pc_07 17 1990subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
July 17,1990
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being ten in number.
II.Approval of the minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the April 24,1990 meeting were
approved as mailed.
III.Members present:Martha Miller,Chairperson
Fred Perkins
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Brad Walker
Walter Riddick,III
Connie Whitfield
Stephen Leek
Joe Selz
Members absent:Rose Collins
City Attorney present:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JULY 17,1990
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Anna Street -Located north of Block 28,C.D.Bracks
Addition to the City of Little Rock
B.Z-3442-A Baseline at I-30 "I-2"to "C-3"
c.Z-3751-A Mabelvale West Rd."I-2"to "0-3"
llC 3a
D.An ordinance establishing an overlay district for
Highway 10
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.Knoedl Park Addition (S-732)
2.Plantation Acres Phase IV (S-651)
REPLAT:
3.Marvin Vauchter Replat (S-733)
4.The S.A.T.S.(S-703)
PLANNED UNIT DEVEIOPMENT:
5.Investment Motor Car Corp.Short-Form PCD (Z-5340)
6.Morgan Short-Form PCD (Z-5341)
7.Dairy Bar Short-Form PCD (Z-2501-B)
8.Calwell Short-Form PCD (Z-4743-C)
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
9.Computer Dynamics Inc.(S-873)
REZON1NG:
10.I-630 and Barrow Road —"R-2"to "0-3"(Z-4746-B)
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
(Continued)
JULY 17,1990
CONDITIONAI USE PERMITS:
11.Tyner Road C.U.P.(Z-5342)
12.Bright C.U.P.(Z-5343)
~1
6
QIO
9
1
,"„';,0
11124
3
O
2
I
i H R
l
I es
QO
AULATIO COUNTT QOALNCCOUNTY
L I
Prepared by the Planning Department
City ot Little Rock
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSIONSUMMARYOFSUBDIVISIONACTIVITIESJULY17,1990
July 17,1990
Subdivision
Item:A
Name:Anna Street Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location:5300 Block on Asher Avenue
Owner/Applicant:Various Owners —C.J.Cropper,Agent
Request:To abandon approximately 8,000 feet of right-of-
way titled Anna Street Located in C.O.Brack's
Addition to the City of Little Rock,Pulaski
County,Arkansas
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Right-of-Way
The initial review from other City departments
indicate that there is no public need for this
right-of-way.
2.Master Street Plan
Review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need for
this right-of-way.
3.Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
There exist no right-of-way need for other adjacent
streets in this area.
4.Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The right-of-way to be abandon is physically open both
on the official records in the City Clerk's Office and
at the County Court House.
5.Development Potential
No development potential has been expressed to staff
except for the abandonment to become a part of the
abutting properties.
1
July 17,1990
Subdivision
Item:A —(Continued)
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Surrounding the right-of-way to be abandon is a multi-
family use.But in close proximity is commercial use.
If abandoned,there should be no effect on these uses.
7.Neighborhood Position
As of this writing,no neighborhood position has been
voiced to staff but no notice is required when the
abutting property owners are apart of the petition to
abandon.
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
As of this writing,the agent for the petition 'as not
provided any written comments from the utility
companies.
9.Reversionary Rights
No written proof of reversionary rights has been
provided to staff.
10.Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of the remaining portion of this open
right-of-way north of Asher Avenue will return to the
Private Sector a land area that will be productive
for the real estate tax.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the right-of-way abandonment
for the remaining portion of Anna Street north of Asher
Avenue.But until items 8 and 9 are completed,no action by
the Planning Commission will take place.
Z
Item No.A —(Continued)
Subdivision Agenda
June 5,1990
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION —JUNE 5 1990
The applicant was not in attendance.There were no
objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had not completed the requirements for filing not
only in the Planning Department,but also in the City
Clerk's Office.Therefore,the staff is recommending a
deferral until the July 17,1990 meeting.As part of the
consent agenda vote the recommendation of staff was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION —JULY 17,1990
The applicant was not in attendance.There were no
objectors present.As part of the consent agenda the
Commission voted to approve withdrawal of this item without
prejudice by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nayes,1 absent.
3
July 17,1990
Item No.B —Z-3442-A
Owner:Bally Jane Bussa
Applicant:Rick Ashley
Location:Baseline Line Road at I-30
Request:Rezone from "I-2"to "C-3"
Purpose:Retail development
Size:18.22 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,zoned "C-3"
South —Vacant,zoned "R-2"and "I-2"
East —Single Family,zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,zoned "C-3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone 18 acres from "I-2"to "C-3"forfuturecommercialdevelopment.If "C-3"reclassification isgranted,the proposal is to combine this tract with the 23acrestothenorthanddevelopashoppingcenter.The
property is situated south of Baseline Road and just east of
where Baseline Road intersects I-30.The land is wooded andvacant.
Land use in the general vicinity is single family,
multifamily,commercial and industrial.The single family
and multifamily uses are found in a well-established
neighborhood that is located directly to the east,andextendsfromBaselineRoadtotherailroadtracks.ThemultifamilyunitsaresituatedonlotsadjacenttoBaseline
Road and around Stratford Court,a cul-de-sac.At thistime,the properties to the south and west are undeveloped.
On the north side of Baseline Road,there is a combinationofcommercialandindustrialuses.The zoning pattern is
mixed and includes "R-2","C-3"and "I-2".
On Geyer Springs West District Plan,the property underconsiderationisshownaspartofalargeoffice/commercialarea.Therefore,the proposed "C-3"reclassification
conforms to the adopted plan and Staff supports the
1
July 17,1990
Item No.B —Z-3442-A Continued
rezoning,except for the existing 50 foot OS area along the
east side of the site.Staff's position is that the OS
buffer is needed and should not be altered through this
rezoning request.50 feet is the minimum width for an OS
area in the zoning ordinance.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning,except for
the existing 50 foot OS area adjacent to the east propertyline.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 19,1990)
The applicant was represented by Stuart Hankins,an
attorney.There were five interested residents in
attendance.Mr.Hankins spoke briefly and said the
applicant had no problems with the Staff's recommendation of
maintaining the existing 50'0-S"strip adjacent to the
east property line.
Ann Summerville,a resident on Yorkton Drive,then addressed
the Commission.Ms.Summerville asked questions about the
future development of the property and made statements
about the need to protect residential property values in the
area.She said the residents wanted a six foot brick wall
along the property line and the development would hurt the
residential neighborhood.She also said that a wood fence
would not work and expressed concerns about crime increasing
due to the commercial uses.
Stuart Hankins said there were no firm development plans
other than the site being utilized for "C-3"use.Mr.
Hankins told the Commission that there was no fence on the
existing "C-3"to the north.He then indicated that there
would be no problem with requiring site plan review prior to
a building permit being issued.
There was some discussion about various issues including the
need to re-notify the neighborhood when a site plan wasfiledwiththeCity.
2
July 17,1990
Item No.B —Z-3442-A continued
A motion was then offered to condition the rezoning approval
on a site plan review.The motion failed to receive a
second.
J.D.Ashley said there could be a potential hardship placed
on the property by adding the site plan review and re-
notification requirements.
Ruth Bell made comments about notifying the property owners.
Stuart Hankins spoke again and said the applicant had some
problems with the site plan review and indicated that a
chain link fence would be put up on the interior of the
50'O-Ssbuffer
Ann Summerville asked that the item be deferred for a period
of time to allow for more neighborhood involvement.She
also reminded the Commission that property values have
decreased in the area.
Mr.Hankins made some final statements and said that a fence
on the interior of the "O-S"area would make maintenance
next to impossible.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-3"
rezoning subject to maintaining the fifty foot "0-S"area on
the east side of the property with a six foot chain link
erected on the eastern boundary of the fifty foot "0-S"
strip.The vote was:3 ayes,4 nays,4 absent and 1
abstention (Martha Miller).The item was automatically
deferred to the July 17,1990 hearing.
Comments were offered by Commissioner Collins after the vote
was taken.
3
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.B (Continuedj
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
Prior to the hearing,the applicant requested that the
rezoning be deferred.There were several interestedresidentspresent,but they did not object to a deferral andtheitemwasplacedontheconsentagenda.A motion was
made to defer the issue to the August 28,1990 meeting.The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1absent.
-4-
July 17,1990
Item No.C —Z-3751-A
Owner:Kanis/Otter Creek Properties
Limited Partnership
Applicant:Ralph Bozeman
Location:Mabelvale West Road (East of
Mabelvale School)
Request:Rezone from "I-2ee to "0-3"ande(3ll
Purpose:Office and commercial
Size:27.4 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant and post office,zoned "R-2"and "0-3"
South —Vacant,zoned "I-2"
East —Vacant,zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,school and post office,zoned "R-2"and"I-2e
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The land in question is zoned "I-2",and the proposal is to
rezone 13.3 acres to "C-3"and 14 acres to "0-3".8.5 acres
adjacent to the railroad tracks will remain "I-2"if the
reguest is approved as filed.Currently,the entire site is
vacant and wooded.Along the east side of the property,there is some floodway involved and with a substantial
floodplain area extending to the west.
Zoning in the area includes "R-2","0-2","0-3","C-3","I-
2"and "I-3",with the property abutting "R-2"and "I-2".
In the immediate vicinity,the primary land use is single
family.Other uses found along Mabelvale West are two
churches,a hospital and medical offices,a post officefacility,a fire station,public school,commercial andindustrial.A percentage of land is still vacant,including
a majority of the "0-3""C-3"and "I-2"tracts.At
present,most of the developed land,commercial andindustrial,is situated between Bowen Road and 1-30.On the
north side of Mabelvale West Road at 1-30,there is a large
mixed use project,zoned "C-2",that has a Holiday Inn and
other commercial establishments and office uses.
1
July 17,1990
Item No.~—2-3751-A Continued
In 1986,an application was filed for approximately 25 acres
across Mabelvale West Road from the site in question.The
request included "MF-24","0-3","C-3"and "I-2"with the
proposed "MF-24","0-3"and "C-3"tracts fronting Mabelvale
West.After several hearings,the Planning Commission
recommended "0-3"for the entire acreage except for the
right-of-way for the proposed South Loop along the west side
of the property.The land was rezoned to "0-3"by the Board
of Directors with the South Loop alignment remaining "R-2".
Staff supported "0-3"for the property based on the Otter
Creek District Plan.
The alignment for the proposed South Loop also impacts the
property being considered through this rezoning request.On
the west side of the land,the survey shows a proposed
right-of-way of 200 to 300 feet for the South Loop;the
right-of-way increases to 300 feet at the railroad tracks to
allow for the crossing.The right-of-way extends the full
length of the property along the western boundary for a
distance of 1,408 feet.
On the Otter Creek District Plan,the entire site,36 acres,is identified for industrial use.The Plan shows the south
side of Mabelvale West is for industrial development,exceptfortheschoolsite.On the north side,the recommended
land use pattern is more mixed with office,commercial,andpublic/institutional designations.The commercial area,a
community service center,is adjacent to I-30 and
encompasses existing "0-2"and "C-2"land.
With this rezoning,Staff feels that the "C-3"portion of
the request is inappropriate and recommends "0-3"for the 27
acres,except for the floodway.It is the Staff's position
that "0-3"is more in keeping with the general direction of
the Plan,which is to concentrate the commercial at onelocation,and not encourage a strip pattern along Mabelvale
West.Also,there is existing commercially zoned tracts to
the west that are undeveloped.Therefore,it is
questionable whether adding commercial acreage can bejustifiedatthistime.And finally,by not endorsing the
proposed "C-3",Staff is being consistent with its
recommendation for the land directly to the north.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1.The proposed South Loop Expressway right-of-way should
be exempted from any rezoning,and reserved for future
purchase by the public agency who will ultimately buildthisroad.The applicant will not be required to
dedicate right-of-way for the South Loop Expressway at
2
July 17,1990
Item No.C —Z-3751-A Continued
this time,but should be advised that the City reserves
the right to prohibit any access from this property
onto the South Loop Expressway.
2.The Master Street Plan classifies Mabelvale West Road
as a minor arterial,with a required minimum right-of-
way 90 feet,or 45 feet from centerline.This
dedication should be required on the Mabelvale West
Road frontage of this tract.
3.The floodway shown on this tract should also be
dedicated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "0-3"for the 27 acres under
consideration,except for the land area designated as the
South Loop right-of-way on the west side of the property.
The floodway needs to be zoned "OS"and dedicated to theCity.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 19,1990)
Ralph Bozeman was present and indicated that he was
representing the applicant.There were no objectors in
attendance.Mr.Bozeman discussed the site and said the
proposed South Loop would change the area.He said the
South Loop and Mabelvale West intersection would be a
commercial location in the future and commercial zoning was
appropriate for a portion of the site under consideration.
Mr.Bozeman also indicated that he had no problems with
meeting floodway requirements of rezoning it to "0-S"and
dedicating the floodway to the City.
Jerry Gardner,of the City's Engineering Staff,discussed
the floodway issues.
Mr.Bozeman made some comments about the area and said the
property was a logical site for commercial development.
Commissioner McDaniel suggested "0-3"for the entire acreage
and that the City purchase the South Loop right-of-way
within one year.
Commissioner Perkins asked whether the owners would agree to
rezoning the right-of-way land to "R-2".Mr.Bozeman said
3
July 17,1990
Item No.C —Z-3751-A Continued
he had problems with the right-of-way being zoned "R-2"and
then went on to discuss the proposed site plan.
Jerry Gardner provided some background on the South Loop andsaidtheentireright-of-way was on Mr.Bozeman's property.
Mr.Gardner said the right-of-way for the South Loop was 200feetandincreasedto300feettoallowfortherailroadcrossover.He went on to say the South Loop would be a
limited access facility and no dedication was being
requested because there was no benefit to the property
owner.Mr.Gardner also said the Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department has indicated that the South Loop
should have an Environmental Impact Statement and has
recommended that no additional right-of-way be purchaseduntiltheEnvironmentalImpacttatementwascompleted.
Commission McDaniel said that some of the South Loop right-
of-way to the north had been purchased several years ago.
There were other comments made by various Commissioners andJerryGardner.
Ralph Bozeman presented some history on the area and saidtherezoningrequestwasreasonable.Mr.Bozeman then askedthattheitembedeferredforaperiodoftime.
A motion was made to defer the issue to the July 17,1990hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0
nays and 3 absent.
4
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.C (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
The applicant,Ralph Bozeman,was present.There were noobjectors.Mr.Bozeman discussed the proposal,andindicatedthattheownerswerewillingtodedicateadditionalright-of-way for Mabelvale West and thedesignatedfloodwayarea.He point out.to the Commissionthatthededicationswouldequalapproximatelythreeacresoreightpercentoftotalproperty.Mr.Bozeman said thatitwasnotunreasonabletorequest"C-3"for a portion ofthepropertyand"C-3"would be more marketable.
Jerry Gardner,City Engineering Staff,then addressed theCommzssion.He said that there had been no changes since
the last meeting,and the Environmental Impact Statement fortheSouthLoopwasinprogress.Mr.Gardner also said thattheArkansasHighwayandTransportationDepartment
recommended that the City not purchase any right-of-way fortheSouthLoopuntiltheEnvironmentalImpactStatementwascompleted.Mr.Gardner said that the dedications forMabelvaleWestandfloodwayareawereacceptable.
Ralph Bozeman offered comments about the proposed "0-3"and"C-3"rezoning.He also said that there were no specific
development plans at this time.
Jerry Gardner said that a majority of the South Loop right-
of-way had been identified in the field.
Stephen Giles,City Attorneys'ffice,offered some commentsabouttheright-of-way issue and rezoning the property.
Commission John McDaniel made some statements about theSouthLoopandsaidthattheproposedright-of-way should beleft"1-2",the current zoning.He also suggested that theCitybegivenaperiodofoneyeartoobtaintheright-of-
way for the South Loop.Jerry Gardner expressed someconcernswiththeoneyeartimeperiodbecauseoftheEnvironmentalImpactStatement.
Mr.Gardner then reviewed the proposed South Loop right-of-
way on the property in question and said the right-of-wayappearedtobewelldefinedinthearea.
-5-
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.C (Continuedl
Ralph Bozeman then modified the rezoning application and
requested a reclassification of the land outside the South
Loop right-of-way to "C-3"and "0-3",with the right-of-wayleft"1-2".Mr.Bozeman also agreed to the right-of-way and
floodway dedications.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning as
amended by the applicant.The motion passed by a vote of 9
ayes,1 nay and 1 absent.
(There were some discussion about a plan amendment and theStaffwasinstructedtolookatthearea)
-6-
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION HEARING
Ordinance establishing an
Overlay District for Highway 10l(~:Little Rock Board of Directors
MBZL~ZQBT:
On October 17,1989,the Board of Directors adopted an
interim overlay ordinance for Highway 10.The ordinance wasdraftedasaninterimordinancetogivetheCityachanceto
thoroughly review the ordinance design standards with the
property dimensions of the Highway 10 property.A
preliminary report was presented to the Commission April 10.
At that meeting,the Commission was told that analysisindicatedthattheproposedstandardswouldnotcreate a
large number of 'undevelopable'arcels.Staff did identify
over a dozen parcels which likely could not meet the letteroftheordinanceevenbycombiningwithadjacentparcels.
Of the 215 parcels fronting Highway 10,over 150 could not
meet the letter of the ordinance.(Note that the ordinance
has a PUD clause for these parcels.)However only
approximately 45 of these parcels must comply with the
regulations since the remaining parcels are residential (ontheplan).The vast majority could be combined and
redeveloped to meet the suggested standards.
On May 2nd the Overlay Committee heard reactions from the
property owners.Many present found the regulations to be
discriminatory to Highway 10 Properties.The second majorissueraisedwastoincorporateflexibilityintothe
regulations (both in the standards and land use).
The Overlay Committees recommendations are attached.
(MAY 11,1990)
The Overlay Committee had several concerns dealing with the
overlay ordinance and how it related to the Highway 10 Plan
and the allowed land uses.They felt that the standards
proposed in the overlay ordinance was sufficient but thatflexibilityshouldbeincludedforthosesmalltractsthat
can not meet some of the standards,such as,the 100 footsetback.
1
July 17,1990
Ttc~M ~ah~
The Committee did,however,feel that owners of smallertractsshouldbeencouragedtocombinetheirtractsto
create a larger development with fewer curb cuts,etc.
The Committee feels that developers should have theflexibilitytouseotherparkinglotscreeningdevices than
just berms.The Committee was not convinced that only berms
should be used,but the developers should be able to use
dense landscaping,screening walls or other devices.
Committee member Crane felt that Highway 10 would not look
good if it had a row of berms on either side the length of
the roadway.
The Committee saw the need to use the PUD to deal with the
design flexibility that is necessary to create good
development.Therefore,the Committee did not see a needfortheBoardofAdjustmenttobeinvolvedintheoverlay
process.They felt that the Planning Commission could deal
with the entire development,whereas,the Board of
Adjustment could only deal with the specific variance
requested.
Committee member Nicholson felt that with the enhanced
design criteria in place,the restriction of commercial
along Highway 10 was not that important.The parcels will
be developed with buffers,etc.and could be located next to
other uses without the typical negative impacts of strip
commercial.Jim Lawson discussed the importance of keepingthelanduseplansintacttoprovidethebaseguidancefor
land use decisions.If the plans automatically show
commercial,then it will be difficult to get the enhanced
standards that you want.Also,without the land use plansitwouldbedifficulttomaintainthecommercialnode
concept that is important to the Highway 10 Plan.
The Committee felt that some commercial should be allowed inthetransitionalzones,if the overlay standards were in
place and if PUDs area required.The Committee went furthertosaythattheyfelttheHighway10Planshouldbeamendedto:(1)drop the PUD requirement on all transitional areas
and (2)require PUDs only if commercial uses are proposed in
the transition areas or if the property is so small that the
overlay standards can not be met.
Committee member Mitchell stressed the importance offlexiblesignstandards.He said the 10 foot tall sign
might not work if the business property is below the gradeofthestreetforexample.
2
July 17,1990
ZtaaM~icIHILinumQ.
SUMMARY
Overlay Committee recommends:
*For small tracts PUDs should be used to meet the intent
of the standards,if the standards can not be met*No PUD requirement for parcels which can meet the
standards and land use recommendations of the
Highway 10 Plan*To allow alternatives to the berm which fulfil the
original intent of screening*To allow developments with commercial uses in
transition zone areas with a PUD*All variances,to the standards,should be made with
using the PUD process*Any of the standards can be varied with the PUD process
(as long as the intent of the standards is addressed)
(May 22,1990)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,informed the Commission that
on June 19 an ordinance revision for the Highway 10 OverlayDistrictwouldbepresentedforconsideration.As required
by ordinance,Staff presented a progress report in April-
after six months.The permanent ordinance is to be before
the Board three months later.Mr.Lawson quickly reviewed
what had been done since April and presented the Highway 10
Overlay Committee recommendations.He,also,directed the
Commission to pages 5 a 6 of the ordinance where suggested
changes were made.
The Committees recommendations as relayed by Mr.Lawson
were:
—for small tracks to use the PUD process to meet the
intent of the ordinance
—No PUD requirement,if can meet the overlay standards
and land use requirements in Transition zone areas.
—Allow alternatives to berms,concern about visual
impact of bermsIfwanttovary the land use the PUD process must be
followed
—Use the PUD process to review case by case requeststovarythestandards
The Committee for example thought the set back was good but
the 100 feet was not a magic number.
3
July 17,1990~~~CCQHXZEUE2l.
Commissioner Nicholson asked Hr.Lawson to say more about
the fourth recommendation.Nr.Lawson stated the CommitteefelttheCityshouldallowsomecommercialwiththePUD
process if the standards were met.Staff could possibly
support a mixed proposal.Nr.Lawson agreed that the
standards can make a difference but do not necessarily make
land use a non-issue.He advocated sticking with the land
use plans.
Commissioner Riddick stated the Committee felt with higher
standards there should be more flexibility in land use.
Commissioner Nicholson stated the Commission was going to
get more and more requests and this change addressed the
changing reality along Highway 10.The District plan has
evolved from straight land use (commercial,officeresidential)to transition zone (allow some mix of uses and
add some design considerations)to the overlay district
(design standards).It was her contention that if designed
well,then who cares what the zone is.The solution is
quality design.From the public hearing,the indication was
the standards required larger scale development forcing out
small locals in favor of large national firms.
There was some discussion about the node concept and whethertoallowanycommercialintransitionzoneareasdefeatsthis.Commissioner Nicholson stressed,it was important how
the City dealt with change.
Nr.Lawson confirmed that to hang tough may freeze outlocalsonHighway10.
In response to a question Commissioner Walker stated theexistingplanandstandardswillpreventsmalldevelopment
on Highway 10 which is allowed in other locations.An
example was a recent subdivision at Chenal Parkway and
Bowman Road where a small parcel commercial subdivision wasjustapproved.On Highway 10 individuals will have to
assemble land to develop (This is happening now along Fair
Park).
Commissioner McDaniel stated it hurt that people who had
been on Highway 10 a lifetime would miss out on increasedvalues.It is the Realtors who can put together properties,
who are going to come out ahead.Now one has to pool
property and come in with plans to benefit the site andCity.
Commissioner Nicholson stated that if one can meet thestandardsmaybelanduseisnotimportant.
4
July 17,1990
ILR~~LauIrtinu~
Commissioner Walker stated maybe the Commission should look
favorably when a nonconforming commercial use comes in and
less so when a residential use wants to convert to
commercial.
Commissioner Nicholson expressed concern that Real
Estate/Developers can wait for a Board or Commission to
change,while the little guy often can not.there needs to
be give and take in the process.Mr.Lawson stated the City
needs to establish a base line to work from.Commissioner
Nicholson stated that to work that way appears to bow to the
big guy.
Mr.Lawson stated it is not possible to write an ordinance
for every parcel and every use,but if the City puts
commercial,red,on the plan the question is only how much
and how intense.
Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters stated it has always
been a concern that with the overlay in-place it will be
viewed as OK to zone the corridor anything (do not know if
that is OK or not).The people in the area thought they
knew what it would be zoned.It is important that the
Commission be comfortable with any change and to stick with
the plan as the Commission approves it.The Commission
should be careful not to make a land use decision just to
give someone money.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed that land use decisions should
not look at the economics,but at the community as a whole.
Tom Cole,Cantrell Loop Partnership,was next to speak.Hisfirstconcernwasthathehadnotbeennotifiedofthe
property owners meeting.Staff expanded how the list was
compiled and asked Mr.Cole to give them his address
information.The second concern was his property was zoned'C3',then the overlay ordinance was put in place.This
increased the restrictions on his property.Of particular
concern was the 100 foot setback,which he felt was
economically unjust.The setback should be less for those
areas shown for commercial to be fair to the sites.His
property is located in a node next to an existing
development.This creates visibility problems which should
be addressed.Third,Chenal Parkway does not have the
overlay standards.Maybe to be fair,the design criteria
should be added to Chenal Parkway.
There was some agreement from several Commissioners.
5
July 17,1990
(June 19,1990)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,reviewed the ordinance
requirements for a preliminary report in six months and
recommended final language in nine months for the Highway 10
Overlay Standards.To conduct the review a committee of the
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members was
appointed.This Committee reviewed the standards with staff
using the city GIS system.Mr.Lawson stated some changes
will be proposed but in general the ordinance was in good
shape.At today's meeting only the revisions to the Overlay
Ordinance can be voted on but another issue —amending the
Highway 10 plan will be discussed as well.(Since the
review Committee felt they should be a package.)If the
City Board feels comfortable with the plan amendment,public
hearings will be scheduled at a later date.
Mr.I.awson next reviewed changes to the Highway 10 plan.In
general the changes are to make the two documents agree.
One major change is to not limit commercial uses solely to
the nodes.The city would consider mixed office/residential
developments with limited commercial uses as long as the PUD
process was used.The curb cut requirements would be made
consistent between the plan and overlay ordinance as would
the setback and landscape requirements.Mr.Lawson
displayed each of the changes on overhead projections.
Commissioner Oleson requested additional information on the
PUD requirement to allow limited commercial in transition
zone areas.It was suggested that this requirement be
restated in several places.
Mr.Lawson then reviewed the changes to the Overlay
Ordinance.The first change dealt with the berm
requirement.There had been concern expressed that the berm
could have negative impacts,thus alternative methods should
be allowed.The wording would be changed to "organic or
organic/manmade"features with the Plans Specialist checkingtoassureconformance(appeals would go to the Planning
Commission).
The curb cut requirement would be changed from two in 700feettoa300footspacingandatleast100feetfromanintersection.Later in the ordinance clarifying changes
would be made in the structures per acre requirements.For
large sites a one building per five acre requirement wouldalsobeadded.
6
July 17,1990
In the exception section language would be added to clarify
that a PUD should be used when a parcel cannot meet the
standards.
There was a question about limiting the number of buildings.It was explained this requirement originated from a desiretominimizeoutparcels.A second question about variances
from the ordinance was asked,and Mr.Lawson stated the PUD
process was there for that purpose.
Mr.Wortsmith was first to speak.He stated,he owned
property on Highway 10 and was a small businessman.It was
his opinion that the ordinance was too restrictive.Though
he has no plans to redevelop his property,he could not meet
the ordinance restrictions for any expansion.Small
developers and businesses will be prevented from moving to
the area.(He gave an example where he purchased an adjacentlotforparkingandthecosttolandscapeitwasmorethan
the cost for the parking.)Mr.Lawson,in response stated
that a PUD could be used for an expansion.Further,there
are some developments in place that are not going to conform
or go away.For any of these as long as no changes occur
the ordinance has no affect,and the PUD process could be
used to address the specific problems of each.
Robert Shultz,The Ranch,stated he was generally supportive
but there was some clarification needed.He noted
particularly the definitions section and the size of parcel
requirements.Mr.Shultz recommended that the east boundary
of the District be Reservoir Road since that is where the
scenic area starts.Or,at least,the District should startatI-430.The area from Rodney Parham to I-430 is the first
area one sees,the gateway,and the City should require the
same high level of development on this portion of Cantrell.
Currently there is an office area in this location with
proposed high standards but they could sell.The new owner
may not choose to keep this high standard.It is only fair
that this direct competitor,on Highway 10,have the same
regulation as is placed on The Ranch.
Mr.Shultz stated the 500 foot district boundary isexcessive.A more reasonable number would be 300 feet sincethatisthedistanceofanormalcityblock.There needs to
be justification for the distance used so that the ordinance
will not be overturned and the rules change in the middle of
the game.
As for the minimum parcel size,three acres is totally
unreasonable.Much of the development in Little Rock needs
only 50,000 to 60,000 square feet.Thus,three acres is too
7
July 17,1990
large and should be reduced or deleted.(For those parcels
already zoned,it should be deleted).Nr.Shultz also
recommended that office development not be placed under this
requirement.The result would be office buildings in the
character of One Financial Center,rather than small owner
operated professional offices.
At this point the Commission recessed at the request of
Commissioner McDaniel and consent of Nr.Shultz.Upon their
return Commissioner Leek left the meeting.
Mr.Shultz expressed concern about the sprinkler
requirement,and how the Water Works would charge
individuals.He suggested there should be further review
and consultation on the ordinance requirements.The next
point dealt with the number of buildings per acre which
reduces design options and development alternatives.
The economic impact of the ordinance requirements should be
considered (of those who already have office or commercial
zoning).Mr.Shultz stated he felt the ordinance was taking
away rights he currently had with his zoning and he should
be compensated.If the reason for the regulations is not to
have another Rodney Parham,the setback and curb cuts
requirements alone would do that.In conclusion,he
recommended all challengeable sections be removed.
Commissioner Nicholson left at this point.
Tom Cole spoke next,he first addressed the Land Use Plan
amendment.The word 'some'hould be changed to 'most'n
the second paragraph discussing difficulty in meeting design
requirements.Also the term hardship should be better
defined (from whose point-of-view).The 0.2 FAR requirement
should be dropped and incentives to development office
included.The setback requirement is totally unreasonable.
Mr.Cole suggested the Commission review the minute record
of the two Nay meetings which clearly show everyone feels
100 feet is excessive.Finally,if the use is permitted on
the plan,it should not be made nonconforming but be able to
rebuild in the current location (not have to meet the design
standards).
As for the overlay ordinance,Nr.Cole expressed concern
about the identity of the landscape specialist and theirexpertises.This is a high cost item.The limitations on
building sites,page 7,is unrealistic.This creates an
economic problem.The regulations are such that onlyinationals'ould meet them.In Little Rock most of the
growth is internal,not companies moving here.He concluded
8
July 17,1990
by stating that the visibility issue was real and should be
addressed.
Mr.Jones,Vogel Realty,stated he represented eight
properties ranging from 0.8 to 50 acres and is a developer,
thus he views the requirements from various perspectives.
The main problem is that small individuals cannot develop
along Highway 10.To date all we have been discussing is
theory,we do not know how real developments will react to
the requirements.Nr.Jones stated the problem is that no
one knows exactly what will be approved (office,multi
family,etc.).He asked for assurance that a multifamily
use which is allowed in Transition Zones will not be
challenged.Currently,the City is sending out signals
which slow growth.
Mr.Jones stated he had no problem,if the ordinance is a
guideline.There should be room for compromise.wording to
indicate flexibility should be placed in the first
paragraphs of the document.In addition,language should be
included stating these are guidelines and the City will work
with the site (developer).Mr.Jones stated he did not know
what the exact numbers should be but that there must beflexibility.In conclusion,he stated this was a step in
the right direction.
The real test according to Nr.Jones is the decision on anofficeprojectinaTransitionZonewithlessthanthree
acres which will be before the Commission soon.It is
important that the Commission interrupt the ordinance withflexibility.At this time Nr.Jones felt the ordinance wasalright,if flexibility were added.
Commissioner Oleson asked those present to discuss changing
the east boundary of the district.There was some
discussion about extending the boundary to the east.Nr.
Shultz stated the ordinance ideas originated with The Ranch
development.Several individuals asked about adding the
requirements to Chenal Parkway.
Commissioner NcDaniel stated he was bias for
realtor/developers but that the City does look
'anti'cannotdoithere).Everyone should be working together to
see 'How can we do this?',~How can we help this happen7'.
Now we are running off business because of all our
requirements.Everyone needs to work together no be
combative.
Mrs.Fredia Vogler asked to speak.She stated she had lived
on Highway 10 since January 1962,and this was the first
9
July 17,1990
~Jfu.~&cenhinnaB-
meeting notice she received.Everyone next to the area
needs to be notified.Besides concern about notice she
expressed concern about the removal of trees for gas/water
lines and asked if something could not be done to preserve
trees in the right-of-way.The Commission asked Staff to
investigate the problem.
Commissioner Miller stated there were requirements for
notice.
Commissioner Walker stated he would work toward placing
these requirements on the other major entry routes.
Commissioner Miller asked Staff what action was needed
today.Nr.Malone of the Planning Staff recommended
deferring the item to July 17 and asked for some guidance
for the Commission on possible changes.There was some
discussion on this topic.Nr.Lawson stated that the
Commission could make specific changes and send comments to
the Board on other issues.There was additional discussion.
Several Commissioners stated they were not prepared to vote
today.
i'.-A~(July 17,1990)
Jim Lawson,Director,reviewed the changes made since thelastmeeting:
Reduced boundary from 500 to 300 feet
Reduced parcel size from 3 to 2 acres
Revised wording on tree spacing
Revised PUD wording
Land Use Plan changes to agree with the Overlay
standards,clarify curb cut information
Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated she had a couple
of questions.What about the traffic density on Highway 10?
With more intensive uses than the current plan one should
look at the changes in traffic.Nr.Lawson responded that
no study had been completed.There is a trade off with
multi-family and office development.He doubted the net
result would change a lot.There is going to be a lot oftrafficnomatterwhat.The street is 4 lanes with a left
turn lane.Ns.Bell asked if we are going to end up with alotoftrafficsignals.This would detract from the intent.
Nr.Lawson stated that in most areas we have not maintained
the 300 foot spacing for curb cuts.Further,there would
not be a signal every 300 feet.The signals are likely to
be closer than the AHTD would want.We can not justify a
larger spacing at this time.Jerry Gardner,Engineering
10
July 17,1990
Division,stated there will not be a traffic study.He
noted that 2010 projections for traffic are already scary.
The current policy for signals is that they be located onlyatcollectorandaboveroads.Every driveway on Highway 10
would likely meet some measure that indicates a need for a
signal.He concluded,he hoped to maintain the 300 foot
curb cut spacing.(Each parcel is entitled to a curb cut by
the subdivision ordinance.)
Bob Shultz,Financial Centre-Ranch Properties„stated he had
the same concerns,though he was pleased some of his changes
had been made.His greatest concern dealt with the
boundary.All competitors should be included so all are
equal.Therefore,the east boundary should be Reservoir oratleastI-430,not Rodney Parham.There is an office
development at Rodney Parham (competitor)which does not
have to meet the requirements,putting them at a competitive
advantage over The Ranch.The I-430 bridge is the mostvisibleareaofHighway10andshouldbeincluded(only
makes sense).The point is to equally apply regulations toall.
A second concern is the multiple building site section.Itjustaddsquestions.The terms are not defined,etc.With
a reduced site requirement of 2 acres,one building per 5
acres is not workable.Most buildings require I/4 of '3
Financial Building'hich is on less than five acres and has
received various awards from the City.What does it take to
be one development?Can it include areas across the street?
10 feet away'?100?1000'?This section serves no purpose
and should be removed.
A third concern is the minimum parcel size.Severalarchitectshavecompleteddesignsusing40,000 to 60,000
square feet for high quality branch banks.The 2 acre
requirement is better than three,but should go to 60,000+
square feet.That would be just a little over the amount
needed which people would do.Otherwise,you will getconstantrequestsforvariances.Also,the City should
change the number of buildings per acre to basically 1 per 2acres(see schedule in letter).The goal is to have an
ordinance which is defensible and enforceable with few
variance requests.
In the case of The Ranch the property was zoned and plannedbeforetheoverlay.Many of the standards in the overlayareintheBillofAssuranceforTheRanch.The least
important change is to clarify if only parcels with frontage
are in the district and the landscape section about tree
spacing.The landscape section should say if one has trees.
11
July 17,1990
Do not plant new ones,use the existing to meet the
requirements.Flexibility should be allowed for landscape
mixes.
Commissioner Walker asked what Overlay standards were not in
the Ranch Bill of Assurance.Mr.Shultz responded the
minimum lot size,number of buildings per site andsprinklers(details of landscape section).He asked who
would maintain the sprinklers.
Commissioner Miller asked if there were not roads betweenCantrellandanypropertyfromRodneyParhamtoI-430.Mr.
Shultz stated,if all you need is a frontage road to not beintheoverlaythenmaybehewouldpavehisberm.He statedthatmaybethewestendshouldbeKatilliusandkeepThe
Ranch out of the District.That change would be fair.It
would be logical to make a loop,Highway 10/Chenal/I-430,
and place the requirements on all these areas.
Commissioner Miller stated without objection she would limitspeakerstofiveminutesandaskedCommissionerNicholsonto
keep time.
David Jones,representing Vogel Realty and nine propertiesallwithinthe1-430 to Katillius area,stated this wasdiscriminatorytoHighway10propertiesanddevelopers.
There are other areas in competition with Highway 10,
Markham and Chenal,and this clearly works against Highway10.The City should add an emergency clause to add theseroads.The areas of concern include forcing consolidation,etc.The Ordinance could be workable if it is flexible.
The PUD process is more cumbersome.We can try and see ifthisisworkable,but not sure about it.
Dickson Flake,Office Complex between Rodney Parham and I-
430,stated all the streets in the development were built in1987andtheareahasarestrictiveBillofAssurance
covering signage,sprinklers,common area maintenance,specific plant and building materials,screening,etc.Inthemid1980stheyfeltinthelongrunthatmorerestrictivedevelopmentwouldbemorecompetitive.AllbuildingsareorientedawayfromHighway10withnoaccesstoHighway10.To impose the most restrictive of both theBillofAssuranceandOverlaywouldbeunfairtothis
development.The higher standards for Highway 10 are a gooditem.
Tom Cole,Renaissance Properties and several others around
Taylor Loop and Highway 10 intersection,stated he was
opposed to the regulations.One of the biggest problems is
12
July 17,1990
the schedule of tract size to number of buildings which isexcessive.The West Loop terminates at Highway 10 and thisintersectionalreadyhaslesspermitteddevelopmentthan
similar intersections.This is discriminatory.The
regulations should be imposed on Chenal Parkway as well.
Mr.Lawson,in response,stated the Ordinance had been
amended a lot.The ordinance is reasonable and does not
require consolidation.Staff feels comfortable with the
ordinance.
Commissioner Walker (wishing to explain his yes vote)stated
that if approved,any development meeting the requirements
should be approved;otherwise a PUD should be used to show
intent to meet the regulations.
Commissioner Oleson (wishing to explain her yes vote)stated
she felt the ordinance was too watered down.She felt staff
had tried to be reasonable but she still had concerns about
some proposed changes.
Commissioner Nicholson stated Staff should look atclarificationlanguagebutshewasnotwillingto fine tune
the Ordinance further.It was time for the Board to review
the Ordinance.
Commissioner Riddick stated the question now is an all or
nothing one.
Commissioner Leek stated he was surprised the sides werestillthisfarapart.The process has been a long one.He
agreed one would never get full agreement.The problems are
not just clarification though.We are not there yet.
Commissioner Nicholson stated this needed to be decided at
the Board level.
Mr.Lawson stated the statements today imply trying to
design for each property.The Ordinance can not do this,it
provides guides,goals and targets.Every parcel will not
meet every standard.
The Question was called,by a vote of 8 for,2 against
(Leek,McDaniel)and 1 absent (Collins)the Ordinance was
approved.
13
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.1 FILE NO.:S-732
NAME:Knoedl Park Addition
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Barrow Road and I-630
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Flake and Company The Mehlburger Firm
P.O.Box 990 P.O.Box 3837LittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,Ar 72201
(501)376-8005 (501)375-5331
AREA:5.90 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:
425'ONING:"R-2"PROPOSED USE:Office Park
PLANNING DISTRICT:Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.03
VARIANCES RE UESTED:
1.Sidewalk waiver
A.PROPOSAL RE UEST:
This proposal consists of a large tract of land
replatting into 4 lots varying in size from 1.0 acresto1.6 acres.There will be 425 feet of new street
with 60'ight-of-way and 36'avement.The applicantisalsorequestingazoningchangefrom"R-2"to "0-3"
to facilitate an office park.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This acreage tract is a parcel isolated by the
construction of Interstate 630.A portion of thistractwastakenfromtheinterchange,thereby reducingthefrontageontoBarrowRoadandlimitingaccess
significantly.The surrounding properties on the North
and West consist of a built-up subdivision.This
subdivision has been in place approximately 25-30
years.Immediately east across Barrow Road is a largeschoolsite,some 20-30 acres,abutting Rock Creek on
the north and running to the freeway on the south.The
properties across the freeway to the south are zoned
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.1 Continued
commercial,and Target Store shopping complex is
located at the southeast corner.
The terrain involved consists of some areas that have
been cleared of trees and utilized as a home site for
many years.There are several fence rows that have
grown up in small trees and brush.The rear of thesitehasasomewhatsteepslopefallingtoalarge
drainage ditch which carries a significant volume.
C.ENGINEERING
COMMENTS'he
driveway location onto Barrow Road should be
revised to prevent the radius intrusion onto adjacent
property.Engineering is opposed to sidewalk
variances,particularly on the Barrow Road frontage.
The application should clarify if the new street is to
be a public right-of-way.Excavation and Detention
Ordinances apply.
D.ISSUES DISCUSSIONS LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
This plat as filed is in proper form for a four-lot
preliminary office plat.There are no issues at this
time relative to the plat construction.There may beissuesdevelopedinassociatingwiththerezoning
application which will generate specific requirements
as to the platting of various buffers,identification
of screening and other relationships with adjacentproperties.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's view of this preliminary plat isthatitisentirelyappropriatetothedevelopment
proposal at hand.Our review has determined that therearenoissuerelativetotheplataslongasitis
zoned sR 2s
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary platsubjecttoanymodificationwhichmayoccurasa resultoftheRezoningPublicHearing.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.1 Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 5,1990)
Mr.Wes Lowder and Rett Tucker were present representing the
application.Mr.Lowder described the preliminary plat and
various elements of the proposal.Staff offered a response
by detailing several of the issues that had developed in the
course of Staff review of preliminary plat and rezoning
application,this having to do with the setbacks from the
adjacent residential area,controlling water flow and the
kinds of screening and buffering that could be employed to
separate the uses.
A general discussion followed during which one of the
committee members pointed out the 50'uffer with 6'ence
should be required on the north and west boundary.
The question of street location was raised as to whether acloselocationtoresidentialbackyardsisappropriate.
There were several opinions expressed how to maintain andclassifya25'trip of land between road and back yards ofresidentialneighborhood.The discussion resulted in a
suggestion that a 25'uffer between road and back yards be
included on the plat and in the Bill of Assurance as a partofLot4forfuturemaintenance.There being no furtherdiscussiononthisitem,this matter was forwarded to thefullCommissionforresolution.
3
July 17,1090
SUBDIVISION
item No.1 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:(July 17,1090)
The applicant was represented by Mr,Wes Lowder.The
Planning Staff presented an overview of this plat,inconjunctionwiththerezoningitemonthisagenda.(Item
No.10).The plat,was not specifically discussed by the
Commission as to it,s composition or design.The Planningstaffindicatedthattheplatwasinconformancewiththeordinance.All the c'onditions were attached to these
rezoning items and show on the plat.
As a result of the discussion of the two items on this
agenda,concerned with this property,Planning CommissionActionwasamotiontoapprovetherequest.The motion
passed by a vot,e of 10 eyes,0 nays,1 absent.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.:2 File No.:S-651
NAME:Plantation Acres Phase IV
LOCATION:On Raines Valley Road off Crystal Valley Road
DEYELOPER:ENGINEER:
Plantation Acres An Allan Curry
AR Limited Partnership 1611 Main
9923 West Markham North Little Rock,AR 72114LittleRock,AR 72205
(501)223-9700 (501)372-2131
AREA:9 acres NO.OF LOTS:6 FT.OF NEW ST.:None
ZONING:"R-2"PROPOSED USE:Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:Crystal Valley —21
CENSUS TRACT:42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.)All street improvements
2.)Sidewalks
3.)Lot width to depth ratio
A.PROPOSALjREQVEST:
A preliminary plat as proposed including six lots whichwillbeacontinuationoftheexistingPlantationAcresSubdivisionlyingtothenorth.These six lots areout-parcels from the original development of PlantationAcres.
B,EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is generally in an undisturbed statewithlargematuretimber.The principal arterial islyingalongthesouthboundary.The street crossingproperty,being Plantation Acres Drive,is constructedtothecountystandardwith24'avement and 60'ight-of-way.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.2 (Continued)
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Crystal Valley Road is a minor arterial.Plantation
Drive is a collector street.Proposed right-of-ways
shown are correct.Engineering does not object to
improvement waivers.Public/private status ofPlantationDriveshouldbeclarified.
D.ISSUESjLEGALjTECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The t,wo issues in this category which requireresolutionare:
1.Waiver has not been requested in the lot depth to
width ratio.
2.Proof of Plantation Acres Drive being dedicated totheCity,
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff finds little issue with this plat.It is well designed and has few deficiencies.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this plat with waiverssubjectto:
1,The Engineer of Record making the formal requestforthevariancerequired.2.Presenting proof of Plantation Acres beingdedicatedtotheCity.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 5,1990)
Mr.Allen Curry was present representing the preliminaryplat.The Staff recommendation was discussed.Mr.Curry
was instructed that he needed an additional waiver,thatdealingwithratiooflotdepthtothelotwidth.Thedeveloperagreedtorequestadditionalwaiver.
The question of Plantation Acres Drive being dedicated totheCitywasraised.Mr.Curry stated that it was dedicatedtotheCountyandhewillincludeinstrumentnumberontheplat.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.2 (Continued)
There being no further discussion on this item,the matter
was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:(July 17,1990)
The Planning Staff reported that this item was appropriateforplacementontheconsentagendaforapproval.After abriefdiscussion,commission determined it appropriate toplacetheitemontheconsentagendaforapproval,A motiontothateffectwasmadeandpassesbyavoteof10eyes,0nays,1 absent.The motion also included recommendation ofapprovalonthreevariancesinitiallyrequesteddealingwiththeratiooflotdepthtowidth,sidewalks and all street
improvements.
3
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.:3 File No.:S-733
NAME:Marvin Vaughter Subdivision,Lots 1-3
LOCATION:Off Colonel Glenn Road on Jack Mann Road
DEVELOPER;ENGINEER:
Marvin E.Vaughter Dillinger,Inc.
17 Vista Drive P.0.Box 9425LittleRock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR821-4663
AREA:4.16 acres NO.OF LOTS:3 FT.OF NEW ST.0
ZONING:"R-3"PROPOSED USE:Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT:Burlingame Valley —19
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.All street improvements
2.Sidewalks
A,PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This developer proposes the creat,ion of three new lots
ranging in size from 0.75 acres to 2,0 acres out oflargertractofland.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two dwelling which
have been used as rental houses.The adjacent streetisconstructedtotheCountystandards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No objections tc waiver of improvements.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.3 (Continuedj
D.ISSUESjDISCUSSIONSJLEGALjTECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The replat is basically in good form with resolution ofthefollowingseveralitemsrequired:
1.Reduce depth of lots 1 and 2 to 200'nless
additional area is required by the State
Department of Health for septic tank
accommodation.
2.File certificate of septic tank approval from theStateHealthDepartment.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff find no serious fault with thereplatsubject,if the items pointed out in Item D areresolved.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to the Planning Staff comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 0,1990)
Mr.Vaughter was present.The Staff recommendation wasdiscussed.Dealing with issues pointed out in Staff'sanalysis,Mr.Vaughter agreed to reduce lot depth to
270'ndsubmitrevisedplatbeforepublichearing.
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwardedtothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
There were no objectors in attendance.Mr.Vaughter waspresentrepresentingthisplat.The Staff recommended
placement of this item on the Consent Agenda.After a briefdiscussion,a motion was made to place this item on theConsentAgendaforapproval.The motion passed by a vote of10eyes,0 nays,1 absent.Motion also included
recommendation of waiver approval.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-703
NAME:The S.A.T.S.Replat
LOCATION:Corners of Barrow Road and Morris Manor Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
J.D.Ashley Ed Gray R.L.S.
P.O.Box 6031
Sherwood,AR 72116
758-7745 835-3135
AREA:0.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"0-3"PROPOSED USES:Commercial/Office
PLANNING DISTRICT:Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES RE VESTED:None
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This developer proposes the creation of two new lots
out of two larger lots ranging in size from 0.3 acresto0.6 acres.Both lots are zoned "0-3".Lot "A-1"is
also subject to "PCD"review on this agenda as Item g7.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is covered with scrub,brush and small trees.
The adjacent streets are constructed to the city
standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Construct sidewalks on Barrow road frontage,both sides
of Morris Manor Drive.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION:
Item No.4 Continued
D.ISSUES DISCUSSIONS LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
These issues will be more fully developed in the P.U.D.
element of this development proposal which is Item No.
7 on this agenda.The replat is basically in good form
with resolution of the following items required:
1.Adjacent subdivision and owners names should
be reflected on the plat.2.The existing zoning of adjacent properties
should be shown.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff finds no serious fault with this
replat subject,however,to resolving the several items
pointed out in Item D above and approval of the P.C.D.
application.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff withholds a recommendation on the replat until
the issues associated with the Dairy Bar P.C.D.are
resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 5,1990)
The applicant was present.The Staff offered a brief
overview of the problems in the review of this plat
submittal.Mr.Wood pointed out that the Planning
Commission needs to consider two issues.One,recommending
waiver of all basic standards of the Subdivision Ordinance
or two,allowing these lots to be platted as illegal lots.
Mr.Ashley stated that part of lots A and B were sold as anillegallotbypurchaseagreement20yearsago.
A general discussion followed during which one of the
Committee members suggested including the remaining part oflotsAandBontheplat,or asking for variances to waive
Subdivision Ordinance.
The developer agreed to meet with the owners of remaining
part of lots A and B to clarify record or ask for waiver.
2
July 17,1990
SVBDIVISION
Item No.4 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
The application was represented by Mr.J,D.Ashley,Jr.and
Mr.Hd Gray,Land Surveyor.The Planning Staff presenteditsftccommodationofapprovalasfiled.The Chairman then
asked Mr.Ashley t,o present the application.Mr.AshleystatedthatLot,A 1 and B-1 were sold as an illegal lot bypurchaseagreementtwentyyearsago.His intent is tocorrectexistingproblemsandcreatetwolegallots.Duringthecourseofabriefdiscussionthai,I'oiiowed,Commissionagreedthatthisitembeapprovedasfiled.A motion t,othateffect.was made and passed by a vote of 10 eyes,0
nays,1 absent,
I
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-5340
NAME:Investment Motorcar Corp.
LOCATION:2905 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mons Mizell McClelland Consulting
1700 First Commercial 900 West Markham
Building Little Rock,AR 72201LittleRock,AR 72201
(501)372-6300
AREA:0.5 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"C-3"PROPOSED USE:"PCD"
PLANNING DISTRICT:Heights —Hillcrest
VARIANCES RE/VESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Investment Motorcar Corporation is seeking to rezone
property at 2905 Cantrell Road as a planned commercial
development.IMC is an Arkansas corporation formed inOctober,1989,for the purpose of selling luxury pre-owned
automobiles (BMW,Jaguar,Ferrari,etc.}.In compliancewiththepresent"C-3"zoning classification,IMC has tolimititsbusinesstoinsidesalesonly.
There is also a small service and detailing operationlocatedinthesamestructureattherearoftheproperty.
The property is level and almost totally paved in asphalt.
The business is presently employing 10 people.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This proposal involves an outside display and serviceoftheluxurypre-owned automobiles on a propertypreviouslyusedasanautomobileairconditionsales
and installation.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIUISION
Item No.5 (Continuedl
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two structures.Both
buildings are made of metal and concrete blocks.The
parking is paved in asphalt.The adjacent street is
developed to city standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide Cantrell Road right-of-way to principalarterialstandards(55'rom center line).Construct
sidewalk on Cantrell Road frontage.Existing
landscaping in the Cantrell right-of-way will require afranchisetoremaininplace.The existing driveway
encroaches onto the adjacent property to the west and
should be reconstructed to conform to Ordinance
requirements.
D.ISSUESJLEGAL/TECHNICALjDESIGN:
There are a number of detail items on the site plan
which require some resolution.These are as follows:
1.The storage area for autos awaiting service orrepairshouldbeindicated.2.Details of landscape treatment along Highway 10sideshouldbeshown.3.Limit operation hours from 8 a.m.to 8 p.m.4.Show dimensions and number of parking spaces for
proposed display area on the site plan.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's view of this proposal is that itisattemptingtoconformtheexistingautorelatedbusinesstotheCityZoningOrdinance.
The Staff feels that landscaping and improvements wouldenhancethissite.
E,STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to:
1.Complying with Engineering requirements.2.Limiting operation hours from 8 a.m.to 8 p.m.3.Showing dimensions and number of parking spacesfordisplayedcarsandcarswaitingforservice.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDZVlSION
Item No.5 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 5,1990}
Mrs.Mons Mizell was present representing this application.
Thc staff recommendation was explained to applicant.There
were several design elements discussed.These dealt
primarily with including right-of-way and landscaping on thesiteplan.It was determined that the applicant will submitrevisedsiteplanshowingexistingright-of-way and requiredright-of-way and apply for franchise with the City to keepexistinglandscapeinplace,
There being no further items for discussion,the matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
Ms,Mons Mizell was present representing this application.
Mr.Lawson of the Planning Staff,offered a brief comment onthestaffrecommendationandpointedoutthathemetwith
Ms.Mizell just before meeting,and she agreed to putlandscapeonthefronttwentyfeetoftheproperty,if Fire
Department agrees to release fire easement.Ms.Mizell wasaskedbyCommissiontopresentherapplication.She statedthatherclientagreedtoprovidelandscapeareaswherepossible.A brief discussion then followed involvingseveralofthecommissionersandMs.Mizell dealing
primarily with landscaping and its placement on theproperty.The motion was made to approve this applicationasamendedwithApplicantwillingtoaccommodatelandscaping
on the front,if permitted by Fire Depaztment and limitoperationhoursfrom7:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m..The motion was
made and passed by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,1 abstain,and
1 absent.The motion passed.
3
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-5341
NAME:Morgan "PCD"
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Highway 10 and Morgan
Cemetery Road,West of Joe T.Robinson Elementary School
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Carolyn Russell McGetrick Engineering
Real Estate
12819 St.Charles Blvd.11225 Huron LaneLittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR
(501)221-9944 (501)223-9900
AREA:5.91 acres NO.OF LOTS:3 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-2"PROPOSED USE,PCDN R 2e
PLANNING DISTRICT:Highway 10
~CENSUS RACT:42.D5
VARIANCES RE UESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The concept for this project is a low intensityoffice/financial development on the Highway 10 frontage lot
and two rear lots being single family residential tracts.
The developer also attempts to buffer the office site with50'ide undisturbed strip of land on west and north
boundary and landscape it on the Highway 10 and Morgan
Cemetery Road frontages.
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This proposal consists of the construction of afinancialbuildingononelotandcreatingtwoadditionallotsforsinglefamilyhouses.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.6 Continued
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is generally in an undisturbed state
with large mature timber.The principal arterial is
Highway 10,lying along the south boundary.Joe T.
Robinson Elementary School is directly east from thistract.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide principal arterial right-of-way for Highway 10
(55 feet from center line).Development should provide"in-lieu"contribution for Highway 10 improvements.
Indicate what improvements are proposed for Morgan
Road.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The site plan as submitted conforms to the submission
requirements set forth in the PUD Ordinance with only
one exception and that being the use,which should beclarifiedfurtherthanjustastatementasanOffice/Financial if this is an Office/Bank.It may
very well include uses like an insurance branch,CPAoffice,etc.Those kinds of uses may require separate
privilege licenses,or business licenses,and in ordertoissuesuch,the PCD should clarify that they are
permitted.
The last item concerning Planning Staff is an
explanation of additional "long range expansion"use
and its proposed size.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's review of this plan reveals few,if any,comments concerning the design or use of theproject.It appears to be a good project,well sited
and well designed.Access to the site appears to be
good along Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends approval of the project subject tothecompletionoftheimprovementsasrecommendedbythePublicWorksDepartment.
2
July 17,1990
SVBDIYISiON
Item No.6 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 6,1990)
The applicant was present.This matter was discussedbriefly.Mr.McGetrick inrlicat,ed that S(.aff recommendationpresentednoseriousproblem.He agreed to modify coverlet,ter which includes fu(.ure uses.
The discussion moved to the requiremen(.s for improvements
along Highway 10 and Morgan Cemet,ery Road.Jerry Gardner,of the Public Works Department,indicated that he would needtoworkwitht,he applicant to determine t.he status of theimprovements.The right-of-way has been dedicated and willfulfillMast.er Street Plan requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
There were two objectors present.Mr.McGetrick wasrepresent'ing (his applicat.ion.
The Planning Staff presented its recommendation being
approval of t,he revised site plan with applicant complying
(,o Higlrway 10 landscape and buffer ordinance.
Chairman then asked Mr.McGetrick to present hisapplication.Mr.McGet.rick agreed with Staff's
recommendation as presented,
The Chairman then asked first objector present (.o expresshisconcerns.Mr.Brent Tyrre()s'ext door neighborconceznsweretral'fic and drainage.
The Chairman t.hen recognized another ob,jector present.,Mr.
Tom Lovette.He is the propert,y owner directly north fromthesub,ject property.His concerns were drainage andtraffic.He also stated,the lack of sewage would requiresept,ic tank ins(.a]la(.ion and (he subject property is toosmallforitsplacement.
A briel'iscussion then fol:lowed involving several of theCommissioner's,Objectors,Planning Staff and Mr.McGetrick,primarily dealing with drainage and stormwater retent,ion on(.he sit,e ~
July 17,1SQO
SUBDIVISION
Item No.6 (Continued)
The Commission then asked Mr.Gardner from Public Works to
respond t,o drainage issues.Mr,Gardner stated that City
Stormwat.er Det,ention Ordinance will apply to this site when
developed.
Commission McDaniel suggested to defer this item for two
weeks to allow additional time to address drainage problem.
Mr.Tyrrell als«requested additional information on grading
and stormwater retention issues.
Brief discussion then followed centered on whether this it,em
should be deferred or be voted on it at this time.
Applicant states that he cannot change present drainagesituat,ion and he is convinced t,hat his development will notincreaseamountofstormwater.He stated that stormwater
comes from larger area located south of this property.
A motion was made to defer this item for two weeks in ordertoallowMr.McGetrick time to conduct additional study on
stormwater rei,ention and drainage.A motion was passed by avoteof9eyes,I nays,I absent.
4
July 17,1990
~SUBDUU SNOB
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-2501-B
NAME:Dairy Bar "PCD»
LOCATION:Northwest Corner of Barrow Road and Morris Manor
Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Jo Harrison John C.Ayres
5 Broadmoor Drive P.O.Box 233,201 North FirstLittleRock,AR Cabot,AR 72023
AREA:0.3 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"0-3"PROPOSED USE:"PCD"—Dairy Bar
PLANNING DISTRICT:Boyle Park —10
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES RE UESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The owner of the property on Barrow Road and Morris ManorDriveisseekingtorezonethepropertyasaplanned
commercial development.The 0.3 acre tract has 140 feetfrontageonBarrowRoadandithasbeenzoned"0-3".
The purpose of the request is to permit the use as a dairybar.There will be no service inside;all will be done bydrive-thru and pick-up orders.
The operation hours will be from 10 a.m.to 9 p.m.with a
maximum of 5 employees in the summer time.
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This application involves a 0.3 acre tract of land
which is proposed for use as a drive-thru dairy bar.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.7 Continued
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is covered with scrub,brush and trees.The
adjacent streets are constructed to the City'
standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide sidewalks on Barrow Road and Morris Manor Drivefrontages.Pedestrian crossing of Barrow Road may
become dangerous due to the location.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The principal concern of the Staff is the adopted land
use plan for this neighborhood which provides for
maintaining an office corridor along Barrow road.Thiscornerisproposedforanofficeusageonthatplan,
which would be a less intense activity for such a busy
Barrow Road,especially across the street from the highschoolcampus.
Additionally,the site is too narrow for the amount of
physical improvements that are proposed.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's view of this proposal is that itistoomuchontoolittleland.This corner,due toitsuniquelocationandrelationshiptotheschool,will no doubt cause disruption in the traffic flow on
Barrow Road,not only during peak hours but at other
hours as well.
Staff also feels that approval of this PCD would onlycontinuethestripingoutoftheBarrowRoadasretailactivity.Currently,this road is threatened atseveralpointswithcommercialexpansionand
eliminating the various office nodes which separate thelargecommercialpockets.We feel there is sufficient
commercial zoning in this area that would accommodatethisuse.Such areas are located at the intersectionofBarrowRoadandKanisandBarrowRoadandWest36thStreet.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.7 Continued
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposal as
being in violation with adopted land use,a source oftrafficproblemsandanunsuitablesiteforadrive-
thru business.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 5,1990)
Mrs.Joan Harrison was present.The Staff recommendation
was discussed.Mrs.Harrison addressed the Staff's
concerns.It was determined that this land use matter needstobediscussedbyfullCommission.
Comments from the Engineering Department were offered.It
was pointed out that driveways and building needs to be
redesigned to allow safe traffic circulation on the site.
Mrs.Harrison agreed to submit a revised site plan and talk
to school officials.
There being no further discussion on this item,the matter
was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
3
July 17,I',)'.)0
SUBDIUISION
Item No.7 (Continued)
PLANNIN(»COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
There were several objectors in attendance.The applicant
was present..The Planning St.aff recommended denial of the
proposal as being in violation wit,h adopted land use,sourceoft.rai'1'ic problems and unsuitable for dz ive thru business.
The Chairman then asked Ns.Harrison to present herapplicat,ion.Ns.Harrison oi'fered a lengthy presentation
wherein she addressed the staff's comment.She described
t.he location as being excellent for the dairy bar drive thrubecausetheamountoftraffic.She states that high schoolisaclosedcampusforgiftedchildrenandtheywouldnotbeallowedt,o run across the street.She further responded to
i,he stai'f's comment.by showing letters from the School Board
members support,ing her proposal.She also presented herpersonalchecktothePlanningCommissionMembersshowingthepriceshepaidtoth»seller for the property.
Commission Chairman t.hen asked David Jones,representing
propert.y owner directly nor.th to express his opinion.Nr.Jones stated that,he supports the project and he wou.ld liketosecmoredevelopmentonthispart,of Barrow Roa,d.
The Commission then asked t,he next person to present hisposition.Mr.J.Babbs,principal oi'he Par kview HighSchool,opposed this development being a traffic hazard forhisstudents.
The Chairman then recognized t,he next objector,Nr.ChipJones.Nr.Jones supports Staff's recommendation in behalfofDr..Steele,School Superintendent..
The Chairman then recognized another person present whodesiredtooffercommentinob,jection.This person was Ms.Gantt,,owner of the Day Care located sout.heast of Ns.Harrison's property.Her concerns are t.raffic and safetyforherDayCare.
The Chairman then recognized Ns.Harrison 1'r closingstatement.She stat.es that school is I/4 mile from her
propert,y and her business does not.create more traffic than
presently exist.
1
July 17,1990
SVBDIVISION
Item No.7 (Continued)
Commissioner McDaniel then inserted a comment to t.he effectthathecannot.support,this item being so close t,o school.
The motion was then offered t.o recommend approval of t.his
PCD as filed.The vot,e was 0 eyes,10 nays,I absent,.The
motion failed and the application was denied.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO ~8 FILE NO.:4743-C
NAME:Cauldwell -Short Form "PCD"
LOCATION:2402 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Southern Company McGetrick Engineering
11225 Huron Lane
North Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR 72221
223-9900
AREA:0.5 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.OF NEW ST ~:0
ZONING:"I-2"PROPOSED USE:Convenience store and car
wash
PLANNING DISTRICT:Heights -Hillcrest
CENSUS TRACT:15
VARIANCES REQVESTED:None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The owner of this parcel is seeking to rezone property he
owns on Cantrell Road as a planned commercial development.
The property consists of two adjacent lots and twostructures.One of the structures is an existingconveniencestorewithgaspumps.The second structure is acarwash.The property is level and totally paved inasphaltandconcrete.
The purpose of the request is to permit the present use,
expand buildings and enhance the property.
In addition,the property owner proposes to dedicateadditional15'ight-of-way and make the required street
widening improvements on Highway 10.
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIYISION
Item No.8 (Continuedi
A.PROPOSALQREQUEST:
This proposal involves a convenience store with gas
pumps and car wash on a two-lot property presently
zoned "I-2"
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by two structures.The
parking is paved in asphalt and concrete.The adjacentstreetsaredevelopedtocitystandard.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide principal arterial right-of-way (55 feet fromcenterline)for Cantrell Road frontage.Construct
widening to Cantrell Road to conform to preliminary
design on file in Public Works Engineering.Proposed
driveways should be reduced to one 40 'riveway common
with the Coppess Motors property to the west,and one35'riveway for this frontage.If the setback is to
be reduced to 20',the canopy should not be permittedtoencroachinthesetback.Stormwater Detention
Ordinance applies.
E,ISSUESjLEGALjTECHNICALjDESIGN:
There are a number of detail items on the site plan
which require resolution.These are as follows:
1.Too many driveways on such a small site;
eliminate one.
2.Explain car wash design and indicate number of
spaces.3.Development must meet City Landscape Ordinance.4.Canopy should be reduced to size which will notencroachuponthebuildingline.
F.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's view of this proposal is that itisanattempttorenovatetheexistingautorelated
business.The site lies on a major arterial that needsspecialattentionfromdesignstandpointofviewtoeliminatemovementconflict.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 [Continuedl
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff reserves comment on this PCD subject toresolutionoftheseveralitemspointedoutabove,
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:{July 5,1990)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the "PCD".TheStaffofferedabriefoverviewoftheproblemsinthereviewofthisapplication.It was pointed out that the two issuesofgreatestconcerninvolvedright-of-way dedication andsetbacks.
It was determined that the applicant eliminate one driveway,dedicate right-of-way and it will be allowed for the canopytobeextendedoverthebuildingline.
The discussion then moved to the requirements for landscape.Richard Wood,of the Planning Staff,indicated that theapplicantneedstomeetwithBobBrown,from the Public
Works Department,to determine the status of landscaperequirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990}
The Planning Staff offered its recommendation of approval ofrevisedsiteplanasfiled.The applicant,Mr.McGetrick
was present.Mr.Pat McGetrick offered several comments onhisapplicationandlandscaperequirements.After a briefdiscussion,Commission determined that landscape needs to berestoredalongHighway10,even so it has to be placed onCityright-of-way.A motion was made to approve thisapplicationasamendedwithlandscapeplacedontheCityright-of-way and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,2absent.
3
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:S-873
NAME:Computer Dynamics
LOCATION:Pleasant Forest Drive and Woodland Heights Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mike Berg —RPM Thomas EngineeringP.O.Box 7300 3810 Lookout RoadLittleRock,AR 72217 North Little Rock,AR 72116
753-4463
AREA:1 acre NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"0-3"PROPOSED USE:Office
PLANNING DISTRICT:Highway 10
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES RE UESTED:None
A.PROPOSAL RE VEST:
This applicant proposes to construct a two storyfreestandingofficebuildingonthenorthwestcorner ofPleasantForestDriveandWoodlandHeightsRoadto
accommodate fast growing computer company needs.
In addition,the developer also attempts to buffer theofficeusepromnextdoorresidenceswitha50'ide
undisturbed strip of land.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site is currently occupied by a one story officebuilding.The parking is paved and landscaped.Thewestpartofthistractisgenerallyinanundisturbedstatewithlargetrees.Streets are constructed to thecitystandards.
1
July 17,1990
~SOBD VISION
Item No.9 Continued
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Eliminate driveway access to Pleasant forest Drive.
Construct sidewalk on Woodland Heights road frontage.Excavation and Detention Ordinances apply.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
a.The issues to be introduced here are as follows:
1.Identify areas where land alterationactivitiesoccur.2.Show side elevation and roof type.3.Lighting should be directed away fromresidentialneighborhood.
b.History of site:
1.June 14,1983,approved as a "PCD"for a
dance studio.2.July 12,1988,revocation of an approved"PCD"to "0-3"with conditions:
1)Mainenance of 40'uffer area and fenceofthewestandsouthboundary.
2)Retention of the vehicle access
prohibition along Pleasant Forest Drive.
E.ANALYSIS:
The proposed site plan is generally within conformanceoftheCityguidelines.The site plan does need,
however,to reflect a 40'ide undisturbed bufferparallelingPleasantForestSubdivisionalongthe
property line.
Finally,the applicant should eliminate south drivewaylinerecommendedbyEngineeringDepartment.
July 17,1990
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends approval subject to:
1.Complying with Engineering comments.2.Submitting a revised site plan as outlined in
the analysis section.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(July 5,1990)
Mr.Berg and Mr.Shoptaw were present.A lengthy discussion
followed,principally dealing with buffering and closing
driveway on Pleasant Forest Drive.Planning Staff offered
comments on Staff recommendation indicating the reasons for
keeping 40'uffer and closing driveway on the PleasantForestDrive.It was pointed out that on July 12,1988,"0-3"zoning was approved with two conditions.
1.Maintenance of 40'uffer area and fence on the
west and south.
2.Retention of the vehicle access prohibition along
Pleasant Forest Drive.
The result of the discussion was that Mr.Berg's site plan
remain the same as presented to Subdivision Committee andwillbereviewedbyfullCommissionforfinalapproval.
3
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.9 (Continued}
PLANNING COMMISSlON ACTlON:(July 17,1990}
The Planning Staff offered a brief comment on the Staff's
recommendation and point,out,that the St.aff supportapplicationifapplicantagreest,o eliminate driveway onPleasantForest.Drive,agrees t,o maintain 40 feet
undisturbed buffer and fence on the west side of the
propert,y.
Mr.McKinzey,owner of Computer Dynamic st,at,es that he wouldliketoaccessonthePleasantForestDriveforbetteronsitecarcirculation.Commissioner Olson asked if Mr.
McKinzey was aware of the restziction attached to thepropertywhenhepurchasedit.He said that he did bui,hisplansforexpansionwerenotdeterminedatt,hat time.
Mr.Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering St,aff,was asked
by Chairman to provide input on the access issue.Mr.
Gardner outlined several points of concern as follows:
The primary concern was traffic on Pleasant Forest Drive,
which cares about l},000 cars a day.He also stated that,Pleasant Forest is considered a collector street,but carries
a lot of traffic.
Mr.Gardner suggested to move building entrance furthernorthandmakecirculardriveaccessinandoutfrom
Woodland Heights.He also stated that with minor re-design,appli.cant can accomplish,pick-up and delivery service using
Woodland Heights ent.ry.
The Commission then asked Mr.Berg,Real Estate Developerforhiscomments.Mr.Mike Berg states that a computer
company needs access on Pleasant Forest for better security
and the access design also save trees on the site.
Chairman then asked Ns.Ann Bayless,property owner,directly west.from Computer Dynamic to express her concern.
Ms.Bayless was concerned about traffic problems,adequatebufferfromherpropertyandherneighbors,She also askedCommissiontoconsiderheightslimitationsforthebuilding
on the side to protect,t,he residential neighborhood.
Ms.Bayless also showed commission petition from neighboz.sexpressingalltheconcernsMs.Bayless pointed oui;.
July 17,]960
SIJBDIVIS:iON
Item No.9 (Continued}
A brief discussion followed involving Nr.Berg,Commission
and Ns,Bayless primarily dealing with access,turn around
place and using Woodiand ileights as an access street andeiiminateentranceonPleasant,Poresi.Drive.
Commissioner Leek suggested as t,o use access from Woodland
iieights and move building entrance further nori.h.Mr,Berg,again,stated that he wanted t,o save trees and increase
securii,y on the site
A brief discussion then followed centered on the driveways
and locations of the main entrance for the new building.It
was determined that significant redesign needs t.o beconsiderecl.
A motion was made to approve this item as submiti,ed witheliminationofsixparkingspacesonthewestsideoftheparking'ot.A mot.ion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,6 nays,4abstention,and 1 absent.
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.10 -Z-4746-B
NAME:John E.KnoedljCarl W.Knoedl
and Patricia K.Granberry
APPLICANT:The Mehlburger Firm by Beth
Zauner
LOCATION:I-630 and John Barrow Road
(Northwest Corner}
REQUEST:Rezone from "R-2"to "0-3"
PURPOSE:Office Development
SIZE:5.88 acres
EXISTING USE:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,zoned "R-2"
South -I-630 Right-of-Way,zoned "R-2"
East —Henderson Junior High School,zoned "R-2"
West —Single Family,zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone 5.9acresattheJohnBarrowRoad/1-630 interchange from "R-2"to "0-3".The proposal is to subdivide the land into fourlotsforofficeormedicalrelateduses,with a cul-de-sacservingthedevelopment.(The proposed plat is Item No.1ontheAgenda.)Currently,there is a single familyresidenceontheproperty,with the balance of itundeveloped.Also,the site is higher than the surroundinglandandresidences.
On the north side of I-630,the zoning is either "R-2"or"R-4",with the site in question abutting "R-2"land on allsides.At West Markham and John Barrow Roads,which isseveralblockstothenorth,there is some "C-3"zoning.South of I-630,the zoning includes "R-2","0-3","C-3"and"0-S".The land use in the general vicinity includes singlefamily,duplex,church,commercial and Henderson Junior
1
July 17,1990
Item No.10 —2-4746-B (Continued)
High.A number of the "0-3"and "C-3"tracts are vacant atthistime.Adjoining the site on the west and north sidesare16lotsthatarepartofawellestablishedsinglefamilyneighborhood.
Since 1986,there have been two attempts to reclassify t,hepropertyforcommercialuses.Each request was submitted asa"PCD"and both proposals included a motel.The firstplan,presented in 1986,was for a five lot development withamotelononelotandtheremaininglotsweretobesoldtoindividualdevelopers.There was strong neighborhoodoppositiontothefirst"PCD";a petition with over 250
names opposing the reclassification was offered to thePlanningCommission.Staff supported a two lot proposal forthemotelandoneothercommercialactivity.The requestwasdeniedbythePlanningCommissionandtheactionwasneverappealedtotheBoardofDirectors.
In 1989,the second "PCD"was filed for a three lotdevelopment.The 1989 proposal was a substantial reductionofthedevelopmentintensity,and had a 120 foot green belt
on the west side and a 65 foot buffer on the north.Staffdidnotsupportthe"PCD'ecause of the adopted plan andfeltthatalandusethatwasmorecompatiblewithasinglefamilyneighborhoodwasdesirable.The issue was finallywithdrawnbecausetheapplicant's purchase agreement hadexpired.
The West Little Rock District Plan is the planning documentforthearea,and it shows the site for single family use.Therefore,if the Planning Commission endorses the proposedrezoning,a plan amendment will be presented to the Board ofDirectorsfortheirconsideration.
Staff indicated in 1989 that a more intense use than singlefamilywasreasonableforthesite,and our position remainsthesame.An office/medical facility mix may be theappropriatelanduseconceptforthesite,provided that thedevelopmentdoesnotimpacttheresidentialsubdivision.Maintaining the livability of the residential neighborhoodmustbeahighpriority,especially i'or the lots that adjointheproperty.The quality of life for the neighborhoodshouldnotbealteredbytheproposedproject.
To protect the integrity of the neighborhood,it is obviousthat.a generous buffer/green belt is needed along the westandnorthpropertylines.The size of the buffer is
2
July 17,1990
Item No,10 -2-4746-B (Continued)
critical and must be done in a way that safeguards thecharacteroftheneighborhoodbyprovidingtheneededseparationbetweentwopotentiallyconflictinguses.Ifthiscanbeaccomplished,then Staff is of the opinion thatanofficetypeuseisareasonableoptionfortheproperty.
The proposed nonresidential use and the grade differencebothcreatetheneedforbuffering.Without a substantialbuffer,the development could overwhelm the neighborhood andreducethelivabilityofthelots.Another factor thatnecessitatestheneedforbui'fering is building height whichisunknownatthistime.
(Several of the office tracts adjacent to the BirchwoodSubdivisionhave50foot"0-S"buffers and some have no"0-S"area.The office development at the northwest cornerofShacklefordandFinancialCenterParkway,zoned "0-2",has only a 25 foot setback and it has been a very visableimpactontheresidentiallotstothenorth.)
Staff feels that to adequate buffer the residential lots,a50footgreenbeltisneededalongthewestpropertyline
and a portion of the north property line.A 50 foot area isnotneededalongtheentirelengthofthenorthsidebecausetheproposedstreetislocatedadjacenttothenorthline.With a 25 foot buffer and the street right-of-way,itappearsthattherewouldbesufficientseparationbetweentheresidentiallotsandtheproposedofficesite.(Theplatshowsonlya16footlandscapedareawithinthestreetright-of-way adjacent to the north property line).INadditiontothebufferalongthenorthside,Staff is
recommending an eight foot screening fence in place of therequiredsixfootfence.
An office development appears to be a viable alternative ifawelldefinedareaisestablishedtoseparatetheresidentialandnonresidentialuses.The zoning plan andplathavemadenoprovisionsforbuffers,except for alandscapedareaintheright-of-way.St.aff is reluctant toendorsethe"0-3"reclassification without some assurancesthattheneededbufferingisprovided.The potential forimpactingtheresidentialsubdivisionistoogreat,and thedevelopmentmust.be sensitive to its relationship with theneighborhood.Because of the various concerns raised,a"PUB"may be the appropriate review process for the portionofthesitethatabutstheresidentiallots.
3
July 17,1990
Item No.10 -Z-4746-B (Continued)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reserved until additional information is submitted andseveralissuesareaddressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990}
(NOTE:Items Nos.1 and 10 were discussed together}
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,spoke first and recommendedapprovalofthepreliminaryplatandthe"0-3"rezoning.Hethenreviewedvariousissues,including fences andsidewalks.Mr.Lawson indicated that all parties were inagreementonhowtoproceedwiththesidewalksandtheplacementofthefence.
Wes Lowder,representing the applicant,then addressed theCommission.Mr.Lowder made some comments about theproposalandpresentedapreliminarysiteplanforLot 2.
He went on to say that there would be a 40 foot buffer onthewestandnorthsidesuptothenewroad.From the roadtotheeastpropertyline,the developer was proposing a 25footlandscapedareawhenLot4wasdeveloped,with a twofootstripadjacenttothenorthpropertylineplattedas apartofLot4.
George Irvin,a resident on Deerbrook Road,asked thequestionsaboutbuildingheight.Mr.Lowder said theproposedbuildingforLot2wouldbeonestoryonthe eastand1-1/2 stories on the west side.Mr,Irvin alsoquestionedwhya50footbufferwasnotshown.Mr.Lowderindicatedthata50footbufferwouldimpactthenorthwestlot,that being Lot 1.He also said that the buffer shouldbeuniformandtherewerelargetreesalongthewestpropertylinethatshouldhelpscreenthedevelopment.Mr.Lowder said the development would limit the height of thebuildingonLot1(the northwest corner}to two stories.
Comments were offered by several Commission members,andCommissionerOlsonfeltthattomuchdensitywasbeingproposedforthesmalllots.
4
July 17,1990
Item No.10 -Z-4746-B (Continued)
George Irvin spoke again and discussed previous developmentsfortheproperty.Mr.Irvin then questioned whether a 40footbufferwasadequate,and said there needed to be heightrestrictions.He asked about controlling the property withan"0-3"rezoning and reviewed some of the uses in the "0-3"district that the neighborhood had problems with.Mr.Irvinwentontosaythattheneighborhoodwassatisfiedwithanofficedevelopment,and the residents did meet to discusstheissues.
There were some comments made about attaching conditions toarezoning.Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,saidtheCommissioncouldconditionarezoningand/or placerestrictionsonit.
Commissioner Olson then asked why a "PUD"was not beingused.Wes Lowder responded by saying a "PUD"was not filedfrompracticalstandpoint.Mr.Lowder said "PUD's"cost
money,and there were a lot of cost just to go through theprocess.
Rett Tucker of Flake and Company,the developer,said thatLot4wouldbelimitedtotwostories,and lot 3 to threestories.Mr.Tucker also said this could be reversed if thelotsizeschanged.
Wes Lowder said that Lot 4 would have to be larger ii'three story building was proposed.Mr.Lowder went on tosaythatthewestlotshaverestrictionsandtherewould beadequateseparationbetweentheofficestructuresandtheresidences.He also said the developer would be responsibleforreplantingthebufferifsomethinghappenstoit.
The Commission first voted on the preliminary plat forKnoedlPark.The plat was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0nays,and 1 absent.A motion was then made to recommendapprovalof"0-3"conditioned on Lots 1 and 2 beingrestrictedtotwostorybuildings,and Lots 3 and 4 beinglimitedtotwoorthreestories,with the larger lot havingthethreestorystructure.The motion passed by a vote of10eyes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.11
NAME:Tyner Road Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5342)
LOCATION:The West side of Tyner Road570'of Fourche Dam Pike(1708 Tyner Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT:Marie Fletcher/Richard E.and
Gene L.Siegler
PROPOSAL:
To place a 1400 square foot double wide manufactured home on0.54 plus or minus acres of land that is zoned "R-2".
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1,Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Tyner Road).
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is abutted by single family uses located tothenorth(side yard relationship),south (side yardrelationship)and east (front yard relationship)withvacantlandlocatedtothewest(garden).The primarylanduselocatedtotheeastisindustrial(salvageyard).The proposed use is compatible with thesurroundingarea.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
A drive way (access is proposed on Tyner Road.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing treesandshrubsaslandscaping.
5.City Engineer Comments
None
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.11 (Continued)
6.Analysis
The Staff does not foresee any adverse impact to thesurroundingareaasaresultofthisproposal(See Note
No.2).The applicant is proposing to comply with allCityOrdinancesandCodes.
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The Staff stated that city sewerservicewasnotavailabletothesiteandthattheapplicanthadstatedthatthesitewouldperkquiteeasily.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
The applicant was present as was one objector,Ms.Jan
Young.The Staff stated that the application met theOrdinancerequirementsandrecommendedapprovalasfiled.
Ms.Young presented a petition of opposition containing thesignaturesof22people.She stated that the objection wasprimarilyduetothelikelydepreciationofpropertyvaluesthatwouldresultifamanufacturedhomewasplacedinthearea.A general discussion ensued.The CommissiondeterminedthattheapplicationwouldmeetOrdinancerequirementsandvoted9ayes,0 nays,1 absent,and 1abstention(Oleson)to approve the applicat,ion as
recommended by the Staff.
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.12
NAME:Bright Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5343)
LOCATION:The west side of Junior Deputy
Road,200'outh of West 20thStreet(2008 Junior Deputy
Road).
OWNER/APPLICANT:Thomas and Linda Bright
PROPOSAL:
To remove an existing 1971 model,780 square footnonconformingsinglewidemobilehomeandtoreplace it witha1990model,1456 square foot double wide manufacturedmobilehomeon0.33 plus or minus acres of land that iszoned"R-2".
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Ad)scent to a residential street (Junior Deputy Road).
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is abutted by the following land uses andrelationships.
Direction Use Relationship Structure
North Single
Family Side Yard Frame
South Single
Family/
Office Side Yard Brick
East Vacant
West Single
Family/{2)Rear Yard Frame/
Mobile
Home
1
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 (Continued)
The proposal will allow the removal of the asphalt
parking in the front yard and the replacement of a
nonconforming unit with one that meets the City Codes.
The proposal should be compatible with the surroundingarea.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains an 11.8 feet (width)asphalt drive
and a parking area located in the rear yard.
4.Screening and Buffers
The site contains trees and shrubs.
City Engineer Comments
None
6.Analysis
The Staff feels that the proposal will be compatible
with the surrounding area (See Note No.2).Theapplicant's proposal will meet City Building Codes andplacementrequirements(concrete block foundation).
7.Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REYIEW:
The applicant was present.There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
The applicant was present.There were two objectorspresent.The Staff stated that,the application met theOrdinancestandardsandrecommendedapprovalasfiled.
Ms.Darcia Norwood,Secretary for Sewer Improvement DistrictNo.147,spoke in opposition to the proposal.She statedthatallowingmanufacturedhousingintheareawouldprovide
2
July 17,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 (Continued)
inadequate value and hurt the assessment in the district,
t,hereby causing long term financial difficulty for the area.She further stated that a dump truck was being parked on thesubjectproperty.She also questioned the possible
nonconformance status of the accessory buildings in the rearyardarea.The Staff stated that the commercial vehicleordinanceprohibitedtheparkingofadumptruckonsite,and that only one accessory building was nonconforming by amarginof1.3 feet on the side yard.Staff also stated thatthenonconformingaccessorybuildingwouldnotprecludemakingtheprincipalstructureaconforminguse,providedtheapplicationwasapprovedbythePlanningCommission.
Mr,J.H.Penny of 524 West Scenic Drive,stated that he
owned property in the area and that initially he had beenopposedtotheideaofmanufacturedhousing,but that he hadchangedhismindandwasnowinfavorofit.
Ms.Karen Johnson,attorney for Frank Daley,spoke inoppositiontotheproposal.She stated that manufactured
housing in the area would hurt the long term financialopportunitiesforthesewerimprovementdistrictbecause itwouldtendtoprecludeothersfrombuildingmoreexpensiveconventionalhousing.
The Commission questioned the Staff about whether or not theapplicationmettheordinancerequirements.The Staffstatedthatitdid.The Commission then asked the CityAttorney,Stephen Giles,whether they could deny theapplication,if it in fact met the City Orclinancerequirements.Mr.Giles stated that if the application mettheOrdinancerequirements,there would be no justificationorgroundsfordenial.
The Commission then voted 10 eyes,1 absent to approve theapplicationasrecommendedbytheStaff.
3
P I ANN IN G COMMIS S ION
VOTE RL'CORD
DATE
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER 8 aia3%a V S'o
W.Riddick,III V u Y v 0
Yalker Brad V V v v v v 0 v'v V
MCDaniel V V 0 V V
M.Hi ler v v v v Jv Y v v +
.''.
NiChOlSOn V V &V v'8 V V 0 V
zv'r'elz,
Joe vvYvv'tv vvv'Vvvv
S.Leek Fjv v 0 V VV v &V'v
Nhitfield V V'V V V V V V u 0 0 V
K.Oleson v-vQ vv V.v'v.
R.Collins b 6
F.Perkins V v'vv v vuv Q V g ~V v
u iiYE Cl NiiYR A IIDSENT +ADSTliIH
t
July 17,1990
There being no further business before the Commission,the
c
meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Cha m Secre y
8 F8
D e