pc_07 26 1994subI.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JULY 26, 1994
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Minutes of the June 14, 1994 meeting were approved
as mailed.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Diane Chachere, Chairperson
Kathleen Oleson
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ramsay Ball
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
John McDaniel
B. J. Wyrick
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
One Open Position
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JULY 26, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Hinson Office Park -- Short -Form Planned Commercial
Development (Z -3699-A)
B. McClard 11,820 Chicot Road -- Long -Form Planned Industrial
District (Z-5805)
B1. TCBY Treat Express -- Site Plan Review (S -548-D)
C. Z -5758-A Kanis Road and Pride Valley -- Rezoning from R-2
to MF -12 and 0-2
D. °R° Street Exclusive Right -of -Way and Easement
Abandonment -- (G-23-211)
II. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
1. Arkansas Tennis Association -- Short -Form Planned Office
Development (Z -1513-A)
2. Coulson Oil - Kanis Road -- Short -Form Planned Commercial
Development (Z -3592-F)
3. Penney 13241 Cantrell Road -- Short -Form Planned Office
Development (Z-5852)
III. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
4. Backyard Burgers - University Shopping Center -- Site Plan
Review (S-1029)
4a. Transport International Pool -- Site Plan Review (S-1032)
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
5. Christ The King Catholic Church -- Revised Conditional Use
Permit (Z -3836-E)
6. First Church of God -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -4854-A)
7. Greater St. John Missionary Baptist Church -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5853)
8. Community Fellowship Church -- Revised Conditional Use
Permit (Z -5736-A)
Page 2
V. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS:
9. Block 1, McGehee Addition -- Exclusive Alley Right -of -Way
and Easement Abandonment (G-23-214)
10. Kimball Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-215)
VI. STREET NAME CHANGE:
11. Pompano Court -- Street Name Change of Pompano Court to
Bienville Court (G-25-167)
VII. REZONING•
12. Windsor Hills Addition -- Rezoning from OS to MF -6
(Z -2848-G).
VIII. OTHER MATTERS:
13. Request for extension of time to comply with Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations concerning second dwelling on
property located at 7804 Henderson Road, for Ms. Clara
Combs (S-936).
14. Request for waiver of the sidewalk requirement for Climate
Control Mini -Storage, located at 7517 Jamison Road
(Z-5840)•
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • A FILE NO.: Z -3699 -
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 72212
223-228
ENGINEER:
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
AREA:
3.57 ACRES
NUMBER
OF LOTS: 1 FT.
NEW STREET: 0
ZONING:
0-3
PROPOSED
USES: Mini -storage
facility
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
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.
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • A (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.
F
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated
June 28, 1994, in which a request for a 30 -day deferral of the
hearing of this issue was relayed. The requested deferral, staff
indicated, would bring the issue back before the Planning
Commission at its July 26, 1994 hearing. Staff asked that the
request for deferral be placed on the Consent Agenda for
deferral.
3
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
Chairperson Chachere reported that there were a number of persons
in attendance at the Commission meeting who had submitted
registration cards and had indicated that they objected to the
applicant's proposed development.
Commissioner Oleson recalled that the applicant had asked for a
deferral previously, and asked for an explanation of the reason
for the second request for a deferral.
Staff indicated that the applicant, Mr. John Rees, had, at the
June 14, 1994 Commission meeting, asked for a 2 -week deferral,
and that, during that 2 -week period, had attempted to set a
meeting with the then Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
Mr. Jim Lawson, to discuss staff's recommendation of denial of
the application. Due to Mr. Lawson's transition to the position
of Acting Assistant City Manager, Mr. Lawson had been unable to
meet with Mr. Rees, and, after the announcement was made of
Mr. Lawson's new position, Mr. Rees was told to discuss his
application with Mr. Tim Polk, the current Acting Neighborhoods
and Planning Director. This discussion was held on Monday,
June 27, 1994, and a neighborhood meeting with concerned
neighborhood residents had been held Monday evening. Mr. Rees,
staff reported, had requested the second deferral in order for
him to consider available options in response to staff and the
neighborhood opposition, and to redesign the site. Mr. Rees
concurred with the staff explanation.
Chairperson Chachere, addressing those who opposed the
application, asked if they were in opposition to the requested
deferral. The response from the crowd was that they were,
indeed, opposed to the deferral, so Ms. Chachere indicated that
the item would remain on the regular agenda.
Staff outlined the PCD request, and reported that, because the
requested use was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan for
the area, the staff recommendation was for denial.
Mr. Rees reiterated that he was requesting a deferral of the
issue; that he had decided, after meeting with staff and the
neighbors to the west, to modify the site plan, and needed time to
make the changes. He reported that he had asked the three
abutting neighbors to the west to a meeting the previous evening,
and that they had each attended. He reported that he had notified
the president of the property owners' association of the
condominiums to the south of the meeting, but that no one from the
condominiums had attended. Mr. Rees stated that the mini -storage
facility is needed in the area; that there are few if any
vacancies in the existing facilities in the area. He stated that
it is his desire to make whatever changes are feasible to
accommodate the affected neighbors. He pointed out that the homes
to the west were substantially higher in elevation than the PCD
4
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
site, that a substantial cut would be required in the PCD site at
the southwest corner of the site, and that the storage facility
would be hidden behind a retaining wall. The area immediately
abutting the west and south property lines would be left as an
undisturbed area, and this area is heavily wooded. Additionally,
evergreen shrubbery and landscape trees would be planted in the
area. He stated that the lighting would be low level, and would
be attached to the buildings; that the buildings would be
approximately 12 feet high, so the lighting fixtures would be the
same height. Access to the site would be limited, and the hours
of operation would be from 6:30 in the morning to 8:30 at night;
that there would be a resident manager who would monitor the site
and keep it picked up. Mr. Rees reminded the Commissioners and
the objectors that, with the current 0-3 zoning in place, he could
construct a 45 foot high office building with 50-60,000 square
feet of leasable area, with parking for 200 cars. Cars could be
in and out at all hours. If a tele -marketing organization leased
the building, there could be activity all night. People could
stand around outside smoking. Retaining the 0-3 zone, he said,
was not a panacea. He said that, with the natural and augmented
buffer, and with the change in grade, the neighbors would not be
affected by the mini -storage facility, in fact, most would not
even know it was there. He said that, with his own office just
50 yards away, he would be responsive to any problems brought to
his attention by the neighbors.
Chairperson Chachere asked for clarification on the number of
neighbors who would be affected.
Mr. Rees explained that there were 3 residences at the southwest
corner of the property, and that there was a condominium
development along the south property line.
Commissioner Ball asked for verification of the number of square
feet of mini -storage buildings proposed to be developed.
Mr. Rees responded that he proposed to construct 85,000 square
feet of buildings.
Commissioner Wyrick asked for clarification of the plans for
draining the site and of the status of the pond which is located
on the site.
Mr. Rees stated that the pond is man-made; that approval from the
Corps of Engineers would be required to make the needed changes
in the drainage, but that the approval is not anticipated to be a
problem.
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, explained that the
drainage would be from west to east. That the current drainage
from the Pleasant valley Living Center site bordering the
proposed PCD site on the west would be intercepted and piped
5
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
underground to the existing drainage ditch on the east. He
explained that the plan to meet the Detention Ordinance
requirements is to place a large pipe system underground to
contain the stormwater, and to release it into the current ditch
at a slow rate. In fact, he said, the release of stormwater from
the proposed system would probably be slower than it is from the
current pond.
Ms. Laurie Amrine, who identified herself as one of the residents
in Rainwood Cove who would be directly affected by the proposed
development, expressed her strong opposition to the proposal, and
to the proposal to defer the hearing again. She confirmed that
she and the other two affected residents from Rainwood Cove had
attended Mr. Rees' meeting the previous evening, had reviewed the
site drawings he had presented, but had notified him that there
were no adjustments he could make in the plan which would make
the use palatable to them. She said that the neighbors were
unified in their opposition to the change in use to mini -storage.
She presented to the Commission petitions she said contained
136 signatures of neighbors in opposition to the development.
She presented a video showing the neighborhood, the site, and
other mini -storage units which, she said, would be what Mr. Rees'
development would look like, especially from above, which is the
view she and her neighbors would be subjected to.
Mr. Mike Callahan, who identified himself as an abutting property
owner to Mr. Rees' development, said that he and his wife
strongly oppose the change in use. He said that the development
had the potential for increasing traffic on their street; that
they would present an unappealing view from the rear of their
home, changing the view from the natural woods to unappealing
mini -storage buildings; and, that the change in use was out of
context for the area. He expressed opposition because, he said,
the lights from security lighting would be offensive. He said
that the proposed development would effect stormwater run-off
from the Rainwood Cove subdivision. He said that the proposed
development would adversely affect his and other Rainwood Cove
property owners' property values, and would destroy the quiet,
secluded setting they now enjoy.
Mr. Ray Hayes identified himself as living between Ms. Amerine
and Mr. Callahan, and expressed his objection to the rezoning and
to the deferral. He complained about the time and expense of
objectors having to take off work to attend the meetings, and
stated that the company he and his wife work for had lost
considerable income from their having to leave work to attend the
Commission hearings. He concurred in the previous objectors'
statements, and said that he opposed the change in use from
office to mini -storage units because, whereas offices are
generally closed when residents are home, the commercial use
would be open on weekends. He then added that an additional
G
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699 -
concern was the potential for an increase in crime due to the
storage units being located behind the homes. He was concerned
that, if someone who is trying to break in to a unit is
confronted, that person's escape route will be through his and
other abutting property.
Mr. Joe Grossclose identified himself as an owner of a
condominium in the Pleasantwood condominium development to the
south; that he and his wife own a 2 -story unit which would be the
closest residence to the proposed development. He said that he
objected to the development because mini -storage units are
generally built cheaply, and he and his wife would have to look
at an unappealing development. He reiterated the concerns
contained in his letter sent to the Commissioners, and said that
he had personal knowledge of the concerns expressed in the
letter, except for the chopped -up body parts which he had only
read about in the newspaper. He said that he and the other
condominium owners had bought their homes trusting that the
abutting property would be developed with 0-3 uses; that an
abrupt change, such as is being proposed, is not in keeping with
good planning practice; and, that the Commission must be
convinced by Mr. Rees that a mini -storage development is both
needed and that the proposed site is the only site in the area
which is available for such a development. He expressed
objection because of the way typical mini -storage facilities
look; because they typically do not have sanitary facilities and
users are know to use the toilet outside. He said the proposed
use is a "bad idea".
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Grossclose if he had reviewed the
proposed plan showing a solid face of the mini -storage building
facing south towards the condominiums.
Mr. Grossclose responded that looking down on a "sea of metal
roofs" is not acceptable, and that the landscape buffer would not
be effective. He stated that there was nothing the developer
could do which would make the plan acceptable to him or to the
others.
Mr. Bury Rotenberry identified himself as a resident of the
Rainwood Cove subdivision, and said that he "echoed" his
neighbors' objections to the proposed development. He complained
that he had not been notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had
held with the Rainwood Cove residents.
Mr. Michael Fussell identified himself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and stated that his home is as close,
if not closer, to the proposed development as Mr. Grossclose's,
and his view from his front door would be changed dramatically.
He said that he, too, objected to the proposed development, and
"echoed" the previous comments. He said that he and his
neighbors enjoy the wooded surroundings with the birds and
7
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued)FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
squirrels, that the development would affect their enjoyment of
their homes, and that it would affect their property values.
Whatever change is made in the plan would not affect his attitude
towards the development. He, too, said that he had not been
notified of the meeting Mr. Rees had held with the Rainwood Cove
residents.
Ms. Patsy Ball said that she had been a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums since last year, and that she had been
told by the real estate salesperson that the abutting property
was zoned for quiet office. She objected to any change in
zoning, and to the proposed use. She said that she had not been
notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had held, and that she
could have attended if an attempt had been made to contact her.
Ms. Christine Donaldson identified herself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that, from personal
experience, resident managers of mini -storage facilities do not
patrol and keep noise from occurring. She said she would look
out from her second story home onto the mini -storage buildings,
and that this would not be a pleasant view.
Ms. Lee Fortson identified herself as a resident of the
Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that she wanted to reiterate
her objections expressed in her letter to the Commission. She
said that she rents a mini -storage unit on Green Mountain Drive;
that her unit, even though there is a resident manager on that
site, was broken into recently; that, she believes, such
facilities promote break-ins; and, that such facilities no not
belong next to residential areas.
Mr. Garry Koettel identified himself as a resident of Rainwood
Cove. He said that he knew that, whatever Mr. Rees might do with
the property, the woods would be affected. He said that his
concern was that future owners would not maintain the buffers as
promised by Mr. Rees. He said that his primary concern, though,
is the devaluation in the value of his and other homes in the
area; that buyers do not buy homes which are adjacent to
incompatible uses.
Ms. Kathy Vining identified herself as a resident of Rainwood
Cove. She said that her concern was for the devaluation of homes
in the Rainwood Cove subdivision by the continued bordering of
the subdivision with commercial uses. She objected to the
proposed mini -storage use.
Mr. W. J. Walker identified himself as president of the
Pleasantwood Property Owners' Association, and said that
developers "promise the moon" to get their rezonings, then do not
take care of the property after the fact. He said that the
Property Owners' Association objects to the proposed development.
r
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3699 -
Mr. Rees responded that he realized, after listening to the
objections, that he was not going to be able to present a plan
that would be acceptable to the neighbors, but that he wanted to
proceed with development of a plan which would try to mitigate
the effects on the neighbors. He said that he would develop a
"nice, quiet, well -kept" facility. He pointed out that he had
notified Mr. W. J. Walker, president of the condominium owners'
association, of the meeting held with neighbors, and felt that it
was Mr. Walker's responsibility to notify members of the
Association. He offered to change the location of the fence to
provide the landscaping on the outside of the fence abutting the
neighbors' property, if that would help the neighbors' acceptance
of the development.
Ms. Cheri Hayes identified herself as a property owner of
Rainwood Cove which abuts the proposed development. She said
that her home is a tri -level home, and that her deck would look
out over the proposed development. The view, she said, would not
be attractive. She said that she supported what the other
objectors had said.
Chairperson Chachere stated that the objectors' comments are part
of the record. She then asked Mr. Rees if he is still interested
in having his request for a deferral considered, or was he
interested in having the amended plan voted on.
Mr. Rees said that, from the comments made by the objectors,
there is probably nothing he could do, even if he "gold-plated"
the development, that would change the neighbors' minds. He said
that the Commission might as well vote on the request.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rees if staff had made any
suggestions of changes which he might consider making;
specifically, Mr. Walker asked if Mr. Rees could consider
increasing the buffer widths substantially and having the blank
face of buildings, not only on the south, but also on the west
perimeter, face outward.
Mr. Rees responded that these types of changes were the type he
had considered making during the time before the next Commission
meeting.
Commissioner Walker asked if the blank perimeter walls would be
effective buffers, given the topography.
Mr. McGetrick responded that from the upper levels of home to the
west, the views would probably not be restricted by the buffers;
that from the upper levels, the residents would look out over the
top of the facility.
9
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
related that staff had discussed with Mr. Rees the various
options regarding the increased buffer and turning the buildings
so that there are no openings to the outside, but related that
any such changes would not affect the staff recommendation of
denial, since the issues is one of conflict with the Land Use
Plan.
Staff cautioned the Commission about voting on a plan that was so
incomplete. Staff pointed out that only ideas for changes had
been discussed to date, and that there was no plan that could be
considered for approval.
Mr. Rees then indicated that he wanted to seek the deferral to
the July 26, 1994 hearing.
Commissioner Walker cautioned Mr. Rees that his concern is for
the effects on the neighbors, and that Mr. Rees must be
successful in disguising the facility so that the neighbors are
not affected by it.
Ms. Cynthia Brown, a resident of Rainwood Cove, said that,
because of the topography, Mr. Rees is not going to be able to
disguise the facility; that the homes in Rainwood Cove are so
much higher in elevation than the Mr. Rees' site, that the
mini -storage units are going to be visible. She objected to the
proposed re-zoining and to the deferral.
A motion was made and seconded to grant the request for the
deferral to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The
motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff explained that the site had been redesigned to increase the
natural and landscape buffer widths along the west and south
perimeters of the site, and to face the buildings so that the
backs, or blank walls, of the buildings face the west and south
property lines. Staff reported that the developer had prepared a
topographic cross section which shows the relationship to the
site of the abutting homes which lie to the west. Staff
mentioned, though, that, since the staff opposition to the
development is based on the development's conflict with the Land
Use Plan, the recommendation of denial is unchanged by the
redesign of the site.
10
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
Ron Newman, a member of the planning staff, reported on the land
use plan issue involving the site. He related that the site,
although zoned 0-3, is shown on the land use plan for multi-
family development. The multi -family area is an extension of a
larger area that encompasses the single-family subdivision to the
west and the condominium development to the south.
Mr. John Rees, the developer, presented his application. He
reviewed the revised site plan and discussed the changes it
represented. He presented the topographic cross section showing
that the abutting homes to the west would be well above the
facility in elevation. He presented photographs showing the
existing trees along the south and west property lines, as well
as photographs of a mature hedge of red top photinias as an
example of the effect the proposed landscape buffer would provide
as the buffer matures. He stated that the condominium residents
would see only a blank concrete wall through heavy woods and
landscaping. He reported that a number of the abutting property
owners support the development, including one property owner to
the west and all the property owners to the east. He had a
landscaper describe the plantings which were proposed, and the
effectiveness of the screening the plants would provide. He
assured the Commission that, since the mini -storage buildings
would be so much lower in elevation than the homes to the west,
and with the landscaping which is to be installed, the residents
of those homes would not be able to see the buildings. Except for
the fact that they would know the development were there, they
would be unaffected by it, he said. He described the types of
development which could take place under the zoning which is in
place, and cited several of the types of uses listed in the
Zoning Ordinance under the 0-3 category. He said that a 3 -story
office building could be built, and that, in such a case, the
abutting property owners would be much more impacted. He
contested the condominium owners' previous assertion that their
views from their windows would be towards the development, and
said that only one or two side windows face the north; that
because of the separation of the condominiums and the proposed
development, the effect would be minimal. He pointed out that,
with the 30 foot buffer along the south property line, no
condominium unit would be within 60 feet of the blank wall of a
mini -storage building. He reported that there is a demand for
mini -storage facilities in the area, and asserted that the mini -
storage facility is needed. He presented a petition of persons
who, he said, had related to him that they would use such a
facility if it were available on the site. He said, though, that
there is no available zoning in west Little Rock which would
permit the construction of these types of amenities. He said
that the traffic generated by a mini -storage facility is minimal,
and said that the traffic generated by an office development
11
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. _A (_Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
would be many times as great. He said that he planned on
painting the roofs of the buildings a green color. He said that
there would be a 24-hour manager who would police the area and
that access to the site would be gained by a card -key system. He
said that he had visited neighbors of other mini -storage
facilities in the Little Rock area, and, uniformly they had said
that there are no problems with the mini -storage facilities being
their neighbors. Me concluded by assuring the Commission that
the development would be "first class"; that he would own and
operate the facility, and that since his office is just yards
away, he would be available to attend to any problems which the
neighbors wished to discuss.
Mrs. Laurie Amrine, identifying herself as a resident of an
abutting home to the west, spoke in opposition to the mini -
storage facility. She had those who were in opposition to the
development and who were in the audience to stand. (A large
number of persons stood.) She related that the neighbors were in
total opposition to the proposed development. She said that the
opposition was not so much a matter of whether the developer
could effectively camouflage the development, but was more a
matter of trying to deal with issues such as noise, increased
traffic, possible improper storage of dangerous materials in
mini -storage units, and crime, which, she maintained, is
associated with these types of units. She quoted the statement
from the previous minutes in which Mr. Rees admitted that there
was very little that he could do, as far as aesthetics is
concerned, to appease the neighbors. She was critical of the
Commission's decision to grant Mr. Rees a deferral at the
previous meeting in order for him to prepare an amended plan,
since the neighborhood had been so solidly against the proposal,
and the deferral required neighbors to take off another day's
work. She questioned the advisability and validity of allowing
developers to "drag out" the hearings on applications.
Mr. Mike Fussell spoke in opposition to the proposal. He
identified himself as a resident of the condominium project to
the south. He said that the aesthetic considerations were not
the primary reason for the neighbors' opposition. He rebutted
Mr. Rees' assertion that there is a need for mini -storage
facilities in the area, saying that the area mini -storage
facilities have vacancies. On the other hand, he said, west
Little Rock apartment complexes are full and more apartment
developments are needed. An apartment development would be in
conformance with the land use plan, he concluded.
Mr. John Youngblood spoke in opposition to the proposal. He
identified himself as a townhouse owner, however not now a
townhouse resident, a past -president of the property owners'
association, and currently the manager of the development. He
12
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3699-A
said that those whom Mr. Rees says he wants to be a good neighbor
to do not want him as a neighbor. He said that Mr. Rees does not
understand the neighbors' needs when he said that the
neighborhood "needs" the mini -storage facility. All residents of
the area, he said, were in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Joe Groseclose, identifying himself as a resident of the
condominium project and one who would be closest to the proposed
development, spoke in opposition to the mini -storage facility.
He said that his condominium would be just 30 feet from the wall
of the mini -storage building. He reminded the Commissioners of
their duties to maintain sound planning principles, and urged the
Commission to refuse to overturn the previously implemented
zoning of the site.
Commissioners Putnam and McDaniel took exception to Mr.
Groseclose's lecture on the responsibilities and duties of
Planning Commissioners, and indicated that they knew their duties
and took their responsibilities very seriously.
The question was called and discussion
approve the PCD failed with the vote of
0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
13
ceased. The vote to
0 ayes, 8 nays, 2 absent,
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5805
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ronnie Wells
Bill McClard
11,820 Chicot Road
Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Industrial
4.24 acres
Vacant and Office Warehouse
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family and Vacant Building, zoned R-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Vacant, zoned R-2
STAFF UPDATE
At the Planning Commission hearing of June 28, 1994, the
application was amended to a request for PID rezoning of the
east approximately 400 foot of the site, and to leave to the
west 550 feet zoned residential.
STAFF ANALYSIS
11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request
is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a
portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied
by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site
and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has
85 feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately
755 feet.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The
property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and
residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land
use is almost exclusively residential, either single family or
a large mobile home park. There are two minor non-residential
uses found along Chicot and both are nonconforming. One is an
industrial operation and the other is a small commercial user.
What is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is
inappropriate for the location. The industrial
reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5805 (Cont.)
undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is
granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot
zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage,
and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding
residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will
be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the
residential character of the area will be strengthened by
denying the requested industrial rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is
recommended
surrounding
the plan to
in the Geyer Springs West District. The
land use is single family. With the existing
use pattern, there is no justification to change
industrial.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from
the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is
needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 5, 1994)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the
hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was
placed on the Consent Agenda.
The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the
May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement
for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior
to the meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, Bill McClard, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. McClard spoke and requested a
deferral because the owner had a death in the family and was
unable to attend hearing. The interested property owner did
not object to deferring the item.
E
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5805 (Cont.)
A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the
June 20, 1994 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Commission also waived
the bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The application for rezoning was represented by Daryle
Snellings. There were no objectors in attendance.
Mr. Snellings discussed the history of the site and said it
was annexed into the city. He then described the existing
subdivision and said there was no opposition to the request.
Mr. Snellings said that the prospective owner is currently
occupying and using the site.
Ronnie Wells, the prospective buyer, said that he operates
an outdoor sign business. Mr. Wells made some comments
about cleaning up the site and said he would like the I-2
rezoning to protect his interest in the property.
There was some discussion about the area and the property's
nonconforming status.
Ronnie Wells spoke again and said that he would be willing
to leave the back portion of the site zoned R-2.
Additional comments were made about various issues,
including the possibility of utilizing the PUD process for
the property.
Ronnie Wells addressed the Commission and amended his
application to a PUD.
A motion was made to accept the
11,820 Chicot Road. The motion
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
amended request to a PUD for
was approved by a vote of
(JULY 7, 1994)
Ronnie Wells, the applicant, was present. Mr. Ben Kittler,
the project engineer, was present. A revised site plan was
presented showing the proposed buffer along the north
property line; the existing drives; sidewalks, and landscape
areas; and the buildings on abutting property to the
northeast. The need for an access easement for proper
access to the storage yard and parking was discussed. The
requirement for buffering of the residential uses and zoning
on all sizes, including the west, south and northeast, was
discussed. The Committee forwarded the item to the
Commission for the public hearing.
c
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • B Z-5805 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Neither the applicant nor the project engineer were present.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the
August 9, 1994, hearing to allow staff time to contact the
applicant to determine if the applicant wished to pursue the
requested PID rezoning. Staff explained that this would be
the second deferral. A motion was made and seconded to
defer the item until August 9, and the motion carried with
the vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions, and
1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: B1 FILE NO.: S -548-C
NAME: TCBY TREAT EXPRESS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side is Highway 10, approximately
100 feet east of Pinnacle Valley Road, in the Kroger Center
parking lot.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
TCBY RICHARD CAULDER
1100 TCBY Tower 1100 TCBY Tower
425 W. Capitol Ave. 425 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
688-8220 688-8229
AREA: N.A. NUMBER OF LOTS: N.A. FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USE: Drive-thru restaurant
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant seeks approval to place a "TCBY Treat Express"
unit on the Kroger Center parking lot on Highway 10. The
unit is an 8'-4" x 20'-0" drive-thru TCBY yogurt sales
restaurant, with a walk-up sales and outside seating area.
The unit's location takes 9 of the existing shopping
center's parking spaces. Access to the unit from Highway 10
is by way of the shopping center access drives.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant seeks site plan review in order to place
a yogurt sales unit on the parking lot of the Highway
10 Kroger Center. A number of the existing parking
spaces are proposed to be taken for the placement of
the unit; other parking spaces are proposed to be taken
for a walk-up service and seating area. The vehicle
route for the drive-thru is by way of an access drive
to shopping center parking spaces.
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-548-C
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed TCBY Treat Express is to be located in the
Kroger Center parking lot, at the "front" of the lot
just off Highway 10. There are 3 undeveloped "out
parcels" along the front of the parking lot which were
provided in the original Candlewood Commercial
Subdivision plat; the proposed TCBY location is not in
one of these designated out parcels, but is in an area
designated as parking area for the shopping center.
The existing zoning of the shopping center site is C-3.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that the relationship of the
drive-thru traffic's line of travel to the adjacent
parking spaces (i.e., they are in opposite directions
to one another) and the drive-thru's sharing of the
backing and maneuvering space for parking is
unacceptable. The drive-thru traffic must have its own
driving area and have adequate vehicle stacking space.
Water Works indicates that water service to the unit is
shown to be from a private water line, and is shown to
cross the shopping center's main entrance drive. The
tapping of the line, construction of the service line,
and meter box will be the applicant's responsibility;
Water Works will be involved only to the extent of
setting a meter. The applicant must contact Water
Works for the required meter size and its location.
Water Works points out that service to this site may
present problems because of the existing pavement.
Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is available, and
that there will be no adverse effect in the providing
of service.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without
comment.
Landscape review points out that the Shopping Center is
located along Highway 10 and is subject to the Highway
10 Overlay requirements. The building setback line
required by the Overlay is 100 feet; the proposed
building is shown to be approximately 90 feet off
Fa
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -548-C
Highway 10. The building, then, will have to conform
to the 100 foot building setback line for the Highway
10 Overlay. The Landscape Ordinance will also require
a minimum 3 foot wide landscape strip to separate the
building from the parking area, and a minimum 6 foot
wide landscape strip at the lease lot line.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The unit and associated service area is shown to be
located out in the middle of the parking lot, with no
lease line designated. The lease area for the use is
to be shown, and the required landscape strips are to
be provided.
When the Candlewood Commercial Subdivision was
approved, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff and the
Planning Commission were concerned about the number,
size, and location of the shopping center's out
parcels. When the subdivision was approved, the 3 out
parcels, as shown on the plat, were approved. The
proposed TCBY Treat Express is not within one of the
allotted out parcels.
The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-13, requires site
plan review for developments "involving the
construction of two (2) or more buildings...." The
site plan review for the proposed TCBY Treat Express is
required pursuant to these provisions.
The Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-502, stipulates the
required parking for various types of uses. For a
shopping center with 120,275 square feet, 338 parking
spaces are required. The site plan for the shopping
center indicates that 592 spaces are provided.
E. ANALYSIS•
The site plan is deficient in that it does not show the
lease lot line, nor does it provide the required
perimeter and building landscaping. The building
location is closer to Highway 10 than is allowed. The
proposed travel direction at the drive-thru window is
in the opposite direction of the line of travel for
access to the parking spaces, and back-up area and
maneuvering space conflicts with stacking space for the
drive-thru. The allowable out parcels for the shopping
center are designated, and the proposed location is
outside one of these parcels.
3
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -548-C
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application, and
recommends that the proposed facility be located within
one of the designated out parcels. If the Commission
chooses to approve the location, however, the comments
noted regarding designating the lease lot line,
landscaping, conforming to the required building
setback line, and designating a proper drive-thru
travel lane which does not conflict with other traffic
are important to be addressed.
STAFF COMMENT:
This item is to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on
July 7, which is after the date the agenda is printed and
mailed to the Commission members. A report of the
Committee's comments, then, will be made at the Commission
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 12, 1994)
Staff outlined the request, and reported that the applicant
had notified staff prior to the meeting that there had been
a misunderstanding concerning the form of the notice to
abutting property owners; that the notices had shown the
address of the abutting property owner's in the space
provided for the applicant's location. Staff said that the
notices would have to be resent, and suggested that the item
be deferred for 2 weeks, to the July 26, 1994 Commission
hearing. Staff pointed out that the applicant had not
submitted for review responses to the deficiencies noted at
the Subdivision Committee meeting, including the submission
of a project narrative or the revised drawings. Staff
indicated that the applicant was prepared to make a
presentation regarding their responses to the Subdivision
Committee's comments, and suggested that, in order to give
not only the Subdivision Committee members, but the
Commission as a whole, an opportunity to hear these
responses, the applicant be permitted to proceed with their
presentation.
Mr. Richard Caulder spoke representing TCBY. He said that
the building had been relocated, not only to address the
concern staff had regarding traffic, but to conform to the
4
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -548-C
Highway 10 setback requirement. He said that the lease lot
line had been delineated, and that the shopping center owner
had agreed to forego one of the designated out parcels in
exchange for TCBY being allowed to occupy the location on
the parking lot. He presented a photograph of the type of
unit which is proposed, and stated that there would be no
additional signage than the signs located on the unit.
Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Caulder if the unit would be
physically relocated to one of the designated out parcels,
of if this were a swap of one location for the other.
Mr. Caulder responded that the unit was proposed to be
placed on the existing parking lot, and that the shopping
center owner would give up one of the out parcels in
exchange for this consideration. He went on to say that the
proposed unit is a test unit, and is placed in various
locations to test the market to see if the market is strong
enough to warrant placing a permanent structure at the
location. He said that TCBY had spoken with the shopping
center owner regarding locating a permanent building on one
of the designated out parcels if the test was successful.
Commissioner Oleson asked the applicant to address the
provisions for landscaping.
Mr. Caulder responded that the extent of the landscaping is
shown on the plan: the planters and benches.
Commissioner Willis quizzed the applicant on the type of
building and the permanence of the use of the site. He
concluded from the description that the unit was portable,
and that the use was proposed to be temporary until the
market could be tested, at which time, if the market
warranted, a permanent building would be located on one of
the designated out parcels.
Staff pointed out that one of the deficiencies noted at the
Subdivision Committee meeting was that a project narrative
had not been submitted, and that the information being
furnished at the Commission meeting was being related for
the first time. Staff suggested that the site plan review
be pursued as a temporary use rather than as the permanent
use being sought. Staff indicated that the applicant could
clarify the application to seek a 1 -year renewable permit,
allowing TCBY permission to occupy the parking lot without
5
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -548-C
having to conform to the requirements for re -platting,
landscaping, and construction required for a permanent
structure.
A motion was made and seconded to defer consideration of the
item until the July 26, 1994 Planing Commission Hearing.
Commissioner Oleson wanted verification that the applicant
could mail the corrected legal notices to the abutting
property owners, and meet the 15 -day requirement. The
applicant assured the Commission that the notices would be
mailed that day, which is 15 days prior to the July 26th.
meeting. The motion to defer the hearing was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that corrected notices had been mailed out to
property owners within 200 feet, and that the notices had
been mailed in compliance with the 15 -day requirement.
Staff reported that further developments had taken place
since the July 12th. Commission meeting's revelations that,
in lieu of the assumed permanent building which was proposed
to be located on the Kroger Center parking lot, the
application was for a transportable modular unit. Since
that meeting, the applicant had submitted to staff a plan
which shows the transportable modular unit located on the
western -most subdivision out parcel in lieu of on the
existing parking lot. Staff reported that the applicant had
said that the shopping center owners had withdrawn their
approval of the parking lot location, and that now the unit
was to be located on the out parcel. This would require
paving a portion of the out parcel.
A representative of TCBY confirmed the staff report. He
indicated that the building would conform to the 100 foot
building setback requirement, and that the requested time
period for the temporary use was for one year or less.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan.
The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -5758-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
The Pride Family
Jim Hathaway
Kanis Road and Pride Valley
Rezone from R-2 to MF -18
and O-3
Multifamily and Office
12.6 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant and Nonresidential, zoned R-2 and 0-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned 0-2
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located at the northwest corner
of Kanis and Pride Valley, and the request is to rezone 12.6
acres from R-2 to MF -18 and 0-3. The proposal is to
reclassify three acres to 0-3 and the balance, 9.6 acres, to
MF -18. No specific plans or a development concept have been
submitted at this time. The entire site is vacant and
heavily wooded. This area is outside the city limits but
within the city's zoning jurisdiction.
In November of 1993, a C-3 request was filed for the west
five acres of the property. At that time, the proposed use
was mini -storage units. There was strong neighborhood
opposition, and the Commission voted to deny the C-3
reclassification. The denial action was never appealed to
the Board of Directors. Staff did not support the
commercial rezoning.
Zoning in the area is R-2, 0-2, C-2 and PCD. The C-2 is
located on the north side of the Chenal Parkway and the PCD
is at the corner of Kanis and the Parkway. The office
zoning, 0-2, is found on the east and north sides of Kanis,
directly across from the property under consideration. Land
use includes single family, offices for a construction
company, commercial and Baker Elementary school.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -5758-A (Cont.)
The Ellis Mountain District Plan shows the 12 acres for low
density multifamily (LMF) which is a density of 10 to 12
units per acre. Both sides of Kanis are identified for LMF
and the plan does not recognize the existing 0-2. Also, the
adopted plan does not show any office areas in the general
vicinity. Both the MF -18 and OS are in conflict with the
adopted plan. It is staff's position that circumstances
have not changed to justify a shift in the direction of the
plan and the recommended land use should reinforced by
denying the MF -18 and 0-3. The land use element for this
area has been reviewed several times and the city has always
determined that LMF is the most appropriate land use
designation for the location. The proposed rezonings could
also have an undesirable impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily (LMF). The request
is in conflict with the Plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the MF -18 and 0-3 rezonings.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were 8 to
10 objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke and said he
was representing the Pride Family. Mr. Hathaway then
discussed the land use plan and the recommended use, low
density multifamily. He then reviewed the rezoning request,
3 acres to 0-3 and MF -18 for 9.6 acres, and said that there
were no specific plans for the property or a pending sale.
After some additional comments, Mr. Hathaway amended the
application to 0-2 for the 3 acres and the MF -18 to MF -12.
He went on to describe the area and presented a graphic
showing the existing zoning. Mr. Hathaway reminded the
Commission that 0-2 was a site plan review district.
Robert Jenkins, a resident in the Woodcreek Subdivision,
spoke against the rezoning and said he was very concerned
with the proposed multifamily development.
E
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -5758-A (Cont.)
Randy Cooper, 16,325 Pride Valley, said he was opposed to
the rezoning and discussed the surrounding area.
Lori Ritchie, 701 Cape, told the Commission that everyone in
the area was opposed to multifamily. Ms. Ritchie said the
residents were concerned with additional traffic and an
increase in the crime rate. Ms. Ritchie then repeated her
statement about the neighborhood being opposed to the
proposed rezoning.
Jennipher Boone, a resident on Pride Valley, spoke and
questioned how an application could be filed less than one
year after a denial of another request.
Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, responded and said
the current request was substantially different from the
previous one.
Jennipher Boone continued her presentation and said the area
is a quiet, rural neighborhood. Ms. Boone went on to say
that the proposed rezoning would decrease the quality of
life and increase traffic flow. She described the area as a
true neighborhood and said the request would decrease
property values. Ms. Boone concluded by saying the proposal
was totally unacceptable to the neighborhood.
Bill Kelly, a resident on Pride Valley, asked the Commission
to deny the proposed rezoning.
Ray Robbins, property owner directly to the west, objected
to the multifamily rezoning and said the entire neighborhood
has problems with the request. Mr. Robbins spoke against
the rezoning and asked the Commission to reject the request.
He then discussed a drainage problem on his property.
Mr. Robbins said that he was not as concerned with the
office rezoning as with the multifamily.
Bill Worthen, a property owner in the area, said that he was
opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Jim Hathaway spoke again and made comments on the Master
Street Plan. Mr. Hathaway said the area was going to change
because of the West 36th bypass. Mr. Hathaway then
discussed the area and asked for a vote on the amended
request to MF -12 and 0-2.
Robert Jenkins presented letters from several residents
opposing the rezoning.
Ray Robbins repeated his statements about the drainage
problems.
N
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -5758-A (Cont.)
Comments were offered about various issues, including the
possibility of deferring the matter.
Jim Hathaway did not object to a deferral. He also said
that he saw no problems with 0-2 for the entire site.
A motion was made to defer the item to the July 26, 1994.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays, 5 absent and 1 abstention
(B. Walker). The item was deferred because the motion
failed to receive 6 votes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were
several interested property owners in attendance, and one
was an objector.
Staff first made a presentation on a proposed plan
amendment. Tony Bozynski reviewed the request and said the
staff was recommending approval of 0-2 for the entire site
because of the plan amendment. Walter Malone then discussed
the plan amendment process and the various factors that were
considered. Based on the existing land use and zoning
patterns, it was determined that "suburban office" was an
appropriate land use designation for the corner of Kanis and
Pride Valley.
Jim Hathaway spoke and reviewed the rezoning issue.
Mr. Hathaway then amended the request to 0-2 for the
entire 12.6 acres and made some additional comments.
Bill Worthen, a property owner on Pride Valley, spoke and
said he supported the 0-2 rezoning. Mr. Worthen did express
some concerns with Pride Valley and asked that no access be
allowed to Pride Valley. Mr. Worthen suggested that an open
space strip be created adjacent to Pride Valley.
Ray Robbins, adjacent property owner to the west, addressed
the Commission and said he was opposed to the 0-2 rezoning.
Mr. Robbins discussed the area and made some comments about
the land use plan. Mr. Robbins told the Commission that,in
the future, he would like his property rezoned to 0-2.
There was some discussion about the land use plan and the
proposed amendment. Ron Newman, Planning Manager, said the
staff was viewing the amendment as long-term.
Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded to some
comments about restricting access to Pride Valley and the
land use plan.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: C Z -5758-A (Cont.)
Ray Robbins spoke again and made some comments about zoning
and the plan.
There was additional discussion about various aspects of the
rezoning request.
The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of
the amended application to 0-2. The vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
5
July 26, 199:4
ITEM NO.: D 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:
The Committee was informed of
this item deferred to the July
meeting.
(MAY 26, 1994)
the applicant's request to have
26, 1994 Planning Commission
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
deferral to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The
vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
The Committee was informed that the applicant had requested a
second deferral, this time to the September 6, 1994 Planning
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-211
Commission meeting. This deferral will allow for further
development of the plan to realign °R° Street and to continue
meeting with the neighborhood. There was a meeting with the
Heights Merchants Association and the Heights Neighborhood
Association on June 30, 1994.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request for a
second deferral. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was
deferred to the September 6, 1994 meeting. The vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z -1513-A
NAME: ARKANSAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION -- SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. Markham and S. Valmar
Streets
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Leslie Pheiffer Pat McGetrick
ARKANSAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
1616 W. 3rd. St. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211
376-7611 223-9900
AREA: 0.29 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 14
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to use an existing, vacant, home and its
property as an office for the Arkansas Tennis Association. No
changes to the exterior residential character of the home are
proposed. The applicant states that the Association is to have
three full-time employees and a couple of part-time employees.
There is little, if any, drop-in traffic, the applicant reports.
Parking for eight vehicles is provided. The hours of operation
are to be from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., five days per week. The
applicant maintains that an office use will be a more appropriate
use of the property which faces W. Markham St. than a residential
use; that the traffic on W. Markham St. makes the property less
desirable as a home.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a POD for the establishment of an office use for the
Arkansas Tennis Association at the subject property is
requested. The Arkansas Tennis Association proposes to use
an existing home, which faces W. Markham St. and which is
currently vacant, as Association office space, but propose
no changes to the exterior of the home. Parking for eight
vehicles on-site is proposed. The Association reports that
the hours of operation will be from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.,
five days per week, that there are three full-time employees
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1513-A
and a couple of part-time employees, and that there is
practically no drop-in traffic.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently zoned R-3, Single -Family, with all
surrounding land being zoned for residential use. There are
homes to the north, west, and south; there is a PRD to the
east. The residential neighborhood along Valmar St. is in
tact.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works reports that a Stormwater Detention analysis
must be provided. The applicant must construct handicap
ramps at the sidewalks, and must repair broken sidewalks.
Little Rock Water works has no objections to the proposed
development. They report that there is an existing 5/8"
meter serving the location, and that a 3/4" meter is the
maximum size meter which is available without a main
extension.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available, and that the sewer system will not be adversely
affected by the proposed development
Arkansas Power and Light Co., Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.,
and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. approved the submittal without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department comments that the 10 foot
wide entrance -exit drive and opening in the west fence is
too narrow, and that the drive and opening must be widened
to a minimum of 12 feet in order to provide access for fire
equipment to the parking lot.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A
6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern
property line. This screen may be either a good neighbor
wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Curb and gutter
or other approved border will be required to protect all
plantings from vehicular traffic.
0►
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1513-A
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The planning staff reports that the site is in the I-630
Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends
single family use for the site. The requested use as office
is not consistent with the adopted Plan or with the
residential character of the area.
The Fire Department comment regarding needed clearance for
access to the parking lot must be addressed.
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicant maintains that the old home facing W. Markham
St. is not viable as a home, and states that a better use
for this structure is for "quiet office". The planning
staff, however, reports that such a change in use would not
be consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. The planning
staff also point out that the change in use would not be in
keeping with the residential character of the area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the POD.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, and Ms. Leslie Pheiffer,
a representative of the Tennis Association, were present. Staff
outlined the proposal and reviewed with the applicant and her
engineer the comments contained in the discussion outline. The
Committee questioned the applicant regarding the existing fence
surrounding the side yard of the home and the narrow opening in
the fence which was cited by the Fire Department as a problem to
be addressed. The Committee discussed the needed off-street
parking, and the applicant reassured the Committee members that,
with the number of full-time and part-time employees of the
Association, the parking would be adequate. There was also a
discussion regarding site distance on W. Markham St., and it was
felt that the drive onto W. Markham, which has access to the site
through the carport, provides the better site distance. If was
discussed that, with the limited number of vehicles to use the
site, and the fact that the W. Markham St. drive provides the
better site distance, there was no need for restricted access to
or from this drive. The Committee then forwarded the POD request
to the Commission for the public hearing.
M
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1513-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 26, 1994)
Staff outlined the applicant's request, but reported that the
proposed use was in conflict with the land use plan. Staff
indicated that copies of correspondence, both pro and con, were
placed at each Commissioner's desk prior to the meeting.
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, presented the
applicant's site plan and described the application. He
indicated that no exterior changes to the building were
anticipated, but that compliance with Public works and the Fire
Marshall's comments would be met. He indicated that 8 parking
spaces would be constructed in the side, or west, yard of the
home. He concluded with a statement that the quiet office use of
the residential structure should not be a conflicting use in the
neighborhood, and that it would allow the structure to be
preserved.
Mr. Bill Ray, identifying himself as the legal counsel for the
Arkansas Tennis Association, spoke in support of the proposal.
Mrs. Virginia Stewart, who said that she lived across Markham St.
in the Hillcrest neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the
proposal. She said that for blocks and blocks in both directions
from the proposed office site, the land use is exclusively
residential in nature. She opposed the "spot" zoning which the
proposal would entail, and was afraid of the precedent that such
an action would set.
Mr. Mike Sells, who said that he lived directly across Markham
St. from the proposed office use, spoke in opposition to the
proposal. He said that the neighborhood was attempting to
rebuild and to maintain property values, and that such a rezoning
would undermine these efforts.
Mr. Paul Crawford, who identified himself as a member of the
Hillcrest Neighborhood Association board, spoke in opposition to
the proposal. He related that the Association urged denial of
the change in zoning.
Mr. Gordon Rucker spoke in opposition to the request. He said
that he lives on Valmar in the block which would be affected, and
that the character of the block would be adversely changed.
Mr. Andy Holliday voiced his opposition to the proposed
re -zoning.
G!
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1513 -
Ms. Bonnie Wesson indicated that there are concerns regarding
traffic both on Markham and in the neighborhood which are reasons
for her opposition to the proposed use. She expressed concern
for a building being next door which is vacant at night, and for
the possibility of burglary and fire which might affect the
neighborhood. She related an example of a home on a corner of W.
Markham and S. Monroe Streets that was converted to a commercial
use in the past, and, when the use was no longer viable, and
another use could not be located, the structure was demolished.
She said that such changes affect not only the immediate
neighbors, but the entire neighborhood for blocks around. She
said that the neighborhood, of which the subject property is a
part, is attempting to remain stable and to build property
values. She said that the subject property was a historic home,
built in 1910, and, that given sufficient time, it would sell as
a residence. She presented a letter from another resident on
Valmar whom she said opposed the re -zoning, and relayed another
resident's opposition who had been present at the Commission
meeting earlier, but who had had to leave.
Mr. Bland Crowder identified himself as a resident across Markham
St., four houses from the corner. He related that there is a
very strong neighborhood watch program in the area, and said that
the subject property, with its vantage point which looks directly
up Crystal Court, is an important element in the watch program.
He said that if the house is no longer a residence, with
occupants in the home in the evenings and on weekends, the "eyes"
which such residents would provide will no longer be there, and
the Crystal Court residents would be affected. He urged the
Commission to deny the change in zoning.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, relayed the League's opposition to the change in zoning.
She said that the League supported the land use plan, and opposed
the abandonment of the plan which would change the character of
the neighborhood. She promoted the subject home as viable for
residential use, and said that it ought to remain a residence.
Mr. Pat McGetrick reminded the Commission that the Capitol
View-Stifft Station Neighborhood Association had unanimously
approved the use of the residential structure as the Tennis
Association offices. He pointed out that the POD request is
specifically for the Tennis Association, and could be used for no
other use; that the application specifies that the house is to be
retained and the exterior repaired and left as residential in
character. He reminded the Commissioners that there are only
3 full-time employees, and that there are very few visitors who
would be visiting the Association offices. Traffic, he said,
would be no greater than if the use remained residential.
Property values would not, he said, be affected.
W
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -1513-A
Mr. Bill Ray explained that the Tennis Association would use the
building as association offices only; that there are no
commercial aspects to the operation. He said that the
Association would leave the architectural integrity of the home
in tact, but would renovate and repair it. The exterior, he
said, would continue to appear to be a residence. He said that a
security system would be installed, which should alleviate the
neighborhood's concerns regarding break-ins or fire.
The question was called, and the vote to approve the POD failed
with the vote of 0 ayes, 8 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and
1 open position.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z -3592-F
NAME: COULSON OIL - KANIS ROAD -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Kanis Road and S.
Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Mike Coulson
COULSON OIL COMPANY
1314 Pike Ave.
North Little Rock,
367-4222
AREA: 0.91 ACRES
ZONING: PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT:
ENGINEER:
Robert Brown
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
AR 72214 Little Rock, AR 72205
221-7880
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
11
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
PROPOSED USES: Convenience store
with gas pumps and a car wash
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of a 0.91 acre site at the
southwest corner of Shackleford Rd. and Kanis Rd. for a
convenience store with gas pumps and a car wash. Street
improvements to Master Street Standards are proposed to be
provided along Kanis Rd. No modifications to Shackleford Rd. are
proposed. The proposed uses are limited to those cited and
associated with the convenience store, gas pumps, and car wash
activity. The proposed sign location is at the corner of
Shackleford Rd. and Kanis Rd., and is to be a pole mounted sign,
32 feet in height, and provide 180 square feet of sign area.
Additional building and canopy signage is proposed to meet
Ordinance standards. The facility is to be open 24 hours per
day.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a PCD to construct a facility to
include a convenience store, gas pumps, and a car wash. The
PCD is to be located at the southwest corner of Shackleford
Rd. and Kanis Rd. No further right-of-way or improvements
are proposed to be provided along the Shackleford Rd.
frontage of the site; required right-of-way and required
one-half street improvements are proposed to be provided
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3592-F
along Kanis Rd. The developer proposes approval of no
further uses than those associated with the convenience
store, gas pumps, and war wash uses. A single pole -mounted
sign at the Shackleford Rd.-Kanis Rd. intersection is
requested. This sign is to be 32 feet in height and is to
have 180 square feet of area. The facility is to operate 24
hours per day. There is an existing platted 40 foot
building line along both boundary streets, and the service
canopy is proposed to extend into the setback area.
Approval of the site plan, as presented, is requested,
allowing the re -platting of the lot to relocate the building
lines.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently zoned PCD, but the proposed PCD
improvements have never been constructed. The site is
wooded and has a significant change in elevation, falling
from the southwest towards both streets.
Shackleford Rd. is a curb and gutter minor arterial roadway.
Kanis Rd. is designated as a minor arterial road, but is a
2 -lane roadway with no curbs or drainage facilities. The
Shackleford Rd.-Kanis Rd. intersection is signalized.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan
must be provided, and that Steve Loop should be contacted
for information on this requirement. Master Street Plan
improvements, with dedication of additional right-of-way
along Kanis Rd. will be required.
Little Rock Water Works reports that a pro -rata front
footage charge of $5.00 per foot applies along Shackleford
Rd. and an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in
addition to the normal connection charge.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available, and that the sewer system will not be adversely
affected by the proposed development.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements. They indicate that they will require a 15 foot
wide easement along the perimeter of the site on all four
sides.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. approved the submittal without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3592-F
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet Ordinance requirements. An
8 foot high opaque fence or wall will be required to screen
three sides of the dumpster.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The planning staff reports that the site is in the I-430
Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends
mixed office and commercial uses for the area. The
proposal, then, is consistent with the adopted Plan.
The original PCD which was approved for the subject site was
considered by the Planning Commission in May of 1989. The
Commission approved a PCD site plan at its meeting of May
16, 1989. The conditions which accompanied the approval at
that time included: the height of the sign and light
standards was limited to 20 feet; the landscape strip along
Shackleford Rd. was to be 25 feet, and was to be measured
from the right-of-way line after dedication of additional
right-of-way; existing trees along the boundary of the site
were to be retained where feasible; and, the retaining wall
along the south and west limits of the site were to be
constructed of limestone to blend with the retaining walls
of the Koger Center. This plan was approved by the Board of
Directors on June 20, 1989, in Ordinance No. 15,700.
E. ANALYSIS•
The original PCD was part of a negotiated agreement whereby
the Planning Commisison would support commercial zoning of
the surrounding property to the south and west, but would
retain site plan review of the lot at the Shackleford Rd.-
Kanis Rd. intersection through the PCD process.
Consideration was given to the developing office uses of the
Farm Bureau office and the Koger Center development, and it
was felt that a C-3 use would be out of character for the
area. At this time, however, an area directly to the north
of the subject site has been rezoned C-3, and commercial
development is prevalent in the area. Staff, then, offers
the conditions which were attached to the original approval
for discussion, but without a recommendation that they be
imposed in the new development.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD.
Q
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3592-F
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
Mr. Mike Coulson, the applicant, and Mr. Bob Brown, with
Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, were
present. Staff outlined the scope of the request, and Mr. Brown
reviewed with the Committee members the plans and elements of the
PCD proposal. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown the comments
recorded in the discussion outline, then forwarded the item to
the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that Public Works had amended its report to
include a requirement for dedication of additional right-of-way
along the Shackleford Road frontage of the site to provide a
minimum of one-half of a 90 foot right-of-way. Staff related
that the applicant had agreed to dedicate the required area, a
small area measuring 3 feet at the southern boundary of the site
and tapering to a point approximately 70 feet north. Staff
reported that there were no other issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the PCD.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the location of
the proposed PCD, and, after the location was clarified as being
at the southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Kanis Road, there
was no further discussion.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD as presented.
The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-5852
NAME: PENNEY 13241 CANTRELL ROAD -- SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 1/4
mile west of Sam Peck Road
DEVELOPER:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
JAMES A. "BUTCH" PENNEY BRIAN MINYARD
29415 Penney Lane 1400 W. Markham St., Suite 410
Roland, AR 72135 Little Rock, AR 72201
330-2464 375-5725
AREA: 0.25 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the development of a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot
office building on a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be
located at the rear of the property, with 10 foot rear and side
yard setbacks, and will occupy approximately 19% of the site.
The parking is to be at the front of the site, with parking for
12 vehicles being provided. Parking lot lighting will be
building mounted, and fixtures will be floodlights with glare
control devices. A monument sign is proposed to be located
immediately behind the front property line, with the size to meet
the City standards. Landscaping and fencing, as required by the
Landscape Ordinance are proposed to be met, with a wood "good
neighbor" fence to be located on the property line on the rear
and on both sides. A landscape irrigation system is to be
installed. The applicant requests approval of all uses listed as
uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant requests a Planned Office Development in order
to construct a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot office building on
a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be located at the
rear of the tract, with 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks
indicated. The parking is to be located to the north of the
building, between the building and Highway 10, and parking
for 12 vehicles is provided. The requirements for
landscaping and perimeter fencing are proposed to be met.
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5852
All uses by right as listed in the 0-2 zoning district are
requested by the applicant for the POD.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is on the south side of Highway 10, immediately
east of the Panky neighborhood area. The existing zoning is
R-2, with the surrounding area being exclusively R-2. The
site is slightly depressed in elevation from the elevation
of Highway 10, and has had considerable fill material placed
on it over the last several years.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the site, including the area at
the rear of the site which is apparently in the flood plain,
was filled illegally a number of years ago. The fill is
reported to have covered lumber from a razed structure and
felled trees. The apparently code violations must be
addressed. An engineering study must be conducted on the
flood prone portion of the site. The proposed driveway must
be realigned so that it is 900 to Cantrell Road. A sidewalk
must be constructed along the Cantrell Road frontage.
Little Rock Water Works reports that they have no objection
to the proposed building. They report that there is an
existing 5/8" meter serving this site.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required to provide sewer
service to the site.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. They
indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along all four sides
of the site will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
They indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along the east,
west, and south property lines will be required.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review reports that the Highway 10 Overlay
requires a 40 foot wide landscape buffer along Cantrell Road
and a 25 foot wide buffer along the southern, eastern, and
western perimeters. A sprinkler system to water required
plantings must be provided. The proposed landscaping is in
compliance with the Landscape Ordinance.
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5852
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The planning staff reports that the site is in the River
Mountain Planning District, and the Land Use Plan recommends
"transition zone" for the site. The proposed use, then, is
consistent with the adopted plan. The planning staff
cautions, though, that there are issues related to the
Highway 10 overlay which must be dealt with.
The parking requirements for general and professional office
uses is 1 space per 400 square feet. This building, at
4200 square feet would be required to provide 11 spaces.
The proposal includes the provision for 12 spaces.
The 0-2 zoning district require front, side, and rear yard
setbacks of at least 25 feet. This site is proposed to have
10 foot side and rear setbacks.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are serious concerns from staff regarding the material
buried on the site and the acceptability of the method and
material used to fill the site. There are concerns about
the location of the flood prone area, and there is a need
for completion of a study to determine whether a flood plain
exists on the property.
The proposed building is a 2 -story building, sitting just
10 feet from the sides and rear property lines. As tall as
end walls and the roof will be to the property lines, there
is too much building mass without adequate setback. The 0-2
zoning district requires
25 foot setbacks on a minimum 2 -acre site. The POD is not
bound by these restrictions, but the rear and side setback
requirements may be used as a guideline.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application as presented.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
The applicant, Mr. Butch Penney, and the landscape architect,
Mr. Bryan Minyard, were present. Staff outlined the scope of the
proposed project. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Penney and
Mr. Minyard the comments provided in the discussion outline. The
Committee discussed the various deficiencies and comments, then
forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing.
KI
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5852
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that the original notices sent to property owners
within 200 feet of the proposed POD had indicated that the
Commission meeting would be held at 5:30, but that corrected
notices had been mailed on July 22. Staff advised the Commission
that a bylaws waiver would be necessary, since the provision of
the bylaws which requires 15 days notice was not met.
Staff reiterated the staff concerns regarding the proposal: that
the building is too large for the site, and that only 10 foot
side and rear yard setbacks are proposed; that the site was, in
the past, improperly filled and the fill material used was
improper; and, the site plan does not deal with the stormwater
run-off onto abutting properties which are substantially lower in
elevation than the now -filled site. Staff reported that the
flood plain issue, which had been cited earlier as a concern, had
been resolved when the engineering data submitted had indicated
that the flood plain does not affect the site.
Mr. Brian Minyard, representing the applicant, presented the
proposal, indicating that the building was sited as it was to
meet the Highway 10 design overlay setback requirements. He said
that landscaping and parking requirements had been met, and that
there was a need for the size of building proposed. He related
that the applicant's son had graduated from dental school, and
that the applicant was proposing to construct a dental office for
his son. He said that the second story was to be used for lease
space.
Mr. J. A. Penney, the applicant, reiterated that he planned to
build his son an office for his dental practice, and to use the
second floor as lease space. He explained that unauthorized fill
material which had contained landscape timbers had been placed on
the site by someone, but that he had removed these timbers. He
assured the Commission that he would construct a sound, properly
engineered building on the site.
Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Penney to address the staff
concerns regarding the building being too close to the side and
rear property lines.
Mr. Penney offered to change the building from a full 2 -story
building to a 1 1/2 story building, indicating that the height of
the building would be reduced by approximately 12 feet. He
explained that with a 1 1/2 story building, the roof begins at
the first floor ceiling line, and that the second floor walls are
formed by the roof. This, he explained, would make the building
appear less massive and look more like a 1 -story building.
4
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5852
A motion was made and seconded to approve the
stipulation that the building be a 1 1/2 story
The motion also contained a provision to waive
provision. The motion carried with the vote o
2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
5
POD, with the
office building.
the bylaws notice
f 7 ayes, 1 nay,
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: 5-1029
NAME: BACKYARD BURGERS - UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER -- SITE PLAN
REVIEW
LOCATION: On Asher Ave., approximately 300 feet east of
University Ave., in the University Shopping Center parking lot.
DEVELOPER:
SYNERGISED PROPERTIES
6823 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
666-0776
AREA: N.A. NUMBER OF LOTS:
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 722111
223-9900
1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Drive-Thru Restaurant
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of a Backyard Burgers
fast food drive-thru unit to be located on a lease parcel in the
parking lot of the University Shopping Center. The unit is to be
a typical Backyard Burgers outlet with drive-thru service and
outside patio seating. The building has been sited to provide
vehicle stacking of 7 or 8 cars for each of the two drive-thru
lanes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Site plan review is requested by the Planning Commission for
construction of a new Backyard Burgers outlet to be located
in the University Shopping Center parking lot. Drive-thru
and outside patio seating service is proposed. A provision
for vehicle stacking space for 7 or 8 cars per drive-thru
lane has been designed before interference with traffic flow
in the main east -west drive of the shopping center parking
lot would occur..
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The shopping center site is zoned C-3, and is a 17 -acre
tract with total building area of approximately 202,537
square feet consisting of a main shopping center building, a
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1029
service station at the northwest corner of the tract, and
three free-standing buildings along the south, Asher Avenue,
frontage of the tract. These three free-standing buildings
consist of a Superior Federal branch bank at the southwest
corner of the tract, a First Commercial branch bank
approximately centered along the Asher Ave. frontage of the
parking lot, and a video store located at the southeast
corner of the parking lot. The shopping center currently
provides approximately 843 parking spaces; 556 spaces are
required by the regulations.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the proposed traffic flow does
not provide adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting for
service at the order boards, and that there is a potential
for stacked cars to block the shopping center main east -west
drive.
Little Rock Water Works reports that they will need to be
contacted regarding meter size and location. They indicate
that service to this part of the tract may present some
problems.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available, and there will be no adverse effect on the sewer
system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easement for
service to the facility.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot wide landscape strip
is required at the lease lot line around the perimeter of
the site, exclusive of ingress and egress drives. Also, a
3 foot wide landscape strip is required between the public
parking and the building. An 8 foot high dumpster enclosure
will be required on 3 sides of the dumpster.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires site
plan review for developments "involving the construction of
two (2) or more buildings". The site is a 17 -acre site
containing the main shopping center building, a service
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1029
station building, and three other free standing buildings.
The Backyard Burgers outlet would be the sixth building on
the site. Site plan review pursuant to the provisions of
the Subdivision Regulations, then, is required.
A provision for the required building and lease lot line
landscaping needs to be addressed.
The Backyard Burgers facility is located immediately to the
east of the first entrance drive off Asher Ave. east of
University Ave. This places it between this drive and the
First Commercial branch bank facility. Traffic leaving the
Backyard Burgers drive-thru would either: a) turn to the
east and drive south of the First Commercial bank, sharing
this space with customers leaving the bank drive-thru; or b)
double back to the north towards the main shopping center
east -west drive. There are no clear traffic routes, and
practically no stacking space, for vehicles accessing the
First Commercial drive-thru, and the addition of the
Backyard Burgers traffic to this area compounds the problem.
E. ANALYSIS•
The traffic patterns in the area between the Backyard
Burgers facility and the First Commercial location are
confused and congested. There is inadequate space in this
congested area for the traffic from these two uses to be
able to maneuver safely.
The site, even after reducing the parking by approximately
28 spaces to accommodate the new use, still meets the
parking requirements. Parking for 556 vehicles is required;
parking for 775 is provided.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the site plan as presented.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
outlined the proposal and reviewed with the Committee and
Mr. McGetrick the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline.
There was discussion regarding the various deficiencies and the
traffic engineer's analysis of the potential problem with
inadequate stacking space for vehicles waiting for service. The
Committee forwarded the plan to the Commission for final
resolution.
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1029
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Pat
McGetrick, the project engineer, requesting that the hearing of
the item be deferred until the August 9, 1994 Commission meeting.
Mr. McGetrick had indicated that a redesign of the site was being
considered in order to deal with the staff concerns concerning
traffic flow around the proposed Backyard Burgers. The item was
included on the consent agenda for deferral, and the deferral
was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4a FILE NO.: S-1032
NAME: TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL POOL -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Production Drive and
Distribution Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Jimmy Alessi Frank Riggins
ALESSI-KEYES CONSTRUCTION THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. O. Box 25414 P. O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72221 Little Rock, AR 72203
225-6699 375-5331
AREA: 5.1712 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED USES: Truck parking and maintenance
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Development of the 5.1712 acres site is proposed for a storage
area for semi -tractor trailer vehicles. Two buildings are
proposed to be constructed on the site to service this activity,
a maintenance building and an office building. Additionally,
parking for 7 passenger vehicles is to be provided. The site is
to be surrounded by a 6 foot high chain link fence with 3 strands
of barbed wire at the top of the fence. Landscaping will be
provided to comply with the landscaping requirements. A portion
of the site along the east limits of the site is wooded, and
existing trees are planned to be saved where practical. A new
curb cut and driveway is proposed to be provided on the north, on
Production Drive, with the existing curb cut on the south, on
Assembly Court, to be removed. A gate is to be provided at the
new driveway. The lot is proposed to be lighted. Stormwater
detention is to be provided on-site by way of a basin located
along the east property line.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Site plan review is requested for a site consisting of
5.1712 acres to be used for a semi -tractor trailer parking
facility. Two buildings are proposed on the site: a
maintenance building and an office building. The site is to
be fenced with chain link facing with barbed wire along the
top of the fence. A new driveway is to be provided off
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1032
Production Drive, and is to include a gate. The existing
drive off Assembly Court is to be abandoned. Landscaping is
to be provided to comply with the requirements, and existing
trees along the east extent of the site are to be saved
where practical. Stormwater is to be detained on-site in a
basin located along the east property line.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is zoned I-2, with I-2 zoning on all surrounding
tracts. The now -vacant United Parcel Service facility
stands on the adjacent property to the east.
The site is vacant, with approximately one-half of the
western main portion of the site being paved.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works relates that an application for a building
permit has already been submitted, and that the comments
offered in response to that application are applicable.
Little Rock Water Works reports no objections.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports no objections.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional
easements, and have delineated the need for a 15 foot wide
easement at, basically, the perimeter of the property.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
Landscape review comments that the full buffer width
required along Distribution Drive is 20 feet, with 15 feet
being the requirement along Production Drive. Though the
proposal is below this requirement, the existing paved areas
set aside to be landscaped along Production Drive and
Assembly Court make up the difference in area and allow
additional plantings and continuous street landscaping.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires site
plan review for developments "involving the construction of
two (2) or more buildings".
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 4a (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1032
All issues have been resolved.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed site is in an industrial park, and landscaping
review supports the proposed landscaping proposal; the
proposed landscaping is an upgrade for the area and provides
perimeter buffering.
The plans are complete and there are no outstanding issues.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY i, 1994)
The applicant, Mr. Jimmy Alessi, was present. Mr. Frank Riggins,
with the Mehlburger Firm, as present. Mr. Alessi and Mr. Riggins
reviewed with the Committee the scope of the project. Staff
reviewed with the Committee and with the applicant the comments
contained in the discussion outline. There were no major
concerns regarding the plans noted, and the Committee forwarded
the item to the Commission for the site plan review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved, that the
required submittals were complete and all requirements had been
met. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval,
and was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -3836-E
NAME: Christ the King Catholic Church -
Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Parking Lot)
LOCATION: 4000 North Rodney Parham Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock by
Tim Daters
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval to
revise a previously approved
conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a 64 space
parking lot on this R-2 zoned,
12.39 acre site which is occupied
by a large church and private
school.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church property is located on the north side of North
Rodney Parham Road, approximately 600 feet south of its
intersection with Cantrell Road. The proposed new parking
lot is located in the northeast corner of the church
property, between the rectory and North Rodney Parham Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Christ the King Catholic Church's parish campus occupies a
12.39 acre tract located in an area consisting primarily of
office zoning and uses. Across Rodney Parham, to the
southeast, Pleasant valley Office Park and the Systematics'
development occupy a large area of 0-2 zoned property.
Southwest of the church site is an area of 0-3 zoning
occupied by two large office buildings with a third large
office building currently under construction. The Easter
Seals outpatient facility is currently under construction on
an 0-3 zoned tract west of the church site. Lastly, a
vacant 0-3 tract is located adjacent to the north of the
church. The proposed new parking lot would be located
closest to this last tract.
An area of R-2 zoning, much of which is vacant, is located
across Woodland Heights Road, to the northwest.
The proposed new parking lot will not have a negative impact
on the adjacent neighborhood.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3836-E
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The parish campus currently has 296 on-site parking spaces.
The proposed 64 space parking lot expansion will give a
total of 360 on-site parking spaces.
The proposed driveway onto Rodney Parham Road is in
violation of city code and must be eliminated from the plan.
Section 31-210 of the city code limits driveway or access
points to one for each 300 feet of lot frontage.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5. City Engineer Comments
Compliance with the Detention and Excavation Ordinances is
required. Provide sketch grading and drainage plan.
Provide detention calculation for the site. Eliminate the
driveway onto Rodney Parham to comply with city ordinance
(One driveway per 300 feet of lot frontage).
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests permission to revise the previously
approved conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a 64 space parking lot. No other revision
of the previous approval is requested. With removal of the
driveway onto Rodney Parham Road, staff is supportive of the
request.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with City Engineer Comments including
removal of the proposed driveway onto Rodney Parham
Road.
F
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3836-E
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
The applicant, Tim Daters, was present. Staff presented the item
and noted the City Engineer Comments.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, informed the Committee that
the proposed site plan complied with the Buffer Ordinance, with
the allowable trade-offs.
Tim Daters stated that he would revise the site plan to eliminate
the driveway onto Rodney Parham Road, resulting in additional
buffer on that perimeter. Mr. Daters also stated that he would
provide the required sketch grading plan and detention
calculation to the City Engineer's Office.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. Staff reported that a revised site plan had been
submitted, eliminating the Rodney Parham driveway and increasing
the buffer. The item was left on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to
approve the conditional use permit. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent and 1 open position.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.• 6 FILE NO.: Z -4854 -
NAME:
LOCATION•
First Church of God - Conditional
Use Permit
8201 Frenchman's Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: First Church of God by
Russell Holcomb, Hoard Chairman
PROPOSAL•
A conditional use permit is requested to allow the existing
church on this R-2 and MF -12 zoned 9.32 acre site to:
1. Initiate a private school for children from K-6 grade.
2. Expand a childcare center, which was previously approved by
the Planning Commission with an enrollment of 40 children,
to allow up to 80 children.
3. Place a portable classroom building on the property as a
temporary use.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church property is located at the northwest corner of
Frenchman's Lane and West 83rd Street, one block west of
Geyer Springs Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses
ranging from R-2, Single Family residential to I-2, Light
Industrial. The uses in the immediate vicinity are
extremely varied.
Directly north of the church is an area of C-3 and I-2
zoning occupied by a day care center and a large apartment
complex.
Across West 83rd Street, to the south, the Cloverdale School
campus occupies a 15 acre tract.
Across Frenchman's Lane, to the east, is an area of vacant
R-5 and C-3 property. The heavily commercial area fronting
on Geyer Springs Road is just east of that. The new site of
Gyst House is across Frenchman's Lane, to the northeast. A
second church and day care center are located at the
southeast corner of Frenchman's Lane and West 83rd Street.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4854-A
A large R-2 zoned single family residential neighborhood is
located adjacent to the west of the church property.
The church currently occupies only the east half of its
property. The only structural improvement associated with
this application is a temporary, portable classroom building
to be located adjacent to the church building. The proposed
private school, enlarged day care center and classroom
building are compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The church has an existing parking area which will
accommodate approximately 58 vehicles. There is adequate
drop-off/pickup space and vehicle stacking space on the
site.
4. Screening and Buffers
This proposal involves no expansion of facilities or
parking, other than the temporary portable classroom
building. The proposed private school and day care center
will be located in the existing facility. No additional
screening or buffers are required.
5. City Engineer Comments
Compliance with the City's Stormwater Detention and
Excavation Ordinances is required. Construct sidewalk on
Frenchman's Lane frontage. Sidewalk and Master Street Plan
improvements to West 83rd Street are to be tied to the next
phase of any future building construction.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
On June 30, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit allowing First Church of God to open
a day care center (40 capacity) to operate Monday through
Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the existing church
facility. Since that time, the church began a private
school offering classes from kindergarten through sixth
grade. They did not realize that the private school also
required conditional use permit review by the Planning
Commission. The school currently has an enrollment of 55
children. The church now desires to increase the enrollment
capacity of the day care center to 80 children. Approval is
also requested for the private school with a maximum
enrollment of 125 students.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4854-A
To accommodate the increase in enrollment, the church wishes
to place a temporary portable building on the property. In
the long term, permanent facilities will be constructed and
the portable building removed. This will require a return
to the Planning Commission.
All of the church's facilities are located on the east half
of the property, in an area surrounded by similar uses. The
nearest single family residential property is approximately
300 feet from the church buildings.
West 83rd Street is a one-way street, running west to east,
which prohibits traffic from the church and the other uses
in the area from entering the residential neighborhood.
Staff is supportive of the request and would recommend that
the portable building be approved for a period of 5 years or
until permanent facilities are built, whichever comes first.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City Engineer Comments. Staff recommends approval of the
portable classroom building for a period not to exceed 5
years or until the permanent facilities are constructed
whichever comes first.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
Russ Holcomb and Steve Ostergren were present representing First
Church of God. Staff presented the item and noted the City
Engineer Comments.
Scott Foster, of the City Engineer's Office, stated that the
sidewalk on Frenchman's Lane as well as the required improvements
to West 83rd Street should be tied to the next phase of any
future building construction on the site. The applicants agreed
to this requirement.
Staff recommended that the portable classroom building be
approved for a period not to exceed 5 years or until the
permanent facilities are constructed, whichever comes first. The
applicants also agreed to this.
A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the City Engineer's
requirement to provide detention calculations for the site. The
Engineering staff stated that they interpreted the Stormwater
Detention Ordinance to require the detention calculation to be
submitted prior to the item being reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The applicant was instructed to provide the needed
information to the City Engineer's Office.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4854-A
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to approve
the requested conditional use permit. The vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5853
NAME: Greater St. John Missionary Baptist
Church - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 2024 South Madison
OWNER/APPLICANT: Greater St. John Missionary Baptist
Church by Earline Douglas,
Treasurer/Secretary
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for an addition
to the existing church on this R-3
zoned lot. The addition will
contain two classrooms, three
offices, a fellowship hall,
restrooms and a kitchen. No
expansion of the sanctuary is
proposed.
A variance is requested to allow
a reduced rear yard setback of
5 feet; 25 feet required.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church is located on the west side of the 2000 Block of
South Madison Street, across from the Arkansas Veterans
Home.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church is located in a predominantly single family
residential neighborhood. The Arkansas Veterans Home, a
large nursing home, is located directly across Madison
Street, to the east. Other than the Veterans Home, all
other surrounding property in the neighborhood is occupied
by single family residential homes.
Two small areas of C-3 zoning are located at 20th and
Boulevard and 22nd and Monroe. Both of these areas contain
single family residential homes.
The church has existed at this site for 25 to 30 years. The
proposed addition will not increase the seating capacity of
the sanctuary.
The proposed addition should not affect the church's
compatibility with the neighborhood.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5853
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The sanctuary has a seating capacity of 163 persons,
requiring 40 on-site parking spaces. The average Sunday
attendance is substantially less.
The site is nonconforming in that the church currently has
no on-site parking. A vacant lot located next to the church
is currently used by some of the church members for parking.
The proposal before the Planning Commission does not involve
an increase in the seating capacity of the sanctuary, thus
no increase in the required number of on-site parking
spaces. At some point, the church needs to address the
parking situation by acquiring property in the area and
constructing parking lots. Acquiring the vacant lot next to
the church and constructing a proper parking lot would be a
good beginning.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Buffer Ordinance is required.
5. City Engineer Comments
Compliance with the City's Stormwater Detention Ordinance is
required. Provide detention calculation for the site.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
Greater St. John Baptist Church is a small, nonconforming
church which has been located in this predominately single
family residential neighborhood for 25 to 30 years. The
church is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a 1,440 square foot addition which will
contain two classrooms, three offices, a fellowship hall,
restrooms and a kitchen. No increase in the seating
capacity of the sanctuary is proposed. No additional
on-site activity such as a day care center or private school
is proposed. Staff is supportive of the request but feels
that the church should explore the possibility of obtaining
property for parking.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with
the City's Buffer Ordinance and compliance with the
City Engineer Comments.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5853
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
Earline Douglas and Jesse Stringfellow were present representing
the church. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer
Comments, the requested setback variance and the lack of on-site
parking.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, noted that the required rear
yard buffer is 7 feet; a buffer of 5 feet is proposed. It was
pointed out that an undeveloped 20 foot alley right-of-way
separates this property from the residential property to the
rear.
The applicant stated that the church was hoping to acquire the
adjacent, vacant lot for development of a parking lot, but was
unable to negotiate a price with the owner.
The applicant was advised to provide detention calculations for
the site and to contact the City Engineering staff regarding this
matter.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission approved
the conditional use permit. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent and 1 open position.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -5736-A
NAME:
Community Fellowship Church -
Revised Conditional use Permit
LOCATION:
14100 Block of Lawson Road,
South Side
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Community Fellowship Church by
Terry Bryant
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a
revision of a previously approved
conditional use permit which
allowed for the phased construction
of a church, private school and
church camp on this R-2 zoned 7.29
acre site. The previous approval
was given on October 5, 1993. This
application would allow for the
shifting of buildings and parking
lots to compensate for low areas on
the property. No change in use is
proposed.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on the south side of Lawson Road,
approximately one mile south of Colonel Glenn Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located outside of the city limits in a
rural area of single family homes on large tracts of land
and large areas of vacant woodland. The proposed revisions
should not effect the proposed church's compatibility with
the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There is an existing gravel access easement crossing the
property which provides access to three adjacent residential
properties. This gravel access road will be relocated to
the west perimeter of the church site and will be utilized
by the church and the adjacent residential properties.
The phasing of the development and the seating in the
sanctuary is the same as the previously approved site plan.
The Phase I sanctuary will seat 125 persons, requiring
1
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5736-A
31 on-site parking spaces. The Phase II sanctuary will seat
250 persons, requiring 63 on-site parking spaces. The
required parking will be provided in phases, corresponding
to the phased development of the buildings.
The applicant is again requesting a deferral of the paving
requirement for the parking lot until the Phase II sanctuary
is built, at which time the parking lot would be paved and
landscaped to comply with city code.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5. City Engineer Comments
The applicant dedicated right-of-way on Lawson Road to 45
feet from centerline through the earlier Planning Commission
action. On July 5, 1994, the Board of Directors approved a
5 year deferral of the Master Street Plan required
improvements to Lawson Road.
A large portion of this property is located in the
floodplain and part of the property is actually in the
floodway. Provide proof that the county requirements have
been satisfied regarding development in the floodplain.
6. Utility Comments
Provide for on-site fire protection, to be implemented at
the time of annexation. The applicant must sign a
preannexation agreement and obtain approval from the City
prior to obtaining water service. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company requires a 5 foot easement along all
perimeters.
7. Analysis
On October 5, 1993, the Little Rock Planning Commission
approved a three phase development for Community Fellowship
Church allowing for the construction of a church, private
school and church camp on this site. There is no change
proposed in the phasing plan.
Phase I provides for the construction of a single building
containing classrooms and a 125 seat sanctuary. Phase II,
which is envisioned as occurring approximately three years
after the completion of Phase I, involves the construction
of a second building containing a 250 seat sanctuary and
additional classroom space.
PA
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5736-A
The required parking will also built in phases corresponding
to the development of this site.
The proposed private school will be initiated with Phase II.
The school will begin with grades K-6 and will later expand
to include grades 7-12. The private school will have an
enrollment of approximately 60 students.
Phase III, occurring after an additional three years, will
consist of the construction of a family life center
containing a gymnasium and dormitory for the proposed church
camp. The proposed dorm rooms will house 60 persons.
An open -play field will be constructed either during Phase
II or III. The field will be for day use and will not have
any lighting.
After the October 1993 Planning Commission approval and
during the preparation for site work, the applicant found
that much of the area selected for building sites was low
and required an excessive amount of fill and foundation
height to raise it above the floodplain level. This
proposed site plan basically switches the areas proposed for
parking and for building sites and places the buildings on
the higher portions of the property.
At the time of the initial application, staff recognized
that the plan was conceptual and was willing to concede some
degree of flexibility in the implementation of the plan.
Staff feels that this proposal involved such a degree of
change as to require review by the Planning Commission.
Staff is supportive of this revised plan.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments
3. Adequate on-site parking being provided for all phases
of the development.
4. Compliance with the Pulaski County Planning
Department's requirements regarding development in the
flooplain
Staff also recommends approval of the request to defer
paving the parking lot until Phase II of the development.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5736-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
The applicant, Terry Bryant, was present. Staff presented the
item and noted the Landscape, City Engineer and Utility Comments.
Mr. Bryant explained the reasoning behind the requested revision.
He stated that the County Planning Office had established minimum
floor elevations for buildings to be constructed on the site. In
order to meet those minimum floor elevations it would require an
excessive amount of fill to keep the buildings where previously
approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bryant stated that much
expense could be saved by relocating the buildings to the high
points on the property and putting the parking lots on the low
points.
Scott Foster, of the City Engineer's Office, stated that much of
this property is in the floodplain and the portion nearest Lawson
Road is actually in the floodway. He stated that written
documentation must be received from the Pulaski County Planning
Office approving this site development in the floodplain.
Mr. Bryant responded that he would provide the documentation
required.
Staff informed the Committee that the Board of Directors approved
a 5 year deferral of required Master Street Plan improvements to
Lawson Road on July 5, 1994.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant, Terry Bryant, was present. One objector had been
in attendance, but he left before the item was heard by the
Commission. There was no discussion of the conditional use
permit request.
The question was called and the Commission voted to approve the
revised conditional use permit. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, 1 abstention (K. Oleson) and 1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.• 9 FILE NO.: G-23-214
Name• Block 1, McGehee Addition Exclusive
Alley Abandonment
Location: Block 1, McGehee Addition, behind
5114 "R" Street
Owner/Applicant: Various property owners by
John E. Pruniski, III
Request: To abandon portions of an alley
right-of-way adjacent to Lots 2, 3,
4, 5 and 22, Block 1, McGehee
Addition and to abandon public
easements in that portion of the
alley proposed for abandonment
which is adjacent to Lot 22.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav
Initial response from other city departments indicates no
public need for this portion of right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
There is no need for additional right-of-way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Although the alley was platted in 1921 with a 20 foot
right-of-way, it has never had more than a 10 to 15 foot
actual use area. Many structures such as garages, storage
buildings and fences encroach into the right-of-way along
the entire length of the alley.
The alley itself was paved at one time but is in extreme
disrepair.
5. Development Potential
No further development is proposed. If the right-of-way is
abandoned, the owner of Lot 22 will be allowed to keep his
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-214
swimming pool and fence. Otherwise the structures will have
to be removed.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
All property abutting the alley is single family
residential. Several of these homes use the alley to access
parking areas at the rear of their properties.
Abandonment of this portion of right-of-way will have not an
effect because the actual use area which has developed over
the past 70 years will not be effected. The vehicular use
area of 8 to 10 feet will remain.
7. Neighborhood Position
All abutting property owners have approved the requested
abandonment. No other neighborhood position has been
voiced.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All utility companies have expressed approval of the
right-of-way abandonment and approval of the abandonment of
easement rights in the area on the west side of the alley
where the swimming pool, garage and fence are located. The
alley is no longer used by the Public Works Department for
garbage pickup. There will be no effect on public services
or utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend to the owners of Lots 2,
3, 4, 5, and 22, Block 1, McGehee Addition.
10. Staff Analysis
In 1993, based on an inaccurate survey, the owner of Lot 22
obtained a building permit and constructed a swimming pool
in the rear yard of 5114 "R" Street. Subsequently, the
Public Works Department investigated the situation and
determined that the pool was actually in the alley
right-of-way. A later survey by the applicant confirmed
this. The applicant applied for and was denied a franchise
to keep the pool and fence in the right-of-way.
The applicant now desires to have that portion of the alley
right-of-way abandoned which is occupied by the pool, fence
and an older garage.
The actual use area of the alley will not be effected by
reducing the right-of-way.
K
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-214
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested right-of-way
abandonment and the abandonment of those easements where the
pool, fence and garage are located in the right-of-way abutting
Lot 22, Block 1, McGehee Addition.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
John Pruniski was present representing the application. Staff
presented the item and noted that the Little Rock Wastewater
Utility had not yet approved the requested abandonment of the
easement adjacent to Lot 22. The utility has approved
abandonment of the right-of-way. Staff also informed the
Committee that the Fire Department had voiced concerns about the
narrowing of the alley right-of-way. Staff noted that the actual
use area of the alley is not being affected and that the Fire
Department was doing further review.
Mr. Pruniski stated that the area of the alley proposed for
abandonment has always been enclosed by a fence and that the
actual use area of the alley would be the same as it has been for
many years.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. Staff reported that all the issues had been
resolved, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to recommend
approval of the abandonment. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent and 1 open position.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: G-23-215
Name: Kimball Street Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: The south half of Kimball Street in
the block between East 6th Street
and East Capitol Avenue
Owner/Applicant: St. John Missionary Baptist Church
by Andrew Pace, Trustee
Request: To abandon that portion of the
Kimball Street right-of-way
adjacent to Lot 7, Pollock's
Subdivision of Block 21, Garland's
Addition and Lot 14, Francis R.
Mitchell's Subdivision of Block 22,
Garland's Addition.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
Initial review from other departments indicates no public
need for this right-of-way. The Fire Department voiced
initial concern about maintaining access to the church and
house which abuts this street. Both properties front on
East 6th Street and the area of the abandoned right-of-way
will remain physically open from East 6th Street and used as
a parking lot and driveway for the church.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
This portion of Kimball Street is a narrow, winding
one -lane, asphalt street in a substandard 30 foot right-of-
way. The street has no improvements such as curb, gutter or
sidewalk. The portion of Kimball Street proposed for
abandonment is used as a parking lot and driveway for the
adjacent St. John Missionary Baptist Church.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of the street will continue to be
used as a parking lot by the church. The north end will be
blocked off to eliminate thru traffic.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The surrounding neighborhood contains a variety of uses
ranging from older single family homes to industrial
development.
Kimball Street, at this point, is a narrow substandard
street which provides minimal access from East Capitol
Avenue to East 6th Street. There is however some use of the
street.
Abandoning the right-of-way in the south half of the block
will allow St. John Missionary Baptist Church to close
access where the street intersects the east/west alley and
thus eliminate thru traffic which the church sees as a
danger.
By eliminating Kimball Street as a thru street, traffic will
be routed either one block east to Fletcher Street or two
blocks west to Bender Street. Both of these streets are
fully built to Master Street Plan standards.
This block of Kimball is not heavily used other than as a
parking lot for the church and staff feels that the
abandonment of the right-of-way will have a minimal impact
on the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
This office has received two calls in opposition to the
proposed abandonment, as of this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
There will be no effect on public services or utilities.
All easements will remain and access to the property can be
gained from East 6th Street.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to St. John Missionary
Baptist Church.
K
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
St. John Missionary Baptist Church owns both properties
abutting this portion of Kimball Street. The church itself
sits almost directly on the Kimball Street right-of-way.
The right-of-way is used as a parking lot and driveway by
the church and they are concerned about thru traffic at the
times that people are coming in and out of the church
buildings. Access will remain open from East 6th Street for
the Fire Department and utility companies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to the area of the abandoned
right-of-way being retained as a utility easement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
The applicant was not present.
(JULY 7, 1994)
Staff presented the item.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 26, 1994)
The application was represented by Aldrew Pace, a Trustee. There
were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Pace spoke and said
the church is situated right on the street, which causes a safety
concern. Mr. Pace stated that the church was not proposing any
additional construction.
Alberta Ewing, a resident at East 5th and Kimball, opposed the
street closure. Ms. Ewing said the street is substandard, but
the residents use it. She also said that it would be an
inconvenience for the neighborhood if Kimble was closed.
Robert Higgins, 2007 East 4th, spoke against the street closing.
Mr. Higgins said that he owns property behind the church and he
was opposed to the proposed Kimball closure. He said the closing
of the street would create problems for the neighborhood and
presented some photos of the area. Mr. Higgins continued to
discuss his concerns and concluded by describing the area.
At this point, there was a lengthy discussion and comments were
offered by various individuals.
Erma Hendrix, City Director, spoke and said she was not taking a
position on the issue.
3
July 26, 1994
i ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215
Robert Hill, a neighborhood resident, described the street and
said a large tree is blocking a portion of the street and
creating some of the problems.
Discussion continued on the item and the various issues. Because
of some confusion, staff recommended that the request be
deferred.
A motion was then made to defer the Kimball Street item to the
August 9, 1994 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent and 1 open position.
4
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: G-25-167
Name:
Location:
Pompano Court Street Name Change
Pompano Court, off the 13600 Block
of St. Charles Blvd.
Petitioner: Winrock Development Company and
St. Charles Community Association
Request: To change the name of Pompano Court
to Bienville Court
1. Abutting Uses and Ownerships
Eight single family residential lots abut Pompano Court.
Six of these lots are vacant and owned by Winrock
Development.Company. The remaining two lots are occupied by
single family residences, both of which front onto St.
Charles Blvd. and take their address from that street.
2. Neighborhood Effect
By eliminating confusion over the relationship of Pompano
Court to Pompano Drive, the effect on the neighborhood will
be positive.
3. Neighborhood Position
The St. Charles Community Association is a co -applicant on
this petition.
4. Effect on Public Services
As there are currently no homes which have a Pompano Court
address, there will be no effect on utilities. One street
sign will need to be changed.
STAFF ANALYSIS•
By the nature of their shared first names, one would assume that
Pompano Court would extend off of Pompano Drive. These streets
in actuality do not connect at any point. Each street is
accessed from a different point of St. Charles Blvd. with two
other streets in between. The neighborhood fears that confusion
over the street name will cause delays for the police, emergency
medical services and fire department. The change in street name
will have no effect on any residents as there are no homes
currently built on those lots which would have a Pompano Court
address.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-167
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed street name change.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
The applicants were not present. Staff presented the item.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item
was placed on the Consent Agenda.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
proposed street name change. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent and 1 open position.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 12 Z -2848-G
Owner: William R. Lile
Applicant: Samuel L. Davis
Location: End of Windsor Court
Request: Rezone from OS to MF -6
Purpose: Single -Family
Size: 0.29 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant, zoned
MF -6
South
- Single -Family,
zoned R-2
East
- Single -Family
(attached), zoned PRD
West
- Single -Family,
zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is part of an area that will be
platted for single family lots, and the request is to rezone
the site from OS to MF -6. (The proposed plat has been
reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission.) A
rezoning is necessary because the lots have a depth of only
97 feet to 103 feet and a 50 foot OS area would make four of
the lots undevelopable.
When this 50 foot OS area was created, the development
concept was attached units, at a density of 6 units per
acre. Because of the single family lots to the south, it
was determined that a buffer area should be established
between the MF -6 and the subdivision. With the new platting
arrangement, an OS area between single family lots serves no
purpose and is not needed. The proposed MF -6 maintains the
existing zoning pattern and staff supports the rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT:
The MF -6 conforms to the adopted plan, Chenal, and there are
no land use issues.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
There are none to be reported.
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 12 Z -2848-G (Cont.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the MF -6 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning commission voted
to recommend approval of the MF -6 rezoning. The vote was
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
2
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: S-936
NAME: CLARA COMBS -- EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVER
LOCATION: 7804 Henderson Road
DEVELOPER:
MS. CLARA COMBS
7804 Henderson Road
Little Rock, AR 72210
455-2925
AREA: 0.379 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Two single-family
(Outside the City Limits) homes on one lot
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Continuation of the previously granted
waiver from the Subdivision Regulations which requires site plan
review for two principle buildings on one lot.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant, by letter dated July 16, 1991, explained that,
because of severe health problems of her elderly parents, she
requested approval for the placement of a mobile home next to her
parents' home on their property, and stated that the mobile home
would be removed from the property upon the death of her parents
and her moving into the home. The Planning Commission, on
September 10, 1991, considered the request. There were no
objectors present, and the Commission permitted Ms. Combs to have
the mobile home on the property for a 2 -year period. Now, by
letter dated June 23, 1994, Ms. Combs relates that conditions
have not changed; that her parents are in ill health, with her
father being completely house bound; and, that she needs to
attend them, because, without her living in the mobile home next
door, her parents could not continue to live in their home and
would have to be relocated to a nursing home. She stated further
that her husband is ill. She related that, since the situation
cannot continue forever, she asked that an extension of the
previously granted waiver be granted.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is sought for a waiver
from the Subdivision Regulations which requires site plan
review for two principle uses on one lot in order to allow
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-936
two primary residential structures to be located on the
applicant's parents lot. The applicant's parents are in
critically ill condition, she relates, and she is needed to
tend to their physical needs. The only way this can be
accomplished, Ms. Combs says, is for her husband and her to
reside on the property with her parents, and a mobile home
has been located next door to the parents' home for this
purpose.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The applicant's parents' lot is located outside the City
Limits, but in the planning area of the City. The zoning of
the area is R-2, which requires each primary dwelling to
occupy one lot. The mobile home is located to the side of
the permanent dwelling on the site.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
There were no comments received.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 36-2 of the zoning Ordinance defines "Lot" as "a
parcel of land legally defined in a recorded deed or a
recorded plat, fronting on a public dedicated right-of-way
or other approved private drive", and establishing "one (1)
building site,, which is to "comply with Chapter 31."
Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires site
plan review for developments "involving the construction of
two (2) or more (principle use) buildings".
E. ANALYSIS•
The area is outside the City Limits in a rural and isolated
area. There were no objectors at the original Commission
hearing when the waiver was originally granted; there have
been no complaints since that time. There is apparently a
valid need for the applicant to reside on the property with
her parents, and there is apparently a valid need to reside
in a separate, but temporary home in close proximity to the
parents.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends a continuation of the waiver granted in
1991, with the condition that the time period be extended
for an additional two (2) years, or until the death of both
the parents. Upon the expiration of the two (2) years,
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-936
unless the Commission hears and grants another request for
an extension of the waiver, or upon the death of both
parents, whichever occurs sooner, the mobile home is to be
completely removed from the property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the request to
the Committee members. The Committee forwarded the request to
the Commission for final resolution of the matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that Mrs. Combs had spoken by telephone with staff
on July 25, 1994, and had reiterated the seriousness of the
physical condition of her parents and husband. Commissioners
Oleson and Willis, members of the Subdivision Committee, recalled
that the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting had
resulted in a recommendation for a one-year extension of the time
to comply with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations for the
second dwelling on the property. Staff reported that the
recommended two-year extension would begin with the date of
expiration of the initial approval of the extension to comply
with the regulations. Therefore, the recommended new two-year
extension would expire on September 10, 1995. The item was
included on the consent agenda for approval, and was approved
with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and
1 open position.
3
July 26, 1994
ITEM NO.: 14 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
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant, stated by letter dated June 28, 1994, requested to
amend the application to request a waiver of the sidewalk along
the Jamison Road frontage of the site.
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. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
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.
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5840
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.
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.
2
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO Z-5840
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.
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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JULY 7, 1994)
The applicant's engineer, Mr. Robert Holloway, was present and
presented the request. He explained that there are no sidewalks
along Jamison Road, and that the road dead -ends a short distance
past the site. The committee forwarded the request to the
Commission for a recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 26, 1994)
Staff reported that Public works had no objections to the
requested waiver. The item was included on the consent agenda
for approval, and was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
3
cc
LLJ
z
O
0
C�
Z
CL
OL
71
z
•
MIN
J
LU
D
CL
N
rill
CD
c
0
0
CM
W
Z
6
W
FH{
malmillml
ME
all
limillioll
IN
limmullill
11111101111111
I
I
01H
Immomalls
S��
r
Nk
s
L.
ILLF
t
X
O
Z
CL
N
rill
CD
c
0
0
CM
W
Z
6
W
FH{
I
I
01H
S��
r
Nk
s
L.
ILLF
t
X
O
Z
w
z z
w
0
__
F-wOwO
¢_
P-
z�=
w-
Y
�JZ
m
m
W
co
¢
W
Z
`L
Uj
O
cL
z
CC
U
z
O
U
z
o
N
w
t -cc
O
a--3:(:nF�:
CL
N
rill
CD
c
0
0
CM
W
Z
6
W
July 26, 1994
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Date
Chairman
a