R-3
district.
The applicant has stated that the accessory dwelling
will be used as a guest house for relatives. The
accessory dwelling will be approximately 336 square
feet in area. The applicant also stated that the
accessory dwelling will not be a rental unit. The
applicant is, however, requesting second utility meters
for the structure. This is based on the premise that
extended -stay guests could pay their own utilities.
Based on the fact that
accessory dwelling for
structure will exceed
for the R-3 district,
should have no adverse
8. Staff Recommendation:
the applicant is proposing the
guest quarters only and the
all setback and area requirements
the proposed accessory dwelling
impact on the area.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
2. The accessory dwelling will be used as a guest
quarters only and will not be a rental unit. The
accessory dwelling will have separate utility
meters. This condition was offered by the
applicant.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal.
After a brief general discussion regarding accessory
dwellings, the Committee accepted the presentation and
forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
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 was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and
3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: z-6353
NAME•
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Roselawn - Conditional Use
Permit
2910 West 25th Street
Roselawn Memorial Park
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the
expansion of the existing
cemetery onto the R-3 zoned
lot at 2910 West 25th Street.
The lot will be divided into
164 grave spaces.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the north side of West 25th
Street, 1/2 block east of Booker Street (two blocks
south of Asher Avenue).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
Cemetery property is located to the north and east.
There are two single-family residences located
immediately west and single-family residences to the
south across West 25th Street. The expansion of the
cemetery use should have limited adverse effects on the
surrounding properties.
The Garland School Neighborhood Association was
notified of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkina:
Access will be provided through the existing cemetery
site. There will be no access from West 25th Street.
A wood screening fence will be constructed along the
west property line and a chain link fence placed along
the south property line.
Parking will be provided within the cemetery property
as needed. There are no other parking issues.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6353
4. Screening and Buffers:
A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with
its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
Plantings should -be provided along the western property
line which abuts a residential use.
5. Public Works Comments:
1.25`h Street dead ends without a turn around.
2. There is an existing 20 foot wide gate into the
cemetery at the West 25`h Street dead end.
3. Provide a "T" turn around within right-of-way on
south side at West 25`h Street and dedicate right-of-
way on north side of West 25`h Street to accommodate.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No Comments received.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Roselawn Memorial Park, is requesting a
conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of
the existing cemetery onto the lot at 2910 West 25th
Street. The property is zoned R-3.
The applicant proposes to divide the vacant residential
lot into 164 cemetery grave spaces. The alley right-
of-way immediately north of this lot was recently
abandoned.
A six foot high wood screening fence will be placed
along the west property line and a chain link fence
will be placed along the south property line. Access
to this lot will be gained by utilizing existing drives
within the cemetery property. Parking will be provided
within the existing cemetery property as needed.
Gates to the cemetery are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., seven days per week. There is no new signage
proposed with this expansion.
With proper screening of the site from the residential
property to the west, the proposed cemetery expansion
should have no adverse effects on the general area.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6353
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments
2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
SUBDIVISION'COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Willie McKissack was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposed conditional
use permit.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee relating to the need for a turn around at the
end of West 25th Street.
There was a general discussion relating to a Master Plan for
the cemetery. Mrs. MCKissack stated that staff would be
provided a copy of Roselawn's Master Plan.
There being no further issues for resolution, the Committee
accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the
full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
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 was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and
3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-6354
NAME•
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Ciment - Conditional Use
Permit
19 Woodstock Court
Lubavitch of Arkansas,
Inc./Rabbi Pinchus Ciment
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow a building
addition to an existing
single-family structure to
serve as a religious
institution/synagogue (12-18
members). The property is
zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the south end of Woodstock
Court. Woodstock Court runs south off of Pleasant
Valley Drive, just east of I-430.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
Woodstock Court is located in an area (east of I-430)
which is primarily single-family residential in nature.
St. James Methodist Church, Fulbright Elementary School
and a Little Rock Water Works site are located to the
west and northwest across I-430.
Staff feels that the proposed use is too intense for
the single-family lot and could have adverse effects on
other single-family residential property in the area.
The Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association was
notified of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing
residential driveway from Woodstock Court.
A total of five (5) parking spaces is required for the
proposed use (four (4) for the synagogue and one (1)
for the single-family residence). The applicant has
stated that six (6) vehicles can be parked off the
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6354
street on the existing driveway. However, these six
spaces do not meet the ordinance parking design
criteria (width, depth and maneuvering area).
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from
these standards.
4. Screening and Buffers:
This site should be screened from all adjacent
residential properties. This screen may be a six foot
high opaque wood fence or dense evergreen plantings.
If a parking lot is to be built it must be landscaped
in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance.
S. Public Works Comments:
1. Staff has concerns about effect on the neighborhood
concerning parking.
2. Recommend parking off street be provided with C.U.P.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
L. R. Water Works - No objection. Maximum meter size
available off the existing main is 3/411.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow a building addition to the existing single-family
structure at #19 Woodstock Court to serve as a
religious institution (synagogue). The property is
zoned R-2.
The applicant proposes the synagogue to be for
approximately 12 to 18 members. The proposed hours of
operation are as follows:
Friday - 30 minute service (early evening)
Saturday - 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon service
Occasional week night services (approximately 4 to 5
nights per month).
The applicant is proposing that the conditional use
permit run with the land owner, Lubavitch of Arkansas.
Upon the sale of this property to another party, the
requested conditional use permit for this location
would become null and void.
The proposed building addition will meet the 25 foot
rear yard setback and the 8 foot side yard setback as
required by ordinance. The front 20 feet of the
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6354
addition will be 2 story in height to match the
existing structure and the rear section will be one-
story in height. The building addition will be
constructed of materials to match the existing single-
family structure.
A total of five (5) parking spaces is required for the
proposed use (four (4) for the synagogue and one (1)
for the single-family residence). The applicant has
stated that six (6) vehicles can be parked off the
street on the existing driveway. However, these six
spaces do not meet the ordinance parking design
criteria (width, depth and maneuvering area).
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from
these standards.
Staff has concerns regarding the parking and traffic
problems that this proposed use will potentially
create. Staff feels that the proposed use is too
intense for the single-family lot and could have
adverse effects on other single-family residential
property in the area. With this proposed use (or
similar use) it would be very difficult to maintain the
residential character of the property.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Rabbi Pinchus Ciment was present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, reviewed his
comments with the Committee.
Rabbi Ciment stated that the site plan would be revised and
the room addition would comply with the rear yard setback.
Therefore, no setback variance would be requested. He also
estimated the occasional week night activities to be 4 or 5
nights per month. He stated that no school would be
operated in conjunction with the synagogue.
Staff noted that the applicant had requested a variance for
off-street parking (design standards). Rabbi Ciment noted
that six (6) vehicles could be parked off the street on the
existing driveway.
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6354
Rabbi Ciment submitted a letter to staff. The letter
requested the conditional use permit to run with the
property owner, Lubavitch of Arkansas, and if the property
is sold to another party the requested conditional use
permit would become null and void.
After further discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
requested that the item be withdrawn. Staff recommended
approval of 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 was passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
4
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-6355
NAME:
Alltel (Gordon Road site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Gordon Road, north of
Denny Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cliff and Arlene Stalnaker/
Alltel by Carrick Inabnett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the
construction of a 180 foot
tall cellular communications
monopole tower and placement
of a 12 foot by 28 foot
equipment building. The
property is zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Gordon Road,
approximately 850 feet north of Denny Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The general area along the west side of Gordon Road is
zoned R-2, Single-family residential, and is
undeveloped.
The proposed tower site is just outside the Little Rock
city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial
Zoning jurisdiction.
Given the fact that there is another viable antenna
site (Sprint tower - Kirk Road), staff feels that a
second tower in this general area will not be
compatible with the nearby residential properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a drive
from Gordon Road.
Parking at the site will be provided for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6355
4. Screening and Buffers:
A minimum six foot high opaque wood fence should be
installed around the perimeter of this lease area.
5. Public Works Comments:
Provide 25 feet of concrete or asphalt drive apron at
street to prevent gravel traveling.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Fire Department - Need a 20 foot wide access drive.
Show nearest fire hydrant.
SW Bell - A utility easement is required. Contact
utility for details.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Alltel, is requesting a conditional use
permit to allow the construction of a 180 foot tall
monopole tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment
building. The property is zoned R-2 and is located
just outside the Little Rock city limits, but within
the City's Extraterritorial Zoning jurisdiction.
The applicant proposes to construct the 180 foot tall
monopole on a 50 foot by 90 foot lease area which is
approximately 350 feet west of Gordon Road and 850 feet
north of Denny Road. A 12 foot by 28 foot equipment
building is proposed at the base (west side) of the
tower. The equipment building is located approximately
11 feet from the rear property line (25 foot setback
required by ordinance). Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance for a reduced rear yard setback.
The applicant is also requesting a variance for the 180
foot tower height. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows
a ground -mounted tower to a maximum height of 75 feet.
According to the applicant, the proposed tower will
allow for co -location of future wireless carriers. The
applicant will include location of a future equipment
building (for co -location) on the site plan. The tower
will not be lighted.
Based on the fact that the applicant has another viable
antenna site (co -location on the Sprint tower - Kirk
Road), Staff cannot support another tower location in
this general area.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6355
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Alissa Coffield was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff noted that a height variance and a setback variance
would be required with the application.
Alissa Coffield explained that the Kirk Road site (Item No.:
12 on this agenda) is an alternate location to this site.
She stated that one of the two applications would be
withdrawn prior to Planning Commission action.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
The Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
requested that the item be withdrawn without prejudice.
Staff recommended approval of the withdrawal as requested.
Staff also informed the Commission that the request came
less than five working days prior to the public hearing,
thus a waiver of the bylaws was in order.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal without
prejudice. Motions were made to waive the bylaws and
approve the withdrawal request. Both motions passed with
votes of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: G-23-270
Name: Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment
- Block 6, Woodruff•s Addition
Location: Block bounded by East 7th,
East 8th, Collins and Byrd
Streets.
Owner/Applicant: Michael Barrow and Gordon
Rather/Mark Alderfer
Reauest: To abandon the 20 foot wide
platted alley right-of-way
located within Block 6,
Woodruff's Addition to the
City of Little Rock.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
There is no public need for the alley right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for the alley
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adacent Streets
There is no additional right-of-way required on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The alley right-of-way is partially gravel and partially
grass covered. It appears that the area has been used as an
alley in the past.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of proposed abandonment will be
maintained as a utility and drainage easement.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The property along the north side of the alley right-of-way
is zoned I-2 and contains an existing industrial building
and parking area. The property along the south side of the
alley right-of-way is also zoned I-2 and is vacant except
August 7, Iv97
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-270
for one single family structure at the northeast corner of
Collins Street and East 8th Street. The proposed alley
right-of-way abandonment should have no adverse effect on
the adjacent properties.
7. Neiahborhood Position
All abutting property owners have signed the petition for
abandonment. The Hanger Hill Neighborhood Association and
the East End Civic League were notified of the public
hearing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Fire Department - No objection
AP&L - No objection
Arkla - No objection
SW Bell - No objection
L. R. Water Works - No objection
L. R. Wastewater - No objection. Retain alley as a utility
easement.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend to Michael Barrow and
Gordon and Carroll Rather.
10. Public welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning this alley right-of-way will have no adverse
effects on the public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the alley right-of-way abandonment
subject to the area being retained as a utility and drainage
easement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Mark Alderfer was present, representing the application. Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
After a brief general discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for
final action.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-270
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
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 was passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: G-23-271
Name: Valentine Street and "I"
Street Exclusive Right -of -Way
Abandonments
Location: At the intersection of
Valentine Street and "I"
Street
Owner/Applicant: Cal and Brownie Ledbetter/
George Wittenberg
Request: To abandon the east 1/2 right-
of-way of Valentine Street
(approximately 175 feet north
from its intersection with "I"
Street). Also, to abandon the
north 12 feet of right-of-way
of "I" Street (approximately
48 feet east from its
intersection with Valentine
Street). These abandonments
will include the utility and
drainage easement rights,
except as retained by Public
Works and the various utility
companies.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav
Public Works Comments:
1. Retain portion of Valentine for "T" turnaround.
2. Recommend denial of full closure as represented by
sketch.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for these
rights-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
As noted in paragraph 1, Public Works requires that a
portion of Valentine Street be retained for a "T"
turnaround.
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-271
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The Valentine Street right-of-way is undeveloped and
overgrown with grass and trees. Valentine Street does not
extend any further north than Hill -Road. The portion of "I"
Street proposed for abandonment is also undeveloped.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, construction of a new garage and pool house
will extend into the areas of proposed abandonment.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is primarily single-family residential in
nature. There are two apartment complexes located further
to the north.
7. Neighborhood Position
All abutting property owners as well as the Hillcrest
Resident's Association have been notified of the public
hearing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Valentine Street
L. R. Fire Department - No objection
AP&L - No objection. 20 foot easement required.
Arkla - No objections. No easements required.
SW Bell - No objection. No easements required.
L. R. Water Works - No objection. No easements required.
L. R. Wastewater - No objection. Retain 5 feet on each side
of existing sewer main as a utility easement.
"I" Street
AP&L - No objections. No easements required.
Arkla - No objections. No easements required.
SW Bell - No objection. No easements required.
L. R. Water Works - No objection. However, there is a 2"
main in "I" Street. Either the main will need to be
abandoned, or the right-of-way will need to be retained
as a utility easement 7.5 feet on both sides of the
water facilities. 3/4" is maximum meter size
available.
L. R. Wastewater - No objection. No easements required.
L. R. Fire Department - No objection.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-271
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend to Cal and Brownie
Ledbetter.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning these rights-of-way should have no adverse
effects on the public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the exclusive right-of-way
abandonments subject to the following conditions:
1. Retain a portion of Valentine Street for a "T" turnaround as
required by Public Works.
2. Retain portions of Valentine Street and "I" Street for
utility and drainage easements as noted in paragraph 8.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
Jim Vandenberg was present, representing the application. Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with the
Committee. He stated that a portion of Valentine Street would need
to be retained for a "T" turnaround for public service vehicles.
There was a brief discussion regarding the site and the development
potential.
The Committee accepted the application and forwarded the issue to
the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
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 was passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
q
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-6348
Owner: Derial and Deanna Archer
Applicant: Derial Archer
Location: 2226 Wilson Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to R -7A and
Site Plan Review
Purpose: Place new, 16' X 80' manufactured
home on lot
Size: .32± acres
Existing Use: Vacant lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Mobile homes, vacant lots and site built homes;
zoned R-2
South - Vacant, heavily wooded; zoned MF -18
East - Auto repair and single family; zoned R-2
West - Vacant, wooded; zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
It is suggested that access be taken from Wilson Road, the wider
of the two streets. Minimum street access recognized to be
20 feet.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus Route.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The property is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land
Use Plan recommends single family for this site. R -7A is a
single family residential district, allowing one home per lot or
parcel. The request conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone the two lots from
"R-2" Single Family to "R -7A" Manufactured Home District.
Accompanying the rezoning request is a site plan review to allow
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6348
for the placement of a new, 16 foot by 80 foot manufactured home
on the site. The two lots are to be combined into a single
building site with only the one home to be placed on the two -lot
building site.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Wilson Road
and West 24th Street, both of which are narrow, chip -sealed
streets. The Hick's Interurban Addition, extending to the north,
west and east of this site, is comprised primarily of single
family homes and vacant, wooded lots. The single family homes
range in style from older, single -wide mobile homes to various
styles of site built frame and brick houses. Much of the
property in the subdivision is undeveloped and many of the lots
are heavily wooded. The lots directly west of this site are
vacant and wooded. Several mobile homes are located to the north
and what appears to be a nonconforming auto repair business is
located across Wilson Road to the east. These properties are
located at the extreme southern end of the subdivision. The
tract across West 24th Street, to the south, is heavily wooded
and zoned MF -18. A retirement community is located further to
the south, beyond this wooded area.
Staff believes the requested R -7A zoning is reasonable. R -7A is
a single family zoning and the proposed use is compatible with
development in the area.
In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is requesting
approval of a site plan to allow for placement of a new, 16 foot
by 80 foot, single wide manufactured home on the property. R -7A
is a district which requires Planning Commission approval of the
site plan prior to development of the site. The home must be
approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under
Title VI of Public Law 93-383, USC 5401 et seq. Siting of the
home must meet the following design considerations established in
Section 36-262(d)(2):
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14)
degrees or greater.
b. Removal of all transport features.
C. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood.
e. Underpinning with permanent materials.
f. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
g. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards.
2
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-6348
Placement of the home, as shown on the site plan submitted by the
applicant, meets or exceeds all required setbacks. Again, the
two lots will be considered as a single building site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R -7A zoning.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the siting criteria of Section 36-262(d)(2)
2. The home must comply with Title VI of Public Law 93-383,
USC 5401 et seq.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
informed the Committee that the applicant been made aware of
Public Works, suggestion that access be taken from Wilson Road.
The applicant felt that it was safer and more desirable to take
access from West 24th Street due to the reduced visibility
created by a hill on Wilson Road. The Committee determined that
there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
rezoning and site plan as noted. Derial Archer was present to
represent the application. There was one (1) person present in
opposition to the application.
Derial Archer addressed the Commission in favor of the
application. He gave a brief description of the proposal.
Sherry Hoover spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated
that there are many mobile homes in the general area and there
was not a need for more.
There was a brief discussion concerning the installation of the
manufactured home, minimum siting standards. The Commission
assured Mrs. Hoover that these standards would be met.
Mr. Archer also stated that these standards would be adhered to.
There was additional discussion about the general area
(neighborhood).
3
August 7, 1997
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6348
Commissioner Adcock asked if access to the site from Wilson Road
was a condition of approval.
Staff stated that it was not a condition of approval.
A motion was made to approve the re -zoning and site plan as
recommended by staff with the recommendation that access to the
site be taken from West 24th Street. The motion passed with a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
4
11111111
evoaeUMamoo
main
evo�►�n��vv�►��
o ir�►�sn���r�r�r�r� i
osovr��,■iovve�n
�oon��rn�onnnn
ovoOMnMOROME
IIIIINNIIIII
111111011111
IIIIINIIIII
UMUMEMEMBOU
oEvMM.ivvuou
ooU■iMMvoovo
BODLl1���l�oO�lll�l
BD�lO�Il1\\tll1C1OO
�.00�7l7G�1��O�1ll��l
�
�1
IIIN
0..
Y
M
I
Z
LU
U)
co
Q
�I
LU
Q
Z
i
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Date
P, Or, 0
ll� mlnl-