pc_06 14 1994subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 14, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the May 3, 1994 meeting were approved
as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Chachere, Chairman
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Putnam
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
B. J. Wyrick
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ramsay Ball
Ron Woods
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 14, 1994
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.
Apple Subdivision --
Preliminary Plat
(5-1010)
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1.
Windsor Hills, Phase
II -- Preliminary
Plat (5-150-E)
2.
Deerfield Addition --
Preliminary Plat
(5 -170 -FF)
2A.
Secluded Hills, Phase
V -- Preliminary
Plat (5-191-F)
3.
Hinson Office Park --
Preliminary Plat
(S-1028)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS_:
3A. Hinson Office Park -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development
(Z -3699-A)
4. Fairview Kennels -- Short -Form Planned Office Development (2-
5836)
5. Detection Systems, Inc. -- Short -Form Planned Office Development
(Z-5838)
6. Chenal Village -- Long -Form Planned Commercial Development
(Z-5839)
SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
7. Health Advantage Office Building -- Site Plan Review
(Z-5837)
8. Climate Control Mini -Storage -- Site Plan Review (Z-5840)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
9. Little Rock Racquet Club -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -1840-B)
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
10. "R" Street Exclusive Right -of -Way and Easement Abandonment,
described as that portion of "R" Street located between N.
Filmore and N. Pierce Streets (G-23-211)
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1010
NAME: APPLE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
.0
LOCATION: Approximately 100 feet south of Frazier Pike Ave.,
approximately 0.2 miles east of Stout Street
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
JESSIE DOYNE, PRESIDENT PAT MCGETRICK
COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
P. O. Box 626 Little Rock, AR 72211
College Station, AR 72053 223-9900
AREA: 1.48 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 200
ZONING: AF PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 24
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a 5 -lot residential subdivision on a 1.5
acre tract involving the construction of 200 feet of new street.
The north boundary of the subdivision is 97 feet south of the
centerline of Frazier Pike Ave., and the preliminary plat which
has been submitted indicates a 60 foot wide right-of-way
connecting Frazier Pike Ave. with the site and extending
southward alongside the east boundary of the site. However, this
right-of-way is apparently not dedicated, and the applicant
proposes no roadway construction to tie the tract to Frazier Pike
Ave.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat is requested of the Planning
Commission for the subdivision of a 1.5 acre tract to
provide 5 residential lots which are proposed to have
frontage on a 200 foot long internal street. The center
line of the internal street is 223.5 feet south of the
centerline of Frazier Pike Ave., and a 60 foot wide right-
of-way is shown extending south from Frazier Pike Ave. to
the site and lying along the east boundary of the site.
This right-of-way is not a platted right-of-way. The
applicant proposes no roadway construction off site to
connect the proposed development with Frazier Pike Ave.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1010
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. The area designated on
the plat as a 60 foot right-of-way extending southward from
Frazier Pike Ave. has been cleared at one time and is
overgrown in weeds and brush. The site is level.
The existing zoning of the site is A -F, with A -F zoning on
all the surrounding land except for an R-2 area to the north
of the tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering notes that the internal road designated Apple
Blossom Lane must be constructed to meet Master Street Plan
requirements. The applicant is to comply with Sec. 31-401
of the Code regarding installation of street lighting.
Water Works reports that a water main extension will be
required. Apple Drive is apparently not a dedicated
right-of-way and lies on private property. An acreage
charge in addition to the normal charges will be applied.
Wastewater notes that a sewer main extension with easements
will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site of the proposed subdivision is apparently land -locked.
It does not have access to Frazier Pike Ave. along the Apple
Drive right-of-way shown, since that right-of-way does not
exist; it has apparently never been platted or dedicated. For
access to the site, right-of-way will have to be acquired and
Apple Drive will have to be constructed to Master Street Plan
standards. Since the information indicated on the plan is
incorrect which shows the right-of-way, this incorrect
information must be deleted from the plan.
It is reported that the applicant has additional land which
is contiguous to the proposed platted area. If this is the
case, this additional land needs to be included in the
preliminary plat and can, if necessary, be shown as a tract
for future development.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1010
The plat as submitted has minor deficiencies: the owner,
surveying, and engineering certifications must be executed;
the ownership and deed information on abutting properties
need to be shown; and, the zoning classifications of the
site and of abutting properties need to be shown.
Additional requirements are: the PAGIS monuments must be
denoted and set; a Bill of Assurance must be submitted; etc.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed plat has a fatal flaw in that it is land -locked
and no provision has been made to provide access to the
site. The plat cannot be approved in its current form or
status.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends either denial of the request, or, if the
applicant feels that a deferral would allow time to remedy
the deficiencies, then staff will concur with such a
request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the request and the discussion centered on the apparent
fact that the proposed subdivision is land -locked; that the
60 foot right-of-way shown on the drawing to connect Frazier Pike
Ave. with the site has never been dedicated. There was also
discussion about the applicant proposing no street construction
to connect the site with Frazier Pike Ave. Mr. McGetrick
reported that the applicant was going to attempt to get
assistance from the City to construct the off-site street
improvements. Since the subdivision cannot be approved without
resolution of the access problem, there was very little other
discussion. The Committee indicated that the applicant needs to
defer pursuing approval of the preliminary plat until the access
problem is resolved and a determination is made on the
construction of Apple Lane.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994)
Staff reported that the City has been in contact with the
applicant regarding funding for off-site and on-site street
improvements, and that, in order for the City and the applicant
to pursue options available for funding, the City has suggested
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A _(Continued) FILE NO.: S-1010
and the applicant has agreed to request a deferral until the
June 4, 1994 Commission hearing. The item was included on the
Consent Agenda for deferral, and the deferral was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention.
Staff reported that the Commission Bylaws require written
notification of a request for a deferral to be submitted at least
five (5) days prior to the Commission hearing date. In this
case, the agreement to seek a deferral was by mutual agreement
between the City and the applicant, and no written request was
made. Consequently, a waiver of the Bylaws requirement needs to
be approved by the Commission. The waiver was approved with the
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff explained that a letter from the applicant's engineer had
been received, asking for a 90 -day deferral. Staff indicated,
though, that the applicant's engineer had related that the
applicant was considering adding additional property to the
proposed subdivision, necessitating a complete re -design. Staff
also recounted that the applicant was counting on Community
Development Block Grant Funds for the needed funding for off-site
and on-site street improvements, and that there was no access to
the site. Staff recommended, then, that in lieu of the 90 -day
extension, the item be withdrawn. The applicant could then
re -apply when funding is in place and the scope of the project is
established. The Commission approved the recommendation to
withdraw the application. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
0
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -150-E
NAME: WINDSOR HILLS, PHASE II -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side and at the south end of Windsor Court
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
BILL LILE SAM DAVIS
VANTAGE DEVELOPMENT CO. SAMUEL L. DAVIS CONSULTING ENGINEER
#3 W. Palisades Dr. 5301 W. 8th. St.
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72204
664-4971 664-0324
AREA: 2.265 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 880
ZONING: MF -6 & OS PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1). Private Streets
2). Depth of Lot 17 to be less than 100 feet
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a phase two extension of the Windsor Hills
patio homes development. Windsor Hills Court is planned to extend
south from the present termination of the right-of-way as a
private street, with private streets turning west off Windsor
Court. The present cul-de-sac located south of the end of the
Windsor Court right-of-way is to be removed, and a turn -around is
to be built at the new end of Windsor Court. Thirteen residential
lots are planned, with an average lot size of 66 feet by 100 feet
and a minimum lot size of 56 feet by 100 feet. There is one
exception to this minimum lot size, and that is lot 17 which has a
lot depth along its west line of 99.40 feet and along its east
line of 97.55 feet.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a
13 -lot residential subdivision for a phase two extension of
the Windsor Hills patio homes development, with a private
street system. Review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a
variance from the minimum lot depth regulations in the
Subdivision Ordinance of 100° to permit Lot 17 to have a
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-150-E
minimum lot depth of 97.55 feet along its east property line
and 99.4 feet along its east property line.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped and heavily wooded, with a
curb and gutter section of Windsor Court terminating in a
cul-de-sac extending 225 feet south into the property beyond
the present end of the street right-of-way. The topography
rises from the low point at the southeast corner of the
tract approximately 80 feet to the northwest corner.
Along the south boundary of the proposed subdivision is a
50' OS strip, with Hillsborough Subdivision on to the south.
Burntree, Phase I subdivision abuts the property to the
west. Both Hillsborough and Burntree are R-2 zoned areas.
Across Windsor Court to the east is Point Pleasant Addition
which is a PRD townhome development. To the north is the
Phase I portion of Windsor Hills patio homes in an MF -6
area.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a complete grading and excavation
plan must be provided. The Stormwater Detention and
Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. A turn -around
must be provided at the south end of Windsor Court.
water Works reports that 3" and 8" water main extensions
will be required, as well as private fire hydrants.
Wastewater reports that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that additional
easements to the easements shown will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department indicates that all private drives must
have a minimum width of 20 feet, and that standard City "No
Parking/Tow Away" -signs will be required.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-207) states:
"Private streets for residential developments shall be
discouraged. However, private streets may be approved by the
Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • S -150-E
design standards shall conform to public street
standards...." "The subdivider shall provide for permanent
maintenance of all private streets in the Bill of
Assurance."
The plan which has been submitted fails to note the 50 foot
OS strip along the south boundary of the subdivision. The
lots are approximately 100 feet in depth, and this depth
includes 20 feet of driveway access. Deducting the 50 foot
OS strip and the 20 foot driveway access from the 100 foot
lot depth, the buildable area, then, will be approximately
30 feet in depth.
The plans which
following ways:
and, the zoning
are to be shown.
E. ANALYSIS•
have been submitted are deficient in the
contours are to be at 2 foot intervals;
classifications of all abutting properties
With the 50 foot OS strip across the south boundary of the
site, the available building area for Lots 17, 19, 21, and
23 are severely restricted. The developer needs to assure
the Commission that the OS strip can be protected during and
after construction, and that there is area remaining on
these lots which can provide adequate building sites.
The proposed street is a "dead end" and the site is
isolated. It meets the Subdivision Regulations requirements
for approval of a private street system.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and
approval of the private streets, subject to the developer
addressing the questions raised as a result of the OS strip
bordering the southern boundary of the subdivision; e.g.,
can it be protected and are the resulting buildable areas
sufficient. Staff recommends approval of the variance for
the lot depth of less than 100 feet for Lot 17.
SUBDIVI-SIGN COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Sam Davis, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal, and the plan was presented to the Subdivision Committee
members. The deficiencies noted in the Discussion Outline were
discussed. Public Works reviewed its comments concerning the
need for a turn -around at the end of Windsor Court, and the Fire
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-150-E
Department's comment concerning the need for a minimum 20 foot
wide street was discussed. The requested variances were
discussed. Mr. Davis indicated that he would amend the plans to
correct the deficiencies. The Committee forwarded the item to
the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff presented the item, outlining the request and reporting
that the design which had been submitted had failed to take into
account a 50 foot wide "OS" strip along the southern boundary of
the site. The "OS" strip matter, staff related, must be
addressed, as well as the requested approvals of the variance
from the 100 foot minimum lot depth for Lot 17 and the variance
to permit a private street system within the boundary of the
proposed subdivision.
Mr. Sam Davis, project engineer, proposed that the plan, as
submitted, be approved, with the condition that the 50 foot "OS"
strip be added, but with the understanding that the applicant
will seek to rezone the "OS" strip to the same zoning as the
remainder of the project site. This, he said, would allow the
applicant to begin construction. He said that, even with the
50 foot "OS" strip, there is 30 feet of buildable depth on the
affected lots. If the rezoning is approved, then the proposed
plat would remain as presented.
Jim Lawson, Neighborhoods and Planning Director, stated that an
"OS" strip cannot be disturbed during construction, so, he
advised, there is, in effect, less than the 30 feet of buildable
area; there must be left enough room abutting the "OS" strip for
construction activity without encroaching onto the "OS" strip.
Mr. Lawson suggested approval of the portion of the plat which is
not affected by the "OS" strip, and giving conditional approval
to the south four lots only if the rezoning is approved.
Mr. Davis indicated that it was the applicant's intention to
pursue getting the "OS" strip rezoned to be consistent with the
zoning of the remainder of the site. He pointed out that the
proposed development is for single family residences, not
apartments, and that the "OS" strip is not needed as a buffer for
the single family developments to the south and west.
Commissioners Walker and Putnam suggested that approval be
granted for those lots of the subdivision which are not affected
by the "OS" strip, so that the developer may proceed with the
construction of that portion of the development.
4
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -150-E
Staff indicated that the developer needed to realize that if the
rezoning is not granted, he will have four lots which have very
restricted buildable areas; that if the developer wishes to
proceed under those conditions, staff has no objections.
Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if he wished to amend
his application accordingly.
Mr. Davis agreed to amend the application to seek approval of
that portion of the plat containing Lots 12, 14, 16, 11, 13, 15,
18, 20, and 22, but asked that approval be granted for the plat
as presented if the "OS" area were successfully rezoned.
Chairperson Chachere replied that it was her interpretation of
the Commission's wishes that the applicant return to the Planning
Commission for final approval of the plat, whichever version of
the plat were ultimately able to be approved.
Mr. Jack Mills, identifying himself as the president of the Point
Pleasant Condominiums Owners' Association, expressed concern
about the stormwater run-off from the proposed development. He
asked for information on the meaning of the area shown as
"Stormwater Detention Area" on the plat.
Mr. Sherman Smith, Civil Engineering Manager in the Public Works
Department, explained that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
requires that the developer cannot allow stormwater to run off of
his development at any greater rate than the existing rate prior
to development, based on a 25 -year storm, and that he must
provide the area to detain this amount of stormwater on his site
and to release it at a rate that property down stream is not
flooded. He went on to say that, even meeting these standards,
developers may not flood anyone down stream. He indicated that
the developer's engineer is to submit to Public Works his
proposed stormwater detention plan; Public Works reviews the plan
and requires revision, if necessary; the work is checked during
construction to make sure that the design is followed; then,
after the work is completed, Public Works verifies that the
stormwater detention is adequate.
Staff explained to Mr. Mills that the area denoted on the plat as
- "Stormwater--Detent-ion Area is--that—axea proposed—to be used- to
detain the run-off prior to it exiting the site in the
underground pipe running off to the south.
Commissioner Oleson expressed concern that, if the applicant
gains approval of the plat, minus the four south lots, and
proceeds with street construction, the applicant may claim that
there is a need to rezone the "OS" strip based on the hardship
that the south four lots are unusable.
5
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -150-E
Mr. Davis clarified the applicant's plans: to seek rezoning of
the "OS" strip so that the full depth of the lots may be used, or
to show the "OS" area on the plat and build homes within the
buildable area.
Commissioner Oleson confirmed that a total re -design is not
anticipated, and that the basic design of the subdivision would
not be changed no matter what the outcome of a rezoning request.
Mr. Lawson recommended, then, that the plat, as presented, be
approved, with the understanding that, until the "OS" strip is
either rezoned or shown on the plat, the four south lots cannot
be developed. He said that he did not foresee any problem with a
recommendation from staff of approval of rezoning of the "OS"
strip to be consistent with the zoning of the remainder of the
site; that with single-family backing up to single-family, the
"OS" area is inappropriate.
A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat, subject to,
for development of lots 17, 19, 21, and 23, the applicant either
gaining approval of the rezoning of the "OS" strip to allow use
of these lots without the "OS" restrictions, or indicating the
"OS" area on the plat and the use of these lots being restricted
accordingly, and to approve the request for a private street
within the subdivision, and to recommend approval of the lot
depth variance request. The motion carried with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: 5 -170 -FF
NAME: DEERFIELD ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: West of and beyond the present end of Carmel Drive, on
the north side of Hinson Road
DEVELOPER:
FLOYD H. FULKERSON
124 W. Capitol, Suite 1075
Little Rock, AR 72201
376-4432
AREA: 10 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS:
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Private street
ENGINEER•
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Land, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
225-9900
16 FT. NEW STREET: 1200
PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
2) Lot width to depth ratio
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to re -plat what are presently 2 large lots
in Block 57 of the Pleasant Valley Addition into 16 lots in a new
subdivision known as Deerfield Addition. The extension of Carmel
Drive, an existing private street, to serve the new lots is
proposed. The proposed lots are, on an average, 80 feet in
width. The lot depth ranges from about 200 feet to nearly
380 feet. Lots 8 through 15 also have frontage on Hinson Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission is requested for a
subdivision involving the re -platting of 2 lots in Block 57
of Pleasant Valley Addition into 16 lots in a new
subdivision knows as Deerfield Addition. Planning
Commission approval of a private street is requested. The
private street is proposed to be an extension of Carmel
Drive, an existing private street. Planning Commission
review and Board of Directors approval is requested for a
variance from the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations
which limits the lot width to depth ratio to 1:3, and permit
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -170 -FF
the lot depth to exceed the allowable depth based on the lot
widths which have been designed in this plat.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed subdivision is a re -plat of Lots 42 and 43,
Block 57, Pleasant Valley Addition. Lots 42 and 43 are
large tracts beyond the present end of Carmel Drive which
are owned by the original developer of the previously
developed portion of the subdivision. This owner now wishes
to divide these 2 large tracts into the 16 building sites
and extend Carmel Drive as a continuation of the private
street to serve the additional lots.
The site is located on a hillside, with the roadway and the
front of the lots being at the high side of the development.
The zoning of the site and of the surrounding areas is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a turn -around will have to be
constructed at the end of the private street; an additional
5 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated on Hinson Road to
meet Master Street Plan requirements; and, a "no access"
easement must be platted along Hinson Road. The Stormwater
Detention Ordinance will be applicable, and a detailed
grading and excavation plan must be submitted.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that 3 inch and
8 inch main extensions will be required, as well as private
fire hydrants. Adequate easements for placement of water
mains out from under the pavement will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. reports that additional
easements will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that additional
easements will be required.
The Fire -Department approve —the submittal tivithout comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The proposed subdivision is a re -plat of Lots 42 and 43,
Block 57, Pleasant Valley Addition. The proposed street is
an extension of the private street previously established.
The applicant is the owner of Lots 42 and 43, Block 57, and
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -170 -FF
was the developer of the remainder of the subdivision. The
Bill of Assurance which was promulgated by the developer and
under which the remainder of the subdivision is governed
states: "(The developer) hereby donates and dedicates to
the lot owners fee title to the streets ... to be used as
private streets." A property owners association was
established in the Bill of Assurance to, among other things,
provide for the "preservation and improvement of
all ... public areas ....°
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-207) states:
"Private streets for residential development shall be
discouraged. However, private streets may be approved by
the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The
design standards shall conform to public street
standards...." The developer requests approval of a private
street to serve this development, and the Planning
Commission is empowered to grant this request.
Carmel Drive, the private streets previously approved by the
Planning Commission for Pleasant Valley Addition, including
the area to be re -platted in this application, was designed
as a minor residential street, and is a 24 foot wide
concrete street. A continuation of the street as originally
approved is proposed for Deerfield Addition.
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-232.b) states: "No
residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep
as it is wide...." The lots are proposed to be, on an
average, 80 feet wide; therefore, the maximum lot depth must
not exceed, based on an 80 foot width, 240 feet. All the
lots exceed the 1:3 ratio, and a waiver of this regulation
must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Lots 8 through 15 are double frontage lots, with frontages
on both Carmel Drive and on Hinson Road. The Subdivision
Regulations (Section 31-232.4) prohibits double frontage
lots, except "where a subdivision abuts or contains an
existing or proposed arterial street...." Since Hinson Road
is a minor arterial, the double frontage lots are not
prohibited in this situation.
The plans which have been submitted to date are deficient in
the following manners: 1) the plat is not just a re -plat,
but a new subdivision, and must contain the information
required on a new preliminary plat; e.g., contours, names of
recorded subdivision abutting the site, the book and page
number or instrument of these subdivisions, the names of
owners of abutting unplatted land, the zoning
classifications of the site and of abutting properties, and
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -170 -FF
the location of proposed PAGIS monuments; 2) the average
and minimum lot sizes are to be shown; 3) the proposed
design of the street is to be shown; and, 4) the provision
for storm drainage is to be addressed.
E. ANALYSIS:
The area encompassed by this application was previously
approved by the Commission as two large lots with the private
street extending to the east boundary of the second lot. The
developer has now elected to further divide these two lots
into multiple building sites. This, in itself, is not a
problem and does not conflict with the Subdivision
Regulations. The problem, however, arises as a result of the
existing POA (Property Owners' Association) which was
established to maintain the private streets in the previously
platted portion of the subdivision, and the fact that the two
lots which are proposed to be divided into the 16 lots in
this application were not part of that POA area. The
residents in and the POA of the previously platted area
object to the development. They indicate that the
development of the multiple lots are not in keeping with the
size of the previously platted lots in the remainder of the
subdivision, and, they say that the street onto which the
developer is tying and extending into the new development is
a private street, owned and maintained by them and the POA.
The developer, however, reports that he has the right to use
and extend the private street. These type questions are
civil matters, and are not within the purview of the Planning
Commission. The proposed preliminary plat, with approval by
the Board of Directors for the lot width -to -depth ratio
variance, meets Ordinance standards.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and
approval of the private street to be built to minor
residential street standards. Staff recommends approval of
the variance requested for the lot width -to -depth ratio.
The recommendation for approval, however, is contingent on
corrected and completed plans being submitted and approved
by staff.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Floyd Fulkerson, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the
engineer, were present. Staff presented the application and
reviewed with the applicant and engineer the comments in the
4
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -170 -FF
discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick
noted would be corrected, and that
would be provided. The Committee
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
responded that the deficiencies
the additional information
forwarded the item to the
(JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the applicant
sought a variance from the Commission for a private street within
the proposed subdivision. Staff pointed out that, as presented,
the lots exceed the depth which is allowed by the Subdivision
Regulations, based on the lot width to depth ratio provision.
Staff indicated that, either the applicant would have to seek a
waiver of that provision from the Board of Directors, or would
have to amend the plat to conform to the Regulations. Staff
reported that there are two ways of meeting the regulation:
1) increase the width of the lots so that the ratio is met; or
2), shorten the lots to meet the ratio by providing an undivided
"Tract All along the rear of the tract, in which case maintenance
of the tract will have to be provided for. Staff also indicated
that a "no access" easement was to be provided along the Hinson
Road frontage of the affected lots.
Mr. Pat McGetrick indicated that the developers choice regarding
the lot width to depth ratio problem was to shorten the lots so
that the width to depth ratio requirement is met; that the lots
would have to be shortened approximately 100 feet, and an
undivided tract would be created at the rear of the subdivision.
He indicated that the developer proposed to dedicate the tract to
the City as open space. He also indicated that the developer
would agree to the designation of the "no access" easement along
Hinson Road.
Staff interjected that the City is not interested in acquiring
land as open space which the City would have to maintain. Staff
indicated that the maintenance of the open space tract would have
to be provided for by the developer and/or property owners,
association in the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision.
Mr. McGetrick conceded that the developer would provide for the
maintenance of the area, and staff reported that, in this case,
no variances would be required to be referred to the Board of
Directors for approval.
Mrs. Tom (Nita) Hill, representing herself and her next door
neighbor, Mrs. Virginia Moore, expressed concern about the
stormwater run-off from the hillside above their homes which face
5
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -170 -FF
Hinson Road. She stated that there are problems with run-off
now, and she is wanted to know what the developer proposes to
control the run-off.
Bill Appleton, indicating that he is one of the residents of the
Carmel Property Owners' Association of which the proposed
development is to be an extension, stated that the existing Bill
of Assurance covers the entire area (i.e., the existing developed
area, as well as the area proposed for development as Deerfield
Addition), and this Bill of Assurance requires permission of the
Property Owners' Association for the development to take place.
He stated that the required permission has not been sought by
Mr. Fulkerson nor granted by the Association. He testified that
the area proposed for development as Deerfield Addition is
covered by the Carmel Bill of Assurance.
Chairperson Chachere stated that Bill of Assurance issues cannot
be enforced by the City, nor is the Planning Commission the
proper body to which property owners can look for enforcement of
Bill of Assurance provisions.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles related that it was his
understanding that the proposed subdivision is to be a new
subdivision with its own Bill of Assurance. He went on to say
that Bill of Assurance issues are private issues; that the City
does not execute and is not a part to Bills of Assurance, and the
City is not bound by them. In this case, then, any dispute
involving Bill of Assurance issues will have to be worked out
between Mr. Fulkerson and the Property Owners' Association and/or
individual property owners. The subdivision which is being
presented, as amended, he continued, meets the technical
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations in design and in the
fact that it has a Bill of Assurance, and the commission may not
deny approval because of a private dispute.
Staff reported that Mr. Fulkerson has chosen to propose
development of the subdivision as a separate subdivision with a
different name and with a separate Bill of Assurance, knowing of
the objection of the Carmel property owners and of the Carmel
Property Owners' Association, and is seeking Planning Commission
approval of the subdivision, knowing that the objectors may
choose to enforce the original Bill of Assurance in the courts.
Mr. John Sawatski said that the new property owners' association
and Bill of Assurance would be subordinate to the existing,
overriding association and Bill of Assurance. He objected to the
proposed subdivision because, he said, it does not meet the test
of being in harmony with the surrounding development nor with
industry standards for the highest and best use of the property.
0
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -170 -FF
He stated that, if access to the new subdivision is to be gained
through the existing Carmel area, then there must be an agreement
made for sharing associated costs; if Mr. Fulkerson anticipates
the new subdivision becoming a part of the existing Association,
then he must conform to the Association's standards. He
complained that the existing private street system is not
designed for the addition of the number of lots proposed.
Commissioner Walker indicated that he was under the impression
that the lots conformed to the Subdivision Regulations, and asked
Mr. Sawatski to explain to him how and on what basis the
Commission could deny approval of the subdivision. He related
that he had not been able in the past nor in the present
situation to justify to himself a denial simply because a
subdivision did not conform to the standards of the surrounding
development. He indicated sympathy with an attempt to achieve
conformity in the development, but suggested that the matter is
probably a private contractual issue which should be pursued in
the courts. He said that he, as a Commissioner, cannot find in
the ordinances a way to enforce in this situation substantially
higher standards than the normal R-2 standards.
Mr. Sawatski reiterated that the new development is part of the
Carmel Property Owners' Association, and that the number and size
of the proposed lots does not conform to the Bill of Assurance
and Property Owners' Association requirements. He complained
that the other owners within the Association have a right to
expect a compatible development; that others and he and his
family bought with that anticipation. He pointed out that every
car entering or leaving the new area will be traveling across the
Carmel Property Owners' Association' private road, maintained by
the members of that Association.
Mr. Walker mentioned that he understood that one area above the
proposed development had been originally planned to be divided
into 4 lots, and, as it turned out, is one large lot. Therefore,
he said, the net addition of lots using the private road is not
the full 16 lots, but 13.
Mr. Sawatski replied that, originally, the private street was
supposed to be a loop street; that the area which has
subsequently been sold as a single lot in lieu of 4 lots and
which hlTes--immediately-to— the —east -of Mr: Fu-l-ke-r�on's-p-rope-rt , -
was the proposed route of the loop, and that Mr. Fulkerson's area
was supposed to be a dead-end section of street. Now, all
traffic has to use the entire length of the private street, with
no alternate route. This, he said, does not provide adequate
access to Mr. Fulkerson's property.
7
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -170 -FF
Commissioner Oleson asked, if this is the case, how is access to
the property to be achieved? She asked if the City is now in the
position of telling property owners that they have to let others
use their private street.
Mr. Lawson explained that, according to the Public Works staff,
the private street is adequate to serve the traffic load of the
area, and that, when the plat was originally approved for the
2 lots which Mr. Fulkerson is now proposing to be platted as
16 lots, the legal access to the property, as required by the
Subdivision Regulations, was provided. It does not matter, he
said, whether there are 2 or 16 lots, the requirement for legal
access was met. The private contractual matters pertaining to
the Bill of Assurance provisions or use or maintenance of the
private street are out of the purview of the Planning Commission.
Deputy City Attorney Giles continued that the Commission can make
a determination on whether, in the Commissioner's judgment, the
proposed plat meets the Subdivision Regulation's requirement for
access to the property. If the Commission determines that the
site does not have access, the Commission can deny approval of
the plat. If the Commission finds that the plat does not meet
the standards of the Subdivision Regulations regarding any of the
other standards, the Commission can deny the plat. Otherwise,
the Commission is bound to approve the proposed plat.
A lengthy discussion then ensued involving various Commissioners,
representatives of the Carmel Property Owners' Association,
Mr. Giles, Mr. Lawson, and other Neighborhoods and Planning staff
regarding the meaning of "legal access" and whether this is
provided to the site. Another discussion was held involving
various Commissioners, Neighborhoods and Planning staff, and
Public Works staff concerning the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
and its provisions, and how its provisions would apply to this
development and the property below Mr. Fulkerson's property.
When it was determined that the site has legal access, and that
property down hill from the site would be protected from
stormwater run-off, a motion was made and seconded to approve the
proposed preliminary plat, as amended, without the request for
the waiver from the lot width to length ratio, with the provision
oftheTract A or open space, but with the approval or the
private street. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes,
3 noes, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
D
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2A FILE NO.: S -191-F
NAME: SECLUDED HILLS, PHASE V -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Beyond the present end of Old Oak Drive, south of
Highway 10 and east of east Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
RPM MANAGEMENT CO. PAT MCGETRICK
Prospect Building MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
1501 N. University Ave. 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72211
664-7807 223-9900
AREA: 10.84 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 25 FT. NEW STREET: 1300
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of an adjoining 10.84 acre
tract as a Phase V to the Secluded Hills subdivision. The area
lies to the north of the Phase IV development, and Old Oak Drive,
a collector street, will continue from the Phase IV area and
extend to the Phase V boundary. The new addition will provide
23 additional lots, and 1300 feet of new street construction is
proposed.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is sought for a
preliminary plat for the subdivision of a 10.84 acre tract
as a Phase V development of Secluded Hills. The subdivision
entails the construction of 1300 feet of new streets and the
provision of 23 new homesites . No variances are tee_ - est—
ad-
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The tract is undeveloped and wooded. The land lies on the
side of a hill, and the slope of the land drops from a high
point at the southwest corner of the tract approximately
80 feet to the low area along the north property line.
The existing zoning of the area and of the surrounding area
is R-2.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2A (Continued) FILE NO • S -191-F
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the Stormwater Detention and
Excavation Ordinances are applicable, and that the developer
is to coordinate street lighting plans with the Engineering
staff.
Little Rock Municipal water Works reports that a water main
extension will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, must be provided.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. relates that additional
easements will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require additional
easements.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There is an area at the southeast corner of the tract
designated as "open space". There must be some means
provided for the maintenance of this area.
There are deficiencies in the plat which has been submitted:
1) a metes and bounds description must be shown; 2)
contours are to be at 2 foot intervals; 3) the street names
have not been shown; 4) the names of abutting subdivisions,
with their book and page number or instrument number must be
shown; 5) the names of abutting property owners where the
land has not been platted must be shown; 6) the physical
description of all monuments must be shown; 7) the zoning
classifications of abutting properties must be shown; and,
8) the proposed PAGIS monuments must be indicated.
lulauX515:
The City does not want to assume maintenance of the "Open
Space" tract designated on the plat. A provision for
private ownership and maintenance must be made.
The deficiencies in the plat are minimal and are easily
correctable by the engineer. There is no reason to assume
that Mr. McGetrick will not have the required information
shown on the drawings prior to the Commission review.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2A (Continued) FILE NO.: S -191-F
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the deficiencies in the plat being taken care of, and,
subject to a provision for the private ownership and
maintenance of the area designated for "open space".
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present, as was a
representative of the applicant. Staff presented the plat and
reviewed with the applicant and engineer the comments contained in
the discussion outline. There was a discussion regarding the
requirement that provision be made for the private ownership and
maintenance of the area designated as "open space" on the plat,
and there were suggestions that the area be included with an
abutting lot in a previous or subsequent phase of the development,
or that it be shown as a "Tract All and retained by the developer.
The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda, with a
recommendation from staff that the item be approved with the
condition that the triangular tract at the southeast corner be
shown as a "Tract All and that its maintenance be provided for
in the Bill of Assurance. The item was approved with the vote
of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
3
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1028
NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop
Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
JOHN REES
REES DEVELOPMENT
12115 Hinson Rd.
Little Rock, AR
223-228
AREA: 8.54 ACRES
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
72212 Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 410
ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices and a mini -storage facility
(A separate request for a PCD for
the mini -storage facility is to
be heard on this agenda.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide a
sidewalk on both sides of a commercial street for Rees Lane, and
provide a sidewalk on one side only.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 8.54 acre tract in
order to develop an office and commercial subdivision to contain
5 lots. Lots range in size from around 1 acre to the 3.37 acre
lot at the rear of the subdivision A street to meet the minimum
standards for a commercial street is proposed, except the
applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct
a sidewalk along both sides of the commercial street and provide a
sidewalk along one side only. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage
on both Hinson Road and Hinson Loop; Rees Lane, the street to be
constructed, will provide secondary access to these three lots, as
well as provide access to Lots 4 and 5.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a preliminary plat for Hinson Office Park. The proposed
subdivision is to contain 5 lots, and access to the
subdivision is to be provided both off Hinson Road and by
way of a new cul-de-sac street which is proposed to be
constructed. Approval by the Board of Directors is
requested for a waiver from the requirement that standard
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1028
commercial streets are to have a sidewalk provided on both
sides of such streets, and permit Rees Lane, a 400 foot long
cul-de-sac street, to have a sidewalk along one side only.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped. The terrain has a fairly
steady rise from east to west. The high point of the tract
is at the southwest corner, which is 40 feet above the level
at the Hinson Road -Hinson Loop intersection.
The present zoning of the tract is 0-3. The surrounding
area has a mixture of zoning districts. To the east of the
tract, on the same side of Hinson Loop as the proposed
development, is a continuation of the 0-3 area, a small R-2
tract, and a PCD. Across Hinson Loop to the east is a PCD.
To the south is an MF -12 area. To the west, at the
southwest corner of the development, is a PRD, and directly
to the west is an 0-2 area. Across Hinson Road to the north
is an R-2 area.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements
and right-of-way dedication will be required on Hinson Loop.
There will be restrictions on curb -cuts and access to and
from Hinson Road. A detailed grading plan and detention
will be required. The developer must obtain a wetlands
delineation from the Corps of Engineers. The minimum
right-of-way for a cul-de-sac is 100 feet.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro -rata
front footage charge of $15.00 per foot applies for frontage
on Hinson Loop Road (329' x $15.00 = $4,935.00). A water
main extension will be required, and fire hydrant locations
must be approved by the Fire Department.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-282) requires that
commercial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides
of the streets. Since the proposed cul-de-sac street abuts
the boundary of the subdivision, and, since it is the side
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1028
and rear of the lots which lie beyond the boundary of the
subdivision, a waiver of this requirement is sought.
The Zoning Regulations (Section 36-281) requires a minimum
lot size in the 0-3 zoning district of 14,000 square feet.
The proposed lots exceed this minimum requirement.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed subdivision meets all Ordinance requirements in
its design, and the plans which have been submitted are
substantially complete. There are only minor deficiencies
remaining to be addressed. The request for the waiver of
the sidewalk on the south/east side of Rees Lane is in
keeping with waivers which have been granted previously.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and
recommends approval of the requested wavier for the sidewalk
to be omitted on the south and east boundary of Rees Lane.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer, were present. Staff indicated that the original
submission involved a POD encompassing the entire site, but that
subsequent discussions with the applicant had led to a decision to
amend the application to request a preliminary plat for the entire
site and a PCD for just the rear portion of the site shown as Lot
5. This, the applicant felt, would give him the flexibility he
needed to adequately market the site for development without the
restrictions imposed by a Planned Unit Development. The documents
needed to complete an amendment to the application were discussed.
Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would furnish the needed plans.
The Committee forwarded the amended request to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred
until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
7
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3A FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: Approximately 500 feet south of Hinson Road and
approximately 300 feet west of Hinson Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
JOHN REES
REES DEVELOPMENT
12115 Hinson Rd.
Little Rock, AR
223-228
AREA: 3.57 ACRES
ZONING• O-3
ENGINEER:
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
72212 Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Mini -storage facility
N
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD in order to construct a mini -storage
facility on a "rear" lot in the proposed Hinson Office Park
subdivision. The preliminary plat, to be reviewed as another item
on the same agenda as the PCD item, proposes a 5 -lot subdivision
and a commercial street off Hinson Loop to provide access to the
lots. The proposed PCD occupies a 3.37 acre lot at the south end
of the cul-de-sac street. The proposed mini -storage facility
involves the construction of 7 buildings with a total square
footage of 58,050. The building coverage is 40% of the land area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a PCD for a mini -storage facility in the Hinson Office
Park development is requested. The proposal involves the
construction of 7 buildings on a 3.37 acre lot. The
buildings are typically 305 feet long, with 4 of the
buildings being 30 feet wide, and the 2 remaining 305 foot
long buildings being 25 feet wide. One additional building
is to be a 40 foot wide by 155 foot long.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography rises
from a low point along the east property line to a high
point at the southwest corner of the tract; the rise in
elevation is over 40 feet in 500 feet.
The present zoning of the site is 0-3, with the remainder of
the 0-3 district lying to the north and northeast. To the
east is a small R-2 area and a small PCD. To the south is
an MF -12 district. To the west is a PRD, along the southern
portion of the west property line, and an 0-2 area, along
the northern portion of the west property line.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main
extension and fire hydrants will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review reports that the a 6' high opaque screen,
either a "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings,
will be required adjacent to residential properties to the
south, east, and west. Ordinance requirements for perimeter
buffering and interior landscaping must be met. The 20 and
25 foot perimeter buffers indicates are in substantial
conformance with the buffer requirements.
Planning review reports that the site is in the Rodney
Parham District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends
office uses for the northern one-third of the site and
multi -family for the southern two-thirds. A mini -storage
facility, then, is in conflict with the Plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Issues pertaining to a potential office or residence use on
the site have not been addressed, nor have the issue of
lighting or signage. These need to be addressed.
E
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3699-
E. ANALYSIS•
A mini -storage use is C-4 or C-3, with conditional use
review, use in the Zoning Ordinance. The use, then, is
inappropriate in this setting and in this close proximity to
residential uses. The use is in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan which calls for office and multi -family uses
on the site.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project
engineer, were present. Staff reported that the original
submission had been a POD involving the area from Hinson Road
south to the mini -storage site, with a mixture of offices and the
mini -storage facility. The developer, in subsequent conversations
with staff, felt that he would not have adequate flexibility in
marketing the office portion of the development if he pursued the
Planned Unit Development route. He had, therefore, amended his
application to involve a preliminary plat for the entire site and
a PCD for the one rear Lot 5 portion of the site. Staff reviewed
with the applicant and his engineer the requirements for the new
plans which were needed. The Committee reviewed the plans which
had been submitted, then forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred
until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
3
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5836
NAME: FAIRVIEW KENNELS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of Pleasant Ridge Road,
approximately 350 feet west of woodland Heights Road
DEVELOPER:
JOAN WALKER
FAIRVIEW KENNELS
11523 Fairview Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72212
225-1391
AREA: 0.77 ACRES
ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ENGINEER•
JOE WHITE
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72212
374-1666
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Kennels
None
Fairview Kennels is a legal non -conforming use which has been in
existence since 1979, and prior to that time, a similar use
occupied the building from 1973-1979. Fairview Kennels is a pet
boarding, grooming, and training facility. The applicant
proposes to seek a POD designation for the property, not only to
change the status from non -conforming to conforming to assure an
ability to continue the business use of the property, but to be
able to construct an addition to the existing facility. Proposed
is a 50 foot wide by 60 foot deep addition to the rear of the
building in order to provide space for an employee lounge, office
space, and a bathing area for the pets.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested or POD -for Fairview -Kennels .-
The request involves the establishment of a POD in order for
the existing and long-standing non -conforming use to be on
an appropriately zoned tract, and in order for the applicant
to be able to expand the building. No variances are
requested.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5836
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the present location of Fairview Kennels. The
use as a kennel for boarding, grooming, and training pets
has been in existence since 1973 as a legal non -conforming
use of the land. There is an existing 50 foot wide by
150 foot deep building on the site, as well as a portable
storage building and a pet run and covered pens. There is a
concrete parking area at the front of the building.
The existing zoning is R-2. There is an 0-2 zoning district
to the west, but the remainder of the surrounding area is
zoned O-3.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that it will be necessary for the
applicant to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way
for Pleasant Ridge Road, and to construct a sidewalk along
the Pleasant Ridge Road frontage of the site. The
Stormwater Detention Ordinance will be applicable to this
development.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works had no comments concerning
this application.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available at the rear of the property. Wastewater indicates
that no permanent structure may be built within the sewer
easement.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Landscaping review comments that there is a minimum front
buffer required of 10 feet, and that the proposed areas
shown tor landscaping excee —the area required by the
Landscape Ordinance.
Planning review states that the
Mountain District, and that the
recommends office use for this
an office addition; therefore,
2
site is in the River
adopted Land Use Plan
site. The proposal is for
there is no land use issue.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5836
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site plan needs to have the following information shown:
1) the "Fairview Kennels PCD"' title; 2) the proposed
treatment of the perimeter of the property; and, 3) a
vicinity map. A final plat and Bill of Assurance must be
furnished prior to a building permit being issued.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Land Use Plan indicates that the Planned use of the area
is for office uses. The applicant proposes to add space to
provide, primarily, office and employee areas. Also, an
animal clinic use is listed as a conditional use in the 0-3
zoning district. The proposal, then, for a POD for the
kennels is in conformance with the Land Use Plan.
The deficiencies in the plan are minimal, and it is
anticipated that Mr. Joe White will be able to get the
revised and completed site plan prepared prior to the
Commission hearing.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the
applicant meeting all the noted requirements and the plan
being revised to show the added information.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
Ms. Joan Walker, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with
White-Daters & Associates, the engineers on the project, were
present. Staff outlined the request and presented the plan.
Mr. White reviewed the items contained in the discussion outline,
and indicated that he would make the modifications. Ms. Walker
reviewed with the Committee the history of the kennel use of the
site, and discussed her request. The Committee forwarded the
item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff presented the application, and reported that the applicant
had agreed to comply with all requirements concerning dedication
of right-of-way, street improvements, improvements to the parking
lot, and upgrading of landscaping, and that there were no
remaining issues to be resolved.
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5836
Ms. Joan Walker, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, project
engineer, were present. Ms. walker presented her request to the
Commission.
Ms. Sharon Jochums, Executive
Seal Society, was present and
the application, and objected
expanded. She stated that she
going to continue at the level
existed in the past.
Director of the Arkansas Easter
indicated she had concerns about
if the kennel use was going to be
did not object if the use were
of activity at which it has
The applicant explained that additional space was being provided
to allow construction of an office area, staff lounge, and a
grooming area, but that no additional kennel area or animal runs
are being requested. She explained that, in the process, the
landscaping would be upgraded and the parking area would be
improved.
Ms. Jochums, then, stated that she had no objection to the
request.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the POD request. The
motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and
0 abstentions.
4
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-5838
NAME: DETECTION SYSTEMS, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the west side of Kanis Road, approximately 0.1 mile
south of Baker Lane
DEVELOPER:
JIM BOTTOMS
DETECTION SYSTEMS, INC.
5105 McClannahan Dr., Suite J1
North Little Rock, AR 72116
376-7001
AREA: 3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a POD in order to utilize a tract which is
outside the City Limits and is currently zoned R-2 for the
Detection Systems, Inc. offices. There is an existing building
on the tract, and a 24 foot deep addition to this building is
proposed, as well as is remodeling of the existing building, for
the office use. In the process of remodeling of the building, a
brick facade will be added to the front of the building. Paved
parking, landscaping to meet Ordinance requirements, and fencing
of the rear yard area to a distance of 600 feet from Kanis Road
are proposed. Detection Systems, Inc. services and installs all
types of security systems, but all service and installation work
is done at the customer's job site. Office personnel will occupy
the building during normal office hours, and "central station
monitoring" personnel will occupy the building on a 24-hour
basis. There are no deliveries except those by UPS or Federal
Express.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a POD for Detection Systems,
Inc. The proposed use of the property is for the
applicant's offices for his business, and will utilize an
existing building, plus an addition to this existing
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5838
building. Parking, landscaping, and security fencing at the
rear yard will be provided. No variances are proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a long, narrow tact with 120 feet of frontage on
Kanis Road, extending to the west approximately 1200 feet.
There is an existing 40 foot by 40 foot frame building on
the site which was, in the past, used as a grocery store.
The site is outside the City Limits, but the City Limits
line touches the tract at the northeast corner of the
property. (The City Limits line runs along the west side of
Kanis Road north of the property, touches the property at
the northeast corner of the tract, then turns east from that
point.)
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, as are all
surrounding areas.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a recent survey and an accurate
site plan must be provided. The survey must indicate the
right-of-way, floodplain, etc. If there is any floodway on
the tract, it must be dedicated to Pulaski County.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that, if the site
is not already served with Little Rock water, the applicant,
in order to receive service, will have to execute a
pre -annexation agreement or annex to the City. The Fire
Department is anticipated to request another public fire
hydrant if this property is annexed to the City. An acreage
charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to the normal
connection fees for new services.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility indicates that the site is
outside their service area, and offered no comment.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require additional
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Landscape review comments that the full buffer width
required along Kanis Road and the western perimeter is
30 feet, with the minimum average width required with
transfers being 20 feet. The buffer width required along
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5838
the northern and southern perimeters is 5 feet. A 6 foot
high opaque screen, either a wooden "good neighbor" fence or
dense evergreen plantings, is required to screen residential
properties to the north, south, and west. The Landscape
Ordinance requires landscape islands within the vehicular
use area to comprise 6% of the total paved area, exclusive
of loading areas. Also, a 6 foot wide perimeter landscape
strip between the vehicular use areas and adjacent
properties and the street is required by the Landscape
Ordinance.
Planing review reports that the site is in the Ellis
Mountain District. The Land Use Plan recommends Transition
Zone for this area. The proposed use is consistent with the
Plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant has requested a POD for Detection Systems,
Inc. Based on this request, only this use, by name, will be
allowed. The applicant needs to be aware of this limitation
and, if appropriate, amend the application to include
alternative uses.
The site plan is deficient in that it needs to show the
scale of the drawing, a vicinity map, the metes and bounds
legal description, dedication of required right-of-way on
Kanis Road, curb cuts onto Kanis Road from the proposed
parking area, landscaping, perimeter buffering, etc.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed use is not in conflict with the Land Use Plan,
and the POD is proposed primarily as a means of dealing with
approval of the use. The tract has been an identifiable
tract for many years, so the plan/plat issue is secondary.
Staff feels that parameters for the use and development can
be established, and the applicant can complete the required
drawings subsequent to the item being referred to the Board
of Directors.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the
applicant abiding by the requirements cited and completing
the required drawings.
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5838
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
The applicant, Mr. Jim Bottoms, was present. Staff presented the
request, and Mr. Bottoms explained the rationale for his request.
The Committee, staff, and the applicant reviewed the discussion
outline, and Mr. Bottoms indicated that he had employed a design
professional to prepare new drawings which would adequately
represent the application. The Committee forwarded the item to
the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda, with a
recommendation from staff that the item be approved with the
condition that the required survey and site plan be submitted
prior to the item being referred to the Board of Directors for
consideration of the POD ordinance. The item was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
4
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5839
NAME: CHENAL VILLAGE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Financial Center Parkway
and Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
TED R. PITTMAN ROBERT BROWN
SECOND CENTURY INVESTMENTS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
903 E. 18th. St., Suite 230 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
Plano, TX 75074 Little Rock, AR 72205
(214) 423-7776 221-7880
AREA: 8.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 and R-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail Shopping Center
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of improvements to undeveloped
right-of-way along the east boundary of the property,
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of an 8.2 acre tract as a
retail shopping center. A linear building of approximately
85,000 square feet lies along the north property line. This
building is shown being divided into three tenant spaces of
approximately equal square footages (27,000, 30,000, and 28,000
square feet). A single 9,000 square foot detached building
stands at the southeast corner of the site. Parking for
426 vehicles is proposed.
The list of proposed uses includes all C-2 uses by right, except:
ambulance service post; amusement, commercial (inside); animal
clinic (enclosed); appliance repair; auto glass or muffler shop;
bar, lounge, or tavern; beverage store; butcher shop; community
welfare or health center; day nursery or day care center; eating
place with drive-in service; establishment of a religious,
charitable, or philanthropic organization; hardware or sporting
goods store; health studio or spa; hotel or motel; laundromat or
pickup station; lawn and garden center (enclosed); lodge or
fraternal organization; parking, commercial lot or garage;
pawnshop; plant sales, temporary/open display; plumbing,
electrical, air conditioning, or heating shop; recycling
facility, automated; private club with dining or bar service;
school (business); secondhand store (used furniture or rummage
shop); service station; or, theater. The list of proposed uses
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
include all C-3 uses by right except: cabinet and woodwork shop;
college dormitory; college fraternity or sorority; collect,
university or seminary; convenience food store with gas pumps;
convent or monastery; establishment for the care of alcoholic,
narcotic, or psychiatric patients; feed store; food store -
supermarket; group care homes; hospital; laboratory, laundry,
domestic cleaning; mortuary or funeral home; multifamily
dwellings (as per the R-5 district); office, showroom/warehouse
(with retail sales, enclosed; private school; kindergarten, or
institution for special education; school (commercial, trade, or
craft); school (public or denomination); taxidermist; or, video
rental store. The list of proposed uses, as well as those not
listed above, includes: restaurant or cafeteria; specialty food
store (such as health foods, organic foods, etc.), pet store,
pharmacy with drive-through service, and enclosed retail uses not
listed in the C-2 and C-3 listings of uses by right.
The proposed signage is a combined sign panel of 12 feet by
12 feet in a masonry structure with an overall size of 15 feet in
height and 13 feet in width. Each of the tenants will have
separate panel areas within the overall panel.
Site lighting is proposed to be limited to 30 foot maximum height
poles with directional type fixtures to minimize any bleedover to
surrounding properties.
Hours of operation are proposed to be from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM on
week days and 8:00 AM to midnight on weekends.
Trash pick-up is proposed to be limited to business hours.
The developer proposes to pay a 25% share of the cost related to
signalization of the Autumn Road -Financial Center Parkway
intersection.
There is an existing 30 foot wide street right-of-way which lies
along the eastern boundary of the site, and "dead -ends" at the
Birchwood Subdivision boundary to the north. The eastern drive
approach off Financial Center Parkway utilizes the southern end
of the right-of-way for access to this site and to the abutting
site to the east. The portion of the right-of-way north of this
drive approach is undeveloped and is not planned by the City for
evelopmen a applicant proposes to retaint right-of-way
as part of a natural and landscape buffer area. Therefore, a
waiver is requested to the requirement that boundary
rights-of-way be improved. Supplemental plantings in this buffer
area will be provided; however, to keep the right-of-way clear
for the power line and from having to be maintained by the
abutting residential owners, the supplemental plantings will be
kept 15 feet off the east property line of the right-of-way.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
The applicant requests that no privacy fence be required along
the east boundary, and that the natural and supplemental
plantings suffice for the required buffers.
The applicant proposes to finish the east facing walls of the
proposed buildings with a neural color, and to place no trademark
logos or accent colors on these east facing walls.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of an ordinance for the establishment of Chenal Village PCD
is requested. The PCD entails the development of an
8.2 acre site with an 85,000 square foot building across the
north boundary of the site and a free-standing 9,000 square
foot building at the southeast corner of the site. Parking
for 426 vehicles is proposed. Limited C-2 and C-3 uses are
requested. Realignment and improvements to Autumn Road are
provided. An unused north -south right-of-way which lies
along the east property line of the site is proposed to be
retained as buffer to separate the commercial center from
the residential uses to the east. Since the Regulations
require the improvement of boundary rights-of-way, a wavier
of this requirement is sought from the Board of Directors.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The western two-thirds of the site is undeveloped. The
eastern one-third of the site is the present location of the
First Assembly of God Church. The terrain generally slopes
from a high point along the east property line to the west,
with a grade differential across the site of approximately
40 feet.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-2. The western
portion of the site is the C-3 area; the eastern portion,
where the church facility is located, is an R-2 area. There
is a conditional use permit for the church use of this R-2
property. To the east of the site is a portion of the
Birchwood neighborhood, with houses which face Springwood
Drive backing up to the site. At the southeast corner of
e tract is an O- zone si e. TO he north Is a large 0-2
area. (This 0-2 area has a 50 foot OS strip on its east and
north boundary which separates the 0-2 zoned area from the
R-2 zoned Birchwood neighborhood.) To the west, across
Autumn Road, and to the south, across Financial Center
Parkway, are C-3 zoned tracts.
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a turn lane on Chenal Parkway
will be required to be constructed, and Autumn Road will
have to be aligned and constructed as required by
Engineering. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation
Ordinances will apply. (The applicant is advised to obtain
a state permit for stormwater discharge.)
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro -rata
front footage charge of $12 per foot applies along a portion
of the frontage on Financial Center Parkway, in addition to
the normal connection charge (307 feet @ $12 = $3,684). On
site fire protection will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension will be required to serve all buildings.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department reported that the fire
hydrant locations may need to be rearranged to serve the
sprinkler hook-ups. Standard City "No Parking/Tow Away
Zone" signs are to be placed around the perimeter of the
buildings.
Landscaping review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet Landscaping Ordinance
requirements.
Planning review states that the site is in the I-430
District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial
uses for the western one-half of the site and office uses
for the eastern half. The Planning staff questions the need
for the addition of commercial acreage, but recognizes that
the proposal, as one uniform developments which limits
commercial uses, and with sufficient buffering, has merits.
The Planning staff recommends that the free-standing
building, which is in the area designated for office uses
and which is close to the residential uses to the east, be
eliminated.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
All submittal requirements have been met. The Public Works
concerns regarding Autumn Road alignment and construction
have been met.
0
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-201.h) states:
"Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially
dedicated... public street, the developer shall provide the
minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-
of-way." There is 30 feet of a dedicated right-of-way along
the east boundary of the subdivision; and, since the
developer plans to retain the right-of-way as a portion of
the needed buffer and not develop the street, a waiver of
this requirement is required.
E. ANALYSIS•
There have been a number of neighborhood meetings involving
the developer's engineer and the Birchwood neighborhood.
The list of proposed users was developed in and as a result
of those neighborhood meetings. (In the final analysis,
though, the neighborhood's official recommendation is for
denial of the proposed PCD.)
The OS buffer on the 0-2 property to the north is 50 feet in
width. The developer of this PCD has proposed a minimum
59.3 foot wide buffer, including the 30 foot wide
undeveloped street right-of-way. At the southeast corner of
the project, where the free standing building backs up to
residential properties, the buffer is increased to 69.3
feet.
As pointed out in the Planning staff's comments regarding
the land use question concerning this site, there is
considered to be merit is having a uniform development which
limits possible commercial uses, even though the Land Use
Plan shows the eastern one-half of the site to be reserved
for office uses. (The western one-half of the site is
shown, on the Land Use Plan, for commercial uses; so, the
proposal is in conformance with the Plan in this part of the
site.)
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD and of the list of
proposed uses, with the condition that the free-standing
building at the sout east corner of—t-he site be el minted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Ted Pittman, a representative of the developer, and
Mr. Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, were
present. Staff presented the request and Mr. Brown reviewed the
6i
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5839
comments in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the
proposed development plans and the comments with Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown stated that the needed changes and additions would be
made. There was a discussion concerning the median cut and
driveway off Financial Center Parkway at the southeast corner of
the site. Mr. Ed Willis was present, and he stated that the
provision for this medial cut and driveway were provided for in
the agreement to dedicate right-of-way for Financial Center
Parkway. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff presented the request and reported that the staff
recommendation was for approval of the request, on the condition
that the list of approved uses be limited and that the free-
standing building be removed.
Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., reviewed
the request, outlining the elements of the site plan and the
proposal. He indicated that the total building area proposed for
the site is 94,000 square feet, more or less, which is
approximately 26.8% of the total area of the site. The interior
green space represents 25% of the area, with the perimeter green
space equaling 1.4 acres. He cited the list of prohibited uses,
as contained in the hand-out, but indicated that there were a
couple of errors: 1) that a crematorium had been inadvertently
omitted from the list of prohibited uses; and, 2) that sporting
good store had been omitted from the list of permitted uses. He
reported that the proposed development met all the requirements
for setback and landscaping; that it provided good buffers to the
abutting residential properties; and, that, because the site is
substantially lower than the residences on Springwood Drive, the
residential area would be minimally affected. Mr. Brown pointed
out that the developer was being required to include a
significant realignment of Autumn Road onto his property; Autumn
Road was being shifted to the east for better alignment with the
existing intersection, and to provide a better alignment for a
signalized intersection. He reported that the developer agreed
to participate in the installation costs of signalizing the
intersection, and would pay 25% of those costs. He also
men ione<hat the plan provides for the required turn lane from
Financial Center Parkway onto Autumn Road. Mr. Brown said that
the developer disagrees with the staff position that the free-
standing building should be eliminated. He reported that a
number of neighborhood meetings had been held, and that the
developer had tried to accommodate as many of the neighborhood
ri
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
concerns as possible; however, he realized that the neighborhood
still had some concerns that the developer was unable to
accommodate. He reported that, in addition to the concessions
previously included in the report to staff, the developer had
agreed to limit trash pick-up to daylight hours in lieu of
"business hours" as cited. Mr. Brown proposed that the
free-standing building be moved from its position at the
southeast corner of the property to the southwest corner, but
added that a drive-thru window would be requested.
Mr. Joe Jackson spoke in support of the proposal. He identified
himself as the pastor of the First Assembly of God Church and as
a resident of Birchwood. He indicated that the Church needed to
sell the present location and move to another site, and that the
Church supported the development.
Mr. Fletcher Clement, who introduced himself as an owner of the
abutting property to the north, spoke in support of the proposal,
but indicated that he had one reservation: that the north buffer
needed to be increased to 50 feet, with the existing stand of
trees left in tact. He also wanted the fence along the north
property line increased from 6 feet in height to 8 feet. He also
wanted additional trees planted in the 50 foot buffer where there
was inadequate tree coverage.
Commissioner Oleson asked staff for a report on the buffer
requirements for such a development.
Neighborhoods and Planning Director, Jim Lawson, reported that
the buffers and landscaping requirements are met in the site plan
as presented; that the buffer along the north property line
tapers from approximately 16 feet to approximately 28 feet, and
that this is more than is required by the regulations.
Mr. Lawson went on to say, though, that staff would support an
increase in the north buffer, since this would encourage office
development on the property to the north, and would discourage
attempts at commercial rezoning of the tract. He indicated that
staff would be supportive of the relocation of the building to
the southwest corner of the property, and that staff did not care
if a drive-thru window were added for that location.
Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Clement's comments, and reported that
the regulations do not require a buffer between the proposed
commercial use and the office use to the north; that only a
6 foot perimeter landscaping strip is required. He reported that
the developer has proposed a landscape buffer far in excess of
the 6 foot minimum, and complained that a 50 foot buffer
provision would be excessive. He did say, though, that the
developer would provide an 8 foot high fence along the north
boundary.
7
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
Commissioner Willis asked for a report on how much parking would
be eliminated if the 50 foot buffer were required.
Mr. Brown responded that the building would have to be moved
forward approximately 20 feet, and this would take spaces off
each bay of spaces.
Mr. David Elms spoke in support of the development, and indicated
that he was speaking on behalf of the First Assembly of God
Church membership.
Mr. Doyle Daniel, president of the Birchwood Neighborhood
Association, spoke, and read a prepared statement into the
record. He indicated that the neighborhood was in opposition to
the proposal, but, with modification of the proposal, could
support it. He said that the neighborhood supported limiting the
uses to C-2 uses and eliminating all C-3 uses. The neighborhood
opposed all restaurant uses, no matter where on the site that use
is proposed to be located. He said that the neighborhood was
concerned, not so much about the food service users who had been
identified by the developer as potential tenants, but about any
future food service users that might be tenants on the site. He
said that the neighborhood opposed any drive-thru service, any
pet store, and to the inclusion of the "retail uses not listed"
in the proposal.
Mr. Floyd B. Boyd identified himself as a resident on Spring -wood
Drive whose property backs up to the proposed site. He
reiterated Mr. Daniel, opposition.
Mr. Ken Davis complained that the developer has made a
significant change in their proposal by introducing a drive-thru
restaurant into the proposal, and stated that a high density
commercial use should not be located adjacent to residential use
areas. Such an encroachment, he said, affects the livability of
the area.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, said that
the League opposed the development. She said that the 9:00 hour
for closing the businesses which was proposed by the neighborhood
was late enough. The drive-thru window proposal, she said, was
�arriac�eptable . He said
at e League would not support the
free-standing building being included in the proposal.
Mr. Ed Willis, identifying himself as a seller of the C-3 portion
of the site and having an interest in other office development in
the Financial Center Parkway area, spoke in support of the
development. He reminded the Commissioners and Birchwood
neighbors that half of the site is presently zoned C-3, and, as
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
such, C-3 uses could be placed on that part of the site without
neighborhood input or the limitations on the uses being offered
by the developer. The C-3 area could have the fast food
restaurant with the drive-thru window, a pet store with
veterinary service, etc., and, in fact, he said that the Owners,
had been presented with those options already. The proposed
development provides a good opportunity for the area, he said.
The site is spread out, not congested, and places C-3 uses in the
C-3 part of the site. He pointed out that the Land Use Plan
calls for the east half of the site to be for office use, and, he
said, the three Financial Centre buildings are each on less land
than the east half of the site contains; he said that the east
half of the site could be developed with a similar building. The
Financial Centre buildings each contain over 100,000 square feet
in 5 stories, and such a development could be proposed for the
area abutting the Springwood Drive homes if the PCD failed.
Mr. Brown reiterated that the developer is offering a greatly
reduced list of users for the PCD which eliminates half of the
C-3 uses in the Zoning Ordinance. He said, though, that the
developer cannot eliminate the "retail uses not listed" from the
list. The proposed list is primarily C-2 uses with the addition
of the specialty food store. He pointed out that the proposed
food service development relocated to the southwest corner of the
site is over 500 feet away from the residential area, and, that
it is in the C-3 area.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Brown if the developer could agree
to providing the requested 50 foot buffer along the north
property line.
Mr. Brown replied that this could not be accommodated.
Chairperson Chachere recalled that the developer had committed to
providing the 8 foot high fence, and that the buffer which has
been proposed ranges in depth from 16 feet to 28 feet.
Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown to speak to the proposed site
lighting and signage.
Mr. Ted R. Pittman, with Second Century Investments, said that
the developer needs the Commission to approve later operating
hours thanthe 9 : 0 0 time proposedby ne g nzodtiat a
closing time of 11:00 and 12:00 are acceptable.
Mr. Brown reported that there would be one primary combined sign
for the site, and that building signage would meet the
regulations.
Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown if there would be any pole
signs.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
Mr. Brown said that there would be none.
Bob Brown, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff person
responsible for landscape review, said that the regulations do
not require a buffer on the north property line; only a 6 foot
wide landscape strip and a 6 foot high good neighbor fence. He
said that if a buffer were required, the width of such a buffer
would be required to average 30 feet.
Commissioner Willis asked staff for a reaction to requiring a
30 foot buffer.
Mr. Lawson responded that such a buffer width would be acceptable
if it were 30 feet in depth the entire width of the site. He
went on to explain the rationale for not supporting the C-3 use
and the free-standing building at the southeast corner of the
site; that the Land Use Plan calls for the east half of the site
to be office uses, and the east half of the site needs to be less
intensely developed. He said, though, that staff does not
support telling the developer that he can sell one type of goods
and not another. The Ordinance, he said, differentiates between
restaurants with drive-thru service and those with out, and this
distinction can be made, but not other distinctions.
Mr. Brown clarified the developer's proposal: he indicated that
the free-standing building would be shifted to the southwest
corner of the site and reduced to a 6,000 square foot building;
that this building would have provision for drive-thru service;
that an 8 foot high fence would be provided along the north
property line; that the north buffer would be increased to
25-30 foot in depth, average; that the crematorium was to be
added to the prohibited listing of uses, but that the sporting
goods sales would be added to the listing of permitted uses; and,
that food store use would be added to the list of prohibited
uses.
Mr. Daniel asked if the developer still proposed another
restaurant use on the property.
Mr. Brown responded that, pursuant to the developer's
instructions, the restaurant use at the free-standing building
would be the only restaurant use on the site.
Mr. Willis indicted that neighborhood representatives had cited
the late night construction activity on other sites in the area,
and asked the developer to limit the hours of construction
activity.
Mr. Brown, again after consulting with Mr. Pittman, replied that
the developer would enforce a 9:00 P.M. limit on construction
activity.
10
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5839
Commissioner Walker clarified for the record that coffee served
in conjunction with the book library and sales operation would
not constitute a restaurant use; that the primary use of the
tenant would be the controlling criteria.
A motion was then made and seconded to recommend approval the
amended site plan, including the listing of proposed use
exclusions and provisions, as amended, and including the request
to leave the north -south boundary street right-of-way along the
east boundary of the site as a landscape buffer without the
developer having to provide additional right-of-way or having to
construct Master Street Plan improvements in the unused
right-of-way. The motion to recommend approval passed with the
vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
11
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5840
NAME: CLIMATE CONTROL MINI -STORAGE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the west side of Jamison Road, approximately
200 feet south of I-30
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
HOUSE PROPERTIES ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY
P. 0. Box 470 200 Casey Dr.
North Little Rock, AR 72115 Maumelle, AR 72113
945-3377 851-8806
AREA: 1.9 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14
CENSUS TRACT: 41.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a mini -storage facility involving the
development of a 1.9 acres site and the construction of
4 buildings. Each building will have 9,515 square feet of floor
area, or a total building area of 38,060 square feet. Concrete
driveways are proposed, as is a 6 foot high chain link fence
around the perimeter of the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a site plan for Climate Control Mini -Storage, Inc.
Construction of 4 mini -storage buildings on a 1.9 acre tract
is proposed. A chain link fence is to be built at the
perimeter of the property for security purposes. No
variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is overgrown and currently unused. There is a
deteriorated structure at the northwest corner of the
property which is to be removed.
The current zoning of the site is I-2, with I-2 zoning on
all sides of the property west of Jamison Road. Across
Jamison Road is R-2 zoned land; however, there is no
occupied residential use, or any use of any kind, for that
matter, across from the Climate Control Mini -Storage site.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5840
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements
will be required along Jamison Road. The Stormwater
Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. The
survey must contain the required floodway statement.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a water main
extension will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Along
the north property line, a 10 foot easement is required
(7 feet from each property owner). Along the west property
line, a 15 foot easement is required (7.5 feet from each
property owner).
The Little Rock Fire Department will require driveways to be
a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width.
Landscaping review comments that the areas shown for buffers
and landscaping comply with minimum requirements.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There are only minor deficiencies in the design: 1) the
north and south drives must be a minimum of 20 feet in width
in lieu of the 18 feet as shown; 2) the required Master
Street Plan improvements must be shown on the plan,
including indicating the sidewalk and street construction;
3) the required easements must be added; and, 4) the
floodway statement must be added to the survey.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are only minor issues which remain to be dealt with,
and the applicant and his engineer have represented that the
deficiencies will be corrected.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
applicant adding the required information to the plan and
correcting the minimal deficiencies.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5840
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Robert Holloway, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the site plan and Mr. Holloway reviewed with the
Committee and staff the deficiencies noted in the discussion
outline. Mr. Holloway reported that the deficiencies would be
corrected. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for final disposition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda, with a
recommendation from staff that the item be approved. The item
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
3
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5836
NAME: HEALTH ADVANTAGE OFFICE BUILDING -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of the cul-de-sac at the west end of
Corporate Hill Drive
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER:
CYPRESS PROPERTIES ARTHUR THOMAS
BY JOHN FLAKE 3810 Lookout Rd.
425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 300 North Little Rock, AR 72116
Little Rock, AR 72203 753-4463
376-8005
AREA: 2.14 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: O-2 PROPOSED USES: Office Building
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the sidewalk requirement along
the Corporate Hill Drive frontage.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of a 2 -story, 30,000
square foot office building with parking for 120 vehicles on a
2.14 acre site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review and approval of a site plan for
the Health Advantage office building is requested. Proposed
is a 2 -story building containing 15,000 square feet per
floor, and parking for 120 vehicles. A waiver from the
requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Corporate Hill
Drive frontage of the site is requested, and will have to be
approved by the Board of Directors.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. There is a 16 foot drop
in grade across the site, generally falling from a high
point at the southwest corner of the lot to the northeast.
The existing zoning is 0-2. The lots to the north are 0-3.
All remaining lands to the east, south, and west are 0-2.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5836
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the Stormwater Detention and the
Excavation Ordinances are applicable to this development.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that on-site fire
protection may be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer service
is available, and that there is no adverse effect to
providing service.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department reports that an on-site fire
hydrant may be required.
Landscaping review comments that the areas denoted for
buffers and landscaping comply with the Ordinance
requirements.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Regulations (Sect. 31-282) requires
sidewalks on both sides of commercial streets. Because
Corporate Hill Drive is a cul-de-sac street; because the
site is at the end of the cul-de-sac; and, because there is
no sidewalk on the west/north side of Corporate Hill Drive,
the applicant has requested a waiver of the sidewalk
requirement on their side of the street.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are no deficiencies of any significance in the
submittal.
The lots in Corporate Hill subdivision are large tracts, and
Corpora -e H-i7-r-Driveis era ative short- a -sac. It
is not felt that a sidewalk on both sides of the street is
mandatory, and, in this instance, would provide any useful
purpose.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan and approval of
the requested waiver.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5837
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Representatives of the applicant and engineer were present.
Staff presented the site plan to the Committee members, and the
discussion outline comments were reviewed with the applicant's
representatives and with the Committee. There were only minor
deficiencies noted for discussion. The Committee forwarded the
item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda, with a
recommendation from staff that the item be approved. The item
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
3
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5840
NAME: CLIMATE CONTROL MINI -STORAGE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the west side of Jamison Road, approximately
200 feet south of I-30
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
HOUSE PROPERTIES ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY
P. O. Box 470 200 Casey Dr.
North Little Rock, AR 72115 Maumelle, AR 72113
945-3377 851-8806
AREA: 1.9 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14
CENSUS TRACT: 41.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a mini -storage facility involving the
development of a 1.9 acres site and the construction of
4 buildings. Each building will have 9,515 square feet of floor
area, or a total building area of 38,060 square feet. Concrete
driveways are proposed, as is a 6 foot high chain link fence
around the perimeter of the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a site plan for Climate Control Mini -Storage, Inc.
Construction of 4 mini -storage buildings on a 1.9 acre tract
is proposed. A chain link fence is to be built at the
perimeter of the property for security purposes. No
variances are requested.
- B ---E=STTNG–COND2TIONS : -- — ----- ---------------
The site is overgrown and currently unused. There is a
deteriorated structure at the northwest corner of the
property which is to be removed.
The current zoning of the site is I-2, with I-2 zoning on
all sides of the property west of Jamison Road. Across
Jamison Road is R-2 zoned land; however, there is no
occupied residential use, or any use of any kind, for that
matter, across from the Climate Control Mini -Storage site.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5840
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements
will be required along Jamison Road. The Stormwater
Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. The
survey must contain the required floodway statement.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a water main
extension will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Along
the north property line, a 10 foot easement is required
(7 feet from each property owner). Along the west property
line, a 15 foot easement is required (7.5 feet from each
property owner).
The Little Rock Fire Department will require driveways to be
a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width.
Landscaping review comments that the areas shown for buffers
and landscaping comply with minimum requirements.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There are only minor deficiencies in the design: 1) the
north and south drives must be a minimum of 20 feet in width
in lieu of the 18 feet as shown; 2) the required Master
Street Plan improvements must be shown on the plan,
including indicating the sidewalk and street construction;
3) the required easements must be added; and, 4) the
floodway statement must be added to the survey.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are only minor issues which remain to be dealt with,
and the applicant and his engineer have represented that the
deficiencies will be corrected.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
applicant adding the required information to the plan and
correcting the minimal deficiencies.
2
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5840
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Robert Holloway, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the site plan and Mr. Holloway reviewed with the
Committee and staff the deficiencies noted in the discussion
outline. Mr. Holloway reported that the deficiencies would be
corrected. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for final disposition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda, with a
recommendation from staff that the item be approved. The item
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
p
3
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -1840-B
NAME: Little Rock Racquet Club -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: #1 Huntington Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Racquet Club
by James C. Summerlin Associates
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of the parking lot for
the existing swimming and tennis
facility located on this R-4 zoned,
10.67 acre site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located off of Huntington Road, in the
Foxcroft neighborhood.
2. compatibility with Neighborhood
The Little Rock Racquet Club has existed at this location
for approximately 30 years. The club property serves as a
buffer between the heavy development along Cantrell Road and
the single family residential subdivision to the north.
With proper attention to screening the new parking lot and
drive, the club will continue to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The Racquet Club currently has 78 existing parking spaces.
This proposal would add 45, giving a total of 123 on-site
parking spaces.
All lighting for the new parking lot and driveway must be
low-level and directional, aimed__away_ from the adjacent
residential properties.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. The required buffer on the north perimeter is
23 feet; a 13 foot buffer is proposed. The required buffer
on the west perimeter is 40 feet; a buffer ranging in width
from 9 feet to 16 feet is proposed. The applicant proposes
to lessen the impact of the reduced buffers by installing a
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1840-B
wooden fence along the north perimeter and by heavily
landscaping along the west perimeter.
5. City Engineer Comments
Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply.
6. Fire Department Comments
All driveways must be a minimum of 20 feet in width.
Construct a 20 foot wide, all-weather surface fire lane at
the southwest corner, adjacent to the indoor tennis courts.
7. Utility Comments
No comments
8. Analysis
There is currently a shortage of parking at the Little Rock
Racquet Club and at peak usage times many patrons park on
the adjacent residential streets. The proposal to construct
45 additional on-site parking spaces will help to address
this situation. With attention to properly screening the
adjacent residential properties, staff is supportive of the
request.
9. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
and compliance with the City Engineer and Fire Department
Comments. Staff recommends approval of the requested
reduction in the required buffer on the north and west
perimeters with the stipulation that increased plantings and
screening are placed in these areas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
Edward Ebbing and Raymond Hickey were present representing the
applicant.
The primary focus of the discussion was the reduced buffer on the
north and west perimeters. The applicants explained that
increased plantings and screening would be placed in these areas.
The applicant stated that no additional lighting was proposed for
the new driveway and parking lots.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded this item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
F
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1840-B
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 14, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were several concerned
neighborhood residents present. Dana Carney, of the Planning
staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that the
applicant had submitted a revised plan showing the parking lot
and driveway expansion being done in two phases.
Mr. Carney also informed the Commission that the applicant had
prepared the list of adjacent property owners himself using Beach
Abstract Company records and that the notices were sent two days
late. A waiver of the Planning Commission bylaws regarding both
of these matters is required.
Mr. Carney continued by stating that a small area at the
southwest corner of the property is currently being used for
parking. Access to this area is being taken via an Arkla Gas
access easement from the adjacent Fox Glen Apartments. Parking
in this area, which is shown as a fire lane, is creating problems
for the adjacent residential property owners. Mr. Carney stated
that the Racquet Club should take steps to eliminate public
parking in this area.
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, stated that parking in this area should be eliminated
at the time the Phase II driveway and parking lot are
constructed.
The applicant, James Summerlin, addressed the Commission. He
presented the revised plan and stated that there was no time
frame on the implementation of Phase II. Mr. Summerlin informed
the Commission that the Racquet Club had agreed to chain off the
parking area at the southwest corner and lock the gate
prohibiting access from the apartment complex at the time Phase
II is constructed. He continued by stating that a barricade of
some type would be installed to keep vehicles from damaging the
neighbor's fence during Phase I.
Commissioner Willis asked if the practice wall that was mentioned
at the subdivision Committee meeting would be constructed. The
applicant responded that the practice wall would not be included
with this application.
Commissioner Walker asked if access from the apartment complex
would be limited after hours through Phase I. Gail Edelmann,
manager of the Racquet Club, responded that the club will lock
the back gate and put up a chain at the front entrance after
hours.
Nelson Reinhardt, of 3014 Foxcroft Road, next addressed the
Commission. He stated that he was in favor of the club expanding
01
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1840-B
its parking lot, but that he was concerned about drainage
problems in the area caused by the improvements taking place on
the club property. Mr. Reinhardt stated that there have been
requirements placed on the club property as a result of previous
Planning Commission actions that had not been met or maintained,
such as drainage and screening.
In response to a question from a commissioner, Bob Brown, Plans
Review Specialist, stated that the proposed improvements complied
with the minimum landscape and buffer requirements.
Jim Lawson stated that the City Engineer's Office will work with
the applicant to address drainage problems.
Keith French, of #3 Racquet Court, next addressed the Commission.
He stated that he did not want any access to the site to be taken
from the apartment complex and that he wanted parking in the
southwest corner of the Racquet Club property to cease.
Jim Lawson stated that once the Phase II driveway and parking
lots are built, there will be no access from the apartment
complex and parking at the southwest corner of the Racquet Club
property will cease.
Jim Osborne, of 15 Racquet Court, told the Commission that he was
opposed to any continued parking in the area west of the indoor
tennis center, at the southwest corner of the property.
Commissioner Oleson asked if access to and use of the parking
area at the southwest corner of the property could be eliminated
immediately.
Mr. Summerlin responded that access to this area is necessary for
maintenance and that until the Phase II driveway is built there
is no other way to access this area of the Racquet Club property.
After further discussion, the applicant agreed to lock the gate
at the southwest corner of the property at night and to eliminate
public access to this area at the time the Phase II driveway and
parking lots are constructed.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws regarding the list of
property owners and the late notice. This motion passed with a
vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe and 4 absent.
Commissioner Oleson asked if the applicant would screen the
dumpster and increase the fence on the east perimeter of the main
parking lot, located east of the clubhouse, to 6 feet.
Gail Edelmann responded that the Racquet Club would enclose the
dumpster and would install a 6 foot fence along the east
perimeter of the main parking lot.
4
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1840-B
A motion was made to approve the application with the various
stipulations and agreements mentioned. The vote was 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
The approval was granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer and Fire Department
Comments
3. The gate at the southwest corner, providing access from the
adjacent apartment complex, is to be locked at night and at
the time the Phase II driveway and parking lot are
constructed, all public access to the gravel parking area at
the southwest corner is to be eliminated completely.
4. Some form of wheel stops or curbs are to be installed in the
gravel parking area at the southwest corner to prevent
vehicles from backing into and damaging the fence.
5. A six foot screening fence is to be constructed along the
entire length of the east perimeter of the main parking lot
located east of the clubhouse.
6. The dumpster is to be enclosed with an 8 foot screening
fence.
The Planning Commission approved the reduction in the required
buffer on the north and west perimeters with the stipulation that
increased plantings and screening are placed in this area.
61
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: G-23-211
Name: "R" Street Exclusive Right -of -Way
and Easement Abandonment
Location: "R" Street, between North Pierce
and North Fillmore Streets
Owner/Applicant: Calvary Baptist Church
by Burt Taggart
Reauest: To abandon the "R" Street
Right -of -Way between North Fillmore
and North Pierce Streets and to
abandon any public easements
located in that portion of public
right-of-way.
The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the
July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant desires
more time to meet with the neighborhood and city staff in hopes
of finding an acceptable means to abandon or realign this block
of "R" Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
The Committee was informed of the applicant's request to have
this item deferred to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 14, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be deferred to allow more time to meet with
neighborhood residents and to revise the application.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved for
- - -------de-f-e-r-ra-1 t-o—t_he—Ju-1-y-2-6-,-199-4--P-1-arming—Commis-sion meeting --T-ham---
vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
LT
0
LU
0
Z
0
cn
0
0
z
p�
6..L
I
lij
W
Q
D
ii
d
z
''W
U^)
co
W
W
z
i
W
d
c
I
W
Z
¢
Z
_
J
E
LU
W
W
=
Q
o
wpwO
U)L
Z¢—'
�—
Jz
JO=cc
Q
CC
!Ei
Q
m
W
W
J
W
O
J
Y
z
m
Y
mcr
cc:
LU W
m
1.2
cl:
Ucf)
Q
Z000Cf)
LLI>-LU
p
W
Y
2U
mJ
:EZO3:a.3:cr)3:�
ii
d
z
''W
U^)
co
W
W
z
i
W
c
I
LOr
4
>-
z
Lli
W
Z
Z
J_
Cc
LU
W
W
J
M
J
oC/)Lil
wQWp�l=-
JZ
Jp=�
Z�=
aQWWwQ
g
_i
O
J
Y
Z
m
cm
m
U
w
O
co
m
M
C1j
p�
0UQ
z
N
Y
LU
=J�OU::DCJL
w
Q
F—
m
U
-3:
:�i
Z
O
a-
3:
U!)
ii
d
z
''W
U^)
co
W
W
z
i
W
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
z7—G
Date
d1 D
Chairman