pc_03 29 1983I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 29,1983
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed out.
III.Members Present:John Schlereth,Chairman
Jerilyn Nicholson
Dorothy Arnett
David JonesBillRector
Betty Sipes
William Ketcher
John Clayton
Members Absent:Jim Summerlin
Richard Massie
One Vacancy
City Attorney:Hugh Brown
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —File No.316
NAME:Pleasant Valley Condominiums
LOCATION:Pleasant Ridge,approx.
1600'outhofHighway10
DEVELOPER ENGINEER:
Seven Hot Springs Corp.Edward G.Smith and Associates
P.O.Box 1951 401 Victory
Montgomery,Ala 36103 Little Rock,AR
Phone:374-1666
AREA:39.53 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:
1700'ONING:
(Existing)"R-2"(Proposed)"PRD"
PROPOSED USES:Residential —Condominiums
REQUEST:
For reclassification from "R-2"to "PRD."
DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY:
This proposal has been submitted for review as a "Planned
Residential Development"that will provide a high quality
and preferred living environment.The concept for
development was based upon three general factors:(1)society's changing life-styles;(2)increasing age of
persons in the area;and (3)the advantages of condominium
living.It will be geared mainly toward that component of
the community which can be described as "empty-nesters,"
(adults whose children are grown)and toward professionals
with no more than one child.
The development provides an extensive package of amenities.
Recreational facilities will include two tennis courts/
swimming pools,whirlpools and cabana.Individual unit
features are to be two and three-bedroom flats and
three-bedroom town houses with fireplaces,wet bars,washer
and dryer connections,vaulted ceilings for living rooms,
formal dining rooms,fully equipped kitchens with self
cleaning ovens,frost free refrigerators/ice makers,wall to
wall carpeting,six panel doors,one covered parking space
with one or more open spaces.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
Access to and through Pleasant Valley Condominiums is byPleasantRidgeRoad,a collector street,which will provide
immediate access to State Highway 10,I-430 and the localinterstatesystem.The development is geared toward
complementing the City's Master Plan for the area;which
envisions office park development along this thoroughfare.
Residential streets leading from Pleasant Ridge are designed
for the maximum of privacy and security,with the
preservation of much of the existing mature vegetation.Itishopedthatthiswillhelpcreateaplushlandscaping
scheme and provide one of the "garden spots of Little Rock."
Architecture will be formal,traditional exterior with bay
windows and high pitched roofs.
As for maintenance and ownership,the developer plans to
build these as "for sale"units,which exceed the
registration for condominium construction.A legal document
will be filed establishing each residential unit as a
separate condominium.Due to the instability of the
economic climate,the units may be leased for awhile.Anyresidentleasingaunitwillbegiventhefirstoptionto
purchase their unit.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
A.Parcel Size 39.53 Acres
(1,619,900 sq.ft.)
B.Unit Construction Phase I ——————184 units
Phase II —————156 units~units total
C.Unit Scheme
No.of Units Unit Size Floor Area
68 3-Bedroom Town Houses 1,500 sq.ft.
Total Floor Area 102,000 sq.ft.
272 2-Bedroom Flat 1,265 sq.ft.
Total Floor Area 344,080 sq.ft.
Total Area 446,080 sq.ft.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
D.Building Coverage:
No.Of Total
~Bldg.g g ~Bld Size Floor Area
Type I 34 4,490 sq.ft.152,660
Type II 17 5,060 sq.ft.86,020
Total Bldg.Coverage ————————238,680 sq.ft.
E.Common Open Space:
(1)Usable ————23.93 acres ———1,042,620 sq.ft.
(2)Nonusable (paved)7.77 acres ——338,600 sq.ft.
Total 31.7 acres (1,381,220 sq.ft.)
Percentage of Site ———80%
F.Parking ———2 spaces per dwelling unit ———680
G.Development Time Frame
~dl
t'haseI————July 1,1983 December 31,1984
Phase II ————Spring 1985 Summer 1986
SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR PUD'S:
1.Sites considered must be 2.0 acres or greater.This
plan complies.
2.A minimum of 10-15%of gross "PRD"areas shall be
designated as landscaped open space,not to be used for
streets or parking.This plan complies.
3.When the common open space is deeded to a
homeowners'ssociation,the developer shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions in the Bill of Assurance.
The applicant has stated his compliance.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
4.A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted.This
plan compl ies.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
(1)Request internal drainage plan.
(2)The Post Office has directed a centralized mail
delivery location of each driveway off Pleasant Ridge
Road.
(3)Request a concrete apron be constructed at the entranceofeachprivatestreet.
(4)Construct Pleasant Ridge to collector standards.
ANALYSIS:
Staff is supportive of this development.There are,
however,several issues to be dealt with.The mostsignificantistheproposal's failure to comply with the
sewer capacity limit of three units per acre in this area.
A plan amendment will be needed relative to density and
sewer.A 50'uffer is composed as a protective device for
the single family area on the abutting south.Perhaps the
applicant would like to lessen the density by providing
small,attached single family homes with small lots in this
area of the site.He should also look into the terminationofDesotoForestStreet,which abuts this property and runs
through the single family neighborhood.
Since this development is phased,the applicant should
adhere to the construction time frame submitted.Staff has
no objections to phasing the construction of Pleasant Ridge
Road,provided that it coincides with that indicated on thesiteplan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral,until above issues are resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.A discussion relative to the
sewer and density issues was held.A representative of the
developer stated that this plan differed from the original
Narch 29,1983
SUBDIVSIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
one presented to the staff in preliminary discussions by a
reduction in density and the addition of a buffer and fence.
He felt that these measures addressed staff's concern with
the single family area to the south.The Committee
expressed concern that approval would be taking sewer
capacity away from others,since this proposal won't be
developed until two years from now,and the current policyisnotona"first come,first served"basis.It was
decided that perhaps a shift in policy was needed.A motion
was made for approval of the plan,subject to a resolution
of the issues involved.The motion passed by a vote of:
2 ayes,0 noes,3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Staff reported that the proposal
had been reviewed and was considered to be a good
development.It was suggested,however,that the density
should be lessened in the area adjacent to the single family
neighborhood on the south,so as to provide a transition
zone,and that Desoto,a residential street abutting the
development on the south,should be terminated.Staff then
requested that the proposal be deferred until the existing
sewer policy,which limits development in the area to three
units per acre is formally changed by the Board of
Directors,or the project is phased to accommodate the sewer
capacity.
A lengthy discussion ensued,wherein the developer stated
objections,based on economic infeasibility,to reducing the
number of units.Property owners from both the Pleasant
Forest Subdivision on the south and the Piedmont Subdivision
on the west requested buffers of 100'r more.The
applicant agreed to revise his plan accordingly.A motion
for a two-week deferral was made and passed whereby the
applicant was directed along with staff to determine from
the Planning Commission Retreat and Sewer Committee's
decisions,whether or not the sewer policy would be changed.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no,2 absent.
(No vote —Commissioner Jones)
March 29,1983
SUBDIVSIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were objectors present.The objectors were
represented by Sarah Murphy who indicated that she spoke for
19 Piedmont owners,Mr.Rick Ellis speaking for his area
and Pleasant Forest Addition and Ernestine Okobo also from
Pleasant Forest.The owners presented arguments against the
project related to the amount of green space adjacent totheirlots,the location of the collector street,the
density of the project and the overall design of the
proposal.The application was presented by Mr.Joe White
from Edward G.Smith and Associates.He and the developer
offered a presentation of the proposal outlining some
modifications which they had drafted since the last meeting
on this matter.They proposed now to reduce the number of
units from 340 to 335.They also proposed a 50-foot buffer
along the western boundary in its entirety in place of the25-foot buffer previously submitted.The developers also
offered to the Commission the idea that they were receptive
to building only 120 units in the first phase which would be
allowable density on this total site for three units peracre.The balance of their holdings would,of course,not
be allowed development rights until the sewer issue is
resolved.The Planning Commission then discussed the matter
at length introducing further comment from both staff,the
applicant and the neighborhood.Significant comment was
received relative to the sewer department (Wastewater
Utility)position relative to the Maumelle interceptor
proposed to relieve the District 222 density restriction.It was understood by all present that the sewer department
with the endorsement of the Planning Commission and the City
Board would seek to have the Sewer Committee establish the
Maumelle interceptor as a priority for next construction.
Following the discussion,a motion was made to approve the
application modified as follows:The first change would be
to limit the first phase to 120 units and additional phases
be disallowed until the sewer limit is lifted.The second
item was a 50-foot buffer on the west be undisturbed by any
construction or site preparation activity except for the
location and erection of any required screening fences.The
third point was accepting the reduction of the total unit
count from 340 to 335 total for this development.The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent,1
open position.
Narch 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —File No.319
NAME:Point Pleasant "PRD"
LOCATION:On Hinson Road lying South of
Windsor Ct.Townhomes and North
of Hillsborough
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Fred Hunt a Co.Edward G.Smith &Associates
401 Victory Street
APPLICANT/AGENT:Little Rock AR
Phone:374-1666
John Castin
Manes,Castin and Nassie
2501 Willow Street
P.O.Box 1035
N.L.R.,AR 72115
Phone:(501)758-1360
AREA:5.1 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-2"(Existing)
"PRD"(Proposed)
PROPOSED USES:Condominiums
REQIIEBT:
To reclassify an area zoned "R-2"to "pRD."
I.DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES
(1)To provide a secure enclave for elderly and
retired couples with a single entry point off
Hinson Road.
(2)To provide an entrance into the luxury condominium
market for the developer,who has previously
developed only single family.
(3)To accommodate the life-style of the elderly,
affluent home buyer in Little Rock.
I
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
II.PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
A.Parcel Size —-—--——5.1 acres
B.Existing Zoning —————"R-2"
C.Density 4.9
D.Development Scheme
(1)No.of Units --——25
(2)Unit Type —————Not Provided
(3)Unit Size —————Not Provided
E.Building Coverage ———Not Provided
F.Perimeter Treatment ——Not Provided
G.Parking (Total)————119
4 Average Spaces/Unit =100
Front Guest Parking =19
Parking Unit Ratio —4.76 spaces/unit
H.Design Features:
(1)Predominately single level living.
(2)Attached garages.
(3)Private outdoor enclosed patio spaces.
(4)Ample indoor and outdoor storage.
(5)Central security system and single entrance
road
(6)A maintenance free life-style with a
condominium homeowners'ssociation.
(7)Elimination of exposed street parking and
parking in the front of the residentialunits.
Narch 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
(8)Extensive landscaping throughout.
Construction Time Frame:
(1)Ten units by summer of 1983,the remainder
depends upon market conditions.
III.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
(1)Improve Hinson Road to minor arterial standards.
(2)Entrance island and mail pickup area appears to
prompt traffic conflicts.Request that
developer's engineer contact City Engineer prior
to preparing final street plans.
(3)Internal streets should be a minimum of 20'ide.
IV.STAFF ANALYSIS
This proposal presents several issues for discussion.
The applicant has submitted this as a short form PUD,
but it is slightly over the acreage limit for such
review.The applicant should consider filing this as a
standard "pUD"or rezoning the property to "NF-6"and
filing it as a site plan for a multiple building site.
The site plan indicates an intrusion of a drive into
the 40'uffer that shields a single family area to the
south,leaving a 15'etback and a 6'ence.This is
allowed by Ordinance if the 15's left in its natural
state;however,the residents in this location were
extremely vocal when this property was previously
presented for conditional use review for the
construction of a church.
Technically,the space between Buildings 21 and 22 at
their closest point,do not appear to meet the
requirement of at least 10'etween detached buildings.
Finally,the most significant problem with the plan has
to do with sewer capacity for the area.Since this
plan proposes to develop over the allowable density of
three units per acre for sewer capacity,the applicant
will need to resolve this issue with Wastewaterutilities.At the time of this writing,no utility
comments have been received.Due to the late
submission of these plans,the applicant will be
required to distribute copies to the appropriate
agencies and utilities.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff suggest deferring action on this until the sewerissueisresolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced theunitsto24parcels,and includes only a 20'etback on thenortheast.Relative to staff's comments,the Committee didnotfeelthattheacreagelimitwassignificantsinceitwas
only a fraction over what was required.They also felt thatthedistancebetweenbuildings21and22wassatisfactorysinceitaveraged10'.
The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed with 15 unitsuntilthesewerissuewasresolved.A motion was made and
passed to approve this item,subject to resolution of the
sewer issue.The vote:2 ayes,0 noes,3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.Staffreportedthatthesewerissuehadbeensettledbytheapplicant's proposal to phase the development.Staffreportedthatadequatenotificationhadnotbeengiven,since notices had not been sent out until the 11th.A
motion was made and passed to defer the item for two weeks.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent,and
1 abstention.
(Abstaining Commissioner Richard Massie)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were several persons present in objection.The
neighborhood offered a petition of objection containing 26owners'ignatures.Mr.Joe Robinson and two others offeredobjectiontotheproposal.The developer,Mr.Hunt,and hisplanner,Jack Castin,were present and made a presentation.There followed a lengthy discussion of use,buffers,fencing,setbacks and transfer of density rights.The
Commission determined that several items on the planrequiredmodification.These were (1)expansion of thebufferalongthesouthpropertylinetoaminimumof15feet;(2)provision of a six-foot opaque fence along thesouthpropertyline;(3)movement of all buildings to a40-foot setback from the south property line;(4)extensionofvariancesinthe40-foot building line on Hinson Road
Narch 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
to accommodate the building adjustments required along the
south line;(5)relief from the buffer requirement adjacenttoWindsorTownHomes;(6)commitment from the Fellowship
Bible Church to permit a nine unit TDR to occur between the
church property and the subject property.This will involve
a legal description of the offered site and a letter from
the church board or legally designated agent making the
commitment.The Commission voted unanimously to recommend
the Planned Unit Development for approval subject to the six
items noted in the above comments.
The vote 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 open position.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —File No.274A
NAME:Bill Darby —Revised Preliminary
LOCATION:West of Kavanaugh at Darby Pl.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
William H.Darby Sam Davis
51 Saxony Circle 5301 W.8th Street
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72204
Phone:664-0324
AREA:2.35 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-5"
PROPOSED USES:Nultifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
STAFF REPORT:
This report represents a revision of a plat that was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3,1982.
The main objection was centered around whether or not access
should be allowed from the proposed 70-unit apartment
complex via Darby Place.In earlier rezoning hearings,the
Commission had conditioned approval upon no such access asitwouldadverselyaffectthesurroundingsinglefamily
neighborhood.
After much neighborhood objection,and an opinion from the
City Attorney,which advised against disregarding prior
Commission actions,a vote was made and unanimously passed
that denied the plan development.
The applicant is now proposing to building 80 units of
apartments on the site.Access,however,will now be taken
from Cantrell Road.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This proposal presents several issues for discussion.Firstofall,staff is concerned about the access unto Cantrell,
since it is seriously deficient and may have long-term
consequences which are detrimental to the area.A dangerousintersectionisbeingcreated.The applicant,however,may
not have another choice.
A 5'etback and a 10'lley are shown on the south.This
alley should be included in the final plat and BOA so as to
add 20'hat would assure a permanent structural separation
between the building shown and the one south of the propertyline.To protect the neighboring single family uses,the
applicant should provide a 40'uffer and 6'paque fence
along the northern and eastern boundary.The rear yard does
not meet ordinance requirements of 25',however,due to
elevation this is not important.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee decided to approve this item,subject to the
submission of a revised plan that includes a 40'uffer and6'ence on the north and eastern boundaries.The motion
passed by a vote of 2 ayes,0 noes,3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Eleven objectors from the
neighborhood were present.Spokespersons were Mrs.Iris
Henry and Mr.Don Ichembaum,proprietor of the Sports MartStore.Objections were mainly based on the danger beingcreatedbytheaccesstoCantrell.After much discussion,a
motion was made to defer this for two weeks so that (1)a
more definitive statement could be received from the Fire
Department as to their approval or denial of the project;
(2)a traffic study could be done to get a better view on
the safety issue;(3)the City Attorney could investigate
whether the previous Planning Commission action relative to
the zoning of this property could be rescinded.The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent.
March 29,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were several persons present who had previouslysubmittedpetitionsandcommentsofobjectiononthismatter.The applicant was present represented by Sam Davis,the engineer.After a brief discussion of the proposal,the
Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriatetoallowtheapplicanttowithdrawtheapplicationasfiled
inasmuch as the owner of the property has determined that hewillbuildtheprojecttothepreviouslypermittedsiteplanrequirements.A motion to this effect was made and passed
by a vote 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent,1 open position.
March 29,1983
Item No.4 —Z-2701-A
Owner:Pleasant Valley Place Partnership
Applicant:Bob Lowe
Location:Pleasant Valley Estates
(Hinson Road)
Request:Rezone from "MF-6"Multifamily
to "R-2"Single Family
Purpose:Conformity with Existing
Development
Size:14 acres +
Existing Use:Single Family (under development)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.This property has beenplattedintosinglefamilylots.The Suburban Development
Plan change was made to reflect the shift of multifamily
from this location to the west side of Hinson Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.
After a brief explanation,the Planninc Commission moved to
approve the application as filed.The motion passed—
8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 vacancy.
March 29,1983
Item No.5 —Z-3931-B
Owner:E.A.McCracken
Applicant:Jack Castin
Location:Chicot Road at the Rock Island
Railroad Crossing
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to Various Multifamily and
Open Space Districts
Purpose:Mixed Use Development
Size:76.2 acres +
Existing Use:Golf Course and Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
South —Unclassified
East —Residential and Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.This application is a
follow-up to an earlier application which resulted in the
commercial zoning on the northeast corner of the project.
The applicant proposes 62 acres of "OS"Open Space zoning tooffsettheresidentialdensityproposedontheother
portions of the property.The available sewer capacity will
support a development density of about eight persons peracre.The proposed overall density of 3.11 units per acreiswithinthelimitsestablished.
Individual site plans will be required as the various
multifamily areas are developed so additional considerations
can be given at the time of actual development.In fact,itisexpectedthatoneormoreofthemultifamilysiteswill
be a church location at some later time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with appropriate Suburban
Development Plan modification.
March 29,1983
Item No.5 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were 10 or 12
objectors.The applicant made a brief statement relative to
the proposed zoning,and the discussion was opened up to
neighbors.The first neighbor,Opal Causey,7904 Bunch Road,
presented three letters in opposition to the requested
zoning and spoke about the neighbor's concerns abouttraffic,improvement district taxes and the impact that this
zoning might have on those adjacent properties,quality
concerns and finally,asked that the property be retained
for single family use.
Because there was some confusion as to exactly what was
being proposed,the applicant made a longer presentation
showinq the various zoning areas as well as the proposed
development.Further,there was a lengthy discussion of
Master Street Plan requirements regardinq Bunch Road and
Chicot Road.Bunch Road is carried on the Master Street
Plan as a residential street while Chicot Road is carried as
minor arterial.It was pointed out that at the time of
development,the applicant will be required to make the
necessary street improvements as he goes along.Other
neighbors,Janet Saulter and Othey F.Oqle,spoke about
their concerns reqardinq community facilities,traffic and
the adverse impact on the residential properties already
existing the area.
The discussion went on for several minutes,and finally,
there was a motion to approve the application as filed.The
motion failed on a vote of 2 ayes,5 noes,2 absent,
1 vacancy and 1 abstention (Jones).This vote meant that
the matter would be automatically deferred for 30 days.
However,another motion was made to approve Tracts H,J and
K as filed and to defer until a later time B,C and D.This
motion was seconded.There was a brief discussion of the
meaning of the motion and,finally,the applicant said that
his preference would be to simply withdraw consideration of
Tracts B,C,and D until a later time.A substitute motion
recommending approval of Tracts H,J and K as filed was
made.The motion passed —8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1
vacancy.A second motion accepting withdrawal of Tracts B,
C and D without prejudice passed —8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent
and 1 vacancy.
March 29,1983
Item No.6 —Z-3985
Owner:Darrel Cox
Applicant:Lee Gibson
Location:2012 Wright Avenue
Request:Rezone from "R-4"Two Familyto"0-1"Quiet Office
Purpose:Office Conversion
Size:4,125 square feet +
Existing Use:Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-4"
South —Single Family and Office,Zoned "R-4"
East —Single Family,Zoned "R-4"
West —Apartment,Zoned "R-4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Traffic Engineering has stated concerns about the probablelackofparkingonthisproperty,and the Planning staff isalsoconcernedthatadequateparkingcannotbeprovidedhere.Secondly,there is the issue of spot zoning.Thistwo-block area between the two major commercial centers has
remained residential for a number of years and was clearlyintendedtocontinueitsroleduringtheurbanrenewalprocess.The residential structures in the area seem to be
in good condition,and the usual deterioration common totransitionalareasisgenerallynotpresentinthis
neighborhood.On that basis,staff feels that it is
inappropriate for this property to be converted to office
use.There appear to be adequate vacant commercially zonedpropertiesinthesamegeneralareawhichcouldbeusedforthispurpose.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
March 29,1983
Item No.6 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.
There was a brief discussion of the problems associated withthiscase.The applicant stated that his preference would
have been to request a conditional use permit because he was
purely interested in getting the particular use on this site
and not interested in opening the property up to furtherofficedevelopmentatalatertime.Be stated that theconditionaluseprocesswassimplynotavailableforthisphilanthropicuseandsozoningwastheonlychoice.
There was a discussion about parking.Be stated that in itspresentresidentialstate,the property holds about six cars
parked on the property and that access to the property istakenthroughan"alley"on the west side of the house.BealsointroducedPatGrabberofthePregnancyCounseling
Group who answersed some questions relative to the expected
volume of traffic on the site.
She stated that during their operation,because of the
economic status of the people they are counseling,most of
the clients walk in or come on the bus.She stated thatthispropertywasdesirablebecauseitwasonthebusline.
In answer to questions relative to other commercially zonedproperties,she stated that their concern had to do withloiteringproblems.She pointed out that the nearby
commercial areas were populated with liquor stores and other
kinds of "hangouts"which created some problems for boththeircounselorsandtheirclients.She stated that
approximately 25 to 30 women per week would be counseled attheserviceandthatnormallytheyhavetwostaffvolunteerthere,though at some times there might be one extra or onelessstaffpersonpresent.She did state that none of thestaffpeoplearepaid.They are all volunteers,and it is anonprofitorganization.
After much discussion,the Planning Commission moved to
approve the application as filed.The motion failed—
2 ayes,6 noes,2 absent and 1 vacancy.The petition was,therefore,recommended for denial.
March 29,1983
Item No.7 —Z-3986
Owner:Little Rock Signal Media Co.
Applicant:Bill McClard
Location:10,700 Barksdale Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Familyto"C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Conformity with Existing Use
Size:1.42 acres +
Existing Use:Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Commercial,Zoned "R-2"
South —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
East —I-430,Zoned "R-2"
West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.This property is presentlyoccupiedbyKandKTravelAgencyandKnight's InventoryService.The boundaries of commercial uses in this area areprettywellestablished.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.After a brief discussion,Commission moved to approve theapplicationasfiled.The motion passed —7 ayes,0 noes,
3 absent and 1 vacancy.
March 29,1983
Item No.8 —Z-3989
Owner:Geyer Springs United Methodist
Church
Applicant:Karen Tyler
Location:5507 Mabelvale Pike
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to "C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Storm Windows/Insulation
Contractor Office
Size:34,620 square feet +
Existing Use:Church Facilities
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Church and Commercial,Zoned "R-2"and "C-3"
East —Church,Zoned "R-2"
West —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.This property is occupied
by a former church building which in recent times has been
used for ancillary activities of the church.The church no
longer needs this facility,and the applicant is proposingtoconvertitintoabusiness.
This neighborhood is in a slowly forming state oftransition.The church to the east and south is a stablizing
influence,and the residential to the north appears strong.
The "street"show along the northeast line of the subject
property is not a iatted right-of-way;however,it exists
by prescription a is known as 61st Avenue.No change toitwilloccur.Thy.4;gast the major concern of theresidentialneiggbbrsfgof'the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommence@'pproval.~e
March 29,1983
Item No.8 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion,the Commission moved to approve
the application as filed.The motion passed —7 ayes,
0 noes,3 absent,1 vacancy.
Narch 29,1983
Item No.9 —Z-3987 —Conditional Use Permit
Owner:Otter Creek Assembly of God
Church
Applicant:James R.Walker
Location:9415 Staqecoach Road
Request:Conditional use permit to allow
expansion of a church includingthesanctuarywhichwillseat
250 people and the constructionofaparkingareaonpropertythatiszoned"R-2"Single
Family.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located in an area that is predominantlyvacant.There are a number of scattered single familyresidencesinthevicinity.
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
A church use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
One 24-foot drive will serve as access to State HighwayNo.5 and plans are to provide a paved access andparking(64 spaces).
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees andshrubstofulfillscreeningandbufferrequirements.
ANALYSIS:
Staff is in agreement with the proposed usage of thisproperty.No adverse impact is expected to the surroundingarea.The Master Street Plan designates State Highway 5 asaprincipalarterial.The requirements for a principalarterialarea100-foot right-of-way,72 feet of pavementwidthandtwo4-foot sidewalks.The staff feels that due to
Z-3987 —Continued
the site location,that the construction of street
improvements and sidewalks should be deferred until a future
building permit is requested.The applicant should,
however,file a final plat to dedicate the additionalright-of-way necessary to fulfill the Master Street Plan
requirement of 50 feet from this property.The dedication
should be perpendicular to the centerline for a full 50 feetfortheentirefrontageoftheproperty.
The applicant has asked that the church be exempt from theconstructionofanoff-site improvement.The applicant hasalsoaskedthatthechurchnotberequiredtodedicateanyright-of-way at present.They will,however,negotiate inthefuturealongwiththeotherpropertyowner.
Staff feels that the applicant should clarify the exactlocationofproposed24-foot driveway.The applicant alsoneedstonotethelocationofparkingspacesandaisles.
The staff recommends that the proposed drive be constructedofconcretetostandardline,grade and cross section inordertoconformwiththefuture72-foot street or construct
an asphalt drive to serve until the existing pavement is
widened.
STAFF'ECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to a final plat beingfiledtodedicatethe10+feet of additional right-of-way on
Highway 5 and a revised site plan being submitted toindicatetheexactlocationoftheproposeddriveparkingspacesandaisles.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present.The church wasrepresented.The staff offered additional comment to theeffectthattheownerhasagreedtothe10feetofdedicationandplat.Staff also points out that the parkinglotdesignneededadditionalworkonspecifics.
The Commission briefly discussed the matter and then votedtorecommendapprovalofthepermitsubjecttothetwoitemsnotedbystaff.The vote 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent and 1
open position.
N
N
CI
P4
0
cn a P4
M
K 0
0 R1 K C&
z ~+Qg @
f4
M
M F4
al
Z Ql 4 e w g08MM00AM~OVMoN00klVCMM8S4fO
Kl M K (Q R
Narch 29,1983
There being no further business,the meeting was adjournedat3:15 p.m.
Date:
an Se et