pc_08 28 1990subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
S~Y AND MINUTE RECORD
August 28,1990
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 July 17,1990 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
I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 28,1990
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z-3442-A Baseline Road at I-30 "I-2"to "C-3"
PRELIMINARY PLATSl
1.LMG Subdivision (S-872)
REPLAT:
2,Big R/Arktic Ice Replat (8-859)
3,Trigon Addition (S-818-B)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
4 ~Phillips 66 —Short Form PCD (Z-3294-B)
5.Parkway Village —Modified PRD (Z-3168-A)
6.Worthen Bank Short Form —PCD (Z-5350)
7.Union National Bank Short Form —PCD (Z-4386-A)
REZONING;
8,David O.Dodd Road ("R-2"to "R-7A")
SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN:
9.Ray Satterfield Site Plan (S-871)
ZONING SITE PLAN'.
10.David 0,Dodd (2-5353-A)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS;
11.Rees C.V ~P (Z —3609 —A)
12.Summit C.U.P (Z-5351)
13.Mabelvale Cut-Off C,U,P,(Z-5352)
14.Kanis Road —C.U.P.(Z-5354)
EASEMENT ABANDONMENT;
15.Kensington Place (G-23-140)
16,Sherrill Heights Addition (G-23-142)
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.A —Z-3442-A
NAME:Billy Jane Bussa
APPLICANT:Rick Ashley
LOCATION;Baseline Road at I-30
REQUEST:Rezone from ni 2s to sC 3ir
PURPOSE Retail Development
SIZEl 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'he
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.ThepropertyissituatedsouthofBaselineRoadandjusteast ofwhereBaselineRoadintersectsI-30.The land is wooded andvacant.
Land use in the general vicinity is single family,multi—family,commercial and industrial.The single family andmulti-family uses are found in a well-establishedneighborhoodthatislocateddirectlytotheeast,andextendsfromBaselineRoadtotherailroadtracks.Themulti-family units are situated on lots adjacent to BaselineRoadandaroundStratfordCourt,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 ismixedandincludes"R-2""C-3"and "I-2".
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.A (Continued)
On Geyer Springs West District Plan,the property under
consideration is shown as part.of a large office/commercial
area.Therefore,the proposed "C-3"reclassification
conforms to the adopted plan and Staff supports the
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 I'r an OS
area in the zoning ordinance.
ENG1NEERING COMMENTS:
None reported.
STAIeF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning,except for
the existing 50 foot OS area adjacent to the east property
line.
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 cosssercial 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.
2
August.28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No,A (Continued)
There was some discussion about various issues including the
need to re-notify the neighborhood when a site plan wasfiledwiththeCity.
A motion was then offered to condition the rezoning approval
on a site plan review.The motion failed to receive asecond.
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
50'0-3"buffer.
Ann Summerville asked that the item be deferred for a periodoftimetoallowformoreneighborhoodinvolvement.ShealsoremindedtheCommissionthatpropertyvalueshavedecreasedinthearea.
Mr.Hankins made some final statements and said that a fence
on the interior of the "O-S"area would make maintenancenexttoimpossible.
A motion was made to recommended 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 linkerectedontheeasternboundaryofthefiftyfoot"0-S"strip.The vote was 3 ayes,4 nays,4 absent and 1abstention(Martha Miller).The item was automaticallydeferredtotheJuly17,19SO hearing.
Comments were offered by Commission Collins after the vote
was taken.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No,A (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 17,1990)
Prior to the hearing&the applicant,requested that therezoningbedeferred,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.Themotionwasapprovedbyavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (August 28,1990)
As requested,the Planning Commission voted to withdraw the"C-3s rezoning without prejudice.The vote was 10 ayes,0naysand1absent.
4
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.'-872
NAME:LMG Subdivision
LOCATION.'NW corner of Kanis and Nix Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
LMG,INC.McGETRICK ENGINEERING5708Lowrence11225HuronLaneNorthLittleRock,AR 72116 Little Rock,AR 72221227-9292 223-9900
AREAl 2.649 NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET'
ZONING.'-2 PROPOSED USES'Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT:Rock Creek Valley
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES
REQUESTED'.
ALL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
2.SIDEWALK
A.PROPOSAL/REQUESTS
The applicant proposes a two-lot,preliminary platprovidingforthefuturedevelopmentasacommercialtract.On Lot ¹2,t,he Developer is proposing a
temporary manufactured house unit as a replacement forburnedresident,ial house.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is occupied by a single familyresidenceandconcretepadfromtheburneddownhouse.The minor arterial lying along the south boundary is a
t,wo lane road with ditches on both sides.The streetlyingimmediat,ely east,being Nix Road,is t,o thecountyst,andards.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.1 (Continued)
C.ENGINEERING
COMMENTS'rovide
minor arterial R/W and improvements for Kanis
Road,residential street R/W and improvements for NixRoad.Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply.
DE ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGNS
The only issue in this category which will requireresolutionistheownershipandidentificationof thepartofplatunderstatement"not included in plat".
ED ANALYSIS:
The Staff review of this preliminary plat indicates a
few design issues.The points made in Item D and CabovearetheprimaryconcernsofStaffandEngineeringDepartment.
The Staff feels that this is re-establishing a burned
down house which is in keeping up with our new policytoencouragehousingrevitalization.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with
recommendation of waiver approval at this time.At anyfuturerezoning,developer must commit to all street
improvements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW,'August 16,1990)
The applicant was represented by Pat McGetrick.The Staffrecommendationwasdiscussed.Mr.McGetrick was instructedthatheneededtoresearchforownershipof"not included inplat"part of plat.
There were several design elements discussed.These dealtprimarilywiththeright-of-way dedication and streetimprovements.It was determined that right-of-way bededicatedonthisplatandallstreetimprovementsbedeferredatthistime.It was explained that replacement ofburneddownhomebymanufacturehomeonLot¹2 cannotjustifyforallstreetimprovements.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.1 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION'.(August 28,1990)
There were objectors in attendance.The application was
represented by Mr,McGetrick and Mr.Paul Johnson.This
item was discussed in conjunction with Item 414 CUP on this
agenda.The Planning Staff presented its recommendation
being approval of the preliminary plat with recommendation
of all street improvements deferral at this time,but anyfuturechanges,Developer must commit to all street
improvements and sidewalks.
The Chairman then asked Mr.Johnson to present hisapplication.He agreed with Staff recommendations.
The Chairman then asked for person present in objection totheproposal.Mr.Roger Marsh,resides at 13501 Kanis Road,
asked for more information on proposed manufactured home.
His concerns are property value and appearance to theneighborhood.
The Chairman asked Mr,Marsh if he oppose subdivision.Hestatedthathedoesnotopposesubdivision,but he opposes
placement of manufactured house,which is Item ((14 on this
agenda as a CUP.
The Commission then decided to vote on these issuesseparatly,A motion was then made to approve preliminaryplatwithrecommendationofallstreetimprovementsdeferralatthistime.Any future changes,Developer must commit toallstreetimprovements.The motion was approved by a voteof9ayes,1 nay (K.Oleson}and 1 absent.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-659
NAME:Big R/Arktic Ice Replat
LOCATION:NE corner of Bond and 9th Streets
DEVELOPER.'NGINEER:
Arktic Ice,Inc.Summerlin Associates,Inc.
1609 S.BroadwayLittleRock,AR 72205
376-1323
AREA:5.0 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS;2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-3 PROPOSED USES:Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT'I-30
CENSUS TRACTS 3
VARIANCES REQUESTED;
1.Waiver of Building Setbacks
PLAT DEFICIENCIES NOTED:
a.Source of Title Deed Book and Page.b.Adjacent Subdivisions,Names-Plat Book and Page Number.c,Acreage.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST;
This Developer proposes the creation of two industriallotsoutoflargerlotpresentlyzoned"I-3".
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by several structures.
Two buildings located on the south part of the tractareinastateofextremedisrepair.The site is pavedinasphalt.The adjacent streets are developed to Citystandards.
C.ENGINEERING
COMMENTS'rovide
Collector Street R/W and improvements for BondStreet,Improvements for E.9th Street and ReichardtStreetarerequiredunlessthesestreetsareclosed.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.2 (Continued}
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGNS
There are no apparent legal issues except the basic
ordinance requirements that have been omitted from theplat.There are several design issues relative to the
building lane where they should be established and
where the developer requests them to be waived.
Sidewalks and R/W need to be shown on the plat and thelastoneistheneedforspecificwaiverrequestonstreetimprovements.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of this replat indicates few
design issues.The points made in Item D and C above
are the primary concerns of Staff and Engineering
Department,.The right-of-way and sidewalks presence on
the plat are important to evaluate existing conditions
and master street needs.
The remaining design issue to be identified by the
Engineer,is the building lanes.We feel the building
lines should be established on street frontages and
also be shown where developer requests them to be
waived.
Our last point of concern is that the Engineering Staff
suggested to close E.9th and Reichardt Streets.The
applicant needs to file application for street
abandonment with Anna Brown at the Planning Office.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this replat subject to
complying with the Engineering and Planning Staff
comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW (August 16,1990)
Mr.James Summerlin was present representing the
application.The Staff recosusendation was discussed.Staff
suggested to Mr.Summerlin to close 9th and ReichardtStreetstoavoidimprovementrequirements.Those streetsarenotservinganypurpose.Mr.Summerline agreed to fileapetitionwiththeCityClerkandAnnaBrownfromPlanningStaff.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.2 (Continued}
There were several design elements discussed.These dealtprimarilywiththeimprovementsonBondStreet&sidewalksandbuildinglines.Mr.Summerlin agreed to revise thisplat.
A discussion then moved again to the street closure issues.
The Planning Staff suggested making this a part of theapplicationtoincludeintheStaff's recommendation asbeingapproved,subject to public right-of-way abandonment
and street closure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August ZB 1990)
The Staff told the Commission that the replat needed to bedeferedbecauseofanoticedeficiency.A motion was madetodeferthisitemtoSeptember11,1990 Agenda and passed
by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO ~:S-818-B
NAME:Trigon Addition —Replat
LOCATION'Baseline Road Sibley Hole Road and I-430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Trigon Properties Samuel Davis3620West69thStreet5301West8th StreetLittleRock,AR Little Rock,AR 72206562-6064 664-0324
AREA:4.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS;3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-2 PROPOSED USES:Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT'Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACTS 41,03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1.All street improvements on Baseline Road.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This applicant proposes a four-lot replat involvingindustriallots,presently zoned "I—2".Owner oi'histracthasimmediateplansfordevelopmentofLot1-Rwiththeconstructionofa10,000 square foot officeandwarehousebuilding.Lot 2-R and 3-R will remainundevelopedatthepresenttime,but will be availableforsaleandfuturedevelopment.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land has been cleared and prepared forconstruction,The principal arterial lying along thesouthboundaryisatwolaneroadwithditchesonbothsides.The Sibley Hole Road is constructed to thecountystandardsandwillserveasanaccessroad toLot1-R and 2-R.
C.FNGINLERING COMMENTS:
No Comments.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.3 (Continued)
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN'.
None.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff's review of the site reveals no
problems with the proposal as presented.
F.STAFF RL'COMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of the replat with
recommendation of the waiver approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(August 16,1990)
The application was represented by Mr,Davis and Mr.Jim
Rhodes.The Staff recommendation was discussed.Mr.Davis
described the plat and various elements of the proposal.He
indicated that this plat is a preliminary plat for all lots
and final plat for Lot ¹1.He stated that Lot ¹2 and ¹3
will be final plated when sold for development.
Mr.Gardner suggest showing phasing on the plat to allow
final plat,ting in the future.
Mr.Davis agreed to revise his plat before the Public
Hearing.There being no further discussion,the matter was
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
There were no objectors in attendance.The Staff
recommended placement of this item on the consent agenda for
approval of the revised preliminary plat for Lots 1,2,and
3 and final plat for Lot 1 with Staff support to deferral ofallstreetimprovementsuntilfuturedevelopmentoccurson
Lot 3.A motion was then made to that effect.The motion
was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.;4 FILE NO.:Z-3294-B
NAME:Phillips 66 -Short Form PCD
LOCATION:SE corner of Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Road
DEVELOPER ENGINE'ER:
Phillips 66 Company White-Deters &Associates555RepublicDrive401VictorySuite109LittleRock,AR 72201Piano,TX 75074 374-1666214-423-7687
AREA:0.5 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT,NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-1 PROPOSED USES:Phillips 66 retail gas and car
wash
PLANNING DISTRICT'Highway 10
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED;None.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Phillips 66 Company proposes to build a retail gas facilityandautomaticcarwashatthesoutheastcorneroftheintersectionofHighway10andPleasantRidgeDrive.
The Layout of the facility and site has been done within the
Highway 10 Overlay District requirements.Access isprovidedfromHighway10andPleasantRidgeDrive.
The canopy of the proposed facility is 75'rom Highway 10,with 35'ide landscape area on Highway 10 frontage.Therewillbe792s.f.retail building,4 pumps and 20 parkingspaces.Both car wash and building will have natural stone
masonry exteriors.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant involves a single tract of'and which isproposedforuseasaretailgasandautomaticcarwash.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.4 (Continued}
B.EXISTING
CONDITIONS.'his
site is covered with scrub brush and gravel.Theadjacentstreets,Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Drive,are developed to the city standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide 15 foot additional R/W on Cantrell Road,construct sidewalks and HC ramps on Pleasant Ridge Roadfrontages.
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGNS
The several issues to be introduced are as follows:
1 ~Show parking spaces on the site plan.2.Show berm on site plan and design which avoid
placement on the sewer easement.3,Coordinate landscape design with Bob Brown fromourdepartment.4.Provide side elevations for staff review.5.Show sidewalks and HC ramps on the site plan.
E.
ANALYSIS'here
are several additional items concerning the siteplanwefeelrequireadditionalworkonthepartofthearchitectandthedeveloper.This includes the
landscaping,side elevations,sidewalks,HC ramps,andparking.The total landscaping should be coordinatedwithBobBrownfromourofficetoavoidanyproblemsbeforeabuildingpermitisissued.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Staff recommends approval of this PCDsubjectto:
i..Landscape approval by Bob Brown.2.Placement of sidewalks,HC ramps and parking onthesiteplan.3.Providing side elevation for Planning Commissionreview.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.4 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(August 16,1990)
Mr.Joe White was present representing this Short-Form PCD.
Staff presented sketch with raw landscape requirements for
Highway 10 on this site.Mr.Lawson,Planning Director,
explained that Stai"f had been discussing all aspects of PCD
including landscape and traffic to avoid any problems
before building permit is issued.Staff indicated that it
might be appropriate to add some landscaping around the
building and gas pump islands.The Committee pointed out
that landscape would be damaged by service station
customers.
The only remaining item was additional right-of-way
dedication,sidewalks and handicap ramp requirements on
Pleasant Ridge Road.Mr.White agreed to include those on
the site plan as requested by Staff".He also presented
typical Phillips 66 side elevation for Staff review.
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwarded
to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
The applicant was present.The Planning Staff ofi'ered an
expanded recommendation on this proposal as follows.The
Planning Staff recommends approval of the Short-Form PCD for
gas and convenience store retail.The applicant met most of
the Hwy 10 overlay requirements except building setbacks and
tract size.The Staff continued stating that in order to
compensate those,applicant agreed to share curb cut on Hwy
10 with already existing liquor store.Dedicate additional
15 1"oot R/W,place sidewalks,handicap ramps and add
landscape around the building.
Mr.Lawson also added that size of the tract is limited by
already existing commercial building on the east and
Pleasant Ridge Road on the west.
Commissioner Oleson then requested information on the
specifics of how the building setbacks would be affected if
applicant eliminated car wash.
Mr.Lawson stated that this is not a typical gas station
with car repair bays,it is convenience store and gas pumps.
In order to be successful they would have to have car wash.
3
August 88,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.4 (Continued)
Mr.White representing applicant stated that car wash is oneoi'he marketing tools.He also introduced Mr.Steve Mart.in
from Phillips 66 who stated that it would increase 38%%uo in
number of customers.Mr.White also presented side
elevation to the commission.
A commission member,Brad Walker,then asked if applicant
proposes an American flag on the site.Mr.Steve Martin
stated that most of the Phillips 66 Station does not have
flags and it will not be placed on this site plan.
Cosssissioner Miller called the question.The PCD was
approved as presented on revised site plan and passed by a
vote of 10 eyes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
4
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.t 5 FILE NO.l Z-3168-A
NAME:Parkway Village —Revised PRD
LOCATION:West from Chenal Parkway and Pride Valley RoadIntersection
DEVELOPER',ENGINEER;
Parkway Village White-Daters &,Associates
401 Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201
374-1666
AREA:16.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:0 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PUD PROPOSED USES:Retirement Community
PLANNING DISTRICT:Rock Creek Valley
CENSUS TRACT;22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED;None.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL;
This applicant proposes a revision of the original PRDapplication.Revision proposes increase in number of unitsandchangeofstreetlay-out.The structure design willremainthesameasaduplexunitwithrearloadeddoublegarage.Extensive landscape will be used for open spaces.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This applicant proposes to revise the existing PlannedResidentialDistricttoincreasethenumberofduplexunitsandchangeon-site street lay-out.Thismodificationwillonlyai'feet Phase III originallyapprovedPRD.
B,EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is generally in an undisturbed statewithlargematuretimber.The parkway lying along thesouthboundaryisconstructedtotheCitystandards.There are houses being constructed on Phase II directlyeastfromthisapplication.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.5 (Continued}
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Document satisfaction of the detention requirements.Excavation ordinance applies.
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGNS
This plan was previously approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Board,and a PRD is in place atthistime.The PRD of record permits the buildings and
driveways intended by the application with somewhatdifferentlayoutofstructuresandstreets.The PRD inplacemodifiedtheapprovedstreet,layout and buildingdesignonPhaseIIIonly.
The new design of the site plan is adequate to the site
and proposal.There are two detail items on the site
plan which require some resolution.These are asfollows:
1.Increase the width of the garage entry alley to22'o allow better circulation.2.Specify building setbacks and show on site plan.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff finds little of consequence to
comment on in connection with this new proposal.It
appears to be a good design with plenty of open space.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested modificationsubjecttoincreaseofwidthofgarageentryalleysandplacementofbuildinglinesonsiteplan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEWS (August 16,1990)
Mr.White was present representing this modified PRD.TheStaffrecommendationwasdiscussed.Mr.White indicatedthattheStaffrecommendationpresentednoproblem.HeagreedtorevisedsiteplanasrequestedbyStaff.
Mr.Gardner from Engineering,stated that the detention
ponds on the revised site plan are well located and satisfyCityrequirements.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.5 (Continued}
There being no further discussion,the matter was forwardedtothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.'August 28,1990}
The applicant was in attendance.The Planning Staffreportedthatthisitemshouldbeplacedontheconsent
agenda for approval in as much as there were no remainingissuestoberesolved.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined itappropriatetoplacethisitemontheconsentagendaforapproval.A motion was made to that effect and passed by avoteof10ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO,:6 FILE NO.:Z-5350
NAME:Worthen Bank -Short Form PCD
LOCATION:SE Corner of Highway 10 and Jerry Drive
DEVEI OPER l
ENGINEER.'avid
Henry Blase,Chilcote,Carter
2224 Cotton Dale Lane 303 West CapitalLittleRock,AR 72202 P.O.Drawer 3019
666-9393 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:0.5 NUMBER OF LOTS;2 FT.NEW STREETS 0
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Bank
PLANNING DISTRICT',Highway 10
CENSUS TRACT:1
VARIANCES
REQUESTED'TATEMENT
OF PROPOSAL
It is the Developer's desire to create a situation that is
in keeping with the Highway 10 development standards.Thesubjectpropertycontainsapproximately36,000 sf with
190 ft of frontage on State Highway 10.Because the
property is located at the intersection of Jerry Drive and
Highway 10,the applicant proposes to take access from JerryDrive,leaving the Highway 10 frontage undisturbed.
The actual development consist of a building site
approximately 2500 sf in size which will be developed in twophases.Phase 1 consists of approximately 960 sf and willcontainasmalllobbyanddrive-in banking facility with
automated teller.Phase II will be constructed within 2
years and will consist of an addition of 1640 sf,providing
a larger lobby area with additional indoor tellers.
The landscape,as reflected on the development plan,demonstrates applicant's cosusittment to City's Planning and
Development goals of the Highway 10 corridor.
Specifically with regard to landscaping and screening,the
plan indicates substantial landscaping and screening along
Highway 10 as well as east and south property lines.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.6 (Continued}
Also,the applicant intends to construct,additional paving
along Jerry Drive in order to accommodate a left turn laneattheintersectionwithHighway10tofacilitatetraffic
movement,and avoid potential traffic congestion.
A.
PROPOSAL/REQUEST.'his
application consists of a proposal to locate a new
branch bank on a tract of land little less than one
acre in area.Access would be taken from Jerry Drive
leaving Highway 10 frontage undisturbed.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site is currently occupied by a former single
family residence.The principal arterial lying along
north boundary is under const,ruction at,t,his time.Thestreetlyingimmediatelyonthewest,being Jerry
Drive,is constructed to the county standards.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS!
No comments.Plan present,ed sat,isfies all engineering
requirements.
DE ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL(DESIGN:
There are no issues associated with t,his PCD
application.
E.ANALYSIS;
The Planning Staff's review of the PCD reveals no
problems with the proposal as presented.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD application asfiled.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.6 (Continued)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(August 16,1990)
Mr.David Henry was present representing this application.Staff stated that the applicant had met with Planning andEngineeringStaffsforpre-application review.The presentsiteplansatisfiesallHighway10andEngineeringrequirements.The only addition to existing sidewalks are
handicap ramps required by ordinance which have been omitted
on the site plan.Applicant agreed to include them on theplan.
There being no further discussion on the matter,this item
was forwarded to the Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
Mr.David Henry was present representing this application.
The Planning Staff offered its recommendation of approval ofthisShort-Form PCD.The Planning Staff also added to therecommendationthattheapplicantmetmostoftheHwy10
requirements except the building setbacks and tract size.Mr.Jim Lawson expanded on the recommendation and statedthatinordertocompensatethose,the applicant agreed toleaveHwy10frontageundisturbedanduseJerryDriveforaccess.He also pointed out that existing residentialhousesontheeastandsouthsidesofthesubjectpropertyprohibitapplicantfromenlargingthesizeoftheparcel.
The Chairman then asked Mr,Henry to present his applicationMr.Henry agreed with Staff recommendation.He also statedthathisclientwasnotabletoacquiremorelandbecauseexistingsubdivisiononthesouthandeastoftheproperty.
He also added that 6'ence and extensive landscape on bothsideswouldscreenexistingneighbors.
The Chairman then recognized a person in the audienceseekingmoreinformation.Mr,Brown asked applicant aboutlandscapingontheeastside.
Mr.Henry&applicant,stated that 6'ence and willow oakswillbeplacedonthepropertyline.Mr.Brown wassatisfiedwithproposal.
3
August 28&1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.6 (Continued}
Mr,Lawson,the Planning Director,stated that the site plan
shows a 10 foot high sign.He indicated that a 10 foot signisforshoppingcentersonly.The applicant agreed todiscussreductionofthesignto6feethighwithhis clientbeforethisitembepresentedtotheBoardofDirectors.
A brief discussion oi'he proposal then followed with
comments from Mr.Henry and several of the Commissioners.It was determined to approved this short-form PCD subject tothesignconformancetothedesignoverlaycriteria,Themotionpassedbyavoteof9ayes&0 nays,1 abstention&and
1 absent.
4
NAME:Union National Bank —Short Form PCD
LOCATION;14711 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER.'NGINEER:
Union National Bank Stephen Warnock,ALA
14711 Cantrell Road ¹I Union Plaza,Suite 1150LittleRock,AR 124 West CapitalI.ittle Rock,AR 72201
AREA.'0.8 NUMBER OF LOTS'FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3 PROPOSED USES:PCD —Branch Bank
PLANNING DISTRICT:Highway 10
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED,None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Due to the western expansion of the City's population,viatheHighway10corridor,Union National Bank is wishing to
develop a new branch bank at 14711 Cantrell.
The Bank's opening date is projected to be May 1,1991.
The bank will provide drive-in and ATM services withoperationhoursfromMondaythruThursday8:30 to 5:00 p.m.
and Friday 8:30 to 6:00 p.m.
The site plan indicates substantial landscaping andsignificantbufferingareasalongtheHighway10frontage
measuring in depth from 40'o 60'rom Highway 10 curbline.
A.
PROPOSAL/REQUEST.'his
proposal consists of the construction of a branch
bank on one lot zoned "C-3"located along Highway 10corridor.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site currently is occupied by a formerunidentifiedbusinessbuilding.The principal arterial
lying along north boundary is under construction atthistime.
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.7 (Continuedj
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site currently is occupied by a formerunidentifiedbusinessbuilding.The principal arterial
lying along north boundary is under construction atthistime.
C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide 15 foot additional R/W on Cantrell Road,construct sidewalks on Cantrell frontage.
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The only issues to be introduced are as follows:
1.Coordinate landscape design with Bob Brown from
our department.
2.Show sidewalks on the site plan adjacent to curbline.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of the PCD reveals nosignificantproblemswiththeproposalaspresented.
The only issues need additional work is landscaping
which should be coordinated with Bob Brown to avoid anyfutureproblemswithbuildingpermit.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval of this plat subject to:
1.Dedication of an additional 15 foot R/W.2.Show sidewalks on the plat.3.Landscape approval by Bob Brown.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW'August 16,1990)
The applicant was present.This matter was discussedbriefly.The three points that were indicated by the Staffforfurtherreviewweretheapplicant's dealing withadditional15footright-of-way on Highway 10 frontage,sidewalk placement and landscaping.Applicant agreed todedicateright-of-way include sidewalks and work with Bob
Brown on landscaping.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.7 (Continued)
There being no further discussion on the matter,this itemwasforwardedtotheCommissionforfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
Mr,Steve Warnock was present,representing thisapplication,The Planning Staff offered its recommendationofapprovalofthisPCD.The Planning Staff also added thatthissiteisalreadyzoned"C-3"and applicant met most oftheHwy10Overlayrequirementsexceptbuildingsetbacksandparcelsize.Mr.Jim Lawson also indicated that thisapplicantproposesBfeethighsignwhichisinconformancewithHwy10OverlayDistrict.
Chairman Miller asked Mr.Warnock to present hisapplication.He stated that he agreed with Staffrecommendations.He indicated additional landscaping which
would compensate for not meeting all Hwy 10 Overlayrequirements.
Chairman called the question.The motion passed by a voteof9ayes,0 nays,1 absent,and 1 abstention.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 —Z-5353
NAME:Dan and Hardene Colclasure
APPLICANT:Hardene Colclasure
LOCATION'.David 0.Dodd Road
REQUEST'.Rezone from "R-2"to "R-7A"
PURPOSE:Mobile Home
SIZEl 0,33 acres
EXISTING USE:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE A(I',D ZONING;
North —Vacant and Single Family,zoned "R-2"
South —Single Family,zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant and Single Family,zoned "R-2"
West —Single Family,zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS',
The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone asiteonDavid0,Dodd Road from "R-2"to "R-7A"to permit a
single wide mobile home,("R-7A"also requires a site plan
review,and Item No,10 on this Agenda is the site planissue.)The property is located between Stagecoach Road andBrodieLaneonDavidO.Dodd.The lot is approximately I/3ofanacre,and has 80 feet of frontage on David O.Dodd
Road and an average depth of 181 feet.Currently,the siteisvacantandwooded.
Zoning in the area is primarily "R-2"Single Family.At
Brodie Lane and Stagecoach Road&there is a "C-1"parcel,
which was rezoned in 1989.Land use is more diverse andincludessinglefamily,commercial,industrial and an
elementary school.Because of being annexed to the city,a
majority of the commercial and industrial uses are
nonconforming.Throughout the neighborhood,there are alsotractsoflandthatareundevelopedatthistime.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No.8 —Z-5353 (Continuedj
The addition of a mobile home to the area will not introduce
a new element to the neighborhood because there are severalmobilehomesinplaceonBrodieLane.Also to the west on
David O.Dodd Road,there is a mobile home park.AnotherI'actor that should help support the placement of a mobile
home,is the area's land use,which is a mixture ofresidentialandnonresidentialuses.Adding another mobile
home should not impact the area,and Stai'f supports therequested"R-7A"reclassification.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
David O.Dodd Road is classified as a minor arterial which
has a right-of-way standard of 90 feet,or 45 feet from thecenterline.The existing right-of-way is deficient andadditionaldedicationwillberequired.
STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R-7A"rezoning as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION;(August 28,1990)
The applicant was present,There were no objectors and theitemwasplacedontheconsentagenda.A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "R-7A"rezoning as filed.Motionpassedbyavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:S-871
NAME:Ray Satterfield Tract
LOCATION:17250 Raines Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ray Satterfield Ben Kittler
17221 Raines RoadLittleRock,AR 72210
455-0601
AREA:4.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT ~NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT:Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT:
VARIANCES REQUESTED;None
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This proposal consists of a site plan review for 12freest,anding one bedroom houses on the 3 acre tractlocated3milesfromCit,y Limits west of Stagecoach
Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site is surrounded by a mixture of bothresidentialandsomenonconformingactivities.Thepropertyisboundedbyacountyroad,being Raines Road
on the north.The lot is partially cleared with mat,uretimberonthebacksideoftheproperty.
C.ENGINEERING
COMMENTS'rovide
minor arterial R/W and improvements for RainesRoad.On-site roads should be paved (HMAC).On-site
drainage design will need to be approved by Engineer.Detention Ordinance applies.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO,9 (Continued}
D.ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There are several issues to be introduced.They are asfollows:
1.Provide a 40 foot wide easement with 22 foot pavedsurfaceandincludeinBillofAssurance.2.Increase building setbacks to 25 foot.3.Provide letter from Health Department approvingseptictankinstallation.
E.ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Engineering Staff have thoroughly
reviewed this submittal with respect to all elements asrequiredbyordinance,WE find little or no concern
with the construction of the 12 free standing houses.
We would support a waiver of street improvements if thedeveloperdoesnotplatLot1and2atthistime.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval if the developer agrees to
comply with Planning and Engineering Staff comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(August 16,1990)
Mr.Satterfield was present.He described the site plan andvariouselementsoftheproposal.He indicated that a lackoffireprotectionforcedhimtobuild12individualsmallbuildingsinplaceofalargefreestandingbuilding.
The right-of-way dedication issue was explained to theapplicant,as well as,easement.requirements for the backlot,if applicant decides to replat his tract,
A discussion of septic tank installation resulted in theStaffsuggestingtheapplicantcontacttheHealthDepartmentforfinalapprovalandpresent.a letter to Planning Staff.
The question of the need for replat was raised as to whetheritwouldbeeasierforapplicanttoleavethistractinitspresentcondition.There were several opinions expressed.It was determined that the applicant will meet with hisengineerandchooseoneoftheoptionspresentedbytheCommittee.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.9 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
Mr.Ray Satterfield was present.The Staff recommended
approval of the site plan if developer agrees to pave hisdriveway.The Planning Staff also indicated that applicantmustdedicateadditionalR/W and asked for waiver of allstreetimprovements,
Mr.Gardner from Public Works stated he supports waiver
oi'llstreetimprovements.He also indicated that any futuresubdivisionofthistractwouldrequireallstreet
improvements.
The Chairman then asked Mr.Satterfield for his comments.
He stated that he does not object paving driveway afterreceivingfinancialreturnfromtenants.
Commissioner McDaniel asked a question about septic system.
Developer/Owner stated that he will use four septic tanks.Mr.Satterfield also added that he lives next door and hewillprotectthissitefromdemolishing.
A brief discussion then followed involving Mr.Satterfield
and several of the Cosusissioners.
It was determined that applicant will pave driveway one yearafterlastbuildingcompletedorthreeyearsafterfinal
approval of this application.
A motion was made to approve this application as amended andpassedbyavoteof9ayes,1 nay,and 1 absent.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10
Name:David O'Dodd Site Plan Review
(Z-5353-A)
Location:The south side of David O'Dodd
Road,420 feet west of
Stagecoach Road.
Owner/Applicant:Dan and Harlene Colclasure
PROPOSAL:
To place a single wide manufactured home on 0.33 acre lot.Presently the lot is zoned "R-2"single family.A rezoningto"R-7A"has been filed with the Commission.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide minor arterial right-of-way and improvements.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff feels that the applicants'equest is compatible withthesurroundingusesinthearea.The proposed manufactured
home will be underpinned with brick and attached to a two-car garage to the east side of the manufactured home.The
manufactured home will provide a front set back of 60 feet.
A walkway and gravel drive will also be provided.No curb
and guttering presently exist in this area.Due to the fact
an existing dwelling is already on the lot,a rezoning for"R-7A"has been filed with the Planning Cosusission.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION.'pproval
of the manufactured home,provided the applicantmeetsallthebuildingcoderequirementpertheBuilding
Codes Department.The Staff does support a waiver of thestreetimprovementsbecausethevalueoftheproposedconstructioncannotsupportthecostoftheimprovements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.Jerry Gardner of theEngineeringDepartmentstatedhewouldconsenttoa deferralofthestreetimprovementsbutstillrequiredthededicationofright-of-way.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 (Continued)
Little Rock Waste Water has indicated no sewer is available
on the site.The Little Rock Municipal Water Works states
an acreage charge will be required in addition to the normalconnectionfeeforwaterservices.
There were no other unresolved issues discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August,28,1990)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectorspresent.As part of the consent agenda&this item was
approved per the Staff's recommendation which stated theapplicantmeetingallthebuildingcoderequirements.Also&a waiver of the street improvements but the dedication ofright-of-way would still be required.
The vote for approval was 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11
Name .'ees Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3609-A)
Location:The southwest corner of
Fairview Road at Woodland
Heights Road.
Owner/Applicant:Richard Smith/John Rees
PROPOSAL:
The development of a 41,000 square foot Office Showroom
Warehouse which is allowed by right in a "0-3"GeneralOfficeZoningasaConditionalUsePermit(Section 36-281-B.3).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
SITE LOCATION'.
Adjacent to two residential streets (Woodland Heights andFairviewRoads).
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
A variety of uses abut this site.South,commercial andresidential,west,office,east,a church with school andoffice,and north,multi-family.The proposed developmentwillconsistofapproximately3.2 acres.Staff feels that,with existing use,this particular proposal is compatiblewiththeneighborhood.
ON-SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
No on-site drives or parking existing in as much as thepropertyisvacant.Once developed,the applicant willprovideforthree(3)curb-cute and exceed the parkingrequirementsforauseofthistypeinclusiveofthe pavingrequirements.
SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The applicant proposes to add zoysia grass,more bushes andshrubsalongwithasprinklersystem.The site will alsohavearetainingwallonthewestside.The ditch that runs
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 (Continued)
through the property shall be rerouted further south of thesouthdrivewithprovisionsmadefortransferringormakingitintoaculvertuponcommencementofPhaseII.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Sidewalks should include handicap ramps.Also,the
development,will have to meet,the requirements of theexcavationanddetentionsordinancesastheyapplyperEngineeringReview.
ANALYSIS:
The Staff does not foresee any adverse impact,on the
surrounding uses in the area as a result of the proposeduse.However,Staff would like to reiterat,e to theapplicantthattheoffice,warehouse&showroom display isallowedbyrightasaConditionalUseinthe"0-3"zoning
which specifically excludes any type of retail sales,i.e.contractors,builders cannot purchase supplies being sold onthepremiseasonepermittedtypeofservice.The warehouse
space shall not consume more than 60N of the individualspace.The building shall be constructed of brick veneer
with glass along front and sides and masonry and garagedoorsintherear.The building will have a very solid,traditional look that should add quality to the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to the applicant agreeing to;1)noretailsales',2)meeting of the present landscape ordinancerequirements;and 3)adhering to the issues as specified bytheEngineeringDepartment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not in attendance,Discussion occurredregardinganincreaseofthelandscapingwhichwillreducetheparkingspaces,but still allow the applicant to meettherequirednumber.The Little Rock Municipal Water Worksisrequiringwaterconnectiontobeatthenorthwest
property corner.There were no other unresolved issuesdiscussed.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 (Continued}
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
John Rees,the applicant was in attendance.Mr.David F.
Menz was present to represent Christ the King Church,who
was opposed to the development.
Staff gave the department recommendation which was approvalsubjectto1)no retail sales)2)meeting of the present
landscape ordinance requirementsl 3)water connection to belocatedatthenorthwestpropertycorner,and 4)adhering totheissuesasspecifiedbytheEngineeringDepartment.
Mr.Rees then addressed the Commission.He stated that itishisintentiontodevelopthesiteofthehighestquality.
There will be uses that are of the wholesale nature with noretailincluded.Discussion has already been done regarding
the landscaping and there is no problem with meeting the
requirements.The issues of Engineering and the Waterworks
will also be addressed.
A Commissioner then asked what,types of office,showroom,
warehouse uses did he have planned.Mr.Rees stated a small
computer sales,carpet sales and CPA office along with his
personal office.Staff then stated that,since this was thefirstapplicationofthistype,close observance will be
given when the building permit is obtained.Staff stated
that also before Certificates of Occupancies are issued,
each proposed use will be reviewed to see if it meets thecriteria.
Mr.David F.Menz then addressed the Commission.He stated
he was legal counsel for Christ the King Church.Through a
mix-up,the notice form was sent to the Arch Bishop rather
than the pastor of the church,therefore,the church onlyrecentlyreceivedthenotice.If possible,he would request
the Commission a deferral of this item until the Church has
time to review Mr.Rees's development.A Commissioner then
asked Mr,Menz what concerns did he think the Church would
have.Mr.Menz stated he did not know but felt that,atleastinterestwouldbetoaddressthingslikeanypossibletrafficproblembecauseoftheschoolthechurchoperates,as well as the hours of operation.
Staff then stated to the Commission and Mr.Menz that as farasthenoticerequirements,the applicant did what wasexpectedandinthepropertimeframe.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 (Continued)
Mr,Rees was then asked if he would consent to a two weekdeferral.Mr.Rees stated no because of time constraints
and he shouldn't be penalized,as Staff stated he did meetalltherequirements.
Staff then stated to the Commission that there is a thirty-
day appeal process that is established for the applicant and
any other persons,who may oppose the Conditional Use PermitonceapprovedbytheCommission.The appeal is handled attheBoardofDirector's level and filed with the CityClerk's Office,
More discussion continued regarding the types of uses that
go in a office,showroom,display warehouse use.OneCommissionerfeltthattheapplicantandStaffwerenotthinkingonthesamelines.Another Commissioner thenstatedthatitwasuptoStafftomakethosetypeofdecisions.Staff and Mr.Rees felt that some understandingcouldbeagreedupon.The question was then called in theformofamotiontoapprovetheConditionalUsePermitpertheStaff's recommendation.The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes,1 nay,2 abstentions (Oleson and Miller)and 1absent.
4
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12
Name:Summit Avenue Conditional Use
Permit (2-5351)
Location'.The northwest corner of West
15th and Summit Streets (1422
Summit).
Owner/Applicant;Pamela and Rosetta Marshall
PROPOSAL:
To convert the lower floor of a two story carriage houseintoagarage/workshop area and to have the upstairsrenovatedintoarentalapartmentprimarilyforthe use of asibling.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
SITE
LOCATION.'djacent
to two residential streets (Summit Avenue and West14thStreet),
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOODS
The site is abutted by single family uses in all directions(north and south a side yard relationship,east a front yardrelationship,and west a rear yard relationship).Theproposedaccessorydwellingisaneighborhoodscaleandsitestotherearofacornerlotwhichabutsa20footalley.The use is compatible with the surrounding area.
ON-SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains one gravel drive off of West 14th Streetwhichwillaccessthegarage/workshop on the lower level andtheaccessorydwellingtotheupperlevel.
SCREENING AND BUFFERSl
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees andothervegetationaslandscaping.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
No comments to report.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No,12 (Continued)
ANALYSIS:
Staff i'eels the proposed use will be compatible with thesurroundingarea.The intent of the applicant is to buildthestructurebacktoitsoriginalappearanceandstyle.The site is zoned "R-4"Duplex District,therefore,Staff isrequestingthattheapplicantprovideawrittenstatementthattheprincipalstructurewillcontinuetobeusedonlyasasinglefamilyresidenceashasbeenstatedtoStaff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,provided the applicant provide for the file awrittenstatementtocommenttotheprincipalstructureremainingasasinglefamilydwellingonly.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW'
representative for the applicant was present and felt theapplicantwouldnothaveanyproblemsmeetingtheconditionsasstatedintheStafi'ecommendations.
There were no other unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (August 28,1990)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectorspresent.One letter was received opposing the Conditional
Use Permit.The letter was from Sue Carolyn Hill,a homeownerinthearea.In her letter,it was stated that she1'elt there were two many apartments and multi-family usesalreadyinthearea.
As part of the consent agenda,this item was approved pertheStaffrecommendation.Staff informed the Board thattherewerenounresolvedissues.The approval was by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13
Name:Mabelvale Cut-Off Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5352)
Location:The north side of Mabelvale
Cut-Off,330 feet west of
Stillman Drive.
Owner/Applicant:Ken Deramus/Sam Davis,Agent
PROPOSAL:
To add on an existing six-bay self-service car wash,
equipment room and concrete paving a auto lubricationserviceswithtwoexpandedbays,a office with one expanded
bay and one exterior self-service wash facility.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
SITE LOCATION:
Adjacent to the site is one minor arterial (Mabelvale Cut-
Off Road)and one residential street,(Stillman Road).
COMPATIBILITY WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD'xisting
on the site is a six bay self-service car wash.
The applicants proposal consist of converting two bays int,o
two auto lubrication services,one bay as a office storage
room,one bay to a equipment room,one full service andthreeself-service wash bays.One of the self-service wash
bays is to the east exterior of the site with no roofing.
To the east is a convenient store,south residential,westvacantproperty,north multi-family.Staff feels theapplicants'equested proposal is compatible with theexistingneighborhoodandwillprovideforaneededupgradetothepresentstructure.
ON-SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
One on-site drive does exist on the site along with adequatespaceforparking.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 (Continued)
SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Although some screening and buffers exist presently,theapplicantwillhavetomeetthenewlandscapingstandards bypossiblyaddingmore.A review before a building permit isissuedwillberequired.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide minor arterial right-of-way and improvements toMabelvaleCut-Off.
ANALYSIS'taff
found no adverse impact of the applicants request totheexistingusesinthearea.Zoned "C-3"GeneralCommercialOrdinancerequirementsdoesallowforthis typeofuseasaConditionalUsePermit.The only problem Stafffoundwiththereviewoftheproposal,is the exterior self-service wash area to the east of the site.Staff feels thatthedesignatedareafortheproposedexteriorself-servicewashingofvehicleswoulddisrupttheflowofcirculation onthesite.Therefore,Staff recommends the applicant deletethisusefromtheproposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION',
Approval subject to the meeting of the Engineering issuesdeletionoftheexteriorwashareaandprovideanyadditionallandscapingperthenewlandscapeordinance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
REVIEW'he
applicant was in attendance along with Sam Davis,theengineerfortheproject.Mr.Davis wanted furtherclarificationastotheengineeringcomments.JerryGardner,of the Engineer Department,stated that anadditional5feetofright-of-way would have to be dedicatedtotheCitybecauseoftherequirementsofthemasterstreetplan.Mabelvale-Cut-Off is a major bond project for theCity.It is the cities intention to make Mabelvale-Cut-Offfivelanes.As discussion continued,it was determined thatfurtherreviewbetweentheapplicantandEngineeringwouldbeneededbeforetheAugust28,1990 meeting.
There were no other unresolved issues discussed.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
Sam Davis was in attendance to represent the applicant.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission during the agenda session that all issuesdiscussedattheSubdivisionhearinghadbeenaddressed perthesubmittalofarevisedsiteplan~
Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Department also informedtheCommissionthatthededicationofright-of-way has beenresolved.
As part of the consent agenda,this item was approved by avoteof10ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14
Name:Kanis Road Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5354)
Location:The northwest corner of Kanis
and Nix Roads
Owner/Applicant:LMG,Inc./Paul Johnson&Agent
PROPOSAL'.
The applicant desires to place a multi-sectional
manufactured home on 2.6t acres of land.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
SITE LOCATION:
Adjacent to one minor arterial (Kanis Road)and one
residential right-of-way (Nix Road).
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is abutted on the west,south and east byresidentialuses.To the north is vacant property.Several
months ago a mobile home existed on the site which is a partofalargertractofland.A concrete slab and brick wallexistonthesitewherethemulti-sectional manufactured
home is to be placed.Staff feels that the proposed use of
the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
ON-SITE DRIVES AND PARKING.'
gravel on-site drive off of Kanis Road does exist.No
parking was indicated.
SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The applicant plans to utilize the existing vegetation asscreeningandbuffer.
CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Provide minor arterial right-of-way and improvements to
Kanis Road.Residential street right-of-way and
improvements for Nix Road.Adhere to the requirements of
the Detention and Excavation Ordinance as they apply.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 (Continued)
ANALYSIS.'taff
feels the proposed replacement of a multi-sectionmanufacturedhomeonthesiteisacompatibleusewith thesurroundinguses.The applicant has not indicated the typeofunderpinningthatwillbeused.However,thisrequirementwillbeaddressedmorefullyatthetime abuildingpermitisobtained.In order to meet the buildingrequirements,some type of underpinning will have to beprovided.In as much as the cost of the proposed multi—sectional manufactured home will not support,the excessivecostofthestreetimprovementsasrequiredbyengineeringstaffisinsupportofawaiverforthoserequirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to a waiver of the right-of-way
improvements to Kanis and Nix Roads and the applicantmeetingallthenecessaryrequirementsoftheBuilding CodesDepart,ment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
REVIEW.'at
McGetrick was in attendance to represent the applicant.Jerry Gardner of Engineer stated that rather than a totalwavierofthestreetimprovement,he would consent to adeferralofthestreetimprovementforlotone,until alatertimewhenmoreofthepropertyisdeveloped.Mr.McGetrick stated that he felt the applicant would agree to adeferralforthestreet,improvements.Mr.Gardner thenstatedthat,the right-of-way dedication and adherence to therequirementsoftheDetentionandExcavationOrdinancemust,still be met.Mr.McGetrick stated he understood,
The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has indicated no sewer isavailabletot,he property without a sewer main extension.
There were no other unresolved issues discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (August 28,1990)
Paul Johnson represented the applicant.One person,Mr.Roger Marsh,was in attendance to object to the proposedplacementofamanufacturedhome.
2
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 (Continuedj
Since Items 1 and 14 were by the same applicant,both items
were addressed at,the same time,
Mr.Johnson was asked by a Commissioner if he would accept
approval on the preliminary plat if he could not getapprovalofthemanufacturedhome.Mr.Johnson stated no,because Item 1 presently is for the expressed interest,ofItem14.The manufactured home is not,intended to be on thesiteforalongperiodoftime.Mr.Johnson was then asked
what was the long range plans for the property?Mr.Johnsonstatedthatonedayhehadplannedontryingtogeta
commercial rezoning,
Mr.Roger Marsh then addressed the Board.He stated thatthepeopleinthisareaofthecityweretryingtoupgradetheirproperty.By allowing a manufactured home on the site
would lower their property values and ability to resale.Hefurtherstatedthatnoclearunderstandingofthetypeofmanufacturedhome,size,how much property,or underpinninghasbeenreceivedfromtheapplicantorStaff,
A Commissioner then asked of Staff how much property wasinvolvedandhowwouldthemanufacturedhomebeunderpined.
Mr.Johnson then stated that the amount of property involvedisapproximatelyI/4 of an acre in the total five acres thatexist.Staff then stated that the Building Codes DepartmenthasalistofdifferenttypesofunderpinningthattheCitywillallow.It is left to the discretion of the applicanttomakethechoice.
More discussion continued centered around whether the landuseplanforthisareacalledforpossiblecommercialzoning.The Director of the Planning Department stated thathedidn't recall what the plan called for but he could notruleoutcommercialzoningatsometimeinthefuture,ACommissionerthenaskedifitwouldbesettingaprecedence
by allowing a manufactured home on this site when it
probably would not be permanent.
Staff then stated that by allowing a manufactured home onthesiteisnodifferentthaniftheoriginalstructurewasstillonthesite.Since there is a home presently on thesitesubdividingofthepropertystillcouldhavebeachieved.
3
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 (Continued}
Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Staff stated the deferral
on the street improvements was recommended become when amoreintensedevelopmentonthesiteoccurs,the City thenwouldimposethestreetimprovements.At this time right-of-way dedication is only being required.
Mr.Johnson stated he underst,ood the recommendation of StaffandhadnoproblemsmeetingtheConditions.
A motion was then made to approve Items 1 and 14 per theStaffrecommendation.The motion passed by a vote of 8ayes,1 nay,1 abstention (Miller)and 1 absent.
4
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 (G-23-140)
Name:Kensington Place Easement
Abandonment,
Location:3514 Sussex Circle
Owner/Applicant'.William and Emma Peyton
PROPOSAL',
To abandon a 10 foot utility easement located between lots
209 and 210 Kensington Place Addition to the City of Little
Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas.Approximately 1,230.0 feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for this Easement,Abandonment,.
The initial review from other City departments
indicates that,there is no public need for this
easement abandonment.
2.Master Street Plan
Review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need for
this easement abandonment.
3.Need for Easement Abandonment on adjacent streets.
There exist no easement need for other abuttingstreets,
4.Characteristics of Easement,Terrain
The easement to be abandon is physically closed due to
the property,lot,s 209 and 210 being vacant.Theofficialrecordsbothat,the City Clerks Office and
County Court House indicated the easement does exist
and is open for use.
5.Development Potential
Development Potential expressed to Staff is for the
easement to become apart of residential development
which will be constructed.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 (G-23-140)(Continued)
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Surrounding the easement is vacant.property.Theeasementextendsbetweenlots209and210.Allresidentialusessurroundthesite.
7.Neighborhood Position
As of this writing,no neighborhood position has beenvoicedtostaffbutnonoticeisrequiredwhentheapplicantownsthepropertywhichabutstheeasement tobeabandoned.
8.Effect on Public Services of Utilities
All five utilities have given approval and relinquishallrightstotheeasement,abandonment.
9.Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend by to t,he owners ofrecord.
10.Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this unopen and unused segment ofeasementwillreturntotheprivatesectoralandareat.hat wili be productive for the real estate tax base.
STAFP RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval of the utility easementabandonmentconditioneduponareplatbeingfiled in theCitiesPlanningDivisionandattheCountyCourtHouse.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant did not attend.There were no unresolvedissues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectorspresent.As part of the consent,agenda,this item wasapprovedpertheStaffrecommendationbyavoteof10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
2
August,28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16
Name:Sherrill Heights Addition
Easement Abandonment
Location:414 Sherrill Road
Owner/Applicant:Gregory M.&Angels K.Hopkins
PROPOSAL.'o
abandon a 10 foot general utility easement lying betweenlots13and14SherrillHeightsAdditiontotheCityofLittleRock,Pulaski County,AR approximately 1598 squarefeet.
STAFF REVIEW'.
1,Public Need for this General Utility Easement.
The initial review from other City departmentsindicatesthatthereisnopublicneedforthis utilityeasement.
2.Master Street Plan.
Review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need forthisutilityeasement.
3.Need for Utility Easement on Adjacent Streets,
There exist no utility need for other easementsabuttingadjacentstreets.
4.Characteristics of Utility Easement Terrain.
The utility easement is physically close.Aresidentialstructurehasexistedontheeasement forthepastthirty-five years.Official records in theCityClerk's Office and County Court House indicate theeasementisopen.
5.Development Potential.
The development potential expressed to Staff is for theeasementtoremainpartoftheresidentialdevelopment.
1
August 28,1990
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16
6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect.
Surrounding the utility easement to be abandoned areallresidentialuses.If abandoned,there should be noeffectonthisuse.
7.Neighborhood Position,
As of this writing,no neighborhood position has beenvoicedtoStaff.Three abutting property owners to theeasementwerenotifiedaccordingtothenoticerequirements,
8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities.
All five utilities have given approval to the easementabandonmentandrelinquishallright,s.
9.Reversionary Rights.
All reversionary rights will extend by to the ownerwhosepropertytheeasementexiston.
10.Public Welfare and Safety Issues.
The abandonment of this unopened and unused utilityeasementwillreturntotheprivatesectoraland areathatwillbeproductivefortherealestatetaxbase,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this utility easement conditionuponareplatbeingfiledinthePlanningDivisionandattheCountyCourtHouse.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant did not attend.There were no unresolvedissues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 28,1990)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no ob iectorspresent.As part of the consent agenda,this item wasapprovedpertheStaffrecommendationbyavoteof10 ayes,0 nays,1 absent.
2
PLANNING COMM ISS ION
VOTE RECORD
DATE
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING .SUBDIVISION
MEMBER 3 /AS //
N.Riddick,III
Walker Brad ~v
J.McDaniel P V
M.Mi ler IV I
J.Nicholson
v'elz,Joe
Vv',
Leek 9
C.Whitfield V V
K.Oleson a~a ~o ~Q
R.Collins
F.Perkins
FAYE Cl NIIYE Zh AhsENT JBAEETAYN
August 28,1990
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Chairma Sec ary
/'C d
Date