pc_01 30 1996subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 30, 1996
9:00 A.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 1995
meeting were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ron Woods, Chairperson
Suzanne McCarthy
Ramsay Ball
Bill Putnam
Doyle Daniel
Pam Adcock
Sissi Brandon
Mizan Rahman
Larry Lichty
Herb Hawn
Diane Chachere
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 30, 1996
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. E. R. C. Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-283-G)
B. Kaufman Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1081)
C. Bowman Road -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z-5756-B)
D. Piedmont Office Park -- Short -Form PD-O (Z-6060)
E Goodwin 301 E. Roosevelt -- Short -Form PCD (Z-6063-A)
F. Dean's -- Short -Form POD (Z-4859-C)
F-1 Waffle House -- Short -Form PC-C (Z-591-B)
F-2 Seven Acres Business Park -- Amended Long -Form POD
(Z-5038-B)
G. G-23-245 (Riverfront Dr.) -- Right -Of -Way Abandonment
H. Z-4175-C (3000-Block of Aldersgate Rd.) -- Rezoning
from R-2 to 0-3
I. Z-6016 (4411 Baseline Rd.) -- Rezoning from R-2 to C-3
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lots 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E --
Preliminary Plat (S-50-I)
2. Point West 6th. Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-54-U)
3. Winslow Court Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1088)
4. Hinson Valley Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-1089)
5. Chenal Loop Commercial -- Preliminary Plat (5-1090)
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT:
6. Westside Jr. High School -- Short -Form POD (Z-2559-B)
Agenda, Page 2
V. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
7. Fairfield Office Complex -- Zoning Site Plan Review
(Z-3592-I)
7a. Baby Super Store -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-5698-B)
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
8. Crouch's -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5228-B)
9. Pinnacle Properties -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5668-B)
VI. REZONINGS•
10. Z-4855-A (5323 Baseline Rd.) -- Rezoning from C-3 and R-2 to
C-4
11. Z-6087 (6000 Myerson Dr.) -- Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3
VII. OTHER MATTERS:
12. Request by the L. P. Jenkins family, at 8237 Crystal
Valley Road, for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations.
(S-1091)
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO • S-283-G
NAME: E. R. C. SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1 & 2 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: South of the present end of Aldersgate Rd.,
approximately 1 mile south of Kanis Rd.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER:
Jack Moore Michael H. Johnston
ERC FOUNDATION, INC. THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
2701 Aldersgate Rd. P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72203
224-7200 375-5331
AREA: 6.362 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 500
ZONI 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: 0-3 (General Office) Uses
& Nursing Home
1) Approval of a deferral of the requirement to dedicate
right-of-way and construct Master Street Plan
improvements for Aldersgate Rd. along the Lot 2
boundary of the subdivision.
2) Approval of a temporary cul-de-sac at the southern
boundary of Lot 1, at the proposed temporary southern
end of the Aldersgate Rd. improvements.
STAFF UPDATE•
There were "fatal,, deficiencies in the submittal which were noted
in the staff report for the October 31, 1995 Planning Commission
hearing: 1) the proposed re -alignment of Aldersgate Rd. requires
concurrence from the property owner abutting the currently
approved Master Street Plan alignment of Aldersgate Rd.; and, 2)
the area of the proposed subdivision was not inclusive of all the
unplatted property from which the proposed subdivision was to be
subdivided. There were a number of other deficiencies noted, as
well.
In light of the requirements cited, the applicant sought and was
granted by the Commission a deferral of the hearing of this
proposal until the December 12, 1995 Commission agenda; however,
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-28
during the intervening time period, the applicant has submitted
no revised drawings addressing the deficiencies, and has
initiated no communication with staff to indicate a proposed
means of or a time frame for dealing with the deficiencies.
Staff, therefore, recommends that the item be withdrawn from
further consideration, without prejudice, and require that, if
the applicant wishes to pursue the matter further, a new
application be required to be submitted.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a two -lot subdivision of a 6.362 acre
tract, and the extension of Aldersgate Rd. from its present
termination at the Good Shepherd Ecumenical Retirement Center
facility, approximately 500 feet southward to serve the
subdivision. (The proposed alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to serve
the subdivision is a change in alignment from that previously
approved and established in 1987.) Lot 1, the northern -most lot,
is 0.778 acres in size and no specific use for the lot is
established at this time. Lot 2, to the south of Lot 1, is a
4.873 acre lot, and is being platted for the development of a
nursing home. Aldersgate Rd. is to be extended from its present
termination, southward to the southern boundary of Lot 1.
A deferral of the requirement to dedice right-of-way and to
provide street and sidewalk improvements along the Lot 2 boundary
of the subdivision is requested. A temporary cul-de-sac, offset
to the east, is proposed to provide a turn -around at the
temporary southern end of Aldersgate Rd.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary
plat is requested.
Planning Commission review and approval of a cul-de-sac at
the temporary dead-end of Aldersgate Rd. is requested.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board
of Directors for approval for a deferral of Master Street
Plan right-of-way and improvements along the eastern and
southern boundary of Lot 2 is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is heavily wooded with a thick stand of pine and
hardwood trees on the site. The northern boundary of the
site lies approximately 250 feet south of the present end of
street improvements on Aldersgate Rd. There is a knoll at
the center of the tract which rises approximately 15 feet
from the perimeter of the subdivision. Camp Aldersgate
abuts the site to the north, with the 1987 approved
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-283-G
alignment of the Aldersgate Rd. extension lying between the
Camp Aldersgate property and the subdivision tract.
The site is presently zoned MF-12, with the MF-12 zoning
district extending to the abutting lands to the east, west,
and south. The Camp Aldersgate area to the north is zoned
OS. The Ecumenical Retirement Center property to the north
is zoned MF-18.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The proposed re -alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to its
intersection with Shackleford Rd. must to be shown on
the preliminary plat. Camp Aldersgate will need to
approve the relocation of the alignment.
Dedication of street right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2 is
required. The curvature of the proposed alignment
along the southern boundary of Lot 2 does not meet the
Master Street Plan minimum curvature for a commercial
street of 450 foot minimum radius.
The length of planned improvements of Aldersgate Rd.
must be extended to provide access for Lot 2, and must
be constructed to allow a turning movement for "SU"
(garbage truck) vehicles. The one-half cul-de-sac
shown on the drawing will not satisfy this requirement.
The cost to construct the remaining portion of the
collector adjacent to Lot 2 must be guaranteed in order
to final plat the lot.
Sidewalks will be required to be constructed on both
sides of the Aldersgate Rd. extension.
PAGIS monuments will be required.
A stormwater detention analysis will be required on
each lot at the time building permits are issued.
Water Works comments that, in addition to the normal
connection charges, a pro-rata front footage charge of
$15.00 per foot along the 121, water main applies. On -site
fire protection may be required.
Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with an
easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-283-G
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-2 defines a subdivision as all divisions of land
into one or more lots, including those involving the need
for new access. The proposed subdivision is part of a
larger tract, and this larger tract must be included in the
preliminary plat. (The area outside the scope of the two
lots which are shown may be designated as a tract for future
development; however, the alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to its
intersection with Shackleford Rd. must be shown.)
Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished: a) the proposed type of subdivision be noted; b)
the source of title, giving deed record book and page number
or instrument number, be furnished; and, c) the source of
water supply and the proposed means of wastewater disposal
be indicated.
Sec. 31-89 requires that street construction, including the
location of sidewalks, be shown on the preliminary plat.
The plat shows the extension of the right-of-way, and notes
the location of existing half street improvements, but does
not show the required street improvements.
Sec. 31-231 requires each lot abut a public street, or, when
approved by the Planning Commission, a private street. Lot
2 is not shown to have frontage on a street, as required by
the Ordinance provisions.
Sec. 31-89 requires that, in additon to the information
shown on the plat: a) the minimum front yard setback line
be shown; b) a preliminary storm drainage plan,
incorporating proposed easement dimensions and a typical
ditch section, be shown; c) the names of owners of all land
contiguous to the proposed subdivision be shown, and that
the names of recorded subdivision abutting the proposed
subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument
number, be shown; d) the size of all monuments be
indicated, not just the type of material of monuments; e)
the zoning classification of abutting areas be shown, not
just the zoning classification of the area within the
proposed subdivision; f) the certificate of Preliminary
Surveying Accuracy contain the certification that the plat
has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices
of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder
within the last 7 years (Sec. 31-91 provides the verbiage
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-283-G
for this certification.); and, g) proposed PAGIS monuments
be located.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are deficiencies in the submittal which do not permit
review by the Planning Commission at this time. Either, a)
the entire tract from which the two lots are being extracted
must be included; and b) the alignment of Aldersgate Rd.
westward to Shackleford Rd. must be provided for, or a
waiver of these requirements must be sought.
There are numerous deficiencies in the documents submitted,
as cited above, which must be addressed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of the item until the deficiencies
are addressed.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant
asking that review of the item be deferred until the Subdivision
Committee meeting of November 22, 1995. There was, then, no
discussion of the item, other than an explanation by staff of the
nature of the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the
December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was included
on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral was approved in the
approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
December 11, 1995, asking that the hearing of this item be
deferred until the Commission meeting of January 30, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral; however, staff noted that,
since the Commission Bylaws provide that requests for deferral
must be made by the applicant at least 5 working days prior to
the Commission hearing, and, since the applicant submitted the
request on Monday prior to the Tuesday hearing, a waiver of the
Commission Bylaws is needed. Staff recommends approval of the
Bylaws waiver. A motion was made and seconded to approve a
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-283-
waiver of the Commission Bylaws to permit consideration of a
deferral without the request being made at least 5 days prior to
the Commission meeting, and the waiver was approved with the vote
of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. The requested
deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the
deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0
abstentions, and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant's representative, dated January 2, 1996, acknowledging
that an amended plat which would meet the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance cannot be prepared in time for the item to
remain on the agenda, and recognizing the need for the item to be
withdrawn at this time. Staff recommended approval of the
withdrawal, without prejudice, noting that the applicant would be
re -filing the application whenever the plat could be properly
filed. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for
Withdrawal, and the withdrawal was approved with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
6
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO • 5-1081
NAME: KAUFMAN ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. 7th. St. and S. Jones St.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Joe White
KAUFMAN LUMBER CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5100 Asher Ave. 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock; AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72201
568-3182 374-1666
AREA: 5.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT• 14
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: Lumber Yard
1) Approval of a waiver of right-of-way dedication on W. 7th. St.
and for the Mid -Town Expressway.
2) Approval of a waiver of street improvements on Jones St.
3) Approval of a waiver of sidewalk requirements on W. 7th. St.
and on Jones St.
4) Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide on -site
stormwater detention.
5) Approval of a variance from the building setback
requirements for front, rear, and rear yard regulations.
6) Approval of an access easement across Lot 2 for access to
Lot 1.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the subdivision of the 5.5 acre site which, in the
past, was a building materials sales business, with outside
storage, and a millwork fabrication shop. The division is sought
in order to create a two -lot subdivision, so that the rear,
southern -most, lot can be divided from the remainder of the
property for sale to and use by another lumber yard operation.
The existing lumber sheds are to be used for lumber storage.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081
Access to the southern -most lot is to be by way of an access
easement across the northern -most lot. The location of this
easement coinsides with the existing access drive which currently
serves the single site and which provides access to the interior
of the site. Off -site improvements to streets are not planned,
and waivers are requested from the requirement to: a) dedicate
additional right-of-way along the W. 7th. St. frontage of the
property and to dedicate right-of-way for the Mid -Town Express-
way; b) make half -street improvements along the Jones St.
boundary of the site; c) provide sidewalks along W. 7th. St.
and Jones St.; and d) provide on -site stormwater detention. A
variance from the front, rear, and side building setback
regulations is requested to permit the existing buildings to
remain in their present location. Approval of an access easement
is requested to provide access to Lot 1 across Lot 2.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review and approval of a preliminary plat by the Planning
Commission is requested.
Review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of
Directors is requested for waivers from the requirement to:
a) dedicate additional right-of-way along the W. 7th. St.
frontage of the property and for the Mid -Town Expressway;
b) make half -street improvements along the Jones St.
boundary of the subdivision; c) provide sidewalks along W.
7th. St. and Jones St.; and d) provide on -site stormwater
detention.
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for variances from the building setback requirements for the
front, rear, and side building line regulations in order for
the existing buildings to remain in their current location.
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for access to Lot 1 to be by way of an access easement
across Lot 2.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a developed property, but it is not, for the
most part, being used at this time. It was the Monarch
Mills site, which is no longer in operation at the location.
The existing zoning of the tract is I-2. The I-2 district
extends eastward and southward to the abutting railroad and
I-630 properties. To the north is an I-2 corner to the
northwest and R-2 property to the northeast. Across Jones
St. to the west is C-3, R-3, R-4, and R-5 property.
`a
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Staff comments:
The site is in the floodplain, and is adjacent to the
floodway; a SFHA development permit is required. The
base flood elevations should be identified on the plat.
All proposed structures, and those where significant
improvements are proposed, must meet minimum finish
floor elevation or requirements for flood proofing.
All permits and a grading permit should be completed
before work begins.
The Mid -Town Expressway, as provided for in the Master
Street Plan, has a 200 foot right-of-way requirement.
Dedicate the required right-of-way, or seek a wavier.
Seventh St. is a collector. Dedicate 5 feet of
additional right-of-way, with a 20 foot radial
dedication at the corner, or seek a waiver.
Jones St. is substandard and street improvements will
be required. Provide half street improvements, or seek
a waiver.
Sidewalks, with ramps according to Ordinance, are
required on both streets.
Expansion of facilities on the new lots will require
the stormwater detention analysis.
Water Works comments that the Fire Department needs to
evaluate the site to determine whether additional fire
protection will be required. If there are any modifications
to the fire protection system, installation of a back flow
preventer will be required.
Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with an
easement, will be required for service to Lot 2.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement
around the entire perimeter of the subdivision, and a 15
foot easement from the east property line to and along the
north face of the southern -most warehouse building.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1081
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished: a) the proposed type of subdivision is to be
indicated; b) the address, as well as the name, of the
owner of record, and the source of title, are to be
provided; c) the lot sizes are to be shown; and, d) the
source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal
are to be indicated.
Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) the names of all recorded
subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat
book and page number or instrument number, and the names of
owners of all land abutting the proposed plat area, are to
be shown; b) all bearings and distances for all boundary
lines, with ties to all corners of record are to be shown;
c) sufficient curve data is to be provided to adequately
describe curves, with the minimum information being the
radius, arc distance, delta angle, and chord bearing and
distance; d) where boundary lines are common with
previously platted properties, record bearings and distances
shall be shown; e) accurate and adequate description of all
monuments are to be noted, showing the size and type of
material of the monuments; f) the zoning classifications of
the tract of and of all abutting land is to be shown; and,
g) proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary
Engineering Accuracy be executed.
Sec. 36-320 requires, for I-2 zoning districts, a front
building setback of 50 feet; a rear yard of 25 feet; and, a
side yard of 15 feet. The existing buildings are already
closer to W. 7th. St. than 50 feet, and, when the property
is divided, an existing warehouse building will have a lot
line bisecting the building. Rear and side yard line
requirements will not be met once the new lot line is
platted. The Planning Commission needs to approval
variances to the setback regulations, so that the existing
buildings will not be non -conforming structures.
An access easement needs to be platted to extend along the
Lot 1-Lot 2 line so that landscaping requirements will not
be imposed along the lot line.
The Building Codes staff needs to review the proposed
subdivision and approve the means to be taken to meet the
Fire Prevention Code where the warehouse building straddles
the lot line.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1081
E. ANALYSIS•
There are several deficiencies in the submittal, as cited
above, which need to be addressed. Approval of the
preliminary plat should be conditioned upon these
deficiencies being remedied.
Each of the two lots has required frontage on a public
street. Because of the desire to use the existing drive
entrance to the property off W. 7th. St., an access easement
across Lot 2 is requested. No access to Lot 1 from its
boundary street, Jones St., is proposed.
Because no construction is proposed at this time, and
because the buildings and access are already established, it
is requested that no off -site improvements be imposed with
this subdivision.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat,
conditioned on approval of the requested waivers and
variance, or meeting the ordinance requirements in these
areas.
Staff recommends approval of waiver request for dedication
of right-of-way on W. 7th. St. and for the Mid -Town
Expressway.
Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for half
street improvements on Jones St.
Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for sidewalks
on W. 7th. St. and on Jones St.
Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for on -site
stormwater detention, noting that this requirement would
only be imposed if new building or parking lot construction
is instituted.
Staff recommends approval of a variance from the building
setback requirements for front, rear, and rear yard
regulations, in order for the existing buildings to remain
in their current locations.
Staff recommends approval of an access easement across Lot 2
for access to Lot 1.
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., was present.
Staff reviewed with the Committee the applicant's proposal.
Staff and the Committee members reviewed with Mr. White the
comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White
confirmed that all needed information would be furnished and all
deficiencies would be remedied. The various waivers and the
variances were discussed, and Mr. White responded that he would
be conferring with Traffic Engineering on the various concerns.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 31, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the
December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however,
that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be
submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission
hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on
Monday, October 30th., one (1) working day prior to the hearing.
A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to
be approved by the Commission.
A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision
requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5)
working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral
was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote
of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
November 17, 1995, asking that the hearing of this item be
deferred until the Commission meeting of January 30, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was
included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
1 absent.
6
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the item, but indicated that there were issues
which had not been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Joe white,
with white-Daters & Associates, Inc., representing the applicant,
indicated that he had not been able to get confirmation from his
client on how to proceed with the issues to be resolved. He said
that, since the item had already been deferred twice, and that no
further deferrals could be granted to accommodate the applicant,
he would ask that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made and
seconded to withdraw the item, and the motion carried with the
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
7
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1
mile south of W. Markham St.
ENGINEER•
John A. Rees Pat McGetrick
REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111
223-9298 223-9900
AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; &
C-1 Conditional Use for an eating
place without drive-in service
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement
that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning Commission considered the PCD request at the
September 19, 1995 Commission hearing, and the vote to recommend
approval of the PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2
absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. The applicant
appealed the denial to the Board of Directors, and at the Board
meeting of November 7, 1995, presented a proposal for a revised
PCD site plan and a change in the proposed uses. The Board
referred the amended proposal to the Commission for a re -hearing
of the item, with the proposed changes to be discussed.
The applicant proposed to the Board of Directors to: 1)
eliminate the proposed restaurant use; 2) set the rear buffer
width at 10 feet and terrace the rear retaining wall; 3)
eliminate the drive -around behind the south building, but provide
partial drive-arounds behind both buildings; 4) relocate the
southern dumpster away from the rear/east property line; and, 5)
dedicate the required right-o-way along Bowman Rd.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE H4_,_:Z-5756-B
The applicant has, however, indicated to staff that further
modifications will be proposed; that the PCD site plan which was
approved in 1994 will be presented for review, with the only
change being in the size of the building area. (The approved PCD
site plan has a 9,000 square foot, single -story building at the
southern end of the property and a two-story building at the
north end of the property which has 7,125 square feet on the
lower level and 17,175 square feet on the upper level.) The
Planning Staff can support the reported change, subject to a
large portion of the lower level of the northern -most building
being used for storage for the reported furniture store use.
BACKGROUND:
The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the
Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public
hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The
uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule
of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning
district, plus an additional use, a video rental store.
Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited
to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed
on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors
required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence
was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and
continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear
property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature,
will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted
in the 20 foot wide buffer strip along the rear, east, property
line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid
screening of the site from the east.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify
the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of
approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear,
east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth;
2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the
southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the
north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost
building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on
the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250
square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building
being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which
was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at
16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of
the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its
lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor
area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5756-B
use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed
to be a "sit-down" restaurant.
A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-
way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a
waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-
of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and
vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for
development. The site slopes generally downward from a high
point at the south property line to a low point at the
northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in
grades of 63 feet.
The site is presently zoned PCD. Land to the north and
across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the
south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2
zoning, lies to the east.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that:
1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman
Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated.
2) The proposed partial access drive behind the
northernmost building should be a through drive to
provide emergency access.
3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to
any building permit being approved.
4) The required stormwater detention analysis must be
provided, and the effects on downstream systems
must be evaluated. Provide for the 100-year
discharge from the site through adjacent
properties.
5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed
as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being
10 feet at any location. The first wall behind
the properties to the east shall be located a
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5756-B
horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the
height of the wall.
Water Works comments that on -site fire protection may be
required.
Wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the
west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn
Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be
required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement
along the rear, east, property line.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department noted that on -site fire hydrants may be
needed.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
commented that:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
minimum Ordinance requirements.
Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued:
A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east
perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a
wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be
evergreen shrubs which are 30" in height at planting,
spaced every 3 feet.
Curb and guttering or another approved border will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
Because of the proposed grade elevation difference
along the eastern side of the property, additional
buffer width may be necessary.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing
of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis,
based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in
order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number
of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking
spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
of building area. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and
professional office uses, that one parking space for each
400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for
general business and retail sales, one space for each 300
square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for
restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor
area is to be provided.
The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building
was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and
17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to
have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet,
representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is
for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a
building coverage of 28.3%. Sec. 36-299 requires the
building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 35% of the
lot area. Other commercial districts do not have building
coverage limits.
In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate
the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was
not specified by Public Works, and is not a requirement of
the approved PCD.
E. ANALYSIS•
The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer
along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces
this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the
property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the
finished grade at one point behind the north building, and
generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of
the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the
landscaping buffer requirement and the Public Works civil
engineering perspective, this proposed condition is
unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and the
shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced
effect, is unacceptable.
The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows,
or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property,
excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal.
The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of
one of the buildings and over half the length of the other.
Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is
presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated,
and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east,
face of the building is a significant change from the
originally negotiated and subsequently approved concept for
the development. This is unacceptable.
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5756-B
The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the
rear property line area; the proposed development places the
dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable.
The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service
hours; no change in this provision has been made by the
applicant.
The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the
non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to
the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial
activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of
the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This
approved concept has changed drastically, and is not
acceptable.
The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the
types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a
"shopping center" (to use the applicant's terminology); yet,
the parking is deficient for even an office development, let
along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires
much more parking than is allotted.
The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with
a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only
increases to 29.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial,
zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the
originally approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the
new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in
line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district.
(The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.)
The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the
I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan
recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for the site. The
proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial
center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity
of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the
existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring
a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The
amended request does not meet the intent of the original
compromise.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends
denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the
additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd.
6
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with
McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the
Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee
reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained
in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works
staff, discussed the Public Works comments; specifically, he
reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the
sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff
discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the
building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that
he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the
development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as
described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of
the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval
of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications
required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present.
Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the
earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current
request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns,
as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained
that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet
of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square
feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking
Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109
spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes
the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site.
This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the
Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development,
the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, and are not
mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking
for patrons and employees.
Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from
the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the
neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces
required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to
delete the restaurant use from the current application. He
reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public
Works staff, a discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining
wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall
were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be
placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear
VA
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked
with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in
the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be
constructed on the property line. He related that, as the
developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a
property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with
the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking
spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking.
Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from
the Birchwood Neighborhood Association expressing the
Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff
indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of
the Commissioner's desk.
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan
calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed
underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be
retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a
catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be
diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is
developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently
experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected.
Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood
Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD.
He related that the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the
restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also
objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the
decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He
said that the Association also objects to the height of the
retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to
look at. He presented a petition from the Association in
opposition to the application.
Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property
owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he
opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer
depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear of the building;
and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the
buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be
looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall,
and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping
center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view.
Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr.,
right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to
the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally,
the Commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward"
to make concessions so that the property would be a usable and
developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer
now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8
8
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5756-B
feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out
that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the
retaining wall, Alamo residents will be looking up to a higher
plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the
activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to
those residents further away from the property. He pointed out
that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by
Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this
requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient
to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the
developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd
too much onto the site. He urged the Commission to retain the
buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting
property owners, and to deny the application.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that
residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and
that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She
said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and
being so close to the rear property line, would produce an
activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property
owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was
apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was
good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood.
Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the route of the
sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one
available route would take the service main across abutting
residential properties.
Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the
available sewer on Bowman Rd.
Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little
Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high
screening wall to separate a residential development from the
Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was
south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the wall would decrease
the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately
25%. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of
this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site.
Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for
van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the
height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the
abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the
wall, the abutting residences would not see much if any of the
vans; that, in fact, they would see only the top of the
buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring
between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work
during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the
types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not
permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces.
Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested
waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way.
Staff pointed out that, when the original PCD was approved,
Public Works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD
was approved without the additional right-of-way being required.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd.
is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a
requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for
utilities.
Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the
street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public
Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of
the right-of-way.
Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be
worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would
probably be amenable to such a franchise.
Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the
dumpsters.
Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade;
the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the
abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in
an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be
visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did
not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the
property.
Staff commented that, in the originally approved PCD, the
dumpsters were to be located at the front of the property along
Bowman Rd.
Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive-
arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters.
Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would
service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00.
Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the
item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and
the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote of 0 ayes,
7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position.
10
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted
a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be
deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was
included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant, dated January 4, 1996, asking that the item be
deferred until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing. Staff
noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on
the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
11
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO • Z-6060
NAME: PIEDMONT OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -
OFFICE
LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 0.1
mile east of Sam Peck Rd.
DEVELOPER•
DR. GENE GINES, ERIC HUTCHINSON, &
DR. JOHN DANIELS
14710 Cantrell Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72212
868-4140
AREA• 3.8 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
NUMBER OF LOTS• 4
ENGINEER•
Frank Riggins
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
FT. NEW STREET• 0
PROPOSED USES: Professional Offices
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
1) Approval of a common access easement and private interior
drives for access to interior lots.
2) Approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from
Cantrell Rd.
3) Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along
Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways.
4) Approval of a waiver of the land use buffer along the south
property line.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is a planned development for a four -lot subdivision of a
3.8313 acre site, to entail the construction of four professional
office buildings, with associated parking, pedestrian walkways,
and landscaping features, situated along the shore of a portion
of a lake. Two of the lots have frontage on Cantrell Rd.; two
will take their access by way of access easements across the
Cantrell Rd. fronting lots. A cross -access easement is to be
platted along the internal drives to link the parking areas
associated with each of the buildings, and maintenance of the
drive system is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
Each of the lots will be the site of a professional office
building. Three of the buildings are to be single -story
structures, each with approximately 2400 square feet. One
building is to be a story -and -a -half structure, and will contain
approximately 5,000 square feet. The architecture of the
buildings will be residential in character and scale, with roofs
being hipped and walls being brick finishes. A gazebo is
proposed to be located on a peninsula along the lake shore. The
internal pedestrian walkway system will link the various office
buildings and parking lots, as well as the landscape structure
and features. No connection to abutting properties of the
internal walkway system is proposed, and no sidewalk is proposed
to be provided along Cantrell Rd., the applicant noting that
there are no sidewalks along Cantrell Rd. to which a sidewalk
along the applicant's frontage would connect. A driveway for
each of the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots is proposed. It is the
intent of the applicant to "preserve as much of the natural
setting of the site,, and to "maintain as many of the trees as
possible", and to "maintain the lake as a natural site amenity".
Maintenance of the lake is to be provided for in the Bill of
Assurance, and means will be taken during construction to protect
water quality. The applicant proposes to provide extensive
landscaping around the buildings and to screen the parking areas.
No fencing or dense evergreen screening is proposed along the
south property line along the lake shore, since imposing the land
use buffer would "deny the owners, their employees, and visitors
to the site the enjoyment of the most valuable visual asset of
the property." Stormwater detention is to be provided on site on
a development -wide basis. Site lighting is to be by low-level
decorative street lamp type fixtures on 12 to 15 foot tall posts.
Street signage will be limited to two, low -lighted monument signs
located at each access point on Cantrell Rd. Uses are
anticipated to be dental offices; however, approval of all uses
by right in the 0-2 zoning district are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned
development.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to
permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the
sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the
interior driveways.
2
January 30, 1996
EUHDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
Planning Commission approval is requested for a common
access easement and private interior drives for access to
interior lots.
Planning Commission approval is requested for a waiver of
the land use buffer along the south property line.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is wooded, with a drive and home located along
the west shoreline of the on -site lake. The topography
ranges from the lake elevation of 384 feet MSL (Mean Sea
Level) to approximately an elevation of 396 feet MSL along
Cantrell Rd.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. The R-2 zoning
district includes land to the east and south, although the
land to the east is occupied by a non -conforming commercial
use. Residential lots abut the site to the south, across
the lake. Land to the west is zoned 0-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The property is on Ison Creek, beyond the Flood
Insurance study. The Corps and ADPC&E should be
provided with sketch plan information and be allowed to
comment, as applicable. Flow information on the stream
and lake should be available for review.
A grading permit and base flood information with
finished floor elevations is required prior to
construction.
Driveway grades shall conform to Ordinance
requirements. Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department must approve driveway locations and design.
Stormwater dentition analysis is required.
A 6 foot wide sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage
of the site is required.
Water Works comments that on -site fire protection will be
required. PRZ backflow prevention will be required if the
buildings contain doctors' offices. In addition to the
normal connection charges, a pro-rata frontage charge of $15
per foot applies.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available at the site.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement
along the entire perimeter of the subdivision.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be
required.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. SUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Staff has been told that there is a deed restriction granted
by the developer of the Piedmont area which limits uses of
all property the developer sold to residential uses, and
that the Piedmont property owners are prepared to enforce
this deed restriction. The City, however, is not a party to
such deed restrictions, and is not bound by them in zoning
matters. The land owners are responsible for enforcing such
deed restrictions by appropriate legal means. It is not the
responsibility of the Planning Commission to act as an
enforcement agent for the Piedmont property owners, or to
base zoning decisions on such private agreements.
The Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-231, requires that all
lots front on a public street, unless the Planning
Commission approves a private street in a private access
easement. Two of the lots do not front on a public street;
therefore, the applicant has asked for access to be provided
by access easements and a private internal street system.
The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit two
entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-210 provides
that, for lots fronting on highways such as Cantrell Rd.,
shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots
that are less then 300 feet in frontage, and that sites
shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each
300 feet of lot frontage. The applicant has provided for a
shared access to the lots, but has requested two access
points for the 512.5 feet of lot frontage, with the drive
access points being 300 feet apart.
Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk be provided along the
Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The applicant has
requested a waiver of this requirement, noting that there
are no sidewalks on abutting properties on the south side of
Cantrell Rd.
Sec. 31-287 states that, where an office subdivision
requires the creation of an internalized circulation system
to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission
4
January 30, L996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of
public commercial streets, and that the design of service
easements shall be built to public street design standards.
The applicant has an internal pedestrian circulation system
provided, and seeks a wavier from the requirement to provide
sidewalks along the interior driveways.
When office developments abut single-family zoned property,
a land use buffer is required. Since the lake forms the
buffer between the office development and the residences to
the south, a waiver of the land use buffer along the south
property line is requested.
Sec. 31-89 requires that:
a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data
for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat
boundaries be furnished. Any property within the
floodway or floodplain should be noted. A
preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating
proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch
sections, should be included.
b) the certification be shown which certifies that
the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for
record in the offices of the state surveyor and
the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last
7 years. Sec. 31-91 provides a suggested verbiage
for the Certification of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy which includes this language.
c) proposed PAGIS monuments be shown.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates be executed.
Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office
uses, 1 parking space be provided for each 400 square feet
of gross square feet of building size. There are three,
2400 square foot buildings, each requiring 6 parking spaces.
There is one 5000 square foot building, requiring 13 spaces.
At total of 31 parking spaces is required to be provided on
the site; 55 spaces are provided.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
comments that:
a) Areas set aside for interior, building, and
perimeter landscaping are in compliance with and
exceed the Landscaping Ordinance requirements.
6i
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
b) If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located
on the site plan, and must be screened on three
sides by an 8 foot high wood fence or wall.
c) A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its
structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen plantings, are required to screen the
business activity from adjacent residential zoned
property to the south, east, and west.
d) The Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance requires
a sprinkler system to water plants.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned
Development is located in the River Mountain District, and
that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone".
The request, then, is in conformance with the Plan.
The plans and required documentation are substantially
complete, with very minimal deficiencies remaining to be
addressed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the planned development.
Staff recommends approval of a common access easement and
private interior drives for access to interior lots.
Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need
to be heard on the matter of the requested variance to
permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd.
Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need
to be heard on the matter of the requested waiver of the
sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the
interior driveways.
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the land use
buffer along the south property line abutting the lake.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995)
Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Staff
reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the planned
development request. The Committee reviewed the discussion
outline issues with Mr. Riggins. Staff reported to Mr. Riggins
the assertions by Piedmont residents that the office use of the
G
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
property is not permitted in their deeds, and cautioned Mr.
Rigging to investigate this issue. It was noted by staff,
however, that the City would not enforce any deed or Bill of
Assurance restrictions. Mr. Rigging reported that all issues
raised in the discussion outline would be addressed, and that
amended drawings and information would be furnished to staff.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 31, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the
December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however,
that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be
submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission
hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on
Friday, October 27th., two (2) working days prior to the hearing.
A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to
be approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Putnam, noting that several persons were in
attendance at the meeting who were in opposition to the requested
Planned Development zoning, asked if it might be appropriate to
allow the objectors to present their viewpoint.
Mr. Brent Peterson, a spokesperson for the group of Piedmont
neighbors, said that the neighbors would not object to a
deferral, and that the deferral would allow them to review the
requested rezoning.
A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision
requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5)
working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0
abstentions.
The deferral remained on the Consent Agenda for deferral, as
presented by staff, and the deferral was approved with the
approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted
a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be
deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was
included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and
7
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that, immediately prior to the meeting, Mr. Frank
Riggins, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Hal Kemp, the
attorney for the Piedmont neighborhood, had reported to staff
that the two parties would be able to come to an amicable
agreement for development of the PD-0 if another deferral could
be approve. The Commission was asked by Mr. Kemp to approve an
additional deferral, until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing,
to permit the remaining issues to be resolved. The Commission
approved placing the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral with
the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions; then,
with the approval of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred,
as requested by the Piedmont neighborhood with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
8
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 FILE NO • Z-6063-A
Owner: Kenny Goodwin
Applicant: Kenny Goodwin
Location: 301 East Roosevelt Road
Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4*
(*Amended to PCD)
Purpose: Vehicle Sales Lot
Size: .32 acres
Existing Use: Food Store
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Old VA Hospital site; zoned PCD and Single -Family
residence; zoned R-5
South - Vacant, zoned R-3
East - Car Wash, zoned C-3
West - Housing Authority Offices and Shops, zoned C-3
STAFF UPDATE•
The applicant had presented his request for rezoning of the
subject site from C-3 to C-4 at the November 14, 1995
Planning Commission hearing. At this hearing, the applicant
explained that he acted as a used car broker, and that only
a minimal number of cars would be present or displayed on
the property. He reported, also, that he anticipated not
only continuing the grocery store use of the existing
building, but adding a restaurant use to the second floor of
the building. He reported that he would comply with the
Public works requirement for Master Street Plan improvements
to Roosevelt Rd.; that the on -site parking and drives would
be paved; and that he would comply with the Landscaping
requirements for buffering of the site from the residential
uses to the east. In light of the described mix use of the
site, and of the minimal "open display" of used cars, a
suggestion was offered by Planning Commission members that
the C-4 rezoning request be amended to a PCD request. The
applicant agreed with this suggestion, and further hearing
of the item was deferred until the December 12, 1995
Commission hearing in order to allow the applicant to
present a PCD site plan.
The site plan was submitted showing the existing two-story,
2,775 square foot per floor building, drive access and
parking for 16 vehicles, and landscaping. The applicant
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
reported that the uses would include the grocery store use
on the first floor of the exiting building, a restaurant use
on the second floor of the building, and a vehicle sales lot
occupying the 5 parking spaces abutting the Roosevelt Rd.
Required improvements to Roosevelt Rd., as well as
eliminating the on -street customer parking at the front of
the building, will be implemented.
Public Works reiterates the comments contained in the agenda
"write-up".
The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that a 5 foot wide on -
site landscape buffer north of the proposed vehicular use
area along Roosevelt Rd. is required, and that a 6 foot high
opaque screen is required along the east property line.
(This opaque screen may either be a wood fence with its face
directed outward, or be dense evergreen plantings.)
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that a food store
requires 1 parking space for each 300 feet of gross floor
area (exclusive of storage space), plus 4 spaces. For a
2,775 square foot food store, the parking regulations will
require up to 14 spaces. A restaurant use requires 1
parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area.
A 2,775 square foot restaurant will require 28 parking
spaces. A total of 11 spaces is provided on the site plan
for these two occupancies.
The applicant presented his site plan to the Subdivision
Committee on November 22, 1995. The Public Works staff
noted that the parking spaces at the southwest corner of the
tract had inadequate maneuvering space and an inadequate
turning radius from the central driveway, and that no
parking would be permitted on the right-of-way. The Site
Plan Review Specialist noted that additional landscaping to
that shown will be required, and that a six foot high opaque
screen will be required along the east property line. The
applicant indicated that he would make further changes in
the site plan, and the Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the "open display"
use for the property, and, therefore, recommends denial of
the requested PCD.
ENGINEERING COMMENT
Confirm that 70 feet of right-of-way exists for Roosevelt;
if deficient, dedicate right-of-way. Cumberland right-of-
way does not appear to exist, this street is not on city
maps or on Master Street Plan. ROW on 26th appears to be
adequate. With construction, sidewalks will be required on
�A
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6 63 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
both Roosevelt and 26th Street and improvements to 26th may
be required. AHTD permits will be required prior to
construction in the Roosevelt ROW.
Traffic Engineering requests:
1. Eliminate all parking in right-of-way.
2. Pave gravel parking area.
3. Current access to Roosevelt is inadequate and will
require reconstruction.
4. 12 foot driveway shall be reconstructed to 18
feet.
5. Widen Roosevelt to 24 feet from centerline with
construction.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site in question is located in the Central City
District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office
Commercial. The request is for "C-4.11 A "C-411
classification neither meets the letter nor spirit of the
land use classification. Staff cannot recommend amending
the plan at this time.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .32±
acre site from C-3 to C-4 to accommodate a vehicle sales
lot. The site consists of two lots, one of which fronts on
Roosevelt road and one which fronts on East 26th Street.
The property is occupied by a 2,745+ square foot, brick
structure containing a neighborhood grocery store. The
building has only a 4.3± foot setback from the Roosevelt
Road property line and customer parking now occurs in the
Roosevelt Road right-of-way. An area of gravel parking is
adjacent to the west side of the building. The property
slopes severely from Roosevelt Road down to East 26th
Street. The southern half of the site, which fronts on to
East 26th Street, is mostly overgrown and unused.
The applicant requests the reclassification of the property
from C-3, General Commercial to C-4, Open Display District
to allow a vehicle sales lot. The applicant has not
indicated if the vehicle sales lot is to replace the
existing food store or if the sale of vehicles is to take
place on the site along with the existing food store.
The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed
Office Commercial for the site. This land use category
provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to
occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of Office
and Commercial. The requested C-4 reclassification meets
neither the letter nor spirit of the land use
classification.
The C-4 Open Display District development criteria restricts
any open display of any kind whatsoever in the first 20 feet
of the required 45 foot front yard setback. Due to the
location of the existing building and the availability of
area on the site for the display of vehicles, it would
appear that the vehicles would have to be displayed
primarily behind the building. This would put the
predominance of the proposed car lot directly across East
26th Street from the residential neighborhood to the south.
The C-4 request does not conform to the adopted Land Use
Plan and staff cannot support a C-4 request at this site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 1995)
The applicant, Kenny Goodwin, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial of the C-4 request.
Mr. Goodwin addressed the Commission and discussed his plans
for development of the property. He stated that he wished
to construct a parking lot on the south side of the property
and to display a small number of vehicles on the west side
of the building. He stated that no additional structures
would be built on the site. Mr. Goodwin stated that the
grocery store would continue to occupy the upper floor of
the existing building and that the office for the car sales
business would also be located on this portion of the
building. He stated that he hoped to put a restaurant in
the lower level. Mr. Goodwin then handed out a written
development proposal for the site.
Commissioner Daniel suggested that the item should be
deferred to allow the applicant to discuss his specific
development plans with staff. Commissioner Woods stated
that he did not believe the site could support all of the
proposed uses. He questioned the availability of adequate
parking.
Mr. Goodwin stated that the office would be for more of an
automobile brokerage business; that state law required an
4
January 3U, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
automobile broker to have an office. He stated that cars
would be kept at an auction yard.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty,
Mr. Goodwin stated that cars would be displayed on Lot 6
(the lot behind the building). Mr. Goodwin then stated that
customer parking would be located behind the store and that
vehicle display would be located west of the building.
Commissioner Putnam asked the City Attorney present if the
state law requiring automobile dealers to have a sales lot
actually required that cars sales take place from the lot or
if there could be only an office at the location. Cindy
Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that she
was unsure.
Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, stated that the City
had an agreement with the State Police whereby the state
requires car dealers to have a business location on
commercial property. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could
have only an office on the site and keep the used cars
elsewhere. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could not park
cars or display a car lot sign on the property.
Acting Chairman Ball asked if there would be a problem if
Mr. Goodwin had "purely an office use" on the site for his
automobile brokerage business. Mr. Wood responded that the
office would be allowed.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he understood that Mr. Goodwin
could conduct all of the uses he proposed (car brokerage
office only, grocery store and restaurant) on the C-3 property
as it is. Staff confirmed that those uses were allowed as
long as Mr. Goodwin did not display any cars on the property.
Acting Chairman Ball stated that Mr. Goodwin had indicated a
desire to display cars on the site, to the west of the
building.
Mr. Goodwin stated that it was his desire to comply with all
city codes.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Mr. Goodwin
stated that he did not intend to display cars on the site,
only to have a sign identifying the property as his car lot.
He then stated that he would be driving a vehicle to and
from the site.
In response to a question from Acting Chairman Ball,
Mr. Goodwin stated that he would be buying and selling cars
at the auction.
Mr. Wood stated that it would be virtually impossible to
enforce a situation where a property is identified as a car
5
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
lot but not allowed to have vehicles displayed for sale. He
stated that enforcement staff could not tell which vehicles
are displayed for sale and which vehicles belong to
customers of the grocery store and proposed restaurant.
Commissioner Lichty stated that there was also a problem
with the multiple uses proposed on the site; primarily the
car sales.
Acting Chairman Ball stated that the real issue was a land
use question regarding the proposed C-4 zoning. He then
stated that he felt there had been adequate discussion of
the item.
Commissioner Chachere questioned whether it might be
possible to approach the matter as a PUD with limits on
vehicle sales.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that a PUD
could address such issues as the mixture of uses proposed
and limitations on vehicle display. He stated that staff
would still be opposed to vehicle sales, a C-4 use, on the
site.
In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere,
Mr. Carney stated that staff had not seen the site plan and
development plan presented by Mr. Goodwin. There was a
brief discussion of the proposed site plan.
Mr. Goodwin stated that he was willing to meet with staff
and to amend his application to a PUD.
A motion was made to defer the item to the December 12, 1995
Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant's representative had
submitted a letter, dated December 5, 1995, asking that the
item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30,
1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The
requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for
approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff recalled for the Commission that the applicant had
submitted a request for rezoning of the property to C-4 at
the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing, but that
6
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM EZ-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
Commissioners had recommended to the applicant that
converting the application to a planned development
application might be more appropriate.
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted the required
site plan, and that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed
the plan. At the Subdivision Committee meeting, there were
deficiencies which had been noted in the site plan, and,
staff reported, a revised site plan showing the revisions
had not been submitted subsequent to the Subdivision
Committee meeting.
Staff recommended denial of the proposed PCD designation,
noting that the "open display"/C-4 use is inconsistent with
the adopted Land Use Plan for the area.
Staff reported that the adopted Land Use Plan for the site,
which is in the Central City District, recommends "Mixed
Office Commercial" for the land use; however, if the PCD is
approved, a Land Use Plan amendment will not be required.
Mr. Kenny Goodwin, the applicant, said that he would comply
with all requirements concerning dedication of right-of-way
along Roosevelt Rd., prohibiting parking on the Roosevelt
Rd. right-of-way and providing a drive access point onto the
property from Roosevelt Rd., providing off-street parking
and changing the site plan to incorporate the needed changes
indicated by Public Works at the Subdivision Committee
meeting, and providing the required landscaping. He related
that he was under the impression that the revised site plan
had been submitted to staff.
Mr. Sam Nwaneri, the project engineer, said that there are
some minor changes which were discussed with staff, but that
he was under the impression that the drawing which had been
submitted was sufficiently complete and accurate for the
Commission's review.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, outlined the
deficiencies which staff had noted: the arrangement of the
parking spaces at the southwest quadrant of the site not
permitting sufficient depth for maneuvering space; an access
and apron problem at the access drive from Roosevelt Rd.;
improvement requirements on Roosevelt Rd.; etc. He noted
that the site plan which was being presented to the
Commission did not address the deficiencies noted by staff
previously.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles cautioned the Commission
regarding approving a site plan which had not corrected the
deficiencies noted previously.
Commissioner Putnam suggested to Mr. Goodwin that, in his
project narrative, he address the number of cars which will
7
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6063-A
be associated with the "open display" use; recalling that
Mr. Goodwin had said during the November 14, 1995 Commission
hearing that he acted as a used car broker, and only needed
the zoning to permit the used car sales business in order to
comply with the State licensing requirements.
Mr. Goodwin agreed that a deferral would permit him to
address the use and site plan issues.
Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on a deferral of
the item until the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing, and
the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays,
0 abstentions, and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the request, noting that the applicant had
submitted two versions of a revised site plan which had been
reviewed by staff and the Subdivision Committee, and that
the second of the two site plans was the preferred plan.
Staff reported that the preferred plan met the ordinance
requirements, but that the proposed "open display"/C-4 use
was in conflict with the Land Use Plan. The staff
recommendation, then, continued to be for denial.
The applicant was present. Mr. Kenny Goodwin related that
he had complied with all the staff concerns regarding site
plan issues, and that the "open display" of used cars was to
be very restricted. He reminded the Commission that he
wanted to get a license as a used car dealer in order to act
as a used car broker; that he did not propose to have a
"used car lot". He explained that, in order to act as a
used car broker, one had to have a used car dealer's license
from the State, and that in order to get this license, one
had to have an identifiable place of business. In order to
have the needed place of business, one has to get an
occupation license, and to pay the occupation license fee,
the location of the proposed business has to be properly
zoned. He explained that, normally, he would be driving the
car that he would be offering for sale, and would not have
what is normally thought of as a used car business.
Commissioner Daniel expressed support for the applicant's
proposal, saying that he had worked with staff and
Commissioners to develop a proposal which complied with the
ordinance requirements. He said that, with the limited
"open display" use, as explained by the applicant, the use
is not that much different from any other commercial use
which might be permitted in the exiting C-3 district. He
recommended that the Commission approve the PCD.
8
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z_- 063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
Staff responded that, if the Commission were going to
approve the PCD, and not have to deal with a Land Use Plan
amendment, then the "open display" use of the site needed to
be limited to the character of the use as previously
explained by the applicant.
Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the types of
uses proposed for the site.
Mr. Goodwin explained that the existing building on the site
is a two-story building, with the upper level facing E.
Roosevelt Rd. and the lower level facing the rear of the
property. He said that the upper level, which faces E.
Roosevelt Rd., is a grocery store, and is proposed to remain
as such. The lower level, which is unused, is proposed to
be remodeled as a restaurant. The vacant lot to the west is
the proposed location of the used car business.
Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin to explain the nature of
his used car business.
Mr. Goodwin replied that he has several friends who are in
the business, and that they travel from state to state to
the various auctions, buying and selling cars. He said that
he anticipated doing the same thing, and that, on occasion,
he would buy a car and drive it, with the "for sale" sign on
it, to his place of business. He said that he was not
planning a used car business in the sense of having a lot
full of used cars for sale. He reiterated that he was
planning to be a broker, only. He said that to be a broker,
one has to get the same used car dealer's license from the
state as a used car lot owner would have to get, and the
State Police have to have a lot, with a sign identifying the
lot as the dealer's place of business, in place in order to
qualify for the dealer's license.
Commissioner Adcock said that having a single used car on
the applicant's property should not make the property a used
car lot.
Staff responded that the applicant was seeking zoning as a
used car business in order to qualify for a license from the
State.
Commissioner Hawn said that it was his understanding that
the State required a used car dealer to have an identifiable
place of business, but asked Mr. Goodwin if the State
required the place of business to be properly zoned. He
asked Mr. Goodwin to confirm his understanding that Mr.
Goodwin proposed to drive a single used car for personal
transportation to and from his place of business, but that
it was not his plan to have a row of used cars, with "little
flags" on them lining the lot.
0
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6063-A
Mr. Goodwin confirmed Commissioner Hawn's understanding.
Staff explained that the requirement for zoning the property
for the used car business was the City's. In order for Mr.
Goodwin to pay an Occupation Tax and be a used car business,
the property identified as the place of business has to be
properly zoned.
Mr. Goodwin explained further that the State notifies the
City that a particular property has been approved for a car
business, and the City would then enforce the zoning
requirements on the business person. He said that he did
not want to get in trouble with the City on this issue.
Chairperson Woods asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number
of cars associated with the used car business to five, and
limiting their placement on the lot to the five spaces
identified on the site plan at the "upper" level, at the
northwest corner of the property, would be acceptable.
Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable.
Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the signage
on the site to a building mounted sign to identify his used
car business and prohibiting the placement of a poll mounted
sign identifying the property as a used car sales lot were
acceptable.
Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable;
that this is what he had requested from the beginning.
Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Goodwin if limiting the number
of cars, with "for sale" on or in the car, to one vehicle,
with up to five vehicles on the lot for "inventory", but
with no identifying signage, were acceptable.
Mr. Goodwin responded that this limitation was acceptable.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD, with the
limitations noted: that no pole -mounted sign be permitted
which identifies the premises as a used car sales lot; that
only one vehicle be permitted with identifying signage in or
on it denoting it as being for sale; and, that up to five
vehicles be permitted on the property, in the designated five
spaces, with those other than the one permitted to have "for
sale" identifiers have no signage identifying them as for
sale and be limited to inventory storage only. The motion
was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
10
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-4859-C
NAME: DEAN'S -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Road, approximately 700
feet south of Kanis Road
HAROLD SMITH
18201 Lawson Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72210
376-1799
AREA• 2.17 ACRES
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: General Offices; Warehousing
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to
provide access to Lot 2.
2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive
in an access easement to meet City street standards.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a POD in order to divide a 2-acre tract
into two approximately 1-acre lots. On the eastern -most lot, the
applicant proposes to continue using the existing residential
building which lies off S. Bowman Rd. for his "Dean's Coffee
Service" business and to construct a 5,000 square foot building
at the rear/west side of the lot for storage of goods used in his
business. The western -most lot is proposed to be sold and
developed with a 10,440 square foot office building. A 25 foot
deep "undisturbed" buffer is proposed along the west property
line, as is retention of many of the large hardwood trees on the
site. Access to the rear/west lot is to be provided by way of a
private drive in an access easement, and approval of the proposed
private drive in the access easement is requested. Additionally,
the drive is proposed to be constructed to driveway standards,
with head -in parking being provided off the drives, and a
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) ___FILE NO.: Z-4
variance is requested from the requirement for a drive in an
access easement to meet City street standards and the restriction
on head -in parking off the drive. Parking for 8 vehicles is
proposed to be provided on Lot 1; parking for 27 vehicles is
proposed for Lot 2. Additional right-of-way for S. Bowman Rd. is
proposed to be dedicated, and payment to the City of the cost of
constructing one-half of the required improvements to S. Bowman
Rd. is to be made.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a
Planned Office Development, with access to Lot 2 to be
provided by a private drive in an 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 for a drive in an access
easement to meet City street standards, to permit the
private drive in the access easement to be constructed to
driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a residential structure immediately off S. Bowman
Rd. which is used for the offices the Deans Coffee Service
business. Otherwise, the site is undeveloped. The area to
the rear, however, has been cleared in preparation for
construction. The property rises in elevation from 97 feet
MSL (Mean Sea Level) along S. Bowman Rd. to 117 feet at the
west property line, an average grade of 3%.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 being the
zoning of land to the south and west, as well along the
northeast one-half of the site and across S. Bowman Rd. to
the east. It is noted, though, that the ice/roller skating
rink in directly across the street, and is a non -conforming
use in the R-2 zoning district. Along the northwest half of
the property is a PCD zone.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are
required prior to construction.
E
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO • Z-4859-C
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 Planning
Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)].
Show water courses entering the plat area, and the
planned exit points for drainage.
Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial
development, the access should be constructed to
commercial street standards, and parking should not be
such that the backing movement would be into the
entrance drive. This drive can be 27 feet in width and
have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not
being over 300 feet. Sidewalks on both sides of the
drive are required.
Right-of-way along Bowman Rd. is required to be 45 feet
from the existing centerline. One-half street
improvements will be required along Bowman Rd.
Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension
and private fire hydrant will be required to serve Lot 2.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extensions, with an easement, is required to serve the
west/rear lot.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement
along the west, north, east, and part of the south property
line.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the
stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as
long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department commented that all drives should be a
minimum of 20 feet in width at all points. The Fire
Department noted that fire hydrants are not shown on the
site plan, but must be placed inn compliance with the
Ordinance standards.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the
Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan
recommends "Multifamily". The proposed use for the site is
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C
"Office". Due to recent changes in the Land Use Plan in
areas to the east and southeast, the proposed "Office" use
of the property is in conformance with the developing land
use of the area. Designating the area as "Transition Zone"
("TZ11) would permit multifamily, residential, or office uses
in the area, and staff recommends a change in the Land Use
Plan for this site and the land to the south to "Transition
Zone" ("TZ").
Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a development abuts a public
street, the developer is to provide the minimum of one-half
the required Master Street Plan improvements. Sidewalks are
required along the boundary street associated with an office
development. The applicant has indicated that he proposes
to dedicate the required right-of-way along Bowman Rd., and
is prepared to pay "in -lieu" funds with the City for Bowman
Rd. improvements.
Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public
street, except where a private street is explicitly approved
by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that,
where a commercial development requires the creation of an
internalized circulation system to provide access to
multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may
authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public
commercial streets. The location of the private service
easements is to be indicated on the plat and the
improvements are to be built to public street design
standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be
subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer.
Any variance from the public street standards must be
appealed to the City Board of Directors. The applicant has
requested such a variance in order for the private drive to
be constructed to driveway standards, that no turn -around
device be required, and that the parking spaces may back
onto the drives.
Parking requirements for office uses is one space for every
400 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet
of building size, then, for space over 10,000 square feet
(up to 20,000 square feet), the parking requirement is 95%
of the basic requirement. Parking requirements for
warehouse uses are one space for each 2000 square feet of
gross floor area, plus five spaces. The eastern -most new
building is a 4,400 square feet building to be used for
storage. Seven spaces are required by the regulations to be
provided for this use; four are provided. The existing
building, which is shown to remain, is an office or general
business use. The parking for this building would range
from three to four spaces; four are provided. With the rear
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C
building being 10,440 square foot office use, 26 parking
spaces are required. The total parking provided on the
western -most building is 27 spaces;
The location and plan for any signage must be specified and
shown.
The Plans Review Specialist notes that:
Portions of the northern and southern site perimeters
do not provide for the 6 foot wide landscape strips
required by the Landscape Ordinance. Also, a section
of the southern drive projects over the 7 foot wide
land use buffer which is required (6 foot minimum with
transfer). Curb and gutter, or other approved border,
is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed
outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required
along the front two-thirds of the northern site
perimeter and along the entire southern and eastern
sides of the property.
Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished, the applicant is to: 1) furnish the name and
address of the owner of record and the source of title
giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2)
furnish information on the lot sizes; and, 3) provide
information on any existing and the proposed covenants and
restrictions.
Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished, the plat is to show: 1) minimum building front
yard setback lines; 2) a storm drainage analysis showing
drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the
tract; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating
proposed easements and typical ditch section; 4) the date
of the survey; 5) the plat book and page number or
instrument number of all abutting subdivisions, and the
names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed
subdivision; 6) an adequate physical description of all
monuments, to include the type of material and size of the
monuments; and, 7) the zoning classifications of all
abutting areas. Any proposed phasing of the development is
to be indicated.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed.
Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be
provided.
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat submission has only minor deficiencies
which can be submitted by the engineer for staff approval
following Planning Commission approval of the plat.
The rear lot does not have the required frontage on a public
street, and a private access easement and private drive are
requested to provide needed access. With the four acre site
and two lots, the requirements that a private drive for non-
residential uses not serve in excess of 5 acres is met.
The POD site plan showing a driveway standard access drive,
with no turn -around device within the access easement and
with head -in parking off the drive is not in compliance with
the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant, has, however,
requested a variance from these requirements.
The parking which is provided, as far as the number of
spaces is conerned, meets the Ordinance requirements.
The Fire Department has noted that all drives must be at
least 20 feet in width. The applicant has, in attempting to
retain many of the large hardwood trees, proposed 12 foot
wide, one-way drives through the trees around the rear
building. Consultation with the Fire Marshall needs to be
had in order to determine what will be required for needed
access by the Fire Department to three sides of the
building.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD, and approval of the
access easement to provide the required access to Lot 2.
Staff recommends denial of the driveway, without a turn-
around device, with head -in parking off the drive, and
without a sidewalk along both sides of the drive.
UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995)
Mr. Harold Smith, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with
McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff
outlined the requested POD, and presented the submitted
preliminary plat and POD site plan. The various comments
contained in the discussion outline were reviewed with Mr. Smith,
Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members. David Scherer, with
the Public Works staff, reviewed with the applicant and his
6
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C
engineer the requirements for compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance and Master Street Plan. Mr. McGetrick indicated that
the deficiencies would be addressed, but that a variance from the
requirement to construct the interior drive to City street
standards would be pursued. Mr. Smith complained that the
regulations were too harsh, and made a small development
financially impractical to implement. Mr. Smith and Mr.
McGetrick indicated that further meetings with staff and with Mr.
Ralph Bozeman, the project architect, would be needed in order to
determine how to address the various comments. The Committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted
a letter, dated November 30, 1995, asking that the item be
deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral
was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant, dated January 3, 1996, asking that the item be
deferred until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing. Staff
noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on
the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
7
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: F-1 FILE NO Z 591 B
NAME: WAFFLE HOUSE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL
LOCATION: At the northeast corner of W. Markham St. and N.
Jackson St., at 4942 W. Markham St.
DEVELOPER:
WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
5986 Financial Dr.
Norcorss, GA 30071
(404) 729-5700
AREA• 0.53 ACRES
Z NI G: 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT: 15
ENGINEER•
Joe White
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Restaurant
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STAFFUPDATE:
The item was scheduled as a rezoning request, from 0-3 to C-3, at
the January 2, 1996 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant
requested that the item be deferred until the January 30, 1996
public hearing, and that the application be amended to a planned
development request, in this case a Planned Development -
Commercial.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of an approximate one-half
acre site for use as a Waffle House restaurant, or other
comparable restaurant. The proposed building is to contain 1,800
square feet of floor area. Parking for 33 vehicles is planned.
No access to the side street, N. Jackson St., is to be taken,
with the only access to the site being from W. Markham St. No
"drive-in" lanes are proposed. The east face of the building
will have no doors or windows, and the originally planned wall -
mounted exhaust fan will be relocated to the roof. Landscaping
will be provided, as required by Ordinance. The hours of
January 30, 996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO..: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO Z-591-B
operation are to be 24 hours per day. Dumpster servicing is to
be limited to daylight hours. Signage will be limited to one
Pole sign, 25 feet in height, at the southeast corner of the
property, fronting on W. Markham St., plus permitted wall signs.
Area lighting will be limited to "shoebox" fixtures mounted on 20
foot tall poles on the south, west, and north sides or the
property. One fixture will be attached to the north face of the
building. No lighting, the applicant assures, will be allowed to
spill over onto adjoining properties. A 6 foot high privacy
fence is to be installed along all property lines abutting other
properties. Additionally, the applicant proposes to widen W.
Markham St. to provide space for a center left -turn lane along
the frontage of the property. The additional pavement width will
be added to the south side of the street, to continue the
alignment of W. Markham as it extends eastward from Van Buren St.
The applicant notes that, although the adopted Land Use Plan
recommends office uses for the block between N. Jackson St. and
N. Monroe St., the only existing office use in the block is the
subject property, which is proposed to be converted to commercial
use. The applicant states that the property is surrounded by
McDonald's to the west and Wendy's to the east. The only other
office zoned property on the block is vacant, notes the
applicant, and this lot is owned by Wendy's. The prospect for
office use in the subject block, states the applicant, is remote.
The applicant recalls that there are many other commercial uses
along W. Markham St. in close proximity to the subject site. The
applicant points out that the number of curb cuts onto the site
will, with development of the waffle House, be reduced from three
to one; both existing curb cuts on N. Jackson St. will be
eliminated. The applicant notes that landscaping on the site
will be significantly greater with the new development than is
currently on the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval of the Planned Development -Commercial to the Board
Of Directors is requested.
A recommendation by the Planning Commission of a Land Use
Plan amendment from Office to Commercial use is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the current location of a two-story masonry
office building. There are two driveway access points to
the site from N. Jackson St.; one from w. Markham St. There
is a 10 foot grade differential across the site, with the
site sloping from the high point at the northeast corner of
the tract to the low point at the southwest corner of the
January 30, L996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO Z 591 B
tract, at the intersection of W. Markham St. and N. Jackson
St.
The existing zoning of the site is 0-3. The 0-3 zoning
district extends eastward to include the two adjacent
Properties. To the north, at the northwest portion of the
lot, the zoning is R-3; at the north line of the off -set in
the north property line is an R-5 lot. Across N. Jackson
St. to the west is a C-3 zoned tract. Across W. Markham St.
to the south is War Memorial Stadium and Park in an R-2
zoned area.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments:
An additional 5 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated
along N. Jackson St. to provide the required one-half
of a residential street right-of-way. On W. Markham
St., dedication of additional right-of-way is required
to provide a minimum of 35 feet of right-of-way from
the existing centerline of the roadway. The required
20 foot radial area at the intercession must be
dedicated.
With construction, remove the existing driveway aprons
and reconstruct street curbs; reconstruct the street
turning radius to 25 feet at the intersection and
provide the handicap ramps and sidewalks along both
street frontages.
W. Markham St. is to be widened on the south side of
the street to provide for a center turn lane and a 225
foot taper. Striping of the pavement will be provided
by Public Works.
Stormwater detention analysis will be required.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that the Utility
has no objections to the proposed development. Water Works
should be contacted regarding the location and size of the
meter.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility noted that sewer service is
available and is not adversely affected by the project.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning Staff notes that the proposed development is in
the Heights Hillcrest Planning District, and that the
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Office uses along the north
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F-1 (Continued) FILE NO Z 591 B
side of W. Markham St., except for the Commercial districts
at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection
of W. Markham St. and Van Buren St. The proposed commercial
use, then, is in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
notes:
The full land use buffer width required along the
northern property line is 7 feet 9 inches. The minimum
width requirement, when transferring buffer areas to
another location, is 6 feet. The Landscape Ordinance
minimum width allowed is 4 feet. A portion of the
proposed buffer provides for a 3 foot wide sidewalk,
and, therefore, reduces the proposed buffer width to
only 3 feet.
A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face side
directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are
required to screen this site form all adjacent zoned
residential properties to the north and west. A
Portion of the northern perimeter does not provide for
this screen.
A 3 foot wide building landscape area is required
between the public parking areas and the building.
Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
Curb and gutter, or other approved border, will be
required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
The Landscape Ordinance requires trees and shrubs
around the site s perimeter and within the proposed
interior of the vehicular use areas. A total of 6% (in
this case, 824 square feet) of the interior of the
vehicular use area is required to be landscaped. The
are proposed is 424 square feet; therefore, it will be
necessary to increase the interior landscaping by 405
square feet or obtain a landscape waiver from the City
Beautiful Commission.
E. ANALYSIS:
The site plan and needed information are substantially
complete. The requirements of Public Works and of the
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances must be complied with.
The Waffle House developers have proposed a good site plan
for the development. They have been sensitive to the
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
neighborhood's issues of access, and have not requested any
curb -cuts on N. Jackson St. This development does have an
advantage over MCDonald's and Wendy's in that it does not
have drive-thru service. The drive-thru service of the
fast-food restaurants of W. Markham St. have caused traffic
problems during the peak hours. The Waffle House is a
24-hour operation, which will produce traffic for W. Markham
St., but not the peak hour problems produced by the other
restaurants.
The adopted Land Use Plan recommends office use for the
site, and staff can see no compelling reason to recommend an
amendment to the Plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the requested PD-C zoning, and
recommends that the Land Use Plan not be amended.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, the project
engineering firm; Mr. Rett Tucker, with Flake, Tabor, Tucker,
Well, & Kelly; and a representative of Waffle House, Inc. were
present. Staff outlined the requested planned development and
reviewed with the Committee members the site plan which had been
submitted. Public Works, represented by David Scherer, presented
the City Engineer's and Traffic Engineer's concerns;
specifically, the need for additional right-of-way along both
boundary streets and the need to widen W. Markham St. There was
discussion about the thru-wall versus a roof mounted exhaust fan,
and the Waffle House representative said that a roof -top unit
would be used. The Committee discussed with the representatives
of the applicant the various concerns and issues raised, then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the requested PD-C rezoning, and reported that
the applicant had submitted a site plan which addressed all staff
concerns for site design, including: a) eliminating the drive
access point from N. Jackson St.; b) providing for the widening
of W. Markham St. so that a center continuous left -turn lane can
be stripped; c) providing for additional landscaping and land use
buffers; and, d) limiting signage and parking lot lighting.
Staff, however, pointed out that the adopted Land Use Plan for
the area recommends "office' uses for the block which includes
the proposed Waffle House site; so, staff recommended denial of
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
the requested commercial use. Staff also recommended denial of
an amendment to the Land Use Plan.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Rett Tucker, with Flake Tabor
Tucker Wells & Kelly, was present. He recalled that the
application had been amended from a C-3 rezoning request to a
planned development request in order for staff and the
neighborhood to have input into site design requirements, and
that the applicant had had meetings with both staff and
Neighborhood Association representatives to arrive at the site
design which was being presented to the Commission. He reported
that, as a result of the meetings, the applicant had agreed: a)
to pay for the widening of W. Markham St., so that a center
continuous left turn land could be provided; b) to enlarge and
enhance the areas for landscaping, including doubling the number
of trees along the northern boundary of the site over and above
the number required by the lands use buffer ordinance; c) to
provide an 8 foot opaque fence along the northern property line
and a 6 foot opaque fence along the eastern property line of the
site; d) to install parking lot lighting which will not -spill-
over" onto abutting properties; e) to eliminate the two existing
drive access points on N. Jackson St., and to limit drive access
to the Waffle House from W. Markham St. only; f) to restrict
signage to the W. Markham St. frontage of the site only, and to
limit the pole -mounted sign on W. Markham St. to 25 feet in
height; g) to restrict garbage pick-up and all deliveries to
daylight hours only; h) to relocated the planned east wall -
mounted exhaust fan to the roof; and, i) that, although Waffle
House does not sell alcoholic beverages, to permit the PD-C to
prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages should another
restaurant use occupy the site at a latter date. He reported
that the applicant had done everything both staff and the
Neighborhood Association representatives had asked in an attempt
to accommodate neighborhood interests. He related that the staff
recommendation for denial was based on the proposed use not being
consistent with the Land Use Plan; that the Land Use Plan
recommended "office" uses for the site. He noted, however, that
the Land Use Plan also recommends "office" uses for nine other
blocks eastward along the north side of W. Markham St., and that
within the nine block between Cedar St. and the site are,
beginning with the corner of Cedar St. and W. Markham St.,
commercial uses, including: a) a residence, which is zoned C-3;
b) a liquor store; c) a Laundromat; d) a Boatman's Bank
branch; e) a Texaco service station; f) a First Commercial Bank
branch; g) Taco Bell; h) Backyard Burgers; i) a One Bank
branch; and, j) Wendy's. He proposed that commercial uses are
much more predominant than office uses in the area; in fact, that
office uses are the exception in the area that the Land Use Plan
recommends for office uses. He pointed out that the existing
office building which occupies the site is the only office use in
the block. "It is an office island in a sea of commercial
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-591-B
activity," he said. He maintained that the Land Use Plan is out
of date; that the area has developed as a business area, not an
office area. He pointed out that Wendy's, in the same block as
the subject site to be east, is zoned C-3, as is the McDonald's
site immediately across N. Jackson St. to the west. Except for
the C-4 site at the corner of Van Buren and W. Markham St., where
the Exxon service station is located, all other land for blocks
to the west is zoned C-3. He also pointed out that War Memorial
Stadium, which seats 55,000 persons, is immediately across the
street from the proposed site. He maintained that the proposed
commercial use is consistent with the land use of the area, and
that, with the restrictions imposed in the PD-C, will not
adversely affect the residential neighborhood to the north. He
said that, from a traffic perspective, the Waffle House, as a
"sit-down" restaurant, will have less than one-third the traffic
than the Wendy's or McDonald's restaurants, with their drive-thru
window service. He commented that the PD-C does not provide for
any restaurant in the PD-C site to have a drive-thru window. He
said that the fact that the Waffle House is a 24-hour per day
operation is beneficial from a crime standpoint; that activity
associated with business tends to decrease crime, and that Waffle
House does not have a history of robberies. He pointed out that,
in the present 0-3 zoning of the site, a 60-foot tall office
building could be built, and that 10% of the floor area of such a
building could be used for commercial uses, including a
restaurant use. He proposed that a well -designed restaurant
site, with design parameters imposed through the "planned
development" process, is preferable to uses which could be
instituted by right in the 0-3 zoning district, mentioning that
such uses as a bank; medical clinic; establishment for the care
of alcoholic, narcotic, or psychiatric patients; and fraternal
organization are uses by right in the 0-3 district. He related
that the subject block is not included in the proposed Hillcrest
Historic District, nor is the block abutting the site to the
north, nor the two blocks to the west. This, he maintained,
means that these three blocks are not included in Hillcrest's
plans and are not part of the Hillcrest neighborhood. He
recalled that, when the Wendy's site was approved for that
restaurant, staff had recommended denial; the Planning Commission
had recommend approval; the Board of Directors had approved the
rezoning; and a lawsuit attempting to block the rezoning,
appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, had failed. He quoted
the staff testimony in the lawsuit which supported the Board's
decision to rezone the Wendy's site, noting that staff had said
in its testimony that the rezoning from residential and quite
office to commercial was not inconsistent with the Land Use Plan
and was a reasonable land use. He stated that the proposed
Waffle House rezoning was not substantially different from the
Wendy's request, yet had the advantage of a planned development,
with design and use limitations imposed. He concluded with the
7
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
statement that the proposed PD-C merited Planning Commission
approval.
To Commissioner Adcock's inquiry concerning the character of the
subject area, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, Jim Lawson,
stated that staff consistently recommends denial of proposals
where commercial uses will abut residential uses, and pointed out
that the present use of the subject site is office; that there is
a two-story brick office building on the site. He said that uses
such as banks are permitted uses in the office zoning districts,
and are classified as "office" type uses. Public recreational
uses, too, are permitted uses in the office zoning districts. .
He maintained that the area should not be "stripped -out" in
commercial uses, with multiple restaurants, operating 24-hours
per day, but should be maintained as a less intense use area and
retained for office uses. He said that the applicant's
presentation regarding the lawsuit, where it was noted that the
staff testimony had supported the rezoning, was the testimony of
the zoning administrator, not a planner, and that the City
staff's testimony was a reflection of the position of the Board
of Directors, for whom staff works, in its decision to rezone the
property.
Commissioner Putnam pointed out that, although the Land Use Plan
shows the subject block and the abutting blocks as -office- use
area, the zoning plan shows commercial zoning of a number of
sites, including the Wendy's and McDonald's sites. He asked
staff for an explanation of why the land use plan had not been
changed when the sites were rezoned.
Neighborhoods and Planning Directors Jim Lawson responded that,
when the Board of Directors rezones a site, and the rezoning is
inconsistent with the Land Use Plan, the Plan should be changed.
Mr. Paul Crawford, president of the Hillcrest Residents'
Association, was present, and presented the association's
recommendation. He asked that the group of association members
present at the public hearing be permitted to stand, and reported
that, although the number of persons in attendance was small, he
had petitions signed by 170 Hillcrest residents who oppose the
proposed rezoning. He said that the Association is totally
opposed to commercial use of the property, no matter how it is
"packaged" or "sugar-coated". He pointed out that, contrary to
the applicant saying that Wendy's is immediately to the east,
there are, in fact, two residences, on property which is zoned
residential, between the proposed waffle House site and Wendy's,
and that a woman still lives in the home abutting the proposed
site to the east. He maintained that the drive-thru restaurants
in the area create problems for the residential neighborhood;
that they promote "cut-thru" traffic, pedestrian traffic, and
crime. The Waffle House, he explained, will contribute to an
0
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
environment which promotes crime. He said that, although
McDonald's and Wendy's were approved, they were contrary to the
Planning staff's recommendations at the time, and, despite their
being approved, were then and are not now a good idea for the use
of the property. He suggested that, when these uses were
approved, neighborhood associations had not become established
and active, and that, now that they have become a predominant
force in the planning decision -making process, these neighborhood
associations are able to exert the power of the neighborhood in
land use issues. Times, then, have changed, and actions from the
past which were "bad planning" then, which were not beneficial to
the neighborhood, should not be forced, based on precedence, on
the current situation. He said that residential uses (albeit
some are multi -family dwellings) completely surround the subject
site, except for the McDonald's site across N. Jackson St., and
the proposed Waffle House will have a negative impact on the
residential uses immediately surrounding the site, including
increased traffic onto N. Jackson St. and through the
neighborhood, the noise which the Waffle House will bring to the
neighborhood, and a potential increase in crime. The effect of
this impact, he said, would be decreasing property values in the
neighborhood. He pointed out that there is a two-story multi-
family residential building abutting the subject site on the
north, and that the residents of the second story would look
immediately down on the restaurant and parking lot; the parking
lot lights being visible to them. He pointed out that the six
foot privacy fence separating the Waffle House from the
residences to the east would do little to buffer the homeowner in
that home.
Mr. Darrell Wheeler, identifying himself as the vice-president of
the Hillcrest Resident's Association, spoke in opposition to the
requested PD-C. He presented crime statistics for violent
crimes, furnished by the police department, for the corridor
along W. Markham St., for one block on each side of the street,
from the W. Markham St. -Kavanaugh Blvd. intersection westward to
University Ave, for a 5-year period, from 1990 to 1995. He
reported that the list of violent crime incidences include:
assault, rape, battery, sexual misconduct, kidnapping, and
homicide, all having occurred within the time period cited in the
corridor. He said that the incident reports show that the crimes
occur at the commercial properties, and that, according to the
statistics, if the Waffle House is permitted to locate on the
subject site, the Waffle House can expect to have an incidence of
2.8 violent crimes in that location per year. He reported that
the incidence of violent crimes occur 24-hours per day, but that
27% of these crimes occur between the hours of 12:00 midnight and
6:00 A.M., and another 36% occur between 6:00 P.M. and midnight,
or a total of 63% between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. This, he said,
indicates that crimes are most prevalent after and before normal
9
January 30, i996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-591-B
business hours, and that business that stay open late invite
crime.
Commissioner Lichty questioned the cause -and -effect relationship
between the growth of commercial development along W. Markham St.
and the increase in the incidence of crime in the area. He said
that crime has increased over the years in the society at large
and in all areas.
Commissioner Brandon added that, with War Memorial Stadium,
UAMS/University Hospital, the Health Department, etc. along
W. Markham St., she questioned whether a cause -and -effect
relationship can be established solely between increased
commercial uses along W. Markham St. and increased crime.
Commissioner Rahman expressed skepticism that a correlation can
be established between commercial uses and crime, and observed
that the incidence of crime in the abutting residential
neighborhood should be compared with that of the corridor along
W. Markham St.
Mr. Wheeler responded that, in every case, crimes along W.
Markham St. had occurred at commercial uses; none having occurred
at residential use sites.
Mr. Crawford pointed out that the subject site, as an office use,
had experienced no crime activity. He pointed out that Jimmy's
Serious Sandwiches, which closes at 7:00 P.M., has also
experienced no crime activity. The surrounding business, though,
Subway, KFC, and Markham Inn, have been rife with incidences of
violent crime. The bottom line, he maintained, is that crime
happens in the commercial areas, and that the addition of another
commercial use will add to the available area in which crime
occurs.
Commissioner Adcock, reviewing the crime incidence report, said
that the incidences of violent crimes was extremely high at UAMS
and St. Vincent, and that she would rather have the Waffle House
in the neighborhood than the hospitals, and observed that the
attempt to correlate an increase in crime with the possible
establishment of a Waffle House on the site was "off base". She
said that, from her personal experience with the Waffle House in
her neighborhood, the incidence of crime is minimal.
Mr. Wheeler, reading a letter from the owner -resident of the home
immediately to the east of the site, Mrs. Wanda B. Smith,
expressed her concern for the proposed rezoning. Her letter, he
read, said that she could not live in her home next door to a
24-hour restaurant.
10
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO Z-591-B
Commissioner Hawn, addressing Mr. Tucker, asked Mr. Tucker to
provide a "compelling" reason that the Land Use Plan should be
discarded and the commercial use approved.
Mr. Tucker responded that, with the planned development, the
impact on the neighborhood can be minimized and restricted, and,
that the proposed use is less offensive that uses which could be
established on the property by right in the existing zoning of
the site. He said that the change is a reasonable request, and
one that is not that different from other uses which are
permitted in the office zoning districts. He said that the
office zoning districts permit a sit down restaurant, as an
accessory use in the 0-3 zoning district and as a conditional use
in the 0-2 district, so the sit down restaurant is recognized in
the Zoning Ordinance as a use which is in keeping with the
character of office uses. He pointed out that, with its current
0-3 zoning, an office building could be built, retaining the curb
cuts on N. Jackson St., with signage on N. Jackson St., and with
10% of the building floor area being permitted to be a
restaurant, and that no use review would be required.
Commissioner Putnam observed that, within a block of the proposed
Waffle House site, the two drive-thru fast food restaurants are
extremely intense commercial uses, and that the Waffle House is
not that much different from an office use. He explained that
the proposed building is a brick building, and, in lieu of
persons going in to the building to conduct business, they go
inside to eat. He said that, with the C-3, fast-food, drive-thru
uses on both sides of the subject site, the most appropriate land
use for the subject site is one that is consistent with the other
existing uses in the area. He pointed out that the proposed use
is quieter and less intense than the drive-thru uses which exist,
and will produce less traffic. He said that the Land Use Plan is
not in keeping with the developed character of the area, and
wondered if the Commissioners would have legal exposure for not
approving a land use which the courts have said is appropriate
for the area.
Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson, addressing Commissioner
Putnam, explained that, should the Planning Commission vote to
uphold the Land Use Plan, the Commission's actions, she would
advise, would not be seen as being arbitrary, therefore, would
not subject Commissioners to legal action for an "arbitrary"
decision.
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning Directors, Jim Lawson,
added that, if the Commission deems that the Land Use Plan needs
to be changed, the Commission can recommend to the Board of
Directors that the Plan be amended.
11
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z-591-B
Commissioner Rahman observed that the land use of the area has
changed appreciably during the past number of years, and that the
Land Use Plan is out of date for the affected area. He confirmed
with staff Mr. Tucker's assertions regarding the types and scope
of uses which are permitted by right in the 0-3 zoning district,
as it exists on the site, to which Mr. Lawson concurred.
Commissioner Rahman, referring to Commissioner Putnam's example
of the -waffle House being similar to an office use, except that
one eats inside, rather than there being offices inside, observed
that the use is consistent with other office type uses permitted
in the office zoning districts, to which Mr. Lawson responded
that the Zoning Ordinance, in fact, makes distinctions between
office uses and restaurant uses.
Commissioner Rahman, addressing Mr. Lawson, asked if, in the
Zoning Ordinance, multi -family uses are considered as a
transition between commercial uses and single-family uses,
observing that the abutting use to the north of the subject site
is a multi -family use.
Mr. Lawson, responding, said that, traditionally, multi -family
uses are considered transitions between commercial uses and
single-family uses, but that, in Little Rock, multi -family uses
are not desired as transition zoning districts by most single-
family areas; instead, that in Little Rock, most single-family
residential areas prefer office districts as buffers, since
office uses generally are 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., and are less
intrusive to the residents.
Commissioner Daniel observed that many offices, in today's
business setting, are not just 8:00 to 5:00 operations, but
operate 24 hours per day or, in some instances, open at 6:00 in
the evening and operate until 3:00 in the morning. Many office
buildings are occupied seven days per week, 365 days per year.
It is an out -of -day notion, he said, that offices operate only
8:00 to 5:00, and City Ordinances do not limit office operations
to these hours.
Commissioner Brandon, addressing Mr. Tucker, asked for assurance
the landscaping would be installed and maintained as shown on the
presented site plan, to which Mr. Tucker responded that it would.
Commissioner Rahman, addressing the Hillcrest Residents'
Association representatives, asked for confirmation that the
subject site and the abutting properties are not part of the
proposed Hillcrest Historic District, to which Mr. Crawford
responded that the proposed district extends southward to the
properties in the block to the north of the site.
12
January 30, L996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-591-B
Chairperson Woods, addressing the Waffle House representatives,
asked for clarification on the exterior appearance of the
proposed building, to which Mr. Ted Capp, representing the Waffle
House parent company, responded that the building would have a
brick facade, in lieu of split face concrete block, which has
become the standard facade on newer Waffle House restaurants,
and, due to security considerations, the building has a great
deal of glass in the facade.
Commissioner Lichty, addressing Mr. Capp, asked if any
consideration had been or would be given to less than 24-hour
operation of the restaurant, to which Mr. Capp replied that
Waffle Houses are exclusively 24-hour operations, and no
consideration could be given to altering that policy.
Mr. Randy Smyly, the Waffle House franchisee, who is the
applicant, stated that Waffle House restaurants encourage police
officers to visit the restaurants for their breaks, which
discourages criminal activity at the premises. He said that the
amount of glass in the facade makes the interior much more
visible to passers-by, and that the blinds are left open at all
times, which, again, discourages criminal activity both inside
and outside the building. He stated that, when needed, the
Waffle House will employ off -duty police officers to assure that
customers and the businesses do not have problems associated with
criminal activity. He added that, in three of the Little Rock
Waffle House restaurants, in the past years alone, the business
has paid over $60,000 for off -duty police officers to provide
security at the premises. With all the measures cited, Waffle
Houses, he assured, are not an easy target for robberies.
Addressing Commissioner Brandon, and referring to her earlier
question regarding landscaping at the site, he reported that the
landscaping would be served by an irrigation system.
Mr. Jay Atkins, who reported that he lives at 201 N. Monroe, the
second house north from W. Markham St., behind Wendy's, spoke in
opposition to the proposed rezoning. He said that the
restaurants promote increased traffic in the neighborhood, and
between traffic, noise, crime, etc., the proposed rezoning will
negatively affect the neighborhood. He also complained that the
garbage pick-up at Wendy's is generally at 4:00 in the morning.
He said that he is the block captain for the Association, and
that he had found no one who supports the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Ken Cooperman, reporting that he lives at 311 N. Jackson St.,
spoke in opposition to the proposed planned development. He said
that, presently, the neighborhood is stable, with property values
remaining stable and families occupying the homes. He said that
residents are able to walk to stores and feel secure. He
complained that further intrusion of commercial uses in the area
13
January 30, L996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
will destabilize the neighborhood and will promote residents
leaving the area.
Dr. Karen Hart, identifying herself as a resident of Hillcrest,
who has lived and practiced in the area since 1983, spoke in
opposition to the requested rezoning. She said that she had
relocated to Little Rock from Detroit, and has seen there what
commercialization of a neighborhood will do to the neighborhood.
She complained that she was subjected to a mugging from someone
loitering in the area, and maintained that the increased
commercial activity along W. Markham St. would promote an
increase in people in the area, which, in turn, will increase the
incidence of crime. She reported that the "get -away" car from a
recent robbery had been parked in her yard; she reported that
other robberies and shootings had occurred in businesses within
short distances of her home. She said that she does not want to
see thing change, or business activities encroach into the
neighborhood. She said that, just because "mistakes" were made
in the past in allowing the fast food restaurants in the
neighborhood, these do not need to be perpetuated further.
Mr. Parker Dozhier, identifying himself as owning the home at
123 N. Jackson St., spoke in opposition to the requested
rezoning. He pointed out that the Waffle House representatives
are pursuing the rezoning to protect their investment; he,
likewise, is opposing the rezoning to protect his investment. He
reviewed the history of the area, mentioning that, where the
McDonald's is presently located, was the location of a DX service
station, and that the location of the proposed Waffle House,
before it was an office building, was the location of a church.
He related that, twenty years earlier, he had supported the
rezoning of the DX service station site, when he had been assured
that the rezoning was for the purpose of building a pharmacy on
the site; instead, he complained, the McDonald's had been built
after a lawsuit and the courts had permitted its construction.
He reported that he leases his house on N. Jackson St. to medical
students; that they need a quiet neighborhood, and that a Waffle
House will affect the quiet neighborhood negatively, thus
affecting his investment negatively.
Ms. Kathleen Lamb, identifying herself as the owner of the
property at 609 N. Jackson St., spoke in opposition to the
request rezoning. She urged the Commission to protect her
neighborhood from the intrusion of the commercial uses into the
area.
Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, Jim Lawson, advised the
Commission members that they should either vote to uphold the
Land Use Plan in a denial of the proposed planned development,
or, if Commissioners feel that the Land Use Plan is out of date
and not reflective of the developing uses of the area, should
14
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-591-B
vote to amend the Land Use Plan to permit the restaurant use,
then vote to approve the planned development. He recommended,
however, that the Land Use Plan not be changed.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PD-C, with the
inclusion of the assurances presented by the applicant at the
beginning of the presentation, with the vote being 5 ayes,
5 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
Chairperson Woods reported that, in conformance with the
Commission Bylaws requiring a minimum of 6 votes to approve a
recommendation to the Board and requiring the item be
automatically deferred to the next Commission meeting for a
re -hearing, the item would be deferred to the March 14, 1996
Commission meeting.
Neighborhoods and Planning Director, Jim Lawson, and Assistant
City Attorney, Cindy Dawson, pointed out that, if Commissioners
feel that they have heard all the pros and cons for and against
the proposed rezoning, and do not feel that a re -hearing could
add new information and affect the vote, the Commission could
waive the Bylaws requirement for the rehearing, and pass the item
to the Board of Directors without a recommendation. Mr. Lawson
said that, often, in these types of situations, the same
discussion takes place as a deferred item as was heard at the
initial hearing, and nothing is gained from a rehearing. He said
that he has felt for some time that the Bylaws requirement needs
to be changed, so that an item does not have to be automatically
deferred for the rehearing by the Commission.
A motion was made to approve the PD-C application, subject to the
conditions cited, but with the restriction that the restaurant
will be closed from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. The motion died,
however, for lack of a second.
A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws requirement
for an automatic deferral of the item, and pass the item to the
Board of Directors without a recommendation by the Planning
Commission. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay,
1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
15
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: F-2 FILE NO • Z-5038-B
NAME: SEVEN ACRES BUSINESS PARK -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Road, approximately 0.3
mile east of west Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Jeff Hathaway, Agent Joe White
THE HATHAWAY GROUP WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201
663-5400 374-1666
AREA: 7.0821 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 500
ZONING: POD PROPOSED USES: Auto painting and body
rebuilding shop; office;
office-showroom/warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STAFF UPDATE:
At the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission, the applicant was
offered the opportunity to have a revised site plan, changing the
location of the proposed development from Lot 2 to Lot 4 of the
Seven Acres Business Park, heard as a deferred item on the
January 30, 1996 Commission agenda. This opportunity was
conditioned on the notification of all property owners within 200
feet of the entire Seven Acres Business Park POD being
accomplished, not just persons owning property within 200 feet of
the individual lot. The required notification has been
accomplished, and a revised site plan was submitted which moves
the proposed "collision center" from the southwest corner of the
development to the southeast corner, as suggested by staff and
various Commissioners.
The Seven Acres Business Park was established by the Board of
Directors by Ordinance No. 16,319, passed on December 15, 1992.
This followed a recommendation of approval by the Planing
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
Commission on November 3, 1992. The approved POD restricts
commercial uses (explained as "over-the-counter sales") to only
Lot 1, and provided that the commercial area of the building on
Lot 1 would be limited to 4,000 square feet. All other
buildings would be limited to "office-showroom/warehouse uses,
and any area of the building on Lot 1 in excess of the 4,000
square feet would be limited to office uses. The building on
Lot 1 was shown as 60 foot deep by 220 foot long; on Lot 2 the
building was to be 72 foot deep by 190 foot long; on Lot 3 the
building was to be 72 foot deep by 120 foot long. Two buildings
were shown on Lot 4, one 92 feet deep by 90 feet long; the other
a total of 62 feet deep by 100 feet long. Each of these
buildings on Lots 2 through 4 were to be used for office-
showroom/warehousing. An undisturbed buffer along the west
property line, 80 feet wide at the Lot 1 parking area, and 50
feet wide along the reminder of Lot 1 and along the Lot 2
property line, is shown on the approved site plan.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amended planned office development to
change the use mix of the approved POD from limited "over-the-
counter sales"/commercial, plus office and office -showroom/
warehousing to substitute an auto painting and body rebuilding
shop for the office-showroom/warehousing use approved for Lot 2.
Golden Collision Center is proposed to occupy a 9,238 square foot
building (with overall dimensions of 86 feet deep by 125 feet
long) in place of the 72 foot deep by 190 foot long (13,680
square foot) office-showroom/warehouse use which is approved for
the lot. In lieu of the building being 85 feet off the west
property line, the proposed building is to be 122 feet of the
west property line. The undisturbed buffer, however, is omitted
from Lot 2, and a 15 foot wide landscape buffer is substituted.
A opaque privacy fence is proposed to be erected along the east
edge of the landscape buffer, and along the south property line.
The applicant requests approval of a project sign at the corner
of Cantrell Rd. and Seven Acres Dr. which is to advertise the
various businesses occupying the park. Conformance with the
Highway 10 Overlay District sign restrictions is proposed for the
sign.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an
Amended Planned Office Development.
P11
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is being developed; Seven Acres Dr., is under
construction. No building development, at this time, had
been commenced. The site is nearly level, with only a six
foot grade differential within the site. There is a
floodway along the south property line which has been
dedicated to the City.
The existing zoning of the site is POD. All surrounding
areas are zoned R-2. Houses back up to the site off Bella
Rosa Dr.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that permits for construction of the
interior street have already been approved. Public Works
has no other comments.
Little Rock Water Works has no comments.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that any revisions
to the site must be compatible with the existing sewer main
extension which has been accepted by the Utility.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that they will need a 15
foot easement around the entire perimeter of the site.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the
stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as
long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that they need an
easement along the east and the west property lines.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the
River Mountain District, and that the adopted Lane Use Plan
recommends "Mixed Office -Commercial". The proposal is a
modification of an existing mixed use office, commercial,
and office-showroom/warehouse planned development, and the
proposal does not appreciably change the character of the
mixed use development. No Plan issue, then, is involved.
The project narrative addresses the use for Lot 2: the
Golden Collision Center. Since this particular tenant is
named, and no convertibility to other similar or alternative
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
uses is requested, the Golden Collision Center, if approved,
will be the only tenant which will be permitted without
amending the POD.
The building shown on Lot 1 retains, as was shown on the
approved site plan, but which is not in conformance with the
approved POD, the size of the commercial/"over-the-counter
sales" area to be 4,950 square feet. The approved POD
limited this area to 4,000 square feet. The amended POD
does not modify this approved limitation.
The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the areas set
aside for buffers and landscaping meet the Ordinance
requirements, with the exception of a portion of the eastern
landscape buffer which drops below the 25 foot minimum
required buffer per the Highway 10 Overlay District
Ordinance.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are only minor deficiencies in the submittal
information and exhibits, and these can be easily remedied.
There are, however, issues which need to be resolved: 1)
whether convertibility of the use approved for Lot 2 is
desired; 2) the change from a 50 foot undisturbed buffer to
a 15 foot landscape strip along the west property line
abutting the residences which back up to the site,
especially when a 25 foot minimum buffer is required; and 3)
whether a collision repair center, in this close proximity
to residential uses is acceptable.
The applicant needs to address the convertibility issue.
The change in the undisturbed buffer from 50 feet to a
landscape buffer of 15 feet is a major change in the
buffering of the planned development site from the
residences which abut the site to the west.
An auto painting and body rebuilding shop is listed as a C-4
use. The technology utilized by a "collision repair
center", however, is far removed from the out-of-date means
used in the past to paint and repair automobiles, and the
technology described by the applicant makes the use
compatible with an office-showroom/warehouse use allowed in
the POD. The proximity of automobiles to the residential
neighborhood, however, is a concern, and the noise from the
collision repair center, in so close a proximity to the
residences, is of concern. The use would be better suited
on one of the lots along the east boundary of the POD site,
instead of on a lot which abuts residences.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the amended POD use, as
presented, but can support the application if the use is
placed on one of the two eastern lots, and the undisturbed
buffer is left in tact, as originally approved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995)
Mr. Jeff Hathaway, with the Hathaway Group, representing the
applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates,
Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined
the character of the proposed amended planned development, and
presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed the discussion
outline and discussed the concerns noted in the outline with Mr.
Hathaway and Mr. white. Mr. Bob Brown, the Site Plan Review
Specialist, noted the deficiencies in the eastern buffer,
pointing out that 25 feet is the required minimum buffer width.
Mr. white indicated that any needed changes would be addressed,
and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff presented the requested planned development, but recommended
denial of the proposed amended POD. Staff explained that the body
shop, in the location proposed, would abut residences which back
up to the property on the west, and that the site plan omits the
50 foot buffer which was approved in the original POD site plan.
Staff noted that staff can support the use if the body shop is
moved to the east side of Seven Acres Dr.
Staff reported that several calls and two letters had been
received from abutting residential homeowners who oppose the
proposed use and the encroachment into the buffer area.
Staff reported that no Land Use Plan amendment is required,
should the Commission recommend approval of the amended POD.
Mr. Jeff Hathaway, representing the applicant, and Mr. Larry
Golden, the applicant, were present.
Mr. Hathaway presented the applicant's request, noting that the
applicant, Mr. Golden, had sought and received Commission
approval for the location of his collision repair facility off
I-630 in the Freeway Business Park, but that the Board of
Directors had denied the request. He said that Mr. Golden had
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.; F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
made an offer on a lot in the Seven Acres Business Park, and was
proposing to locate his "state of the art" collision repair
facility at this new location.
Mr. Golden explained the differences in what people envision as a
typical "body shop" and a collision center, such as he proposes.
He said that, due to vehicles being so dramatically different
from those of just a few years ago. He said that between plastic
replacement parts and on -board computers, collision repair is
dramatically different from a few years ago, and technology will
continue to bring about more changes. A "body shop" cannot fix
this type vehicle. He addressed the means of painting vehicles;
he reported that the vehicle is driven into the enclosed booth,
it is sealed inside the booth, the air is filtered both entering
and exiting the booth, and the finish is heat or micro -wave baked
onto the body. He presented an architectural rendering of the
building, saying that it will, for all practical purposes, look
like any other office -warehouse building which would be developed
on the site. He said that the proposed building has only
overhead doors at each end, not at each repair bay, and that,
with this design, neighbors will not hear noises from or see
repair work being done. He pointed out that the original POD
required the building on Lot 2 to be set at 85 feet off the west
property line; the current site proposes a building set at 118
feet off the west property line. He explained that the original
POD required a 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the west property
line. He said that there are no trees in this area, and that,
instead of the 50 foot buffer, which, with no trees would not
screen the site, he was proposing to furnish a 15 foot landscaped
strip along the west property line, and place an 8 foot high
"good neighbor" fence on his side of the landscaping so that the
landscaping is on the neighbors' side of the fence.
Commissioner Putnam recalled that the Parker Cadillac Body Shop
is a very similar facility, and that it was approved for and
functions well in close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
It is on Rainwood Dr., setting across the street from
condominiums, he said, and, he said, that in speaking with
residents, he has been told that the Parker facility is a good
neighbor; that they would rather have this facility than an
office building or some commercial use. He urged the Bella Rosa
residents to visit the Parker facility to assuage their concerns.
Ms. Ruth Bell, speaking for the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, admitting that Mr. Golden's facility was "state-of-the-
art", said that adequate buffers needed to be maintained between
residential and non-residential uses.
Mr. Ronald Strobel, saying that his home backed up to the
proposed body shop site, spoke in opposition to the request. He
pointed out that the topography drops significantly from west to
6
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5038-B
east, and that, for a fence to screen the body shop from his home
of from Bella Rosa Dr., would have to be substantially higher
than 8 feet.
Commissioner. Adcock asked staff for clarification on the types of
uses which are approved for the existing POD.
Staff related that the "office -warehouse" classification permits
such activities as contractor's office, service and supplier's
offices, repair company offices, etc.; those types of activities
which require an office as well as a materials or equipment
storage facility in conjunction with the office use.
Commissioner Adcock asked if, one, whether this is the type of
warehousing use, similar to those off Landers Rd. in North Little
Rock, with rows and rows of overhead doors, and two, whether the
office -warehouse use were all that is currently approved for the
POD.
Staff replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Frieda Vogler, identifying herself as owning the lot at the
corner of Bella Rosa and Cantrell Rd., reported that she had not
been notified of the Commission hearing, either for the current
hearing or for the previous hearing when the POD was approved.
She said that she was neither for or against the POD, but
questioned the sense of commercial rezoning along Cantrell Rd.,
intermixed with established residential uses.
Commissioner McCarthy urged the Bella Rosa neighbors to visit
various office -warehouse facilities, as well as the Parker
Cadillac repair facility, to see that the collision repair
facility would be less intrusive than the typical office -
warehouse facility.
Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson stated that,
when the applicant met with staff with the proposal, staff had
felt that, since the POD permitted limited retail use on the
site, that the collision repair facility could be substituted for
the permitted retail use. He said that staff would not support
the collision repair facility in addition to the retail use of
the site; that, if both were allowed, the character of the POD
would be changed.
Mr. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, reported that the Highway
10 Overlay requirement would require an average minimum buffer
around the perimeter of the site of 25 feet, and that, in such a
situation as the subject property, the buffer would be a minimum
of 25 feet; that the Ordinance would require that, where trees
and plantings are not already present, trees and plantings would
be required to be installed; that a sprinkler system for watering
7
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5038-B
the plants is required; and that a fence would be required along
the west property line.
Commissioner Hawn urged the applicant to consider the alternative
location of the southeast lot.
Mr. Golden responded that he had the subject lot under contract;
that he felt that he had a good project; that the landscaping
concerns note by Bob Brown could be remedied, and that he needed
to pursue the present application through the Commission hearing.
Interim Chairperson Ball inquired of the applicant if he would
rather seek a deferral of further consideration of the
application, in order for him to contact the seller regarding a
possible relocation of the site to the southeast lot, or whether
he would like to seek a vote by the Commission on the current
proposal.
Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the convertibility
of the use of the site.
Mr. Golden responded that he would want the right to sell the
business and to retain the name for himself and his family, but
that a similar collision center, with all the approved
restrictions, is requested to be able to occupy the premises.
Mr. Hathaway asked for clarification on whether, if a deferral
were granted in order to negotiate a contract on another lot
within the Seven Acres Business Park, the amended request could
be heard at the next Commission meting instead of having to wait
for a new docket closing date.
Staff responded that it would depend on whether all persons
within 200 feet of the entire site were notified, or whether
persons within 200 feet of the lot were notified.
Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson stated that if all
persons within 200 feet of the entire POD site were notified of
the hearing, the item would, at the request of the applicant, be
placed on the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing as a deferred
item. If, on the other hand, notification did not include all
property owners within 200 feet of the entire Seven Acres
Business park, then a new application will need to be filed for a
different lot within the site to be considered.
Commissioner Putnam recommended that, if persons within 200 feet
of the entire site had not been previously notified, that the
applicant be permitted to simply send out additional notices
notifying property owners of the January 30th. meeting.
8
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5038-B
Interim Chairperson Ball confirmed to Mr. Hathaway that the
understanding concerning hearing the item as a deferred item was
based on the notification procedure being amended to include all
persons within 200 feet of the entire site, if this had not
already been done.
Commissioner Brandon stated that she thought the proposal was a
good idea, and that the applicant may not be able to justify
moving his proposed development to another lot within the Seven
Acres Business Park.
Commissioner Rahman suggested that the applicant seek a deferral,
and, during the deferral, attempt to meet with neighbors and
educate them on the character of his proposed development. He
said that he felt the proposal was a good idea, and that it was
probably a good use for the lot.
Deputy City Attorney advised that, if the applicant wanted to
pursue his current application to a vote, he could still submit
an application on another lot within the Seven Acres Business
Center on the next filing date, and could still have a revised
request heard at the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing.
Commissioner Chachere asked Mr. Golden to confirm that the 25
foot landscaping buffer, with required planning and the sprinkler
system, would be provided.
Mr. Golden responded that he would meet all requirements, and
that he wished to pursue his current application to a vote.
Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on the approval of
Mr. Golden's proposal, and a recommendation of approval failed
with the vote of 4 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent.
REVISED "STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL":
In lieu of a 9,238 square foot building on Lot 2, the applicant
proposes a 10,000 square foot building on Lot 4. Provision for
expansion of the building to the south, to add 2,700 square feet
of floor area, is indicated. Paved drives and parking areas off
Seven Acres Dr. is to be provided. The area to the north, east,
and south of the building, where vehicles being repaired will be
stored, will be surrounded with an opaque fence. Landscape
buffers of 6 feet along the north property line (both abutting
Lot 3 in the Seven Acres Business Park, and at the offset in the
property line abutting the single family zoned tract to the
northeast) are proposed. Along the east property line, a 15 foot
landscape buffer is proposed.
9
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
In conjunction with approval of the requested development site
plan, a modification in the size of Lot 3 is requested. The
modification involves offsetting the south property line of Lot 3
18 feet to the south. This will permit a change in the parking
lot for Lot 3, making it 55 feet in lieu of 40 feet as shown on
the approved POD site plan. No other changes to the approved POD
site plan are requested, other than the approval of a project
sign, as requested in the December 12, 1995 proposal.
A-1. REVISED "PROPOSAL/REOUEST":
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an
Amended Planned Office Development.
B-1. REVISED "EXISTING CONDITIONS":
Lot 4 is nearly level, with only a 2 foot grade differential
across it.
Property to the south and east is zoned R-2. To the south,
however, is a substantial floodway, with heavy trees and
undergrowth in the area south of the floodway. To the east
is former pasture land and wooded areas. There is a single-
family home located approximately 100 feet to the north of
the offset in the east property line.
C-1. REVISED "ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS":
There are no revised Engineering or Utility comments.
D-1. REVISED "ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN":
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
notes:
The Highway 10 Overlay District requires an average
landscape buffer along the perimeters of a development
of 25 feet in width. A portion of the proposed
northern (at the offset in the property line) and
eastern landscape buffers drop to 6 feet and 15 feet
respectively. Since these areas are adjacent to
residentially zoned property, it is recommended that
these landscape buffers not drop below a width of 17
feet, which is two-thirds of the full requirement.
The proposed 6 foot high opaque fence must be
constructed of wood, with the face side directed
outward.
10
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F-2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5038-B
In addition to the screening fence, trees and shrubs
will be required within the landscape buffers.
Curb and gutter, or other approved border, will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
A sprinkler system will be required to water landscaped
areas.
Issues raised in the staff report concerning retail uses
permitted in Lot 1 are reaffirmed.
E-1. REVISED "ANALYSIS":
The "collision center", as explained by the applicant, is
very similar in type of operation as an office or office
warehouse use. Since the operation is in keeping with the
type of operation of the Parker Cadillac Body Shop (which
was approved and is now in operation on Rainwood Dr., and
which lies across the street from residential uses), the
proposed use is compatible with the "business office"
character of the POD.
F-1. REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the amended POD, subject to
conformance with all applicable Public works, Utility, and
Neighborhoods and Planning requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant had relocated the proposed
collision center to the southeast corner of the tract, in lieu of
at the southwest corner, as discussed at the December 12th.
Commission meeting. Staff noted that this new location does not
abut residences and that it addresses the concerns expressed by
residents who live on Bella Rosa and whose homes back up to the
Seven Acres Business Park. Staff recommends approval of the
amended POD plan, and recommended approval of a variance from the
Highway 10 Land Use buffer requirement of 25 feet to permit a 17
foot setback along the east and north property lines of Lot 4.
The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and
was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
11
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: G-23-245
Location:
Owner/Applicant:
Reauest•
STAFF REVIEW•
1.
2.
3.
4.
Riverfront Drive Right -
of -Way Abandonment
Located at Riverfront
Drive, north of and
adjacent to the Little
Rock Western Railroad
right-of-way.
John Haley and Chris
Robertson/Joe D. White
To abandon the excess
right-of-way for
Riverfront Drive, north
and adjacent to the
Little Rock Western
Railroad right-of-way.
Public Need for this Right-of-Wav
Public Works requests that the area of the proposed
abandonment be retained as a drainage easement. Also,
Public Works prefers not to close area in Parcel No. 2,
as it is not a buildable area. Parks and Recreation
recommend denial of the abandonment of Parcel No. 1.
The area needs to be retained for use as part of the
City's Master Bikeway Plan.
Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way.
Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
The applicant is dedicating an additional 45 feet of
right-of-way for Riverfront Drive.
Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Parcel 1 of the proposed abandonment contains the 30
foot wide Jessie Dr. access and utility easement, with
the remainder of the parcel primarily overgrown with
weeds and brush. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and
utility easement to the north. Parcel 2 of the
proposed abandonment is primarily overgrown with trees
and brush.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of these rights -of -way would
be retained by the owner for a possible future office
development.
6. NNeicrhborhood Land Use and Effect
The area contains mainly a mixture of office and
commercial uses. The uses include office, office -
warehouse and mini -warehouses to the north and an auto
dealership and retail commercial to the south.
Abandoning these rights -of -way will have no effect on
the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced.
8 Effect on Public Services or utilities
There will be no effect on public services or
utilities. The rights -of -way will be retained as
utility and drainage easements.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent
property owners.
10. Public welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the
public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed abandonment, as
Public works requests that Parcel No. 2 not be abandoned
because it is not a buildable area and Parks and Recreation
requests to retain Parcel No. 1 for use as part of the
City's Master Bikeway Plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995)
Joe white was present, representing the application. He
gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer and Bill Henry, of Public Works, reviewed
their comments with the Committee.
E
January 3t,, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • G (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that a letter had
been received from the Little Rock Parks and Recreation
Department. He stated that Parks is recommending denial of
the abandonment of Parcel No. 1, as the area needs to be
retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has not
submitted all the required items to complete the application
process. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the
January 30, 1996 agenda.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
January 30, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that all of the required
items to complete the application process have not been
submitted. 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 by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, and 2 absent.
3
January 30. .996
ITEM NO.: H Z-4175-C
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
ERC Foundation, Inc.
J. E. Hathaway, Jr.
3000 Block of Aldersgate Road
Rezone from MF-12 to 0-3
Nursing Home
5± acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant,
South
- Vacant,
East
- Vacant,
West
- Vacant,
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
zoned OS and MF-18
zoned MF-12
zoned MF-12
zoned OS and MF-12
A tentative address is 3000 Aldersgate Road but depends on
location of Master Street Plan extension of Aldersgate Road.
Dedicate right-of-way,for Aldersgate Road or show alternate
route and commit to a revised location. The 30 foot strip
of property to the north, if not for Aldersgate Road does
not belong to applicant,and should be excluded from this
application.
The driveways shall conform to ordinance. Sidewalks shall
be planned to connect with sidewalk on Aldersgate Road.
Provide erosion control plan and obtain state APDC&E and
City Excavation Permit prior to construction.
Stormwater Detention analysis will be required.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Plan
recommends Multifamily use. The request is in conflict with
the Plan. The proposed use is one staff feels comfortable
with as part of a multifamily mixed'development. Staff
cannot support a plan change to Office at this time.
January R 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H Z-4175-C (Cont.)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5± acre
tract from MF-12 to 0-3. The property is currently vacant
and wooded. The proposed use is the development of a
nursing home.
The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends multifamily use
for the site. The 0-3 zoning request is in conflict with
the Plan. The proposed use of the property as a nursing
home can be accommodated by zoning the property MF-18 and
obtaining a conditional use permit. This suggestion would
conform to the adopted Plan and would allow for the
development as proposed by the applicant.
0-3 in this area would be spot zoning and staff cannot
support such a request when a viable alternative is
available.
The issue of the dedication of right-of-way for Aldersgate
Road, from its current terminus several hundred feet north
of this site, to a point on the western boundary of the
property must be resolved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 zoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 3, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
requested that the item be deferred to the October 31, 1995
meeting to coincide with a preliminary plat which will be
reviewed at that time.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were
Staff informed the Commission that the
requested that the item be deferred to
Commission hearing to coincide with the
of the preliminary plat issue.
(OCTOBER 31, 1995)
no objectors present.
applicant had
the December 12, 1995
requested deferral
2
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H Z-4175-C (Cont.)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the December 12, 1995 meeting. The vote was 9
ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995)
Jeff Hathaway was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
December 11, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until
the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting.
A motion was made to waive the Bylaws since the request for
deferral was not made at least 5 working days prior to the
Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The item was placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the
January 30, 1996 Commission meeting by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that a letter had
been received from the applicant on January 5, 1996 asking
that the rezoning request be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
January 30 1996
ITEM NO.• I Z-6016
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Richard Day (Trust)
Richard F. Day, Jr.
4411 Baseline Road
Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Sell
1.34 acres
Single -Family Residence and
Vacant
North - Single -Family residential and various
nonconforming commercial uses, zoned R-2
South - Single -Family residential, zoned R-2
East - Single -Family residential, zoned R-2
West - Nonconforming convenience store with gas pumps,
zoned R-2
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
I
Adjacent rights -of -way are in compliance with Master Street
Plan. With construction the applicant will be required to
improve Reck Road to collector street standards with
sidewalk, curb and gutter, and pavement widening.
Stormwater detention analysis will be required due to parcel
size being larger than 1 acre and other provisions of the
Ordinances will be reviewed at the time of building permit.
Contact AHTD for approval of any construction in the right-
of-way of Baseline Road.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Residential. The
request is in conflict with the Plan and staff cannot
recommend changing the plan at this time.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.34
acre tract from R-2 to C-3. The tract is comprised of
January 3 0-, A 9 6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I Z-6016 (Cont.)
portions of two lots of Rinke Garden Acres and is located
near the southeast corner of Baseline Road and Reck Road.
One single family residence occupies a portion of the site
and the remainder is vacant. There are no immediate plans
for the property other than trying to sell it to a
commercial user.
Although there are many non-residential uses in the
immediate vicinity, they were in place prior to this area
being annexed into the City and the majority are zoned R-2.
Along the south side of Baseline Road, the Land Use Plan
recommends commercial for properties to the west of Reck
Road and mixed residential for properties east of Reck Road.
The requested C-3 zoning is in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan. Staff believes there has been no change in
circumstances to warrant a change in the Plan and, as such,
cannot support the requested rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 22, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were three persons
present with concerns related to the proposed zoning. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Donna Dillahunty, of 10716 Platte Valley Drive, addressed
the Commission. She stated that she owns property on Bruno
Road which abuts the property in question. Ms. Dillahunty
stated that she did not receive the notice of public hearing
15 days prior to the meeting. She stated that she
understood Mr. Day seeking commercial zoning for his
property but that she was opposed to zoning the 50 foot wide
strip which extends to Reck Road and which abuts her
property. Ms. Dillahunty questioned why the Land Use Plan
recommends mixed residential for property east of Reck Road
when there are many commercial uses already in place. She
concluded by asking that the item be deferred.
A discussion then took place concerning making the public
notification more visible and not "hidden" in the legal
section of the newspaper. In response to a question, Dana
Carney of the Planning Staff, confirmed that the notice of
public hearing had been mailed 14 days prior to the meeting;
not 15 days as required by the Commission's Bylaws.
2
January 3C 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I Z-6016 (Cont.)
Verla Berkau, of 5300 Rinke Road, addressed the Commission.
She stated that she wanted property she owns on Baseline
Road considered for commercial zoning if Mr. Day's
application was approved.
It was noted that the applicant was not present. After a
brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the item to the
October 31, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. The motion
was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and
1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995)
The applicant, Richard Day, was present. There was one
objector present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial of the rezoning request. It was
noted that the C-3 request was in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan, which recommended Mixed Residential for the
site.
Mr. Day addressed the Commission. He stated that the
location of the site made it no longer suitable for
residential use. Mr. Day stated that he had the home on the
property rented currently but wanted to rezone it and then
sell the property. In response to a question, Mr. Day
briefly discussed the relationship of his property to the
adjacent convenience store.
i
Chairman Walker and Commissioner Putnam Each suggested that
Mr. Day approach the Commission with a specific development
rather than an Open C-3,zoning request.
After a further brief discussion of his options, Mr. Day
agreed to defer the application.
Mr. Doyle Dillahunty, owner of property directly south of
Mr. Day's, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did
not oppose the rezoning of that portion of Mr. Day's
property which was adjacent to Baseline Road but that he did
want a buffer along the southern perimeter.
The item was presented for deferral to the December 12, 1995
Commission meeting. The deferral was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 12, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
3
January 3U, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I Z-6016 (Cont.)
had requested a deferral to the January 30, 1996 Commission
meeting due to an illness in the family.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. The Commission was informed that the applicant had
contacted Staff on January 29, 1996 and requested that the
rezoning request be withdrawn.
A motion was made to waive the Bylaws and to accept the
request for withdrawal less than 5 working days prior to
the public hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The item was placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-50-I
NAME: PLEASANT RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOTS 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, & 3E
-- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the south side of Pleasant Ridge Rd., approximately
0.2 mile west of Cantrell Rd., at the southwest Corner of
Pleasant Ridge Rd. and Fairview Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Joe White
PLEASANT RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2723 Foxcroft, Suite 201 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201
225-7807 374-1666
AREA: 6.91 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
PROPOSED USES: Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of variances from the provision of
the Subdivision Regulations which "encourages" shared or common
driveways for lots with less than 300 feet of frontage on a
street, and from the provision which states that for each 300 feet
of frontage on a street, one driveway access point is permitted.
BACKGROUND:
A preliminary plat for the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision (S-50-A),
Lots 1 through 7, was approved by the Planning Commission on
March 11, 1980. Subsequently, final plats have been filed for
Lots 1, 4 (with the original Lots 4 and 5 being combined as Lot
4), and 6. Lot 2 has been combined with a new preliminary plat
for Pleasant Ridge Square subdivision. Lot 7, of the original
preliminary plat, remains undeveloped, as does Lot 3.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is a revised preliminary plat of the 6.91 acre Lot 3 of
the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, to create 5 smaller lots from the
one larger lot originally planned.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-50-I
Within the 1,330 feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Rd., the five
lots, Lots 3A through 3E, will have 200 feet, 255 feet, 235 feet,
230 feet, and 410 feet of frontage, respectively. Lot 3B is the
site for a new U. S. Post Office, and, because of Postal Service
requirements, this lot must have two driveways. Lot 3A, with its
200 feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Rd.,'is left with needing
its own individual access point from Pleasant Ridge Rd. Lots 3C
and 3D are to have a shared or common driveway. Lot 3E, with its
410 feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Rd., is to have its own
access point.
Because the Subdivision Regulations "encourage" shared or common
driveway points on lots of less than 300 feet in frontage, and
permit only one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot
frontage, variances from the regulations are needed to permit the
single driveway access to Lot 3A in the 200 foot frontage of this
lot on Pleasant Ridge Rd., and the two driveway access points for
Lot 3B, with its 255 feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Rd.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested of a preliminary
plat.
Planning Commission approval is requested for a variance
from the provision of the Subdivision Regulations which
"encourages" shared or common driveways for lots with less
than 300 feet of frontage on a street, to permit the
individual access point for Lot 3A.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation for approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from
the provision of the Subdivision Regulations which states
that for each 300 feet of frontage on a street, one driveway
access point is permitted to permit the two required
driveway access points for Lot 3B.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has been, until the past few days, vacant.
Construction of a new U. S. Post Office facility has begun
on the portion of the site which will be, with approval of
the subdivision of the tract, Lot 3B. The land has a fairly
steep grade along its length, ranging in elevation of 502
feet M.S.L. (Mean Sea Level) at the northeast corner of the
tract, to 434 feet at its southwest corner, a 68 foot grade
differential within 1,100 feet. The median grade on the
site is approximately 10%; however, at the center of the
tract, along the south boundary, the grade is over 20%.
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-50-I
The site is zoned 0-3. Across Pleasant Ridge Rd.: 1) to
the northeast is the C-2 zoned, undeveloped Lot 7 of the
subdivision; 2) to the north are apartments in an MF-18
zoned tract; and, 3) to the west is a townhome development
in an MF-12 tract. Abutting the south property line is both
a PRD zoned tract, where an apartment project is currently
under construction, and R-2 land, which is the site of a
single-family home. Across Fairview Rd. to the east is a
portion of a PCD tract which is designated for a shopping
center.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works staff comments:
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)
Five driveway access points are -shown on the plat
within the 1,330 feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Rd.
The Public Works staff recommends approval of the
driveway access points, as shown, with the condition
that these five access points will be the only access
point permitted for access to the five lots, and,
subject to the access point for Lot 3A being moved east
to provide a minimum clearance from the eastern most
drive on Lot 3B of 100 feet.
Sidewalks are required along the frontages on Pleasant
Ridge Rd. and on the frontage along Fairview Rd.
A letter requesting street lights must be provided to
Public Works.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works has no objections.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 20 foot easement
along the south boundary of the tract.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-50-I
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 5 foot easement
will be required along the south boundary of the tract.
The Fire Department approved the plat.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) the designation
of the type of subdivision; 2) the address of the owner of
record and the source of title; 3) a breakdown of the
average and minimum lot sizes; 4) any existing and the
proposed covenants and restrictions; and, 5) noting the
source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal.
The vicinity map, required by Sec. 31-88, is one of the
whole subdivision, not the area being considered for re -
subdivision.
The following information, required by Sec. 31-89, has not
been furnished: 1) the storm drainage plan and analysis;
2) the names of owners of all land contiguous to the
proposed subdivision; 3) the physical description of
monuments; 4) the zoning classification within the proposed
subdivision boundary and of abutting land; 5) certification
that the survey has been filed in the offices of the state
surveyor and the court circuit clerk within the last 7
years; 6) a phasing plan; and 7) proposed PAGIS monuments.
Sec. 31-91 requires a Certificate of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy. This is not provided. This section also requires
proper execution of the Certificate of Preliminary
Engineering Accuracy. This certificate has not been
completed.
Sec. 31-93 requires a preliminary Bill of Assurance be
supplied. This has not been furnished.
Sec. 31-210.e states that the spacing requirements for
points of access to boundary streets to (among others)
commercial subdivisions, when the boundary streets are (for
example) collectors, "shall be limited to one driveway or
access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage". The
section goes on to say that "shared or common driveway
points are encouraged to reduce impact of these requirements
on lots less than 300 feet in frontage".
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-50-I
The designations of "shared drive" are shown at the access
points, not only for the shared drive between Lots 3C and 3D
(which is correct), but also at the individual drive access
points for Lots 3A and 3E. The drives shown for these
latter two lots are not "shared", and should be correctly
.noted.
The east boundary street is designated on the plat as
"Fairwood" Rd. This is incorrect; the street is "Fairview"
Rd.
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat is substantially complete, with the
noted requirements from Public Works and the deficiencies
from Sections 31-87, 31-88, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93, and the
errors noted on the plat, being either minor in nature and
easily remedied, or being normally supplied after Planning
Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat, but prior to
submission of final plats.
A building permit for the Post Office was approved with the
lot being the entire 6.91 acre Lot 3, with this lots 1,330
feet of frontage on Pleasant Ridge Dr. The Post Office,
then, could legitimately have two driveway access points
from the boundary street. Providing a final plat prior to a
Certificate of Occupancy was a condition of the building
permit, and it was understood that the developer proposed to
subdivide the 6.91 acre lot into the 5 lots, as shown. The
developer related to the Public works staff the requirements
of the Post Office for two access points, and worked with
the Public Works staff in the designation of the allowable
access points for the remaining lots. The provision of Sec.
31-210.3.1, which permits one drive access point for each
300 feet of lot frontage, would permit 4.43 drives in the
1,330 feet along Pleasant Ridge Rd. Five drive access
points, total, are proposed, and this is substantially in
compliance with the regulations as far as the number of
access points permitted in the total length of the frontage.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the noted deficiencies being remedied.
Staff recommends approval of the needed variance to permit
the single driveway access point within the 200 foot
frontage of Lot 3A.
Staff recommends approval of the needed variance o permit
the two driveway access points to Lot 3B.
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO S 50 I
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project
engineering firm, was present. The Neighborhoods and Planning
staff presented the comments noted in the discussion outline, and
the Public Works staff reviewed with the Committee members the
various comments of the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, related to Mr. White
that, when Lot 7 is developed, there will be requirements for
dedication of additional right-of-way and boundary street
improvements for Cantrell Rd. With the conclusion of the
discussion period, the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat
to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Staff recommended
approval of the requested variance to permit the single driveway
access point within the 200 foot frontage of Lot 3A, and the
requested variance to permit the two drive access points to Lot
3B. The preliminary plat and the recommendation for approval of
the variances were included on the Consent Agenda for Approval,
and the preliminary plat and the recommendation for approval
were approved with the vote on 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
6
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO • S-54-U
NAME: POINT WEST 6TH. ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the south side of Kanis Rd., approximately 0.25
mile west of Point West Dr.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
ERC PROPERTIES MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
815 Fort St. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Barling, AR 72923 Little Rock, AR 72211
452-9950 223-9900
AREA: 21.62 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 69 FT. NEW STREET: 4,150
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Approval of a waiver from the prohibition
of double -frontage lots.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Development of 21.62 acres as a 69 lot residential subdivision is
proposed. Development entails construction of 4,150 feet of new
streets, as well as dedication of right-of-way and improvements
along the Kanis Rd. boundary of the tract. Construction of
Gamble Rd. within the subdivision will tie the existing Gamble
Rd. to the south into Kanis Rd., and construction of Westglen Dr.
within the subdivision will tie to the existing termination of
Westglen Dr. in the abutting "West Glen Subdivision" to the east.
The average lot size is proposed to be 7,800 square feet, with
the minimum lot size being 7,000 square feet.
The topography in three areas of the subdivision, each
approximately one-half acre in size, have grades which are at or
exceed 18%, thus making them subject to the "Hillside
Regulations". One of the three areas falls in Tract B, which is
being reserved for future development, and is outside the scope
of the proposed single-family development. The other two areas
are relatively small, with the grades on only one full lot and
portions of nine others being at or exceeding the 18% grade.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-54-U
One block of lots, Lots 41 through 50, are proposed to have
frontages on both Gamble Rd. on the west and on Misty Glen Dr. on
the east. Because of the Ordinance prohibition on double -
frontage lots, except in specific situations (which are not
applicable in this situation), a waiver of the double -frontage
lot prohibition is requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a
preliminary plat.
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for approval
of a waiver from the prohibition on double -frontage lots for
Lots 41 through 50.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site of the proposed subdivision is undeveloped and
heavily wooded. The topography of the tract ranges in
grades of from 5 to 6% along the east boundary of the tract,
to 14 to 22%, running north and south through the center of
the tract, to 10 to 12% along the west boundary of the
tract.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, with R-2 zoning
being the zoning of all lands surrounding the tact, except
for a small 0-1 site at the northeast corner of the tract.
There is an existing non -conforming commercial use at the
southeast corner of Kanis Rd. and the new portion of Gamble
Rd.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works staff comments:
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)
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-54-U
A left turn lane in Kanis Rd. for east and west bound
traffic must be provided. Full one-half street
widening for Kanis Rd. is required upon final platting
of the adjoining lots. The corner radii at Gamble Rd.
and Kanis Rd. must be 31.5 feet.
Sidewalks are required along Kanis Rd., Gamble, Rd.,
Westglen Rd., and the loop streets.
The letter requesting street lights must be submitted.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas co. approved the plat.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that 5 foot easements
on each side of common, back-to-back, lots, and platted area
perimeter lot lines will be required.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) the designation
of the type of subdivision; 2) the name and address of the
owner of record and the source of title; and, 3) any
existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions.
The following information, required by Sec. 31-89, has not
been furnished: 1) the proposed street and sidewalk
improvements for the boundary street; 2) the location of
sidewalks within the subdivision; 3) the storm drainage
plan and analysis; 4) the plat book and page number or
instrument number of all recorded subdivisions abutting the
proposed subdivision; 4) the names of all owners of platted
tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 5) the physical
description of monuments; and, 6) a phasing plan.
Sec. 31-91 requires the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy be provided. This certificate has not been
completed..
Sec. 31-93 requires a preliminary Bill of Assurance be
supplied. This has not been furnished.
Tracts A and B are shown, but there is no information
furnished on their proposed use. The areas are zoned R-2,
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-54-U
but it is not anticipated, due to the subdivision layout,
that they will be developed for single-family use.
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." Lots with an average
slope of 18% are to meet this minimum size.
Sec. 31-232.d states that: "Double frontage lots are
prohibited. However, where a subdivision abuts or contains
an existing or proposed arterial street, freeway,
expressway, or railroad..., reverse frontage lots are
permitted. Double frontage lots may also be used to
facilitate residential development in hillside areas, as
defined in (the Hillside Regulations)." Sec. 31-257 states
that: "Along arterial streets ... a restricted access
easement of at least 10 feet, across which there shall be no
right -of -vehicle access permitted, shall be provided.,,
E. ANALYSIS•
The deficiencies in the submitted application and plat
pertaining to Sections 31-87, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93 are
generally either minor in nature and easily remedied, or are
routinely supplied after Planning Commission approval of the
Preliminary Plat, but prior to submission of final plats. A
phasing plan, and a delineation of the proposed use(s) for
Tracts A and B, are needed.
The average grade, east to west, across Lot 50 is 18%,
making it subject to the Hillside Regulations. The minimum
lot size for lots with slopes of 18% is 10,000 square feet;
Lot 50 is 11,000 square feet. It complies, then, with the
Hillside Regulations.
Portions of Lots 3 and 4, and portions of Lots 22, 23, 24,
25, 36, 37, and 38 have grades at or greater than 18%.
However, in each case, the average slope across the entire
lot is less than 18%. On these lots, then, grading can be
used to re -contour the lots to lessen the severity of the
grades and exempt them from the Hillside Regulations.
Because of the Master Street Plan and existing alignment of
Gamble Rd., both north of Kanis Rd. and in the Point West
subdivisions to the south, the alignment of Gamble Rd. in
the subject phase of the Point West development is set. The
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-54-U
space between the existing west boundary of West Glen to the
east and the Gamble Rd. alignment is too great for a single
row of lots, but is not wide enough for three. This creates
a row of lots with frontage on both Gamble Rd. and on Misty
Glen Dr., and such double frontage lots are prohibited,
except in specific situations (where lots back up to
arterial streets, freeways, expressways, or railroads, or
where double -frontage lots are necessary due to design
restrictions imposed by hillside situations). These
specific situations are not applicable in the subject
subdivision design, but the alignment of Gamble Rd. is a
valid reason for needing and being granted a waiver from the
prohibition on double -frontage lots. The developer,
however, needs to decide which street the houses are to
front, and a "no vehicle" access easement needs to be
platted across the "rear" street frontage.
The Point West Subdivision has grown from its initial phase
along Point West Dr., to include five previous phases (and
even a separate subdivision) which all take access by way of
Point West Dr. There are blocks and blocks of streets
extending south and west from Point West Dr. which have no
direct access to an arterial street, and a whole
neighborhood which has just one way in and out, and that way
is nothing more than a standard residential street. The
neighborhood gaining access to Kanis Rd. with the tie-in by
way of Gamble Rd. is critically important, not only from the
aspect of convenience, but also from the safety aspect.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to: 1) the applicant completing the submission requirements
and correcting the deficiencies noted; and, 2) a phasing
plan being submitted and the phasing plan indicating that
the Gamble Rd. tie-in to Kanis Rd. will be included in the
first phase of development.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. The
Planning staff reviewed the nature of the proposal and presented
the discussion outline. The Public Works staff reviewed the City
Engineer's concerns. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff,
reported that improvements to Kanis Rd. at the Gamble Rd.
intersection and the providing of a left turn lane in Kanis Rd.
would be required with the initial development. He explained
that the Public Works staff would not support the development of
additional lots if they were going to have to take their access
off the existing street system and Gamble Rd. was not going to be
constructed with the initial phase of development. It was noted
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) _FILE NO.: S-54-U
that, if it were acquired, there would be enough land to the west
for development of another block of lots, and that in naming of
the streets this future possibility needs to be kept in mind;
that the street numbers do not need to double back on themselves.
Mr. McGetrick responded that the street names would be changed to
keep this from happening. He also reported that Gamble Rd. would
be included in the first phase of development, and that it would
be extended to Kanis Rd. Following the discussion, the Committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Staff recommended
approval of the variance to permit double -frontage for lots 41
thru 50, with the condition that the "front" of the lots be the
side facing Misty Glenn Dr. and with a "no vehicle access
easement" be platted along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the lots.
The preliminary plat and the recommendation for approval of the
variance were included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and
the preliminary plat and the recommendation for approval were
approved with the vote on 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
6
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 3 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
Z NIN 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
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
drive in a 20 foot access easement be provided. Lots are to be a
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
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088
tract. There are apartment developments occupying the sites
to the north and west. Single-family residences abut the
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
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (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
January 30, L996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • S 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 .... 11 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:
'...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 culs-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
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1088
on culs-de-sac or curved portions of other streets, (the
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
C-I
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088
St., and the required cul-de-sac is placed as required by
Public Works); or, it is reconstructed to take the 900 bend
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
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-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
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088
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.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO 5-1088
A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the
preliminary plat approval until the February 13, 1996 Rezoning
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.
10
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: 5-1089
NAME: HINSON VALLEY SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the north side of Taylor Loop Rd., approximately
0.2 mile west of the Hinson Rd. intersection, immediately across
Taylor Loop Rd. from the Holmes Dr. intersection.
DEVELOPER:
Rodney Chandler
P. O. Box 22604
Little Rock, AR 72212
490-3602
AREA: 1.69 ACRES
ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
ENGINEER:
Joe White
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 100
PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
1. Approval of a waiver from the requirement that the
right-of-way for a standard residential cul-de-sac be
100 feet in diameter, and permit the subdivision cul-
de-sac to have an 80 foot diameter right-of-way at the
80 foot diameter cul-de-sac pavement, with a 10 foot
access and utility easement surrounding the cul-de-sac.
2. Approval of a variance from the requirement that front
building setback lines be 25 feet from street rights -
of -way lines, and permit front building setback lines
as delineated on the plat.
3. Approval of a variance from the requirement that lots
be at least 100 feet in depth, and permit an average
depth of approximately 96 feet for Lot 2.
4. Approval of a variance to permit a 95 foot centerline
offset from the centerline of Holmes Dr., in lieu of
the 125 foot minimum offset required.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 1.69 acre tract,
involving the platting of 6 single-family homesites and the
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
construction of a 100 foot long cul-de-sac street. Required
Master Street Plan improvements to Taylor Loop Rd. are planned,
with dedication of right-of-way, providing of half street
construction, and construction of a sidewalk included in the
work. In lieu of the standard 100 foot diameter at a standard 80
foot diameter cul-de-sac, the applicant proposes that the right-
of-way line coincide with the edge of the pavement in the cul-de-
sac, and that, beyond the edge of the pavement/right-of-way line,
a 10 foot access and utility easement be platted. (The front
property lines of the lots, then, would coincide with the cul-de-
sac pavement line, in lieu of at a point 10 feet behind the curb,
at the location of the normal right-of-way line.) The applicant
proposes a variance from the normal 25 foot front building
setback line (which is usually measured from the right-of-way
line), and, instead, proposes platted building lines for each lot
which range in location of from a minimum of 15 feet off the
pavement/right-of-way line, to 20 feet for most of the lots, to
42 feet for one of the lots. The applicant proposes a variance
from the minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet (for cul-de-
sac lots, the depth is a average depth) to permit Lot 2 to have
an average depth of approximately 96 feet. The applicant
proposes a location of the cul-de-sac street which is offset 95
feet from the centerline of Holmes St., across Taylor Loop Rd.,
in lieu of the 125 minimum offset required by the Ordinance, and
seeks a variance from the regulation.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested of a preliminary
plat.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver from the
requirement that the right-of-way for a standard residential
cul-de-sac be 100 feet in diameter, and permit the
subdivision cul-de-sac to have an 80 foot diameter right-of-
way at the 80 foot diameter cul-de-sac pavement, with a 10
foot access and utility easement surrounding the cul-de-sac.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from
the requirement that front building setback lines be 25 feet
from street rights -of -way lines, and permit front building
setback lines as delineated on the plat.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from
the requirement that lots be at least 100 feet in depth, and
permit an average depth of approximately 96 feet for Lot 2.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval
to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to
E
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
permit a 95 foot centerline offset from the centerline of
Holmes Dr., in lieu of the 125 foot minimum offset required.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is�undeveloped. The topography is nearly flat,
with only a 3 to 4 foot variation in ground level across the
site.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. All lands
surrounding the tract are zoned R-2, as well.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The cul-de-sac pavement is required to be 40 feet in
diameter, in a 100 foot diameter right-of-way. The
proposed 80 foot diameter right-of-way, coinciding with
the edge of the cul-de-sac pavement, is not acceptable.
Substituting a 10 foot access and utility easement for
the 10 feet of right-of-way width behind the curb is
not acceptable.
The island in the center of the cul-de-sac is not
acceptable. It must be removed, or, if approved,
provision for its maintenance must be made in the Bill
of Assurance.
According to the Master Street Plan, Taylor Loop Rd. is
designated as a collector street. Dedication of
additional right-of-way to provide a minimum right-of-
way width of 30 feet from the existing centerline of
Taylor Loop Rd. is required. The existing pavement is
not acceptable to permit widening of the existing
street section; construction of one-half of a collector
standard street will be required. Construction of a
sidewalk along the Taylor Loop Rd. frontage of the
subdivision will be required.
The horizontal centerline of Hinson Valley Circle must
intersect Taylor Loop Rd. at a minimum of 750 off the
Taylor Loop Rd. alignment.
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.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1089
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)
A letter requesting street lights must be provided to
Public Works.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension will be required. An acreage of $300 per
acre applies, in addition to the normal charges.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plat.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) the proposed type
of subdivision; 2) the source of title and address of the
owner of record, giving deed book and page number or
instrument number; 3) a breakdown of the average and
minimum lot sizes; 4) any existing and the proposed
covenants and restrictions; and, 5) the source of water
supply and the proposed means of wastewater disposal.
The following requirements, as cited in Sec. 31-89, are
deficient: 1) The storm drainage plan and analysis must be
provided; 2) The plat book and page number or instrument
number of all abutting platted areas are to be shown; 3)
The physical description of monuments must be noted; 4) The
zoning classification of land within the proposed
subdivision and of abutting land is to be shown; and, 5) a
phasing plan must be indicated.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary
Surveying Accuracy be completed and executed.
Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be
provided with the application.
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
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
on culs-de-sac or curved portions of other streets (the
building setback line) shall not be less than 25 feet from
the street right-of-way line at any point."
Sec. 31-206.c states: "Street jogs with centerline offsets
of less than 125 feet shall be avoided. Proposed new
intersections along one side of an existing street shall,
whenever practicable, coincide with any existing
intersections on the opposite side of the street.
Sec. 31-231-b states: "No lot ... shall average less than 100
feet in depth. Sec. 36-2 states that: "Lot depth means the
mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the
rear lot line, or the distance between the midpoint of the
front lot and the midpoint of the rear lot line."
Sec. 36-254 requires a front yard of at least 25 feet; side
yards of a least 10% of the average lot width, not to exceed
8 feet; rear yards of at least 25 feet, except that, when a
25 foot building line is provided on a side street, the rear
yard may be reduced to 8 feet; and, yard widths of not less
than 60 feet. Sec. 31-232 explains that the yard width is
measured at the building line, or, in the case of lots
abutting culs-de-sac, it is the average width of the lot.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are 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 design deficiencies, or issues for which variances have
been requested, but which are opposed by staff, affect the
design of the subdivision.
The requested waiver to permit the subdivision cul-de-sac tc
have an 80 foot diameter right-of-way at the 80 foot
diameter cul-de-sac pavement, with a 10 foot access and
utility easement surrounding the cul-de-sac is opposed by
Public Works. Public Works is adamant that the required 100
foot diameter right-of-way be provided, and suggests that
any adjustment in lot depth which the dedication of the
required right-of-way imposes be reviewed in view of
approving variances to the required minimum lot depths.
The requested variance to permit front building setback
lines as delineated on the plat will produce, in one
instance, a building setback lines as close as 15 feet to
the pavement. For three lots around the cul-de-sac, the
building line will be a minimum of 20 feet off the pavement.
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
In one, the building line will be 42 feet off the pavement.
For the corner lot at the southeast corner of the
subdivision, a building line of 25 feet behind the internal
street right-of-way line is proposed, as well as a 20 foot
building line off Taylor Loop Rd. For the corner lot at the
southwest corner of the subdivision, a building line of 35
feet off the interior street right-of-way line, reducing to
15 feet off the cul-de-sac pavement, is proposed, as well as
a 20 foot building line off Taylor Loop Rd. When it is
considered that, on a minor residential (cul-de-sac or loop)
street, a 24 foot pavement width in a 45 foot right-of-way
produces a distance of 10.5 feet between the edge of the
street and the right-of-way line, then, for the required 25
foot building line to be measured from this point, homes are
usually a minimum of 35.5 feet off the pavement. In
specific situations (e.g., in the Hillside Regulations),
building lines are permitted to be reduced to 15 feet from
the right-of-way line, still producing a building line that
is a minimum of 25.5 feet off the pavement. The proposed
building lines at 20 feet off the pavement (in one case and
at one point, as close as 15 feet off the pavement) will
bring the homes extremely close to the pavement. There will
also hardly be enough room for the length of a vehicle
between the building line and the edge of the street.
With the width of the cul-de-sac lots at the pavement being
30 to 40 feet in width, by the time a double drive, with its
drive approach apron, is taken out of the width, there is
scarcely room for on -street guest parking. With the
proposed setbacks, there will be stacking space in driveways
for only one vehicle (two, side -by -side, in a double
driveway). Since, when the usual setbacks are observed,
there is stacking room for two vehicles in driveways (four,
side-by-side,in a double driveway), guest parking is
severely restricted, as provided for in the proposed plat.
The requested variance to permit the average depth of Lot 2
to be approximately 96 feet in lieu of the 100 foot required
minimum is, in itself, innocuous. If, however, the required
right-of-way at the cul-de-sac is provided, then one or two
of the other lots will also need a lot depth variance, and,
instead of, for example, Lot 2 having an average lot depth
of 96 feet, taking out the 10 foot cul-de-sac right-of-way
reduces the average lot depth to 86 feet.
Sec. 36-254 requires, in the R-2 zoning district, a rear
building setback line of 25 feet. The plat proposes a 20
foot rear building line; yet, the applicant has not
requested a variance for this variation from the
regulations.
11
January 30, t996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
The Public Works staff has no objection to the "jog" in the
centerlines between Holmes Dr. and Hinson Valley Circle.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to:
1) compliance with the Public Works requirements for
right-of-way, not simply an access and utility
easement, at the cul-de-sac, and compliance with
the other cited Public Works requirements; and,
2) modification of the subdivision design to provide
adequate stacking space for vehicles between the
face of garages and the street, or the impositon
of a restriction on front driveways and garage
access to the lots, and a provision for side or
rear entry garages.
Staff recommends denial of the requested waiver to permit
the subdivision cul-de-sac to have an 80 foot diameter
right-of-way at the 80 foot diameter cul-de-sac pavement,
with a 10 foot access and utility easement surrounding the
cul-de-sac.
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance from the
front building line setback regulation which will permit the
building line to be 15 or 20 feet from the edge of the
street, unless provision is made in the design as outlined
in sub -paragraph 1121, above for side or rear entry garages
and off-street parking.
Staff recommends approval of a variance from the requirement
that lots be at least 100 feet in depth, and permit an
average depth of less than 100 feet for Lot 2, and, if made
necessary by dedication of cul-de-sac right-of-way,
additional lots, as well. This affirmative recommendation
is subject to buildable areas being shown on the plat, which
meet the conditions cited above, and subject to the minimum
lot area of 7,000 square feet (as required in Sec. 36-254)
being maintained.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to
permit a 95 foot centerline offset from the centerline of
Holmes Dr.
Staff recommends approval of the needed variance to permit a
minimum 20 foot rear building setback line, in lieu of the
25 foot rear line required by the regulations.
7
I
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1089
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project
engineering firm, was present. Staff presented the applicant's
proposed plat and outlined the staff comments contained in the
discussion outline. (The submitted design had proposed 7 lots,
in lieu of the 6 shown on the revised drawing, and proposed a
pipe -stem for access to a remote lot.) Comments by staff
centered on the number of lots being too great to provide
sufficient frontage for the lots on the cul-de-sac, and the pipe -
stem being too narrow to provide an adequate driveway width, with
necessary drive approach aprons and space for the mailbox and
garbage canister within the allotted area. Mr. White responded
that he would consult with his client regarding possible changes
to the plat. The Commission referred the issue to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant submitted a revised plat which
addresses staff concerns. Staff explained that: in lieu of an
easement around the cul-de-sac, a right-of-way, as required by
Public Works, has been provided; and, common (shared) driveways
and easements have been shown for the lots around the cul-de-sac
(between Lots 2 and 3, and between Lots 4 and 5), with a
limitation imposed that these lots have side or rear loaded
garages. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat,
subject to approval of a variance in the front building setback
line to permit a 15 foot front building line; approval of a
variance to permit the lots to be less than 100 feet.in depth;
approval of a variance to permit the 95 foot centerline offset
from the centerline of Holmes Dr.; and approval of a variance to
permit the 20 foot rear setback. The preliminary plat and the
recommendation for approval of the variances were included on
the Consent Agenda for Approval, and the preliminary plat and
the recommendation for approval were approved with the vote on
9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
8
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO • S-1090
NAME: CHENAL LOOP COMMERCIAL -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the east side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 0.4
mile north of the west Kanis Rd. intersection.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Jack McCray Joe White
DELTIC FARM & TIMBER CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
#7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201
821-5555 374-1666
AREA: 31.94 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 1,580
ZONING: C-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
1. Approval of a variance from the requirement that the
minimum horizontal radius on commercial streets be 450
feet, to permit a radius on the proposed internal
commercial street of approximately 240 feet.
2. Approval of a variance from the design requirement of
Public Works that the access points for Lots 2 through
7 be restricted, and limited to common or shared access
driveways.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Development of an 8-lot commercial subdivision on a 31.94 acre
tract is proposed. The development entails the construction of a
900 foot long commercial cul-de-sac street, and construction of
the Outer Loop Rd. along the north boundary of the tract. In
conjunction with construction of the Outer Loop Rd., the required
deceleration and acceleration lanes on Chenal Parkway are to be
built. The internal commercial cul-de-sac street is to provide
frontage for each of the lots, and sidewalks are proposed to be
provided along both sides of the internal street, as well as
along the Outer Loop Rd. frontage of the tract. The pedestrian
trail system, approved as part of the overall Chenal Properties
development, is to be extended along the Chenal Parkway boundary
of the site. Individual drive access points from the cul-de-sac
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1090
street to each of Lots 1 through 6 is requested. Two drive
access points to Lots 7 and 8 are requested. A common drive
access point off the Outer loop Rd. for Lots 1 and 8 is
requested. A variance from the commercial street standard for
the minimum horizontal radius is requested to permit a horizontal
radius, at the centerline of the cul-de-sac street of
approximately 240 feet, in lieu of the required 450 foot radius.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat is
requested.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board
of Directors for approval of a variance is requested from
the requirement that the minimum horizontal radius on
commercial streets be 450 feet, to permit a radius on the
proposed internal commercial street of approximately 240
feet.
Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board
of Directors for approval of a variance is requested from
the design requirement of Public Works that the access
points for Lots 2 through 7 be restricted, and limited to
common or shared access driveways, to permit individual
access points from the cul-de-sac street for Lot 1 through
6, two access points for both Lots 7 and 8, as well as a
shared, or common access point from the Outer Loop Rd. to
serve Lots 1 and 8.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain is rolling,
rising 20 to 40 feet in elevation from the outer boundaries
of the site to the center of the tract.
The existing zoning of the site is C-2. To the south, along
Chenal Parkway, is a large 0-2 zoned tract. To the north,
along Chenal Parkway, and across the proposed Outer Loop
Rd., is a C-3 zoned parcel, with an 0-2 zoned tract across
the Outer Loop Rd. at the northeast corner of the tract.
Immediately to the east is a large R-2 zoned tract. Across
Chenal Parkway to the west is a tract which is zoned PRD,
and is the location of the proposed Chenal Village
development.
E
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1090
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works staff comments:
Provide a right -turn lane from the Outer Loop Rd. onto
the proposed internal street. Provide the required
right-of-way pursuant to the Master Street Plan.
At the intersection of the interior commercial street
with the Outer Loop Rd., at the traffic island between
the incoming and outgoing traffic, a 27 foot street
section is required on the outgoing/exit side of the
island. A minimum right-of-way width of 100 feet is
required in this section of the roadway.
The minimum radii at the intersection of the internal
commercial street with the Outer Loop Rd. is to be 31.5
feet.
The cul-de-sac at the southern termination of the
internal commercial street must have a 20 foot, one-way
drive around the island, and provision for the
permanent maintenance of the island must be made in the
Bill of Assurance.
Sidewalks are required along both sides of the internal
commercial street and along the boundary of the
subdivision with the Outer Loop Rd. Construction of
the portion of the pedestrian path along the Chenal
Parkway frontage of the site must be accomplished.
Access points to lots must be restricted. Common
drives between Lots 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6 and 7 are
recommended.
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)
A letter requesting street lights must be provided to
Public Works.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1090
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension will be required, and that, in addition to
the normal charges, an acreage charge of $300 per acre is
applicable to the development.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility commented that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that 15 foot easements
will be required along the Outer Loop Rd. frontage of the
site and at the rear of all lots along the boundary of the
tract, and will require a 15 foot easement, centered on the
lot lines between Lots 5 and 6, 7 and 8, and 1 and 8.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. reported no objection to the
development, providing that no ARKLA facilities are
disturbed.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that they have (or
need) a 15 foot by 20 foot Fiber Optic hub site, located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Chenal Parkway
and Outer Loop Rd.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) the address of
the owner of record and the source of title; 2) a breakdown
of the average and minimum lot sizes; 3) any existing and
the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, 4) noting the
source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal.
The following requirements, as cited in Sec. 31-89, are
deficient: 1) Minimum building front yard setback lines
are to be shown on the plat; 2) The storm drainage plan
and analysis must be provided; 3) The names of owners of
all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision must be
shown; 4) The physical description of monuments must be
noted; 5) The zoning classification of abutting land is to
be shown; 6) a phasing plan must be provided; and, 7)
proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown.
Sec. 31-91 requires the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy be properly executed.
Sec. 31-93 requires a preliminary Bill of Assurance be
supplied. This has not been furnished.
Sec. 31-201.h states that: "New boundary streets shall be
avoided, except where a requirement of the Master Street
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1090
Plan provides a defined alignment. In that event, the
(developer) shall provide one-half of the Master Street
Plan's specified improvements and right-of-way."
Sec. 31-202 provides that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac
street is 1,000 feet.
Sec. 31-283 specifies that the vertical and horizontal
alignment for streets in proposed commercial or office
subdivision shall conform to the standards for collector
streets, as shown in Sec. 31-209. Sec. 31-209, for example,
specifies that the minimum horizontal radius at the
centerline is 450 feet.
Sec. 31-210.e states that the spacing requirements for
points of access to a boundary street for commercial,
industrial, office, or multifamily lots, from principal or
minor arterial roadways, commercial or residential
collectors streets, or industrial streets: "shall be limited
to 1 driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot
frontage." The section continues: "Access points shall not
be placed closer than 100 feet to the right-of-way of any
intersecting street, when one of the intersecting streets is
a minor arterial or higher classification of street."
Continuing, the section provides that: "Shared or common
driveway points are encouraged to reduce impact of these
requirements on lots less than 300 feet in frontage." The
section concludes: "For purposes of intersections involving
any other street classification, specific review and
approval shall be the responsibility of (Public Works)."
Sec. 36-127 requires that developments in C-2 zoning
districts are subject to site plan review by the Planning
Commission.
Sec. 36-300 states that the minimum front, side, and rear
yard building setbacks is 40 feet. Sec. 31-286 and Sec. 31-
89 require that front building setback lines be platted.
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat is substantially complete, except for
noted requirements from Public Works and the deficiencies
from Sections 31-87, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93. The
deficiencies from Sections 31-87, 81-89, 31-91- and 31-93
are either minor in nature and easily remedied, or are
normally supplied after Planning Commission approval of the
Preliminary Plat, but prior to submission of final plats.
Sec. 31-201.h requires that, when a proposed boundary street
is required by the Master Street Plan, a developer provide
the minimum of one-half of the Master Street Plan's
5
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1090
specified improvements and right-of-way. The Outer Loop Rd.
is a requirement of the Master Street Plan; however, in lieu
of the required one-half street improvements, the developer
is indicating the full width of the improvements is to be
built along the north boundary of the subdivision.
Sec. 31-202 limits the maximum length of a cul-de-sac street
to 1,000 feet; the proposed cul-de-sac street meets this
requirement.
Sec. 31-283 requires that the minimum horizontal radius at
the centerline of the commercial cul-de-sac street to be 450
feet at the centerline. The plat proposes a radius of
approximately 240 feet. Public Works has not indicated an
objection to this variance.
Public Works has commented that the number and spacing of
drive access points be restricted, and has recommended
common or shared access drives for the lots. Sec. 31-210.e
permits a limitation of the spacing requirements for points
of access from principal or minor arterial roadways,
commercial or residential collector streets, or industrial
streets, but does not apply the limitations from non -
collector commercial streets. The Subdivision Ordinance,
then, will not restrict the access points from the cul-de-
sac street to the various lots. Public Works needs to
address the issue, and, if the access points can be limited
in other ordinance provisions, then Public Works needs to be
responsible for taking to the Board of Directors any
variance which is requested.
Sec. 36-127 requires that developments in C-2 zoning
districts are subject to site plan review by the Planning
Commission. Any development plans of the individual lots
within the subdivision will have to be reviewed by the
Commission.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to compliance with the comments cited above, except where
variances are specifically approved.
Public Works needs to specifically address the requested
variance from the requirement that the minimum horizontal
radius on commercial streets is 450 feet, to permit a radius
on the proposed internal commercial street of approximately
240 feet.
Public Works needs to specifically address the requested
variance from the requirement of Public Works that the
6
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1090
access points for Lots 2 through 7 be restricted, and
limited to common or shared access driveways.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project
engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the applicant's
proposed development and reviewed with Mr. White and the
Committee members the comments contained in the discussion
outline. Mr. White reported that Lot 7 was a proposed site for a
Post Office facility, and that, since the Post Office requires
two drive approaches, Lot 7 was shown with the two access points.
He said that, since the street is a short cul-de-sac commercial
street, he would like to have individual access points to each of
the other lots, in lieu of shared or common access points. He
said that a shared or common access point between Lots 1 and 8
off the Outer Loop Rd. would be utilized. David Scherer, with
the Public Works Department, reviewed with Mr. White the various
engineering concerns. The Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff presented the requested preliminary plat, and recommended
approval of the preliminary plat, subject to approval of needed
variances. Staff explained that the applicant had requested a
variance from the limitation on the horizontal radius of the cul-
de-sac street, and that Public Works needed to make its
recombination on this requested variance. Staff explained that
the applicant had requested individual access points to each of
the lots with less than 300 feet of lot frontage on the cul-de-
sac street, plus two access points to Lot 7, which is to be the
location of a U. S. Post Office facility. Staff explained that
the Subdivision Ordinance limits the spacing requirements for
points of access to streets to one access point for each 300 feet
of lot frontage when the street fronting the lots are principal
or minor arterial roadways, commercial or residential collector
streets, or industrial streets. Since the street fronting the
lots in question is not one of the types of streets listed, the
Subdivision Ordinance, staff continued, does not limit the access
points. Staff noted that the requested variance for access
points was not needed, as far as the Subdivision Ordinance is
concerned; that Public Works needed to determine whether a
variance is needed and address the procedure for approval of any
needed variance.
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project
engineering firm, was present. He presented the proposed
preliminary plat, and stated that it was the developer's desire
to have access points to each of Lots 2 through 6, plus two
VA
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO_• 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1090
access points for Lot 7, where a post office is planned. He said
that Lot 8 has 610 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac street,
plus 140 feet of frontage on the outer loop road. He said that
Lot 1 has 310 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac street, plus 460
feet of frontage on the outer loop road. He reported that he
anticipated a shared, or common, access point between Lots 1 and
2 onto the outer loop road.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, recommended approval
of the requested variance of the horizontal radius of the cul-de-
sac street. He expressed concern, however, that the limitation
on access points was not applicable to the commercial street. He
said that the regulations state that the design standards of a
collector street are to be applied to the design standards of a
commercial street, whether it is a collector or not, and that the
Public Works staff normally enforced the access points
regulations which pertain to collectors streets to commercial,
non -collector streets, as well. He said that Public Works would
propose clarifying the restriction in Section 30, the streets
section of the Code.
Mr. White said that the cul-de-sac street is a fairly short
street, with only a limited number of lots having access to the
street. He said that traffic volumes would not be great, and
that traffic speeds would not be high. He said that, to properly
market the lots, the individual access points needed to be
retained.
Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the lot on which
the post office would be built.
Mr. White indicated that Lot 7 was the intended location of the
post office.
Commissioner Brandon asked if other uses were identified.
Mr. White confirmed that negotiations were in process with other
users; that a grocery store is the possible buyer of Lot 8 and
that a bank might occupy one of the other lots. He pointed out
that Lot 1 is identified as a service station site. He added
that the proposed cul-de-sac street is 36 feet wide, and that
this provides for a continual center left turn lane.
Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson said that the
Planning Commission may approve the preliminary plat, and make a
recommendation on the requested variance from the standard of the
Subdivision Ordinance; but that, since Public Works has
jurisdiction in the matter of streets and access to streets, any
variances to Public Works issues needs to be taken by Public
Works to the Board of Directors. He suggested that the issue be
resolved during the preliminary plat process rather than waiting
8
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1
until a building permit is requested and having to deal with the
access issue at that time.
Mr. Jack McCray, the applicant, said that he would agree to
limiting the number of curb cuts to no more than one for each of
Lots 2 through 6, with the two access points to Lot 7. He
pointed out, though, that the proposed plat is preliminary; that
he was not sure, at this point, how the development will take
place; that a buyer may want more area than a single lot, or, in
fact, common or shared curb cuts may be desired when sales and
plans are finalized. He asked that the preliminary plat be
approved, and suggested that issues regarding access points be
addressed at a later date when it can be determined the specific
variances needed.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat,
and to recommend to the Board of Directors approval of the
variance to the horizontal radius of the cul-de-sac street. The
motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and
0 abstentions.
9
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-2559-B
NAME: WESTSIDE JR. HIGH SCHOOL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: In the block bounded by W. 14th. St., S. Wolfe St., W.
13th. St., and S. Marshall St.
DEVELOPER:
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER:
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA & Tom Fennell
CENTRAL CDC FENNELL PURIFOY ARCHITECTS
1301 Scott St. 111 Center St., Suite 1520
Little Rock, AR 72206 Little Rock, AR 72201
372-6734
AREA: 2.09 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-4
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 10
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES:
None
Residential, Offices, and
Community Center
An organization known as "Volunteers of America" and the Central
Community Development Corporation propose renovation of the
abandoned Westside Jr. High School building and campus for use as
a multi -use facility, combining residential space, office lease
space, and a community center use. Zoning as a Planned Office
Development is proposed.
Phase I of the project involves renovation of approximately one -
quarter of the existing building for "single -room occupancy
housing" for a Volunteers of America operation. Individual
dwelling units will occupy 4,605 square feet on the first floor
of the building, 4,995 square feet on the second, and 5,930
square feet on the third floor, for a total space allotment of
15,530 square feet. Additionally, an 875 square foot activity
area is planned for the first floor. Office space of 345 square
on the first floor and 895 square feet on the second floor is
proposed. On the second and third floors, 240 square feet of
laundry room space on each floor is to be provided. Common
circulation area and mechanical areas account for an additional
9,175 square feet. The space allotment for the first phase
development totals 27,300 square feet.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-B
Phase II of the project involves renovation of approximately
another one -quarter of the existing building for office lease
space. On the first floor, 10,980 square feet of net lease space
is to be provided. On the second floor, 5,240 square feet is to
be provided. On the third floor, 5,580 square feet is to be
provided. The total net lease space,'then, is 21,800 square
feet. Another 8,145 square feet, nearly evenly divided among the
three floors, is to be used for common circulation area, restroom
facilities, and mechanical areas. The total Phase II space
allotment is 29,945 square feet.
Phase III of the development involves the remaining one-half of
the existing building, plus involves some new construction. The
community center is proposed to include a fitness center and a
performing arts facility. The fitness center is to include the
5,200 square feet on the first floor where a swimming pool and
locker area is located, 6,520 square feet on the second and third
floors where the gymnasium, a stage, and classrooms are located,
and an additional 2,545 square feet in the first, second, and
third floors, as well as in the balcony, which will be common
circulation areas and mechanical space. The performing arts
facility is to occupy a total of 16,275 square feet, of which
5,205 square feet on the second floor is the auditorium and 1,525
square feet is the stage area. The balcony is on the third
level, and occupies 1,580 square feet. A new backstage and
rehearsal area of 1,250 square feet on each of the first and
second floors is proposed. A new area for an elevator, lobby,
and circulation area totaling 2,400 square feet, fairly evenly
divided among the three floors, is to be constructed. These
proposed additions are to be built along the northwest and west
faces of the building. The remaining 3,065 square feet is
allotted to common circulation areas and mechanical equipment
space. A new fire stair, and possibly an elevator, are proposed
to be constructed as an addition to the south of the existing
building.
Necessary parking is provided on site in existing parking lots.
A total of 64 spaces is provided on site.
Additional landscaping is to be provided on the site, including
landscaping of the area between the right-of-way line and the
back of the curb.
An "iron" fence is to be erected around the perimeter of the
site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval of the Planned Office Development to the Board of
Directors is requested.
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-2559-B
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval of a modification of the Land Use Plan for the site
from Single -Family to Public and Institutional use is
requested.
B. EXISTING'CONDITIONS:
The property is the location of the abandoned (and
apparently derelict) Westside Jr. High School building.
The existing zoning is R-4. Property to the north, across
W. 13th. St., and to the northeast, across S. Marshall St.,
is zoned 0-2, and is occupied by Children's Hospital parking
lots. Across S. Marshall St., across from the southeast
corner of the site, is a C-1 zoned lot. The east half of
the block across W. 14th. St. to the south is zoned R-4; the
west half is zoned R-3. There is R-3 zoned property cater-
cornered from the southeast and southwest corners of the
campus property. Across S. Wolfe St. to the west is R-3
property, with an R-5 district occupying the center of the
block.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works staff comments:
S. Marshall St. and W. 13th. St. are 31 foot wide
streets. Commercial streets are required to be 36 feet
in width; however, because of the limited amount of
expansion of the building, the requirement to widen the
streets cannot be imposed.
Improvements which are required, however, are:
1). All intersections shall be reconstructed to
conform to the minimum of 25 foot radii to
accommodate CATA buses and commercial
traffic.
2). Sidewalk ramps must be provided at all
intersections to conform to ADA and City
standards.
3). Broken, missing, or damaged sidewalks and
curbs must be repaired.
4). Driveway aprons must be replaced with new 27
foot wide aprons.
5). The radial area at intersections must be
dedicated to provide for the 20 foot radial
required by Ordinance.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-B
Little Rock Municipal water works has no objections to the
proposed development.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main is
located on the project site, and'that the Wastewater staff
should be contacted for details.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department approved the submittal.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the
Central City Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan
for the area recommends Single Family. The proposal is for
a mix of public, office, and residential uses. This is
consistent with the Plan recommendation to the north, east,
and northwest. The first phase is to be primarily
residential. The completed project would have a majority of
public use, with office and residential uses accounting for
a little over 40% of the total space. In addition, the
office and residential uses are related to the public use.
The Planning staff, then, recommends an expansion of the
"Public & Institutional Use" area which abuts the site to
the north and northeast to include this site.
The Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the proposed
building expansion will require a minimum of 10% upgrade in
landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance.
Areas to receive the required upgrade must be close to
vehicle use areas. It is also noted that planned
landscaping and trees in the space between the curb line and
the right-of-way line must be approved by Public Works, and
a franchise must be obtained from Public Works.
Parking for 64 vehicles is proposed on site, and the
applicant indicates that this will be sufficient parking for
the uses proposed.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-B
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed project is an imaginative and appropriate
adaptive use for the exiting unused school building. Staff
supports a modification of the Land Use Plan to increase the
"Public &Institutional" district abutting the site to
include the POD site. There are only minor issues remaining
to be addressed.
Because the proposed housing use area is, primarily, for low
income persons on a temporary basis, each of whom will not
be expected to have cars; because the office use is geared
to providing office facilities for non-profit organizations;
and, because the community center is focused on the
"community", the normal parking requirements are probably
not applicable in this situation. Because the applicant is
comfortable with the 64 spaces provided on site, staff
recommends approval of the site plan, as presented.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Planned Office
Development, subject to compliance with the Public Works and
Landscaping requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the
Use Plan to include the site in
Institutional planning district
north and northeast.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
modification of
the Public and
which abuts the
the Land
site to the
(JANUARY 4, 1996)
Ms. Jennifer Herron, with Fennell Purifoy Architects, the project
architectural firm, was present. Staff presented the application
and explained the proposal. The various comments noted in the
discussion outline were presented. Ms. Herron indicated that she
would contact the Fire Marshall to discuss the iron fence which
is proposed to be erected around the property. Following the
discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that there were no outstanding issues to be
resolved, and recommended approval of the requested POD. Staff
explained that the proposed use is in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan, but indicated that staff recommended an amendment
to the Land Use Plan to include the area of the proposed POD site
in the "Office & Institutional" district which abuts the site to
the north and northeast. The recommendation for approval of the
5
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-B
POD and the land use plan amendment were included on the Consent
Agenda for Approval, and these item were included on the Consent
Agenda for Approval and were approved with the vote on 9 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
6
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-3592-I
NAME: FAIRFIELD OFFICE COMPLEX -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the south side of the proposed extension of
Executive Center Dr. to S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.21 mile
west of Centerview Dr. and 0.2 mile east of S. Bowman Rd.,
approximately 0.4 mile south of Kanis Rd.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
2800 Cantrell Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72211
664-6000 223-9900
AREA: 10.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 723
Z NING• 0-1; OS
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: Office
1). Approval of a variance to encroach into a portion of
the OS -zoned area to recontour land and re -plant the
area; and,
2). Approval of a variance from the requirement of the
Excavation Ordinance to permit recontouring of the
slope in the OS strip with a 3:1 slope, without a
"bench" in a slope which exceeds 15 feet in height.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Review of the proposed site plan for the new Fairfield Office
Complex is requested in order to meet the requirement for
Planning Commission review and approval of plans which involve a
proposal to encroach into OS (Open Space) zoned land.
The applicant proposes the development of a 10.5 acre lot, to
include construction of a building which will contain the
corporate offices and a service center for Fairfield, access
drives, and parking for 266 vehicles. The development is on one
lot in a recently approved subdivision, which includes the
extension of Executive Center Dr. from its present termination,
just east of the Fairfield site, along the north boundary of the
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-3592-I
Fairfield property, and terminating at an intersection with
Bowman Rd. The project entails a maximum 45 foot w by 404.9 foot
long intrusion into the 200 foot wide "OS" zoned strip which lies
along the southern boundary of the Fairfield tract.
In order to make the grade transition from the yard around the
office building to the grades within the OS area, a strip of the
OS land needs to be graded and recontoured. The applicant
proposes to reshape the land to provide a 3:1 slope (a slope that
rises one foot for each 3 feet of length), then to heavily
replant the area with appropriate plants and trees. The total
height of the embankment will be just over 15 feet, and, because
the Excavation Ordinance requires "benches" (terraces) when the
embankment exceeds 15 feet, and the applicant's design does not
include benching of the embankment, a variance form the
requirements of the Excavation Ordinance is requested. The
applicant explains that if a bench is created in the embankment,
to be able to get the same amount of total rise within the same
amount of horizontal distance, the slope of the embankment will
have to be increased. The steeper slope will make it harder to
landscape the sloped area and to maintain it.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a variance to encroach into a portion of the OS -zoned
area to recontour land and re -plant the area.
Approval of a variance is requested from the requirement of
the Excavation Ordinance to permit recontouring of the slope
in the OS strip with a 3:1 slope, without a "bench" in a
slope which exceeds 15 feet in height.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The terrain is
fairly rugged, with slopes generally at or above 12%, with
some areas as steep as 30% in grade.
The existing zoning of the site is 0-1 and OS. Within the
past month, zoning of the subdivision was changed from that
shown on the area zoning map of the site. The MF-12 zoning
was eliminated, and the entire subdivision was zoned 0-1
south of the Executive Center Dr. extension, and 0-3 north
of Executive Center Dr. The OS strip remained unchanged.
Zoning south of the 200 foot deep OS strip is R-2. To the
east and to the west of the building site is zoned 0-1.
Across Executive Center Dr., all land is zoned 0-3.
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3592-I
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments include:
The proposed grading in the OS strip violates the
Excavation Ordinance. The plan should be modified to
accommodate benching of the slope, as required by the
Ordinance, or a variance should be sought from the
Planning Commission.
Right-of-way for and construction of the extension of
Executive Center Dr. to collector standards, pursuant
to the Master Street Plan, must be provided for. A
sidewalk along Executive Center Dr. is required. The
sidewalk along the street must be connected to the walk
along the entrance drive.
The westerly drive should be 27 feet in width. A 36
foot minimum width for the driveway at the center of
the site must be provided. The northeast parking lot
should be rotated 900 in order to relocate the drive a
minim of 120 feet south of its intersection with
Executive Center Dr.
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. The impact
of drainage on adjacent properties should be considered
in the design of the system.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension and on -site fire protection will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility commented that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
The Fire Department noted that in the future, proper fire
hydrant placement will be needed.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3592-I
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 36-340, the requirements for OS, Open Space, Zoning
District land, states that the area is used as a buffer zone
between uses which are not compatible with each other. It
states: "In this case, no building or structure... may be
erected, no trees may be removed, and no paving for wheeled
vehicles will be allowed." It continues: ..all such
areas shall remain in their natural state, unless otherwise
authorized by the City." It says: "Enhancement of the
buffer area, such as additional screening or planting, may
be required...."
The Site Plan Review Specialist comments:
The proposed on -site buffer along Executive Center Dr.
meets and exceeds the 28 foot width requirement, when
averaged out, but drops to a width of 15 feet in some
areas.
If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located on
the plan and screened on three sides an 8 foot high
opaque wall or wood fence.
Areas set aside for perimeter, interior, and building
landscaping meet Landscape Ordinance requirements Curb
and gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas
from vehicular traffic.
The method to be implemented to protect the land use
buffers from being cleared beyond that area approved
must be identified.
The cross section of the portion of the OS area
proposed to be cleared and filled has been submitted,
and is acceptable. The plan for the proposed treatment
of the OS area meets or exceeds the Ordinance
requirements. Ground cover, shrubs, and trees exceed
density and minimum size requirements.
E. ANALYSIS•
The only reason for the site plan review is because of the
encroachment into the OS zoned strip, and the requirement for
approval of such an encroachment. The site is zoned 0-1, and
0-1 zoned property does not require site plan review by the
Planning Commission.
The landscape plan shows heavy landscaping in the area of
the OS strip which is being regraded and sloped. The
density and quantity of the ground cover, scrubs, and trees
exceed the Ordinance standards.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3592-I
The decision on whether a bench or benches should or should
not be required needs to be based on both engineering
considerations and on whether benching does or does not
provide the better means of assuring proper treatment of the
encroachment into the open space. Whether trees can or
cannot be successfully planted and maintained on the slope
without the benching needs to be addressed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of a variance to permit the
encroachment into the portion of the OS -zoned area to
recontour land and re -plant the area.
The staff recommendation on whether to require benching of
the slope will be developed and reported that at the
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
explained the reason for the site plan review, noting that the
proposal includes an encroachment into the OS strip, and any such
encroachment requires Planning Commission approval. Staff
presented the discussion outline, and David Scherer, with the
Public Works staff, went into detail on the Public Works
concerns. Public Works, he said, was primarily concerned about
the proximity of the entrance drive to the northeast parking lot
from the main central driveway being so close to Executive Center
Dr.. He said that not enough vehicle stacking space was being
provided in that situation. He reported that the Traffic
Engineer recommend rotating the parking lot to move the entrance
to the parking lot further away from Executive Center Dr. Mr.
McGetrick responded that he would take the Public Works comments
under advisement. Mr. McGetrick reviewed the plans for the
treatment of the encroachment, and Bob Brown, with the
Neighborhoods and Planning staff, reported that the slope and
proposed plantings were acceptable. The Committee forwarded the
item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff explained that, when an encroachment into a zoned "OS" area
is proposed, the Zoning Ordinance requires review and approval by
the Planning Commission of any such encroachment and the means to
be undertaken to mitigate the effects of the encroachment. Staff
explained that the encroachment into the OS zone and the means
proposed to recontour and replant the land are the only issues to
be dealt with in the hearing; that other site plan review issues
are not included in the scope of review. Staff reported that
61
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7- (Cont.) ____ ____ FILE NO.: Z-3592-I
there were no remaining issues to resolve; that the proposal to
replant the encroachment meets and exceeds Ordinance requirements
and that, as long as the applicant met the Public Works
requirement to properly "bench" (or terrace) the embankment in
conformance with the Excavation Ordinance, Public Works
recommended approval of the encroachment.
Staff recommended that the approval, with the condition noted by
Public Works, be included in the Consent Agenda for approval.
The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
6
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7a FILE NO.: Z-5698-B
NAME: BABY SUPER STORE -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of S. Bowman Rd. and
Hermitage Rd.
DEVELOPER:
OASIS REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT GROUP
814 Higdon Ferry Rd.
Hot Springs, AR 71923
AREA: 3.93 ACRES
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
ENGINEER:
Joe White
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial (Retail)
Proposed is a development of a 3.93 acre tract to include two
building sites, one of which, occupying slightly over 3 acres of
the site, is for immediate development; the other, occupying
about three-quarters of an acre, is for future development, with
the building and parking layout not being designated at this
time.
The Baby Super Store, with its associated parking, occupies the
bulk of the site. Proposed is a 42,700 square foot retail store
building, to be located at the southeast corner of the tract.
The building includes a tractor -trailer accessible loading dock
along the south face of the building. Parking for a total of 180
vehicles is planned. Access drives from both boundary streets,
Bowman Rd. and Hermitage Rd., are proposed.
The second building site is designated as an "out parcel and is
located at the northeast corner of the tract. It will take its
access exclusively from the internal drive, with no direct access
to the boundary street. Its use and site layout in undetermined
at this time.
No variances from Ordinance standards are requested.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7a (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5698-B
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and approval of a site plan is
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, but is, for the most part, cleared
of trees and vegetation. A great deal of excavated material
from the Home Quarters construction project (directly across
Hermitage Rd. from the tract) was placed on the site as fill
material. The topography of the site, then, is fairly level
in the area where the fill was placed. Otherwise, the grade
across the site drops from an elevation of approximately 500
feet M.S.L. (Mean Sea Level) along the north property line
to 480 feet at the southwest corner of the tract, to 462
feet at the southeast corner of the tract.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3, with the condition
imposed in the rezoning ordinance that the Planning
Commission approve any site plan. The remainder of the C-3
zoned property lies to the south. A POD, the site of an
office warehouse and mini -storage facility lies to the east.
Across Hermitage Rd. is Home Quarters, in a PCD. To the
west, across Bowman Rd., is the Wal-Mart and Sams Club site
in a C-3 zoned tract. To the southwest, across Bowman Rd.,
is R-2 zoned property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments include:
Master Street Plan improvements are required on Bowman
Rd., including construction of a right -turn lane to
Master Street Plan standards. This includes
appropriate right-of-way dedication. Sidewalks, with
ramps, will be required to be constructed on both
boundary streets.
Driveways are to be 25 feet from the exterior lot
corners. (Ref. Sec. 30-43) One driveway is permitted
by ordinance on the Hermitage Rd. frontage, thus there
may be no direct access drive to Hermitage Rd. The
planned drive to the out parcel must not violate Sec.
31-210.h.1, in which interior drives may not create a
four-way intersection within 75 feet of the boundary
street curb line.
Stormwater detention analysis and provision for on -site
stormwater detention will be required.
E
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5698-B
The plan indicates considerable grade variation across
the site. The plan for cuts and fill will require
approval. If the plans for cuts and fills vary from
City Ordinance, Sec. 29-190.1, the plans must be
submitted for review., and a variance must be requested
from the Planning Commission.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works noted that the Bowman Rd.
entrance drive is centered on a fire hydrant. If, Water
Works comments, the drive cannot be shifted to avoid the
fire hydrant location, then the fire hydrant will have to be
relocated at the developers expense.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer is
available for the Baby Super Store, but that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required in order to
provide sewer service to the out parcel.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 5 foot easement
will be needed along the south and east property lines of
the tract.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Normally, projects in C-3 zoned tracts do not require site
plan review by the Planning Commission. In this case,
though, when the property was rezoned C-3, a condition was
imposed which requires site plan review for any development.
Because the project proposes two building sites, however,
the Subdivision Ordinance would require site plan review.
The site plan is complete as far as the required exhibits is
concerned, except for showing the location of existing off -
site utilities and existing and needed fire hydrants.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
notes:
A 3 foot wide landscape strip is required between the
public parking area and the building. Some flexibility
is permitted in this requirement.
The full buffer width requirement along Bowman Rd. and
Hermitage Rd. is 22 feet and 20 feet, respectively.
The proposed plan meets this requirement when averaged
out, but drops to a width of 12 feet and 13 feet in
areas.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7a (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5698-B
Curb and gutter, or another approved border, is
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
If dumpsters are to be used, it must be located on the
site plan and screened on three sides with an 8 foot
high opaque wall or wood fence.
Trees and shrubs will be required in accordance with
the Landscape Ordinance around the perimeter of the
vehicular use areas and within the building landscape
areas. One tree for each 15 parking spaces will be
required within the interior landscape islands.
E. ANALYSIS•
The concern expressed by Public Works concerning the
proposed treatment of the substantial cuts and/or fills
which will be necessary for development of the site is a
very real concern. With 18 feet of grade differential
between the two drive access points onto the boundary
streets, and 36 feet of fall across the site, it is assumed
that significant retaining walls and other means of
accommodating the grade transitions will be needed. These
are not shown on the site plan. The proximity of the
building to the east property line, where there is
anticipated to be a significant grade transition between the
subject site and the site to the east, is cause for concern.
There is very little space provided to accomplish the
anticipated needed grade transition. Ordinances
administered by Public Works establish criteria for handling
these concerns, and if the developer can meet the ordinance
requirements, staff can support the site layout.
Modifications to accommodate landscaping requirements must
be made. The dumpster(s) must be located on the site plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
developer being put on notice that compliance with the
Excavation and other audiences must be met.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters
engineering firm, was present.
plan, showing multiple entrances
rotated 900 (so that the loading
(JANUARY 4, 1996)
& Associates, Inc., the project
The initially submitted site
from Hermitage Rd., the building
dock was on the east side of the
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO._-- 7A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5698-B
building), and a specific building footprint and parking shown in
the out parcel, was reviewed. Staff outlined the proposal and
presented the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public
Works staff, outlined the Public Works concerns, specifically
regarding the number of drive access points from Hermitage Rd.
and the means of dealing with the grade transitions across the
site. Staff also expressed concern about the traffic pattern,
and anticipated traffic conflicts, on the out parcel and relating
to the loading dock. Mr. White indicated that he would review
the layout. Following the discussion, the Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant
complying with the Excavation Ordinance and the Fire Department
requirements for an additional fire hydrant on the site and
providing access to the building perimeter. The item was
included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
5
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5228-B
NAME•
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Crouch's - Conditional Use
Permit
11409-Baseline Road
Ray Turnage and Steve Roberson/
James A. Finch
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of an outdoor
family amusement park on this
I-2 zoned, seven acre site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the southeast corner of
Interstate 430 and Baseline Road (State Highway 338).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
Adjacent property to the south is zoned R-2 and is
vacant and wooded. The property immediately east of
this site is zoned I-2 and contains a recreational
vehicle storage area. Further east, the zoning is R-2
and contains residential uses.
The property across Baseline Road to the north is zoned
R-2/I-2, with an engineering office and the Arkansas
Highway Department Sign Shop nearby.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 36
foot wide drive from Baseline Road, located near the
east property line.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan
exceeds the minimum ordinance requirements.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances is required.
The proposed buffer along Baseline Road meets the 27
foot width required by ordinance when averaged out, but
drops down to ten feet adjacent to the proposed parking
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5228-B
lot and to no buffer at all north of the proposed
eastern parking space. This buffer must never drop
below six feet in width.
The landscape ordinance requires that at least six
percent 6f ,the -interior of the -vehicular use area be
landscaped. To receive credit, these areas must be at
least 100 square feet in area. Interior landscaped
areas should be clearly identified on the site plan.
If a dumpster is to be used, it must be located on the
site plan and screened on three sides with an eight
foot high opaque wall or wood fence.
A six foot high opaque wood fence with its face
directed outward or dense evergreen plantings will be
required to screen any business activity from the
residentially zoned property to the south. This
requirement will be reviewed by the Planning Commission
at a future date, with the development of Phase III.
Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped
areas from vehicular traffic.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Revise plan for right-of-way noted at the rezoning
commission meeting of October 31. Also, other comments
apply. Reference File No. Z-5228-A.
6. Utility and Fire Comments:
Fire Dept.: There must be a fire hydrant located
within 500 feet of all buildings on this site. There
must be a clear, unobstructed path from the parking lot
to the arcade building, between log cabin and race
track.
AP&L: A 15 foot utility easement is required around
the entire perimeter of the site.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor family
amusement park on this I-2 zoned property. This
proposal will be built in three phases. Phase I will
include two go-cart tracks, an arcade building, and the
north parking lot. Phase II will consist of a bumper
boat pond, a baseball batting cage, maintenance
building, and remaining parking along the east property
line. Phase III, which will include a miniature golf
area, will be planned at a future date and be reviewed
by the Planning Commission at that time.
E
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5228-B
There is an existing log cabin on this site. It will
be used as an office/snack bar and gift shop, depending
on its structural condition and renovation needs. The
lighting on this site will be low-level, directional
and shielded. The interior of this site will consist
of sidewalks,for pedestrian -circulation and
landscaping. Considering the make-up of the
neighborhood and the proposed layout of this site, with
the go-cart tracks located adjacent to I-430, this
proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
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. The lighting of the site is to be low-level,
directional and shielded.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996)
Jim Finch and Pat McGetrick were present representing the
application.
David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with
the Committee, primarily the need to revise the site plan to
show the required right-of-way dedication along Baseline
Road.
Mr. McGetrick stated that the lighting would be low-level,
directional and shielded. He also discussed the interior
pedestrian circulation on the property.
Mr. McGetrick also stated that Phase III (Miniature golf
area) would be excluded from this review and would be
brought back before the Planning Commission at a future
date.
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, briefly discussed
the landscape and buffer requirements.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, briefly discussed the
Fire Department requirements with the applicant.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 8 (Cont.) FILE NO._: Z-5228-B
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
The applicant, James Finch, was present. There was one
objector, Rev. Carman Breeding, present. Monte Moore, of
the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff
recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the
Staff Recommendation. He informed the Commission that a
petition signed by neighboring property owners and a letter
from Martin Cemetery had been received by staff, all of
which were in favor of the conditional use permit.
James Finch addressed the Commission in favor of his
proposal. He asked to hear Rev. Breeding's concerns and
then comment on them.
Rev. Carman Breeding, of 9215 Sibley Hole Road, spoke in
opposition to the application. Rev. Breeding stated that he
represented the Sibley Hole Road Neighborhood Association.
He stated that he was concerned about the noise levels that
the go-cart tracks would create. He was also concerned
about the trash that would be generated by the use, the
lighting of the site, the hours of operation, and the
possible increased traffic flow that would be generated on
Sibley Hole Road.
Commissioner Putnam asked the location of Rev. Breeding's
residence in relation to this site.
Rev. Breeding pointed this out to Commissioner Putnam on the
area zoning map.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she had concerns about the
noise levels that would be generated.
Commissioner Brandon also stated concerns with an increase
in noise level.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, pointed out to the
Commission that the area zoning map in the agenda packet is
incorrect. He stated that there is 200 feet plus of I-2
zoned property immediately east of this site.
James Finch addressed Rev. Breeding's concerns. He stated
that the noise generated by the go-carts would not be great.
He stated that he had a meeting with several of the
neighboring property owners, at which time a go-cart
identical to the ones that would be operated on this site
was started and run inside a building and on a parking lot.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5228-B
He stated that the neighbors had no opposition to the site
plan or the noise level generated by the go-cart. Mr. Finch
then stated that he did not know who Rev. Breeding
represented. He stated that the lighting on the site would
be directional and low level. Mr. Finch also stated that
people would not use Sibley Hole Road to travel to this
site.
Commissioner Brandon,asked how this site would be accessed
fromI-430.
Mr. Finch then explained how to travel to this site from
I-430.
Commissioner Brandon then made a motion to approve the
application as recommended by the Planning Staff. The
motion was seconded.
Commissioner Adcock inquired about the petition, who signed
it and where they live in relation to this site.
John McKay, realtor representing the property, explained
that the names on the petition represented the residential
property owners nearest to this site. Mr. McKay also stated
that he does not know who Rev. Breeding represents.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. McKay stated that the park would close around 11:00 p.m.
Rev. Breeding asked to speak further on the item.
Chairman Woods stated that the Commission needed to act on
Commissioner Brandon's motion. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
1 noe, and 2 absent to approve the conditional use permit as
recommendated by the Planning Staff.
k,
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO • 9 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 Neighborhood:
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.
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (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 Dept.: 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
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (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.
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 9 (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.
4
January 3 G _ -19 9 6
ITEM NO • 10 Z-4855-A
Owner:
Applicant•
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Trammell and Company Real
Estate and Insurance, Inc.
Allen Trammell
5323 Baseline Road
Rezone from R-2 and C-3 to C-4
Office and Mini -storage
.75 acres
Single story, frame
residential structure
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Various commercial uses, zoned R-2 and C-4
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant structure, zoned PCD and; Single -Family
residence, zoned R-2
West - Real Estate Office, zoned I-2 and; vacant,
zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS+
With planned construction, only one driveway will be
permitted by ordinance on the frontage. AHTD approval of
curb cut will be required.
Drainage impact on adjacent properties should be considered
in the design of the stormwater system. If existing
facilities are expanded and are to remain, then the analysis
for stormwater detention will be required.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs East District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office Commercial for
the front and Mixed Residential for the rear. The request
is for C-4, Open Display Commercial. This use is not
consistent with the plan or its intent. Staff cannot
support a plan change at this time.
January 30 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 Z-4855-A (Cont.)
AFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .75±
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family and "C-3" General
Commercial to "C-4" Open Display Commercial. The northern
200 feet of the tract is zoned C-3 and the southern 115±
feet is zoned R-2. A one story, frame residential structure
is located on the site, approximately 30 feet from Baseline
Road. The remainder of the site is vacant. The applicant
proposes to convert the house into an office and to
construct a mini -storage facility on the property.
The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses;
ranging from R-2 zoned Single Family homes to C-3 and C-4
zoned commercial uses and I-2 zoned auto related uses. The
northern 200 feet of this property abuts an I-2 zoned real
estate office on the west and a vacant, PCD zoned
residential structure on the east. The southern 115± feet
of the site abuts R-2 zoned property on the west, east and
south. The rear yard of homes fronting on Loetscher Lane
are adjacent to the southern 115 feet of the site.
The northern 200 foot portion of the property was zoned C-3
in 1987 for an unspecified commercial use. It appears that
no commercial use of the site occurred as a result of that
action. At that time the entire site was proposed for C-3
zoning. It was felt that the southern 115 foot portion of
the site, which abuts single family residential, should not
be zoned commercial and that area was removed from the
rezoning application.
The Geyer Springs East District Land Use Plan recommends
Mixed Office Commercial for the front 200 feet and Mixed
Residential for the southern 115 feet. The MOC District
provides for a mixture of Office and Commercial uses to
occur. A Planned Development is recommended if the use is
entirely commercial or the use is a mixture of office and
commercial. The Mixed Residential District provides for a
mixture of residential types and densities not to exceed 10
units per acre. The proposed C-4 zoning is not consistent
with the Plan and staff cannot support a change at this
time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning.
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 10 Z-4855-A (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 30, 1996)
The applicant, Allen Trammell, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended
denial of the requested C-4 zoning.
In response to a question from the Commission, Dana Carney
of the Planning Staff, described the uses on the properties
to the east and west of the site. He stated that he thought
the I-2 zoning to the west had been established by court
order at the time of annexation.
Allen Trammell addressed the Commission in support of his
application. He discussed other uses in the area and
presented photographs depicting those uses as well as the
site in question. Mr. Trammell stated that the proposed use
of the site was a mini -warehouse development. He then
stated that he was not opposed to resubmitting the item as a
Planned Development. Mr. Trammell concluded by stating that
he felt his development of the site would help to improve
this area of Baseline Road.
Commissioner Ball stated that he was reluctant to approve
C-4 zoning at this site. Mr. Trammell responded that he
understood the opposition to C-4 because of the many other
uses allowed under that classification. He also stated that
he was aware that many of the uses in the area were annexed
to the City and restated his willingness to refile the
application as a Planned Development.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, interjected that
refiling the item as a Planned Development did not
necessarily assure its approval.
In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr.
Carney stated that mini -warehouses were allowed as a
conditional use in C-3. Mr. Trammell noted that only the
northern 2/3 of the site was zoned C-3. He then posed the
possibility of zoning the entire tract C-3 and filing for a
conditional use permit. Commissioner Ball stated that he
has reservations about zoning the southern 1/3 of the tract
C-3 due to its proximity to residential properties.
Chairman Woods then offered Mr. Trammell the option to amend
the application. Mr. Trammell stated that he was willing to
amend the application to C-3. Commissioner Ball restated
his reluctance to support C-3 for the entire site. He noted
that a mini -warehouse development would still have to be
approved as a conditional use in C-3, which requires site
plan review.
KI
January 3u, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 Z-4855-A (Cont.)
Commissioner Daniel stated his desire to see the application
refiled as a Planned Development.
Mr. Trammell stated that he would ask for the item to be
deferred so that he might amend it to a Planned Development.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 14, 1996
Commission meeting so that Mr. Trammell might resubmit it as
a Planned Development. The motion was approved by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
January 30 1996
ITEM NO.: 11 Z-6087
Owner: Trammell and Company Real
Estate and Insurance, Inc.
Applicant: Allen Trammell
Location: 6000 Myerson Drive
Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Purpose: Office
Size: .17± acres
Existing use: Single story, brick
residential structure
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned I-2
South - Vacant structure, zoned 0-3
East - Various commercial uses, zoned C-3
West - Single -Family residence, zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
The request for a driveway is rejected without a site plan
and variances approved of Section 31-210 of the Code of
Ordinances. Any drive shall conform with ordinance and
would need to be 25 feet from lot line and 100 feet from
right-of-way of Myerson Street. With a lot depth of 102.5
feet this appears to be an impossibility without a variance
of the ordinances.
Unless the drive can be accomplished the address change will
not be acceptable.
The current Master Street Plan standard for Geyer Springs
Road is 90 feet of right-of-way and a typical 5 lane, 60
foot street section, which allows 15 feet behind the curb
for a sidewalk and utilities. Currently, Geyer Springs is
48 feet wide (4 lanes). If no construction is planned,
there will not be a request for widening of Geyer Springs or
Myerson. However, the right-of-way is requested; 5 feet of
dedication for both conformance with commercial street
standards and Geyer Springs right-of-way will be needed for
future widening of Geyer Springs to Master Street Plan 5
lane section. If further rezonings on Myerson occur, there
may be a need to increase the width to 36 feet to
accommodate a 3 lane street for left turn capability.
January 30. �996
ITEM NO • 11 Z-6087 (Cont.)
Construct a sidewalk on the Myerson frontage and construct 2
handicap ramps.
Apply for a franchise for existing fence, if applicant
wishes the fence to remain after dedication.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the 65th Street East District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Industrial use. The
request is for Office. The location, Myerson Drive, is a
single street of residential, surrounded by industrial and
heavy commercial. The existing plan recommends a clearing
away of the street. Since the lots are residentially
platted, zoned and used, and the units remain in fairly good
condition, Staff recommends that potential residential use
be recognized. To this end the entry to Myerson Drive would
be shown for Office with the remaining lots along Myerson
designated Mixed Use. This classification encourages any
nonresidential conversion to be compatible with single
family.
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this lot from
"R-211 Single Family residential to 110-3" General Office.
The property consists+of a small (102' X 751) lot occupied
by a single story, brick residential structure. The
applicant proposes to convert this structure into a small
office.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Geyer
Springs Road and Myerson Drive. Uses and zoning in the area
are varied; ranging from R-2 zoned, single family residences
to a variety of C-3 zoned commercial uses and I-2 zoned,
light industrial uses. The properties along Myerson Drive
form a small enclave of some 18 single family residences
surrounded by Industrial and Commercial uses. One of these
residences, at the southwest corner of Myerson and Geyer
Springs, was previously zoned 0-3 and until recently was
occupied by a professional office.
The 65th Street East District Land Use Plan does not
recognize the existing residential use and recommends
Industrial use for this area. Although Staff believes it is
appropriate to consider alternative zoning for the property
in question, it is felt that residential viability of the
properties along Myerson should be considered. To
accommodate an office use for the subject property, Staff
recommends amending the Plan to show the properties at the
Pq
January R -1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 Z-6087_ (Con
entry to Myerson Drive as Office. Since the remainder of
the lots along Myerson are occupied by single family homes
in fairly good condition, Staff recommends amending the Plan
to Mixed Use for those properties. The Mixed Use
designation provides for a mixture of residential, office
and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Development is
recommended within this designation if the proposed use is
entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of
the three.
Although Staff does support office zoning for the subject
property, there are circumstances which cause us to question
the appropriateness of 0-3 zoning. The property is small
(75, X 1021) and is encumbered by a 15 foot easement along
the rear property line and a 25 foot building line along the
front and exterior side property lines. The dedication of
Master Street Plan required right-of-way will reduce both
the width and depth of the lot by a further 5 feet. It
appears that the possibility of developing any parking on
the site to accommodate any non-residential use will be
limited by the size of the lot and the location of the
existing structure. The property directly adjacent to the
west is occupied by a single family home that has a "carport
to carport" relationship to the structure on this property.
The two structures sit fairly close to each other and any
level of nonresidential use on the subject site will have an
effect on this neighboring property.
Staff recommends that rather than 110-3" General Office, the
property be zoned 110-1" Quiet Office. The 110-1"
classification provides for the orderly conversion of older
structures no longer useful, serviceable or desirable in
their present uses to Office use. Height, area and off-
street parking regulations within this district are designed
to assure that office uses will be compatible with adjacent
residential districts. The applicant proposes to convert
the existing residential structure into an office. The
110-1" zoning district will accommodate this proposed use.
The applicant should be aware that the Bill of Assurance for
Myerson Manor Addition is still in full force and effect.
That Bill of Assurance prohibits the use of this property
except for residential purposes.
The applicant has requested a waiver of the right-of-way
dedication for both Geyer Springs Road and Myerson Drive; an
additional 5 feet is required on both streets to comply with
the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends denial of the
waiver.
3
January 3U, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 11 Z-6087 (Cont.)
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-3 zoning. Staff
recommends that the property be zoned 0-1 and that the 65th
Street East District Land Use Plan be amended to office for
the properties at the entry to Myerson Drive and Mixed Use
for the remaining lots along Myerson Drive.
Staff also recommends denial of the requested right-of-way
dedication waiver for Geyer Springs Road and Myerson Drive.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
The applicant, Allen Trammell, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended
that the property be zoned 0-1 and that the 65th Street East
District Land Use Plan be amended. Staff recommended denial
of the requested right-of-way dedication waivers.
Mr. Trammell addressed the Commission in support of his
application. He stated that he would accept 0-1 zoning but
that he preferred 0-3 due to the broader list of permitted
uses within 0-3.
Commissioner Lichty told Mr. Trammell that the Planning
Commission, more and more, wanted to see how a property was
proposed to be developed. He stated that getting "open
zoning" on a site was becoming more difficult. He urged Mr.
Trammell to take the 0-1 zoning and "run with it."
Mr. Trammell noted that there was no neighborhood opposition
to the 0-3 zoning request. He then stated that he desired a
Geyer Spring Road address.
David Scherer, of the Public Works Staff, addressed the
Commission. He explained that the site could have a Geyer
Springs address only if it had access to Geyer Springs Road.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that there would
have to be improvements made to the site prior to it being
used for a non-residential purpose, including driveways and
parking spaces. He stated that the design of those
improvements would dictate whether access to Geyer Springs
Road was possible and the address question would be resolved
at that time.
In response to a question from the Commission, David Scherer
addressed the right-of-way requirements for Geyer Springs
Road and Myerson Drive. He stated that the City foresaw the
need for an additional traffic lane on Geyer Springs Road
and the additional right-of-way would eventually be needed.
4
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 11 Z-6087 (Cont.)
Commissioner Brandon asked about the staff notation that
there was a Bill of Assurance conflict. Cindy Dawson, of
the City Attorney's Office, stated that the City was not a
party to that contract and the Bill of Assurance question
should not affect the Commission's vote. Mr. Carney stated
that the note about the Bill of Assurance conflict was
included in the staff review for the applicant's
information. Mr. Trammell stated that he was aware of the
conflict.
Commissioner Adcock asked what effect the proposed Land Use
Plan Amendment would have on the residential properties on
Myerson Road. Tony Bozynski, of the Planning Staff
responded that the Mixed Use designation would recognize the
existing residential use where the current Industrial
designation does not.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, David
Scherer stated that it might be possible for this site to
have a curb cut on the Geyer Springs Road frontage. He
noted that the Ordinance requires the driveway to be at
least 100 feet away from the intersection, which would be
difficult for this site due to the shallow depth of the
property and the location of a drainage easement along the
rear property line.
Also, in response to a question, Mr. Scherer noted that the
on -site parking requirement for the site would be determined
by the use proposed for the property.
Commissioner Daniel suggested deferring the item since there
appeared to be unresolved issues. Mr. Scherer stated that
most of these issues are site development and building
permit issues, unrelated to the zoning request.
A vote was then taken on the proposed Land Use Plan
Amendment. The amendment was approved, as recommended by
staff, with a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent.
A vote was taken on the 0-1 rezoning, as recommended by
staff. The 0-1 zoning was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,
1 noe and 2 absent.
A final vote was taken on the requested right-of-way
dedication waiver for Geyer Springs Road and Myerson Drive.
The request was denied with a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and
2 absent.
A
January 30, 1996
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: S-1091
NAME: JENKINS -- SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVER
LOCATION: On the north side of Crystal Valley Rd., approximately
0.4 mile north of Stagecoach Rd., outside the City Limits, at
8233 Crystal Valley Rd.
L. P. Jenkins
7701 Crystal Oak Ln.
Little Rock, AR 72210
455-0933
AREA: 10 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED: N/A
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant reports that, in the early 1601s, he and his wife
purchased the subject 10 acre tract and lived in the home at 8233
Crystal Valley Rd. In 1974, they separated two parcels from the
10 acres to provide building sites for homes for their parents.
These two homes are on a private lane, known as Crystal Oak Ln.,
at 7701 and 7815 Crystal Oak Ln. The applicant explains that the
building sites were not "sold", but were deeded to their parents
in order for them to obtain mortgages on their homes. In 1988,
again, a building site was separated from the larger tract in
order for the applicant's daughter and her husband to be able to
build a home on the 10 acre tract, again, so that the home could
be individually mortgaged. The applicant and his wife are now
remodeling their home, and putting in new appliances. The well
water is very hard on water using appliances, and they want to
tie onto City water, which is available on Crystal Valley Rd. In
making application for water service, the applicant was told by
Little Rock Water Works that the homesite would have to be
properly subdivided from the larger tract, with proper access and
frontage on a public road being provided. The applicant's
response was that they have not, nor do they intend, to sell off
land from the 10 acres, and have no desire to subdivide the
property. They also do not want to go to the expense, nor take
the time it would take, to prepare a preliminary and final plat
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1091
of the property, and seek the necessary waivers to permit the
private drive to serve as the required access to the various
internal lots.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant requests a waiver from the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance, in order for them to receive domestic
water service from the City of Little Rock Water Utility
without meeting the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for
subdividing the property and providing street frontage and
access to each of the interior lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a "family compound", containing homes for the
applicant and his wife, their two sets of parents, and their
daughter and her family. The original home, located at 8233
Crystal Valley Rd., has frontage on the public street. The
other three homesites are isolated lots with no "legal"
access to a public roadway.
The property is outside the City Limits. The City Limits
line runs down Crystal Valley Rd., so across the street, the
property is in the City Limits.
The property is zoned R-2, as is all surrounding land.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The waiver request was not submitted to Public Works or to
the Utilities.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-5 subjects all subdivision of land to City control.
The Subdivision Ordinance applies to: "All divisions ... of a
tract or parcel of land into one or more lots, building
sites, or other divisions for the purpose, whether immediate
or future, for sale or building development...."
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:
"...private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission.... The design standards shall conform to public
street standards...."
The City's "Planning Boundary" (in this case, the area which
is outside the City Limits, but within the planning
jurisdiction of the City, and subject to the Subdivision and
2
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1091
subject property. The area was within the Planning Boundary
in 1988 when the Ordinance was approved establishing the
Planning Boundary in the area, and was probably in the area
in 1981 when the previous Planning Boundary was established.
The area was probably in the Planning Boundary well before
1981, but records in the Zoning office do not go back that
far. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, any lots in
existence prior to December 19, 1978 are "grandfathered in".
E. ANALYSIS•
whether the building site for the relatives' home was
"deeded" or "sold", the division of the building site from
the overall 10 acre tract which has occurred since 1978 was
subject to the Subdivision Ordinance of the City. Since the
divisions of the land into lots has already taken place, the
options at this point are either to seek a waiver of the
regulations, or to go through the process of properly
subdividing the tract. To subdivide the property, a proper
preliminary plat would need to be prepared, and, if Crystal
Oak Ln. is to remain a private lane, Planning Commission
approval for an access easement and a private street would
need to be sought. Since the regulations require private
streets to meet the same design standards as public streets,
if the lane is to remain in its present condition, a waiver
of the requirements by the Board of Directors would need to
be approved. This would involve both survey and legal
expenses and time. The applicant has chosen to seek a
waiver from the regulations in order to be able to get
public water service as soon as possible.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of a deferral, in lieu of a
waiver, of the Subdivision Regulations, until such time that
any of the 10 acre tract is sold, or until any future
subdivisions of the land take place.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JANUARY 4, 1996)
The waiver was requested by the applicant on January 17, 1996,
and, since there is no notification requirement for waiver
requests, the item was added to the January 30, 1996 agenda. The
item was not, therefore, presented to the Subdivision Committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff recommended that imposition of the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance be deferred until parcels of the acreage are
sold to non -family members beyond the number of tracts subdivided
3
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1091
to date. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for
Approval, and a recommendation of approval of the deferral of the
requirement to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance was approved
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
4
MEMMMEMEMEMN
mummumunnown
MOMENEUDE
manumnnom
e���noo�oOo
sou�n0000eoe
evroeoo�evoo
o�.►.n��voo�
ei�i��voovvoo
o�w
�ov000vvv
��i��i�i000e�vav
o��oo�vvv�
d�■�o�ao�va
000000eoe�
o
iu
INNIMMEN
INNINININ
INNOMM.-Ellill
Ee
2
a
0
I
Z
W
Q
QI
w
Z
i
January 30, 1996
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
-7//4/9 6
ate
Chairman Secretary