pc_09 06 1994subI.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 6, 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 July 26, 1994 meeting
were approved as mailed.
III. 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
Bract Walker
One Open Position
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. "R" Street -- Exclusive Right -of -Way and Easement
Abandonment (G-23-211)
B. Backyard Burgers -- University Shopping Center --
Site Plan Review (S-1029)
C. 1994 Ordinance Amendment
II. PRELI_MINARY PLATS:
1. The Hills Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(5-45-A-16)
2. Ashley -Hankins Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(5-1004-A)
3. Orley Feagins Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(5-1033)
4. Roy May Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1034)
III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
5. Hampton Inn -- Short -Form PCD (Z -3410-C)
6. U -Haul of Arkansas -- Amended Short -Form PCD
(Z -4074-A)
7. Mid-America Center -- Amended Short -Form PRD
(Z -4085-C)
8. MGM Properties -- Amended Short -Form POD
(Z -5770-A)
9. Kremer°s -- Short -Form PRD (Z-5873)
10. Global Learning Center -- Short -Form POD (Z-5874)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
11. Chenal Center -- Site Plan Review (5-1035)
12. Pro -Life Center -- Site Plan Review (Z-5862)
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
13. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church -- Amended CUP
(Z -5365-B)
14. Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church -- CUP (Z -5828-B)
15. Armstead Manufactured Home -- CUP (Z-5858)
16. Bread of Heaven Church -- CUP (Z-5860)
17. Holy Temple Church of God in Christ -- CUP
(Z-5863)
18. Cellular One Tower - Adams Field Cell Site -- CUP
(Z-5865)
19. Cellular One - Cloverdale Cell Site -- CUP
(Z-5866)
20. Cox Manufactured Home -- CUP (Z-5867)
21. Archild Center for Children -- CUP and Abandonment
of a Portion of S. Tyler St. (Z-5868)
22. Coulson Oil -- CUP (Z-5869)
23. Safelite Auto Glass -- CUP (Z-5871)
24. Pankey Community Park -- CUP (Z-5872)
VI. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
25. Park Street and W. 26th. Street -- Right -of -Way
Abandonment (G-23-217)
VII. REZONING:
26. Roy May Addition -- Rezoning from R-2 to C-4
(Z-5870)
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: A 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
Request: To abandon the "R" Street
Right -of -Way between North Fillmore
and North Pierce Streets and to
abandon any public easements
located in that portion of public
right-of-way.
The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the
July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant desires
more time to meet with the neighborhood and city staff in hopes
of finding an acceptable means to abandon or realign this block
of "R" Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 26, 1994)
The Committee was informed of the applicant's request to have
this item deferred to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 14, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be deferred to allow more time to meet with
neighborhood residents and to revise the application.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved for
% eFerral—bo—t-he July 26 9 AA zann n� Comms ori —meeting. 1.1-1�
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
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
STAFF UPDATE AND ANALYSIS:
In response to meetings with the Planning Staff and the staff of
the Public Works Department, the applicant has submitted a
revised application. The revised application asks for the
exclusive abandonment of the north 11.2 feet of the "R" Street
right-of-way between Fillmore and Pierce Streets and of any
easements located within that 11.2 feet. A 28 foot wide street
with sidewalks on both sides will be constructed in the remaining
40 foot right-of-way.
This block of "R" Street currently contains a 24.5 foot wide
street with sidewalks. Parking is allowed on the south side of
"R" Street leaving only about 16 feet of pavement to accommodate
the flow of traffic east and west on the street. Calvary Baptist
also has a parking lot located south of this block with a
driveway exiting onto "R" Street. This makes for a dangerous and
congested situation.
If this proposal is approved, the resulting 28 foot wide street
would accommodate parking on one side and leave about 20 feet of
traffic lane for the east/west traffic flow. The driveway
entering the street from the south would also be removed, further
lessening the congestion.
A great deal of neighborhood and staff concern has been -r -al
over the initial proposals submitted regarding this block of "R"
Street right-of-way. The initial proposal put forth by the
applicant was to close this block of "R" Street altogether. It
became immediately apparent that this proposal had neither staff
nor neighborhood support. The second proposal submitted by the
applicant was a realignment of the right-of-way resulting in a 49
foot offset at the Pierce Street intersection. Again,
neighborhood concern was voiced over the possible negative impact
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A_ (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-211
on businesses which front on "R" Street to both the west and east
of this block. After a thorough review of this proposal, and
taking into consideration such factors as public welfare and
safety, neighborhood effect, and the availability of other
alternatives, the Planning Staff again advised the applicant that
it could not support the application.
This final plan offered by the applicant would retain the direct
east/west alignment of "R°' Street. There would be approximately
a 3.85 foot offset to the south from the current alignment of the
street. The resulting 28 foot wide street would be an
improvement over the existing 24.5 foot wide street. The
driveway entering the street from the south would be eliminated,
thus lessening the congestion. The integrity of the Heights
commercial neighborhood fronting on "R" Street would be
maintained and there should not be a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
Staff is supportive of this final proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this request to abandon the north
11.2 feet of the "R" Street right-of-way between North Pierce and
North Fillmore Streets and to abandon any easements located in
that 11.2 feet.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Burt Taggart and Walter Draughon were present representing
Calvary Baptist Church. Mr. Taggart advised the Committee of
this latest proposal and explained the design of the proposed
street. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Burt Taggart and Walter Draughon were present representing
Calvary Baptist Church. Staff reported that a letter had been
r--ec e -i ved- -from-the-app-li cyan t and f roma—epees ent a t i ve of—tho-s-e
opposed to the "R" Street abandonment indicating that an
agreement was near. Staff asked the Commission to defer the item
until September 20, 1994 in hopes that an agreement could be
reached between the church and the neighborhood.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved for deferral
to September 20, 1994 by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-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:
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 722111
223-9900
1
PROPOSED USES:
None
FT. NEW STREET: 0
Drive-Thru Restaurant
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/REOUEST:
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
anSei"yi Ce i ed A n ro-,rl_lnn
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
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1029
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 dumDster.
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
E
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1029
containing the main shopping center building, a service
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.
K
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had been in contact with staff
during the previous two weeks to discuss the staff concerns
regarding traffic circulation around the proposed Backyard
Burgers. Staff related that the primary concerns had been the
apparent inadequate vehicle stacking distance between the service
windows and the shopping center's east -west drive, and the
possible traffic flow conflicts with First Commercial Bank
customers. Staff reported that staff had suggested that Backyard
Burgers reverse the traffic route to provide additional vehicle
stacking distance, and that the parking lot in front of the First
Commercial Bank drive-thru facility be re -striped and have an
island installed to separate the traffic of the two uses.
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. McGetrick reported that the shopping center management and
the Backyard Burgers representatives had studied the various
options, and had agreed that the parking area to the north of the
First Commercial Bank could be re -striped to provide better
traffic flow, and, that a landscaping strip could be provided to
separate the traffic generated by the two uses; however, Backyard
Burgers had felt that if the traffic flow around the building
were reversed, the rear of the building would be facing Asher
Ave., and that would be unacceptable. Mr. McGetrick indicated
that potential problems with vehicle stacking would be limited,
primarily, to lunchtime when the shopping center traffic is
minimal. He, therefore, asked the Commission to approve the site
p an as—nevi-sed-, butwitbhou-t—the—r--equir-ement—t-o--re ewe the
traffic flow and, consequently, the building.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan as
presented; however, with the vote of 4 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent,
0 abstentions, and 1 open position, the motion failed to receive
the required number of votes for approval, and was deferred until
the September 6, 1994 Commission hearing.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1029
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had agreed to the staff and
Subdivision Committee recommendation that the proposed Backyard
Burgers building be reversed so that the front of the building
faces north. This modification allows traffic flow to the drive -
up windows to enter the drive -up at the lanes between the
proposed building and the existing First Commercial Bank
facility, and increases the stacking space to over 20 vehicles in
lieu of the 7 or 8 cars which was provided in the original
submission. This change addresses the staff concerns regarding
the potential for stacked cars waiting for service at the
Backyard Burgers restaurant blocking the main east -west drive
through the shopping center parking lot. The item was included
on the consent agenda for approval, and the site plan was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 1 abstention,
and 1 open position.
A
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: C
SUBJECT: An amendment to the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance establishing
rezoning procedure and conditional
approval.
REOUEST: To approve the content and
recommend the draft submitted by
the City Attorney and forward to
the Board of Directors.
STAFF REPORT:
At its meeting on August 2, 1994, the Board of Directors directed
staff to pursue the creation of an ordinance amendment that would
permit the placement of conditions within a rezoning ordinance.
This request resulted from a hearing on an application of
significant interest.
Although the subject of conditional rezoning has been discussed
by the Board and numerous cases approved with conditions the City
Attorney and certain Board members felt that the Zoning Ordinance
should be clear on the matter. The Planning staff worked with
Mr. Carpenter and his staff to draft language that is workable.
It should answer questions that consistently reoccur, while
avoiding both P.U.D. conflict and contract zoning.
The draft submitted is constructed so as to place the applicant
at the control point of allowing the applicant to initiate a
conditional request at the Planning Commission level. The
applicant could introduce use, bulk or area, access or density
restrictions in response to concerns voiced in the Commission
meeting. The application would come to the Board with the
Commission's recommendation. The Board would then act to
approve, deny, modify or return for more study.
We feel this amendment will permit all involved parties to be a
part of the process, see concerns dealt with in a controlled
fashion and a permanent public record made of commitments.
A copy of the draft is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Approved as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 23, 1994)
The Chairman asked the staff to present its comments on the
proposed ordinance.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, presented a brief overview
identifying the history of the ordinance proposal and its origin
with the City Board of Directors.
Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, then continued Mr.
Newman's comments by adding his thoughts on the need for the
ordinance and the purpose of the current ordinance draft. In
general, those comments were centered about the need that was
perceived by the City Attorney's Office for specific language in
the zoning Ordinance, providing for what the City Board is
currently doing. Mr. Giles stated that the City Attorney's
Office had on numerous occasions identified that the City's
legislative authority was broad with respect to land use.
He followed that comment by a statement that "an open zoning
classification in some instances might not be appropriate for a
particular location. But with some conditions attached to it,
the Commission might find that it is compatible; therefore, the
proposed process here is somewhere between a straight rezoning
application and a true P.U.D. application." He stated further
that "unlike a P.U.D., which is user specific, this type of
application would not be user specific."
Mr. Giles pointed out that he wanted to stress that every zoning
situation will not be susceptible to this process or the kinds of
conditions proposed by this ordinance. "It is only to be used in
those circumstances where the Planning Commission finds it
particularly appropriate." He stated that "this ordinance does
not attempt to state what those kinds of locational circumstances
are but leave some discretion to the Planning Commission. Any
conditions imposed would be those imposed by the applicant upon
his or her request. The Commission after accepting such
conditions imposed by the applicant would then forward the
recommendation on the application to the City Board."
Chairperson Chachere asked that the City Attorney address the
issue of time constraints on an application. Mr. Giles responded
by saying, " that is not one of the several issues in it to hear.
It deals with such as bulk and area, use and access.
Mr. Giles offered an example, being a C-3 application where
concerns offered by both the Planning Commission and_nelghborsas
to certain factors involving the uses allowed by the district.
He pointed out that with the applicant's concurrence that the
Commission could accept a restriction on the use listing to
eliminate those that were deemed to be inappropriate to a given
location.
Mr. Giles also pointed out that on the official zoning map the
posting of the reclassification would include a notation with
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
conditions, and the ordinance that creates that conditional
relationship would set forth all of the various conditions
imposed. These would subsequently be filed with the circuit
clerk's office to assure a tie to the title to the property and
would run with the land and provide notice to subsequent buyers
of the property.
Chairperson Chachere then posed a question of Mr. Giles as to the
circumstance of a conditional rezoning where circumstances change
in the future and how that would be accomplished. Mr. Giles
responded by stating that, "it would be treated much like a new
application in that the owner would have to go back through the
same process to make modifications in the classification and
condition list."
Commissioner Oleson then posed a question as to whether an
applicant could initially approach the staff and file an
application with conditions that would subsequently be submitted
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Giles responded by pointing to the ordinance provision, as
now drafted, which would require that a public hearing be held
first before conditions are discussed and that those conditions
would then have to be offered by the applicant or owner. He also
pointed out that once established at the Planning Commission
level these conditions don't change to the Board of Directors'
level. The Board would then have the several options that are
pointed to in the ordinance. That is, approval as recommended by
the Commission, a denial or referral to the Planning Commission
or the possibility of accepting and placing within the ordinance
conditions that are more restrictive in nature.
Commissioner Ball then posed a question very similar to
Commissioner Oleson's as to whether or not the staff would
encourage someone to file an application with conditions imposed.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that was not the intent of this
ordinance. The intent is that those conditions arise during the
public hearing process at the Planning Commission level. Such a
circumstance with an applicant should actually be filed as a
P.U.D. on the front end.
Mr. Giles once again clarified the point that once a public
hearing has been accomplished and before a vote on the is -sue, -the
Commission would identify those concerns that had been expressed
both by the Commission and neighbors. At that point then, the
applicant could introduce those kinds of conditions in the
proposed ordinance that would deal with the concerns expressed.
Once a consensus was reached, then the application could be
forwarded to the Board.
KI
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Commissioner Ball then posed the question as to whether a
circumstance where an applicant did not want conditions imposed;
where the applicant could simply obtain a vote on his application
as filed or would he be required to deal with conditions.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that ,this ordinance is not
intended to impose requirements on a developer and cause them to
submit to conditions they do not want to accept. Mr. Giles says
he feels like this ordinance will not force an applicant to
accept what it does not want. If an applicant wanted a vote up
or down on his application, that he should receive such a vote."
Commissioner Ball then asked whether an application that was
voted down without the application's being conditioned could the
applicant refile within the year and place the conditions on the
petition. The Chairman at this point commented that she thought
that an application would have to be appealed to the Board that
the one year rule would not apply until that issue had been
resolved at the higher level.
Mr. Giles concurred in this opinion. He stated "the application
would still go on to the Board with the recommendation of denial
by the Planning Commission and it would be the Board's decision
finally to determine the status of the application."
In response to Mr. Ball's question about the one-year turnaround,
Mr. Giles stated he had not thought out that question thoroughly;
however, he felt that the refiled application would have to be
substantially different from that which was previously submitted
and reviewed. That is a requirement of current ordinance.
Commissioner Ball then posed his last question which was
concerning landscaping as to whether or not that could be one of
the conditions imposed. Mr. Giles indicated that he did not
think it could since that is not one of the forms of conditions
that could be imposed under this ordinance.
After a brief conversation with Richard wood of staff, Mr. Giles
stated that the landscape ordinance is in fact a separate
ordinance. The City Beautiful Commission provides for its
administration and enforcement. Mr. Giles asked for
clarification as to whether or not Commi"j_onor Ball ; nfiPnded his
question to include the Commission imposing super landscaping
requirements.
Commissioner Ball responded by stating that basically yes in as
much as everyone coming through for site plan review typically
offers or is asked to install a larger open space, landscaping or
whatever may be appropriate to go beyond the minimum landscape
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued
strips. Mr. Giles responded by saying the ordinance includes
only bulk and area uses, access, and density. It does not
specifically include landscaping.
A brief discussion followed involving Mr. Giles and Commissioner
Oleson and others concerning the many occasions which landscaping
is the issue on which an application will turn.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question as to whether this
ordinance proposal includes a staff allowable such as the 5%
modification allowed the Planning Director in the P.U.D.
Mr. Giles responded by saying that this ordinance did not intend
staff interpretation but that those conditions imposed by the
ordinance be specific in nature.
Chairperson Chachere then asked if there were no further
questions by members of the Commission whether it was appropriate
for Mr. David Jones to come forward and offer his comments.
There being no additional questions Mr. Jones was requested to
present his position on this ordinance.
Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the origin of this
ordinance, especially as it related to an application that he has
currently before the City Board of Directors. He offered
additional comments on the appropriateness of the type of
legislation that is being offered here by the City Attorney and
that which the City Board is expecting to be presented to them.
Mr. Jones pointed out that he had observed that this Commission
had been dealing with conditional zoning relationships for as
long as he had been dealing with zoning before the Planning
Commission. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had not
been privileged to receive a copy of the detail memorandum
prepared by City Attorney, Tom Carpenter, and presented to the
City Board which specifically outlined the intent of the area
provision of this draft ordinance. That communication gave
Mr. Carpenter's interpretation of what this ordinance is intended
to do and how it will be interpreted by the City staff and
ultimately carried through the Planning Commission and the Board
of Directors.
Mr. Jones stated that the area in the ordinance that he took
specific exception to "was" and he quoted from Mr. Carpenter's
memo to the Board, that the volunteer nature of the applicant
under these restrictions is going to be changed to where it will
be required and that the authority will shift to the Planning
Commission to demand that an application be restricted to certain
conditions that come out of the public hearing. He stated that
he felt that he would interpret the ordinance as saying that a
vote would in fact be on required conditions imposed by the
5
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued
Planning Commission in addition to the actual zoning requested.
He continued by saying that in regard to the Camp application on
Hinson Road that he was still agreeable to do those things which
he said he would do. However, he stated that was not the reason
that he was here before the Planning Commission today.
He said that was a good faith effort on his part and they will
continue to do what they promise to do. Mr. Jones stated that he
felt some of the Board members agreed with him that there was
really no need for further legislation to do what the Planning
Commission has always being doing, as long as he could remember.
Attaching additional requirements at the request of the applicant
if they agreed so, and if not the Commission would simply vote
the issue down. He stated that he felt the legislation was
coming down as a direct result of Director Adcock asking a
question at the Board meeting "is there any way that we could
assure that these restrictions that are agreed to by the
applicant will be carried on no matter who owns the land." At
that meeting, Mr. Carpenter, the City Attorney, responded by
saying "no and the only way you can assure is to impose a P.U.D."
Except, Mr. Jones stated that he did not agree with that
interpretation of Mr. Carpenter and felt that most of the
commissioners agreed with him.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt like all the people that had been
involved in all of these conditional issues and compromises
reached over the years would not agree. But now, all of sudden
their actions are lacking the authority to be enforced at any one
point in time. Mr. Jones said "he felt like that practically
speaking there are no minimum standards remaining after the
adoption of an ordinance such as this." The reality of it is
when it comes before the Planning Commission with a C-3 or 0-3
request and the Planning Commission has the ability to attach
additional restrictions guess how many times requests will be
granted simply with the conditions set forth in the ordinance.
He stated "that if the Planning Commission feels like there are
additional standards or requirements required in the ordinance
that those zoning districts should be modified to deal with
that." This ordinance means, if adopted, that nothing is
definite. There are no fixed standards such as setback
requirements and height.
He felt this ordinance imposed the P.U.D. process on every
rezoning application short of the use listing. Mr. Jones then
posed the question of whether or not this was contract zoning and
in his opinion it was. Mr. Jones stated that he felt that this
legislation was simply a knee jerk reaction to his application on
Rodney Parham and Hinson Road, too out of line and way too
restricted. He indicated that the rest of the development
community probably had questions and reservations about it.
0
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Commissioner Oleson then touched on the question Mr. Jones raised
about contract zoning. She asked Mr. Giles to respond.
Mr. Giles indicated there was a fine line in certain
circumstances between contract and conditional zoning. He
offered some comments about case law in other states and an old
case in Arkansas dealing with the Hocott properties on Kavanaugh.
He stated that after looking at cases and studying the Arkansas
law, that the City Board can do this through this ordinance. He
stated that "the concern that his office has had is that the City
has been doing this without legislative authority." He stated
that "its not that the City can't do it under state law. It is
just that we have not made provision for such in the past and
that the bottom line is if we are going to follow state law, we
must have an ordinance to authorize what we are doing." He
stated that "it legitimizes what the Planning Commission has been
doing for a number of years, especially in those cases where the
Commission had questioned the appropriateness of conditional
relationships."
A general discussion followed between the City Attorney and
commissioners involving history of several cases. Commissioner
Putnam then offered a number of comments about this ordinance
proposal and what he felt was appropriate or inappropriate about
it. He offered some history on Planning Commission activities
with regard to conditional zoning. He closed his comments by
stating that as he understood it this ordinance proposal allowed
the staff and/or the Planning Commission to impose conditions on
an application for rezoning whether the applicant agreed or not.
Mr. Giles responded by stating no that is not the intent of this
ordinance. He stated that if an applicant did not want to be
hamstrung with conditions imposed by the Commission or the staff.
The Commission could not impose those conditions upon the
applicant.
Mr. Putnam expanded on his previous comments by stating that he
was not certain that he understood the line or direction that was
being taken by the staff and City Attorney on this proposal. He
felt like that more study was needed on this ordinance.
Commissioner Walker then offered a comment along the lines of he
had proposed and worked an arrangement with the Commission and
staff a number of years ago whereby the Planning Commission would
not receive these kinds of single ordinance issues but develop a
package for each year and not expand upon it until they complete
that package before initiating the next series of amendments. He
felt like the Board of Directors was well past the time when this
package of amendments was assembled and they had missed their
7
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued
window of opportunity. He stated that what he was hearing from
David Jones was that David would not like this ordinance to be
approved.
Mr. Jones responded to that comment by stating that he was not
necessarily opposed to people allowing conditions to be attached
to their application. He was not against anything except that
this ordinance specifically says "Planning Commission has the
right to demand additional restrictions."
Mr. Giles then pointed out that Mr. Jones had the wrong draft for
the ordinance that it had changed since he had received that
copy. There was a brief give and take between Mr. Jones and
Mr. Giles as to what the ordinance content was at this point.
Mr. Jones read specifically language from the ordinance that he
said specifically gave the Commission the direction that he had
indicated.
Mr. Giles then offered to Mr. Jones and the Commission a response
to Mr. Jones' objection by reading what the current language and
the current draft proposes which was provided the Planning
Commission, before the public hearing. "A rezoning may be
conditioned upon the applicant's request and subject to the
Planning Commission's recommendation for an issue concerning the
number of permissible uses, bulk, area and access and density may
be made more specific than the provisions allowed within the
zoning classification when the following has occurred."
Mr. Giles then identified that language as coming from a memo
that was prepared by Mr. Carpenter and directed to the Board on
the 22nd. He stated that this was done after conversations
between his office and Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles pointed out that the
draft before the Planning Commission is a previous draft and is
not the one now recommended by his office. Several persons then
offered commentary on the appropriateness of continuing
discussion of this item on the wrong ordinance as being submitted
for their review.
Mr. Giles indicated that this was done as result of discussion
with Mr. Jones on the previous day and there was apparently not
enough time to provide everyone with a revision of the ordinance
text.
Mr. Jones then stated that if it could be stated that is the
voluntary discretion of the applicant where the conditions are
attached to an application, he had no problem with the ordinance
proposal. However if the Commission or the Board still have the
authority to impose conditions, he opposes the ordinance. He
stated that he and his attorney both agreed that what the staff
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued
and the Planning Commission has been doing for a long number of
years which is agreed with restrictions and for those added to
the ordinance on file, that those were legal and binding. if
somebody does not abide by them and if the City Board wants to,
they could come in there and remove the development. He again
stated that he only objected to moving these conditions away from
the discretion of the applicant to a mandate from the Planning
Commission or Board.
Commissioner Walker then offered a comment to continue a previous
statement. The thrashing out of details and perhaps timing is
something that is important to deal with the ordinance that the
City Board wants to deal with. He felt that it was very
important that Ramsay Ball's issues about the one year limitation
be addressed and needs to be expressly stated within the
ordinance that an application denied for a conventional rezoning
could be refiled and under what circumstances within the year.
Mr. Giles clarified that statement for purposes of the record.
Commissioner Walker then stated that in his former capacity as
Chairman of the Planning Commission he always made sure that the
applicant controlled his application. With the direction of the
City Attorney, the Commission had always allowed an applicant to
decide whether he wanted a vote on the application as filed or
with some modifications. In any event the Planning Commission
tried to avoid the appearance of extorting conditions from an
applicant.
Commissioner Walker commented further that he thought that we
should not be institutionalizing something that the Planning
Commission has been painfully dealing with over a period of time.
Mr. Giles then asked for clarification on Commissioner Walker's
comment as to whether he meant that an applicant, if he wished
not to include conditions in his application and it were denied,
that, he would have to wait for a year. Commissioner Walker
indicated that he believed that would certainly be a way to deal
with it. Commissioner Ball then inserted a comment at this point
that his previous comments were not necessarily directed to the
professional developers and realtors but directed to those
persons not familiar with the process. These persons would not
necessarily understand the ramifications of agreements that they
might make.
David Jones then came forward and offered comments about P.U.D.'s
and the value of land and the ability to determine value in land
based upon zoning and decisions made by the City. If all the
variables such as height and area are subject to negotiations
then that does hurt the value of the land.
L•`
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Continued)
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, was then recognized.
Mrs. Bell came forward and offered comments. She stated that it
appeared to her that the Planning Commission did not understand
the proposal that had been presented and that this sounded like
perhaps attorneys are deciding that more laws are better than
less. She said that she was not convinced that this was a needed
ordinance.
Commissioner Putnam then inserted a thought that this change that
is now being discussed was handed out after the fact. The
Commission was given a draft which is now modified without their
benefit of having seen language. He stated that the Planning
Commission had not asked for any changes to be made and that the
Board of Directors had not explained to the Commission why they
were having problems. Commissioner Putnam said he felt that this
was an important piece of legislation and should not be passed
without due diligence. He felt the Plans Committee or the whole
commission should review this issue at length.
Commissioner Willis then offered some concerns about the process
contained in this ordinance. He asked Mr. Giles "are we now
asked to look at this ordinance at this time and then vote on it
or do we need to table this and obtain the additional
information."
Mr. Giles then stated that he understood the language in the
draft before the Commission sounded like the Commission would be
controlling the circumstances and imposing conditions. He stated
that this is not the case. The draft has been modified. He
indicated that this modification was accomplished after
discussions with Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles stated that the Commission
imposing conditions in that fashion would be true contract zoning
which is not permissible.
Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification as to whether or
not the Planning Commission could asked that a request be changed
to a P.U.D. Mr. Giles responded yes they could do that.
Mr. Giles again pointed out the language and that it was in the
control of the applicant in this draft. After revision, the
Planning Commission would not be imposing conditions.
Planning Commission would deal with and forward a conditional
rezoning application. He stated that the City Attorney's Office
had intentionally inserted language that now puts the applicant
in charge of his application. The applicant would have to
verbally accept the conditions before a vote was taken by the
Planning Commission on his application.
10
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Commissioner Selz then offered a question, "Why are we doing this
if the Supreme Court had already ruled that the process utilized
in the Hocott case on Kavanaugh was appropriate?." Mr. Giles
responded by saying that was under a former and much older
ordinance and there was a somewhat different subject and it was a
Bill of Assurance required by the City. He stated that the way
the City has been doing business with conditional
reclassification is not the same issue as the Hocott.
Giles then offered comments concerning the effect on an applicant
not performing conditions applied under our current structure and
the problem with attempting to enforce those.
Commissioner Oleson echoed comments by Mr. Giles and stated that
all of this is doing is attempting to place in the zoning
Ordinance procedures for legally doing what we are already
accomplishing.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that he felt that from this point
on under this structure that everyone who comes before the
Commission would be possibly subjected to a commissioner
requesting or asking for more landscaping or more of some
particular design facet.
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that in some circumstances
her vote would not have been obtained by the developer had not
some conditions raised by the Commission not been included within
the applicant's petition.
Commissioner Putnam then restated a previous comment as he thinks
that more people in the community need to look at this proposal
before its rushed through the process.
Mr. Jones then stated that although he had not read all of the
language since the ordinance draft had been modified and he was
reluctant to accept things verbally without having read them, he
would offer that if no other changes have been made other than in
the paragraphs that were read by the City Attorney as far as he
was concerned, all that this ordinance does is restate what is
currently being done. However, the ordinance draft that the
Commission has before them at this time substantially changes the
way we do business. He restated a previous comment of his that
if what the City Attorney is saying is factual and the changes do
what Mr. Giles had pointed out, then he has no problem with it
and would like to see it moved through as quickly as possible.
He felt that a holdup or continuance of this issue would be used
against him and hold up his application.
11
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Commissioner Putnam posed a question as to whether or not a
deferral for two weeks would be of particular significance. It
was determined that September 6 would be the next hearing of the
Planning Commission, which is the same date that the City Board
next meets.
Mr. Jones said he felt like the Planning Commission could hear
this issue on the afternoon of the September 6, and then the
matter be handed to the Board for their hearing that, night that
he would have no problem with that.
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that she felt like the
Commission would expect corrected versions to be provided as soon
as possible within the next few days.
Commissioner Ball stated that he would like some further
discussion of landscaping as related to these kinds of
conditional ordinances and it is typically one of the items that
is discussed.
Mr. Giles pointed out again that this ordinance deals with use
type, area, bulk and access.
A brief discussion was then held involving Richard Wood, of the
Staff. Mr. Giles and the commissioners centered their discussion
on the Planning Commission meeting on September 6 being a heavy
agenda with many items and the need to place this item first on
that agenda to assure proper discussion and disposal of the
matter.
The discussion then moved back to conditions and types of things
that the ordinance might regulate such as hours of operation.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that the more you add things to
this and broaden the conditions the more it begins to look like a
P.U.D. Mr. Giles pointed out that this process is entirely
different from a P.U.D. and that a P.U.D is filed initially by
the applicant using a different set of criteria and difference
ordinance. It is something directed by the applicant from the
beginning point to completion. He pointed out that it does open
up some of the kinds of things that are dealt with in a P.U.D.,
but it is not intended to be a P.U.D. He pointed out that this
does pen the project down to a specific user such as a P.U.D
wour .
A brief discussion followed involving several of the
commissioners and Mr. Giles as to whether or not a site plan
could or would be utilized in the context of this ordinance
structure. It was generally understood that it would not.
Mr. Giles stated that what this ordinance was trying to do was to
put something in place that would be workable and then at the
same time would not be abused or be abusive.
12
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Continued)
Chairperson Chachere pointed out that it appeared to her that it
looked like we were going to reconsider this item on the 6th of
September. Mr. Giles then asked the Chairman if it would not be
possible to make this item the first item heard on the 6th in
order to expedite the matter and provide time for discussion and
a little time for potential modification of the text before it
has to be presented to the Board.
Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, then injected a thought that
perhaps the Plans Committee of the Planning Commission could look
at this between now and September 6 and render a determination.
Mr. Newman felt that might shorten the process at the regular
public hearing on the 6th.
A brief discussion followed where it was determined that a
meeting would be held by the Plans Committee. The Chair then
asked staff if a motion was in order on this issue. Richard
Wood, of the Staff, responded by stating that this was an
advertised public hearing, and therefore, a motion by the
Commission for deferral would be required. A motion to defer the
item to September 6 was made. Seconded and passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
And for the record Mr. Giles asked that Mr. David Jones be
advised of the time and place of the Plans Committee so that he
might participate. At the suggestion of the Chair, Ron Newman
brought the issue of the time for a Plans Committee meeting. For
discussion he suggested the 1st of September, a Thursday. It was
decided that 12:00 noon would be appropriate on that day, and the
meeting be held in the Staff Conference Room at 723 West Markham.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, reviewed the
proposed ordinance amendment to permit rezonings with conditions.
Mr. Giles made a lengthy presentation and answered questions.
Several interested individuals, including David Jones and Ruth
Bell, then addressed the Commission. Both Ms. Bell and Mr. Jones
offered comments and indicated that they thought the ordinance
amendment was not necessarv.
After a long discussion, the commission members decided that they
needed additional time to study the current draft. The issue was
deferred to the September 20, 1994 hearing. The vote was
10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
13
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
NAME: THE HILLS SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: North of the intersection of Otter Creek Parkway and
Wimbledon Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
ROCK VENTURE Pat McGetrick
11225 Huron Ln. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
Little Rock, AR 72211 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
223-9900 Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
AREA: 31.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 81 FT. NEW STREET: 3550
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Waiver from the requirement to construct a sidewalk along
Cayman Cove
2. Waiver from the Public Works requirement that Davis Cup Lane
be constructed to collector standards
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of a 31 -acre tract which
lies adjacent to and is to become a part of the Otter Creek
property owners' association. The development of 81 single-
family residential lots on 3550 feet of new streets is proposed.
Along the east and west boundaries of the property, strips and
areas of ground are reserved as open space. A waiver of the
sidewalk requirement for Cayman Cove, a standard residential cul-
de-sac, is requested, with the justification being that a
sidewalk is to be constructed in the open space strip which lies
at the rear of Cayman Cove lots which back up to—the ea,--t`ern open
space strip. The primary access road through the site, Davis Cup
Lane, is proposed to be constructed to standard residential
standards. Public Works states that this road should be built to
collector standards, and the applicant seeks a waiver from this
requirement. The remaining four cul-de-sacs qualify as minor
residential streets, and no sidewalks are required nor planned to
be constructed along their rights-of-way.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-45-A-16
A.
IM
C.
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval is
plat for the subdivision of a 31
single-family lots and the const
streets. The layout includes:
primary through street which is
standard residential standards;
de -sacs, four of which qualify a
and along which no sidewalks are
exceeds the length to qualify as
and for which a waiver of the si
sought; and, 3) provision of lin
Lots" along the east and west bo
waiver is sought from the Planni
Public Works requirement that th
Davis Cup Lane, be constructed t
lieu of being constructed to sta
-equested of a preliminary
-acre tract to include 81
suction of 3550 feet of
L) construction of one
)roposed to be built to
?) construction of five cul -
minor residential streets
proposed, and one of which
a minor residential street
iewalk requirement is
gar open space and "Tot
indaries of the site. A
ig Commission from the
primary through street,
) collector standards in
idard residential standards,
as proposed. The Board of Directors will be asked to waive
the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the standard
residential cul-de-sac, Cayman Cove, with the justification
being that a sidewalk is to be constructed in the open space
which abuts lots which lie along the eastern right-of-way of
Cayman Cove.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped and is heavily wooded.
The southern boundary of the site abuts the northern
boundary of the Otter Creek Community, Phase IV -A, and the
proposed development continues the street system from Otter
Creek into the new addition.
The site is zoned R-2, with exclusively R-2 zoned land
surrounding the site.
ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works will require that Davis Cup Lane meet collector
street standards, including constructing the street as a 36
foot wide section in a 60 foot right-of-way, with a sidewalk
along one side of the street. The developer will be
required to submit, prior to beginning any work on the site,
construction plans for street improvements, a complete
grading and drainage plan, and a stormwater detention plan.
Water Works reports that water main extensions will be
required.
Wastewater reports that sewer main extension, with
easements, will be required.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
In the "Definitions" section of the Subdivision Regulations,
a minor residential street is defined as, for example, a
cul-de-sac street having a length of 750 feet or less and
providing access to not more than 35 single-family lots.
Section 31-209 stipulates that a minor residential street
does not have to have the required sidewalk constructed
along the one side of their right-of-way. Section 31-202.a
sets the maximum allowable length of a cul-de-sac street at
1000 feet. Four of the cul-de-sacs meet the requirement for
minor residential street designation, and no sidewalk is
required or planned. Cayman Cove is 1000 feet in length,
and, since it exceeds the 750 foot length, meets the
requirement to be classified as a standard residential
street where a sidewalk is required; however, the applicant
seeks a waiver of that requirement.
In the "Definitions" section of the Subdivision Regulations,
a collector street is defined as one that is designed
primarily to gather traffic from local or residential
streets and carry it to the arterial system. The developer
seeks to build a standard residential street in a 50 foot
right-of-way, and seeks a waiver of the Public Works
requirement that Davis Cup Lane be constructed to collector
street standards in a 60 foot right-of-way.
E. ANALYSIS•
The definition of a minor residential street includes both a
length requirement (750 feet of length for a cul-de-sac
street) and a number of lots served requirement (35).
Although Cayman Cove exceeds the 750 foot length
requirement, it only serves 29 lots. Staff can support the
waiver request for the sidewalk along the Cayman Cove right-
of-way, especially since a sidewalk is proposed to be
constructed at the rear of lots along the east side of the
right-of-way and which abut the open space which lies along
the eastern boundary of the site.
K,
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-45-A-16
Davis Cup Lane has no lots which face it; it "gathers"
traffic from six other streets. it serves, in this phase,
81 lots, with others to be served by it as additional phases
are developed. It meets the requirements for needing to be
built to collector standards, and Public Works comments that
this street should, indeed, be constructed to collector
street standards, with a 36 foot wide street width and a
sidewalk along one side of a 60 foot right-of-way.
There are no other substantiative issues or deficiencies
remaining to be resolved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and of the
waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cayman Cove.
However, staff recommends that Davis Cup Lane be constructed
to collector standards, and recommends denial of the waiver
request which would permit Davis Cup to be constructed to
standard residential standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Bob Lowe, with McGetrick Engineering, was present. Staff
presented the request and reviewed the scope of the project with
the Committee members present. The Committee members reviewed
with Mr. Lowe the comments contained in the discussion outline.
In response to the Public Works requirement that Davis Cup Lane
be constructed to collector street standards, Mr. Lowe presented
a master development plan of the Otter Creek Community, and
related that Davis Cup Lane is a relatively short street which
connects two collectors. He said that the stub -out for Davis Cup
Lane off of Wimbledon Loop is in a 50 foot right-of-way and that
making the change to the existing stub street in an area that is
already developed would be difficult. The Public Works staff
responded that Davis Cup Lane acts as a collector street, with
several other streets feeding onto it and many lots being served
by it. They added that, because residents along such streets
desire on -street parking, Davis Cup Lane needs to be wider than a
standard residential street; otherwise on-s_tre_e_t parking_sQuld
have to be restricted. The Public Works staff related that the
36 foot wide collector street could be built in the existing 50
foot right-of-way in the stub -out from Wimbledon Loop.
The remaining comments were reviewed with Mr. Lowe. Mr. Lowe
indicated that all deficiencies in the plan and the needed
changes would be made. The Committee forwarded the item to the
Commission for approval of the preliminary plat.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had modified the plat to
eliminate Davis Cup Lane as a through street, and, consequently,
that Traffic Engineering no longer recommended increasing Davis
Cup Lane to a collector standard. Staff reported that there are
no other issues to be resolved, and recommended approval of the
revised plat. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for
approval, and the preliminary plat was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
0
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S -1004-A
NAME: ASHLEY-HANKINS SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. Markham Street and
Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Rick Ashley James C. Summerlin
ASHLEY COMPANY SUMMERLIN ASSOCIATES, INC.
2649 Pike Ave. 2649 S. Broadway
North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72206
758-7745 376-1323
AREA: 9.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Deferral of the requirement to construct
sidewalks along the Chenal Parkway and W. Markham Street
frontages of the site as a condition of approval of the final
plat(s), and require the sidewalks be constructed as a condition
of the building permits as building permits are issued for
construction on the various lots.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a 4 -lot commercial subdivision on a 9.13
acre tract, with frontages on both Chenal Parkway and W. Markham
St. Development is proposed of lots which range in size from
0.89 acres for the southern -most lot, to 5.17 acres for the
central lot, to two mid-size lots (1.32 acres and 1.75 acres) for
the northern -most lots. The site is one for which a preliminary
plat was approved by the Commission on March 8, 1994, (for a
subdivision to be known as "Chenal Square"), but which was
subsequently abandoned by the proposed developer. The applicant
aeks t o t ' ns-r-uctian o f t he��cn ; -re-d—sidewa3k -s along—
both
longboth the Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. frontages of the site
to future sale of and construction on the various lots, and seeks
a deferral of the requirement from being a requirement for filing
a final plat to being a requirement of the building permits for
the various lots as they are developed.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1004-A
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a
preliminary plat for a 4 -lot commercial subdivision at the
southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. Also
requested is Commission approval of a deferral of the
requirement to construct the sidewalks along the Chenal
Parkway and W. Markham St. frontages of the site as a
condition of the final plat(s), and require that they be
constructed as a condition of the building permits as
building permits are issued for development of the various
lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. An abandoned
right-of-way for the previous alignment of W. Markham St.
lies within the site.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3, with C-3 zoning
existing on lands to the east, north, and south. A recently
approved PCD lies directly across Chenal Parkway to the
west.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The proposed PAGIS monuments must be designated on the plat,
The pipe stem portion of Lot 3 is to be labeled as a
permanent access easement for Lots 1 & 2. A complete
grading and drainage plan will be required prior to issuing
building permits for individual lots.
Water Works reports that a 20 -inch water main crosses the
site and will need to be protected. (Water Works is to be
contacted for approval of any construction in the area of
this main.) No domestic service will be available directly
off the 20 -inch main. On site fire protection may be
required.
Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with an
easement, will be required for service to Lot 4.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department approved the submittal as presented.
K
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1004-A
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-287 states: "Where any commercial subdivision
has in excess of 300 feet of frontage on an arterial street,
special provisions for internal circulation shall be
required.... These provisions shall be determined by the
Planning Commission...." "Location of private service
easements shall be indicated on the plat...." In order to
monitor these provision, the access points and access
easements which are anticipated must be indicate on the
plat.
To be heard on the same agenda with the preliminary plat is
a request for a conditional use on the lot which lies at the
northwest corner of the site encompassed by the preliminary
plat. The site plan for the proposed development indicates
an access easement along both the west and south property
lines of the lot. These access easements must be indicated
on the preliminary plat.
Information which the Subdivision Ordinance requires to be
shown on the plat, but which was omitted on the plat, as
submitted, includes the zoning classifications of abutting
lands.
The Master Street Plan and the Subdivision Regulations
(Section 31-209) will require sidewalks along the Chenal
Parkway and W. Markham Street frontages of the subdivision.
The Subdivision Regulations will require that the sidewalks
be in place, or that the "subdivider and City have entered
into an agreement assuring the completion of all required
improvements...." [Section 31-121(c)] The developer is
seeking approval, and has asked for a deferral of the
sidewalk requirements, to tie the requirement for the
sidewalks to the building permits, in lieu of being tied to
the approval of the final plat(s).
E. ANALYSIS:
With only minor additions of information to the plat, the
plat will meet Subdivision Regulations standards. The
zoning clams if ic�Qna_o_fh� a�ut_n�prQper_t a._e.s�the
location of the drive access points and access easements,
and the location of the proposed access easements are the
only remaining deficiencies.
The rationale for the requested deferral of the sidewalks
until building permits are requested is that, as a part of a
construction project, funds from construction loans are
9
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -_1.004-A
available for construction of sidewalks. Also, the
subdivider can defer to the purchaser those costs which are
associated with a construction project.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of
the deferral of the sidewalk
issuance of building permits
approval of the final plat(s)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
the preliminary plat, and of
requirement to be tied to the
in lieu of being required for
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Jim Summerlin, the project engineer, and Mr. J. D. Ashley,
Jr., the developer, were present. Staff presented an overview of
the proposal, and reviewed with the applicant and his engineer
the comments contained in the discussion outline. The discussion
outline contained a comment from the Public Works Department that
additional right-of-way for construction of an additional lane
along W. Markham St. would be required to be dedicated; however,
in the discussion, it was determined that the anticipated
additional lane could be constructed in the existing right-of-
way, and this requirement was deleted. The Committee members
asked Mr. Summerlin and Mr. Ashley if they could comply with the
deficiencies noted in the discussion outline, to which they
responded in the affirmative. The Committee forwarded the item
to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Mr. Rick Ashley, the developer, and Mr. Jim Summerlin, the
project engineer, were present.
Staff outlined the request, and indicated that the developer
proposed to defer construction of the sidewalks along the Chenal
Parkway and W. Markham frontages of the site until the various
lots are developed.
The Public Works staff reported that, for commercial
subdivisions, sidewalks are not normally required until the
property is developed. Because of possible changes in grade, a
sidewalk which was constructed prior to development and as part
of the final plat requirements, may be improperly located and
have to be removed and reconstructed. Also, if a sidewalk is
constructed prior to construction activity on the site, heavy
traffic during construction will damage the sidewalk. Public
Works, then, reported that approval of a deferral of the sidewalk
requirement was unnecessary.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1004-A
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat.
The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 0 absent, 0
abstentions, and 1 open position.
5
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: 5-1033
NAME: ORLEY FEAGINS SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the north side of Burlingame Road, approximately
1 1/4 mile west of Colonel Glenn Road, outside the City Limits
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
ORLEY 0. FEAGINS Ben Kittler, Jr.
16010 Burlingame Road BEN KITTLER, JR. LAND SURVEYOR
Little Rock, AR 72211 6133 Dena Dr.
821-2935 Little Rock, AR 72206
888-3960
AREA: 5.09 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 21
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Burlingame Road
2. Waiver of the regulation which prohibits creation of pipe -
stem lots
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 5 acre tract into two
building sites in order to provide a home site for the
applicants' daughter. The tract is approximately 300 feet wide,
by 800 feet deep (with the north -south dimension being measured
from the center line of Burlingame Road) and the applicants"
existing home site lies approximately 290 feet north of the
Burlingame Road centerline. The southern lot line of the second
home site is proposed to be approximately 580 feet north of the
centerline of Burlingame Road, with access to this second lot
being provided by a 30 foot wide pipestem lying along the eastern
boundary of the southern lot. Dedication of the right-of-way
along Burlingame Road which is required by the Master Street Plan
is proposed; however, a waiver of the required Master Street Plan
improvements is requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission is sought for a
subdivision involving splitting a family-owned tract in
order to provide a second building site on the property.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1033
The existing home site would occupy Lot 1; the second home
site would be on Lot 2. Lot 1 is proposed to contain 3
acres; lot 2, 2 acres. Dedication of the required right-of-
way for Burlingame Road (55 feet from the centerline of the
existing roadway), is proposed. Board of Directors approval
of a wavier of the required street and sidewalk construction
is sought in order for Burlingame Road to remain in its
present improved and County -maintained state. Since access
to the rear/northern lot, Lot 2, is proposed to be by way of
a pipestem running alongside the eastern lot line of Lot 1,
a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots
is requested to be approved by the Board of Directors.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the present location of the applicants' home,
which lies approximately 290 feet north of the centerline of
Burlingame Road. The existing home is served by a private
well and septic tank. The area from Burlingame Road to
beyond the existing home is cleared. The remainder of the
site, however, is heavily wooded. There is a creek which
runs along the north line of the property.
The site is outside the City Limits, but is within the
planning boundary of the City. The site and the surrounding
lands are zoned R-2
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the Master Street Plan requires
dedication of right-of-way for Burlingame Road to Principle
Arterial standard (110 foot right-of-way; therefore, 55 feet
is the applicant's portion of the required dedication). A
development permit from the County floodplain administrator
must be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. The
basis for the selection of the creek easement width must be
shown. The drainage area and "Q" value for the watercourse
entering and leaving the site must be shown. The typical
ditch section must be shown.
Water Works reports that water service is not available to
this site at this time.
wastewater reports that t the area is outside their service
boundary, and have no comments on the issue.
Pulaski County Planning Department comments that the private
drive needs to be a private drive in a pipestem.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1033
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal as presented.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sect. 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations states that:
"Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where
private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning
Commission." A private street can be approved in an access
easement, but it is a "street" that must be built, not a
"drive". To gain access to the rear/northern lot, Lot 2,
either a street, meeting street design standards, must be
built in an access easement, or, as is proposed for this
development, a pipestem lot must be provided to have the
required frontage on a public street. Sect. 31-232.8,
however, states that "Pipestem lots shall be prohibited in
residential subdivision. In order to have the required
frontage on a public street and to provide access to the
site without building a street to serve Lot 2, a pipestem is
proposed, necessitating a waiver of the prohibition of a
pipestem lot be approved by the Board of Directors.
The applicant seeks a waiver of all improvements to
Burlingame Road, including providing 1/2 street improvements
and the sidewalk along the Burlingame Road frontage of the
site.
Water to the existing lot is by well; a well is proposed to
provide water to the newly created lot. Sewer is by septic
tank on the existing lot, and is proposed to be provided by
a septic tank on the newly created lot. The applicant
proposes to defer performance of the "perc" test until after
the preliminary plat is approved, but prior to submitting
the final plat.
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicants proposes development of a second home site at
the rear of the family-owned property in order for their
daughter to construct a home on the site. The applicants
report that Mr. Feagins is disabled and required 24-hour
care. The daughter, if she is nearby, can provide the care,
while Mrs. Feagins continues to work. With the site being
so much deeper than it is wide, dividing the site as has
been proposed is the only viable alternative. This creates
the need for access by either construction of a street to
Lot 2, or creation of a pipestem lot. Since it is not
economically feasible to built a street, the pipestem is the
only remaining alternative.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1033
Burlingame Road is a County road, and is maintained by the
County. There are no plans in the foreseeable future, by
the County or City, to widen Burlingame Road at all, let
along widen it to principal arterial standards.
Only minor deficiencies and additions to the plans remain.
These can be corrected and provided at the time of
submission of the approved preliminary plat drawing.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and of
the waivers requested: the waiver of the Master Street Plan
improvements to Burlingame Road and the waiver of the
prohibition on the creation of a pipestem lot.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Ben Kittler, representing the applicant was present. Staff
presented the request and reviewed with the Committee members the
preliminary plat which was submitted. Staff indicated that the
plat which had been submitted provided access to the
rear/northern lot, Lot 2, by way of an access easement, but
stated that this was being proposed to be changed to a pipestem.
Staff indicated that the access easement would require
construction of a street to provide the access to Lot 2. The
more economical solution would be to construct a private driveway
in a pipestem, and this was the alternative which the applicants
would be pursuing. Revised drawings showing the pipestem would
be provided, according to Mr. Kittler. Mr. Kittler also
explained that the applicants' property is outside the City
Limits, but within the planning jurisdiction of the City; that
Burlingame Road is a County Road and is maintained by the County;
and, that the applicants' are seeking a waiver of the requirement
of the Master Street Plan to widen Burlingame Road to principal
arterial standards. Mr. Kittler indicated, though, that the
applicants, are willing to dedicate the required right-of-way for
the future principal arterial. The Committee reviewed with
Mr. Kittler the comments contained in the discussion outline, and
Mr. Kittler responded that he would make the needed changes and
additions. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted
which provides access to the rear/northernmost lot by way of a
N
September 6, 1994
11 SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1033
pipestem, in lieu of the access easement previously proposed.
Staff reported that the request for a pipestem lot and waivers
from the Master Street Plan requirement to construct street and
sidewalk improvements on Burlingame Road would have to be
approved by the Board of Directors, and recommended approval of
the revised preliminary plat, subject to the Board's granting the
requested waivers. The item was included on the consent agenda
for approval, and the preliminary plat, with a recommendation to
the Board of Directors for approval of the requested waivers,
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent,
0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
5
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1034
NAME: ROY MAY ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side and at the north end of Geyer Springs
Road, with frontage also on the east side of S. University Ave.,
approximately 800 feet north of the 53rd. St. intersection
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
ROY MAY Charles E. Miller
537 Kirschwood Dr. CHARLIE MILLER ENGINEERING
Hot Springs, AR 71913 1500 Aldersgate Rd.
767-3914 Rock, AR 72205
225-7106
AREA: 3.379 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
(Re -zoning of
proposed lot 1
to C-4 is pending)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 13
CENSUS TRACT: 20.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Residential and Commercial
None
The applicant proposes the subdivision of previously unplatted
land and the combination with and re re -platting of a lot in an
existing subdivision (Lot 2 of Yam's Addition) into 3 newly
designated lots. Two of the new lots are proposed as residential
lots and currently have frontage on Geyer Springs Rd. One of the
lots (the lot being formed from the remaining acreage north of
the lots fronting on Geyer Springs in combination with Lot 2 of
Yam's Addition) is proposed to have frontage on S. University
Ave. and is proposed to be used for and zoned commercial. (A
used car lot is proposed to be placed on the lot.) No
improvements to Geyer Spxings Rd,--o-r—S-.—Un ve-r-s-i-t—z a :ti arm
proposed. There is an area which is in the federally designated
flood plain which runs from the northeast corner of the proposed
Lot 1, in a southwesterly direction to the west boundary of Lot
2. The applicant proposes to fill this flood plain area, pave
it, and to utilize the area for the storage/parking of
automobiles for the used car sales business which is planned to
occupy the lot and for which the C-4 zoning on the rear portion
of the lot is sought.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1034
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested for a preliminary
plat which entails the platting of a 3 -lot subdivision. The
land for this subdivision is to come from a 2.193 acre tract
which has never been platted, in combination with Lot 2 of
Yam's Addition which is to be re -platted as part of the new
subdivision. Two of the lots are to have frontage on Geyer
Springs Rd., and are to remain for residential purposes.
One of the lots, the lot to be combined with Lot 2 of Yam's
Addition, is to have frontage on S. University Ave. and is
proposed to be zoned for and used for commercial purposes.
The area of Lot 1 which is in the flood plain is proposed to
be filled and paved.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Geyer Springs fronting portion of the property has a
residence on that portion which will be Lot 2. The Lot 3
portion of the tract is vacant. Both of these lots have
frontage on Geyer Springs, and Geyer Springs is constructed
to required standards. Since Geyer Springs in this location
is approximately 1/2 block long, this portion of the road
qualifies as a minor residential street. (It is 1/2 block
from the "L" termination at the south property line of Lot 2
of this subdivision, south to Maureen Dr., the first
intersecting street.) The University Ave. fronting portion
and all of what will be Lot 1 of the new subdivision is
vacant. The federally designated flood plain line cuts
across a portion of Lot 1, running from the northeast corner
of the lot, southwesterly to the northwest corner of Lot 2.
The 2.193 acre tract which makes up Lots 2 and 3 and the
rear 192 feet of Lot 1 of the new subdivision is zoned R-2.
The area in the Yam's Addition, Lot 2, which is to make up
the S. University Ave. fronting part of the new Lot 1, is
zoned I-2. There is a C-4 tract south of the Yam's Addition
lot; C-3 north of it. There is R-5 property south of the
R-2 portion of the lot, with R-2 property to the east and
the remainder of the C-3 tract to the north. There is C-3
property to the northeast of the R-2 property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a preliminary stormwater,
drainage, and sketch grading plan are required for approval
of the preliminary plat. Development permits are required
on Lots 1 & 2 prior to the issuance of building permits.
Finish floor elevations will be required to be set above the
100 -year flood plain on these lots prior to approval of the
final plat.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1034
Water Works reports that a water main extension will be
required to be constructed for service to Lot 1.
Wastewater reports that a 30" sewer outfall crosses the
property, and an easement must be shown.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The title of the subdivision and the legal description must
contain the statement that a portion of the Yam's Addition
is being incorporate into and re -platted as a part of the
new subdivision.
The remaining deficiencies or needed corrections are
minimal, and can be easily corrected or amended.
The request to fill and pave the land within the flood plain
will have to be approved by Public Works.
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat, as amended and presented, meet the
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Charlie Miller, the project engineer, and Mr. Roy May, the
applicant were present. Staff outlined the request and presented
the—ps posecLp e� m__i nary plat - The di acus on outl-ine was
reviewed by the Committee. There was an assumption that a
sizable portion of the site was within the flood way, so there
was discussion about the restriction of development within the
flood way. Mr. Miller said that he would verify the information,
but that it was his understanding that the land was in the flood
plain, not the flood way. The plat, as submitted, also failed to
show the portion of the proposed subdivision which has frontage
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1034
on S. University Ave. Staff related that the land which is
currently subdivided as Lot 2 of Yam's Addition will have to be
included in the preliminary plat for the new addition, and be
shown as being re -platted with Lot 1 of the new addition. After
the Committee verified with Mr. Miller that the remaining
corrections would be tended to, the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the Commission for final disposition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted
which addressed staff and Subdivision Committee concerns, and
that no substantantive issues remain to be resolved. The item
was included on the consent agenda for approval, and the
preliminary plat was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays,
0 absent, 0 abstention, and 1 open position.
4
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
NAME: HAMPTON INN -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Financial Center Parkway
and Hardin Road
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER:
GOFF TRUST Robert Brown
WALLY ALLEN, TRUSTEE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
2220 Cottondale Ln., #2 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
P. 0. Box 29 Little Rock, AR 72205
Little Rock, AR 72203 221-7880
664-3332
AREA: 3.0 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 & 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Hotel
The applicant proposes the development of a 3 acre tract for the
construction of a hotel and associated parking„ The hotel tower
footprint is 60 feet wide by 222 feet long. The tower is 60 feet
high, contains 79,920 square feet in 6 floors, and has 153 guest
rooms. The entrance canopy is separate from the hotel tower, and
is a 45 foot square structure attached to the hotel by a covered
walk. Parking for 162 vehicles is planned. The hotel is a
"limited service" hotel, and contains is no restaurant or
convention facilities. A small swimming pool for guests of the
hotel is provided. The site for the proposed hotel, and for
which the PCD is requested, occupies the northern 430 feet
(3 acres) of a 4.67 acre site, leaving two outparcels along
Financial Center Parkway remaining outside the scope of the PCD.
There are two entrance drives to the property: one is in a
200 foot long access easement from Financial Center Parkway which
lies between the two cited outparcels; the other is from Hardin
Rd. The proposal includes providing a natural and planted buffer
along the western boundary of the site abutting the residential
neighborhood to the west. The 33 feet abutting the residences is
proposed to be an undisturbed buffer. To the east of this area,
17 additional feet (±) of area is proposed to be used for needed
slope transition, and will be a be replanted to "create a
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
screening mass below the canopy of the larger existing trees".
The total buffer which is proposed, then, averages 50 feet in
width. A 6 foot high "good neighbor" fence is shown along the
western boundary of the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a PCD to permit the construction
of a 153 room, 79,920 square foot, 60 foot high/6 story
hotel on a 3 acre site. The foot print of the primary
building is proposed to be 60 feet by 222 feet with an
entrance and drive-thru canopy at the south end of the
building. No restaurant or convention facilities are
proposed; however, a swimming pool is planned. Parking for
162 vehicles is to be provided. The proposal includes
providing a 50 foot (±) natural and landscaped buffer along
the west property line and a 6 foot high privacy fence
abutting the residences along Springwood Drive to the west.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped and wooded. The terrain
slopes generally from a high point at the southwest corner
of the PCD tract to the low point at the northeast corner
along Hardin Rd. The differential in elevation is
approximately 48 feet.
The existing zoning of the tract is C-3 and 0-3. A north -
south line dividing the tract almost in half separates the
two zoning districts, with the 0-3 district lying west of
this line abutting the residential properties to the west,
and with the C-3 district lying east of this line. The
remainder of the subdivision out of which this tract is
extracted lies north and south of the PCD tract. The
property to the north is zoned 0-3. To the south are the
two outparcels being left apart from the PCD tract, with the
eastern parcel being zoned C-3; the western tract, 0-3.
Across Hardin Road to the east is a PCD district; to the
west is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that a sketch grading and drainage
plan is required. The access drive off Chenal Parkway is to
be a right turn in/right turn out only due to inadequate
site distance. Before issuance of a building permit,
engineering will require plans for stormwater detention and
complete grading and drainage plans.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
Water Works wishes to install a water main extension from
Eric Dr. to Hardin Rd. A 15' wide water line easement would
be required from the south line of Lot 3 across the buffer
area to tie into Eric Dr.
Wastewater reports that a capacity analysis will be
required. If capacity is available, the capacity
contribution fees and Farm Bureau Fees will be assessed.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers, landscaping, and land use screening meet Ordinance
requirements.
Land Use review comments that the site is in the I-430
Planning District and is designated as Mixed Office and
Commercial (MOC) on the land use plan. The MOC designation
suggests a mixture of office and commercial uses with a PUD
recommended if the use is entirely commercial. The proposed
hotel is consistent with the plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Zoning Regulations (Sect. 36-502.1.f) states that, for
hotel uses, there is to be 1 parking space for each guest
room, plus 10% for employees and non -guest users patronizing
meeting rooms, restaurants, etc.. To meet the requirements,
then, with 153 guest rooms, the site plan would have to
provide 168 parking spaces. Parking for 162 vehicles is
proposed in the PCD application.
In 1984, neighbors abutting the property to the west filed a
lawsuit contesting the Board of Adjustments approval which
would permit the construction of a multi -story office
building on the site. A consent judgment was agreed to by
the parties in which the proposed building was to maintain a
setback from the west property line of 165 feet; it was to
have a maximum height of 93 feet or 8 stories; any parking
deck was not to be closer than 60 feet, with a roof top
parking area of the deck not higher than a ground elevation
of 486 feet MSL; the buffer zone was to be a 43 foot wide
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
natural buffer, reducing to a 25 foot wide natural buffer at
the south approximately 80 feet of the current PCD site,
with the buffer being cleared of undergrowth, etc.; and,
there was to be a planting fund made available to the
residential neighbors to re -plant the buffer. The consent
judgment was to continue as binding for 20 years or until
the character of the residential neighborhood changed
substantially. It was only in force, though, if the
developer "desires to develop (the tract) pursuant to the
height variance which is the subject of this action...."
The developer, or subsequent developer, "shall have the
right to fully develop (the tract) within the restrictions
and requirements of the existing or subsequently established
and applicable zoning classifications, in which event (a
developer) shall not be required to comply with the terms
and conditions (of the judgment)."
Proposed signage for the hotel must be specified. The
location, size, and type of proposed signs need to be
indicated.
The proposed lighting of the site must be specified.
Times for swimming pool operation, garbage pick-up, and
parking lot cleaning need to be specified.
Hours during which construction activity on the site and for
the hotel are not to take place need to be set.
E. ANALYSIS•
The project narrative states that the design of the site
"closely followed the guidelines set forth in the judgment".
The judgment required a 165 foot setback from the west
property lines the proposed building is 185 feet. The
judgment required a maximum height of 93 feet or 8 stories;
the proposed building is 60 feet high with 6 stories, with
the first floor elevation lowered to 468 feet MSL, or 16
feet lower than the ground level of the residential lot
immediately to the west of the south end of the building.
The ground level parking was to be no higher than an
elevation of 486 feet MSL; the proposed parking is no higher
than 474 feet at its highest point, dropping to 461 feet MSL
at its north en . The buuf er was to be 43 feet wide,
reduced to 25 feet wide at the south end; the proposed
buffer is 50 feet (±). The proposed hotel is on ground that
is currently zoned C-3. A hotel is allowed in the C-3 zone;
however, the C-3 zone restricts the height of buildings to
35 feet. The required parking for the hotel is on the 0-3
zoned part of the property. To deal with achieving a
consistent zoning for the site, as well as to deal with the
height variance, a rezoning to a PCD was chosen.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -3410-C
Pursuant to the consent judgment, the judgment was
applicable only to the proposal to build a specific office
building for which the Board of Adjustments had granted a
variance. It was not applicable if a new proposal arose.
It was specifically cited that, if a new development was
proposed, it could be developed according to the
requirements of any new zoning district guidelines for which
the property were subsequently zoned. The proposed
development is a new proposal, and the request is to re -zone
the property to PCD, which will have its own requirements
for setback, height, etc. The consent judgment, therefore,
is apparently not applicable. The applicant has, though,
attempted to adhere to the guidelines agreed to in the
consent judgment "to minimize additional conflict and
confusion".
The proposal for which a consent judgment was entered into
by the previous developer and the residential neighbors was
for an office building. The current proposal is for a
hotel. The formerly agreed -to use is, supposedly, an 8-5,
5 -days per week activity. A hotel is a 24-hour, 7 -days per
week use. The hotel which is proposed, however, is a
limited service hotel which has no restaurant or convention
facilities. Specifically, the hotel which is proposed to be
developed is a Hampton Inn. This hotel, and these types of
hotels, cater to the traveling business person, and activity
around such hotels is not that inconsistent with activity
around an office building. The developer has "chosen the
most removed building placement possible to minimize visual
impact on the neighbors". Further, the developer has
located "the entry area and trash enclosure ... as far from
the residences as possible to minimize any disturbance from
activity,,.
Because the hotel has no restaurant or convention
facilities, the proposed parking of 162 space is considered
adequate.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD request, subject to:
1) establishing signage and lighting prow _ion ani)
setting the hours during which the swimming pool can be
used, trash service pick-up can be done, parking lot
cleaning operations can be undertaken, and construction can
be carried on.
5
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -3410-C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, was
present. Staff presented the project and the proposed PCD site
plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown the comments
contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown indicated that he
would be completing the required exhibits and furnishing them to
staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission
for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff presented the request. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development
Consultants, Inc., represented the applicant, and outlined for
the Commission the proposal.
Mr. Brown submitted a list of proposed development and operations
restrictions. This list proposed that the signage be limited to
one monument sign meeting the Overlay standards at the Hardin Rd.
entry drive, and one 24 square foot, 6 foot high, directional
sign at the access drive on Financial Center Parkway. The list
proposed that site lighting for the parking area be a maximum of
25 feet in height, with directional fixtures to limit bleedover.
The list proposed that the swimming pool operation be limited to
8:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and, that trash pick-up, deliveries, and
parking lot cleaning be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The list
proposed that construction activity be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM, with no work on Sundays. Mr. Brown reviewed the proposed
buffers along the west property line, and outlined the rationale
for the siting of the building and the parking lot grade in
relation to the 1984 Consent Judgment agreed -to by the abutting
residential property owners to the west.
There was an inquiry from the Commission regarding whether there
had been a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed
development. Mr. Brown responded that both Mr. Doyle Daniel,
president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, and Mr. Ken
Davis, Secretary -Treasurer of the Association, had come by his
office and had reviewed plans, but that no meeting had been
scheduled. The Neighborhood Association representatives had
indicated that the neighborhood was opposed to the proposed
commercial development, and that a discussion on particular
limitations would not be productive.
Mr. Kenneth Davis, Secretary -Treasurer of the Birchwood
Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed
PCD. He said that the Association had voted 100% to opposed the
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
rezoning; that it was inconsistent with the Land Use Plan; and
that it would adversely affect the residential neighborhood to
the west. He said that the Land Use Plan provides for an office
zone buffer abutting the residential neighborhood, and that the
hotel and its parking lot do not meet the requirement for the
needed buffer. The hotel, he continued, would be 6 stories in
height, and would destroy the privacy of the backyards of at
least 10 homes. He complained that the PCD process is being
abused, in that it allows developers to circumvent the
restrictions of the commercial zoning when it suites their
interests; that the developers, when they can do what they want
to do in a particular zone, comply with the zoning and do not
pursue a PUD application. He questioned staff's motives in
bringing up the 1984 Consent Judgment, since, he admitted, it was
applicable only to the office development proposed at the time,
and suggested that staff had brought it up to justify the hotel
with its lesser height, equal or greater separation, and parking
lot with a lower elevation. He pointed out that the topographic
cross section provided by the developer was an east -west cross
section at the mid -point of the development which shows the
parking lot and hotel being lower than the abutting property to
the west; he questioned the relationship of the parking lot and
hotel to the properties to the west at the northern end of the
development site.
Commissioner Willis related that, in the existing 0-3 zone which
abuts the residential area, the building height could be 60 feet,
and that office uses are not necessarily limited to 8:00 - 5:00.
In fact, he said, many of the office in the Financial Center
complex are 24-hour, 7 days per week operations.
Mr. Davis replied that the neighborhood would take its chances
with an office development; that the 0-3 zone needed to remain in
place as a buffer.
Staff, responding to Mr. Davis' complaint that staff had brought
up the 1984 lawsuit in order to justify the hotel development's
siting of the hotel and parking lot. Staff indicated that staff
had received a number of Faxes from a representative of the
neighborhood in which the 1984 Consent Judgment had been cited,
indicating that its terms would be enforced. Staff reported that
neighbors who had been plaintiffs in the 1984 lawsuit had come to
the Neighborhoods and Planning office to review the application
and brought the terms of the lawsuit to staff's attention. Staff
indicated that the 1984 lawsuit was dealt with in the write-up
because the neighborhood had brought it to staff's attention in
the first place, and to point out that the terms were not
applicable to the current development.
Mr. Floyd Boyd, a resident of the residential neighborhood to the
west, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He said
7
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
that the City seeks citizen input into the planning decision-
making process, and, in these case of the Birchwood Neighborhood,
the input of the citizens is being totally ignored. He said that
in almost every rezoning case, the wishes of the neighborhood
have not been honored.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, reported that the League was not in support of the
proposed development. She said that the 24-hour, 7 days per week
aspect of a hotel was not compatible with the residential use
abutting the site.
Mr. Brown indicated that he wished to respond to several of the
concerns or assertions expressed by the neighborhood
representatives. He said that in conversations with Doyle
Daniel, president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, he
had been told that residents along Springwood Dr. who would be
directly affected by the development were taking independent
action in contacting an attorney and in contacting the City, and
that the Birchwood Neighborhood as an Association was not taking
the position of opposition as was being purported by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Brown indicated that it was his understanding that staff had
had contact with Doyle Daniel regarding the issue.
Staff responded that a telephone message, followed by a letter,
had been received from Doyle Daniel indicating that he was not in
support of the Springwood Dr. neighbors, opposition to the
proposed PCD; that he would not be present to present their
opposition; and, that, as a result, he was submitting his
resignation as the Birchwood Neighborhood Association president.
Mr. Brown continued, saying that he had provided the information
requested to the identified neighborhood representative, and that
that person had not requested a neighborhood meeting. He said
that the developer proposes to provide the 50 foot buffer along
the west property line, which is in line with the normal
requirement for buffering of residential from commercial uses.
He reiterated that the proposed hotel is a limited service hotel,
with no conference facilities or restaurants; that a C-3 tract at
the corner of Hardin Rd. and Financial Center Parkway may have a
restaurant on it, but that the area is not included within the
proposed PCD and is currently zoned C-3. He pointed out that, on
the adopted Land Use Plan, the site is de�i_gn_ated for KOC—(mix-ed
office and commercial), and that, according to the Zoning
Ordinance, the PUD process is encouraged in areas with this
designation. He pointed out that, in the PUD process, very
specific limitations on uses and activities can be applied, and
these limitations produce very stringent limitations for a use
which can be'very beneficial to the neighborhood. The
limitations, he added, on noise, sight, and visibility, and other
10
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -3410-C
impacts that are very measurable are dealt with in the PCD. He
pointed out that the same building, as an office building, could
be placed on the 0-3 zoned tract, and be a lot closer to the
residential homes. As it is, with the buffering along the west
property line, the 175 foot separation between the western
boundary and the hotel, and the fact that the first floor level
of the hotel is substantially lower than the western property
line, the visual impact from or on the neighborhood will be very
limited. He related that, in an office building in an 0-3 zone,
up to 10% of the floor area can be used for accessory commercial
uses, and, in a sizable office building, a couple of 6,000 square
foot restaurants with a bar could be provided, with no
restrictions on hours of operation.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the parking lot
lighting and on the signage.
Mr. Brown replied that on the hand-out sheet presented to the
Commissioners, the signs were outlined as being 1 monument sign
with would conform to the Overlay requirements, and 1 directional
sign; the lighting was outlined as being directional fixtures on
25 foot high poles.
Commissioner Selz asked for clarification that there were to be
no other curb -cuts on Financial Center Parkway, to which Mr.
Brown responded that there would not be any others.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification on the location of
the dumpster enclosure, and on the rationale for not placing the
swimming pool to the east of the building, with Mr. Brown
responding that the dumpster is located at the southeast corner
of the site, and that the area to the east of the building has
too much grade change for the swimming pool. Mr. Brown continued
that the pool area has been surrounded with a heavy planting of
trees and shrubs as a buffer, and indicated that something more
substantial, such as a masonry screen, could be provided.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification that the same
relationship of the hotel site to the neighborhood to the west
exists all along the west property line, to which Mr. Brown
responded that the PCD site, as well as the residential lots
facing Springwood Dr., slope uniformly downward to the north, so
that the hotel site is substantially uniformly lower than the
home sites to the west.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification, with light standards
proposed to be 25 feet in height, on the portion of the light
standards which would be above the grade of the residential
properties to the west, to which Mr. Brown stated that, at 25
feet in height, at least a portion of the standard would be above
the grade along the west property line in most places.
0
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -3410-C
Commissioner Oleson suggested lowering the light standards, to
which Mr. Wally Allen, one of the developers of the hotel,
responded that the maximum amount of a standard which could be
seen would probably be 5 feet, and that there is a need for
adequate lighting for security purposes.
Commissioner Walker suggested that the height of the pole is not
as much of a concern as the "cut-off" of the fixture chosen. He
explained that with a narrow enough cut-off, the light will be
directed downward, and will not be able to be seen from the
residential properties to the west.
Acting Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Tim Polk
clarified to the Commissioners that the staff had recommended,
and always does recommend, that the applicant meet with the
neighborhood, but that the neighborhood could choose not to
participate in such a meeting.
Commissioner Chachere asked Mr. Brown if there had been any
change in the proposed height of the parking lot light standards,
to which Mr. Brown stated that the height would remain at 25
feet.
Commissioner Willis, however, indicated that he could not support
the 25 foot height. Mr. Brown, then, responded that the light
standards would be 20 foot in height.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the possibility of
adding a masonry screen along the western boundary of the
swimming pool. Mr. Brown replied that it could be provided, but
that, with the change in grade and the plantings, it would be
unlikely that it would provide additional buffering.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the size of the
trees and plants which would be provided. Mr. Brown indicated
that the trees would be approximately S to 10 feet and the plants
would be 3 to 4 feet in height, at planting.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD, and the PCD,
as amended, was approved with the vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 0
absent, 2 abstentions (Putnam and Ball), and 1 open position.
HE
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
NAME: U -HAUL OF ARKANSAS -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: On the north side of Asher Avenue, approximately 600
feet west of University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Mike Rose
U -HAUL OF ARKANSAS
4809 W. 65th. St.
Little Rock, AR 72209
562-1925
AREA: 3.24 ACRES
ZONING• PCD
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: The existing PCD permits
mini -storage use, along with
an accessory office and
dwelling use. The amended
PCD requests, in addition,
approval of truck and trailer
rental uses.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PCD to permit,
in addition to the mini -storage and accessory office and dwelling
uses permitted in the original PCD, the rental of trucks and
trailers from the site. Proposed to be established is a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business to augment the mini -storage
business which is on-going. The original PCD was approved by the
Planning Commission on February 14, 1984; then, by the Board of
Directors on March 7, 1984 in Ordinance No. 14,614. Parking of
the trucks and trailers is planned to be provided at the rear of
the property against the north_p-r-operty—line an °'onenxtwo°°
units at the front of the facility for display purposes.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for an amendment to an existing PCD
to permit a use of the site which is in addition to the uses
originally approved for the PCD. Originally, in 1984 when
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
the PCD was approved, the specified uses were mini -storage
and the accessory office and dwelling to serve the mini -
storage facility. The applicant now wishes, in addition to
the on-going mini -storage business, to operate a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business from the site. A U -Haul
service center would be used to store the rental vehicles;
the subject site is proposed to have on hand only vehicles
which have been reserved and are awaiting being picked up,
or vehicles which have been "dropped -off" by customers and
are awaiting transfer to the service center. Vehicles which
are on the site would be parked along the rear/north
property line, except for "one or two" trucks or trailers
which would be parked at the front of the facility to
identify the site as a U -Haul rental location.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is fully developed with a large mini -storage
facility involving 82,073 square feet of mini -storage space,
plus 3306 square feet of space for the office and manager's
apartment. Along the east and north, concrete drives extend
to the property line. Along the west, the site is developed
to within 10 feet of the property line where there is a 10
foot easement. The "L" -shaped building at the front of the
property is within a foot and a half of the property line.
At the front, along the Asher Ave. frontage of the site,
there is a 30 foot by 40 foot area available for
landscaping, and there is a 40 foot wide drive approach and
drive way. This driveway is used for parking all the way to
the street. There is a 16 foot high retaining wall along
the rear/north property line.
The site is zoned PCD. The properties immediately to the
east and west are zoned R-5. The property at the southwest
corner of the site is zoned C-4. To the north is a
residential neighborhood in an R-3 area. Across Asher Ave.
is C-3 property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Arkansas Power & Light approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department comments that all driveways around all
buildings must maintain 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment access.
Landscape review comments that the landscaping which was
shown on the original approval must be re -installed.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
Planning review comments that the site is located within the
Boyle Park Planning District, and is designated as
Commercial (C) on the land use plan. The proposal is
consistent with the adopted plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site plan which was approved for the PCD in 1984 showed
a 20 foot wide curb cut off Asher Ave., widening to a
24 foot wide drive, with 4 head -in parking spaces off this
drive. The area in front of the office -dwelling portion of
the building and the parking spaces was to be landscaped.
The survey provided with the amended PCD application shows a
40 foot curb cut, the landscaping area reduced by the
20 feet added to the width of the curb cut and driveway, and
parking space reduced to permit 3 vehicles to park head -in
off the driveway, plus a garage to serve the manager's
apartment. A freestanding sign was added in the landscape
strip area which was not requested in the original
application or shown on the originally approved site plan.
The parking requirements for warehouse and storage uses are
5 spaces, plus 1 space per 2000 square feet of floor area up
to 50,000 square feet; then, in addition, 1 space per 10,000
square feet over 50,000 square feet. [See Section 36-
502.(4)b.] For the office portion of the facility, the
parking requirements are 1 space for 400 square feet. [See
Section 36-502.(2)g.] For the residential use, the
requirement is for 1 space per dwelling. [See Section 36-
502.(1)a.] With 82,073 square feet of mini -storage space,
plus 1653 square feet of space for the office, plus the
manager's apartment, the required number of parking spaces
is 33. Parking for 3 vehicles is presently provided, plus
the 1 space available in the garage. There is sufficient
room along the rear/north property line for 9 additional
spaces. The total number of spaces available for parking,
then, is 13.
The number of trucks and trailers proposed to be stored on
the site needs to be designated, as well as the spaces where
they will be parked. If modification of the existing curb
along the rear/north property line is anticipated, then the
site plan must show this. Protect ion --from veh.icres of the
retaining wall must be provided for.
E. ANALYSIS•
As stated in the "Existing Conditions" section, "The site is
fully developed." The site does not provide adequate
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
parking. At the office -residential use area, 4 spaces are
provided; 5 are required. Assuming that there is no need
for additional parking to serve the mini -storage use, there
is still no space for the addition of rental vehicles.
The approved PCD site plan showed 4 head -in parking spaces
and a 50 foot by 40 foot landscaped area. One parking space
has been lost to an addition to the office area, and the
landscaped area is reduced to a 30 foot by 40 foot area. A
freestanding sign exists in the landscaped area which was
not approved for the PCD.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the
PCD, but does recommends approval of an amendment to the PCD
to permit the sign which has been installed to remain in its
present location. Staff recommends that a requirement be
imposed that the front landscaping be installed pursuant to
the originally approved site plan, and that parking not be
permitted in the area in front of the front building line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Rod Baldwin, representing U -Haul, was present. Staff
presented the applicant's site plan and explained that the site,
as shown, was developed; that the request was simply a request to
add the rental of trucks and trailers to the listing of approved
uses in the existing PCD. Mr. Baldwin indicated that the trucks
and trailers are proposed to be stored at the rear of the lot
along the north property line, and that only two trucks or
trailers would be displayed at the front property line. The
Committee members reviewed with Mr. Baldwin the comments
contained in the discussion outline. The Committee indicated
that no parking would be allowed within the front building
setback line, and that parking would be restricted to the area at
the rear of the property where 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment could be maintained. The Committee forwarded the item
to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING__COMMISSION—ACTION- (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Rod Baldwin and Mike Rose were present representing U -Haul of
Arkansas.
Staff presented the request, and reported that there had been
deviations to the site from the site plan originally approved for
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont_,)FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
the PCD: 1) that there was a sign at the front of the property
which was not provided for in the PCD; 2) that in lieu of the
24 foot wide drive shown on the original plan, a 40 foot drive
had been constructed, and that in the area originally shown to be
landscaped, the wider drive encroached, taking approximately
1/2 of the landscaped area shown on the original site plan; and,
3) the landscaping which had been shown on the original site plan
was not present on the site. Staff reported that there was
insufficient room at the front of the facility for parking of
rental vehicles, and that there was minimal space at the rear of
the property which could be used for storage of rental vehicles.
Staff recommended denial of the amended PCD, and recommended that
either the applicant remove the sign and paving, and install
landscaping in the area as shown on the approved PCD site plan,
or seek approval from the Commission for the sign, drive, and
landscaping as they are presently located on the site.
Rod Baldwin, president of U -Haul of Arkansas, addressed the
Commission. He said that the scope of the request was simply to
be able to rent trailers or trucks to persons moving in or out of
the storage facility as a convenience to these customers. He
stated that any stored vehicles would be located at the rear of
the property against the rear retaining wall, and he committed to
keep only a couple of rental vehicles on the site at any one
time. He said that U -Haul has a shuttle service, and any rental
vehicles needed or dropped off at the site would be shuttled to
and from the main storage location on W. 65th. St.
Jack Payne addressed the Commission. He indicated that he had
the business immediately to the west of the U -Haul site. He
stated that the original PCD site plan provided 3 guest parking
spaces in front of the office area, but that the parking is
insufficient for the customers who patronize the U -Haul business.
He said that, especially around the 1st. and 15th. of the month,
when customers are paying their mini -storage rents, that the
U -Haul customers do not have sufficient room to park on the
U -Haul site, and overflow onto his parking area. He also said
that the U -Haul sign is located in the center of the property,
and people returning rental trucks evidently have difficulty
locating the U -Haul drive, because they pass up the U -Haul drive
and turn into his parking area. He complained that U -Haul
customers park on his property and walk next door to pay their
rent or to complete the paper work to rent or return trucks or
trailers. He pointed out that, with the limited parking
available at the front of the U -Haul site, if even one or two
truck are brought to the site, and are parked or wait at the
front of the property, then there will be no customer parking
available. He said that he was definitely opposed to the request
Mr. Baldwin, responding to Mr. Payne's objection, reported that
Mr. Payne operates a competing rental business, renting Ryder
trucks and trailers. He stated that Mr. Payne, then, has a
vested interest in opposing U -Haul renting trucks and trailers.
5
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
Commissioner Walker, addressing Mr. Baldwin, indicated that his
concern with the application is that there is no room for the
additional activity; that U -Haul was not proposing to remove some
of the storage units in order to provide the space for truck and
trailer storage. He said that the U -Haul operation needed to be
able to have sufficient space on the U -Haul site for storage unit
customers and for the rental customers, without overflowing onto
the adjoining neighbor's property. He asked Mr. Baldwin whether
any measures were proposed to provide needed direction to the
U -Haul site for customers.
Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the Asher Ave. frontage of the site
was small, and that, if U -Haul had developed the site originally,
they would have had input into providing a more workable
arrangement for traffic. He said, though, that he had never been
made aware of the problem with overflow onto Mr. Payne's
property. He said that once a storage unit customer has come to
the site to rent a unit, and has signed a contact, that there is
very little need for these customers to park at the office; that
they when they need access to their storage unit, they drive on
back to the rear of the property to their storage unit. He said
that most storage rental customers are on a credit card charge
basis, and do not come to the site to make payments. He said
that, at present, the gate to the storage area is open, but that
a card access gate is planned to be provided. He said that the
only time a truck would be parked at the front, at the office,
would be when a truck was being brought in by a customer and was
being checked in, or when one was being rented.
Staff pointed out the concerns mentioned in the write-up: that no
provision had been made in the original PCD for the sign which
had been installed, and that the landscaping was not in
conformance with the originally approved site plan. Staff also
stated that the Fire Department does not want any parking in any
of the 20 foot wide drives; that the only available parking is at
the rear of the property where there is 30 feet between the rear
of the buildings and the rear retaining wall. Staff also
cautioned that the retaining wall needs to be protected from
damage which might be caused by trucks parallel parking or
backing into the wall.
Kenny Scott, zoning enforcement supervisor, reported that there
is a second ground sign —which chad bee n istal-led and which needs
to be removed, and that the landscaping, as originally shown on
the site plan, needs to be installed and maintained.
Staff explained that, either the applicant needs to seek approval
of the signs, as they are presently situated on the property, or
they need to remove these signs. Also, staff explained that,
either the applicant needs to seek approval of the size of the
11
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4074-A
landscaped area, as it is, or needs to remove a portion of the
driveway and landscape the area as originally approved.
Plantings need to be installed and then maintained in the
landscaped area, whatever that area is determined to be.
Mr. Baldwin responded that U -Haul would amend its request for
approval of the signs, as situated on the site, and for approval
of the site plan, as it was developed. He said that landscaping
in the landscape area in front of the office building would be
installed, then maintained. He said that, since he had not been
aware of the deviations from the original plan until the last
minute, he requested a deferral of further consideration on the
request.
Staff recommended that the deferral be to the October 18, 1994
Subdivision hearing, and that the applicant bring any proposed
changes in the application to the Subdivision Committee for
review of the site plan.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the deferral of the
item until the October 18th. Commission meeting, and the motion
passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
7
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -4085-C
NAME: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S.
Wolfe and S. Battery Streets
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
FRED RODGERS Samuel L. Davis
2407 S. Battery St. S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC.
Little Rock, AR 72206 5301 West 8th. Street
374-9844 Little Rock, AR 72204
664-0324
AREA: 1.88 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Day Care and Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 11
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order
to make substantive changes to the originally approved master
site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings
on the site.
The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on
March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors on April 19, 1988,
in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three
principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St.
containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the
corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square
feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery
St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200 square feet. The existing
2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building
was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square
toot uilyding was to a child care center. Subsequent to that
approval, the residential care use was implemented in the
existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.;
however, the two new buildings were not built.
Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to
amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2 -story,
6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care.
Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C
20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry/drop-off
point for the child care facility, and to provide parking and an
access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the
location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the
request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance
No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990.
Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included
in the PRD site, and the uses are proposed to change. An
additional residential lot which faces Battery St. is to be
included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential
structure. It is to be used for offices for the facility on one
side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the
other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to
continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor,
but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be
implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins
these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is
proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain child care space on
the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on
the second.
The applicant states that a residential care facility is one
which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24-hour basis, a place
of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live.
This use includes providing a place for daily activities for
residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The
facility, then, will include lounge and living areas, a central
dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities,
laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the
facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed.
The child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 1/2
years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend
to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12,
plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will
include a multi-purpose area for activities, dining, and
sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets for adults and
children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office.
The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire
site is to be fenced for security purposes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to:
1) include additional land area in the PRD site and amend
the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses
approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and
F
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4085-C
residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in
the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the
existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the
existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex
is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the
second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative
offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its
2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first
floor and residential care on the second floor. The second
floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment.
Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop-off/pick-
up drive for the child care facility and parking for
residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain
link fencing for security purposes.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently
designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide
residential lot currently zoned R-4. On the 1.66 acre site
is a single 2 -story, 10,640 square foot facility presently
being used for child care on the first floor only. The
second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract
is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The
50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it. All
surrounding property is zoned R-4. There is an elementary
school directly to the west of the site.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan
must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit,
engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater
detention.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between
the two existing buildings in the abandoned right-of-way,
but in which the easements were retained) lies over an
existing 610 sewer main. The sewer main will have to be
relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the
building will not hese witted to occupy i -he aa_U ey—ea-Bement .
Site Plan review reports that a 61 high opaque wood fence
with its structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed
expanded area from the residential property to the north.
An upgrade in non -conforming landscape area will be required
equal to the amount of the expansion.
9
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C
Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed
building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was
constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The
foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed,
will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in
the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new
building alongside an existing structure will be in
violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be
remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as
providing exterior fire separation and protection of both
existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall
construction in several locations; and installation of a
fire sprinkling system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing
power line in the alley. They report that an easement must
be provided; however, since the easement was retained when
the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still
in existence.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan as submitted.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as
submitted.
The Fire Department will require that the 12 foot wide drive
on the north side of the existing daycare building,
extending to the north side of the new addition, be
increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire
equipment.
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood
fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed
expanded area and the remodeled residence from the
residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade
in non -conforming landscaping will be required equal to the
amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be
required to comply with the landscaping ordinance.
Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central
Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends
single -fa imim y use for this site. Due to the location next
to an elementary school and the visibility problems along
Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff
does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however,
the use is a residential housing situation and child and
adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause
significant adverse effects.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the
requirement is 0.5 spaces/sleeping accommodation. The
applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents.
This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there
are two apartments provided. These require an additional
2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per
employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of
1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150
children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is
required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66;
86 spaces are provided.
The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which
serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles
do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering
space must be provided on-site for vehicles to park, back,
and then to enter Battery St. driving forward.
The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns.
This division reports that the applicant proceeded to
construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story
addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building
with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permits
and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement.
The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the
utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first,
seek the abandonment of the utility easement, relocating any
needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do
what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the
foundation for the proposed building.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land
use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective.
The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the
utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs
of relocating the utility lines, as required. He has stated
that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the
applicant: 1) being successful in his application to
abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and
relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned;
and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping,
and other comments noted above.
5
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed
with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion
outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue
raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley
where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue
raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition
without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building
Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a
plan without fully realizing what will be required by the
Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc.
Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon
the utility easement in the alley, would do what is necessary to
relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the
Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the
application to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to
abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a
building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he
will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own
expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will
conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the
building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff
recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility
easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes
approving the construction. The item was included on the consent
agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and
1 open position.
R
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -5770-A
NAME: MGM PROPERTIES -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: On the north side of Highway 10, approximately 1/4
mile west of the east Taylor Loop Road intersection
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
S. Barksdale McKay Joe White
RIVER CITY ENERGY COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
11025 Anderson Rd., Suite 100 401 S. Victory St.
P. O. Box 22837 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72221 374-1666
227-7001
AREA: 2.82 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• POD & R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Offices
None
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing POD to add
additional acreage to the approved site and to make changes to
the approved site plan. No changes in the approved uses is
proposed.
On January 4, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a POD for
the applicant for development of a 1.82 acre site with two office
buildings to be used for 0-3 office uses. The Board of
Directors, on February 1, 1994, in Ordinance No. 16,586,
established the POD. Subsequently, the applicant has had an
opportunity to acquire the abutting 1 acre tract to the east of
the original site, and wishes to combine the two tracts and amend
the POD site plan.
Proposed are two office buildings. Both are proposed to be
2 -story, with basements. Building I is placed 110 feet north of
Highway 10. It is to contain a total of 22,800 square feet
(10,000 square feet on both the ground and second floor, and
2,800 square feet in the basement). The second building is sited
to the north of the first building. it is to contain a total of
20,300 square feet (8,750 square feet on both the ground and
second floor, and 2,800 square feet in the basement). The site
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5770-A
plan provides parking spaces for 98 vehicles, and access to the
site is from a single central drive approach off Highway 10.
(Note: The original submission proposed two drive approaches off
Highway 10, but, in response to the Public works comments, the
plan was changed.) The development is to take place in two
phases, with the rear/northernmost building being developed
first. This building is planned to be built in mid-1995, and is
to house the applicant's business' offices. The second building,
the southernmost building, is to be constructed as the market
demand for office space develops. A monument sign is planned at
the front of the sign. It and the landscaping of the site will
comply with the Highway 10 Overlay requirements. The requested
uses of the site are all uses by right in the 0-3 zoning district
list.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for an amendment to an existing
POD in order for the applicant to add an additional 1 -acre
tract to the site and to change the site plan to take
advantage of this increased size of the tract. As
previously approved, two buildings are proposed for the
site; however, in the revised plan, the building sizes have
been increased from two, 6000 square foot, single story
buildings to two, 2 -story with basement buildings, one (the
one closest to Highway 10) having a total square footage of
22,800 square feet; the other, 20,300 square feet. All uses
allowed by right in the 0-3 zoning district are requested.
Parking for 96 vehicles is proposed. A monument sign is
proposed beside the entrance driveway, and it and the
landscaping will, according to the applicant, conform to the
Highway 10 Overlay requirements.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The original 1.88 acre site is still vacant and heavily
wooded. The 1 -acre site to the east of the original tract
has a single home located approximately mid -way back on the
tract. This tract also contains many trees, and the rear of
the tract is heavily wooded. The topography of the proposed
POD site rises in elevation from south to north, with the
north boundary of the site being approximately 28 feet
higher than the south boun along Highway r .
The original 1.88 acre site is zoned POD. The surrounding
properties are all zoned R-2, although there are non-
conforming uses in the area. (An animal clinic is located
directly across Highway 10 from the site, and a photography
studio is located immediately to the west of the site.)
K
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5770-A
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that only one curb cut per 300 feet of
frontage will be allowed. Prior to issuance of the building
permit, the applicant must submit a complete grading and
drainage plan, as well as a stormwater detention plan.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with
easements, will be required for service to this site.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the site plan as presented.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet the Highway 10 overlay and
landscape ordinance requirements. Where on-site existing
natural vegetation does not provide adequate year-round
screening, a 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to
screen the proposed development from the residential zoned
property to the north, east, and west. Because the southern
parking area is proposed to be at a significantly higher
elevation than Highway 10, extra attention to screening this
area from Highway 10 will be necessary.
Land Use review comments that the site is located within the
River Mountain Planning District, and is designated as
Transition Zone (TZ) on the land use plan. The TZ category
is intended to provide for a transition area between single-
family uses and other more intense uses. Office uses are
appropriate within the Transition Zone, provided that the
maximum floor area ratio is 0.2. The
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Ordinance requires parking at a rate of 1/400 sf. The
Ordinance states that for structures larger than 10,000 sf,
the basic requirement shall be met for the first 10,000 sf,
then for the square footage between 10,000 & 20,000 sf, the
parking is 95% of the basic rate; for the square footage
lying between 20,000 sf and 30,000, the parking is 90% of
the basic rate. Building 1 has 22,800 sf. This will
require 55 parking spaces. Building 2 has 20,300. this
will require 31 spaces. The total required parking, then,
is 86. Parking for 96 vehicles is provided.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5770-A
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicant has made the changes in the plan which were
required by Public Works concerning the single drive
approach off Highway 10. There are no other issues to be
resolved. The use is not in conflict with the land use
plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the POD request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Barksdale McKay, the applicant was present. Staff presented
the application and reviewed with the Committee the proposed site
plan. Mr. McKay related that he had previously gained approval
of a POD encompassing a 1.82 acre portion of the site, but had
been presented with an opportunity to acquire the adjoining
1 acre. He, therefore, was seeking an amended POD to reflect the
newly enlarged site. The Committee reviewed with Mr. McKay the
comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. McKay asked
for clarification on the Public Works comment which limited him
to one drive off Highway 10. The Public works staff responded
that the regulations which limit the number of access points off
Highway 10 was adopted on January 18, 1994, so the previous POD
site, which had been approved with two driveways had preceded the
new ordinance. Mr. McKay assured the Committee members that he
would make the needed changes, and the Committee forwarded the
POD request to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site
plan which addresses the Public Works concerns regarding the
drive approach off Highway 10. Staff reported that there are
no other concerns to be addressed, and the item was included on
the consent agenda for approval. The amended short -form POD
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent,
0—abat-emtions and 1 open picas-ition-.
4
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-5873
NAME: KREMER'S -- SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. Markham Street and S.
Park Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
William R. Kremer Robert D. Holloway
11219 Financial Center Parkway ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, INC.
Little Rock, AR 72211 200 Casey Drive
228-4485 Maumelle, AR 72113
851-8806
AREA• 0.32 ACRES
ZONING: R-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT• 14
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of the sidewalk requirement along
the N. Park St. frontage of the site
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of multi -family facility
consisting of 8 apartments (4 units down stairs; 4 up stairs) on
a 0.32 acre site. Provision is made for off-street parking for
12 vehicles. The development involves construction of one-half
street improvements on both boundary streets, Markham and Park
Streets. A sidewalk is to be constructed along the Markham St.
frontage of the site; however, for the Park St. frontage, a
waiver from the requirement is requested. The primary access to
the site is to be by way of a driveway off Markham St. An exit
from the site is provided to an improved alley to the east.
Required landscaping and the provision of a "good neighbor" fence
along the south and east boundary of the site is proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PRD for
a 2 -story, 8 -unit apartment facility to be built on a 0.32
acre site. There is to be parking for 12 vehicles on the
site. Required street and sidewalk improvements on Markham
and Park Streets are included in the proposal, except there
is a request for a waiver of the sidewalk improvements on
Park St.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently vacant, and has been so for several
years. The site is elevated above the Markham St. grade
approximately 4 feet, then rises another 4 feet at the south
property line. Neither Markham or Park Streets have a curb
and gutter section along the project property line; neither
street has the required sidewalk along the street frontage.
Park St. "dead -ends" one-half block south of the Markham St.
intersection; however there are two homes on lots south of
the proposed development and there is an apartment building
on the west side of Park St. at the "dead-end". There is a
sidewalk on the project side of Park St. on beyond the
project site to the south. A portion of the right-of-way
along the east side of Park St. has been paved, and this
paved area is being used for parking for, presumably, the
commercial building across Park St. to the west. The north -
south alley abutting the east side of the site is paved.
The site is currently zoned R-3, with R-3 property to the
east and south. R-4 property lies directly across Markham
St. to the north; the State School for the Deaf campus, on
property which is zoned R-2, is cater -corner to the
northwest across the Markham -Park intersection. Directly
across Park St. to the west is C-3 zoned property. (The
Little Rock Auto Clock and Speedometer Service business is
located in this C-3 area.)
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan
is to be provided. Before issuance of the building permit,
plans must be submitted for the right-of-way improvements,
as well as a complete grading and drainage plan.
Water Works comments that Water Works needs to be contacted
regarding meter size and location.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there will
be no adverse effect on the system.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the site plan as presented.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers, landscaping, and land use screening meet the
Ordinance requirements. Trees and shrubs will be required
within the southern land use buffer. The dumpster enclosure
must be opaque and be 81 high on 3 sides.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
Land Use review reports that the site is located in the
Heights/Hillcrest Planning District, and is designated as
Multi -Family Residential (MF) of the adopted land use plan.
The "MF" category is intended to accommodate residential
development of 10 to 36 units per acre. The proposal is for
8 units on 0.32 acres, equating to 24 units per acre. The
proposal is, therefore, consistent with the land use plan.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant proposes to make street improvements on both
Markham and on Park, and proposes to construct the required
sidewalk on Markham; however, a waiver is requested for the
required sidewalk on Park, and this will require Board of
Directors approval.
The Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces/dwelling unit in
multi -family uses. In this case, 12 would be required, and
12 are provided.
Any anticipated signage must be specified and must be
located on the site plan.
The survey and PRD site plan show N. Park St. as N. Park
Ave. This is incorrect; Park Ave. is in the College Station
area off Frazier Pike. The street name must be corrected on
both the survey and PRD site plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed development is consistent with the land use
plan, and the applicant proposes to meet all development
standards which are required by the various ordinances and
entities, except that a waiver from the sidewalk requirement
on Park St. is requested. Since there are single-family and
multi -family residences to the south of the site on Park
St., and since there is an existing sidewalk south of the
site which can be extended northward along the Park St.
frontage of the site to intersect with the sidewalk to be
constructed along Markham St., the sidewalk along Park St.
should be constructed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD request, but does not
recommend approval of the waiver of the sidewalk on Park St.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5873
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Robert Holloway, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the request and reviewed with the Committee the
proposed site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Holloway the
items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Holloway
indicated that he would make the needed adjustments and additions
to the plans. He clarified with the Committee various items
concerning the condition of the existing improvements on the
boundary streets and the alley, indicating that boundary street
improvements would be made, but that a waiver of the sidewalk
requirement on Park St. was being sought, and indicating that the
alley was improved. The Committee forwarded the request to the
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present to represent the developer.
Staff presented the application, and noted that the requested
waiver of the sidewalk construction along the Park St. frontage
of the site had been withdrawn by the applicant; that the
sidewalk would be constructed.
Mr. Holloway indicated that the application and staff's
presentation were sufficient to outline the proposal, and said
that he would prefer to respond to the objectors who were
present.
Mr. Dulyn Butler, indicating that he is the owner of the abutting
property to the south, said that his home is the only dwelling
abutting the property. He said that he had bought the dwelling
knowing that the home was in a single-family zoned area, and said
that he wants the single-family zoning in the area to remain. He
stated that the proposed 8 -unit apartment dwelling was to be
built within 10 feet of his home, and objected to that situation.
Mr. Jim Achard, indicating that he lives a block away from the
proposed development, said that, although he is not opposed to
development on the site, he felt that an 8 -unit apartment
deveI,opment_wa_s " a bit—much ° He s aid hat_,—s- no -e the-zrapas ed
property is elevated above the surrounding property, the second
floor windows of the apartment building would look down onto
Mr. Butler's yard and home. A 2 -story structure, he said, is out
of scale for the location; that something of a lesser scale would
be more appropriate. He also stated that Mr. Kremer, the
developer of the 8 -unit apartment project, is also the owner of
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 _cont-)___ __ _ FILE NO.: Z-5873
an apartment building across Park St., at the south end of the
dead-end section of Park St. He said that Mr. Kremer's other
apartment project is not properly maintained and is tacky, and
questioned whether a new facility developed by Mr. Kremer would
be an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Holloway responded to the criticisms. He said that the other
property owned by Mr. Kremer was built in 1928, and,
consequently, shows its age. He said that the neighborhood has
been, for many years, a "mixed use" area, with the multi -family
dwelling to the south, a commercial use to the west, other
multi -family directly to the north, and the deaf school to the
northwest. Mr. Butler's house is a large, order home, which sits
well off the ground and has high ceilings and a high roof. It is
probably, he said, as tall as the proposed 2 -story building being
considered. The exiting topography of the site is proposed to be
lowered, so that the proposed building will be lower than the
present site would suggest. There is to be a privacy fence along
the southern boundary of the site, and this property line is to
be landscaped. Mr. Holloway also corrected Mr. Butler's
contention that the apartment building would be built 10 feet
from his home. Instead, he said, it would be built 10 feet off
the south property line, and Mr. Butler's home is south of that
property line. Mr. Holloway stated that all traffic generated by
the proposed development would use W. Markham St., and that trash
pick-up would use the alley to the west; therefore, S. Park St.
would not be "burdened" by the new use.
Commissioner Oleson questioned the number of units proposed for
the development, indicating that the 8 units seemed too many for
the acreage involved.
Walter Malone, of the Planning staff, indicated that the land use
plan calls for the area to be "multi -family", and that the "MF"
designation suggests developments of 12 or more units per acre.
Staff also mentioned that the R-5 zoning district would permit
the density proposed for the subject property. The proposed
development, then, is in conformance with the adopted land use
plan, and is in line with other zoning and use in the area.
Commissioner Willis, then Commissioner Walker, indicated that
exterior elevations and a topographic cross-section of the
development and its relationship with the property to the south
wou be helpful in their being able to de ermine the -
appropriateness
eappropriateness of the development.
Mr. Holloway indicated that, in light of the Commissioner's
desire for the additional exhibits, he would ask that the item be
deferred until the October 18, 1994 Planning Commission hearing,
and that he would, a the Subdivision Committee meeting of
September 29, produce the requested drawings.
5
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5873
A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the
October 18th. hearing. The motion was approved with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
0
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5874
NAME: GLOBAL LEARNING CENTER -- SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: 1608 S. Rock Street; 1613-15 S. Commerce Street; and,
1623 S. Commerce Street
DEVELOPER:
Rev. Bobby Lee Marshall
GLOBAL LEARNING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
1608 S. Rock St.
Little Rock, AR 72206
375-2430
AREA: 0.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-4 PROPOSED USES: Establishment of a religious,
charitable, or philanthropic
office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 3
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to utilize three existing residential
structures for the activities undertaken by the Global Learning
Center organization. In the structure at 1608 S. Rock St., the
upper story is used as a residence for Rev. Marshall; the lower
level is used for general offices for the organization, as
assembly and lounge area, counseling offices, and a dining and
kitchen area. In the structure at 1613-15 S. Commerce St., a
duplex, the north side of the duplex, at 1613 S. Commerce St., is
used as a basic skills development facility for children and
young people; the south side, at 1615 S. Commerce St., is used as
a residence for otherwise homeless men. In the structure at
1623 S. Commerce St., a duplex, the north side is used as a
residence for otherwise homeless women; the south side is used as
a counselina center.
The Global Learning Center seeks to "loin forces to help in the
fight (to take) our communities back from gang members, dope
pushers, alcoholics, addicts, and crime." The Center, then, was
organized: 1) to educate high risk youth, adults, and children
in basic education courses; 2) to guide students in enrolling in
computer skills, clerical skills, and basic communications or
language arts courses; 3) to develop violence prevention
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
curriculum for adolescents; 4) to provide counseling and
rehabilitation services for parolees and to provide drug
prevention and intervention services and drug awareness
assistance programs; and, 5) to provide food and shelter for the
homeless. These activities are on-going in or are planned uses
for the three buildings currently used by the organization.
No change in the residential character of the structures and no
signage is proposed. Landscaping improvements are underway and
are proposed to be expanded.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a POD is requested for the Global Learning Center' uses
of three existing structures (at 1608 S. Rock St., at
1613-15 S. Commerce St., and at 1623 S. Commerce St.) for
the organization's counseling, school, office, and
residential programs and uses. The structure at 1608 S.
Rock St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence for
Rev. Marshall, located on the 2nd. floor of the home, and,
on the 1st. floor, to continue its on-going uses which
include: administrative offices for the origination and
counseling offices, a lounge and assembly area, and dining
and kitchen facilities. The structure at 1613-15 S.
Commerce St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence
for homeless men and as a center for teaching young people
in basic developmental and communications skills and in
language arts. The structure at 1623 S. Commerce St. is
proposed to continue its use as a residence for homeless
women and as a counseling center for rehabilitation services
for parolees, for drug prevention and intervention
programming, and drug awareness assistance counseling. No
changes to the exterior of or in the residential character
of the structures are anticipated. The upgrading of
landscaping in the yards is proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed POD site involves three residential structures
at three locations: the 2 -story home at 1608 S. Rock St.
which occupies 3 lots, a duplex at 1613-15 S. Commerce St.
on a single lot, and a duplex at 1623 S. Commerce St. which,
again, is on a sing a of All three locations are in an R-
4 zoned area. Immediately to the west of the S. Rock St.
property is an area which is zoned R-5. This R-5 zoned
district extends northward from E. 16th. St. and extends
eastward to S. Commerce St. There is a church building, in
the R-4 zoned district, immediately north of the S. Commerce
St. lots. There is a great deal of undeveloped, vacant, or
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
abandoned property in the immediate area; however, a block
to the east of the S. Commerce St. property, on E. 17th.
St., is the beginning of the area in which the City, with
C.D.B.G. funding, is designing and constructing new homes
for low -to -moderate income persons, and is the area known as
a "Model Block".
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports no comments.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that sewer service is available, and that
there is no adverse effect to the system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 61
high opaque screen is required to screen this site from the
residential properties. (At 1608 Rock, the properties to
the north, west, and south. At 1613-15 Commerce, the
properties to the south, east, and north. At 1623 Commerce,
the properties to the north and east.) This screen may be a
wood fence with the structural supports facing inward, or be
dense evergreen planting.
Land Use review comments that the project sites are located
within the Central City Planning District, and are
designated as Single -Family Residential on the land use
plan. The proposal to operate the Global Learning Center on
the three sites is in conflict with the land use plan. An
analysis of the neighborhood reveals that, although the area
has been in a state of decline in recent years, a solid
residential pattern still exists and should be maintained.
Community Development Block Grant funds have been invested
in the area to enhance the residential character of the
neighborhood. Commercial uses would be intrusive and should
be located nearer to Main Street.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
There are no issues which are outstanding, except the land
use issue cited above.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposal is one that encompasses a number of uses on
several sites. The proposed uses include some that are
deemed to be "commercial" in nature, and these are in
conflict with the land use plan. They are viewed by staff
as possibly being intrusive to the residential neighborhood
and to its redevelopment.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the POD.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
A Ms. Carter and Mr. Walker were present to represent the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the application and
reviewed with the Committee members the site plan of the
properties which the applicant is utilizing for the
organization's activities. Staff asked the applicant's
representatives to delineate and clarify the various activities
which are on-going in the three structures. Ms. Carter and
Mr. Walker explained that at 1608 Rock St., besides being
Rev. Marshall's, the applicant's, residence, the building serves
as the organization's offices, a group meeting center, and a
feeding center where food is both consumed and distributed. The
structure at 1613-15 Commerce St. serves as a tutoring and skills
development center and the men's residence. The structure at
1623 Commerce St. serves as a counseling center and women's
residence. The Committee reviewed the comments contained in the
discussion outline, then forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Rev. Bobby Marshall was present to present his application.
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the use category
of "establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic
office's was a cats- - froM the Zoning Ordinance—which was chosen-----
as
hosen__as one that best captured all the variety of uses proposed to be
undertaken in the POD, but that the Global Learning Center was
not to be understood to be necessarily a religious use. Staff
pointed out that the word "or" designated that the uses could be
religious, or charitable, or philanthropic uses.
Rev. Marshall indicated that the staff's presentation and
explanation of the request was sufficient, and that he would
rather respond to the comments of objectors.
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
Ms. Rita Spillenger, indicating that she and her husband were in
opposition to the request, said that they opposed any commercial
rezonings in the area. They had made a significant investment in
the neighborhood in buying a home in the area, and were
interested in seeing that the neighborhood was revitalized as a
residential area. They had bought the home knowing that the area
was residential, and expect the area to remain residential.
Ms. Spillenger also complained that Rev. Marshall has been less
than forthcoming in the information he has provided regarding the
nature and scope of the activities pursued by his organization.
Rev. Marshall, she said, had been engaged in the pursuit of his
activities for more than a year without the permission of the
City, and that it was only after the neighbors brought the matter
to the City's attention that the application for the rezoning was
made. She also stated that Rev. Marshall did not have the
permission of the property owners to seek the rezoning.
Ms. Spillenger reported that she had invited Rev. Marshall to her
home to discuss their opposition to the proposed rezoning, and to
discuss their contention that drug abusers were frequenting the
premises. The residents are not adequately supervised, and the
facility has not met any licensing requirements, she said. She
complained that there is trash and there are liquor bottles in
the alley between Rev. Marshall's house and her home that are
there due to the Global Learning Center clientele, and that there
is traffic in the alley till all hours of the night. As far as
the safety of the neighborhood is concerned, she said that her
garage and back yard have been broken into, so she did not see
that Rev. Marshall's organization was improving the safety of the
area. Rev. Marshall, she said, refused to discuss the matter,
and had, she said, called her a racist. At another scheduled
meeting, which Rev. Marshall had set, Rev. Marshall had failed,
she continued, to attend. She stated that, contrary to
Rev. Marshalls contention, she and her family are not racists;
that she supports the activities of organizations such as Global
Learning Center, when they are in an appropriately zoned area,
and when the activities are properly supervised and the
institution is properly licensed.
Ms. Tennie J. Swaford, identifying herself as an area resident,
said that, although she does not object to Rev. Marshall and his
program, she does object to rezoning the neighborhood for
Ms. Joan Gould, stating that she owns a home and property which
back up to Rev. Marshall's property, said that she objects to the
non-residential uses of the property. She had bought the home
because she wanted to live in a down -town, integrated,
residential neighborhood. She said that she is buying property
from the same persons who own Rev. Marshall's property, and that
these persons had not been informed of the planned rezoning,
67
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874
except for the same notice which was sent to property owners in
the area. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Riley, are not, she said,
supportive of the proposed rezoning, and are, she suggested, not
adequately informed of the goings-on. Two years ago, she said,
the Marshalls had been operating a daycare facility in the house
at 1608 Rock, and, at that time, the Rileys had stopped the
activity, due to it not being permitted within the scope of their
insurance coverage on the property. She complained that, over
the past two years, although the front of the property facing
Rock St. has been improved, the alley between their and
Rev. Marshall's property is littered. Food, from the food
program, is scattered in the alley, which she has, on a number of
occasions, had to clean up. There are numerous vehicles parked
on Rev. Marshall's property which are never moved, but are stored
on the property and are an eyesore. She complained that
Rev. Marshall and his clientele trespass on her property which
she is buying from the Rileys, and that she has had to notify
Rev. Marshall not to take soil or plant flowers on her property.
She said that one instance involving her paying clientele of
Rev. Marshall's for removing a tree which had been blown over,
where Rev. Marshall had said that the persons she had paid had
used the money to buy drugs, caused her to question the adequacy
of the supervision afforded to the clientele, and caused her to
question her security, and the security of the other neighbors.
She said that there are a number of homes in the neighborhood
which are historic, and a rezoning to permit a commercial use
would devalue these homes. She questioned the legitimacy of
Rev. Marshall's program and activities, both from the City's
zoning laws, and from the State licensing regulations. She was
approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: S-1035
NAME: CHENAL CENTER -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Autumn
Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
David H. Pickering Joe White
PICKERING, INC. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
11621 Rainwood Dr. 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201
227-6376 374-1666
AREA: 2.41 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes development of a 2.41 acre tract for
commercial purposes. An "L" -shaped building lies along the north
and west property lines. It is 1-sotry and contains 26,480
square feet. The second building lies at the Chenal Parkway -
Autumn Rd. intersection, is single -story, and contains 3,504
square feet. Parking for 120 vehicles is proposed. Access to
the site is to be gained from three drive approaches from Autumn
Rd. There is one exit provided onto Chenal Parkway. The
applicant proposes to construct the west one-half of Autumn Rd,
to construct sidewalks along both the Chenal Parkway and Autumn
Rd. frontages of the site, and to contribute 1/4 the cost of a
traffic signal at the Chenal Parkway -Autumn Rd. intersection.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission review of a proposed site plan is
requested for the development of a 2.41 acres tract for
commercial purposes. The site is to consist of two
buildings, one containing 26,480 square feet; the other,
3,504 square feet. Parking for 120 vehicles is provided.
The required improvements for constructing one-half of
Autumn Rd., and construction of a sidewalk on both Chenal
Parkway and on Autumn Rd. are proposed. The applicant
states that he will pay 1/4 the cost of the needed traffic
signal at the Chenal Parkway -Autumn Rd. intersection.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1035
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped. It has been previously
cleared, and a depressed area in the site has had fill
material placed in it.
The site is zoned C-3, and is part of the tract previously
considered for the Lowe's PCD development. Immediately to
the north and west is R-3 zoned property, with scattered
single-family home sites north of the site along Autumn Rd.
Across Autumn Rd. to the east is a PCD site recently
approved for the Chenal Village shopping center. To the
south, across Chenal Parkway, is the PCD site for the Home
Quarters business. Cater -corner across Chenal Parkway, to
the southeast, is the Pinnacle Point hospital in a C-3 zoned
tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the plan will have to be revised
to eliminate the curb cut on Chenal Parkway, and to
eliminate 1 of the curb cuts on Autumn. Additional right-
of-way must be provided on Autumn Rd. to Master Street Plan
requirements, and to match the proposed improvements on the
east side of Autumn Rd. Prior to the issuance of the
building permit, complete grading and drainage plan must be
provided.
Water Works reports that additional fire hydrants may be
required. These would be installed and paid for by Water
works, but their installation should be coordinated with the
project contractor. Water Works should be contacted
regarding meter size and location.
Wastewater reports that sewer is available on the east side
of Autumn Road. It is the responsibility of the Developer
to assure themselves that this property can be served from
the existing sewer main.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
Landscaping review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers along Chenal Parkway, Autumn Road, and along the
west perimeter are below minimum ordinance requirements.
The northern land use buffer exceeds the Ordinance of 161.
The full buffer requirement along Chenal is 16° (minimum: 10
Pa
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1035
1/21). The full buffer along Autumn Rd. is 13' (minimum:
91). Along the west perimeter of the site, the full buffer
requirement is 15 1/2' (minimum: 10'). Areas provided on
the plan submitted average 5' to 8' in width, with the
exception of a 26' wide section along Autumn Rd. adjacent to
the building.
A minimum of 60% of the land use buffers should remain in
their natural state. The method to be used to protect these
buffers during construction should be defined. A 6' high
opaque screen will be required as part of the land use
buffers. This screen can be a wooden fence with its
structural supports facing inward, or be dense evergreen
plantings.
A total of 6% of the interior vehicular use area must be
landscaped. The building landscape requirement calls for an
average 3' wide landscape strip between the public parking
areas and the building. Curb and gutter or another approved
border will be required to protect landscaped areas from
vehicular traffic.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Ordinance will require 95 parking spaces; 120 are
provided.
Public Works has commented that both the exit onto Chenal
Parkway and one of the drive approaches on Autumn Rd. must
be eliminated. Landscape review commented that there are
deficiencies in meeting the landscaping requirements.
E. ANALYSIS•
The basic layout of the site plan meets the requirements;
however, there are concerns expressed by Public Works and
Landscape review which must be addressed. Staff has not
been provided with revised drawings which address the
concerns.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
applicant satisfactorily addressing the Public Works and
Landscape review comments.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1035
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. David Pickering, the proposed developer, and Mr. Joe White,
the project engineer, were present. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed project and the request. Mr. White reviewed with
the Committee the proposed site plan and the comments contained
in the discussion outline. The Committee asked Mr. White if he
could adjust the plan to comply with the Public Works staff
comments, and Mr. White said that he would meet with the
Engineering staff to work out the problems. The Committee
forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, was present as a
representative of the developer.
Staff outlined the proposal, and indicated that the site plan
proposes one entrance drive onto Chenal Parkway, one service
drive at the north property line onto Autumn Rd., and 2 entrances
to the parking area from Autumn Rd. Staff indicated that the
Public Works staff, in their review of the site plan, had
reported that: 1) the entrance to Chenal Parkway would not be
acceptable; and, 2) that the regulations, passed in January of
1994, limit access points to a commercial development to one
access point to each 300 feet of lot frontage, and that the one
service drive and 2 access points to the parking area would be
limited to the one service drive and one other access point.
Staff reported that the applicant had agreed to eliminate the
access point to Chenal Parkway, but wished to retain the 3 access
points along Autumn Rd. This, staff indicated, would require a
variance from the regulations from the Board of Directors.
Mr, Joe White reiterated that the developer had agreed to
relinquish the access point to Chenal Parkway, but that the one
service drive and 2 access points along Autumn Rd. are vitally
important. Mr. White reported that the developer has agreed to
providing 25% of the cost of the needed traffic signal at the
Autumn Rd.-Chenal Parkway intersections has dedicated right-of-
way along both Chenal Parkway and Autumn Rd., even though the
Board of Directors does not require the dedication al_n_g�__Chenal __
Parkway; will make the required improvements on Autumn Rd.; and,
will be required to construct a large drainage structure on the
property. He said that the developer feels that the 2 access
points to the parking area are vital in order to make the
development of the site viable, and cannot compromise on them.
He cited examples, the new Sonic Drive-in down the street, for
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1035
example, which have much less frontage, yet have 2 driveways. He
said that the Chenal Village across Autumn Rd. has a service
drive, plus 2 entrances, one on Autumn Rd. and one Financial
Center Parkway, yet Chenal Center, with almost as much frontage,
would be limited to one drive access point and the service drive.
He asked that the Commission recommend to the Board of Directors
approval of the 3 access points to Autumn Rd.
Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, responded that one curb cut
for public ingress and egress to the development is ample.
Commissioner Walker said that, the larger the development, the
more traffic flow can be controlled with an internal circulation
system. This development, however, is substantially smaller than
those examples, the Wal-Mart site, for example, where a single
entrance point is provided, and where internal circulations can
be provided. He indicated that he can see that the developer
would be concerned that the corner building would be isolated
without the additional access point to the property.
Mr. Henry said that there would be a problem with vehicle
stacking and access to the site when the Autumn Rd.-Chenal
Parkway signal is installed, and as traffic increases on Autumn
Rd.
Commissioners Woods and Putnam indicated that they could not see
how limiting the access points is beneficial; that all that is
accomplished is stacking vehicles on the site, or causing people
waiting to turn into the site to be stacked on the street waiting
for the traffic to clear.
Mr. Henry responded that limiting access points limits points of
conflict, and is, therefore, safer.
Chairperson Chachere clarified that the site plan needed to be
approved subject to the Board of Directors approval of a variance
of the number of access points on Autumn Rd. A motion was then
made to approve the site plan, with a recommendation to the Board
of Directors for approval of the requested variance for the
3 access points on the Autumn Rd. frontage of the site. The site
plan and recommendation were approved with the vote of S ayes,
1 nay, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
61
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5862
NAME: PRO-LIFE CENTER -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: 1515 S. University Ave.
DEVELOPER:
Rev. Thomas W. Keller
1321 S. Van Buren St.
Little Rock, AR 72204
666-5073
AREA: 0.6 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
ZONING: C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 18
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES:
None
FT. NEW STREET:
Commercial Amusement
PC
The applicant proposes the development of the 0.6 acre site for a
"Pro -Life Center", consisting of a building containing a meeting
room, an office, a racquetball gym, and rest rooms. Parking for
12 vehicles is provided, with access to be taken from Hendrix St.
The off -premises outdoor advertising sign located on the property
is to be removed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is sought for a site
plan to include construction of a single 1,763 square foot
building on the site, with a parking lot for 12 vehicles,
and access to the parking lot to be from Hendrix St.
The site plan review request was mandated by the court order
which rezoned the property to C-3.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped, except for an outdoor
advertising sign which is situated on the property.
University Ave. forms the west boundary of the site; Hendrix
St. lies at the northwest corner of the tract. The east
85 feet of the property is within a federally designated
floodway (or, an area east of a line 100 feet from the
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862
centerline of a 30 foot wide drainage right-of-way). The
floodplain extends to the west an additional 25 feet. To
the south is a commercially developed tract, and is used for
medical offices.
The site is zoned C-3, with C-3 property to the north
(beyond the Hendrix St. cul-de-sac) and south and across
University Ave. To the northeast along Hendrix St. and
directly to the east is R-2 property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the site plan must be revised to
provide access to the site from University, not from
Hendrix. Access to or from Hendrix will not be permitted.
The issue of the parking lot and drainage swale in the
floodway must be addressed. All requirements made under the
building permit response are applicable, including: 1)
dedication of the right-of-way for University Ave. expansion
as required by the Master Street Plan; 2) the submission of
a complete grading plan for the site; 3) elevating all
building improvements located in the floodplain to a minimum
floor elevation of 313.0 feet.
Water Works reports that the Fire Department needs to
evaluate the fire protection for this project. Access off
University and/or an additional fire hydrant may be
required. The applicant needs to contact Water Works for
the meter size and location. An acreage fee of $150 per
acre applies This charge is in addition to the normal
connection fee.
Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that there
will be no adverse effect on the system.
Arkansas Power & Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department commented that the entrance rive ariust�----
have a minimum width of 20 feet.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A
6' high opaque screen is required to screen the site form
pa
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5862
the residential properties to the east and northeast. The
screen may be a wood fence, with its structural supports
facing inward, or be dense evergreen planting. The location
of fencing and plantings must be verified with Public Works
to avoid restricting the flow of stormwater.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Public Works comment concerning the requirement for
dedication of additional right-of-way along University Ave.
will necessitate relocating the building and parking area.
The Master Street Plan designates University Ave. as a
principal arterial. Principal arterials are to have a
110 foot right-of-way. The development of the subject site
will require dedication of right-of-way to provide one-half
of the 110 foot requirement, or 55 feet. Presently, 45 feet
has been dedicated on the east side of the University Ave.
centerline. Therefore, an additional 10 feet dedication is
required. This will move the building line further to the
east, requiring the building and parking lot to be
relocated. With the floodway line (beyond which no
construction can take place or obstructions can be erected)
being located just 25 feet to the west of the present
location of the building, the developable area is even more
restricted. (Note: The creek has been channelized in the
subdivision in which the site is located, and, if requested,
the Corpse of Engineers can amend the F.E.M.A. maps to show
the floodway contained within the channel. The applicant,
then, could have use of more of the property, since the
floodway would not consume nearly 100 feet of the rear of
the property.)
E. ANALYSIS:
The requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for
University Ave., coupled with the fact that the floodway
designation takes 100 feet of the rear of the lot, leaves
very little developable area on the site. Basically, the
25 feet of flood plain area, plus 15 feet between the
floodplain line and the building line is the developable
area. This could be remedied greatly by requesting that the
Corpse of Engineers modify the flood maps to contain the
floodway within the concrete channel along the rear of the
property. This would allow use of a great dead 0—
additional land on the lot. As it now stands, though, it is
doubtful that the amount of parking proposed by the
applicant can be located on the site. Also, the required
opaque screen (fence), which cannot obstruct flood waters
cannot be located in the floodway.
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862
Hendrix St. is a residential street, and access to it from
University Ave. was closed. A cul-de-sac was provided as a
turn -around for the residential traffic in the residential
subdivision, and no access was permitted to University Ave.
The Public Works requirement that parking for the proposed
Pro -Life Center be taken from University Ave. should mean
that access from the site to Hendrix St. should be
restricted. A "no access" easement and, if necessary,
barricades should be provided to assure that traffic does
not take a "short-cut" from the site to Hendrix St.
The site, as presented, will require substantial re -design.
The building and parking will have to be moved further to
the east, and planned improvements (a drainage swale and
required screening) will have to be removed from the
floodway; or, alternatively, the Corpse of Engineers will
have to be requested to re -designate the floodway limits.
Since there are substantial changes which will be needed,
and since staff has reviewed any proposed changes, a
recommendation for approval cannot be made at this time.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of the site plan review, pending
submission of a revised site plan which conforms to the
various requirements for dedication of required right-of-
way; placement of the building, parking, buffers, and
landscaping; and, elimination of structures and obstructions
in the floodway.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
The Reverend Mr. Keller was present. Staff reviewed the plan
with the Committee members. The Public Works staff reviewed with
Rev. Keller the civil engineering requirements noted in the
discussion outline, including the requirement to shift the
parking lot so that no part of it is in the floodway; to shift
the drive so that the access to the parking is from University
Ave., not Hendrix St.; and to eliminate the drainage Swale which
is shown to be cut into the floodway. Staff outlined the
landscaping and buffer re�anement_%,_ end tbe�ubl_ic Tni�rrks staff
cautioned the applicant about placing any fencing or any of the
buffer requirements in the floodway or floodplain. The Committee
clarified with Mr. Keller that he had reviewed and understood the
comments contained in the discussion outline, then forwarded the
application to the Commission for the hearing,
4
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that there are substantive issues to be resolved
regarding placement of the building, the drive, parking,
landscaping, fencing, etc. Rev. Keller, the applicant, has,
staff reported, asked verbally that the item be deferred in order
for him to have additional time to address staff concerns and the
deficiencies noted in the agenda write-up, but had not provided a
written request. Rev. Keller, staff related, was present to make
the request to the Commission.
Rev. Keller, addressing the Planning Commission, stated that he
needed a deferral until the November 29, 1994 hearing in order to
revise his site plan.
The item was included on the consent agenda for deferral, and the
deferral until November 29, 1994 was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position.
5
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -5365-B
NAME: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church
- Amended Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 12400 Interstate 30
OWNER/APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church
by Tom Brock
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests an amendment
to the church's previously approved
conditional use permit to allow for
the placement of four portable
classroom buildings on this R-2
zoned property. The use of the 24
foot by 56 foot buildings is
requested for a period not to
exceed three years or until
permanent facilities are
constructed, whichever comes first.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church is located on the north side of Interstate 30,
across from the Jacuzzi Plant.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church property consists of approximately 165 acres, of
which, only about 26 acres are buildable due to the
remainder of the land being located in the floodplain. Less
than 5 acres are developed. This developed property fronts
directly onto the I-30 frontage road with the remaining 160±
separating the church site from all adjoining property.
The placement of the portable classroom buildings will have
no effect on the surrounding properties. The buildings are
located over 500 feet from the nearest property line.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
No additional driveways
number of parking spaces
standards.
4. Screening and Buffers
or parking spaces are proposed. The
on site currently exceeds ordinance
No additional screening or buffering is required.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5365-B
5. City Engineer Comments
These detention requirements and floodplain requirements
were not satisfied under permits #90078 and 91034.
1. Provide $3,000 In -Lieu for deferred construction of
detention pond.
2. Provide floodway easement as per zoning case Z -5365-A.
These items are 3 years delinquent and should be provided
before proceeding with approval of C.U.P. No additional
requirements.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
In February 1991, the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit allowing for the construction of a
church on this property. Since that time, the church has
experienced growth and needs additional Sunday School
classroom space. The proposed portable buildings would be a
temporary measure to accommodate the needed classrooms until
a permanent structure is built.
Staff is supportive of the request.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of these portable buildings for a
period not to exceed three years or until permanent
facilities are constructed, whichever comes first, subject
to the buildings being placed on the property in compliance
with all applicable building codes. Staff would also
recommend that no permits be issued for the placement of
these buildings until the requirements noted in the City
Engineer Comments are satisfied.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
The applicant was not present. After a brief discussion, the
Committee determined that it was appropriate to require
conformance with the City Engineer Comments prior to issuing a
permit for the placement of the portable buildings on the
property.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5365-B
The Committee determined that there were no other issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Tom Brock, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that a meeting had been held between the applicant, the Public
Works Department, the City Manager's Office and the Planning
Staff. As a result of that meeting, the following agreement had
been reached.
With regard to outstanding detention requirements, it has been
determined that the "in -lieu contribution" of $3,000 will not be
required to be paid prior to approval of the CUP. However, Geyer
Springs Baptist Church agrees to construct such detention as is
necessary to serve the entire development (phase 1 and phase 2)
as a part of phase 2 improvements. It is further understood that
if Geyer Springs Baptist Church does not proceed with phase 2
development within five years (or prior to September 9, 1999) the
Church will satisfy phase 1 detention requirements through
construction of detention facilities for increased stormwater
runoff, or through other means acceptable to the City Engineer.
With regard to outstanding dedication of floodway property to the
City, it has been determined that a floodway easement will be
acceptable to the City, as opposed to dedication. Geyer Springs
Baptist Church will instruct their Engineer of Record to draft
the necessary easement documents describing such easement, in a
form and manner acceptable to the City Engineer, and to complete
such transaction within sixty days of this date (prior to
November 7, 1994).
Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to
compliance with the above agreement. The use of these portable
buildings is to be for a period not to exceed 3 years or until
permanent facilities are constructed, whichever comes first.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z -5828-B
NAME: Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5100 Frazier Pike
OWNER/APPLICANT: Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist
Church by Virgil Dexter Doyne
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a
conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a new 200 seat
sanctuary on this R-2 zoned
property. This will be a revision
of a plan approved by the Planning
Commission on May 17, 1994.
Variances are requested to allow
use of a gravel parking lot for
three years and a reduced rear yard
setback of 11 feet (25 feet
required).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church is located on the south side of Frazier Pike,
just west of Stout Street in the College Station Community.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-2 and AF and is
occupied almost exclusively by smaller single family homes.
There are a few other nonresidential uses in the immediate
vicinity including two other small churches, an elementary
school and a construction company.
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church has existed in the neighborhood
for many years. This proposed addition will not affect the
church's continued compatibility with the neighborhood.
3 -.fin -Site---Dr4 v-es—and—Park i g
The proposed sanctuary will have seating for 200 persons
requiring 50 on-site parking spaces. This is the same
seating capacity as the existing sanctuary. 46 parking
spaces exist on-site presently. Some of these will be lost
when the new building is constructed. The applicant has
proposed adding additional parking on the property directly
south of the building. A variance from the paving
requirement for this new parking lot for a period of three
years is requested.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-B
4. Screening and Buffers
A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the landscape
ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed (82%)
will be required or a waiver by the City Beautiful
Commission obtained. The landscape ordinance requires a
6 foot wide landscape strip separating the on site vehicular
use area from adjacent properties and rights-of-way, 6% of
the interior of the vehicular use area be landscaped and a
3 foot wide building landscape area between the public
parking area and building. In addition to the trees and
shrubs required within landscaped areas, curb and gutter or
another approved border to protect plants from vehicular
traffic will be required. The zoning ordinance calls for a
6 foot high opaque screen of the adjacent residential areas.
5. City Engineer Comments
Provide stormwater detention calculation. Dedicate right-
of-way to 45 feet from centerline on Frazier Pike and
construct half of minor arterial standard street
improvements. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from
centerline on Avant Street and construct half of residential
standard street improvements. According to Ordinance
#16,577, this site can have only one access point or drive
off of Frazier Pike.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a sewer main
extension is required with easements.
7. Analysis
On May 17, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit allowing for the addition of
classroom space to the rear of this existing church. The
church has since decided to construct a new sanctuary and
convert the existing sanctuary into classrooms and a
fellowship hall. The proposed new sanctuary will have the
same seating capacity as the existing sanctuary.
Additional parking will be constructed on the rear portion
of the property. A variance from the paving requirement for
this new parking lot is requested for a period of three
years.
A variance is also requested to allow a reduced rear yard
setback of 11 feet (25 feet required). An unimproved 10
foot alley and a vacant lot are located behind the proposed
new building.
OA
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-B
Staff is supportive of the application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. 50 on-site parking spaces being provided.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinance
3. Compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments
Staff also recommends approval of the requested variances to
allow a reduced rear yard setback of 11 feet and to allow
use of the gravel parking lot for a period of three years.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Austin Porter was present representing the application. Staff
presented the item and noted the landscaping, City Engineer and
Utility Comments outlined above.
Mr. Porter stated he would pass the comments on to Mr. Doyne who
would prepare a response.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, advised the Committee that
the occupants of the adjacent residential properties had
requested that no screening fence be constructed between their
properties and the church property.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded this item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Virgil Dexter Doyne, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
C_ommi-ss-i-0-n—that—a r-ev3-sed-s-ite plan had been subm-i-t— e lei cz -
addressed all staff concerns. Staff reported that letters had
been received from the adjacent residential property owners
requesting that the screening requirement between their property
and the church property be waived. The landscape requirements
will still be in force.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position. The approval included the requested variances to allow
Q
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 Continued FILE NO.: 17-5828-B
a reduced rear yard setback of 11 feet and to allow use of the
gravel parking lot for a period of three years.
4
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5858
NAME:
LOCATION•
Armstead Manufactured Home -
Conditional Use Permit
1114 Apperson Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: James Armstead
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by 60 foot
multisectional manufactured home on
this R-3 zoned lot.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the west side of Apperson Street,
near Adams Field.
2. Compatibility with Neiuhborhood
This property is located at the edge of a small residential
neighborhood adjacent to a large area of industrial uses and
the Adams Field complex. The residential neighborhood is
comprised mainly of small, older single-family residences
with a scattering of non-residential uses and vacant lots.
The proposed multisectional manufactured residence should be
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkiner
The applicant proposes a two -car driveway. The Ordinance
requires one parking space for this single-family dwelling.
4. Screening and Buffers
None required for this application.
5—Ci-t-y—Encr in.ear—C omment s
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5858
7. Analysis
The applicant proposes to place a 28 foot by 60 foot;
multisectional manufactured home on this R-3 zoned lot.
With adherence to the Ordinance established area
regulations/siting standards, the proposed use should be
compatible with the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval, subject to compliance with the
Ordinance established area regulations/siting standards as
follow:
1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen
(14) degrees or greater.
2. Removal of all transport elements.
3. Permanent foundation
4. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
5. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures
6. Underpinning with permanent materials
7. All homes shall be multisectional.
8. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted that the applicant had agreed to comply with all Ordinance
requirements. The Committee determined that there were no other
outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there
were no outstanding issues.
K
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5858
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-5860
NAME•
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Bread of Heaven Church -
Conditional Use Permit
West 41st and Holt Streets (NE
corner)
Bread of Heaven Church by
Damon Hill, Pastor
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a church on this
R-2 zoned property. variances are
requested to allow a reduced rear
yard setback and a reduction in the
number of required on-site parking
spaces.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed church site is located at the northeast corner
of West 41st and Holt Streets, in the John Barrow
neighborhood.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located on the western edge of the John
Barrow neighborhood, a large, predominately single-family
residential neighborhood. Uses in the immediate vicinity
include single-family homes, vacant lots and Kiwanis Park
which is located across Holt Street to the west.
Although there are some design problems with this particular
site plan, the proposed use of the property as a small,
neighborhood church should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed sanctuary will seat 200 persons, requiring 50
on-site parking spaces. The site plan as submitted shows
only 26 spaces, with no room for additional spaces. The
parking lot and driveway design does not comply with
ordinance standards and must be reworked.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. The plan submitted has not provided for the
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5860
7 foot wide northern land use buffer and street buffer
required. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the
north perimeter. 6% of the interior of the vehicular use
must be landscaped.
5. City Engineer Comments
Close the 41st right-of-way. If 41st Street is not
abandoned, the applicant must dedicate right-of-way to
25 feet from centerline and construct half of residential
standard street improvements. Compliance with the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance is required. Dedicate
right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Holt Street and
construct half of residential standard street improvements.
6. Utility Comments
water Works reports an acreage charge of $150 per acre
applies in addition to the normal connection fee.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a church on these three R-2 zoned lots.
The site plan submitted with this application is deficient
in many areas, especially in parking lot design and
landscape/buffer design. This may be the result of an over
ambitious design resulting in overbuilding the property.
Although basically supportive of the proposal to construct a
church on this site, staff feels that the applicant needs to
completely redesign the site plan, perhaps based on a
sanctuary with a seating capacity of 100 rather than 200.
In addition to the concerns noted above, information on such
things as parking lot lighting and signage is needed.
8. Staff Recommendation
Again, staff is basically supportive of the concept of
placing a church in this location but cannot support this
application based on the site plan submitted. Staff would
recommend that the application be deferred to allow time for
the site plan to be scaled down and redrawn.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
The applicant, Damon Hill, was present. Staff presented the item
and noted the many design deficiencies in the site plan. After
discussion, the Committee agreed that the site plan needed
redesigned and a deferral might be in order.
N
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5860
Staff met with Mr. Hill after the meeting and he agreed to scale
down the project and redesign the site plan. Mr. Hill indicated
that he might have the new site plan ready in time to be
considered by the Planning Commission at its September 6, 1994
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Damon Hill, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which
reduces the proposed seating to 100 persons, provides 22 on-site
parking spaces, provides the required landscape and buffer areas,
and addressed all other staff concerns. The applicant will
pursue abandonment of the West 41st Street right-of-way or will
request a waiver of street improvements to West 41st Street.
Staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the City
Engineer and Utility comments and compliance with the City's
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
K
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-5863
NAME:
LOCATION•
Holy Temple Church of God in Christ
- Conditional Use Permit
1322 South Pulaski Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Holy Temple Church of God in Christ
by Raymond Branton
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of this existing church
and the construction of a new
parking lot on this R-3 zoned
property. variances are requested
to allow a reduced rear yard of 11
feet (25 feet required) and a
reduced front yard of 23 feet (25
required). The proposed building
will be approximately 45 feet tall,
with no steeple or bell tower.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on the west side of Pulaski Street,
between West 13th and West 14th Streets.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
A church has existed at this location since the 1920's. The
current building has been in place since 1941.
A large area of single family and duplex zoning extends
north, west and south of the church.
The property adjacent to the west of the proposed church
site is zoned C-3 and occupied by various commercial uses.
An area of commercial zoning extends along West 14th Street,
south of the church site.
Other institutional uses in the area include several other
churches and a YMCA. The Philander Smith College campus is
located four blocks east of this site.
The proposed expansion should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5863
3.
4.
5.
On -Site Drives and Parking
The church currently has a seating capacity of 200 persons
and no on-site parking other than on a small gravel covered
lot next to the building. The proposed new sanctuary will
seat 340 person, requiring 85 parking spaces. Taking the
difference between the proposed seating capacity of the new
sanctuary and the seating capacity of the nonconforming
sanctuary gives 140 seats, requiring 35 on-site parking
spaces. The church proposes to construct a new parking lot
with 34 parking spaces.
Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required to
screen these sites from the adjacent residential uses. 6%
of the interior of the vehicular use area must be
landscaped.
City Engineer Comments
Submit stormwater detention plans,
drainage plans. Construct handicap
corners and reconstruct any damaged
gutters.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
a sketch grading and
ramps at all four
sidewalks, curb and
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a new 340 seat sanctuary and a 34 space
parking lot on this R-3 zoned property. A church has
existed at this site since the 1920's and the current
building was constructed in 1941. The site currently has no
off-street parking other than on a small gravel area next to
the church. The new sanctuary represents an increase in
seating of 140 persons over the existing sanctuary. The
applicant proposes to construct 34 on-site parking spaces
which would accommodate the increased seating capacity.
A church has been a fixture at this location since the
1920's and the proposed expansion will not affect its
continued compatibility with the neighborhood.
The proposed 23 foot front yard setback is no issue and the
impact of the proposed 11 foot rear yard setback will be
reduced by the fact that a 10 foot alley right-of-way is
located to the rear of the property.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5863
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with
the City Engineer Comments. Staff also recommends approval
of the requested setback and height variances.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Reba Johnson-Cargile was present representing the applicant.
Staff presented the item and noted the requested variances. It
was pointed out that the church was currently nonconforming
regarding on-site parking and that the proposed parking lot would
accommodate the increase in seating capacity of the new
sanctuary. A discussion then followed concerning the design of
the parking lot. It was determined that the design of the
parking lot was adequate but that additional interior landscaping
was needed.
The applicant was advised to provide details of any proposed
parking lot lighting and signage.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that a
revised site plan had been submitted which addressed all staff
concerns. No additional signage is proposed.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and
compliance with the City Engineer Comments. The requested
setback and height variances were also approved.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-5865
NAME: Cellular One Tower - Adams Field
Site - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Kellett Road and Cooper Road (SW)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cellular One by John Flake
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 150 foot tall
mono -pole cellular tower on this
R-2 zoned site.
NOTE TO PLANNING COMMISSION:
This application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be withdrawn.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO • Z-5865
NAME•
LOCATION:
Cellular One Tower - Cloverdale
Cell Site - Conditional Use Permit
Loretto Lane (west side)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cellular One by John Flake
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 250 foot tall
cellular tower on this R-2 zoned
property. The ordinance maximum
height for ground mounted towers is
75 feet.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed tower site is located on the west wide of
Loretto Lane, north of Mabelvale Pike.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed tower site is located in a heavily wooded,
undeveloped area.
One single family home is located southeast of this site,
across Loretto Lane.
Hindman Park and the Fourche Creek floodway are located
directly north of this site.
The proposed tower's location in an undeveloped, heavily
wooded area limits its impact on the surrounding properties.
The tower will, however, rise above the property to a height
of 250 feet, making it visible for some distance.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant proposes a_ -grave] --parking ur£ace__around—the - --
base of the tower. No on site parking is required, only a
place for a service technician to access the site.
4. Screening and Buffers
No residential uses are adjacent to this site. No
additional screening or buffers are required.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5865
The barbed wire extensions mounted on top of the chain link
fence must not extend beyond the vertical plan of the fence
or the fence must be moved back further within the property
lines.
5. City Enaineer Comments
This property is located in the floodplain. Contact the
Public Works Department regarding construction in this area.
A development permit for special flood hazard areas may be
required.
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Loretto
Lane.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a 250 foot tall tower on this R-2 zoned
site.
The proposed tower site is located in an undeveloped,
heavily wooded area, adjacent to the Fourche Creek floodway
and Hindman Park.
The tower will have a minimal impact on adjacent properties
but will have a visual impact for some distance around the
site due to its height.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
2. All guide wires being located within the boundary of
the tower site.
3. The barbed wire extensions mounted on top of the chain
link fence not extending beyond the vertical plan of
the fence or the fence being moved back further within
the site property lines.
Pa
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5865
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. A
brief discussion then followed, after which the Committee
determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the
item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, John Flake, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that the applicant had responded to all staff concerns. The
tower is self-supporting and will have no guy wires. The barbed
wire extensions on top of the perimeter fence will not extend
beyond the vertical plane of the fence.
In response to a question by Commissioner Wyrick, Mr. Flake gave
a brief description of the proposed tower.
A discussion then followed concerning the land uses in the
immediate vicinity.
The question was called and a vote was taken. The item was
approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 8 ayes, 1 noe,
1 absent and 1 open position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-5867
NAME•
LOCATION•
Cox Manufactured Home - Conditional
Use Permit
8101 Mabelvale Cutoff
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roy and Marie Cox by
Maribeth Crawley
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by 54 foot
multisectional manufactured home
on this R-2 zoned lot.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on the south side of Mabelvale Cutoff,
one lot east of Legion Hut Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a predominately single family
residential area. The single family homes range from
several single -wide mobile homes to large homes on rural
tracts of land.
A newer multisectional home is located on the lot directly
east of this site.
With adherence to the ordinance established siting
standards, this proposed home should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
One parking space is required. The applicant proposes to
construct a two -car concrete driveway, taking access off of
Mabelvale Cutoff.
4. Screening and Buffers
None required for this application.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 20 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5867
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the
placement of a 28 foot by 54 foot, multisectional
manufactured home on this R-2 zoned lot.
With adherence to the Ordinance siting standards, the
proposed home will be compatible with the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
ordinance established area regulations/siting standards as
follow:
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen
(14) degrees or greater.
b. Removal of all transport elements.
C. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
presented the item. The Committee determined there were no
outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final resolution.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5867
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Maribeth Crawley was present representing the applicant. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open
position.
7
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-5868
NAME•
Archild Center for Children -
Conditional Use Permit and Tyler
Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
LOCATION: 5309, 5313, 5317, 5323, 5401 and
5405 West 10th Street. Archild is
currently located in several
buildings on the north side of West
10th Street from 5300 to 5312 West
10th Street.
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Archild, Inc. by Dolly Moseley, Ph.D.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of the existing day-care
center located in the 5300 Block of
West 10th Street. The applicant
requests the use of several small,
R-3 zoned, residential structures
on the south side of West 10th
Street, in the 5300 and 5400 Block,
on a temporary basis until a new,
permanent building is constructed.
The abandonment of a portion of the
undeveloped Tyler Street right-of-
way is also proposed.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The existing day care center and the structures proposed for
the expansion are located in the 5300 and 5400 Block of West
10th Street, to the east of Fair Park Blvd.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Archild has been in operation since 1971. The existing
facility is compatible with the neighborhood which contains
uses ranging from single-family homes to convenience stores
and a hotel. It is questionable as to whether the proposed
expansion into these several buildings on the south side of
West 10th Street would be compatible. An expansion of this
magnitude, scattered along two blocks of West 10th Street,
would have an impact far greater than the current day care
now does.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 21 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5868
The abandonment of Tyler Street, which is platted but has
never been improved, would have no impact on the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing facility currently has several parking areas
which do not comply with ordinance standards. The area of
the Tyler Street right-of-way is also used as a gravel
parking lot. No additional parking areas are proposed with
this application. The incorporation of six additional
buildings into the day care center requires the construction
of adequate parking and areas for drop-off/pickup.
4. Screening and Buffers
Any new use areas such as playground and parking must comply
with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
5. City Engineer Comments
Dedicate 5 feet additional right-of-way on West 10th Street.
Approval of the Tyler Street abandonment is recommended.
6. Utility Comments
Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 10 foot easement
along the southern perimeter of the properties south of West
10th Street.
7. Analysis
The applicant proposes to expand the day care center from
the existing facility on the north side of West 10th Street
into several residential structures located along the south
side of the 5300 and 5400 Block of the street.
The applicant indicates this is only a temporary situation
until such time as a new permanent facility is constructed
on property north of West 10th Street.
Even thouah_the _r)roposed use of these several structures-
temporary, staff feels that the issue is more complex and
involved than a typical conditional use permit. Issues such
as parking, drop-off/pickup spaces, circulation and the
question of expanding this use into this many structures
scattered along two blocks need to be addressed.
Staff feels that the scope of this application exceeds the
intent of the conditional use permit process.
K
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 21 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5.86.8
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that this application be withdrawn and
refiled as a planned unit development with a complete
redesign of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Dr. Mosely was present. Staff presented the item and voiced
concern about the scope of the proposal and the complexity of
involving this many properties without a better, overall site
plan.
Dr. Mosely stated that the use was temporary. She stated that
the increased enrollment at the center created an immediate need
for some temporary relief. Dr. Mosely continued by stating that
60% of the funding for the new, permanent building was complete.
After a lengthy discussion, Dr. Mosely was asked if she could
scale down her proposal to include only two of the buildings on
the south side of the street for a period of up to five years.
Dr. Mosely responded that she would accept whatever relief the
Commission could give her. She stated that she would amend her
application to include only 5401 and 5405 West 10th Street for a
period of 5 years or until the new building is complete,
whichever comes first.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Dr. Mosely, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that Dr. Mosely had
responded to suggestions raised at the Subdivision Committee
meeting by amending her application to include only 5317 and 5401
West 10th Street for a period of 5 years, or until the new
building is complete, whichever comes first. The new building
will require additional review and approval from the Planning
Commission. Staff stated that the Tyler Street abandonment had
been pulled and will be refiled by the applicant.
Staff recommended approval of the amended application.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as amended.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-5869
NAME: Coulson Oil - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: Chenal Parkway and West Markham
Street (SE)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Diocese of Little
Rock/Coulson Oil Company by
Robert Brown
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of an automatic car
wash associated with a commercial
development to be located on this
C-3 zoned 1.75± acre site.
This item is associated with Item
No. 2, Ashley -Hankins Subdivision
Preliminary Plat (S -1004-A).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed site is located at the southeast corner of
Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street.
2. Comnatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a commercial node at the
intersection of Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street, and
is part of a proposed commercial subdivision. All adjoining
property is zoned C-3 and is currently vacant.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The_pro�Qs_�d c_ar wssh_is�,�so�iated with a ccn�pn;QnCe stare
with gas pumps that is part of a small strip shopping center
proposed for this site.
The site plan proposes 45 on-site parking spaces plus
stacking space for 12 vehicles at the pump islands. The
proposed parking exceeds ordinance requirements.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5869
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5. Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design Overlay District
Compliance with the site design and development standards is
required as follows:
1. Signage -- Signage shall comply with the Little Rock
Sign Ordinance, except for ground mounted signs. The
maximum size of principal site signs along
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway shall be one hundred
(100) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height.
Each landowner will be permitted to erect one (1) sign
per parcel, except for parcels fronting on two
different streets upon which one (1) sign per street
frontage may be erected. The signs will be "monument"
type signs.
2. Lighting and Utilities -- Parking lot lighting shall be
designed and located in such a manner so as not to
disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor.
Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not
reflected to adjacent parcels. All lighting and other
utilities on lots adjacent to Chenal/Financial Center
Parkway which are located in front of the rear line of
the building, or in front of the rear line of the
building if such lighting and utilities were
constructed prior to building construction, shall be
underground. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation,
no overhead utilities shall be constructed within one
hundred (100) feet of the Chenal/Financial Center
Parkway right-of-way.
The proposed ground -mounted sign fronting on West Markham
Street does not comply with these standards. A variance
from the standards can only be granted by the Board of
Directors.
A complete grading and drainage plan along with P.E. plans
detailing routing of stormwater runoff to include stormwater
detention will be required prior to issuance of building
permits. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers shall be notified
prior to completion of the grading and drainage plans.
0►1
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5869
Interior drives lying parallel to and less than seventy-five
feet from a public street curb line shall not cross an
access driveway, so as to create a four-way intersection
(note driveway at northeast corner). The driveway will not
be permitted to continue across the access driveway to
intersect with the lot to the east.
7. Utility Comments
Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along
the east perimeter.
20 -inch water main crossing this property will need to be
protected. Contact the Water Works for approval of any
construction in the area of this main. No domestic service
will be available directly off the 20 -inch water main. The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to review the plans for
this area to determine the need for additional public and/or
private fire hydrants.
8. Analysis
The applicant proposes to construct an automatic car wash as
part of a proposed commercial development containing a
convenience store with gas pumps. The other uses proposed
for the site are permitted by -right in the C-3 zoning
classification but the car wash requires a conditional use
permit.
The lot is part of a commercial subdivision proposed for
development at the corner of Chenal Parkway and West Markham
Street.
The proposed use is compatible with the C-3 zoned,
commercial subdivision proposed for development at this
corner.
9. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Compliance with the site design and development
standards of the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design
Overlay District
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinance
3. Compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5869
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Robert Brown was present. Staff presented the item and noted the
comments outlined above.
Mr. Brown stated that it was his intent to request a variance
from the Board of Directors regarding the ground -mounted sign
which exceeds the overlay standards.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, stated that the proposed
landscaping areas exceeded the ordinance minimums.
After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there
were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the
full commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Robert Brown, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues other than the
one ground -mounted sign on the Markham Street frontage. The
applicant will go to the Board of Directors to request approval
of this sign which exceeds the Chenal Overlay Standards.
In response to a question from Commissioner Oleson, Mr. Brown
described the car wash location in relation to adjoining
properties. He also described the proposed signage for the site.
Mr. Brown stated that the sign on the Chenal Parkway frontage
will comply with the overlay standards. He continued by stating
that the second ground -mounted sign is more than 300 feet from
the Chenal Parkway right-of-way and that he will ask the Board of
Directors to approve this second sign.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the C.U.P.
application as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 open position.
A separate vote was taken on a recommendation to the Board of
Directors concerning the ground -mounted sign which exceeds the
position. The motion to recommend approval failed.
rN
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: Z-5871
NAME:
LOCATION•
Safelite Auto Glass - Conditional
Use Permit
1306 South University Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT: B -B Oil Company/Bob Thomas, Embree
Construction Group, Inc.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a retail auto glass
sales and installation business
with an attached warehouse on this
C-3 zoned property.
A variance is requested to allow a
portion of the proposed building to
have a reduced rear yard setback of
15 feet; a setback of 25 feet is
required.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the west side of South University
Avenue, 1 block south of West 12th Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed site is located in an area of commercial and
office zoning which extends along both sides of South
University Avenue. Uses in the immediate vicinity include
strip shopping centers, auto repair facilities, a church and
a large area of vacant office property. The proposed auto
glass business is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed use requires 21 on-site parking spaces. The
site plan shows 22 spaces plus two service bay spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
The dumpster must be enclosed with an 8 foot tall opaque
screen. 60 of the interior of the vehicular use area must
be set aside for landscaping.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5871
5. City Engineer Comments
Provide dedication deed for additional right-of-way to total
55 feet from centerline along with a sketch grading and
drainage plan prior to approval. A stormwater detention
plan and an excavation permit will be required prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of an auto glass sales and installation
business with an attached warehouse on this C-3 zoned
property.
The auto glass business is compatible with other uses in the
area and is appropriate for this location along a principal
arterial street.
The requested rear yard setback is reasonable considering
the shallow depth of the lot. There will be no activity at
the rear of the building and no exits other than an
emergency exit if required by Building Codes.
There are currently two off -premise billboard signs located
on the south end of the property. The applicant must decide
the status of these signs and reflect it on the site plan.
The only real issue of concern which has risen during the
review of this application is the proposed warehouse area.
79% of the building is proposed to be warehouse space. If
the warehouse is to stock materials for this specific site,
the use is allowed. If it is the applicant's intent to use
the warehouse as a distribution point to supply other
dealers, the use is not allowed. Subsequent conversations
with the applicant have indicated that the warehouse will
stock only the large numbers of windshields and sunroofs
necessary for this site. He did r�taeha an Q�CasiQnal
windshield may be wholesaled to another dealer.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
V,
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5871
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. The warehouse portion of the building being used to
stock those retail items necessary for the auto glass
business at this location. The warehouse is not to be
used to distribute or wholesale items to other dealers
or to other Safelite locations.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Bob Thomas and Mark Carl of Safelite were present. Staff
presented the item and outlined the concerns noted above.
A lengthy discussion followed concerning the warehouse portion of
the building. It was never fully resolved at this meeting as to
just exactly how the warehouse would be used.
A discussion then followed concerning the requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way. It was determined that as much as 15
feet of additional right-of-way might be needed. If this is the
case, a portion of the building will have a rear yard setback of
0 feet.
The applicant stated that the issue of the off -premise billboards
will be resolved prior to the Commission meeting.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, informed the Committee that
the interior landscaping was deficient and that the screening
around the dumpster needed to be increased to 8 feet in height.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Bob Thomas and Mark Carl were present representing Safelite.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval as noted above. Staff pointed out
that a setback variance of 0 feet on a portion of the rear yard
additional right-of-way for University Avenue. Staff felt that
the variance request was reasonable considering the resulting
shallow depth of the lot and the use of the property to the rear
of the proposed Safelite site.
Bob Thomas addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed
use of the site was retail with a limited amount of wholesale to
3
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z-5871
other dealers. He stated that this use was no different than
other retail uses which occasionally sell to other dealers such
as a tire or auto parts store. Mr. Thomas informed the
Commission that the billboards are to remain although one will be
in the right-of-way once the additional 15 feet is dedicated. He
concluded by stating that a revised site plan had been submitted
which provided the required interior landscaping and dumpster
screen.
Mark Clark, real estate manager for Safelite, next addressed the
Commission. He expounded on the use of the warehouse area of the
proposed building. He stated that each Safelite store stocks a
large inventory to service its customers and that the nature of
the inventory, windshields, requires a large floor space.
Mr. Clark stated that Safelite will occasionally provide
windshields to subcontractors and other dealers. These sales are
in increments of 1 or 2 and the warehouse is not to serve a
wholesale function.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that the proposed use
of the property was appropriate. The occasional sale of a
windshield to another installer did not violate the intent of the
ordinance since the use of site is primarily retail.
In response to a question from Commissioner Oleson, Steve Giles,
of the City Attorney's Office, stated that the billboard could
remain in the new right-of-way until such time as it was altered
or University Avenue is widened. In either case the billboard
will need to be moved.
A motion was made to approve the application. The vote was
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstaining (Putnam) and 1 open
position.
4
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: Z-5872
NAME:
LOCATION•
Pankey Community Park - Conditional
Use Permit
Russ and Piggee Streets (NW & NE)
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock Department of
Parks and Recreation
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
development of a neighborhood
park on this R-2 zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed park is to be located at the intersection of
Russ and Piggee Streets, in the Pankey Community.
2. _Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed park is located in a predominately single-
family residential neighborhood.
The park is designed as a community park, to serve just the
residents of the immediate neighborhood.
The park will be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
No on-site parking is proposed. The park is designed to
serve those residents of the Pankey Community who live
within walking distance of the site.
4. Screening and Buffers
None required.
5i, City Engineer Comments
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on both
Russ and Piggee Streets. Construct half of residential
street standard improvements to both streets where abutting
proposed park development.
This property is located in the floodplain.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5872
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a 15 inch sewer
outfall is located in the vicinity. Contact Wastewater
prior to construction.
7. Analysis
This proposed park is the culmination of year-long meetings
with the City of Little Rock, the Pankey Community residents
and the Donaghey Project for Urban Studies and Design. It
was the wishes of the Pankey community to have a park within
walking distance of the neighborhood. This park is designed
primarily as an open, free play area with basketball court,
playground and picnic area. No on-site parking is proposed
since the park is designed for residents of the Pankey
Community to walk to it.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City Engineer and Utility comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mark Webre was present representing the City Parks and Recreation
Department. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer
and Utility Comments outlined above.
Mr. Webre advised the Committee that it was the applicant's
intention to ask the Board of Directors for a waiver of the
required street improvements.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The applicant, Mark Webre, was present. There were no objectors
that there were no outstanding issues. The applicant will go to
the Board of Directors to request a waiver of street improvement
requirements.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved with a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: G-23-217
Name: Park Street and West 26th Street
Right -of -Way Abandonment
Location: Adjacent to the Arkansas Livestock
Showgrounds
Owner/Applicant: Arkansas Livestock Show Association
Recruest: To abandon that portion of the Park
Street right-of-way from Roosevelt
Road to West 26th Street and that
portion of West 26th Street right-
of-way extending 1 1/2 Blocks west
of Schiller Street.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for These Rights-of-Wav
There is no public need for these rights-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for these
rights-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adlacent Streets
There is no need for additional right-of-way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Both of the streets are asphalt paved with curb and gutter.
All adjoining land is either vacant or occupied by the
livestock showgrounds.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the right-of-way will be fenced off and
inc,luded i n—the—pa-r-k i-ng�--l-ats--f-o-r t -he- f a3 r-gx-ound s
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
All adjacent property is vacant and used by the fairgrounds
for parking. The residents of the nearest neighborhood use
Schiller Street and other streets further east to access
Roosevelt Road. These two rights-of-way are primarily used
only by persons going and coming from the fairgrounds.
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-217
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced, as of this
writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All area of the abandoned rights-of-way is to be retained as
a utility and drainage easement. Access to the property can
be gained through gates.
There are public fire hydrants at the northwest corner of
Schiller and 26th and at the southeast corner of Park and
Roosevelt. These must remain outside of the fenced parking
lots or relocated to an area outside of the fence at the
applicant's expense.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the Arkansas Livestock
Show Association.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
These two rights-of-way are primarily used as access to the
fairgrounds and to the parking lots on the adjacent
property. Abandoning the rights-of-way will allow the
fairgrounds to fence off the lots and control access through
gates thus providing additional, secured parking for persons
attending fairground activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the area of the abandoned rights-of-way
being retained as utility/drainage easements. The fire hydrants
at Schiller and 26th and at Roosevelt and Park are to remain
outside of the fenced parking lots or relocated at the
applicant's expense.
SUBD-Iu2-S-I-OIC-COMMI-T-T-EE-COMMENT: rAUGU5T-1-8-,1-9-9-4)
Gloria Chappelle was present representing the Arkansas Livestock
Show Association. Staff presented the item and noted the Utility
Comments.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
2
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-217
The applicant, Gloria Chappelle, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was recommended for
approval with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
3
September 6, 1994
ITEM NO.: 26 Z-5870
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Oliver Estate, Harold Thompson,
Executor
Harold Thompson
End of Geyer Springs Road
Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Vehicle Storage
0.79 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned C-3
South - Single -Family, zoned R-2
East - Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Commercial, zoned I-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located at the northern end of
Geyer Springs Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of West
53rd Street and 250 feet east of South University. The
request is to rezone the site from R-2 to C-4. At this
time, the planned use is the storage of used automobiles.
(The property is part of a proposed three lot plat, Item No.
4 on this agenda.)
Zoning in the area is R-2, R-5, 0-1, C-1, C-3, C-4 and I-2.
The site under consideration abuts R-2 on two sides and
nonresidential zoning, C-3 and I-2, on the west and north
sides. In the immediate vicinity, the commercial and
industrial zoning is limited to properties that front on
South University. North of West 53rd and to the east of the
property, the zoning is primarily residential. Land use is
similar to thezori �-g—pattern anti incl tidesgi n_le family,
multi -family, commercial, a church and an elementary school.
The commercial uses found along South University range from
retail establishments to outdoor amusement, a golf driving
range. East of the property there is an established single
family neighborhood and the uses along this portion of Geyer
Springs are residential.
The adopted plan, 65th Street East, reinforces the existing
zoning pattern and shows the site for continued single
family use. Therefore, the proposed C-4 rezoning is in
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 26 Z-5870 (Cont.)
conflict with the land use plan. In addition to the plan
issue, the property is not a viable C-4 location. The land
is somewhat removed from South University and the ordinance
mentions that appropriate locations for C-4 are along
heavily traveled major traffic arterials. Another issue is
the property's relationship to the single family
neighborhood and the possibility of a C-4 reclassification
having an adverse impact on the existing residences. A C-4
rezoning of this site is inappropriate for the stated
reasons and should not be endorsed by the City.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The project site is located within the 65th Street East
Planning District and is designated as Single Family
Residential (SF) on the land use plan. The proposal for C-4
zoning is not consistent with the plan. Further analysis of
the area indicates that amending the plan would adversely
affect the surrounding single family properties.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-4 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
The application was represented by Roy May and Charlie
Miller, the engineer for Mr. May. There were two objectors
in attendance. (Four individual objectors had filled out
registration cards, but two left before the Commission heard
this item.)
Roy May dismissed the request and said he plans to use the
property for vehicle storage. Mr. May told the Commission
thai he owars--the--C-4tract—t-a-- yes rha i�for used car --
sales and he would like to extend the use onto the site in
question. Mr. May said the lot was not a desirable single
family location and C-4 was a reasonable option.
Charlie Miller addressed the Commission and described the
property and some of the surrounding land uses.
0
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 26 Z-5870 (Cont.)
Mitchell Black, a nearby resident, spoke against the
rezoning and said it would cause problems for the
neighborhood. Mr. Black said that several other residents
were present, but they had to leave. Mr. Black said the
proposed car storage was not a desirable use for the
neighborhood.
There was a long discussion about various aspects of the
request.
Roy May made some additional comments and then requested a
vote on the C-4 rezoning.
The Planning Commission then voted on the C-4 request. The
vote was 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The
C-4 rezoning was denied.
3
•
N \ Q. \ \ N. N. \ a
'bVAN19S • • 8 Q
NI-
N • • ®• Q • • • % • • I.6
rn
t. \ \ \ Q -�. • \, 'N \ \
<
(/" 'i. r v V \ "v i. \ �. 0)
\\I C
V SI. 'N 'N \ 'Q 'N \ N N N. '�. a.)
IF11�
N t \ • N. • \ \ - N. i
c) \ \ N. \ N. N. N. N. \
",A
._ L \ 'N N 'N \ N \ \
® N N \ - N. \ \ N. N ` N.
®• \ N... N. N.
WN \ - i -, \ - N. \ N \ Z
Q
W \nn N. N N. N.. N 'N N \ N \ O CO
kA
0 \* -N. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -N <0
_ _N \ \ \ '\ N. N \ \ N N 111
Mc
G L d0 -, N. N. 'N ' \ \ N N
O Z h ` \ \ N \ \ L N. N. N
�--. Z O M1 N N \ \ i N. i N. CO
CO
Z 0 �� � r' \ , Y \ -.. N N ¢
QM N N. - N 44 N. N. N. NN.
M 'd M M d'
al-liN_ _ N N ;.; N W
j��J >-
� - Z z o z Z
LU ZLU
=O ( Z
Q ¢ = J ¢ =I -
W pwO F=- JZ < I-- ti, WO wZ <
up 1...0 J Y m m O = m Z C!) LL! Y CO = m
cW ac QmcLww m ccw
111 = ¢ W w Z Y O CC ¢ w Z Y O CL w
•
W CC = C!) Z O U_ < p - W CC = u5- ..±: 0 < p 7 W ?-
m _j U J ¢ C!) Z �\j Y W J U J ¢ CO - Z NJ Q
w J ¢ J p W O __J
J ¢ J w w J
mQ CD � CO � 2 � a � LU NMOSacw0Oco
September 6, 1994
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
/O%V/
Date
, ,
Aiiiigill
Chairman pr
-acre off,
i