pc_06 06 1996subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
DUNE 6, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the April 25, 1996 meeting were
approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ron Woods, Chairperson
Herb Hawn
Larry Lichty
Bill Putnam
Pam Adcock
Doyle Daniel
Mizan Rahman
Suzanne McCarthy
Sissi Brandon
Hugh Earnest
Ramsay Ball
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 6, 1996
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Capitol Lake Estates -- Preliminary Plat (5-1100)
B. Revocation of: Bunnell's -- Short -Form PCD (Z-4080-A)
C. Bethel Primitive Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6114)
D. Woodruff Neighborhood Plan
E. Amendment to Capitol View, Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan
F. Reclassification of property within Capitol View/Stifft
Station area from: R-4 to R-3, C-3 to C-1, C-3 to 0-1
G. Amendment to Master Street Plan - Redefining right-of-way
and paving standards for Markham Street from Pine Street to
Woodrow Street
H. Candlewood Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan (Z-548-I)
I. Woodland Heights Rezoning -- R-2 to 0-3 (Z-6106)
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Autumn Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-1096)
1A. Chenal Valley -- Preliminary Plat (5-867-BBB)
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
2. Tyrrell Leasing Co., Phase II -- Short -Form PCD (Z-5884-A)
3. Smith 3301 Zion St. -- Short -Form PRD (Z-6145)
4. The Parks Apts. -- Long -Form PD-R (Z-6157)
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
5. Southwestern Bell Services (NW corner of N. Pierce and 11W
Streets) -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-3327-A)
6. L.R. Wastewater Utility (13625 Saddle Hill Dr.) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4478-C)
Agenda, Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CONTINUED
7. Southwestern Bell Services (Southridge Drive site) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-4601-A)
8. Douglass -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5925-A)
9. Southwestern Bell Services (Gilliam Park Site) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-6133)
10. Southwestern Bell Services (Highland Ridge Site) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-6134)
11. Southwestern Bell Services (Keightly Drive Site) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-6135)
12. Greathouse -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6136)
13. Talley Accessory Dwelling -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6138)
14. Church of the Living God -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6146)
15. Sprint Spectrum -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6147)
16. Evergreen Professional Building -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6148)
17. Fellowship Bible Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6149)
18. L.R. Wastewater Utility (13300 Heinke Road) -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z-6150)
19. L.R. Wastewater Utility (2712 E. Capitol) -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z-6151)
20. L.R. Wastewater Utility (#2 Northwest Ct.) -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z-6152)
21. L.R. Wastewater Utility (18610 Denny Rd.) -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z-6153)
22. L.R. Wastewater Utility (2000 Reservoir Rd.) -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z-6154)
2-3. L.R. Wastewater Utility (919 Asbury Rd.) -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z-6155)
24. L.R. Wastewater Utility (7400 Doyle Springs Rd.) --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-6156)
Agenda, Page 3
V. SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
25. Riverdale Mini -Storage -- Revised Plan (S-1041-A)
26. Chenal Valley Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review
(S-867-AAA)
VI. _OTHER MATTER
27. Revocation of: Plunkett Commercial -- Short -Form PCD
(Z-5282)
28. Riverfront Drive (at Jessie Road) -- Right -of -Way
Abandonment (G-23-245-A)
29. Hwy. 10/Garrison -- Master Street Plan Amendment
30. Port South Plan Amendment
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO • S-1100
NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning
approximately 0.9 mile south of the Kanis Rd. intersection,
extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0.5 mile
to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and
extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
William L. Dean
CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC.
600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite 111 15104 Cantrell Rd.
Maumelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212
868-7717
AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 318 FT. NEW STREET: 20,640
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi -
Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: Ellis Mountain (18)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STAFF UPDATE:
A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to
staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee meeting, making
the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting,
was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time
period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time
frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.)
There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the
revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and
still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the
agendas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 4, 1996)
Mr. Bill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined
the nature of the project and presented an overview of the
proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the
"Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting
that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1100
staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the
discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to
meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
David Scherer, with the Public works staff, discussed the Public
works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he
would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet
the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean
responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the
revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance
that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations,
the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been
submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda
and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution
schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior
to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the
June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the
revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda
for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Staff addressed the continuing change of the plat which is being
driven by the applicant trying to satisfy abutting owners. This
has caused staff of Public works and Planning to defer commitment
on requirements that apply.
Mr. Hathaway offered his plat in the form that he hopes will
address the concerns of the "Oasis" Retreat Center. The Plan at
this time is to move the MF tract adjacent to the "Oasis", east
to the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and against the east
boundary of the plat. It appeared that Mr. Hathaway has taken
all necessary steps to deal with his neighbors but has not been
in a position to pursue rezoning, platting and the annexation at
the same time. Mr. Hathaway has pulled his rezoning from the
Board of Directors agenda and refiled the application to coincide
with the rehearing of the plat.
The Committee felt that, since the revised plat in the most
recent form has not been distributed for review and staff has not
completed comments, the plat should be held over until June 20th.
This will bring zoning and plat to the same agenda.
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1100
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
As agreed upon at the Subdivision Committee on May 16, the
applicant has placed his item on the next Planning Commission
meeting which is June 20, 1996 for consideration of the
preliminary plat and zoning item on the same occasion.
The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda
for deferral until June 20. The Consent Agenda was approved by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-4080-A
NAME: BUNNELL'S -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION)
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and North St.,
at 1517 Cantrell Rd.
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT:
FRANK WHITBECK
SIGNATURE LIFE INSURANCE CO. JOE BUNNELL & FRANK WHITBECK
P. O. Box 3437 Savers Federal & Loan Building
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.43 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD ORIGINAL ZONING: 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: Downtown (5)
CENSUS TRACT• 9
By letter dated October 4, 1983, Frank Whitbeck, owner of the
referenced property, asked for approval of a PCD. His letter
outlined the proposal: the eastern -most lot, Lot 5, with an
existing home on it, was proposed to be used as an antique shop,
but approval of other C-1 uses was also requested; and, the
western -most lot, Lot 6, which had an existing -off-premise-
outdoor advertising sign on it and a parking lot, was proposed to
retain the sign, plus have improvements made to the parking lot
to serve the business use on the adjoining lot. The applicant
proposed to provide the required turn -around for the existing
parking lot, and to border the paved area with railroad ties. He
indicated that the entire area would be landscaped. Subsequent-
ly, on December 6, 1983, the requested PCD was approved by the
Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,557. The existing 0-3
zoning was changed to PCD.
STAFF UPDATE•
The present condition of the site is: the residential structure
on Lot 5 is gone, all that remains being the concrete slab (there
is no "landscaping" anywhere on this lot); and, on Lot 6, the
paved parking lot remains (there is grass on the lot, plus some
red tip photianias under and in line with the sign) but the
proposed modifications to it have not been made (i.e., it is not
bordered with railroad ties and the turn -around was not
constructed). The concrete building which was located on Lot 6
at the time of the approval is gone. The outdoor advertising
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.:_Z-4080-A
sign, which was on the site when the PCD was approved, is still
there. No final plan was submitted and there have been no
"improvements" to the site (except for the razing the buildings).
There have been no building permits issued, and the proposed use
was, evidently, never put in place.
Ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take
effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan
by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of
Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years
from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the
final ... plan."
Section 36-458(a) states: "The Planning Commission may recommend
to the Board of Directors that any PUD... approval be revoked... if
no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the
recording date of the final plan...."
No "final plan" was approved, either by staff or by the Planning
Commission, and development of the PRD has never been undertaken.
The existing residential structure, which was to be used for an
antique shop is no longer on the site.
Since the -off-premise" outdoor advertising sign was in place
prior to the PCD zoning (it was a non -conforming use at that
time), it is unaffected by the revocation of the PCD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the 0-3
zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to
PCD, be reinstated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the property
owner, indicating that he had had an out-of-town trip scheduled
for several months, and that he asked that the revocation of his
PCD be deferred until the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. Staff
recommended the requested deferral be approved and the deferral
was included in the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0
abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Chairman asked that the Staff present this item for
consideration on the regular agenda. Staff determined that the
applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was not in attendance. The
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4080-A
Commission determined to place the item at the end of the agenda
and awaited Mr. Whitbeck's attendance. At a later point in the
agenda, the Chairman asked that this item be again placed on the
regular agenda for discussion. Again, staff noticed that there
was no one present representing the application.
A brief discussion between staff and the Commission determined
that this item be deferred again until the next regular scheduled
meeting, which is July 18, 1996 and that the applicant, Mr.
Whitbeck, be instructed to be in attendance or the Commission
would act upon the matter of revocation and forward the item to
the Board of Directors without further comment.
A motion was made to this effect. The motion was passed by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6114
NAME: Bethel Primitive Baptist Church
- Conditional use Permit
LOCATION: 10912 Chicot Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bethel Primitive Baptist Church
by Charles Holladay and
Connie Watson
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a new church
sanctuary and parking lot on
this existing 4 acre church
site, which is zoned R-2.
The applicant is requesting a
24-month deferral in the
paving requirements for the
driveway and parking lot. The
applicant is also requesting a
five (5) year deferral in the
completion of half principal
arterial street improvements
to Chicot Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The existing church site is located on the west side of
Chicot Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Mabelvale
Cut-off.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This property is located in an area primarily zoned R-2
and comprised mainly of single family residential uses.
The properties to the north and west of this site
contain single family residences with one commercial
building immediately north on Depriest Road. Chicot
Elementary School is located immediately south of this
site. There is some vacant land east of this site
(across Chicot Road), with single family residences
further east. The proposed expansion of the church
building should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkins:
The church is nonconforming in its relationship to
parking, given the fact that the church was built over
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6114
25 years ago and has no off-street paved parking
spaces. There is a small gravel parking lot on the
south side of the church building.
The proposed increase in the churches seating capacity
from 90 to 160 will require 18 new paved parking
spaces. There is ample space within the proposed new
parking area to satisfy this requirement. The
applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in paving
the parking lot and the driveway.
There is a single access point from Chicot Road.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers meet and exceed ordinance
requirements.
Curb and gutter or another approved border are required
to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic and
gravel.
Screening of this site from adjacent residential
properties to the north and west is required. This
screening may be in the form of a six foot high opaque
wood fence with its face directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings. Placement of the screening may
need adjustment in order to not obstruct the floodway.
This site must comply with minimum Landscape Ordinance
requirements.
5. City Engineer Comments:
Provide contour information. Provide base flood
information. Provide a sketch grading and drainage
plan. A development permit for special flood hazard
area is required prior to any construction. Contact
ADPC&E and the USACE-LRD prior to start of work. A
portion of this property lies in the regulatory
floodway. Hold application until information furnished
as requested. Stormwater Detention ordinance will
apply. Chicot Road is a Principal Arterial, dedicate
right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct
half of the 5 lane pavement with sidewalk including
relocation of City owned utilities.
Paved drives are required by ordinance.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Fire Department: Driveway must support weight of fire
apparatus. Proper fire hydrant spacing is required.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6114
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary
and parking lot on this existing 4 acre church site at
10912 Chicot Road, which is zoned R-2. The applicant
is also requesting a 24-month deferral in the paving
requirements for the driveway and parking lot.
The site currently contains a small church building
with a seating capacity of approximately ninety (90)
people. The church has existed on this site for over
twenty-five years. The church building sits
approximately 500 feet back from Chicot Road and has a
small gravel parking lot on its south side. There is
also a small out -building on the site which serves the
church as a kitchen and for social events. When
construction is complete, this out -building will be
torn down and removed.
The applicant proposes to construct a new 38 foot by 74
foot church sanctuary, with a seating capacity of one
hundred and sixty (160). The new sanctuary will be
built on the east side of, and attached to, the
existing building. The existing building will become
the kitchen and dining area for the new church
building.
The proposed increase in the churches seating capacity
(from 90 to 160) will require 18 new paved parking
spaces. The applicant is proposing a new parking lot
on the north side of the new sanctuary. The new
parking lot will accommodate approximately 32 vehicles.
The existing gravel parking lot on the south side of
the building will accommodate approximately 14
vehicles. The applicant is requesting a 24-month
deferral in paving the new parking lot and the driveway
from Chicot Road.
As noted in paragraph 5., at least a portion of this
property lies in the regulatory floodway. The
applicant must furnish information regarding the
location of the floodway on this property. This could
have a major effect on the design of this site plan.
This issue must be resolved prior to Planning
Commission approval.
The applicant is also requesting a five (5) year
deferral in completion of half principal arterial
street improvements to Chicot Road. Public Works Staff
has indicated that they can support this deferral
request. The applicant has also agreed to dedicate the
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6114
appropriate right-of-way (55 feet from centerline) for
Chicot Road.
Based on the zoning in this general area and the
surrounding uses, the proposed expansion of the
existing church facilities should not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comments
4. Staff recommends approval of the 24-month deferral
of paving requirements for the new parking lot and
driveway.
5. Staff recommends approval of the five (5) year
deferral for half street improvements to Chicot
Road.
UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996)
Connie Watson was present, representing the application. A
brief description of the proposal and the general location
was given to the Committee.
David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with
the Committee, primarily the fact that part of this property
lies in the regulatory floodway and information on this must
be obtained by the applicant before approval can be given.
He stated that the applicant needed to obtain a survey of
the property which shows the location of the floodway. He
also noted the requirement to dedicate right-of-way (55 feet
form centerline of Chicot Road) and to construct half street
improvements to Chicot Road.
Mrs. Watson stated that she would obtain a survey of the
property (showing the floodway) as soon as possible and
revise the site plan accordingly.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
4
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6114
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
requested deferral of this item to the June 6, 1996 Planning
Commission agenda. Staff recommended approval of the
deferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays, and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred
until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The
applicant is working toward resolving the floodway issues
associated with this property.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and
1 absent.
9
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: D
NAME: woodruff Neighborhood Plan
LOCATION: North of I-630 to Markham,
east of Elm to State Capitol
and east of Deaf/Blind School
REQUEST: Resolution of support for
Policy Plan
SOURCE: Woodruff CDC & Neighborhood
Planning Committee
STAFF REPORT:
In the late spring of 1994, the Woodruff Community Development
Corporation (CDC) requested that the City assist with efforts to
prepare a comprehensive neighborhood plan to guide efforts in the
neighborhood. The Neighborhoods and Planning Department agreed
to make use of some Community Development Block Grant monies and
staff resources to assist with the requested planning effort.
The CDC formed a Planning Committee to work with City Staff and
the work begun in the fall of 1994.
A three part process was agreed to - background information;
survey of needs and plan development. The first part of the
process occurred during the fall of 1994. "Experts" on various
topics were brought to the committee to discuss transportation,
land use, zoning, housing, and other issues. The second part
began in the fall of 1994 with the development of a survey and
continued into the winter of 1995 when the survey results were
presented to the committee. At the same time, a market analysis
of the neighborhood was completed (attached for commission
review). In the spring of 1995, the committee took this
information and began the third part, plan development.
A copy of the committee's report is attached for review by the
Commission. This document has already been presented to the
neighborhood at meetings in January and February of this year
(Note: Sections of the report were given to the neighborhood
during 1995). Section I of the report is the existing conditions
portion and provides some background information.
Section II of the report provides information from the
neighborhood survey conducted in October and November of 1994.
The survey forms used by the City of Little Rock in the Hillcrest
and John Barrow neighborhoods were distributed to the Steering
Committee for comment. Based on those comments and review of two
surveys by the Capitol View Association, a revised survey form
was developed. Addresses for all residential units were obtained
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.
from the City Geographic Information System. For each address a
survey was mailed along with a postage -paid return envelop.
Of the 1473 surveys mailed, 19.7% were returned to the City by
November 1. City staff coded the forms and entered the answers
into a computer database. The coding sheets were spot checked
against randomly selected survey forms. Any errors were
corrected and two additional surveys were pulled to check.
The 19.7 percent return rate provides a good response for a mail
survey and should provide a good representation of the study
area. The survey was conducted to identify concerns and problems
so that they could be addressed with suggested remedies and/or
steps to lessen the negative impacts. Overall statistics for the
Capitol View/Stifft Station area will be presented first,
followed with highlights for each subarea - neighborhood.
In the accompanying report Section 2 provides overall statistics
for the neighborhood and highlights from the responses for
subareas within the Study Area. With the survey, neighbors were
asked if they wished to participate with the Plan Development.
From this list the Committee added members to increase geographic
representation on the Committee. (The remaining individuals were
asked to comment on the Goals and Objectives, before they were
presented to the entire neighborhood.) The Planning Committee
took the survey data, their knowledge and information provided by
the "experts" to develop a plan to achieve the neighborhood
aspirations.
The Committee is bringing four items to the Commission which they
request be approved and sent to the Board of Directors. Each
item is addressed with a separate item on today's agenda. The
Plan will be reviewed as this item. The following items will
address Land Use Plan, Zoning and Master Street Plan issues.
The Plan is a Policy or Action Plan which the Committee
developed. It is based on the survey results, as well as
information provided by "experts" and the committee's personal
knowledge. The goals were designed to address needs identified
in the earlier activities. The committee agreed on 10 general
goals related to nine topics.
Each goal topic was given to a committee person to develop
(write) a "statement." The committee reviewed the goals and
agreed to each statement. The goal was given to a member for
development of objectives which would accomplish each goal.
Again the objectives were presented to the committee and final
wording agreed on.
In late February, 1995, the committee presented the Goals and
Objectives to a group of neighbors. These were people who asked
to be involved in the Plan Development by returning a request
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.)
card in the survey. Based on comments received, the committee
refined the Goals and Objective statements. The modified Goals
and Objectives were then presented to the neighborhood at a
neighborhood organization meeting. Again, comments were taken;
however, only minor changes were proposed. The neighborhood
thanked the committee for their effort, congratulating them on a
job well done.
The Goals and Objectives were finalized by the committee and
three subcommittees or teams were formed to independently develop
a "Plan" for the area based on only three of the goals. The
subcommittee developed action statements to accomplish their
Goals and Objectives. In September 1995, the committee came back
together to agree on the action statements. From this body of
work, the following must be accomplished to meet the needs and
desires of the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood.
• Preserve rich cultural diversity and historical significance
by clearly identifying the image we want to portray.
• Involve all segments of the neighborhood to identify key
structures and places, protect them, and enhance them.
• To develop and promote public investment in the CVSS area
while retaining the distinctive character of the neighborhood.
• Improve the traffic flow and parking situation in the Capitol
View/Stifft Station neighborhood.
• Insist that city leaders vigorously address the crime and
safety issues of our area.
• Plan and implement community development projects that will
improve the neighborhood such as rehabilitating older homes,
building new infill homes, revitalizing commercial areas, or
providing needed community facilities.
• Promote private investment in the neighborhood.
• Develop a community center to serve as a hub for neighborhood
activity and interaction, established and maintained by the
neighborhood for the use of local residents and organizations.
• Provide alternatives to gang and other criminal activity in
the neighborhood.
• To enhance safety, linkage, recreation and natural habitat in
area through the development of open spaces and vacant lots as
parks.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.)
These overall neighborhood goals are the basis on which all
decisions affecting the neighborhood should be based. The
Committee felt there were seven key issues which would make or
break the overall plan. Therefore, the committee recommends the
implementation of several major new initiatives necessary to
protect and nurture the vitality of the neighborhood.
• Renovation and restoration of the Stifft Station Commercial
area.
• Redevelopment of the 7th Street Corridor (Woodrow east).
• Development of a multiuse trail through the neighborhood
connecting the River, Downtown and Medical Complex.
• Redevelopment of Capitol Avenue streetscape using historic
elements.
• Development, adoption and implementation of historic
architectural standards for the neighborhood.
• Redesign of traffic flow in the Med Center and Stifft Station
areas to minimize impacts of through traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be
deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the
last month which could affect one or more of these items. The
Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood
approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some
of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together.
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals
by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go
back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While
the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the
Committee wishes to keep all four together.
By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to
May 23, 1996.
4
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE: (MAY 14, 1996)
A reorganization and a few wording changes were made by the
Committee. No substance was changed or affected, in the opinion
of Staff. The neighborhood voted to approve the plan on May 13
after discussions at several meetings. In addition copies were
distributed at neighborhood meetings each of the last several
months and were available at the Alert Center.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve a resolution of
support for the process and direction that the Plan recommends.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
provided background on the funding for the Plan. Mr. Polk
reviewed the process used - speakers to committee, survey, and
market analysis. He then invited Joe Meehan, President of
Woodruff CDC, to the microphone. Mr. Meehan thanked staff for
their assistance. The report format was reviewed. Mr. Meehan
indicated that Mr. Bob Hamilton, chair of the committee, was also
here to answer questions. Each goal was read with a short
discussion on each.
In response to a question from Commissioner Brandon, there was
discussion about the Boy's Club, Woodruff School and recreation
opportunities. Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering Manager,
stated that the Public works Department wishes to put the
following comments into the record:
All traffic flow issues should be coordinated
with Public Works, there is no budget for
additional street lights; improvements to
sidewalks curb and gutter, public areas are to
be done by private property owners - City has
not responsibility; Traffic Control work must
be coordinated with Public Works; Master Street
Plan amendment on Markham is a problem; and
residential parking permits are not legal by
state statute.
After a short discussion Commissioner Adcock made a motion to
approve the resolution of support. By unanimous 10 for, 0
against vote the resolution was approved.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 110
AN RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE
CAPITOL VIEW/STIFFT'S STATION (WOODRUFF)
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood formed a Planning Committee to
work with Staff towards the development of a Neighborhood
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, all the homes in the area were included in a
survey of needs and desires and the Planning Committee went
to the neighborhood throughout the process to both keep them
informed and get their comments; and,
WHEREAS, after a year and a half a work by neighborhood
volunteers a set of goals and objectives was developed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Committee has demonstrated support
of the Plan by existing neighborhood based groups; and,
WHEREAS, this Policy Plan (Goals, Objectives and Action
Statements) provides a way for both neighborhood based groups
and others working in and around the neighborhood to advance
the desires and meet the needs of the residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does support the
intent and aims expressed in and by Capitol View/Stifft's
Station (Woodruff) Neighborhood Plan.
ADOPTED:
nmmucm.
June 6, 1996
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: E
NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment -
I-630 and Heights/Hillcrest
Districts
LOCATION: Capitol View/Stifft Station
Neighborhood
REQUEST: Change various areas from
Single Family, Low Density
Multifamily, Multifamily,
Suburban Office and Industrial
to Single Family, Low Density
Multifamily Mixed Use, Mixed
Office Warehouse, Office and
Commercial
SOURCE: Neighborhood Planning
Committee
STAFF REPORT:
The neighborhood planning committee as part of their plan effort
reviewed the Land Use Plan for their area of Little Rock.
Basically the Committee felt that the Plan as adopted in 1980 was
still appropriate. However, a few changes were believed to be
necessary. First along the western edge of the neighborhood, the
Medical Center has acquired an addition city block since 1980.
The Plan had indicated Suburban Office for this block, but the
use will be as part of the Medical Center. In order to help stop
the Medical Center's drive into the neighborhood the plan should
allow for more nonresidential. The hope is that a Mixed Use
Classification from Plateau to Capitol will increase property
values by allowing nonresidential use. These nonresidential
uses, however, must be carefully designed so as to protect the
remaining homes and not cause further intrusions of
nonresidential uses.
The existing Commercial between Plateau and Markham would be
recognized by the Plan. No nonresidential use should be allowed
at the Pine/Cedar interchange. The desire is not to encourage
highway related commercial uses. Low Density Multifamily is
proposed to keep the residential nature and allow some
densification. However, the desire is to keep as much single
family character as possible; therefore, the Low Density
Multifamily between 6th and I-630 east of Pine is changed to
Single Family. Currently, the area is Single Family and there is
no desire to change the area.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.)
The second area of changes is the 7th Street Corridor, east of
Woodrow. As recommended by the Market Analysis, Mixed Office
Warehouse is proposed for the area east of Woodrow and south of
7th Street. The Plan currently shows Multifamily and the
existing use is primarily Single Family. In recent months
several houses have been demolished in this area. Along the
north side of 7th Street, the area proposed for Low Density
Multifamily is changed to Office. This 7th Street Corridor is of
concern to the neighborhood. They do not wish to get a "West
Little Rock" type of development. The desire is that new
buildings be in keeping with the design of the period 1920s and
30s. Storefronts etc. are preferred. The remaining Low Density
Multifamily along 6th Street should be changed to Single Family.
This area is having street work completed now and the Woodruff
Community Development Corporation is working on several homes in
the area. The existing use is Single Family along 6th Street and
to the north.
The third area of plan changes is along Markham and east of the
Deaf and Blind Schools. The low area at the east end of 3rd
Street is proposed as part of an overall Park Plan the
neighborhood wishes to develop. This park site would be
connected by linear park land and bicycle paths to the War
Memorial Center and Rebsamen Park. The Low Density Multifamily
north of Markham and east of Park should be Single Family. Due
to the change in topography, the area has little to no
relationship to the Multifamily to the south. Rather, it is part
of the Single Family to the north. The final change is along
Gill north of Markham. The area is zoned Industrial and proposed
for Low Density Multifamily. There are existing industrial uses;
however, access is poor and the best access is through a single
family area. Lower intensity of use is desirable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be
deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the
last month which could affect one or more of these items. The
Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood
approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some
of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together.
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals
by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go
back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While
0a
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.)
the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the
Committee wishes to keep all four together.
By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to
May 23, 1996.
TAFF UPDATE: (MAY 14, 1996)
As a result of the announcement that the Ned Center is going to
cross Cedar, the Neighborhood Committee further reviewed that
area. The Committee really does not support this expansion and
loss of housing stock. The Committee believes that higher
property values will slow or stop the Ned Center. To this end,
they wish to encourage "higher" uses - Office and Quiet
Commercial. However, the Committee does not wish to encourage
the conversion of single family to nonresidential in the area.
After much debate there was general agreement on a plan
alternative. Due to the high impact on the owners and residents
along Pine and Cedar, a meeting to discuss the alternative was
scheduled. Letters were sent to all property owners. The
Committee Chair attempted to limit discussion to the land use
plan not whether the Ned Center would move everyone out.
Based on the comments received at the meeting; the expectation
that the Ned Center will and has moved east of Cedar; and the
concerns of the remaining neighborhood, the Committee proposes
the following:
1. For that area along Cedar targeted by the Ned Center
Neighborhood Commercial, and
2. For the remaining area south of Plateau and west of the
alley between Oak and Pine - Mixed Use.
The Committee wishes that any nonresidential development be
completed in such a way as to be compatible with the surrounding
single family. No use should be allowed which would be designed
to pull vehicles off the interstate and into the area.
Staff wishes to support the neighborhood's efforts in the
corridor but cannot support the proposed strip of Neighborhood
Commercial. While the City understands the reason for the
request, this set a dangerous precedent for other areas (such as
Fair Park and 28th Streets). Staff will support Mixed Use for
the entire around. Staff supports all the other proposed changes
to the Land Use Plan except for the area east of Gill Street.
This area is zoned I-3 Heavy Industrial and the property owner
asked not to have their ownership rezoned. Showing low density
multifamily, while the use may in fact be desirable and better
for the neighborhood, is not appropriate due to the existing
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.)
zoning and use. Staff agrees with the Committees intent to get a
better land use neighbor. To this end, Staff would recommend
Mixed Office Warehouse for the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
After "Item D" before Item E was call Mr. Roger Mears was invited
to speak to the Commission related to a rezoning previously
approved by the Commission. There was discussion about the area
between Markham and Cantrell along Gill as well as the use issue
and procedure. Walter Malone, Planner II, presented the agenda
item - land use plan changes in the Capitol View (Woodruff) area.
As part of the planning effort a group of plan amendments has
been developed. Staff agrees with all, except two. Mr. Malone
proceed to review each change. There are two areas of staff
concern, one along Cedar -Neighborhood Commercial, Staff would
like to see the area Mixed Use. This is do in part to how the
use pattern might be transferred to other parts of the City. The
second area is the Low Density Multifamily use east of Gill.
Since most of the area is zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial this
change is not appropriate. Staff recommends Mixed Office
Warehouse. Mr. Malone invited the neighborhood representatives
to discuss these two areas.
Bob Hamilton, Vice President Neighborhood Associates and Chair
Joint Planning Committee, indicated due to loss of housing stock
in other areas, residential use was desired in the Gill Location.
The Cedar Street proposal was an attempt to help owners regain
value lost due to Med Center Actions. Mr. Joe Meehan added that
the Gill Street area was also a safety issue in part due to
narrow streets in the area. Commissioner Brandon asked for an
apology for remarks made about the Med Center. Mr. Meehan
explained that the proposal was to draw a line but not to fight
with the Med Center. The neighborhood believes this is the best
way to transition from the Med Center to single family homes.
Commissioner Hawn joined the discussion about the Med Centers
impacts. The Chair reminded the Commission the issue was
Neighborhood Commercial or Mixed Use not the Med Center.
Mr. Mears returned to address the Commission about his zoning
case east of Gill. The Low Density Multifamily proposal is not
good but the Mixed Office Warehouse would be OK. There was
additional discussion about the rezoning and agreement that the
Commission did not wish to change its recommendation.
Commissioner Adcock made a motion to approve land use the plan
amendment as proposed but changing the Low Density Multifamily
east of Gill to Mixed Office Warehouse. By a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent, the item was approved as amended.
IN
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: F
OWNER: Various
APPLICANT: City of Little Rock
LOCATION: Along 7th Oak to Thayer along Capitol and
Valmar to Woodrow, Park at 4th, Lloyd
east of Park
REOUEST: R-4 Duplex to R-3 Single Family
I-2 Industrial to R-3 Single Family
R-5 Urban Residential to R-3
Single Family
C-3 General Commercial to C-1
Neighborhood Commercial
C-3 General Commercial to 0-1 Quiet
PURPOSE: To reclassify properties to more closely
zone as is currently used.
EXISTING USE: Various
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the neighborhood planning effort in the Woodruff Area,
the Planning Committee identified areas they felt were
inappropriately zoned. Staff reviewed the areas identified,
checking the zoning, land use and adopted Plan. If both the use
and the Plan were less intensive uses than the current zone,
Staff proceeded. For those not meeting this requirement, the
parcel was removed from the list of rezoning candidates.
The remaining parcels were taken to the County Assessor's Office
to determine that owner. Letters were drafted and mailed to each
owner in September of 1995. Each owner was told the existing
zone and new zone to which the City wished to change their
property. If they had questions or did not wish to have their
property reclassified, they were asked to contact the
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff. Any asking to not be rezoned
were removed from the list - no reason was necessary.
A final listing and map were provided to the Planning Committee
in December 1995 and to the Neighborhood in January and February
1996. The property owners were sent a second letter on February
2, 1996 telling them the City would proceed to rezone their
property on February 27 unless they contacted Staff.
This is the same procedure used in Hillcrest, Central High,
Stephens and the Governor's Mansion area. Staff, therefore,
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
believes that there is agreement to reclassify the following
properties as described.
FROM R-4 Duplex to R-3 Single Family:
3719 W. Markham - Pt. Lots 24 and 25 Block 1
Plateau Addition
604,608,610,612,620,624 S. Oak - Lots 9-15 Block 3
Heisman's Addition
3719 W. 6th, 605,607,609,619,621,623,622,620,618,
614,606,602 S. Oak - Lots 1-4, 6-12, 15-16 Block 4
Heisman's Addition
701 Oak, 700,702,710 Maple - Lots 1, 14-16 Block 5
Heisman's
700,704 S. Oak - Lots 15-16 Block 6 Heisman's
710,714,720,722,723 Valentine, 701,705,711,715,723
S. Maple - Lots 3-7, 9-12 Block 1 Central Heights
726 Valentine, 727 Maple - Lots 1, 12 Block 2
Central Heights
3415 W. Capitol, 500 S. Martin - Lots West 1/3
Lots 1-3, 4 and 5 Block 2 C. O. Kimball's and
Bodeman's
3301,3303,3315,3319 W. 7th, 3322,3320,3308,3300
Lamar - Lots 1-3,5, 7-10,12 Block 5 C. 0.
Kimball's and Bodeman's
3401,3405,3411,3417,3419,3423 W. 7th, 3406,3410,
3418,3412,3420 Lamar - Lots 1-12 Block 6 C. O.
Kimball's and Bodeman's
700,708,712,722 Valmar - Lots 1-6 Block 7 C. O.
Kimball's and Bodeman's
730 S. Valmar - Lots 1 and 2 Block 8 C. O.
Kimball's and Bodeman's
3401,3405,3409,3417,3415,3425 Lamar - Lots 1 and
2, 11 and 12 Block 9 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's
714 Johnson, 3100 Block 7th, 3120,3124 Lamar -
Lots North 37.5 feet Lots 12-14, South 11 feet
Lots 1-3, 7-9 Block 1 Plunkett's
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
3200 Block, 3219 W. 7th, 3216,3220,3212,3210,3200
Lamar - Lots 1-4, 812 Block 2 Plunkett's
3416, 3418 Capitol - Lots 5 and 6 Block 6 Beach's
310 Rosetta - Lot 3 Block 5 C. S. Stifft's
301 Booker - Lot 7 Block 1 Hick's of Boone
423, 421 Johnson - Lots 7-8 Block 4 Hick's of Boone
3000, 3004 Capitol - Lots 11 and 12 Block 3 Boone
FROM I-2 Industrial to R-3 Single Familv:
2822 W. 7th - Lot 7 Block 5 Ferndale Addition
FROM C-3 General Commercial to 0-1 Quiet Office:
2105 Lloyd - Lot 15 Block 8 Bodeman's Addition
2723 W. 7th - Lots 5 and 6 Block 11 Ferndale Addition
FROM C-3 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial:
2716, 2720, 2722, 2700 Block W. 7th - Lots 7-12 Block 6
Ferndale
2701,2709 W. 7th - Lots 1-3 Block 11 Ferndale
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be
deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the
last month which could affect one or more of these items. The
Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood
approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some
of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together.
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals
by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go
back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While
the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the
Committee wishes to keep all four together.
By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to
May 23, 1996.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE•
(MAY 14, 1996)
Staff recommends approval after the following parcels are
removed.
Property Address
Lot 15
Block
6
Heisman's
704
S. Oak
Lot 1
Block
5
Heisman's
701
S. Oak
Lot 5
Block
4
Heisman's
617
S. Maple
Lot 9
Block
4
Heisman's
622
S. Maple
Lot 16
Block
4
Heisman's
602
S. Oak*
Lot 15
Block
5
Heisman's
702
Maple*
Lot 7
Block
1
Heisman's
301
Booker
Lot 4
Block
1
Central Heights
714
Valentine*
Lot 2 North 21 feet
Lot
Block
7
C.O. Kimball's
700
Valmar
2
and Bodeman's
Lot 4
Block
2
C.O. Kimball's
S. Martin*
and Bodeman's
East 1/2 Lots 8 and
9
Block
5
C.O. Kimball's
3320
Lamar*
and Bodeman's
West 1/3 Lots 1-3
Block
6
C.O. Kimball's
3411
W. 7th Street
and Bodeman's
Middle 1/3 Lots 10-12
Block
6
C.O. Kimball's
3419
W. 7th Street
and Bodeman's
West 45 feet of East
90
Block
9
C.O. Kimball's
3405
Lamar*
feet Lots 1 and 2
and Bodeman's
West 43 feet of East
99
Block
9
C.O. Kimball's
3417
Lamar*
2/3 feet Lots 11 and
12
and Bodeman's
West 50 1/3 feet Lots
11
Block
9
C.O. Kimball's
3425
Lamar*
and 12
and Bodeman's
North 37 1/2 of Lots
12-
Block
1
Plunketts
714 Johnson*
14, S11 feet of Lots
1-3
Lots 7 and 8
Block
4
Hick's of Boone
421 & 423 Johnson
Lot 7
Block
6
Ferndale
2722
W. 7th
Lot 8
Block
6
Ferndale
2720
W. 7th
Lots 1-3
Block
11
Ferndale
2701
& 2709 W. 7ti
Lot 7
Block
5
Ferndale
2822
W. 7th
Some of these owners
have
asked not
to be rezoned. The
others
the City has been unable
to contact.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the rezoning request. As in
other areas as part of the neighborhood review, zoning was
reviewed against the existing land use. Any owner not wishing to
have their property reclassified was removed. The areas to be
4
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
rezoned R-3 residential use shown in orange. For the area shown
in red, along 7th, the change would be from C-3 to
C-1. The final change is on Lloyd Court. A single "C-3" zoned
lot is shown for 0-1. After discussion with the owner, the "O-1"
classification will allow the owner to do what he wants while
protecting the surrounding properties.
A motion was made approve the rezoning request, by a vote of
9 for, 0 against and 2 absent.
5
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: G
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment -
Markham -Cedar to Woodrow
LOCATION: Markham -Cedar to Woodrow
REQUEST: Reduce the right-of-way and paving
standards
SOUR: Neighborhood Planning Committee
TAFF REPORT:
As part of the work completed by the Neighborhood Planning
Committee concerns about requirements to widen Markham Street
were raised. Along Markham from Cedar to Woodrow there is little
to no room between existing structures and the road. Since the
goals of the neighborhood are to protect and preserve the
character of the area, there was a consensus that requirements
for Markham Street should not require additional encroachment
into the neighborhood. For example, the Stifft Station area does
not and cannot meet the standards without removal of structures.
In order to protect the nature and character of the neighborhood
no actional right-of-way or widening of the street should be
required or encouraged.
The Markham Street right-of-way and paving width already has been
reduced to 70 feet right-of-way (from 90 feet) and four lanes
from five lanes. Staff has two major concerns about further
reductions. First, the paving width - with traffic volumes in
excess of 15,000 vehicles per day twelve foot lanes are a
desirable safety consideration. Second, with volumes this high
adequate sidewalks are desirable and because of ADA may be
mandatory. The 70 foot right-of-way is necessary in order to
meet ADA requirements and still have a utility easement for power
lines.
Staff will agree that without significant redevelopment (which is
not proposed), chances of public funds being designated to widen
Markham is unlikely. However because ADA is a federal requirement
sidewalk and utility reconstruction may have to occur at public
cost. Reduction in requirements may be in conflict with federal
mandates, therefore it is advisable not to further lessen the
standards.
June 6, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be
deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the
last month which could affect one or more of these items. The
Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood
approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some
of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together.
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals
by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go
back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. while
the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the
Committee wishes to keep all four together.
By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to
May 23, 1996.
STAFF UPDATE:
(MAY 14, 1996)
As mentioned in the Staff write-up, there are ADA issues and
Staff cannot support a reduction in right-of-way. The City must
keep its ability to meet federal requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the area of the Master Street
Plan amendment - Markham from Cedar to Woodrow. Markham is a
Minor Arterial with a reduced right-of-way of 70 foot and a
four -lane section. The request is to change the requirements to
"what you see is what you get." Mr. Malone stated while staff
agreed it was unlikely the road width would be expanded, the City
wanted to keep the option open. As to the right-of-way, the City
believes in order to keep the ability to meet ADA requirements
the right-of-way most be kept at 70 feet.
There was discussion about the need for adequate sidewalks.
Joe Meehan, Chair of Woodruff CDC, asked about a compromise - no
widening of Markham and right-of-way increase where necessary to
address sidewalk issues. A motion was made by Commissioner Hawn
P"
June 6, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: G_ (Con
to amend the Master Street Plan to keep the existing paving width
and that additional right-of-way be only for sidewalk
requirements (seconded Commissioner Putnam). The vote was 9 for,
0 against, 1 abstention and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO • S-548-I
NAME: CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension,
approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd.
and the Kroger Center.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Joe White
MCCASLIN DEVELOPMENT WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5950 Berkshire Ln. 401 S. Victory St.
Suite 800 LB 37 Little Rock, AR 72201
Dallas, TX 75225 374-1666
(214) 696-8422
AREA: 39.32 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 3,500
ZONI R-2 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: River Mountain (1)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include
construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three-
story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family
building is to contain approximately 10,000 square feet per
floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an
additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to
be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000
square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives
totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site
from its "dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a
total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future
public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the
north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west
boundary of the site. No variances are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan
is requested.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded.
The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the
"dead-end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope
is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a
rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along
which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40
feet of rise.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a
pending applicant to be heard on May 9, 1996, for the
rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract
to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the
site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise,
all surrounding properties are zoned R-2
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan,
with the location, width, intersections, curve radii,
and grades conforming to City ordinances.
The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width,
minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet
in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be
27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the
plans along these drives.
Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any
land alteration.
The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies.
Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement
will be required around the full perimeter of the site.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension
from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be
required to obtain water service to this project. On -Site
fire protection will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity
contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison
Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I
The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that
adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to
the fire hydrants.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31.13 requires -large-scale developments involving the
construction of two (2) or more buildings (on a
site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section"
Because of the multiple buildings being constructed, the
Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review
and approval of the proposed site plan.
Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site plan review submittal
indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property,
indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family
development and land use buffers are required. The
topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this,
but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with
by the applicant and the Commission.
Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of
all existing and proposed utility and street easements and
all existing public improvements within the site be shown.
The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not
assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street
(shown as a "Future Public Street") extends westward across
the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made,
and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the
lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the
street.
Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of
the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is
mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in
some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and
parking areas is critical.
Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the
site, showing the exact property lines, and including a
statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not
been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not
meet the requirements as such.
The availability of public utilities has not been addressed.
On -site fire hydrants have not been located and provided
for.
The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not
been identified.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I
E.
Sec. 36-502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes,
that 1% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit.
The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit.
The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a
collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd.
The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to
provide for this extension, nor to build the street to
collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan
is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the
Planning and Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given
by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a change
should be made. Otherwise, conformance with the Master
Street Plan is mandated.
The Plans Review Specialist comments:
The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow
for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient
area for landscaping. The development will be required
to comply with both the Land Use Buffer and Landscaping
ordinances.
ANALYSIS•
The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation" of the
roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the
roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super -
elevation" means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the
curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a
flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance
with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by
Public Works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public
Works standards.
Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master
Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be
initiated by the applicant.
The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of
the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs
to be addressed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of
applicant complying with the
street and drive standards.
the site plan, subject to the
Public Works requirements for
4
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-I
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the
project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present.
Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the
Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the
proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff,
reported on the Public Works comments, and discussed in detail
the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be
built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west,
as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the
internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the
issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed
the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information,
indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic
information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May
9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on
the property which will be heard on that date. 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, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
This item was not discussed in as much as there are continuing
discussions between the developer and staff on street issues.
The item requires deferral to the July 18, 1996 Subdivision
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Commission as
suggested by the Subdivision Committee in order to permit
additional time for the developer and staff to complete
discussion of the street issues and the developer to determine
acquisition of the property.
The Consent Agenda for deferral until July 18, 1996 was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
61
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
David Henry
Patrick McGetrick
West side of woodland Heights
Road approximately 220 feet
south of Summit Road
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Future office development
8.05± acres
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family homes; zoned R-2
South - Christ the King Church and School; zoned R-2 and
Easter Seal Offices; zoned 0-3
East - New St. Vincent Hospital project under
construction; zoned 0-3
West - Church and single family homes; zoned R-2 and
new multibuilding office development; zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Woodland, Fairview and Summit require dedications of right-
of-way to 30 feet from centerline for this commercial re-
zoning according to City Ordinance. The corner of Woodland
Heights Road needs a radius of 450 feet per the Master
Street Plan unless a controlled intersection can be
constructed. This street should be improved in concert with
the Saint Vincent Site to provide for commercial access to
Highway 10. The existing street is a substandard 18 foot
chipseal road with poor sight distance. The streets are
required to be 36 foot commercial streets with sidewalks on
both frontages. The site will require a grading permit
prior to clearing. Stormwater detention analysis will be
required at time of construction. Location of drives will
need review.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the River Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family use. The
request is in conflict with the Plan. The last Plan
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
amendments in this area were controversial and staff
believes any further amendment must be carefully reviewed.
Therefore, Staff recommends a deferral so that the plan can
be reviewed and discussed with the surrounding neighborhood
groups and large property owners.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this property
comprised of three tracts totaling 8.05± acres from "R-2"
Single Family to "0-3" General Office. One single family
home is located on each of the three tracts. Most of the
property is undeveloped with the exception of the area
directly adjacent to each of the homes. No specific
development has been proposed for the property once it is
zoned 0-3.
The property is part of a small single family residential
pocket sandwiched between the Office and Institutional
development along Woodland Heights and Rodney Parham Roads
and the pending commercial development along Cantrell Road.
The Easter Seals Complex and Christ the King Church and
campus are located to the south. A new facility for St.
Vincent's Medical Center is being constructed to the east.
A proposed commercial shopping center has been approved for
the property north of the site. A multibuilding office
complex and a church are located adjacent to the west.
Staff recognizes that, long-term, the residential properties
in this pocket will in all likelihood convert to non-
residential. However, there are still some 15-16 single
family residences along Woodland Heights and Summit Roads.
The River Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends Single
Family use for these properties.
Rezoning this 8.05± acres to 0-3 would at this time be in
conflict with the Plan and would dramatically affect the
remaining residential properties.
Staff believes it is appropriate to defer this request so
that the area zoning and land use plan can be further
reviewed and discussed with the surrounding neighborhood
groups and property owners.
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this item be deferred to allow for
further review of the area zoning and land use plan and
discussion with the surrounding neighborhood groups and
property owners.
E
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996)
Tom Cole and Patrick McGetrick were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented the item and informed the Commission that the
applicant had agreed to staff's recommendation to defer the
item. The agreement was not reached until March 26, 1996;
two days prior to the public hearing.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws since the deferral
request was not received at least 5 days prior to the public
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. The item was placed
on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 9, 1996
commission meeting. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent
and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE•
On April 11, 1996, the Planning Commission voted to amend
the River Mountain District Land Use Plan to show Suburban
Office for this 8.05± acres as well as the remaining
residential properties north of Woodland Heights Road and
along Summit Road. The Plan Amendment was forwarded to the
Board of Directors and placed on their May 7, 1996 agenda.
An update on the Board's action will be provided by staff.
Staff supported the Plan Amendment and, based on the
amendment, recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 1996)
Tom Cole and David Jones were present representing the
application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff
presented the item and informed the Commission that the
Board of Directors had approved the Land Use Plan Amendment
on May 7, 1996 which changed this area to Suburban Office.
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, addressed the Commission. He informed the
Commission that staff was not recommending approval of 0-3,
as requested. He discussed the recent rezoning of property
at Fairview and Woodland Heights Road to 0-3 which included
conditions on building height and area coverage limits. Mr.
Lawson stated that it was reasonable for this applicant to
place similar restrictions on this 0-3 request. He stated
that staff did not have in mind specific restrictions. Mr.
Lawson stated that such considerations were consistent with
the Suburban Office Land Use Plan designation.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Con
Commissioner Daniel spoke against the 0-3 zoning request.
He stated that he would prefer to see either an 0-1 or
P.O.D. request.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission
that the applicant was requesting that the item be deferred.
David Jones reminded the Commission that the original
deferral was requested by the Planning Staff and agreed to
by the applicant to allow the Land Use Plan issue to be
resolved. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant had worked
with persons at Christ the King Catholic Church and had
asked the Church to prepare a list of restrictions to be
considered for attachment to the zoning application. He
stated that the proposed list was faxed to the applicant at
3:28 p.m. on May 8, 1996 and that the applicant had not had
time to respond.
Commissioner Lichty asked how the proposed restrictions
could affect the 0-3 zoning request. Mr. Jones responded
that the list included such provisions as bulk and area as
well as use limitations. He then discussed the nuances of
0-2 vs. 0-3 zoning. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant was
willing to discuss the issues with the Church.
Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Jones if he would provide a
copy of the restrictions to the Commission, if the requested
deferral was granted. Mr. Jones responded that he would.
Commissioner Putnam asked if the Commission could defer the
item in light of the number of objectors present. Deputy
City Attorney Steve Giles stated that it was his opinion
that the applicant had presented proper justification to
support a deferral.
A motion was made to defer the item.
Mr. Lawson stated that the Commission should let those
persons present address the issue of the deferral.
Commissioner Hawn stated that he had received 500
communications in opposition to the rezoning and he was
disappointed that the Commission did not receive a copy of
the list of restrictions proposed by the church.
Richard Stephens addressed the Commission as a
representative of Christ the King Church. He stated that he
did not provide a copy of the list to the Commissioners
because he did not know if it was appropriate. He asked the
Commission to act on the 0-3 rezoning request and not to
grant the deferral.
Commissioner Putnam voiced his support for the deferral
request.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
Chairman Woods stated that he would like to see the
applicant and the community work out their differences.
Mr. Stephens reiterated his opposition to the deferral.
A vote was taken on the motion to defer. The vote was
9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. The item was deferred to the
June 6, 1996 Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
Tom Cole, David Henry and David Jones were present
representing the application. There were several objectors
present. Staff presented the item.
David Jones addressed the Commission in support of the
application. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant felt that
opposition to the proposed rezoning was primarily from
Christ the King Catholic Church. He stated that it appeared
to be a conflict of interest to have any member of the
church who sits on the Planning Commission or Board of
Directors vote on the matter. Mr. Jones stated that the
church's opposition to the rezoning was based on a
disagreement between the church and the applicant on the
purchase price of the property. He stated that the church
had offered $1,200,000 for the property and the applicant
was asking $1,650,000.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles informed the Commission
that he had met with Commissioner Suzanne McCarthy, who is a
member of Christ the King Catholic Church. He stated that
he felt there was no conflict of interest which would
prohibit Commissioner McCarthy from voting on the issue.
Mr. Giles stated that there are two questions to be asked
when determining if a conflict of interest exists. The
first being, is there an interest as defined by the Code of
Ethics and the second being, is that interest in conflict
with the individual's duties as a commissioner. Mr. Giles
stated that the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese makes
decisions regarding the purchase of property and that any
one parish member did not affect that decision.
Mr. Jones stated that he believed the church's opposition to
the requested zoning was based on minor issues. He stated
that the applicant had met with the opposition and reviewed
the list of restrictions offered prior to the May 9, 1996
Commission meeting. He then presented a letter amending the
application by including the following restrictions that are
to be attached to the property when zoned:
5
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
1. A height limitation of 45 feet for any structure
constructed on the subject property.
2. The following uses will be deleted as allowable uses:
a.
IM
c.
Permitted uses:
College dormitory
College fraternit
Establishment for
patients
School (public or
Church
Accessory uses:
y
or sorority
care of alcoholic or narcotic
denominational)
Bar, lounge or tavern
Beverage shop
Conditional uses:
Ambulance service post
Cemetery or mausoleum
High rise multi -family, at a density not greater
than thirty (30) units per gross acre
Hotel or motel
Abortion clinic or adult bookstore
All other requirements, as set forth in the Little Rock
ordinances shall apply.
Chairman Woods asked what the difference was between the
restrictions requested by the church and the applicant's
response. Mr. Jones responded that the church had requested
a height limitation of 25 feet and the applicant had offered
a limitation of 45 feet. He stated that the church had also
requested extensive landscaping, beyond the Ordinance
requirements, a 25 percent building/area ratio and parking
to be provided at the rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of building area.
Commissioner Lichty asked why the applicant had included
churches and schools in the list of uses to be deleted from
the property. Mr. Jones responded that traffic was a
concern. He stated that the applicant had looked at Christ
the King's property and observed that the church and church
school generated the most traffic in the area.
Mr. Jones gave a brief history of the rezoning application.
He stated that there was a long-standing disagreement
6
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 _(Cont.
between the church and the applicant. Mr. Jones stated that
the church's growth and level of activities made the nearby
residential properties unlivable. He noted that the church
had never opposed any other office rezoning in the area and
cited the nearby Easter Seals and St. Vincent properties as
examples. Mr. Jones stated that for the Commission to deny
this application, even with the proposed conditions, would
be arbitrary and capricious. Failure to approve the
rezoning, he stated, would affect the value of the property.
In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr.
Jones stated that the applicant had acquired his property in
1973.
Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Jones why, in his opinion, the
church was opposing the rezoning. Mr. Jones responded that
each parishioner had his own motive and that some might feel
that rezoning this site could affect the welfare of the
children attending the church's school.
Commissioner Putnam noted that there were no streets going
through the church property and questioned how traffic
related to the subject site could affect the children's
safety.
At Commissioner Hawn's request, Mr. Jones displayed a plan
of the church property and pointed out the school, soccer
field and gymnasium.
Mr. Jones noted that the church building itself exceeded the
height limitation proposed by the church for the applicant's
property. He stated that the rezoning request was in
conformance with the Land Use Plan and that the applicant
had made concessions to the church's concerns.
Commissioner Brandon questioned the $220,000 an acre cost
for the property and wondered whether the site was desirable
for development of a 45 foot tall office building. Mr.
Jones responded that it was hard to determine a property's
value when persons are giving up homes that have been
occupied, in some cases, 20 years.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Mr. Jones
stated that traffic flow to the proposed office site would
be determined by how the site was developed.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, City
Traffic Engineer Bill Henry stated that there had been no
traffic counts done on the abutting streets. Mr. Henry
noted that the streets would be improved to Master Street
Plan standards for commercial streets as the property is
developed.
7
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, discussed the recent amendment to the Land Use
Plan for this site. He stated that the Plan was amended to
Suburban Office which envisions low -scale, internal
development, not development such as that at the corner of
Rodney Parham and Cantrell Road which is shown as Office on
the Plan. Mr. Lawson stated that he would prefer to see the
site developed in a manner similar to an adjacent 0-3 zoned
property. This adjacent property was zoned 0-3 with
restrictions on building height and area coverage. Mr.
Lawson stated that staff could not support the application
with a height restriction of 45 feet.
Mr. Jones responded that the 45 foot height limit proposed
by the applicant was not out of character with the
neighborhood. He stated again that the 0-3 request was in
conformance with the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Daniel asked if the zoning was approved with a
height limit of 24 feet and the church bought the property,
would the height restriction still apply. Mr. Giles
responded that the height restriction would be a condition
that would run with the land, regardless of who owned it.
Commissioner Adcock asked if all the other buildings in the
area exceeded a certain height, why impose a more stringent
restriction on this applicant. Chairman woods also voiced
that some concern.
Mr. Jones stated that building height was not an issue when
the Easter Seals and St. Vincent properties were zoned 0-3.
In every other application, he stated, there had been no
effort by the church to impose conditions.
Richard Stephens addressed the Commission on behalf of
Christ the King Catholic Church. He stated that the church
had made attempts to acquire the applicants property and
had tried to make sure that the purchase of the property and
this rezoning request were separate issues. Mr. Stephens
stated that the church did not oppose the Land Use Plan
amendment to Suburban Office but would like to see low -
density, garden type Suburban Offices. He stated that the
church did not oppose the rezoning of other properties in
the area because those were different areas and issues which
did not impact the church as this issue did.
Mr. Stephens presented a drawing showing the building area
ratio of several 0-2 and 0-3 zoned properties in the area.
He noted that most had a building/area ratio of 25 percent
and that the Block property to the south had a ratio of 49
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.
percent. Mr. Stephens concluded by stating that the church
would prefer to see the applicant amend the application to
0-1.
Commissioner Putnam asked why the church wanted a height
restriction. Bill Canino, representing the church, stated
that reduced building height and area coverage would result
in reduced density of people on the site. He stated that
the issue was primarily a question of safety for children on
the church property. Mr. Canino presented drawings showing
how the subject property could be developed with 75,000
square feet of building area in two-story buildings.
Commissioner Putnam again questioned the restrictions that
the church wanted imposed on the property.
Mr. Lawson stated that when the Land Use Plan was amended to
Suburban Office, it was recognized that the area would not
be developed in one fell swoop. He stated that there is a
need to protect the remaining residences and that building
height is an issue that would have an effect on those
remaining residences.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr.
Lawson stated that there were 10-12 residences remaining in
the area and that most were for sale.
Chairman Woods asked if staffs opinion would be different
if there were no homes in the area. Mr. Lawson stated that
it would be different if the entire area were submitted for
development at one time.
Commissioner Hawn stated that it appeared staff was
proposing that the zoning be done in a piecemeal fashion,
resulting in this type of predicament every time a house is
sold. Mr. Lawson responded that such was the case until no
residential uses remain.
Mr. Jones noted that residents of the area were ready to
sell and move out. He stated that Mr. Lawson had previously
stated that 0-2 and 0-3 were appropriate under the Suburban
Office Land Use designation.
Dan DeClerk, of 11516 Rocky Valley Drive, addressed the
Commission in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that
any increase in traffic would be detrimental. He discussed
traffic problems in the area.
Jim Badami stated that it was vindictive of the applicant to
eliminate church and school from the zoning request.
Commissioner Lichty asked what level of density would be
acceptable to the church. Mr. Badami and Mr. Canino
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: I Z-6106 (Cont.)
responded that a building/area ratio of 25 percent and a 24
foot building height limitation would be acceptable.
Chairman Woods asked how children are off-loaded at the
church school. Mr. Canino responded that there are on -site
driveways for dropping off and picking up the children. He
noted that there were 750 children attending the school.
Commissioner Hawn stated that he could not see how zoning
this property would hurt the children. Mr. Canino responded
that increased traffic would increase the chances of an
accident.
Chairman Woods stated that the additional square footage
allowed by increasing the building height from 24 feet to 45
feet was not going to have the impact that the church
thought it would.
Commissioner Putnam asked the number of persons involved in
the church school. Mr. Canino responded that there were 750
children and approximately 50 workers. He stated that the
church and school do create traffic problems and that they
do not want to see the traffic problem increased by this 0-3
zoning request.
A motion was made to approve the 0-3 zoning request, as
amended to include the restrictions offered by the applicant
in the letter dated June 6, 1996.
The vote was 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent.
10
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1096
NAME: AUTUMN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: 900 Block of Autumn Road -- West side of street
DEVELOPER:
THE HATHAWAY GROUP
100 Morgan Keegan Dr.
Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72202
663-5400
AREA• 5.46 ACRES
ZONING: 0-3 and R-2
ENGINEER•
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PLANNING DISTRICT: I-430 (11)
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
PROPOSED USES: Offices
This plat is derived from an effort by the developer of an office
building on Lot 1 to gain additional parking. The parking is
needed to accommodate an additional floor on the office building.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This developer proposes to acquire the north 180 feet of a deep
lot fronting on Kanis Road. This parcel would be added to the
office site as part of the platted lot so as to assure that
required parking is on -site. The balance of the Kanis lot will
be numbered Lot 2 and held by that owner as Phase II development.
A final plat by that owner will be required before use of the lot
is permitted.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a two lot preliminary plat with two phases.
Street improvements on Autumn Road will be constructed on
Phase I with that final plat. Kanis improvement to arterial
standards will be accomplished with Phase II.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1096
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land involved is somewhat hilly with the grade falling
toward Kanis on the south and to the northwest toward the
Hermitage mini -warehouses. The site is partially timber
covered and is part of a large lot rural plat.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Dedicate minor arterial right-of-way for Kanis Road and
provide In -Lieu for 2.5 lanes of minor arterial with
sidewalk. Dedicate 30 feet from centerline for Autumn
Road (Collector) and provide plans for construction of
18 feet of street reconstruction from centerline with a
sidewalk. Stormwater Detention will be required for
all lots. A grading and NPDES permit may be required.
Address on Kanis will be 11,700 Kanis Road. One
driveway will be allowed on each frontage per City
Ordinance.
Utilities:
Sewer/Extension required with easements.
Water/on-site fire protection system required.
Fire Department:
OK as submitted, no specific comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
All issues in this regard have been addressed or will be
with the recording of the plat. The owner of the balance of
the Kanis lot should be aware that, that lot is not usable
until platted. However, the lot is shown as office on the
land use plan and rezoning will probably be requested at
some point.
E. ANALYSIS•
The filing is complete except for
plat that can be easily noted by
These are: zoning on both lots;
notations;
a few minor items on the
the engineer of record.
phase line with phase
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1096
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the preliminary plat
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Mr. Hathaway was present as was his engineer. They offered a
brief overview of the proposal.
Staff response was that the plat is in good order except for
several minor items that the engineer has said will be corrected.
wood, of the Staff, requested that Mr. Hathaway request the
phasing by letter or notation on the plat.
The Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for
consideration.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 28, 1996)
The applicant responded on May 23rd with answers to the several
questions posed by preliminary write-up. He has added the zoning
notation, the right-of-way dedication along Kanis Road, a phasing
line, completed information notes, Bill of Assurance, sketch
modified accordingly.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Commission determined that there were no remaining issues for
resolution and that this item should be placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval.
A motion to that effect was made and approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1A FILE NO • 5-867-BBB
NAME: CHENAL VALLEY -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On Chenal Parkway at NW corner of west loop arterial
• ENGINEER:
DELTIC FARM AND TIMBER WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC.
#7 Chenal Club Circle 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201
821-5555 374-1666
AREA: 118.18 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 3,200
ZONING: MF-24, 0-2, C-3 PROPOSED USES:
Office/Commercial and
Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT: Chenal (19)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND:
This plat is a preparatory action to opening a new mixed use area
within Chenal Valley Subdivision. Several of the lots will be
developed as MF, and a large portion devoted to office uses,
possibly commercial. A number of streets attach to this plat
with all of Chenal Valley Drive along the east side being
constructed in Phase I.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To plat five lots on a large undeveloped, tree covered hill mass.
To create one or more new streets to handle access, thru traffic
and Master Street Plan requirements.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To gain plat approval of five lots with a phasing scheme to
permit one lot finals or perhaps revise portions for further
reduction in lots sizes to accommodate the market need.
Only one lot is to be initially filed for record. That one
for an apartment complex.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-BBB
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Gently sloping ground with a high point in the center of the
plat and falling away to the plat boundaries. The site is
timber covered with no existing roads internally except an
access trail to a water tank site. This road will be
eliminated once construction begins on the first phase.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A grading and NPDES permit may be required. Map has
changed that designates flood areas current map is the
11-3-93 FIRM map. Master Street plan right-of-way and
street improvements associated with Preliminary Plat
are required. Dedicate and construct a right -turn lane
where collector Chenal Valley Drive intersects the
Outer Loop. Stormwater Detention analysis is required.
Locate PAGIS monuments and identify other point
monuments.
Utilities:
Sewer/main required with easements.
Water/on the plat, mains and on -site fire protection
system required. Certain charges apply.
Contact Water Works.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Indicate phasing plan.
Need Bill of Assurance.
Indicate driveway access plan or points.
Indicate how sidewalks fit overall pedestrian plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
This review does not reveal issues or problems that cannot
be resolved prior to the public hearing. The detention
issue and treatment of turn lanes or specific traffic
concerns can be dealt with at final plat when developing
street design plans.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the plat subject to resolution of the several
items addressed by staff.
PA
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-BBB
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Mr. Joe white was present, representing both the site plan and
the preliminary plat that accompanies it. Mr. white presented an
overview of the proposal and responded to the written comments of
staff. Mr. White stated that the subdivider will build all of
Chenal Valley Drive with this project. wood asked that Mr. white
address the subject of access overall since the lot in this plat
is one of several in a mixed use plat.
Mr. white and David Scherer, of Public works, discussed turn
lanes and the overall size of the lots being controlling element.
No specific resolution was gained. However, Mr. White indicated
that further subdivision of this plat area may bring an internal
street and solve some access problems. Mr. Scherer suggested
dealing with detention on this site by designating ponding areas,
etc. Mr. White stated that detention would be dealt with on the
preliminary plat.
wood, of the Planning Staff, then moved the conversation to site
plan needs and provision of typicals to illustrate the building
areas, height, dimensions, etc. Mr. white will respond by
submitting the plan need to the architect. They will better
label items and resubmit the plan by May 23rd.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this
item on the Consent Agenda for approval in as much as there were
no remaining issues of substance for resolution.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
KI
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO • Z-5884-A
NAME: TYRRELL LEASING -- PHASE II SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: 12200 Block of Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
TLC DAILY RENTAL WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC.
Brent Tyrrell 401 Victory St.
12300 Chenal Parkway Little Rock, AR 72201
P. O. Box 23717 374-1666
954-7368
AREA: .55 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Expansion of
current auto leasing auto sales at
12300 Chenal Parkway plus, C-3
uses.
PLANNING DISTRICT: Chenal (19)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
This lot was platted as a commercial lot for C-3 development as
part of a larger commercial subdivision. The TLC Auto Leasing
use adjacent on the west required additional land for the growing
business.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To approve the PCD application for a mixed use project with the
initial or first phase being TLC Rental and Leasing. That use
would occupy the front building element facing Chenal Parkway.
The balance of the building or Phase II would be open to
occupancy by C-3 type uses. The second phase would be
approximately 7,800 square feet of office or retail in two or
four tenants. The building would be one story steel frame and
brick much like the current TLC building. The proposed second
phase building would be attached to the first or separated by at
least ten feet.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5884-A
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To approved a mixed use project and change the zoning from
C-3 to PCD, the primary reason being to allow a C-4 use, TLC
Rental, in the same fashion as permitted on the lot
adjacent.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lot is partially disturbed with some improvements in the
form of street and utilities.
The land north, east and west is developed. Wal-Mart lies
across Chenal Parkway to the south. The nearest residential
use is Timber Ridge Subdivision several hundred feet to the
south and west. That neighborhood association was notified.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A grading permit will be required. Master Street Plan
right-of-way and street improvements associated with
Chenal Parkway are required. Stormwater Detention
analysis is required to be addressed.
Utilities•
Sewer/available, not affected.
Water/contact Water Works about size and location of
water meter.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers appear
adequate, but identify on plan.
• The dumpster must be enclosed by 8 foot fence on three
sides.
• Draw phase line for uses and construction.
• Need specific uses for Phase II or indicate a district
list such as C-1. It will not automatically revert to
C-3 in the future.
• Note possible two building spacing on plan.
• Parking provided will be reviewed for adequacy after uses
are set.
• Show height of building.
• Treatment between building and east property line. Is
there a grade change, if so, will a retaining wall be
used?
• Indicate signage in accordance with overlay district
along Chenal, also lighting plan.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5884-A
• Identify use of overhead door area and visual treatment
from Chenal Parkway.
E. ANALYSIS:
Planning Comment
The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted
Plan recommends commercial. There is no land use issue.
The proposal is in keeping with the development in the area.
The intensity, the resolution of the staff issues identified
will, we feel, make a good application and good project.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval subject to staff comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
There was a brief discussion of the project with Mr. Tyrrell
offering an overview of his proposed uses and buildings. There
were no issues of consequence raised. However, Mr. Tyrrell was
directed to develop a use list. This list to become part of the
PCD application. He was directed to give consideration as to the
treatment of the overhead door on the Chenal Street side. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
review.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 28, 1996)
The applicant submitted on May 23 required answers to the several
questions posed by staff write-up. He has added the following:
• Landscaping and buffers agreed to and provided.
• Dumpster enclosed.
• Lanes for traffic access reviewed. Are OK as is.
• Phase line and phasing noted on drawing.
• Fire hydrant distance
• Retaining wall
• Building height
• Use mix
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Planning Commission determined it appropriate to place this
item on the Consent Agenda for approval in as much as there were
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5884-A
no continuing issues for resolution. There were no objectors in
attendance nor in the record file.
A motion to place the item on a Consent Agenda for approval was
made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1
absent.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: 5-6145
NAME: SMITH - SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: 3301 Zion Street
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Cedric and Evonne Smith N/A
3301 Zion Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
AREA: 9,936 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
ZONING• R-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: Boyle Park (10)
CENSUS TRACT: 24.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
FT. NEW STREET: No
PROPOSED USES: Hair Salon
This applicant approached staff after having been told by others
that he could do this since a previous application for this type
use was approved earlier this year. Staff accepted the
application without giving encouragement for this development
type.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To locate a 12 foot by 24 foot building in the rear yard of 3301
Zion Street to be used as a single operator hair styling salon.
There are to be three paved off-street parking spaces taking
access from West 33rd Street. The operation entails sales of
hair products and vending machines will be provided for
customers.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
To reclassify the land from R-3 Single Family to PRD Planned
Residential District. This PRD approach is chosen to assure
that the hair salon is an accessory activity, much like a
home occupation.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-6145
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A wider than usual residential lot at the southeast corner
of West 33rd at Zion Street. A residence is on this corner
lot facing Zion Street. Although Zion Street is improved,
33rd Street is substandard and not intended to carry
business traffic.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
33rd Street and Zion Street require dedication 10 feet
of right-of-way to bring to commercial street standard
including a corner dedication for a 20 foot radial
area. An In -Lieu fee of 15% of the cost of
improvements will be in order for the size of the
planned construction for the Master Street Plan
improvements. 33rd is substandard and has an open
ditch. Zion is a 24 foot curb and gutter street. No
adjacent sidewalks exist.
utilities:
Sewer/available, and not affected.
Water/due to the nature of the business, an RPZ
backflow preventer will be required on the domestic
service prior to first outlet.
Fire Department:
OK as proposed.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• The corner lot offers a business orientation for this
accessory building.
• The parking lot adds to commercial appearance.
• Need sign plan. Building mounted and free standing.
• Vending machines and sales expand the use beyond a home
occupation status.
• Need number of chairs, wash stations.
• Hours of operation
• All business activity must be screened from the
residential properties to the south and east. This
screen may either be a six foot high opaque wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or evergreen shrubs
30 inches in height in planting spaced every three feet.
The shrubs must be of a specie able to attain a height of
six feet within three years.
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-6145
E. ANALYSIS:
This proposal reopens an issue that had been dealt with
during the 70's. That is, beauty shops in the home as a
home occupation. That activity during the 60's and 70's
became a problem for many neighborhoods around the city.
Simply filing this as a Planned Residential District (PRD)
does nothing to change the fact that a business will be
placed here if approved. This is the time to stop
proliferation of these uses. Apparently the word is out
that you can "do it this way."
The site is in the Boyle Park District. The adopted Land
Use Plan recommends Single Family. The proposal is an
existing single family home with the addition of a beauty
shop in the backyard. This is too intense of a
nonresidential component of the PRD for the existing single
family neighborhood.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Denial of the request as being inappropriate to place in a
residential site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
The applicant was not present. However, Staff pointed out that
this is more of a land use question than a site plan review.
There are no issues of substance to resolve at committee level.
The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Chairman asked that Staff present this item for public
hearing. The Staff read its recommendation which was denial of
the application and pointed out that there were record objectors
through telephone calls and communication to the staff office.
Also, the neighborhood association for John Barrow Addition had
taken a position of opposing the approval of this application for
a hair salon.
The Chairman then asked that the applicant come forward and
present the application. Mr. Cedric Smith and Evonne Smith
offered comments in support of their application identifying the
improvements that were to be made, the access to the three
parking spaces and the need for the placement of this use at this
time.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-6145
A number of questions were posed for Mr. Smith's response. These
questions typically centered around why the need to locate this
use at this point in as much as this was the middle of a
residential area quite removed from business activity. Mr.
Smith's response generally was that the placement would be of a
convenience to him and his wife for this business activity in as
much as they currently owned the property and the use of business
property would be significantly more expensive.
After a brief discussion between members of the staff, Mr. Smith
and the Commission, a motion was made to act on the item
presented to the Commission which was their request for approval
of the Smith Short -Form PRD. A vote on the application as filed
resulted in a vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays and 2 absent. The
application was declared to be denied.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6157
NAME: THE PARK APARTMENTS -- LONG -FORM PD-R
LOCATION: 2200 Riverfront Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
WINTHER, INC. MEHLBURGER ENGINEERING
3555 Timmons Lane 201 S. Izard Street
Houston, TX 77227 P. O. Box 3837
(713)621-5200 375-5331
AREA: 6.50 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights-Hillcrest (4)
CENSUS TRACT: 15
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
A multifamily project is proposed on 6.5 acres of Office zoned
land. The PD-R is used to allow flexibility of design. There
will be 222 units in six buildings with a clubhouse and pool.
The buildings will be garden apartment style with three-story
walkups. The construction will be brick veneer, pitched roofs
with gables and dormers. The project will be fenced and gated,
through use of wrought iron and brick columns. The site will
provide 335 parking spaces with six handicapped.
A one lot plat will be filed for record indicating items
required.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To modify the current direction in development of Riverdale
by substituting MF where the current plan and zoning are
Office. This change to PD-R with medium to high density
development will complement the several projects in place to
the north and provide continuation of the long-term build
out of Riverdale which started in the 1960's.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6157
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Flat ground with streets on three sides. The site has very
good access to both commercial streets and a minor arterial.
Abutting and nearby is a mix of office, single family and
multifamily. Existing neighborhood zoning is mixed.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Sidewalks are to be construction on all boundary
streets. Stormwater detention or approval of Levy
district for increased runoff required prior to permit.
A grading and NPDES permit will be required.
Traffic Engineering and Civil reject plan as submitted.
Driveways as shown near intersections are unacceptable
to City Ordinance. Revise and resubmit after a
conference with the Traffic Engineer.
Utilities:
Sewer/available, capacity contribution analysis and fee
required, contact Wastewater.
Water/on-site fire protection is required.
Fire Department:
Plan OK, but indicate current fire hydrants and
proposed to provide minimum of 500 feet spacing or 400
feet from corner.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• Cannot receive waiver of landscaping on plan or plat, it
takes City Beautiful Commission Action.
• The full average buffer width required along Riverfront
Dr. and Brookwood Dr. is 20 feet. The minimum
requirement when transferring buffer area to another part
of the site is 13 1/2 feet. At no point should the
buffer width drop below six feet in width. The site plan
submitted provides for a buffer width along both
Riverfront and Brookwood Drives of only four feet.
• The Landscape Ordinance requires an average perimeter
landscape strip width of six feet. Additionally, the
Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of the
interior of the vehicular use area be landscaped with
interior islands. The plan submitted is short of the
interior requirement by 811 square feet. A waiver by the
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6157
City Beautiful Commission would be required to reduce
this interior requirement. Special attention to
increasing the interior landscaping within the parking
lot along Brookwood Drive will be necessary.
• Curb and gutter or another approved border will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
• Indicate height of all buildings based on Zoning
Ordinance definition.
• Eliminate parking stalls in throat of access drives.
• Is there an internal pedestrian walk system?
• Indicate sign height, area, location.
• If 24 hour gates are used, so note.
• Indicate any ancillary activity areas such as: laundry,
gym, etc.,
• Define Plan entitled "4 feet Scheme".
• Indicate more detail dimensions on buildings that would
give a better feel for bulk, perhaps elevation.
• What are spaces between units? Walks?
• Indicate median cut on riverfront at primary entry.
• How many car spaces are compact and where are they?
• Where are dumpsters or other trash collection facilities.
• The plat element of this PD-R should be drawn in final
plat form indicating those items of information required
by Ordinance. This plat will be a staff approval matter
after the Board of Directors approved PD-R is completed.
E. ANALYSIS•
The project as presented has enough issues yet to be
resolved that deferral would be in order. However,
assurances are made that before or shortly after the
Subdivision Committee meeting answers would be forthcoming.
The specific issues that staff is concerned about are: (1)
no specifics on building height dimensions, elevations and
access, (2) environmental considerations such as: on -site
fire fighting or suppression, landscaping and buffering, (3)
site preparation.
Staff is not concerned about density in locations such as
this provided the design deals with basic services, safety,
access and appearance.
The site is in the Heights Hillcrest District. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Office. The proposal is for
Multifamily. Staff can support a change in land use from
Office to Multifamily. The area has changed to an area
dominated by residential use. Some office and
nonresidential use is mixed in with the residential to the
south and east.
M
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6157
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Deferral until the next meeting unless the applicant can
address the issues raised by staff and others.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
A lengthy meeting was held with discussion of the staff comments.
The applicant presented some solutions that could be offered and
indicated that by next Thursday, May 23, responses to the staff
would be developed. David Scherer, of Public Works, made several
comments in support of Public Works requirement that indicated
serious redesign of the access points and drives is in order.
The issue of gates on entry drives was discussed with the
applicant indicating it would be determined whether the gates
would be 24 hour or night time. After little resolution of the
design issues, the Committee requested that the engineer return
the needed information by Thursday. The request was then
forwarded to the full Commission.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 28, 1996)
This applicant has responded to Subdivision Comments by offering
the following:
1. Landscaping is very near code compliance. Minor changes are
being made per Bob Brown's direction.
2. Access has been restructed by removing the corner drives and
providing two points of access. One is Riverfront Dr., one
on Brookwood Dr.
3. Parking has been redesigned to accommodate landscaping
changes, required parking and small cars.
4. The buffer which is normally 20 feet on Riverfront and
Brookwood Drives is submitted as overlaying the six foot
landscaping. No waiver required.
5. Curb and gutter will be utilized along parking and drives to
protect greenery.
6. The height of all building will be three story except the
clubhouse at one story.
7. A limited sidewalk system will be installed tying the
buildings.
8. Fire hydrants are shown as required.
4
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6157
9. Building elevations and typical site photos to illustrate
the development character.
10. The freestanding sign will be a monument sign, masonry
construction with inset panel with name and other
information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff in presenting this item and recommending placement on
the Consent Agenda reported that there was a remaining issue to
be resolved that being a comment from the Fire Department
concerning the long driveways that terminated at trash dumpsters
without benefit of a turnaround device. Fire Department reported
that they needed access gates at the end of these drives or some
design modification to reduce the lengthy backing maneuver
required for their vehicles.
Staff suggested to the Commission that this item be retained on
the Consent Agenda with staff to work with Mr. Frank Riggins, the
applicant on the project, and determine the resolution of the
problem prior to sending this item to the City Board.
The Commission determined that the staff suggestion was
appropriate and placed the item on the Consent Agenda for
approval subject to the Fire Department Comment. The motion
to approve the Consent Agenda was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
5
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-3327-A
NAME: Southwestern Bell Services
(NW corner of N. Pierce and
"W" Streets) - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: Northwest corner of N. Pierce
Street and "W" Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water
Works/ Southwestern Bell
Services by Brian Powers
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a cellular
communications facility on
this R-2 zoned property. The
proposal includes placement of
an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment
building and attachment of
nine small antennae to the
existing water tank.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is within the existing Little Rock
Water Works' water tank site which is located at the
northwest corner of N. Pierce and "W" Streets.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The existing Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank
site is adjacent to single family residential
structures to the north and west. There are also
single family residential structures to the south
across "W" Street and to the east across N. Pierce
Street. The proposed use should not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
There are no access drives on the property.
On -street parking is available for a service technician
who will occasionally visit the site. No additional
parking is required.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3327-A
4. Screening and Buffers:
Evergreen screening shrubs 30 inches in height at
planting with the ability to grow to at least six feet
and spaced every three feet should be planted around
the perimeter of the proposed structure to help soften
its exterior where visible from the adjacent streets
and residential property.
5. City Engineer Comments:
Each of the boundary streets has 40 feet of dedicated
right-of-way. The residential street standard for this
area is 50 feet per the Master Street Plan with a 20
foot radial dedication at the intersection. Dedicate
the additional right-of-way.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments received.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a cellular communications
facility on this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works
water tank site which is located at the northwest
corner of N. Pierce and "W" Streets. The site contains
an existing 122 foot tall water tank.
The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine
small antennae to the existing water tank. The
equipment building will be located on the west side of
the water tank approximately 37 feet from the west
property line. The equipment building will also be
located approximately 100 feet from N. Pierce Street
and 50+ feet from "W" Street. The nine antennae will
be attached at the painter's ring level of the existing
water tank and will not increase the height of the
tank.
Typically, Southwestern Bell Service's equipment
buildings are of masonry construction with a washed
aggregate exterior and a light brown color. The
applicant has offered several different options
regarding the exterior finish and color. One of these
options could prove more compatible with the exterior
finishes of the existing single family structures in
this area. The proposed equipment building should not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3327-A
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the Screening and Buffers
Comments and the City Engineer's Comments.
Staff also recommends that the exterior of the proposed
equipment building be of a frame construction with wood
(or simulated wood) siding and painted a neutral color,
as presented to staff as an option by the applicant.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Brian Powers was present, representing the application.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description
of the proposal.
Brian Powers addressed the Committee, stating that he had no
problems with the screening and buffers comments and would
be willing to install additional landscaping along the
street sides if necessary.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the color and style of the
building.
Brian Powers stated that the building was of a masonry
construction with a washed aggregate exterior and tan in
color. He offered photographs to the Committee and stated
that different exteriors and colors could be used if
necessary.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Staff presented the item,
submitted a letter requesting
until the Subdivision Agenda
applicant is working with the
regarding this proposal.
(JUNE 6, 1996)
stating that the applicant has
that the item be deferred
of July 18, 1996. The
neighborhood on issues
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4478-C
NAME: Little Rock Wastewater Utility
(13625 Saddle Hill Drive) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 13625 Saddle Hill Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water
Works/Little Rock Wastewater
Utility by Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned Little Rock Municipal
Water Works property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed tower site is located just west of Saddle
Hill Dr., between Pleasant Heights Dr. and Fox Chapel
Court, adjacent to Phase I of the Pleasant Heights
Subdivision. This subdivision is located just south of
the Hillsborough Subdivision, which is located south
off of Hinson Road, approximately 1/3 mile west of
Pulaski Academy School.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed site is within an existing Little Rock
Water Works' water tank site. The surrounding
properties are zoned R-2. The property to the south
and west of this site is vacant and tree -covered, with
a few single-family residences further west on Belle
Point Drive. The property to the north and east
contains new single-family residences. This existing
Little Rock Water Works site is located on a hill,
overlooking the property to the north and east.
The site contains an existing 130 foot tall tower, with
a second 130 feet tall tower located adjacent to the
site (immediately west). A 75 foot tall tower was
approved for this site on May 9. 1996. The proposed 58
foot tall antenna mast should not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-C
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the property will be gained by utilizing an
existing drive which runs west off of Saddle Hill Dr.
to the Water Works site.
Parking is provided at the tower site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site for
maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
Since Water Works is allowing the installation of
multiple towers from different owners to be installed
at this site, consideration should be made of an all
weather drive with a proper turnaround at the terminus.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Municipal Water Works property.
This antenna will establish a radio telemetry repeater
station which will relay information from and to the
existing sanitary sewer pump stations and flow
monitors.
As noted earlier, this site contains an existing 130
foot tall Arkla Gas communication tower with a 130 foot
tall Alltel tower located immediately west. On May 9,
1996, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved this
site for a 75 foot Southwestern Bell Services tower, to
be located on the east side of the water tank. The
proposed 58 foot antenna will also be located on the
east side of the water tank, as close as possible to
the future Southwestern Bell Services tower.
Given the fact that there are two 130 foot towers and a
future 75 foot tower within this small area, the
addition of this 58 foot antenna mast should not have
an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
V,
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-C
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject
to compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a
brief description of the proposal.
One of the Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified
that the actual total overall height of the antenna would be
58 feet.
David Scherer, of Public Works, addressed the Committee. He
explained the fact that consideration needed to be made of
an all-weather drive with a proper turn around for this
site.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for
to that effect was made. The motion was
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
Commission for
approval. A motion
passed by a vote of
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-4601-A
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Southwestern Bell Services
(Southridge Drive site) -
Conditional Use Permit
Adjacent to 12981 Southridge -
Drive
Little Rock Municipal Water
Works/Southwestern Bell
Services by Brian Powers
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a cellular
communications facility on
this R-2 zoned property. The
proposal includes placement of
an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment
building and attachment of
nine small antennae to the
existing water tank.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is within the existing Little Rock
Water Works' water tank site which is located adjacent
to, immediately west of, 12981 Southridge Dr.; which is
in the Walton Heights Subdivision.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The existing Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank
site is adjacent to single family residential
structures to the north and east. The property to the
south and west is zoned R-2 and is vacant and tree -
covered. The proposed use should not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site is gained by utilizing an existing
drive which runs west off of Southridge Drive, adjacent
to 12981 Southridge Drive.
Parking is provided at the site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site for
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4601-A
maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Evergreen screening shrubs 30 inches in height at
planting with the ability to grow to and be maintained
at six feet (minimum) in height should be planted
around the perimeter of the proposed structure to
soften its effect from the adjacent residential
properties. Recommended shrub spacing is three feet.
5. City Engineer Comments:
No apparent Public Works issues
6. utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a cellular communications
facility on this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works
water tank site which is located west off of Southridge
Drive in the Walton Heights Subdivision. The site
contains two existing water tanks. The taller of the
two water tanks is 140 feet tall.
The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine
antennae to the existing 140 foot tall water tank. The
equipment building will be located on the south side of
the taller of the two water tanks on this site. The
nine antennae will be attached at the painter's ring
level of the taller water tank. This installation will
not increase the height of the water tank.
The proposed equipment building will be of a masonry
construction with a washed aggregate exterior and a
light brown color. There is also a small valve chamber
and pump room building on the site next to the water
tank to the west. The proposed equipment building
should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance the Screening and Buffers
Comments.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4601-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Brian Powers was present, representing the application.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description
of the proposal.
Mr. Powers addressed the screening and buffers comments,
stating that he had no problem meeting these requirements.
There were no other comments offered by Committee or Staff.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The applicant, Brian Powers, was present. There was one
objector present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval.
Doug Thompson, of 12981 Southridge Dr., spoke in opposition
to the application. Mr. Thompson stated that he had
concerns regarding the noise that would be generated from
the air conditioning unit on the proposed building. He also
stated that he had concerns regarding the increased traffic
to the site for maintenance of the computer equipment.
Commissioner Putnam asked where Mr. Thompson's property was
located.
Mr. Thompson responded that it is located to the east of the
proposed site.
Brian Powers spoke in support of the application. Mr.
Powers stated that the air conditioner size would be a three
ton unit (slightly smaller than a residential unit) and
totally enclosed.
Mr. Powers stated that be estimated approximately one to two
trips per month to the site by a maintenance technician.
Mr. Thompson asked if the proposed antennae would interfere
with residential communications or receptions.
Mr. Powers responded that it would not.
Commissioner Adcock asked how often the Water Department
personnel visited the site.
3
i
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4601-A
Mr. Thompson responded that the Water Works personnel visit
the site at various times.
Commissioner Adcock asked if the repair of the computer
equipment would be done during daytime hours.
Mr. Powers stated that maintenance would be done during
normal business hours with the exception of any emergency
repairs.
A motion was made to vote on the application. The
application was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent.
rl
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5925-A
NAME:
LOCATION•
Douglass - Conditional Use
Permit
8700 Asher Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT: James L. Douglass
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use
of the existing building for a
landscaping business and an
auto -related business (auto
glass tinting, sales and
installation of auto alarm,
stereos and accessories). The
property is zoned C-3.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the north side of Asher Avenue,
approximately one block east of Barrow Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is located in an area of mixed zoning and
uses. The property to the east is zoned R-2 and
contains the Rosedale Optimist Club. The property
immediately north of this site is also Rosedale
Optimist Club property and contains baseball fields and
parking areas. The property immediately west of this
site, along Barrow Road, is zoned R-3/R-4 and is made
up of residential structures. The property immediately
west of this site, along Asher Avenue, is zoned C-3 and
contains commercial uses. There is a small engine
repair business and trailer sales located south, across
Asher Avenue, and two or three residential structures
further west. The proposed uses should not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
There are two access points to this site from Asher
Avenue.
The proposed uses combined with the existing uses on
this property require 36 parking spaces. The site
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5925-A
contains 50+ parking spaces, therefore parking is no
issue.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments _
5. City Engineer Comments:
No Public Works issues
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the use of an existing building for a
landscaping business and an auto -related business (auto
glass tinting, sales and installation of auto alarms,
stereos, and accessories). The property is located at
8700 Asher Avenue and zoned C-3.
The applicant is proposing to utilize approximately
2,500 square feet of an existing commercial building
for an auto -related business (auto glass tinting, sales
and installation of auto alarms, stereos and
accessories). This business will be operated during
normal daytime business hours and all business
activities will be kept within the enclosed building.
The applicant is also proposing to utilize
approximately 2,150 square feet of the same existing
commercial building for a landscaping business. This
business will also be operated during daytime hours.
There is a proposed outside storage area (approximately
1,650 square feet in area) located on the east end of
the building. This area will be used for parking
trailers only. Any landscape materials (pine bark,
plants, etc.) or equipment must be kept on the
trailers. All other activities will be kept within the
enclosed building.
The property at 8700 Asher Avenue contains two abutting
commercial buildings, a carwash, and two small storage
buildings (for the carwash business) along with an
asphalt parking area. The commercial building nearest
to Asher Avenue (along the west property line) contains
permitted enclosed retail uses. The second commercial
building (near the northwest corner of the property)
will be divided approximately in half to accommodate
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5925-A
the two proposed uses. The proposed uses combined with
the existing uses will require 36 of the existing 50+
paved parking spaces.
Based on the mixture of zoning and uses is this general
area along Asher Avenue, the proposed uses should not
have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation are to be normal daytime
business hours.
2. The area of outside storage is to be used for
parking trailers only. Any landscape materials
(pine bark, plants, etc.) or equipment must be
kept on the trailers.
3. All other activities must be kept within the
enclosed building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
James Douglass, Paul Gibson and Mr. Ashe were present,
representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning
Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal.
Mr. Douglass stated that the hours of operation for the two
proposed businesses would be normal daytime business hours.
Mr. Ashe stated that the area proposed for outside storage
would be used for parking trailers only and any equipment or
supplies would be kept on the trailers.
There were no other comments by Committee or staff.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5925-A
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6133
DAME: Southwestern Bell Services
(Gilliam Park Site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Gilliam Park (Granite
Mountain)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water
Works/Southwestern Bell
Services by Brian Powers
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a cellular
communications facility on
this R-2 zoned property. The
proposal includes placement of
an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment
building and attachment of
nine small antennae to the
existing water tank.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is within the existing Little Rock
Water Works' water tank site which is located east off
of Gilliam Park Road, within the Gilliam Park property.
Gilliam Park Road runs south off of Springer Blvd.
(Hwy. 365).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The existing Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank
site is located within Little Rock's Gilliam Park in
the Granite Mountain area. The park property is zoned
R-2. The proposed used should not have an adverse
effect on any surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing a drive from
the end of Gilliam Park Road.
There is parking available at the tank site for a
service technician who will occasionally visit the
site. No additional parking is required.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6133
4. Screening and Buffers:
The equipment building must be properly screened from
adjacent residential property.
5. City Engineer Comments:
There are no apparent Public Works issues.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock Fire Department - Drive from gate must be
strong enough to hold fire apparatus and at least 14
feet wide.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a cellular communications
facility on this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works
water tank site which is located within Little Rock's
Gilliam Park.
The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine
small antennae to the existing standpipe. There are
two larger water tanks on the property. The equipment
building will be located on the north side of the
standpipe, which is located immediately northeast of
the larger water tanks. The nine antennae will be
attached at the roof level of the existing standpipe
and will not increase the height of the tank.
The proposed equipment building will be of a masonry
construction with a washed aggregate exterior and a
light brown color. The proposed equipment building
should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the Screening and Buffers
Comments and the Fire Department Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
Brian Powers was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6133
There was no additional discussion or comments offered by
the Committee or Staff.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6134
NAME•
Southwestern Bell Services
(Highland Ridge Site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Approximately 1 mile northeast
of Chenal Parkway (A mile
south of Chenal Valley Drive).
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water
Works/Southwestern Bell
Services by Brian Powers
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a cellular
communications facility on
this R-2 zoned property. The
proposal includes placement of
an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment
building and attachment of
nine small antennae to the
existing water tank.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is within the existing Little Rock
Water Works' water tank site which is located
approximately one mile northeast of Chenal Parkway,
beginning at a point .4 mile south of Chenal Valley
Drive.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The existing Little Rock Municipal Water Works water
tank site is surrounded by property which is zoned R-2
and undeveloped. The proposed use will have no adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site is gained by utilizing an existing
drive which runs approximately one mile to the
northeast off of Chenal Parkway.
i
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6134
There is parking at the site for a service technician
who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance
purposes. No additional parking is required.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
The equipment building must be properly screened from
adjacent residential property.
5. City Engineer Comments:
No apparent Public Works issues, except the gravel
drive off Chenal is normally required to have an apron.
Continued use will be allowed because the extension of
Chenal Valley Drive is planned this summer and a new
access will be provided to this site. The Southwestern
Bell contractor and maintenance crews need to be
particularly mindful of the dangers associated with
gravel carried onto the roadway.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock Fire Department - Drive must carry weight
of fire apparatus.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a cellular communications
facility on this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works
water tank site which is located to the northeast of
Chenal Parkway near Chenal Valley Drive. The site
contains an existing 165 foot tall water tank.
The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine
small antennae to the existing water tank. The
equipment building will be located on the north side of
the water tank. The nine antennae will be attached at
the roof level of the existing water tank. This
installation will not increase the height of the water
tank.
The proposed equipment building will be of a masonry
construction with a washed aggregate exterior and a
light brown color. The proposed equipment building
should not have an adverse effort on the surrounding
properties.
K
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6134
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffer Comment
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comment
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: MAY 16, 1996)
Brian Powers was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
There was no additional discussion or comments offered by
the Committee or Staff.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6135
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Southwestern Bell Services
(Keightly Dr. Site) -
Conditional Use Permit
Keightly Drive at Cantrell
Road
Southwestern Bell Telephone/
Southwestern Bell Services by
Brian Powers
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a cellular
communications facility on
this C-3 zoned property. The
proposal includes placement of
an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment
building and attachment of
nine small antennae to the
existing tower.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is within the existing fenced tower
site which is located on the east side of Keightly
Drive, just north of Cantrell Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property immediately north and south of this site
is zoned C-3 and contains retail uses. The property
further north contains single family residential
structures. The property immediately east of this site
is zoned R-5 and contains a multifamily development.
The properties to the west across Keightly Drive
contain a mixture of commercial uses. The proposed use
should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding
properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an access
drive from Keightly Drive.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6135
Parking will be provided at the site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site for
maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
The commercial street right-of-way required for
Keightly is 60 feet, 30 feet from centerline. This
unplatted lot does not, from the legal, indicate the
existing right-of-way. Please confirm and dedicate any
required right-of-way prior to permit.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock Fire Department - Drive must carry weight
of fire apparatus.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a cellular communications
facility on this C-3 zoned Southwestern Bell tower site
which is located near the northeast corner of Keightly
Drive and Cantrell Road. The site contains an existing
308 foot tall communications tower and a 300 square
foot equipment building.
The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot
prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine
small antennae to the existing tower. The equipment
building will be located immediately north of the
existing equipment building which is located near the
center of the site. The existing tower is located
immediately east of the equipment building. The nine
antennae will be attached to the existing tower and
will not increase the tower height.
The proposed equipment building will be of a masonry
construction with a washed aggregate exterior and light
brown in color. The proposed equipment building should
not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval
subject to compliance with
Department Comments.
of the conditional use permit
the City Engineer and Fire
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6135
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Brian Powers was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee.
There was no other discussion or comments offered by the
Committee or Staff.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6136
NAME: Greathouse - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 9317 Claremore Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Edwin F. Greathouse, Jr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 32 foot by
36 foot accessory dwelling on
this R-2 zoned property.
A variance is requested to
allow an accessory dwelling
greater than 700 square feet
in area. The proposed
accessory dwelling is 1,152
square feet in area.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the south side of (end of)
Claremore Drive, which runs west off of Reservoir Road,
just south of Cantrell Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property immediately south, east and west of this
site is zoned R-2 and contains single family
residential uses. The property north of this site
(across Claremore Dr.) is zoned MF-6 and contains a
multifamily development. The proposed accessory
dwelling should not have an adverse effect on the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained from Claremore
Drive.
There is an existing loop driveway off of Claremore
Drive which will provide adequate area to meet the
parking requirement (2 spaces) for the two dwellings.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6136
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
There doesn't exist Master Street Plan right-of-way for
Claremore Drive, this 12 foot chipseal is however
maintained by the City. Dedicate 25 feet of right-of-
way for Claremore from centerline with a public "T"
turn -around right-of-way at the end of Claremore.
There does not exist an adequate turn -around at the end
of Claremore. The street shown as Beasley is not
public right-of-way and is not maintained by the City.
where is dedication of easement documents to give this
accessory dwelling legal access to this 12 foot gravel
trail? The circle drive is gravel and violates City
Ordinance Section 30-47 which states all drives are to
be asphalt or concrete from right-of-way to edge of
pavement.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Water Works - Contact the Water works if
additional and/or larger meter(s) are needed.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 32 foot by 36 foot
accessory dwelling on this R-2 zoned property at 9317
Claremore Drive. The applicant, Edwin Greathouse, is
requesting this accessory dwelling as a residence for
his wife's parents so they can be cared for in their
later years.
The property is approximately 1/2 acre in size, with an
existing 1,500+ square foot residence facing Claremore
Drive. There is an existing 24 foot by 30 foot frame
garage located near the southwest corner of the
property.
The proposed accessory dwelling will be located
approximately 20 feet south of the existing principal
dwelling. The accessory dwelling exceeds all other
setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District.
According to the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance Section
36-252(2), the maximum permitted floor area for an
accessory dwelling shall not exceed seven hundred (700)
square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6136
allow an accessory dwelling greater than 700 square
feet in area. The proposed accessory dwelling is 1,152
square feet in area.
Based on the zoning and the uses in this general area,
the proposed accessory dwelling should not have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer and
Utility Comments. Staff also recommends approval of
the variance request to allow an accessory dwelling
larger than 700 square feet in area (1,152 square feet
total).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
Edwin Greathouse was present, representing the application.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description
of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He stated the need for additional right-of-
way along Claremore Street.
Mr. Greathouse addressed the Committee regarding the right-
of-way issues involving Claremore Drive and Beasley Drive.
He gave a brief history of the area. Mr. Greathouse also
stated that the accessory dwelling would have separate
meters.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before
inclusion within the Consent Agenda
to that effect was made. The motion
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
the Commission for
for approval. A motion
was passed by a vote of
K
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6138
NAME:
LOCATION•
Talley Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
5801 Talley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Betty J. Talley and
Shirley A. Martin
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by 44
foot manufactured home on this
R-2 zoned property to serve as
an accessory dwelling.
A variance is requested to
allow an accessory dwelling
greater than 700 square feet
in area. The proposed
accessory dwelling will be
1,232 square feet in area
maximum.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the south side of (end of)
Talley Road, which runs south off of Colonel Glenn
Road, just east of I-430.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is located in an area immediately east of I-
430 and south of Colonel Glenn Road. This area is
predominantly zoned R-2, single family residential.
The property immediately north, south and east of this
site is vacant and undeveloped. The nearest
residential structure is located approximately 1,000
feet to the east. The proposed manufactured home
accessory dwelling should not have an adverse effect on
the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by extending the
existing driveway which serves the principal dwelling.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6138
The existing driveway will provide adequate area to
meet the parking requirement (2 spaces) for the two
dwellings.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
There exists a prescriptive easement for this roadway.
However, dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way or 25
feet from centerline minimum is required. Dedicate
additional right-of-way for "T" turn -around or cul-de-
sac. This is a 16 foot chipseal road with open ditches
and no sidewalks.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer Main Extension required
with easements.
Little Rock Fire Department - Provide a drive to
manufactured home that will carry weight of fire
apparatus.
Little Rock Water Works - Water service is not
available to this property without a water main
extension.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a 28 foot by 44 foot
manufactured home on this R-2 zoned property to serve
as an accessory dwelling. The principal dwelling and
the accessory dwelling will be occupied by sisters
(Betty Talley and Shirley Martin) who are co -owners of
the property.
The property is approximately 5 acres in size, with an
existing 1,500± square foot residence which faces
Talley Road and is located near the northwest corner of
the property. The site also contains two accessory
buildings and a small pump house which are located
immediately south of (behind) the existing residence.
The proposed 1,232 square foot accessory dwelling will
be located just east of the existing residence. The
existing driveway will be extended to provide access to
the accessory dwelling. The applicant is also
proposing a carport which will be attached to the
accessory dwelling (the approximate size and location
is shown on the site plan). A future accessory storage
V,
I
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6138
building will be dealt with based on the single-family
residential standards (setbacks).
According to the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section
36-252(2), the maximum permitted floor area for an
accessory dwelling shall not exceed seven hundred (700)
square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to
allow an accessory dwelling greater than 700 square
feet in area. The proposed accessory dwelling is 1,232
square feet in area.
Based on the zoning and the uses in this general area,
the proposed accessory dwelling should not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. The manufactured home accessory dwelling must
comply with the following minimum siting standards
as established by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5):
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or
fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
b. Removal of all transport elements.
C. Permanent foundation
d. Exterior wall finished as to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of
adjacent structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off-street parking per single family dwelling
standard.
2. Staff also recommends approval of the variance
request to allow for an accessory dwelling larger
than 700 square feet in area (1,232 square feet
total).
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6138
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Betty Talley and Shirley Martin were present, representing
the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a
brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He stated the need for right-of-way
dedication for Talley Road and for a "T" turn -around or cul-
de-sac.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, reviewed the variance
request and the minimum siting standards for manufactured
homes.
Mrs. Talley stated that she was still not quite sure of the
size of the manufactured home.
Commissioner Daniel suggested that she request a deferral to
provide time to decide on a size and model.
Mrs. Talley stated that if she could not reach a conclusion
by Thursday (May 23, 1996), she would request a deferral.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-6146
NAME:
LOCATION:
Church of the Living God -
Conditional Use Permit
924 West 31st Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Church of the Living God Temple/
Rev. Joe L. Church, Sr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a church
sanctuary addition to an
existing church building and
construction of a parking lot
on this R-3 zoned property.
A variance is requested for
reduced side and rear yard
setbacks for the proposed
sanctuary addition.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the northeast corner of West
31st Street and Fulton Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property immediately north of this site contains
single family residences. There are also single family
residences across West 31st Street to the south, across
Fulton Street to the west and across Izard Street to
the east. All of the properties surrounding this site
are zoned R-3. There is another existing church
located on the southeast corner of west 31st and Izard
Streets. This proposal should not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a
driveway off of West 31st Street and a future driveway
off of Izard Street.
The increase in the church's seating capacity (from 95
to 175) will require 20 on -site paved parking spaces.
Twenty (20) parking spaces are proposed with the
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6146
building addition and six (6) parking spaces are
proposed at a future date.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance
requirements.
The Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of
the interior of the vehicular use area be landscaped.
The proposed first phase parking area is 210 square
feet short of the 366 square feet required. When the
future parking is added, the total interior landscaping
that will be required is 516 square feet. A redesign
of the parking area providing for this interior
landscaping will be necessary.
A minimum three foot wide building landscape strip
between the proposed public parking area and building
will be required.
The proposed trees and shrubs along West 31st Street
will need to be moved back out of the public right-of-
way.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with its face directed outward or evergreen shrubs 30
inches in height at planting spaced every three feet,
is required to screen this site from the adjacent
residential properties to the north and east unless the
neighbors do not want the screening and it is waived by
the Planning Commission.
5. City Engineer Comments:
Dedication of right-of-way for Fulton Street to 25 feet
from centerline is required prior to building permit.
This will have an effect on the shown setback. A 20
foot radial dedication at the intersections is
required. The handicap ramps as shown will not conform
to ADA standards. There must be two ramps installed,
each directing pedestrian traffic to the crossing
movement parallel to the streets and not directing
pedestrians into the intersections. Stormwater
Detention analysis or down stream drainage analysis is
required with construction.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6146
6. Utility and Fire Der)artment Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer line shown is private.
Utility has no sewer mains serving this property at
this time. Service connection point unknown.
Little Rock Water Works - Contact the Water Works if a -
larger water meter is required. The existing meter is
5/8" and the largest meter available off the existing
main is 3/4".
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a church sanctuary
addition to the existing church building at 924 West
31st Street, which is zoned R-3. The proposal also
includes construction of a 20-space paved parking lot.
The existing church is located at the northeast corner
of West 31st and Fulton Streets. The church has been a
part of the neighborhood for a number of years. The
applicant is proposing a 2,664 square foot addition to
the north side of the existing building. This will
increase the church's sanctuary seating capacity from
95 to 175. The proposed parking lot will be located
immediately east of the existing church building.
The church is currently nonconforming in its
relationship to parking, as there is no on -site paved
parking. The increase in the church's seating capacity
(from 95 to 175) will require twenty (20) on -site paved
parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to
construct twenty (20) parking spaces with the building
addition and six (6) additional parking spaces at a
future date.
Because of the limited size of this lot, the applicant
is requesting setback variances for the proposed
building addition. The required setbacks for this lot
are 25 feet along the north (rear) property line and 5
feet along the west (Fulton Street) property line. The
applicant is proposing a setback along the north (rear)
property line of 14 feet and a setback along the west
(Fulton Street) property line of 0 feet. The proposed
west (Fulton Street) setback will be from the new
property line, after right-of-way dedication. The
applicant will request a franchise for the building's
steps, which will be approximately 3 feet into the new
Fulton Street right-of-way. This proposal should not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6146
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Utility Comments
4. Staff recommends approval of the requested setback
variances for the building addition.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Glenn Sink and Rev. Joe Church were present, representing
the application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He focused on the dedication of right-of-way
for Fulton Street and the required handicap ramps.
Mr. Sink addressed the Committee. He briefly discussed the
right-of-way issue along Fulton Street, the size of the
building addition and the building setback issues.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-6147
NAME•
LOCATION•
Sprint Spectrum - Conditional
Use Permit
708 Kirk Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Logan/Sprint Spectrum
by Drew Basham
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 150 foot
tall monopole tower and two
small equipment cabinets
within a 50 foot by 50 foot
lease area on this 0-2 zoned
property.
The applicant is also
requesting a height variance
for the tower.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Kirk Road,
approximately 850 feet north of Chenal Parkway.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed site is located just outside the Little
Rock city limits but within the City's Extraterritorial
Zoning jurisdiction. The land north, south and west of
the lease area is zoned 0-2 and is vacant and wooded.
The property to the east of the lease area is also
zoned 0-2 and contains an auto repair garage. The new
Arkansas Systems development is located a short
distance north of this property. This proposal should
not have an adverse effect on the surrounding
properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkincx:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 20
foot access easement running west off of Kirk Road.
Parking will be provided at the tower site for a
service technician who will occasionally visit the site
June 6, 1996 (
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6147
for maintenance purposes.
required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
No additional parking is
There is not a record of the ownership legal that this
site is being leased from. Dedicate appropriate right-
of-way per the Master Street Plan.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock Fire Department - Drive must be at least 14
feet wide with a turn -around and made of an all-weather
surface that will support a fire apparatus.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall monopole
communications tower and two small equipment cabinets
within a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area within this 0-2
zoned property at 708 Kirk Road. The proposed site is
located just outside the Little Rock city limits but
within the City`s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
The 50 foot by 50 foot lease area is located within a
larger 0-2 zoned property along the west side of Kirk
Road. The lease area is located at the southwest
corner of the property. There is an existing auto
repair garage located within the east 1/2 of the
property.
Sprint Spectrum has positioned this site at the best
available location in order to provide service along
the I-430 corridor. This particular site was selected
because they feel that, because of the zoning and
existing uses in this general area, their proposal
should have a minimal impact on the surrounding
properties. The 150 foot monopole height is necessary
and essential to meet their frequency criteria for this
area.
The applicant is requesting a height variance for the
proposed tower. A maximum height of 150 feet is
requested for the tower. This exceeds the maximum
height (75 foot) allowed by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance Section 36-201(e)(1)a. According to the
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6147
applicant, this tower will be built to accommodate one
additional (future) user.
Based on the zoning and uses in this general area, this
proposal should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer and Fire
Department Comments. Staff also recommends approval of
the requested height variance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Drew Basham was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Drew Basham addressed the Committee and confirmed that the
tower would accommodate one future user.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee. He stated that additional right-of-way
dedication would be required.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-6148
NAME: Evergreen Professional
Building - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: #2 Van Circle
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roy R. Jolley/Flake Tabor
Tucker Wells and Kelley by
Marilyn Perryman
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
location of a beauty salon
within this existing 0-3 zoned
office building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the end of Van Circle, which
runs west off of N. Pierce Street, approximately one
block north of Evergreen Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed beauty salon will be located within the
existing office building at #2 Van Circle. The office
building is in an area of mixed office and residential
zoning and uses. Staff feels that by increasing the
commercial uses within this building, the
characteristic of the property changes and begins to
shift from office to commercial. This does not conform
to the City's Land Use Plan.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site is gained by utilizing an existing
driveway off of Van Circle.
The existing office building at #2 Van Circle and the
dentist's office building immediately south share the
same parking lot. The proposed beauty salon will bring
the required number of parking spaces for this site to
39. This number assumes that the two vacant spaces
within this building will be occupied by
general/professional office uses. There are 41
existing parking spaces on this site. No additional
parking is required.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6148
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
Master Street Plan right-of-way for University Avenue
is 110 feet for this principal arterial, dedicate
right-of-way to bring lot frontage into conformance
with the Master Street Plan with this zoning change.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - No construction allowed over
existing sewer main or existing easement. Any
additional fill material placed within easement
boundaries must be approved by Utility.
Little Rock Water Works - Due to the nature of the
business proposed (beauty shop), an RPZ backflow
preventer will be required on the domestic water
service prior to the first outlet.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the location of a beauty salon within the
existing office building at #2 Van Circle. The
applicant is proposing to occupy 1,350 square feet of
the 9,608 square foot office building as a three (3)
chair beauty salon.
The office building currently contains a 933 square
foot, two (2) chair beauty salon. This beauty salon
was permitted as an accessory use, less than 10% of the
total floor area, in conjunction with allowable uses
(in the 0-3 district) in the remainder of the building.
The proposed beauty salon when added to the existing
beauty salon would be a total of 2,283 square feet in
area. This represents 23% of the total floor area on
the site.
It is staffs opinion that by increasing the commercial
uses within this building to that percentage (23%), the
characteristic of the property changes and creates a
shift from office to commercial. This type of change
does not conform to the City's Land Use Plan.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6148
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Jeff Yates was present, representing the application. Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee.
Commissioner Daniel commented that the proposed use would
probably increase the traffic flow to this property.
There was a brief discussion regarding the type of use
proposed and the other types of uses currently existing
within the office building.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The applicant, Hank Kelley, was present. There was one
objector present. Staff presented the item, stating that
the applicant has amended the application with the condition
that 23% would be the total square footage allowed for
commercial uses within the building and all other uses would
be allowable 0-3 uses. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff,
stated that staff was acceptable of this proposal and
recommended approval of the application subject to the
condition noted.
Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that it was staff s
intent that this site be maintained as an office development
and not a commercial development. He stated that staff had
no problem with limiting the commercial use within this
building to 23%.
Hank Kelley spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Kelley
stated that he would comply with the City Engineer
requirements, the Little Rock Water works, requirements and
limit the commercial use within this building to 23%.
Mr. Kelley stated that the owner of the building would not
request any additional commercial uses within this building
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6148
in the future, and all other uses within this building would
be permitted 0-3 uses.
Pam Adcock asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Kelley stated that the hours of operation would be from
10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., appointments only.
Commissioner Lichty asked if the application could be
restricted to this lease only.
Jim Lawson stated that it could be done, but typically is
not. Typically, the conditional use permit is restricted to
the use.
There was a brief discussion regarding this issue.
Mr. Lawson stated that it was up to the Commission whether
to restrict this application to this particular lease only
or to the requested use. Mr. Lawson stated that staff was
comfortable in limiting the application to the use.
Edward Erxleben spoke in opposition to the application. He
stated that he had concerns relating to the buffer area
along University Avenue. He stated that he had concerns
relating to the possible increase in use (parking, etc.)
expanding into this area and the possibility of signage
within this buffer area.
Jim Lawson stated that the buffer area along University
Avenue is zoned R-2 and would not allow any commercial
signage or expansion of the office development.
Mr. Kelley stated that the property owner has not interest
in adding any signage to or changing any part of the buffer
area.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit as
amended with the conditions noted by Hank Kelley. The
motion was seconded. The application was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
4
i
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-6149
M"ijul:+�
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Fellowship Bible Church -
Conditional Use Permit
1811 Napa Valley Road
Dennis Harper/Fellowship Bible
Church by Randal B. Frazier
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for
construction of a parking lot
on this R-2 zoned property.
The parking lot will serve the
Fellowship Bible Church,
across Napa Valley Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed site is located on the east side of Napa
Valley Road, approximately 650 feet south of Hinson
Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The properties immediately south and east of this
proposed site are zoned R-2 and contain single family
residences. The property immediately north is zoned 0-
2 and contains a parking lot for the church, with the
Terry Library and an office building located further
north between the proposed site and Hinson Road. The
Fellowship Bible Church property is located west across
Napa Valley Road. With proper screening of the
adjacent residential property, this proposal should not
have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing the
existing driveway which serves the parking lot
immediately north.
This proposal will provide 79 additional parking spaces
to the existing parking facility which serves
Fellowship Bible Church.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6149
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements. The method to be employed to
protect existing trees in buffer areas must be
identified.
5. City Engineer Comments:
Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way on frontage to bring
to 45 feet from centerline prior to permit. Construct
improvements or contribute In -Lieu. If TIP project
currently submitted is approved In -Lieu will be
requested and the construction of this lane will be
included in project for Napa Valley Road, In -Lieu will
be required prior to permit. A grading permit may be
required prior to permit. Stormwater Detention will be
required.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Water Works - Contact the Water Works if
any adjustment of water facilities is required. Those
adjustments would be at the developer's expense.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the expansion of a church parking lot onto
property zoned R-2 which is located at 1811 Napa Valley
Road. The new parking lot area will serve the
Fellowship Bible Church which is located across Napa
Valley Road to the west.
The proposal is to expand the existing parking lot
which is located immediately south and east of the
Terry Library (2015 Napa Valley Road). The expansion
will include the property described as Lot 1, Rainwood
Subdivision (1811 Napa Valley Road). The site
currently contains a 20 foot by 25 foot accessory
building, which will be removed with the parking lot
construction. The remainder of the site is vacant and
contains a number of mature trees, many of which will
remain in the buffer areas. A 6 foot tall wood
screening fence is required (and proposed) along the
entire south and east property lines of this lot.
This proposal will provide 79 additional parking spaces
to the existing parking facility which serves the
Fellowship Bible Church. The paving and striping of
the property for parking spaces will be done to join
the new parking facility with the existing parking lot.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6149
This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Utility Comments
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was not present.
description of this proposal.,
(MAY 16, 1996)
Staff gave a brief
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed the City Engineer
Comments with the Committee.
There were no other comments offered by staff or Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
Q
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.• 18 FILE NO.: Z-6150
NAME: Little Rock Wastewater
Utility (Reinke Road site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 13300 Heinke Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/
Little Rock Wastewater Utility
by Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned Little Rock Wastewater
Utility property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Heinke Road,
approximately .2 mile south of Johnson Road. Heinke
Road runs south off of Mabelvale Cut -Off Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed antenna site is located within Little Rock
Wastewater Utility's Heinke Road Pump Station. The
properties surrounding the pump station are zoned R-2
and are primarily undeveloped. The proposed 58 foot
antenna mast should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing a gravel
drive from Heinke Road.
Parking is provided at the site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site. No
additional parking is required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6150
5. City Engineer Comments:
Heinke Road is a Collector on the Master Street Plan.
Dedicate right-of-way to bring to 30 feet from
centerline. Public Works recommends the gravel drive
have a paved apron per Section 30-47.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Wastewater Pump Station. This
antenna will be used for radio telemetry of information
from and to the existing sanitary sewer pump station.
The pump station consists of a large manhole with
submersible pumps inside. Outside the manhole are
pole -mounted controls which regulate the pumps.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be located near the
northwest corner of the fenced pump station. No height
variance is required for this antenna mast. This
proposal should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
One of the Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified
that the actual overall height of the antenna would be 58
feet.
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comment with
the Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6150
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-6151
NAME: Little Rock Wastewater
Utility (E. Capitol site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 2712 East Capitol (300 feet
north of residence)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Calvin L. Bailey and
Billy E. Bailey/Little Rock
Wastewater Utility by
Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-3
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located approximately 300 feet north of the
residence at 2712 E. Capitol. The site is located in a
50 foot sewer easement within the western section of
the Little Rock Boat Marina property.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The properties to the north, south and west of this 50
foot sanitary sewer easement are zoned R-3. A portion
of the Little Rock Boat Marina property to the East is
zoned I-2. There is a levy separating the marina
property and the residences to the south. The proposed
58 foot antenna mast should not have an adverse effect
on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkincx:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing existing
drives within the marina property.
There will be parking at the site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site. No
additional parking is required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
Tune 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6151
5. City Engineer Comments:
A development permit for construction may be required,
contact Steve Loop at 371-4740.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-3 zoned 50 foot sanitary sewer easement. The antenna
will be used for radio telemetry of information from
and to the new permanent flow monitor which is being
installed in an existing sanitary sewer manhole within
this easement.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be located
approximately 300 feet north of the residence at 2712
East Capitol Avenue (across the levy). No height
variance is required for this antenna mast. This
proposal should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives of Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
One of the Little Rock wastewater representatives verified
that the actual overall height of the antenna would be 58
feet.
David Scherer, of Public works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full commission for final action.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6151
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-6152
NAME: Little Rock Wastewater
Utility (Northwest Court site)
- Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: #2 Northwest Court
OWNER/APPLICANT: James R. Goode/Little Rock
Wastewater Utility by
Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located in the utility easement behind the
residence at #2 Northwest Court. Northwest Court runs
east off of Marina Drive, north of Rivercrest Drive, in
the Candlewood Subdivision.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed antenna site is located within the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility's Candlewood Pump Station. The
properties surrounding this pump station are zoned R-2,
with single family residences located to the south and
west. The proposed 58 foot antenna mast should not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site is gained by utilizing an existing
utility easement located west of #2 Northwest Court.
Parking will be provided at the site for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site. No
additional parking is required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6152
5. City Engineer Comments:
No comments
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Wastewater Pump Station. This
antenna will be used for radio telemetry of information
from and to the existing sanitary sewer pump station.
The pump station consists of a large manhole with
submersible pumps inside. Outside the manhole are
pole -mounted controls which regulate the pumps.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be located within the
utility easement immediately north of #2 Northwest
Court. There is an existing thirty (30) foot antenna
that will be removed when the new system is in service.
No height variance is required for the new antenna
mast. The proposal should not have an adverse effect
on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified that the
actual overall height of the antenna would be 58 feet.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that
representatives of Little Rock Wastewater were working with
the property owners immediately south and west of the pump
station regarding the actual placement location of the
antenna.
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6152
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
STAFF UPDATE:
Little Rock wastewater Utility, the applicant, has submitted
a revised site plan to staff, showing the new proposed
placement of the 58 foot antenna mast (approximately 100
feet to the west). This revised placement reflects an
agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property
owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-6153
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Little Rock Wastewater
Utility (Denny Road Site) -
Conditional Use Permit
18610 Denny Road
City of Little Rock/
Little Rock wastewater Utility
by Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located along the eastern side of Denny
Road, approximately 1,800 feet north of Kanis Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is located just outside the Little Rock city
limits but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning
jurisdiction. A 100 foot AP&L easement is located
immediately north and northwest of this site, with
single family residences further north. The property
west and south across Denny Road is heavily wooded with
a few single family residences located further south
along Denny Road. The property immediately east of
this site is vacant and heavily wooded, with single
family residences located further east along the north
side of Denny Road. All surrounding properties are
zoned R-2. This proposal should not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a
driveway from Denny Road.
Parking at the site is provided for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site for
maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6153
4.
5.
C-V
7.
Screening and Buffers:
No comments
City Engineer Comments:
The Master Street Plan indicates Denny Road as a Minor
Arterial. Dedicate right-of-way from ownership to 45
feet from centerline.
Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No comments
Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Wastewater Pump Station. This
antenna will be used for radio telemetry of information
from and to the existing sanitary sewer pump station.
The pump station consists of a large manhole with
submersible pumps inside. Outside the manhole are
pole -mounted controls which regulate the pumps.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be
existing Chenal Valley Pump Station,
eastern side of Denny Road, north of
height variance is required for the
proposal should not have an adverse
surrounding properties.
Staff Recommendation:
located within the
located along the
Kanis Road. No
antenna mast. This
effect on the
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified that the
actual overall height of the antenna would be 58 feet.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6153
David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with
the Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
K3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-6154
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Little Rock Wastewater
Utility (Reservoir Road site)
- Conditional Use Permit
2000 Reservoir Road
Frank R. Warren/Little Rock
Wastewater Utility by
Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located immediately west of (behind) the
Warren House Apartments, within the permanent Little
Rock Wastewater Utility easement between the Warren
House Apartments and the single family residences on
the east side of Ludington Drive. The Warren House
Apartments are located on the west side of Reservoir
Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of Cantrell Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property immediately west of this pump station site
is zoned R-2 and contains single family residences.
The property immediately east is zoned MF-24 and
contains the Warren House/Warren Terrace Apartment
development. This proposal should not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site is gained by utilizing a Little
Rock Wastewater Utility permanent easement which runs
between Lots 13 and 14 of the Sanford -East Addition
from Ludington Dr. Future access will be gained from
the Warren House Apartment property.
On -street parking near the pump station is provided for
a service technician who will occasionally visit the
site. No additional parking is required.
I
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6154
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
No comments
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Wastewater Pump Station. This
antenna will be used for radio telemetry of information
from and to the existing sanitary sewer pump station.
The pump station consists of a large manhole with
submersible pumps inside. Outside the manhole are
pole -mounted controls which regulate the pumps.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be located within the
Little Rock Wastewater Utility easement between the
Warren House/Warren Terrace Apartment complex and the
single family residences which are located along the
east side of Ludington Dr. There is an existing twenty
(20) foot antenna that will be removed when the new
system is in service. No height variance is required
for the new antenna mast. The proposal should not have
an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater Utility were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified that the
actual overall height of the antenna would be 58 feet.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6154
There were no additional comments offered by staff or the
Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: Z-6155
NAME: Little Rock Wastewater Utility
(Asbury Road site) -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 919 Asbury Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/
Little Rock Wastewater Utility
by Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall
antenna mast within this R-2
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the east side of Asbury Road,
approximately 600 feet north of Kanis Road.
2. Compatibility with Neicrhborhood:
The properties located to the north, south and east of
this pump station are zoned R-2 and contain single
family residences. The properties located to the west
across Asbury Road are also zoned R-2 and contain
single family residences. This proposal should not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained from Asbury Road.
On -street parking near the site is provided for a
service technician who will occasionally visit the
site. No additional parking is required.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
No comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
No comments
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6155
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 58 foot tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned Little Rock Wastewater pump station. This
antenna will be used for radio telemetry of information
from and to the existing sanitary sewer pump station.
The pump station consists of a large manhole with
submersible pumps inside. Outside the manhole are
pole -mounted controls which regulate the pumps.
The proposed 58 foot antenna will be located within the
Cedar Ridge Pump Station located at 919 Asbury Road.
The pump station is located within the utility easement
in the south portion of Lot 15, Cedar Ridge Addition,
Phase 9. There is an existing twenty (20) foot antenna
that will be removed when the new system is in service.
No height variance is required for the new antenna
mast. This proposal should not have an adverse effect
on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two Little Rock Wastewater representatives
were present, representing the application. Staff gave a
brief description of the proposal.
The Little Rock Wastewater representatives verified that the
actual overall height of the antenna would be 58 feet.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the plat which includes the
pump station.
Staff stated that the pump station is within the utility
easement south of Lot 15, Cedar Ridge Addition, Phase 9.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6155
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: Z-6156
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Little Rock Wastewater Utility
(Doyle Springs Road Site) -
Conditional Use Permit
7400 Doyle Springs Road
City of Little Rock/Little Rock
Wastewater Utility by
Fred Chilcote
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of an 82 foot
tall antenna mast within this
R-2 zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Doyle Springs
Road, approximately 800 feet north of Interstate 30.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The properties located north, south and west of this
site are zoned R-2 and contain single family
residences. The properties to the east across Doyle
Springs Road are also zoned R-2 and contain single
family residences. Given the existing uses on this
site (a 46 foot tall water tank and a 40 foot tall Fire
Department training tower), this proposal should not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this site will be gained from Doyle Springs
Road, across the Fire Department property.
Parking at the site is provided for a service
technician who will occasionally visit the site. No
additional parking is required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No comments
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6156
5. City Engineer Comments:
No comments
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant, Little Rock Wastewater Utility, is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of an 82 foot tall antenna mast within
this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works water tank site.
The antenna will serve as a radio telemetry repeater
station to relay information from and to the existing
sanitary sewer pump stations and flow monitors, located
throughout the City.
The proposed 82 foot antenna will be located
immediately west of the existing 46 foot tall water
tank. The water tank is located just west of the
Little Rock Fire Station at 7400 Doyle Springs Road.
There is an existing 20 foot tall water works telemetry
antenna and an existing 40 foot tall fire department
training tower on the site.
The applicant is requesting a height variance for the
proposed antenna. A maximum height of 82 feet is
requested for the antenna. This exceeds the maximum
height (75 foot) allowed by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance Section 36-201(e)(1)a. This proposed 82 foot
tall antenna mast should not have an adverse effect on
the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
application and the requested height variance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
Fred Chilcote and two representatives from Little Rock
Wastewater were present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
The representatives from Little Rock Wastewater verified
that the actual overall height of the antenna would be 82
feet.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6156
There were no additional comments offered by staff or the
Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion
to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
{
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: S-1041-A
NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- REVISED SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN
LOCATION: 1024 Jessie Road
DEVELOPER:
John Haley
Riverdale Mini -Storage
875 Union Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER•
BCC GBN (Blass Firm)
303 West Capitol Avenue
Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 2.91 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 or 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-3 PROPOSED USES: Office Space
PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights (4)
CENSUS TRACT: 15
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None at submittal - to be determined by the
right-of-way abandonment.
BACKGROUND•
This parcel of land is partially composed of excess street right-
of-way and a remnant of the mini -storage development site. The
applicant has previously attempted to gain use of the excess
right-of-way for development purposes, he is again on this agenda
with a petition to abandon if all requirements of the filing can
be met. The developer has not indicated at this time if there
will be a replat to make this a separate lot. If that is done,
it may relieve some problems with design.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To construct two stories of office space above a parking
structure that will provide up to 38 spaces on one level. The
initial application indicates a separate drive access from Jessie
Road than that used by mini -storage.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The expansion of the project area of the mini -storage to add
office space. This is being accomplished by submittal of a
revised Subdivision Site Plan. The end product to be four
buildings on a lot or possibly a two lot plat.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This is a rough parcel of land with drainage and flood plain
problems and street problems with a private road. The
abutting uses are a mix of Office, Commercial and Warehouse.
Zoning is mixed in the this area ranging from Office to the
north and east to Commercial and Industrial along the
railroad right-of-way.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Please note address assigned by GIS (1024 Jessie Road).
The design of the building will be required to comply
with FEMA regulations. The parking is in the flood
plain and does not have to be constructed above the
Base Flood Elevation. However, the stair towers and
elevator shaft will need to be at or above BFE of
256.3, or be flood proofed to this elevation. A
grading plan with a Special Flood Hazard Permit is
required prior to any construction. See G-23-245-A
comments (right-of-way abandonment).
Respond to requirements concerning the drainageway and
the reconstruction of Jessie Road to Commercial Street
Standards. Also, a sidewalk on Riverfront Drive shall
be constructed as a part of this project. The proposed
drive is too close to existing drive recently
constructed and should be a minimum of 100 feet from
the intersection of Riverfront Drive (a minor arterial)
per City Ordinance. Recommend combining drives and
using a common access point.
utilities:
Sewer/exist 10" and 27" line available, contact
Wastewater.
Water/if on a separate lot a main extension is
required. Fire Department needs to evaluate line and
hydrant need and location.
Southwestern Bell Telephone/approved as submitted.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• The site plan should be redrawn to include all existing
buildings.
• Will there be a plat with this on a separate lot?
• Delete parking space nine, won't work.
• Indicate signage, building and pole mounted.
• Turn radii on drives should be shown.
• Detail on plan areas for grass or landscaping.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A
• Detail on canopy as to height-clearance-signage, setback
from new right-of-way line. (Required at 30 feet on
Riverfront Drive.)
• Setback from Jessie Road is 50 feet.
• Fully dimension all physical improvements.
The full on -site buffer width required along Riverfront
Drive is 40 feet. The minimum requirement when transferring
buffer area to another part of the site is 27 feet. The
width of the proposed buffer cannot be determined until the
right-of-way issue has been worked out. At this time, the
amount of right-of-way to be added to this site from the
abandonments is unknown.
E. ANALYSIS:
This application is premature given the several significant
issues developed by staff. The right-of-way line and future
property line require resolution prior to determining
buffers, landscaping, setback, parking design, etc.
The use and general concept is good and has possibilities
after resolution of issues.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Deferral of the request until such time as the street
abandonment issue is resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
The staff presented its comments on the submittal, stating that
there were too many issues unresolved and the drawing requires
more information. The staff felt that it could not deal with the
proposed building without knowing how much land is involved.
Until such time as the City decides how much land will be turned
back to this owner, the lot line on Riverfront Drive is unknown.
A lengthy discussion was held on the subject of bringing all data
and graphics up to date, by the Thursday, May 23 deadline.
Someone raised a question about the railroad ownership and their
participation. It was staff position that the railroad must sign
as a participant. A general discussion then involved the right-
of-way and why the abandonment issue is before the Commission.
Staff question about a need for a plat produced a response from
the applicant that a plat would not be done, this will be one
lot.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1041-A
Staff question about a need for a plat produced a response from
the applicant that a plat would not be done, this will be one
lot.
Wood, of the Staff, noted for the record that a variance will be
required if this is all considered one lot, the depth of the lot
east/west requires a 40 foot buffer along Riverfront Drive. The
present plan cannot handle that. A brief discussion involved
sidewalk and the proposed jogging trail that Parks Department is
developing. No resolution was gained at the approach to in -lieu
or building it.
The applicant then accepted the Committee request that the
requirements noted be dealt with by next Thursday, May 23, 1996.
The item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 28, 1996)
This applicant responded to the many unresolved issues by
requesting in writing a deferral of the application to July 18th
and the Subdivision Committee on June 27th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
As requested by the applicant in writing, a deferral of this item
was determined to be in order. The Commission placed this item
on the Consent Agenda for deferral to July 18, 1996. A motion to
that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: S-867-AAA
NAME: CHENAL VALLEY APTS. -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the west side of proposed Chenal Valley Drive north
of the intersection with the west loop arterial
DEVELOPER:
MLP INVESTMENTS, L.L.G.
11780 Manchester Rd.
Suite 207
Des Peres, MO 63131
AREA: 17.80 ACRES
ZONING• MF-24
ENGINEER•
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC.
401 Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PLANNING DISTRICT: Chenal (19)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND:
PROPOSED USES: Apartment
This apartment site was established early in the overall planning
of Chenal Valley. The adjacent street system complies with and
aligns as required by the Master Street Plan.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This developer's plan includes 302 units on a 17.80 acre site
which will provide 16 plus units per acre.
The buildings are two-story with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom.
The project will be a gated community with one access provided by
way of the proposed Chenal Valley Dr. (a new collector street).
The Plan consists of seventeen (17) building clusters plus a
recreation facility with pool, tennis and clubhouse.
Kiosks will be provided for central mail delivery.
There will be 48 covered parking spaces in garages and a total of
530 spaces.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-867-AAA
A.
B.
C.
10
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To create a medium density MF project on a large lot abutted
by Office and MF zoned land. To create a new street system
to provide access. To develop the land in accordance with
the adopted Land Use Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Gently sloping ground with a high point in the center of the
project and falling away to all boundaries. The site is
timber covered and undisturbed except for an access road to
a water tank site. This road will be eliminated in this
plan.
ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A grading and NPDES permit may be required. Map has
changed that designates flood areas current map is the
11-3-93 FIRM map. Master Street Plan right-of-way and
street improvements associated with Preliminary Plat
are required. Dedicate and construct a right -turn lane
where collector Chenal Valley Drive intersects the
Outer Loop. Stormwater Detention analysis is required.
Locate PAGIS monuments and identify other point
monuments.
Staff has several concerns related to circulation,
drive widths (recommend 20 foot parking and 30 foot
drives), access to Collector without a right -turn lane
shown. This complex will generate collector street
traffic to be funneled to a collector with one access
point.
utilities:
Sewer/main required with
Water/on the plat, mains
system required. Certain
Contact Water Works.
ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
easements.
and on -site fire protection
charges apply.
• Need typical on building types/No. 2 or 3 bedrooms, two-
story, etc.
• Need typical dimension on foundation line of units, and
space between buildings.
• Show height of buildings per zoning Ordinance definition.
E
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-AAA
• Indicate total parking and number parking area as to
count.
• Areas to be landscaped should be shown. They appear to
comply.
• Describe perimeter treatment.
• Show any covered parking.
• Show dumpster locations.
• Providing grades in preliminary form is required. (Spot
elevation) or grading plan if available.
• Show handicap access and parking.
• Need detail around clubhouse, including uses within.
• Eliminate parking in intersection next to clubhouse.
• Need information on design of indicated parking in front
of several units that appear to access garages.
E. ANALYSIS•
The review does not reveal issues or problems that cannot be
resolved prior to the public hearing. The typical item is a
notation required on the drawing. Wider drives to serve the
project and building detail are the issues requiring most
attention.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the Plan subject to the modification of the plan
to meet the needs or design questions raised by staff.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Mr. Joe White was present, representing both this site plan and
the preliminary plat that accompanies it. Mr. White presented an
overview of the proposal and responded to the written comments of
Staff.
Mr. White stated that the subdivider will build all of Chenal
Valley Dr, with this project. wood asked that Mr. White address
the subject of access overall since the lot in this plat is one
of several in a mixed use plat. Mr. White and David Scherer, of
Public Works, discussed turn lanes and the overall size of the
lots being controlling element. No specific resolution was
gained. However, Mr. White indicated that further subdivision of
this plat area may bring an internal street and solve some access
problems.
Mr. Scherer suggested dealing with detention on this site by
designating ponding areas, etc. Mr. white stated that detention
would be dealt with on the preliminary plat.
3
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-AAA
Wood, of the Planning Staff, then moved the conversation to site
plan needs and provision of typicals to illustrate the building
areas, height, dimensions, etc. Mr. white will respond by
submitting the plan need to the architect. They will better
label items and resubmit the plan by May 23rd.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 28, 1996)
This applicant responded very well to the comments in the staff
write-up. The following are the items of information which have
been placed on the revised drawings:
Chancres on Revised Plan
1. Typical building floor plans shown
2. Foundation dimensions shown by typical
3. Height of buildings is two and three story mix maximum
of 45 feet.
4. Total parking is 578 cars for 292 units.
5. Landscaping noted as: "to be per ordinance".
6. Perimeter treatment indicated as a 39± feet minimum natural
or landscaped.
7. Covered parking is shown for 30 cars.
8. Dumpster site identified.
9. Handicap parking is shown.
10. Uses and areas around clubhouse identified.
11. Club to consist of lounge, workout and office.
Remaining Issues
1. The fourteen parking spaces in front of clubhouse in the
intersection.
2. Pedestrian or other walk/service areas.
3. Treatment on entry walls. How tall, material, etc.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
Staff reported there were no remaining issues of
be resolved. The item was placed on the Consent
approval. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
consequence to
Agenda for
was made and
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: S-2582
NAME: REVOCATION OF PLUNKETT COMMERCIAL -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Rodney Parham Road at Green
Mountain and Hinson Road
CURRENT OWNER:
PECTEN ASSOCIATES
1434 Pike Avenue
No. Little Rock,
AREA: 0.81 ACRES
RECORD ENGINEER:
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. 0. Box 3837
AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: (R-2 then) "PCD" currently PROPOSED USES: Retail
shops with Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: Pleasant Valley (2)
CENSUS TRACT: 22.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None were requested.
BACKGROUND:
On January 30, 1990 the owner presented a request to the
Commission for approval of a PCD that would have housed the
business called "Ballonacy" plus some office space. The
Commission recommended the request be approved after having
deferred it and holding a second meeting on February 13, 1990.
The zoning at that time was R-2 and recommended for PCD.
STAFF UPDATE:
Ordinance No. 15,844 states: "...this Ordinance shall take
effect.and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan
by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of
Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years
from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the
final ... plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for
a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval. -
Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan
having been submitted for approval. Notice was given the current
owner with no response received.
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2582
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this
item on the Consent Agenda for approval in as much as there were
no issues or consequences to discuss. There were no objectors
and no interest expressed by the owner. A motion to approve the
Consent Agenda for approval was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
2
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.: 28 FILE NO.: G-23-245-A
Name:
Location:
Owner/Applicant:
Recruest
Riverfront Drive Right -
of -Way Abandonment
Located at Riverfront
Drive (at Jessie Road),
north of and adjacent to
the Little Rock Western
Railroad right-of-way.
John Haley and Chris
Robertson/Fred Chilcote
To abandon the excess
right-of-way for
Riverfront Drive, north
and adjacent to the
Little Rock Western
Railroad right-of-way.
The applicant has not been able to obtain all necessary
documents needed for staff to conduct a proper review of
this item.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a deferral of this
item until the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission Subdivision
Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred
until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The
applicant is working toward obtaining all necessary
paperwork to complete the application process.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.• 29
NAME: Amendment to Master Street
Plan adding an area to the
Plan
LOCATION: West of Joe T. Robinson High
along Hwy. 10
REOUEST: Add classified roads to the
Street Plan
SOURCE• Staff
STAFF REPORT•
The City of Little Rock enlarged its Planning Area in August of
1995. This was done in large part to allow the City to sell
water to an improvement district. The resulting area is within 5
miles of Little Rock. When the City has planning jurisdiction
over an area, the Subdivision Regulations are enforced.
By state law if the City wishes to exercise Subdivision
regulations, there must be a Master Street Plan adopted. Thus,
it is necessary for the City of Little Rock to extend the adopted
Master Street Plan into the area added to the Planning
Jurisdiction.
Today, Staff brings a Master Street Plan Amendment to add the
following:
Principal Arterial: Highway 10 (previous boundary to new
boundary)
Ferndale Cut-off Road (Hwy. 10 to
boundary)
Minor Arterial: Barrett Road (Highway 300 to Highway 10)
Garrison Road (Highway 10 to boundary)
Collectors: Goodman Road (All)
Matthews Road (Goodman to Garrison)
Studer/Story (Ferndale Cut -Off Road to
planning boundary
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.)
Collectors: Ridgefield Road (Garrison to unnamed
(continued) collector)
Unnamed Collector (Studer Road to
planning boundary)
These roads should provide the needed transportation backbone on
which further development of the area may take place. Both the
Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal
and the Regional Planning Agency has commented based on the 2020
Transportation Plan for the region. All parties are in general
agreement with the proposal as submitted to the Commission for
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II, presented the proposed Master Street
Plan Amendment. The City extended to 5 miles the Planning area
along Highway 10 west of Highway 300. In order to administer the
subdivision regulation, the City must first adopt Master Street
Plan classifications. That is the purpose of today's meeting to
adopt classifications. Mr. Malone briefly explained that the
regional transportation plan was reviewed as a starting point.
Each functional classification type was described along with
typical spacings for each classification type. In addition,
existing roads are generally used for arterials (where needed) or
they are placed along property lines to spread the impact.
The proposal was reviewed by both the Planning and Public Works
Departments using the criteria and topographic maps. The result
is the amendment before the Commission today. There are three
major issues of concern of the people here today. First in
notice or lack of notice. Property owners with more than 20
acres were notified and maps were placed in area businesses.
Second is the uncertainty about straightening roads - exact
locations. Third is the impact on existing homes of widening the
roads.
Dorothy Lanehart, 10715 Garrison Road was called. Ms. Lanehart
expressed consider about the loss of rural life. The people in
the area live there to be away from town. Several commissioners
discussed the timing of the issue,that this will only occur if
subdivisions are filed and that it will be in the future. The
past example of the Markham/Bowman area was given. Ms. Lambert
indicated she was against the proposal and suggested the Attorney
review the York Acres Bill of Assurance.
2
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.)
There was some discussion about the water improvement district
etc.
Mr. Larry DeVorak, 12307 Garrison Road was called. Mr. DeVorak
expressed concern about the impacts of any road straightening
(Garrison Road). Mr. Bill Henry, Manager Traffic Engineering,
gave some information about turning radii, design standards, etc.
Mr. DeVorak indicated there should have been more information
provided. Further some of the straightening indicated could not
now be done due to recent subdivisions. People are upset about
this.
There was discussion about giving written statements as to the
impact and when it might occur.
Mr. James Morgan, 9701 Old Arkansas Road, was called. Mr. Morgan
presented the Commission with a petition of over 70 names of
people along Barrett Road opposed to the proposal. Mr. Morgan
stated it was a shame that the Commission had already made up its
mind.
There was discussion from the Commission that action by owners in
the area would initiate any action. In response, the Commission
and Staff was asked what was the big hurry to adopt this if not
going to act soon.
Mr. Joe T. Tipton, 11305 Garrison Road, was called. Mr. Tipton
expressed concern about straightening Garrison and what that
would do to his house. The alignment should be laid out on plats
to see exactly where the road would be.
There was discussion among the Commission and Staff about just
showing the existing alignment - no straightening. There was a
suggestion not to show collectors. There appeared to be
consensus to show collectors but to just classify roads not try
to layout (straighten) the proposed roads.
Ms. Debbie Moreland, 20311 Lake Vista, was called. Ms. Moreland
indicated there were just alot of unanswered questions. The
uncertainty of the map; lack of input and the perception that
causes; who pays for Roland water lines being moved; is there
going to be zoning; effects on flooding, runoff of widening
Barrett Road; just too many unknowns. There needs to be some
input by the local people. Everyone admits that growth is going
to occur and that orderly growth is better. But we must address
the concerns of those people here now, not just those to come in
the future. There needs to be some meetings in the area to
discuss the issues and explain some of the unknowns.
The Commission discussed deferral to allow for the meetings.
Mr. Lawson agreed to work with Ms. Moreland to set up the
Q
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.)
meetings. Commissioner Adcock (second Commissioner Hawn) made a
motion to defer the item to an unknown time in the future so that
staff could meet with area residents. The audience objected to
the Commission voting and stopping the hearing. Chairman Woods
agree to hear from Jo Ann Wortham 25624 Highway 10.
Ms. Wortham included she had only one acre and it was unjust to
contact only those with over 20 acres. If Highway 10 were
widened to a principal arterial, the road would be to her front
door.
There was some discussion about stopping debate or limiting the
time for additional comment. Mr. Malone indicated that anyone
who had written, signed a petition or filled out a card would be
notified of future meetings. A sign up sheet was sent around for
others to add their names and addresses.
Ms. Martha Jarvis expressed concern about not being allowed to
speak. She stated that she had been on Barrett Road for 47
years. Her half acre, given to her by her mother was all she
had. To widen Barrett would in danger her children and destroy
all the homes along Barrett Road. This land is all she has to
given her children.
By unanimous vote 9 for, 0 against and 2 absent, the item was
deferred.
4
June 6, 1996
ITEM NO.• 30
NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment -
Port South District
LOCATION: East of Zeuber Road and South
of Sloane
REOUEST: Agricultural to Industrial
SOURCE: Staff - Extraterritorial
Zone Area 3
STAFF REPORT•
As part of the review for the extraterritorial zoning of Area 3,
the Plan in the Zeuber Road area come into question. The current
plan changes the land use at the city limits. Industrial is
inside the City and Agricultural is outside the city limits.
Further to the east the Plan shows a mixed (either/or)
Agricultural -Industrial classification. This second area was
thought to be the most likely expansion area of the industrial
uses in the Port area.
There has been some expansion of industrial use into the first
area, along Zeuber Road. As the second area, the Zeuber Road
area is adjacent to the Port Industrial District. The existing
use is predominantly agricultural and the area is very low
(floodplain). The area north and east of Zeuber Road is
appropriate for expansion of Port uses. Agriculture use is also
appropriate and will likely continue to be a use of some of the
land. (Note: In the Port Industrial Park some of the area is
used for agricultural purposes.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
There being no unresolved issues, the item was placed on Consent
Agenda for approval. By unanimous vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent, the item was approved.
�4
wUJ
Ull,
o
V)
Z�
0 0
rn,6 1
D)
0
u
C)
z
z
fill
w
E-4
4
0
MEN
0
MEMMMMM
ommmo
mmomi
ammmmmmomm
OMMEEMEMENEE
mommmmonom
mommmomomm
MOMMEMEMOMMI
WOMEMEMEMEEN,
ammmommomm
ME
ME
EMMENEEME®®
mommommommom
m
mmmmmmm
ME
MmMMmmMEM
ME
m
m
immm
ammomm
No
oil
Ems
E-4
z
W
co
0
w
>4
F:�
June 6, 1996
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
'.) _
1. --q �.
Date n
F,Chairman