pc_02 13 1996LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
9:00 A.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being seven (7) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Commission approved the minutes of the January 2, 1996
Planning Commission meeting by a unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
Larry Lichty
Sissi Brandon
Pam Adcock
Diane Chachere
Ramsay Ball
Doyle Daniel
Suzanne McCarthy
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
9:00 A.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z-3673-B 10100 Mabelvale Pike R-2 to C-4
B. Z-6070 3319 John Barrow Road R-3 to C-3
C. Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District
D. Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic District
E. Pinnacle Properties Conditional Use Permit (Z-5668-B)
F. Winslow Court Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1088)
II. REZONING ITEM
1. Z-4807-D
III. OTHER MATTER
2. Z-6090
Outer Loop at Wellington R-2 and C-1
village Road to MF-18, 0-3
and C-3
Ferguson Conditional Use Permit
13
LITTLE ROCK
Location Map
REZONING HEARING
4A&- •♦ ARY 1 NORTH FEBR U 3,1996
u
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B
Owner:
Carmo, Inc.
Applicant: Christopher McKinney
Location:
Request:
10100 Mabelvale Pike
Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose: To make the existing use
conforming and allow the
construction of mini -storage
facility.
Size:
1.98± acres
Existing Use: The first 100± feet nearest
Mabelvale Pike is occupied by
a nonconforming auto paint and
body shop. The remainder of
the 700± foot deep tract is
wooded and undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North -
Single -Family
residence;
zoned
R-2
South
- Single -Family
residence;
zoned
R-2
East -
Single -Family
residence;
zoned
R-2
West -
Single -Family
residence;
zoned
R-2
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Mabelvale Pike is a minor arterial according to the Master
Street Plan and the right-of-way required is 90 feet (45
feet from centerline). Dedicate an additional 15 feet of
right-of-way. The present street width is 10.5 feet from
centerline and there is open ditches without a sidewalk.
With construction:
Construct proper drive and parking. Contribute in -lieu
contribution equal to 15% of the cost of improvements or the
cost of widening the road to 30 feet from the centerline
with sidewalk. A grading permit may be required with
construction.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs West District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Cont.)
is for Commercial. The majority of the area is Single
Family and to change to Commercial in this location would
lead to Strip Commercial along Mabelvale Pike. Staff cannot
recommend changing the adopted Plan at this time.
TAFF ANALYSI
The request is to rezone this 1.98± acre tract from "R-2"
Single Family residential to "C-4" Open Display Commercial.
A nonconforming auto paint and body shop occupies the
portion of the site adjacent to Mabelvale Pike. The
remainder of the property is wooded and undeveloped. The
applicant requests C-4 zoning to make the existing use
conforming and to allow for the future construction of a
mini -storage facility on the site.
The property is located in an established residential
neighborhood. All properties in the immediate vicinity are
zoned R-2 and occupied by single family homes. Allowing the
proposed C-4 zoning would have a detrimental effect on the
adjacent residential properties.
The Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan recommends
Single Family for this site. A small commercial node is
recognized farther south of this property, at the
intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Mabelvale Main. Allowing
commercial at this site could potentially lead to stripping
Mabelvale Pike with Commercial zoning. Staff cannot support
changing the Plan to accommodate the proposed Commercial
zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996)
David Henry was present representing the applicant. There
were numerous objectors present. Letters and a petition
objecting to the rezoning had been presented to the
Commission. Staff presented the item and recommended denial
of the requested C-4 zoning.
Mr. Henry addressed the Commission and asked that the item
be deferred to allow for further review of the Land Use
Plan. He stated that the applicant desired to rezone the
property to accommodate the construction of a building to
house a cabinet shop. Mr. Henry suggested that the
application might be amended to provide an OS zoned buffer.
2
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Cont.
Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Henry if the proposed use was
not a mini -storage business. Mr. Henry responded that mini -
storage was originally proposed but that the applicant now
wanted to build a cabinet manufacturing business behind the
existing body shop.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr.
Henry stated that there had been nonconforming businesses in
the building since the property's annexation into the City.
Charlie Staggs, of 9990 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition
to the C-4 zoning. He asked the Commission to keep the
property zoned R-2.
Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Staggs if there was room for
discussion about alternative uses for the property. Mr.
Staggs responded that he did not believe so.
Commissioner McCarthy urged the neighbors to meet with the
applicant.
Elizabeth Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke at length in
opposition to the C-4 zoning. She questioned why the
applicant had changed the proposed use from mini -storage to
a cabinet shop. Ms. Peel then stated that the applicant had
parked vehicles in front of the rezoning sign to block
persons from seeing it.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Dana
Carney of the Planning Staff, discussed the effect of
nonconformity and its limits on the use of the site.
David Henry again stated that the applicant desired a
deferral to allow an opportunity to address some concerns
which had been raised by the neighbors.
George Niblock, of 9901 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the
Commission in opposition to the C-4 zoning. In response to
a statement by Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated that he wanted
to get involved with his client and the neighborhood to see
what could collectively be developed to improve the site.
Commissioner Adcock then made a motion to defer the item to
the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting with the
understanding that the two parties meet to discuss the
proposal.
Mr. Henry asked about deferring the item for a longer time.
Mr. Carney responded that there was a possibility of the
Commission changing its meeting date and time. He stated
that the item should be deferred no longer than the next
scheduled rezoning hearing which was February 13, 1996. Mr.
Henry stated that he intended to meet with the neighbors and
hoped to have the issues resolved by February 13, 1996. If
3
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Con
that is not possible, Mr. Henry stated that an additional
deferral might be necessary.
Commissioner Brandon stated that it was important that those
persons present be made aware of any meeting.
Commissioner Putnam briefly discussed the nonconforming
status of the site. He stated that he agreed with the
deferral but urged Mr. Henry to be prepared to discuss the
nonconforming use of the site.
A second was then made to the motion to defer the item.
In response to a question from Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated
that he would set up a meeting.
John Underhill, representing his parents who live across
Mabelvale Pike from the site, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Underhill stated that the operators of the body shop had
expressed a desire to relocate. He reminded the Commission
that the issue before them was a C-4 zoning request.
Ms. Peel again addressed the Commission in opposition to the
C-4 zoning. Commissioner Woods stated that the applicant
would probably not get the C-4 zoning. He stated that the
applicant wanted a deferral to meet with the neighbors and
to perhaps amend the application.
Louise Winkler, of 10113 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the
Commission. She stated that the body shop was parking
wrecked vehicles on the site. She asked the Commission to
maintain the site's nonconformity.
Jerry Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to
the C-4 zoning. He described problems that he had with the
existing business on the site.
(At this point, the Commission took a brief recess.)
Theo Blacklock, of 10007 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition
to the rezoning request. She stated that the property had
been an eyesore since the building was first constructed.
Mrs. Blacklock urged the Commission to keep the property
zoned R-2.
Commissioner Lichty stated that he was opposed to the
rezoning and to the idea of deferring the item.
Commissioner McCarthy concurred.
A vote was taken on the motion to defer the item to the
February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent.
4
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • A Z-3673-B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had submitted a letter on February 5, 1996 requesting that
the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
5
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • B Z-6070
Owner: Guy and Beverly Wade
Applicant: Guy and Beverly Wade
Location: 3319 John Barrow Road
Request: Rezone from R-3 to C-3
Purpose: Unspecified commercial
development
Size: .30± acres
Existing Use: Single-family residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family residence; zoned C-1
South - Beauty shop and vacant lots; zoned C-3
East - Vacant lot; zoned R-3
West - Single -Family residence; zoned R-3
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The current right-of-way line is 38.27 feet from the
centerline of John Barrow, Master Street Plan Right -of -Way
is 45 feet from centerline. Dedicate additional right-of-
way or seek a waiver from the Board of Directors.
West 34th Street right-of-way is currently 40 feet.
Commercial streets require 60 feet, dedicate an additional
10 feet of right-of-way.
With Construction: Provide adequate off-street parking and
drives per ordinances. This lot is too close to
intersection to permit a drive location onto Barrow Road.
The new driveby ordinance is to be 100 feet from Barrow
Road. Construct sidewalk and ramps for 34th Street. Street
improvements for 34th to commercial street standards will be
required. Existing street is a 21 foot chipseal and should
be 36 foot curb and gutter.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily. The
request is for Commercial use. Staff agrees that the land
use plan should be reviewed in this location. A
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: B Z-6070 (Cont.)
neighborhood planning committee has been working to develop
a policy plan for the area, and staff would like to work
with this committee to determine how the plan should be
amended.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request is to rezone this property from "R-3" Single -
Family residential to "C-3" General Commercial. The
property consists of one single family residence occupying
two lots. No specific use has been proposed by the
applicant. The property is the only one on the east side of
Barrow Road, between 32nd and 36th Streets, which is not
zoned commercial. Adjacent property to the north is zoned
C-1 and properties across 34th Street to the south are zoned
C-3. It would appear that allowing some nonresidential use
of the property would be reasonable.
The Boyle Park District Land Use Plan currently recommends
low density multifamily for the site. The Plan does not
recognize much of the commercial zoning along Barrow Road,
between 33rd and 36th Streets. Staff feels that the Plan
should be reviewed in this area. A neighborhood planning
committee has been working to develop a policy for the area.
Staff would like to work with this committee to determine
how the Plan should be amended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the February 13,
1995 Commission meeting to allow for further review of the
Boyle Park District Land Use Plan in this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and recommended that the
item be deferred to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting
to allow for further review of the Boyle Park District Land
Use Plan. It was noted that the applicant had agreed to the
deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting with a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE:
The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily. The
Fa
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • B Z-6070 (Cont.)
request is for Commercial. Upon review of the Plan, staff
determined the existing zoning pattern was ignored. In
order to assure the meaningfulness of the Plan, Staff
believes it is appropriate to amend the Plan.
A review of existing zoning and land use lead Staff to the
conclusion Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial are more
appropriate classifications along John Barrow Road in the
36th Street area. Since a Planning Committee has been
working in the area, Staff met with representatives of the
Committee to discuss a Plan Amendment.
Both Staff and the Neighborhood Planning Committee recommend
the following changes: 1) At 36th Street and John Barrow
Road the Mixed Use and Low Density Multifamily areas should
be changed to Commercial. However no access to Ludwig or
Longcoy should be allowed (open space strips); 2) From mid -
block between 35th and 34th Streets along John Barrow north
to 32nd Street, Mixed Office and Commercial would replace
Commercial and Low Density Multifamily classified areas; 3)
Either side of 37th Street along John Barrow the Mixed Use
and Single Family area would change to Mixed Office
Commercial.
These changes recognize the existing commercial and office
zoned tracts and also attempt to discourage any further
commercial stripping along John Barrow.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION UPDATE:
The site in question is within the area proposed by the Land
Use Plan Amendment to be Mixed Office and Commercial. Staff
believes "C-111 Neighborhood Commercial would be more
appropriate for the site than "C-3" General Commercial.
"C-111 more closely meets that intent of the Mixed Office and
Commercial designation and is designed to accommodate
limited retail development within or adjacent to
neighborhood areas.
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request and
recommends that the site be rezoned "C-1".
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
The applicant, Guy Wade, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented an update on the review
of the existing zoning and land use in the area and
recommended that the property be zoned C-1. Dana Carney, of
the Planning Staff, noted that the proposed use was a
"Hospitality House." The structure will be remodeled and
made available for rent to accommodate special events such
as birthday parties, meetings, showers, small dinner groups,
3
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: B_ _Z-6070 (Cont.
receptions and small reunions. Mr. Carney noted that the
proposed use was not permitted by right in the C-1 district
and that a conditional use permit would be required. Mr.
Carney stated that the applicant agreed to zoning the site
C-1 and had submitted materials to request a conditional use
permit. Mr. Carney made reference to the cover letter,
house plan, facility use application and site plan which had
been prepared by Mr. Wade and presented to the Commission.
Mr. Carney stated that the site plan had been prepared with
help from the City Engineer's and Planning Staffs and that
issues such as landscaping, screening and parking lot design
were addressed. It was also noted that Mr. Wade had agreed
to limit signage to a single ground mounted sign 30 inches
square in size.
Mr. Carney noted the letter of support for the proposed use
which had been sent by the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association. He recommended approval of C-1 zoning and the
conditional use permit for the hospitality house.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Wade
stated that there would be a staff attendant present at all
times the facility is in use to monitor activity.
George Brown, Vice President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission in support of the
application. He stated that Mr. Wade had met with the
association and had addressed the group's three primary
concerns; parking, safety and on -site monitoring and
landscaping. Mr. Brown stated that the association voted
100% to support the application. He concluded by stating
that the proposed C-1 zoning was compatible with the
neighborhood plan and recommended approval of the
application.
A motion was made to approve the C-1 zoning as amended.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
A motion was made to approve a conditional use permit for
the hospitality house as presented by Mr. Wade. The motion
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
4
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: C
NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment -
Chenal District
LOCATION: North of Rock Creek
REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use
Pattern
SOURCE: Landowner
STAFF REPORT:
The City Planning Staff was asked to review the Land Use Plan in
an area north and south of Chenal in the Kirk Road area. The
property owner was asking for further intensification of land
uses. South of Chenal to Mixed Office and Commercial (removal of
last Multifamily) and Office to the north with Single Family
changed to Multifamily at the West Loop.
Staff agreed to look at the Plan and meet with representatives of
the owner. Staff could not limit the review to one ownership and
requested that representation of Chenal also meet with Staff to
discuss possible land use plan changes. After review of the area
and having met with the two major owners affected, Staff does
believe some intensification is justified as well as some
reconfiguration.
There is basic agreement on a plan amendment, however, in order
to get agreement on the overall package some additional time is
needed. Staff will brief the Commission on most of the changes,
but final action cannot occur until early 1996.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that the property owners and
Staff were close to agreement but had not reached an accord yet.
However, Staff still wanted to review the changings and the area
under consideration. Mr. Malone reviewed the physical area where
the amendments will be considered and generally what type of
changes are being considered. By unanimous vote the item was
deferred to January 16, 1996.
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE:
The owners still have not provided Staff
their property. Therefore, Staff would
12 weeks giving the owners the right to
necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 1995)
with information on
recommend a deferral for
call the issue up soon if
(JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff informed the Commission that a rezoning case had been filed
for the February 13 hearing. Due to a lack of input by one
property owner and the other's desire to proceed, Staff
recommends deferral to the February 13 hearing so as not to
adversely affect the property owner.
By unanimous vote the item was deferred to February 13, 1996.
STAFF UPDATE:
(JANUARY 18, 1996)
As stated previously, Staff began a review of the Kirk Road area
at the request of a property owner to amend the adopted Plan.
Several areas to the west and north were identified as locations
needing a revision due to zoning and/or development activity.
The adopted Plan calls for Neighborhood Commercial at the
Kanis/Chenal Parkway intersection west of Kirk Road. However,
the area zoned is larger than a typical "Neighborhood
Commercial", zoned 11C-3" General Commercial and located at a
major intersection. These factors make it unlikely that
"neighborhood commercial" will develop here. A better
classification would be Commercial. The northwest corner of
Chenal Parkway with the proposed West Loop likewise is shown for
Neighborhood Commercial. Again the area is too large; it is
zoned "C-3" General Commercial and located at a major
intersection. The actual development is more likely to be
Commercial without a neighborhood origination. A Commercial
classification more accurately reflects expected development.
Along the east side of the proposed West Loop, between Chenal
Parkway and Kanis Roads, a large Public Institutional use area is
identified. The site was to be a senior/junior high magnet
school site. The school districts have not been using the City's
plans to locate sites but rather have done their own site
selection. While the location is a good one for that type of
school, the Plan should not show the use. The area should
instead be shown for Single Family use.
Two areas of Office use are proposed. Both are expansions of the
large office area between Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. In both
2
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • C (Cont.)
cases the areas are already zoned for Office use and in one case
development has begun.
A Public Use area is added at Shinall Mountain, east of Chenal
Parkway. This is the site of a new church. While a larger
Public Use area is removed to the southeast, down the ridge.
This site had been proposed for an Education Park in 1986. This
use never materialized. The area is zoned for Single Family and
the owner has expressed the desire to develop it for single
family use. Thus a more realistic use would be single family.
The City Service Center Site has been just north of Chenal
Parkway on the east side of the West Loop. However the site has
been relocated to the north - from Pebble Beach north on the west
side of the West Loop. This relocation will change an area of
Multifamily to Public Use north of Pebble Beach, and Public Use
to Office north of Chenal Parkway.
To the northwest of the area proposed as an Educational Park
(changed to Single Family), is an area of Single Family proposed
to be Low Density Multifamily. This is the location of a
collector - collector intersection and there have been discussion
of a park site nearby. Approximately half of'the area is already
zoned MF-6.
At the proposed intersection of the West Loop and Wellington
Village, a Neighborhood Commercial area, is shown and some
Office. The Plan had proposed Single Family and Public
Institutional use. However, the City had previously approved
Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection of these two
roads through a zoning action. This commercial area is moved
the southwest, since the intersection has been moved. To the
west, a Public Use area is changed for Office use and a small
amount of Multifamily is proposed for to the area south of the
Office use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
A
to
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
Item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to March 28,
1996. By unanimous vote of (7 ayes, 0 noes) the item was
deferred.
3
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: D
NAME: Hillcrest Local Ordinance
Historic District
SOURCE: Hillcrest Residents'
Association, Historic District
Commission and Staff
REQUEST: To create a Local Ordinance
Historic District for a
portion of the Hillcrest
Neighborhood.
STAFF REPORT:
The Hillcrest Residents' Association has requested the Little
Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) to begin the formal
process of establishing a local ordinance historic district for
the Hillcrest neighborhood. Arkansas Statute 14-172-207 lays out
a specific procedure for creating a local district, which
includes review and comment by the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program and the local planning commission. The planning
commission is charged with reviewing the information (report)
submitted by the LRHDC and to make a recommendation. (The report
from the LRHDC includes a letter and several attachments.)
The Hillcrest neighborhood is currently a National Register
Historic District, and the proposal is for the local district to
follow the boundaries of the National Register District. A
National Register Historic District is a historic district that
is listed in the national register of historic places, the
country's official list of historic places worthy of
preservation. The register includes individual buildings and
sites, as well as districts or neighborhoods that contain
structures that are historically or architecturally significant.
A national register listing recognizes the significance of these
districts and offers investment tax credits for restoration, but
includes no restriction on what one can do with the property.
Therefore, a structure within a National Register district may be
altered or completely demolished at the will of the owner,
without any review. Little Rock has a total of four National
Register districts: MacArthur Park Historic District,
Governors' Mansion Historic District, Marshall Square Historic
District and Hillcrest.
A local ordinance historic district is designated by a local
ordinance to protect the significant properties and historic
character of an area. It provides local governments with the
means to assure that growth, development and change will occur in
ways that respect the historical, architectural and environmental
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • D (Cont.)
character of an area. Local designation encourages sensitive new
construction or modification of existing buildings and
discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. The adopted
ordinance contains criteria for development in the local
ordinance district and is adopted by the local governing body. A
historic district commission has the authority to review and
approve construction, reconstruction, alteration restoration,
moving and demolition of buildings or structures in a local
ordinance historic district. The purpose of the review process
is to determine that the proposal is designed to respect and
relate to the special character of the district. Little Rock
currently has one local ordinance historic district, the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
The planning commission has sixty days to make a recommendation
to the LRHDC. If a recommendation is not made within the sixty
day period, the report will be presented to the LRHDC as
approved. It is hoped that the planning commission will not find
it necessary to take the full sixty days to make a recommendation
and act on the request as soon as possible.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff reviewed the item for the Commission, and reminded the
members that the statute states that the local planning
commission is to review the Little Rock Historic District
Commission report and make a recommendation. Other comments were
made by staff about the process for establishing a local
ordinance district and the Commission's role. Staff said the
Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation and the report
would be presented to the Little Rock Historic District as
approved if no recommendation was made. Staff ask the Commission
not to take the full 60 days to act on the report.
Commissioner Larry Lichty then spoke and stated that he currently
manages property within the boundaries of the proposed district,
but the City Attorney's Office did not feel it was a conflict of
interest. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's staff, reaffirmed their
position.
Jean Cockcroft, Paul Crawford and Jim Vandenburg, representatives
of the Hillcrest Residents' Association, were present. Also in
attendance was Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter
Association. There were no objectors.
Jean Cockcroft spoke first and gave some background on the
process, starting with the structural survey of the area for the
National Register District. Ms. Cockcroft went onto say that the
residents' association made a real effort to get the word out to
the neighborhood. She said members of the association went door
to door to try to speak to as many residents as possible and
obtained signatures on a petition in support of establishing a
`February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: D (Con
local ordinance district. Ms. Cockcroft said that the
association found very little opposition to the concept.
Paul Crawford then spoke and described the differences between a
National Register district and a local historic district. Mr.
Crawford said that the primary difference was that a local
district required additional levels of review and gave the local
jurisdiction more control over demolitions and certain types of
structural changes. Mr. Crawford pointed out that there were
1,800 local ordinance districts across the nation. He then went
onto discuss the benefits of a local district and they included
helping to stabilize a neighborhood, maintaining the character
and property values and reducing insurance rates. Mr. Crawford
said that a local historic district usually benefits the
residents and commercial interests. He continued by saying that
a local district will only have a minimal impact on property
owners and it will not prohibit modifications to buildings. Mr.
Crawford said that a local historic district will allow a process
that reviews proposed changes to protect the historical character
of the area.
Jim Vandenberg then discussed the public involvement and
outreach. Mr. Vandenberg said that meetings were held with the
residents and petitions were circulated throughout the
neighborhood. He then explained the door to door effort to
contact as many residents and businesses as possible. Mr.
Vandenberg said there were a total of 1,730 structures within the
proposed boundaries of the district and 1,100 signatures in
support were obtained.
At this point, there were some questions about the signatures on
the petition vs. the numbers of property owners within the
boundaries of the proposed historic district. Jim Vandenberg
responded to the questions and said every effort was made to
contact all the property owners. Mr. Vandenberg said that there
was a public meeting and a number of property owners were
present. Discussion continued on the issue of property owners
and the number signing the petition. Mr. Vandenberg said that it
appeared that a majority had signed the petition supporting the
proposed district.
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, spoke and
addressed the issue of design guidelines for the proposed
district. Mr. Lawson discussed the differences between the
MacArthur Park district and the Hillcrest neighborhood. He said
that Hillcrest has many different architectural styles and the
guidelines should be developed that are compatible with the
neighborhood. Mr. Lawson concluded by saying that a local
historic district was a way of stopping decline within a
neighborhood.
Comments were then offered by various individuals including
several commissioners.
3
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) -
Paul Crawford spoke again and said the process to establish was
long and ensured public involvement. Mr. Crawford said the
churches were notified and the Hillcrest Merchants' Association
provided a letter of support in support of the local district.
There was a lengthy discussion about various issues.
Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association
and Hillcrest property owner, said he strongly supported the
local district concept because it provides stability and enhances
property values. Mr. McKenzie also said that the intent of a
local historic district was to enhance the entire neighborhood.
There were a number of comments made about the various issues
raised during the hearing.
The Commission requested more information and it was suggested
that the item be deferred. A motion was then offered to defer
the item to the February 13, 1996 meeting. The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
Because only seven commissioners were present, Jean Cockcroft,
Hillcrest Residents' Association, requested a deferral. A motion
was made to defer the item to the February 27, 1996 meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
4
NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT/LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT
A National Register historic district is a
historic district that is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The National Register
is our country's official list of historic places
worthy of preservation. It includes individual
buildings, structures, sites, and objects as well as
historic districts that are historically,
architecturally, or archaeologically significant.
National Register listing recognizes the
significance of properties. and districts. By doing so,
it identifies significant historic resources in a
community. Boundaries of National Register districts
are tightly drawn to encompass only concentrated
areas of historic buildings. Information compiled to
nominate a historic district can be used in a variety of
planning and development activities. National
Register listing also makes available specific
preservation incentives. and provides a limited degree
of protection from the effects of federally funded,
licensed, or permitted activities.
LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
A local historic district is a district
designated by local ordinance and falls under the
jurisdiction of a local preservation review commission.
A local historic district is generally "overlaid" on
existing zoning classifications in a community,
therefore, a local district commission deals only with
the appearance of the district, not with the uses to
which properties in the district are put.
The designation of a local district protects
the significant properties and historic character
of the district. It provides communities with the
means to make sure that growth, development, and
change take place in ways that respect important
architectural, historical, and environmental
characteristics. Local designation encourages
sensitive development in the district and discourages
unsympathetic changes from occurring. This happens
through a process called design review, whereby the
preservation commission approves major changes that
are planned for the district and issues Certificates
of Appropriateness which allow the proposed changes
to take place.
NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT
LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
• Identifies significant properties and
districts for general planning purposes.
• Analyzes and assesses the historic
character and quality of the district.
• Designates historic areas based on
uniform national criteria and procedures.
• Sets district boundaries tightly, based
on the actual distribution pattern of
intact historic properties in the area.
• Makes available specific federal tax
incentives for preservation purposes.
• Provides a limited degree of protection
from the effects of federally assisted
undertakings.
• Qualifies property owners for federal and
state grants for preservation purposes,
when funds are available.
• Does not restrict the use or disposition
of property or obligate private property
owners in any way.
• Does not require conformance to design
guidelines or preservation standards when
property is rehabilitated unless specific
preservation incentives (tax credits,
grants) are involved.
• Does not affect state and local government
activities.
• Does not prevent the demolition of historic
buildings and structures within designated
areas.
• Protects a community's significant historic
properties and areas through a design review
process.
• Protects the historic character and quality
of the district with specific design controls.
• Designates historic areas on the basis of
local criteria and local procedures.
• Sets district boundaries based on the
distribution pattern of historic resources plus
other preservation and community planning
considerations.
• Provides no tax incentives for preservation
purposes unless such are provided by local
tax law.
• Provides no additional protection from the
effects of federally assisted undertakings.
• Does not qualify property owners for federal
or state grants for preservation purposes.
• Does not restrict the use to which property
is put in the district or require property
owners to make improvements to their property.
• Requires local commission review and approval,
based on conformance to local design guidelines,
before a building permit is issued for any
"material changes" in appearance to the district.
• Does not affect federal, state or local
government activities.
• Provides for review of proposed demolitions
within designated areas; may prevent or delay
proposed demolitions for specific time periods
to allow for preservation alternatives.
i
NORrH
L/r%f
ROCK
ARKANSIS t• ffp�f cart
j,9 � a�0 a0
M--- I `C
'- ,.,�� .....-- w UTTLE 440
CAMMACK ROCK t
VILLAGE i `t t� I Pf ssa..fM PAOW `I
ac~•' •I•c..K 16�
I.
.� ,:.q,,� =; si• VICINITY MAP
1'!•..� :. i i I � rig �:...� :.
••�_ �f4v.91
13,
�.i � �� .� «i � �.. t ... ;• y \ erg- .
s:l
��.
lz
60
s• =.. .AR •..•e L U •'�• ~ II . lid I' r
11
- f •a.. � �� Sfif[ : is ��' . I ��i �Ssla:�ris i ' '"�. ��� � "�, yf
LjpApr "ITT
. Zvi
may, r .1 _ > N . •-�.�:.5�,.,�;t;=_ _-_•«,: p `' '
� alp:a ; r I� �•'
t � •�• � „t �fst••tE >�I�!�s=��=��r_c� iP d '1 s:'��a/=�s� �rs_f�s=al
p • �' ;. �� � I � �. ,. s�s«s:: =as •. J•rs s�sss>•�t��.
7 .. •I -I �.. I .J�.r����rs�«'�a�cs�l��/ � t•--�r v.•rasai 'i
HILLCREST NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC DISTRICT
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO E FILE NO • Z-5668-B
NAME:
Pinnacle Properties -
conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:
12,500 Chenal Parkway
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Roman Catholic Diocese of
Little Rock/Barksdale McKay
PROPOSAL•
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of an automatic
car wash as part of a
convenience food store with
gas pumps development on this
C-3 zoned, 1.288 acre site.
The applicant is requesting a
waiver of Zoning Ordinance,
Section 36-298(1)b. regarding
the buffering of the menu
board speaker location.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is located at the northeast corner of
Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street.
This site is a 1.288 acre outparcel of the proposed
17.6 acre Morris Commercial Subdivision.
2. Compatibility with Neiahborh
The adjacent property to the east, west and north is
zoned C-3, and is part of Lot 1 of the proposed Morris
Commercial Subdivision.
Further west is the R-5 zoned Trinity Presbyterian
Church site.
The land across Markham Street to the south and Chenal
Parkway to the west is zoned C-3.
The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on
the surrounding properties.
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained at 2 points,
utilizing the interior drives which will service the
larger Lot 1, Morris Commercial Subdivision.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan
exceeds the minimum ordinance requirements.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
ordinance requirements.
The shrub spacing along Chenal Parkway and West Markham
should average every three feet instead of the eight
feet shown on the plan submitted.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Dedicate right-of-way or easements as agreed upon for
Chenal and Markham. The right -turn lane on Markham and
the deceleration lane on Chenal will be constructed as
one lane. Construct sidewalks and ramps according to
approved standards and ADA standards. Plans for the
construction of decel and widening of Markham are to be
submitted for approval with the appropriate striping
plans.
Obtain grading permits and provide erosion control plan
prior to construction. All disturbed areas are to
seeded and mulched for erosion control prior to final
platting the lots. Stormwater detention analysis is
required.
A sidewalk should be constructed adjacent to access
drives with the development of this lot.
6. Utility and Fire Comments:
Fire Dent.: There must be a fire hydrant located
within 500 feet of all buildings on this site.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility indicates that sewer is
available on the south side of West Markham Street.
Little Rock Water Works - A water main extension will
be required. An acreage charge of $330/acre will apply
in addition to normal connection fees. Submit plans
for backflow prevention to the Water works for
approval. An RPZ backflow preventer will be required.
2
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B
AP&L - A 15 foot easement is required along the south,
east and north property lines.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a one -bay automatic
car wash as part of a convenience food store with gas
pumps development on this C-3 zoned site. Included in
the convenience food store will be a fast food
restaurant (approximately 900 square feet) with a
drive-thru window. The convenience food store with gas
pumps and fast food restaurant are permitted uses in
C-3 zoning, but the automatic car wash requires the
conditional use permit review.
The convenience food store will be located within the
north half of this site with the gas pumps located
within the south half of the property. The automatic
car wash will be located toward the rear of the site,
along the western property line. Access to this site
will be gained at two points, utilizing interior drives
which will serve the larger Home Depot site.
All site lighting and signage will comply with the
Chenal Parkway Overlay District Ordinance.
Section 36-298(1)b. of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance
requires that menu board speaker locations be designed
to provide for a solid wall at least six feet in height
and twenty feet in length along the opposite lane line.
This wall is to be constructed of masonry or wood with
a textured finish to diminish sound deflection. The
applicant is requesting a waiver from this ordinance
requirement, as the menu board is to be located
adjacent to the proposed large Home Depot parking lot
on Lot 1 of the proposed Morris Commercial Subdivision.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with Utility and Fire Department
Comments
4. Compliance with the Chenal Parkway Overlay
District Ordinance regarding site lighting and
signage.
K
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B
5. This lot must be final platted prior to
application for building permit.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Barksdale McKay and Dickson Flake were present, representing
the application.
David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with
the Committee, primarily the dedication of right-of-way on
Chenal and West Markham and sidewalks.
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, discussed the
landscape requirements.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that Mr. McKay
has requested a waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement
of a solid wall across from the menu board speaker location
for the purpose of diminishing sound deflection.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant failed to
send the required notification (to all the record owners of
property within 200 feet of this property) for this meeting.
The applicant mailed the notices on January 26, 1996. Staff
recommended deferral of this item until the February 13, 1996
Commission meeting.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation, with
conditions, on this application as there were no further
issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this
matter.
The Chairman placed the item before
inclusion within the Consent Agenda
to that effect was made. The motion
7 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent.
the Commission for
for approval. A motion
was passed by a vote of
4
'February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-1088
NAME: WINSLOW COURT ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Along Winslow Dr., approximately 1 block north of
Hughes St., approximately 0.1 mile east of Bryant St. and 0.25
mile south of Cantrell Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
The Wilson Co., Inc. & Norman Holcomb Samuel L. Davis
2311 Biscayne Dr., Suite 112 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC.
P. O. Box 7244 5301 West 8th. Street
Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72204
223-8651 664-0324
AREA• 5.0 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 17 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
1. Approval of a variance to permit a private residential
street in an access easement.
2. Approval of a variance to permit the front yard
building setback lines to be set at 15 feet behind the
access easement line.
3. Approval of a variance to permit access to Lots 7 and 8
by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot
access easement.
4. Approval of a variance from the requirement to provide
a sidewalk along at least one side of the street.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the subdivision of a 5-acre tract into 17 single-
family residential lots. An existing home on the tract is
currently served by a 480 foot long private cul-de-sac street,
and it is proposed that this existing street, with its cul-de-
sac, remain "as is"; that a 60 foot wide, minimum, access
easement be platted to encompass the private street and cul-de-
sac; and, that for access to the two proposed lots which are to
the west of and beyond the existing cul-de-sac, a 20 foot wide
drive in a 20 foot access easement be provided. Lots are to be a
'February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
minimum of 9,000 square feet in area, with the average lot being
approximately 12,500 square feet in size. Two lots, in the
northeast corner of the tact, are to be in excess of 21,000
square feet in area. The applicant proposes a front building
setback line at 15 feet behind the access easement, and plans no
sidewalks in the subdivision. Access to the subdivision is to be
restricted, with erection of a gate at the point of entry to the
private street and provision of a card access system.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is
requested.
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a
variance to permit a private residential street in an access
easement.
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a
variance to permit the front yard building setback lines to
be set at 15 feet behind the access easement line.
Approval of a variance is requested to permit access to Lots
7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot
access easement.
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a
variance from the requirement that the internal street have
a sidewalk along at least one side of its length.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently an "estate", with a 480 foot long
private drive extending from the present end of the public
portion of Winslow Dr. to a cul-de-sac in front of a single
residence located at the southwest corner of the tract.
(The cul-de-sac is a 15 foot wide, single -lane design with
an island in the center, with an outside diameter of 62
feet.) The site, except for the area surrounding the
residence, is heavily wooded. The terrain ranges from
fairly level south of the existing private drive, to 50%
grades at the northeast corner of the tract. Much of the
area north of the existing private drive exceeds the 18%
grade which brings the "Hillside Regulations" into play.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, with R-2 being the
zoning of all land to the east and south. Land abutting the
northeast three-quarters of the boundary of the tract is
zoned R-5; the remaining quarter of the land abutting the
north boundary is zoned C-3. To the west is an MF-24 zoned
tract. There are apartment developments occupying the sites
to the north and west. Single-family residences abut the
K
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
site on the south and east, with homes facing the public
portion of Winslow Dr. between the private portion of the
roadway and Hughes St.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The existing cul-de-sac does not conform to City
standards. The cul-de-sac must be constructed with a
40 foot outside radius, in lieu of the existing 31 foot
radius (62 foot diameter), and a 100 foot diameter
access easement must be platted around the cul-de-sac.
The planned 20 foot drive and access easement for
access to Lots 7 and 8 is not acceptable. The
construction of a minimum 24 foot residential street
for access to all lots will be required, and the street
standards are to conform to the City standards for
minor residential streets.
At the point where Winslow Dr. becomes a private
street, a proper turn -around device must be constructed
to provide a turn -around for "SU" (Single -Unit) trucks
(e.g., garbage trucks) and other vehicles.
The existing 27 foot wide street should be overlaid as
part of the development of the subdivision, and any
damaged piping, curb and gutter, or inlets are to be
repaired or replaced.
Grading permits must be obtained, and erosion control
plans must be provided prior to construction. All
disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched for
erosion control prior to final platting of the lots.
Stormwater detention analysis is required.
Open ditches are generally not permitted by the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to
Planing Commission approval of the plat. (Ref. Sec.
31-89.9 of the Code of Ordinances)
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension to each lot, and a private fire hydrant, will
be required.
3
'February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
Little Rock Wastewater Utility commentd that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required. All lots must
be serviced by gravity sewer. Abandonment of the existing
sewer mains shall be done by the developer only with the
approval from the Wastewater Utility.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 10 foot
easement will be required along the east boundary line of
the tract. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that the
developer must verify easement requirements for access to
the lots from the private street.
The Fire Department noted that the width of the turn -around
at the end of the drive must be increased to 20 feet,
minimum, and that the outside turning radius is inadequate
for access by emergency vehicles.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) source of title
of the owner of record, giving deed book and page number or
instrument number; 2) a metes and bounds legal description,
with the acreage to the nearest one -tenth of an acre; 3) a
breakdown of the average and minimum lot sizes; and, 4) any
existing covenants and restrictions.
The following requirements, as cited in Sec. 31-89, are
deficient: 1) Contours are to be shown at 2 foot intervals
for terrain with slopes of less than 10% grade, in lieu of
the contours being at 5 foot intervals, as shown (Contours
at 5 foot intervals may be used in areas where the terrain
exceeds 10% grade); 2) The storm drainage plan and analy-
sis must be provided; 3) The names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page
number or instrument number, are to be shown; 4) The names
of owners of all unplatted land contiguous to the proposed
subdivision must be shown, as must the names of owners of all
tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 4) The physical description
of monuments must be noted; 5) The zoning classification of
abutting land is to be shown; 6) Certification that the
survey has been filed in the offices of the state surveyor
and the circuit court clerk within the last 7 years is to be
included in the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy; and, 8) A phasing plan must be provided.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary
Surveying Accuracy and the Certificate of Preliminary
Engineering Accuracy be completed and executed.
4
,February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088
Sec. 31-367 through 31-376 is the section known as the
"Hillside Regulations". This division "is designed to
ensure proper integration of physical improvements in rugged
topographical areas...." It applies "to those portions of a
subdivision plat that have an average slope of 18% or
greater. Such areas of steep slope are recognized as
requiring special... development standards...." The division
continues, "No lot within any hillside area ... shall be less
than 10,000 square feet in area." The lots in areas with an
average slope of 18% are to meet this minimum size. The
lots in areas with an average slope of 20% are to have a
minimum size of 12,000 square feet.
Sec. 31-2 defines a "Minor Residential Street" as one that
is (for example) a cul-de-sac street which does not exceed
750 feet in length. Sec. 31-209 notes that sidewalks are
not required along minor residential streets. The public
portion of Winslow Dr., from Hughes St. to the south
boundary of the subject tract, is 300 feet in length. The
existing private street, from the south boundary of the
tract to the center of the cul-de-sac is 480 feet. If a
standard residential cul-de-sac is constructed, as required
by Public Works, with Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being "fanned" out
around it, and with the center of the cul-de-sac set at 450
feet from the south boundary of the subdivision, then the
street qualifies as a "Minor Residential Street", and no
sidewalk is required. A variance request to the Board of
Directors, if this choice is made, is moot. If the cul-de-
sac is set further west, then a variance from the Board of
Directors will be needed to omit the required sidewalk;
however, the 900 turn in the street, permitted in Minor
Residential Streets, is not permitted in Standard
Residential Streets, and realignment of the street becomes a
requirement and complicataes the situation.
Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public
street, except where private streets are explicitly approved
by the Planning Commission." Sec. 31-207 states:
11... private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission to serve isolated developments. The design
standards shall conform to public street standards....
Private streets are permissible only in the form of cull -de -
sac and short loop streets, and only when it has been
determined that these streets can be adequately served by
all public service vehicles. The subdivider shall provide
for permanent maintenance of all private streets in the Bill
of Assurance. This ... shall include water lines, fire
hydrants, or other utility facilities."
Sec. 31-256 states: "Building lines for residential lots
shall be at least 25 feet from each street property
line...." The section goes on to say: "(For) lots fronting
on culs-de-sac or curved portions of other streets, (the
5
'February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
building setback line) shall not be less than 25 feet from
the street right-of-way line at any point."
E. ANALYSIS•
Practically the entire area north and east of the private
street is subject to the "Hillside Regulations", since the
grades are at or are greater than 18%. The required
analysis, as far as staff knows, has not been done;
consequently, staff cannot determine if the subdivision
design (i.e.., number of lots and size of lots) reflects
compliance with the Hillside Regulations. Either the
required analysis needs to be completed, or the applicant
needs to seek a waiver of the requirements from the Board of
Directors.
Public Works has stated that the existing cul-de-sac does
not provide the minimum required turning radius for "SU"
vehicles, and that this existing cul-de-sac cannot supply
the returned turn -around. The Fire Department stated that
the existing cul-de-sac is inadequate. Public Works also
rejects the proposal to have access to Lots 7 and 8 be
provided by a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot access easement.
Because of the requirements for the cul-de-sac, and because
the need for a variance from the Board of Directors from the
sidewalk requirement will be avoided with proper placement
of the cul-de-sac, the existing cul-de-sac needs to be
abandoned, and Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 need to be re -designed to
flair our around a new cul-de-sac.
A proper turn -around device must be provided at the end of
the public street section, where the roadway becomes a
private drive.
The applicant has asked for approval of a variance to permit
a private residential street in an access easement. The
existing street is 27 feet in width, and this meets the
requirements for a Standard Residential Street width. This
street, because of its length from its intersection with
Hughes St. to its termination in the cul-de-sac, and because
of the number of lots which is serves, meets the
qualifications to be classified as a Minor Residential
Street. (The Minor Residential Street standard is a 24 foot
wide street in a 45 foot wide right-of-way.) The 900 turn
in the street would not be permitted in a Standard
Residential Street; however, it is permitted in a Minor
Residential Street. The width of the proposed access
easement is 60 feet. The criteria for the Planing
Commission approving a private street are met, as long as
either the street remains a Minor Residential Street (i.e.,
it is not lengthened beyond the 750 foot length from Hughes
St., and the required cul-de-sac is placed as required by
Public Works); or, it is reconstructed to take the 900 bend
'February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
out to meet the design standards for a Standard Residential
Street.
The building line along a minor residential street would
normally be 35.5 feet off the curb line (a 24 foot street in
a 45 foot right-of-way leaves 10.5 feet on either side of
the street, plus the normal 25 foot building line). In the
subject situation, there is a 27 foot street in a 60 foot
access easement, leaving 16.5 feet behind the curb line to
the outside limit of the access easement. With 15 feet for
the building line, the building line will effectively be
31.5 feet off the curb line. The effective variance, then,
is 4 feet. The applicant explains that it is his desire to
reduce the front building setback line in order to increase
the separation of the single-family dwellings from the
apartment buildings to the north and west, as well as from
the homes to the south and east.
Public Works has noted that the requested 20 foot private
drive in an access easement is not acceptable, and has
recommended that the cul-de-sac be re -constructed and
located so that all lots have directs access to the street
or cul-de-sac.
Major problems will arise if the street must be classified
as a Standard Residential Street, in lieu of a Minor
Residential Street. The 900 bend in the street is too
severe to be permitted in a Standard Residential Street; so,
the street needs to remain a Minor Residential Street. As a
Minor Residential Street, a sidewalk is not required, and a
variance to permit development of the subdivision without a
sidewalk is moot.
There are, then, a number of deficiencies which need to be
resolved. Some of the requirements noted from Sections 31-
87, 31-88, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93, are either minor in
nature and easily remedied, or are matters which are
normally supplied after Planning Commission approval of the
Preliminary Plat, but prior to submission of final plats.
Some, as cited above, are critical and affect the number and
layout of the lots.
7
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to:
1) The Hillside analysis being completed, and the number
and size of the lots being adjusted according to the
requirements of the Hillside Regulations;
2) The existing cul-de-sac being removed, and a standard
residential cul-de-sac being constructed with its
center point being 450 feet from the south boundary of
the tract;
3) Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being flared out around the new
cul-de-sac, each with direct access to the private
street;
4) A proper turn -around device being provided in the
private street where it transitions from a public
street; and,
5) The Public Works requirements regarding overlaying and
repairing the roadway being complied with, as well as
the other miscellaneous Public Works and Planning
requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the
private street in the 60 foot access easement.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the
front yard building setback lines to be set at 15 feet
behind the access easement line, with the effective distance
from the back of the curb to the building line being 31.5
feet in lieu of the 35.5 feet which would normally occur.
Staff recommends denial of a variance to permit access to
Lots 7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20
foot access easement, and recommends construction of a
proper cul-de-sac and a re -design of the lots surrounding
the cul-de-sac.
Staff reports that the requested variance from the
requirement to provide a sidewalk along at least one side of
the street is not needed, since the street qualifies as a
Minor Residential Street, and, since converting the street
to a Standards Residential Street (where a sidewalk would be
required) would mean major reconstitution of the street.
8
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Norman Holcomb, the applicant, and Mr. Sam Davis, the project
engineer were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members
the nature of the proposed development, and reviewed with the
Committee members and the applicant and his engineer the comments
contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the
Public Works staff, discussed the comments concerning the
inadequacy of the existing cul-de-sac, and the need to re -design
the cul-de-sac as a standard residential cul-de-sac, placed so
that Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 could all have frontage on the cul-de-
sac. Mr. Scherer noted that the 20 foot drives, proposed for
access to Lots 7 and 8, are not acceptable. Staff also reviewed
with the applicant and his engineer the requirement to provide a
proper turn -around device where the street transitions from a
public to a private street. Mr. Holcomb responded that it may be
better to simply dedicate the existing private street as a public
street, and forego the idea of the gated, private entry. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant had realized that the survey
which had been used to design the subdivision was erroneous; that
the east and west dimension of the property is actually 30 feet
less than the survey indicated. Staff reported that a revised
plat was prepared, and that it had been submitted to staff on
Friday, January 26, 1996. Staff reported that all outstanding
issues had been resolved, except for the design of the turn-
around at the entrance to the proposed subdivision. Staff
reported that, in fact, the reduced length of the street had been
helpful in assuring that the length of the cul-de-sac street does
not exceed 750 feet in length, permitting it to be classified as
a minor residential street. Staff reported that the cul-de-sac
had been redesigned to comply wilth Public Works requirements.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, and Mr. Norman Holcomb, the
applicant, were present. Mr. Davis said that the needed
information, noted in the staff report, had been made, and that
the revised plat had been submitted to staff.
Commissioners Putnam, Mizan, and Daniel expressed concern that the
revised plat had not been submitted to staff earlier, so that the
needed staff review could be made and reported to the Commission.
Staff reminded the Commissioners and the applicant that the
Subdivision Committee meeting had been held on January 4, 1996,
and that the deficiencies had been noted at that time.
A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the
preliminary plat approval until the February 13, 1996 Rezoning
9
-February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
Hearing, to permit staff to review the revised submittal and to
prepare the proper report to the Commission. The motion carried
with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, and 2 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
Staff reported that, since the January 30, 1996 Commission
meeting, the application has been amended; that: 1) the
applicant, who was, initially, Bob Wilson, with The Wilson Co.,
and Norman Holcomb, has been amended to withdraw Norman Holcomb
as an applicant, with Bob Wilson continuing as the sole
applicant; 2) the requested variance to permit a private cul-de-
sac street has been withdrawn, with the applicant intending to
improve the street to City street standards and dedicate it as a
public street; 3) the turn -around device at the south boundary
of the property, since the street will not transition into a
private street, is not to be provided; 4) in lieu of a 60 foot
private street easement, a 50 foot street right-of-way is to be
dedicated; 5) the initial request for a 15 foot setback behind a
60 foot easement line is amended to a 20.5 foot setback behind
the proposed 50 foot right-of-way line, with the variance
request, then, becoming a 4.5 foot variance; 6)..the requested
variance to omit the sidewalk in the subdivision is moot, since
the street qualifies as a minor residential street along which no
sidewalk is required; and, 7) in lieu of meeting the Ordinance
requirement for side lot lines along curving streets to be radial
to the street lines, a variance is requested to permit the side
lot lines to run due north and south between Lots 4 and 5, 5 and
6, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, 9 and 10, and 10 and 11.
Staff explained that Sec. 31-231.e and Sec. 31-235 require side
lot lines to be radial to curving street lines, "unless a
variation will give a better lot plan or allow better utilization
of conservation of energy". Staff noted that initially staff had
indicated that the lot lines "flare -out" around the cul-de-sac,
but that the design professional had chosen to keep the side lot
lines parallel with the abutting lot lines, and not adhere to the
provision concerning the lot lines around the cul-de-sac being
radials, because there are existing and required new utility
easements which run north and south, and the lot lines need to
follow these easements. The provision in Sec. 31-235 permits the
needed variation, and staff recommends approval of the variance
to permit the side lot lines abutting the cul-de-sac to be
parallel with the lot lines on lots to the east along the street.
Staff recommended approval of the 4.5 foot front building setback
variance, noting that the land slopes rapidly upward at the north
and east sides of the property, and, on the south, there is a
need to add distance between the rear of the homes within the
subdivision from the side of the existing homes in the addition
to the south.
10
.February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
The applicant, Mr. Bob Wilson, and the project engineer, Mr. Sam
Davis, were present. Mr. Wilson confirmed the staff report and
noted that he would comply with whatever requirements were
imposed by Public Works in improvements to the street for it to
be accepted as a public street. Mr. Davis explained that there
is an existing sewer line running along the proposed lot line
between Lots 8 and 9, and that there is a needed new stormwater
line which is to run along the property line between Lots 6 and
7; these necessitating the variance to permit the side lot lines
to run north and south, in lieu of being radials to the street
lines.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat,
with the variances requested; i.e., the 4.5 foot front building
setback line variance, and the side lot lines not being radials
to the street lines at Lots 4 through 11. The motion carried
with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions.
11
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • 1 Z-4807-D
Owner:
Deltic Farm and Timber
Company, Inc.
Applicant: Jack McCray
Location: NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 36,
T-2-N, R-14-W; proposed
intersection of Outer Loop
Road and Wellington Village
Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 and C-1 to
MF-18, 0-3 and C-3
Purpose: Future development
Size: 26.03± acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped pasture land
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
South
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
East
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
West
- Undeveloped
pasture;
zoned
R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Please provide area map to show planned alignment of minor
arterial such that the alignment can be verified with
approved alignment on Perimeter Drive located north of One
Source. Dedication of right-of-way including right -turn
lanes is required prior to Board of Directors action.
Locations of all commercial driveways will require approval.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Chenal District Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate
item on this agenda; see deferred Item "C".
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 26.03
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family and "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial to "MF-18" Multifamily, 110-3" General Office and
C"-3" General Commercial. The 26.03 acres is currently
' February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-4 7-D (Cont
divided into 4.5± acres zoned C-1 and 21.53± acres zoned R-
2. The requested reclassification would result in 11.74±
acres zoned MF-18, 5.55± acres zoned 0-3 and 8.74± acres
zoned C-3. The property is currently undeveloped. It is
located in a rapidly developing area which includes Chenal
Valley, the Villages of Wellington and St. Charles.
The existing zoning pattern was established through the
1989, 172± acre Shackleford farm zoning. The 4.5± acres now
zoned C-1 was to be located at the intersection of Outer
Loop Road and Perimeter Drive (now Wellington Village Road).
That intersection has now been relocated approximately 500
feet to the west and the alignment of Outer Loop Road has
been shifted slightly northward.
Although staff is basically supportive of most of the
changes proposed, one aspect of the proposal stands out as
being inconsistent with the Chenal District Plan for this
area. The applicant proposes to shift the commercial zoning
from its present location to the proposed new intersection
of Outer Loop Road and Wellington Village Road. In and of
itself this shift makes perfectly good sense, however the
applicant is proposing to increase both the area and the
intensity of the commercial tract from 4.5± acres zoned C-1
to 8.74 acres zoned C-3. The District Plan has established
a Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection. The
proposed 8.74± acres of C-3 zoning goes beyond the intent of
Neighborhood Commercial.
Staff believes it is more appropriate to allow no more than
5 acres of the tract to be zoned Commercial. The remainder
of the 8.74± acres proposed for commercial could be zoned
Office to provide a transition from the commercial zoning at
the intersection to adjacent single family properties.
Staff would recommend that the commercial zoning proposed
for the intersection be limited to "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial which is more consistent with the District Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 11.74± acres to be
zoned MF-18 and the 5.55± acres to be zoned 0-3. Staff does
not recommend approval of the requested 8.74± acres to be zoned
C-3. Rather, staff recommends approval of 5 acres of C-1
zoning at the intersection with the balance of the 8.74± acres
to be zoned 0-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
The applicant, Jack McCray, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had requested on February 12, 1996 that the item
2
0
f ' February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • 1 Z-4807-D (Con
be deferred to the next rezoning hearing. Staff agreed to
the deferral.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws since the request for
deferral had not been made 5 days prior to the public
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the March 28, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote
was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
f
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO • 2 FILE NO.: Z-6090
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
PROPOSAL•
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location:
Ferguson - Conditional use
Permit
7300 Indiana Avenue
Bobbie Ferguson
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a double -wide
manufactured home on this R-2
zoned lot.
The proposed site is located on the north side of
Indiana Avenue, approximately two blocks east of North
Mississippi.
Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This neighborhood is comprised of single family,
two-family and multifamily residential uses and
zonings.
The property immediately west is zoned R-2 and contains
a single family residential structure with several
two-family residences further west (zoned R-4). The
property immediately east of this site is zoned R-2 and
contains a single family residential structure. The
property further east is zoned R-4/R-5 and contains
two-family and multifamily residential uses. The
properties to the north of this site are zoned R-5/R-2
and contain a mixture of single family, two-family and
multifamily residential uses as well as a pre-school.
The properties across Indiana Avenue to the south are
zoned R-4 and contain two-family residences.
This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a
twenty foot wide concrete driveway, located near the
center of the property.
February 13, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6090
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. Public Works' Comments:
Dedicate 5 foot of right-of-way to bring lots into
conformance with the Master Street Plan. Residential
driveways shall be concrete and have a minimum 5 foot
turn out radius and the edge of the drive shall be 5
feet from the property line. The width of the driveway
shall be 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
for the placement of a double -wide manufactured home on
this R-2 zoned site located at 7300 Indiana Avenue.
The 28 X 70 foot manufactured home will be located near
the center of the property. There will be a 20 X 20
foot attached carport on the front of the structure,
with a 20 foot wide concrete driveway from Indiana
Avenue. A 10 X 10 foot accessory building will be
located in the rear yard, near the rear property line.
The manufactured home and accessory structure will
comply with ordinance setback requirements.
This neighborhood is made-up of single family,
two-family, and multifamily residential uses and
zonings. The proposed manufactured home should not
have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
compliance with the following conditions.
1. Compliance with the Public works Comments
2. Compliance with the following minimum siting
standards as established by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5):
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or
fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
b. Removal of all transport elements.
C. Permanent foundation.
2
February 13, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6090
d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off-street parking per single family dwelling
standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning
Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that additional
right-of-way would need to be dedicated.
There were no further comments on this matter.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant failed
to send the required notification (to all the record owners
of property within 200 feet of this property) for this
meeting. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the
March 14, 1996 Commission meeting.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays, and 4 absent.
3
G
cc
U
w
cc
w
0
z
cn
T
a
z
z
z
a
w
I
w
0
I
it
rZ
W<
m
UJU='ccc0<<
mmUm2cc0<CL
W
FLU
z
w
vza�WOZO�Z
—
Cl)
0
w
z
N
U
��
0~C
Z
N
4cc
�
a
'amm
U
J
—
:D
0
z
p
ccm
cc
7j=
OC
w
a
IIIA�11
IN
MillIIY■
MINEII�RI
III
mill
IN
III
I
I
0
R1Mil1�
M
mill
KEE
M
I
M�
EVEN1111111
1
MENNEN
Eli
1111
Q
m
z
w
cn
m
Q
�I
w
r
a
z
®1
February 13, 1996
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.