pc_05 17 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MAY 17, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
Ii. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the April 5, 1994 meeting were approved
as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Chachere
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Putnam
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
Ron Woods
B. J. Wyrick
Emmett Willis (arrived after
the roll call)
Ramsay Ball
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
MAY 17, 1994
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-5805 11,820 Chicot Road R-2 to I-2
B. Z-5810 South Shackleford Road R-2 to I-2
C. The Washing well Short -form PCD (Z -5106-A)
D. Enderlin Mini -storage Short -form PCD
(Z -5550-A)
E. Parker Cadillac Body Shop Short -form PCD
(Z -3606-A)
F. Walgreen s Site Plan Review - located at
West 12th and Fair Park Blvd. (Z -2970-C)
II. REZONING ITEMS
1.
Z -1730-B
201 West Roosevelt Road
C-3
to C-4
2.
Z -3121-B
5809 Asher Avenue
C-3
to I-2
3.
Z -4343-G
6500 Patrick Country Road
R-2
and MF -12
to
MF -18
4.
Z-5826
1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford Drive
R-2
to R-5
5.
Z-5827
Frazier Pike
R-2
to I-2
6.
Z-5828
Frazier Pike and Stout Street
AF
to R-2
III. OTHER MATTER
7. Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church C.U.P. - Located at 5100 Frazier
Pike (Z -5828-A)
8. Word of Outreach Staff Housing C.U.P. - Located at
2517 Brown Street (Z-5829)
Little Rock Planning Commission
Agenda Items (Continued)
May 17, 1994
9. Wal-Mart Revised Site Plan - Located at Chenal Parkway and
Bowman Road (S -964-A)
10. Ibsen Imports Amended Short -form PCD - Located at
3021 Cantrell Road (Z -4973-B)
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5805
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ronnie Wells
Bill McClard
11,820 Chicot Road
Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Industrial
4.24 acres
Vacant and Office Warehouse
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family and Vacant Building, zoned R-2
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Vacant, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request
is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a
portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied
by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site
and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has 85
feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately 755
feet.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The
property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and
residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land
use is almost exclusively residential, either single family
or a large mobile home park. There are two minor non-
residential uses found along Chicot and both are
nonconforming. One is an industrial operation and the other
is a small commercial user.
What is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is
inappropriate for the location. The industrial
reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an
undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is
granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot
zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage,
and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding
residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will
be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the
residential character of the area will be strengthened by
denying the requested industrial rezoning.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: A Z-5805 (Cont.)
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The
recommended land use is single family. With the existing
surrounding use pattern, there is no justification to change
the plan to industrial.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from
the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is
needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 5, 1994)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the
hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was
placed on the Consent Agenda.
The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the
May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement
for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior
to the meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, Bill McClard, was present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. McClard spoke and requested a
deferral because the owner had a death in the family and was
unable to attend hearing. The interested property owner did
not object to deferring the item.
A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the
June 20, 1994 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Commission also waived
the bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.)
N
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5810
Owner: Davis Investment Trust
Applicant: Atley G. Davis
Location: South Shackleford Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Purpose: Industrial
Size: 30.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2, I-1 and OS
South - Vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-2 and I-1
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone a 30 acre
site from R-2 to I-2. At this time, no specific use or user
has been identified by the applicant. The property is
situated on South Shackleford, about midway between Colonel
Glenn Road and Stagecoach Road (Hwy. No. 5). The acreage
has almost 1,000 feet of frontage on Shackleford and a depth
of 1,315 feet. The property is vacant and wooded.
Zoning in the general vicinity is either R-2 or I-1. There
is also some OS zoning adjacent to several of the industrial
tracts. The property in question abuts R-2 and I-1 zoning.
Directly to the west, across South Shackleford, the zoning
is also R-2 and I-1. Land use is single family, some minor
industrial and the Waterworks/Waste water maintenance
facility. A high percentage of the land is still
undeveloped, including the area to the south and a large
tract to the northwest.
The current West 65th Street Plan does not show the 30 acres
for industrial use; the land use plan identifies the site as
part of a multi -family area. The plan reinforces the
existing zoning and shows the industrial area stopping along
the north property line and follows the zoning lines on the
west side of Shackleford. At this time, staff's position is
that adequate justification for an additional 30 acres of
industrial zoning has not been provided and the land use
plan should be maintained. Expanding the industrial zoning
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5810 (Cont.)
could also have an adverse on the single family subdivision
to the east and north.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the 65th Street West District. The plan
recommends multifamily use. Staff cannot, at this time,
recommend such a major change in the plan. If the
Commission wishes Planning Staff will conduct a review of
the larger area. Any such review should be allowed three to
six months.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The right-of-way standard for South Shackleford is 45 feet
from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way
will be required because the existing right-of-way is
deficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994)
The applicant, Atley Davis, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Davis discussed his request and described
the area. After some additional comments, Mr. Davis said
that he would be willing to consider I-1 and an OS buffer.
Staff suggested a 100 foot OS area adjacent to the existing
R-2 on the north and east sides. Mr. Davis then amended the
request to I-1 and OS.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended
application to I-1 with a 100 foot OS area on the north and
east sides (only adjacent to R-2). The vote was 5 ayes,
3 nays and 3 absent. The item was deferred to the
May 17, 1994 meeting because the motion failed to receive a
majority vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The rezoning request was represented by Jim Van Hook. There
were no objectors in attendance. Staff reminded the
Commission that the application was amended from I-2 to I-1
and OS at the April 5, 1994 hearing.
E
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: B Z-5810 (Cont.)
Jim Van Hook discussed the request and reviewed a handout.
Mr. Van Hook said there is a real need for small lot
industrial development and the rezoning would provide the
needed land area. He then presented a PAGIS land use map
and described the area. Mr. Van Hook also showed the 65th
Street West plan and said the site is identified for
multifamily use. He went on to say that multifamily
development is unrealistic and a quality business park is
the highest and best use of the property.
Staff offered some comments and there was discussion about
various issues.
Jim Van Hook spoke again and reinforced his previous
statements about the need for office -warehouse and service
oriented sites. Mr. Van Hook made some additional comments
and asked for the Commission's support.
The question was called on the amended request to I-1 and OS
(100 feet along a portion of the north side and the entire
east boundary). The Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of the I-1 and OS. The vote was 8 ayes, 2 nays and
1 absent.
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
NAME: THE WASHING WELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.4
miles west of Sam Peck Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ASCOMB ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., ATTORNEY
1619 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
378-7720
AREA: 0.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD in order to utilize an existing
commercial building at the proposed location as a laundromat.
The 0.3 acre site contains a 2800 square foot building, and the
site is not currently being utilized. The applicant proposes to
remodel the building and pave a parking area at the front of the
building to provide 8 parking spaces.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a PCD in order for the
applicant to utilize an existing commercial building
situated on a lot which is currently zoned R-2 for a
laundromat. The applicant proposes to remodel the building
and to provide paved parking at the front of the building to
accommodate 8 vehicles.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing building is a vacant, deteriorated building
located on a lot in the Pankey community. There are, as
indicated on the survey, encroachments by neighboring
buildings on the lots which the applicant plans to develop.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning
exclusively on all other properties in the area. There is
an illegal non -conforming use in the residential structure
immediately to the west.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require
dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be
required, as will construction of a sidewalk along the
Highway 10 frontage of the site.
Water Works and Wastewater have no objections to the
proposal.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide
easement at the perimeter of the lot.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. approved the submittal without comment.
Landscape review indicates that an opaque 6 foot high screen
is required to screen the proposed use from the residential
property to the south, east, and west. This screen can be a
"good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings.
The landscape strip width west of the proposed parking lot
must be increased to 6 feet.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The submittal is seriously deficient: there was no project
narrative submitted; the survey is inadequate; no landscape
plan was submitted; no Bill of Assurance was furnished; etc.
There has been no contact with the applicant since January
when the file was "dropped off", with no personal meeting,
and a telephone call a few weeks later to confirm that the
file had been received. There has been no confirmation that
the required notification, either by the placing of the sign
or the mailing of certified letters, has taken place.
At a previous Commission hearing, when an identical problem
in the Pankey area surfaced regarding encroachments across
property lines, it was determined that such encroachments
are civil matters between property owners, and are not
within the scope of concern of the Planning Commission.
The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the River
Mountain Planning District. The Plan recommends single
family uses for the Pankey area. There have been no changes
to warrant an amendment to the plan to allow for commercial
land uses in Pankey.
0
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed land use, according to the Land Use Plan, is
inappropriate to the area. The submittal is deficient.
There has been no verification that the required
notification has been accomplished.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994)
No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed
with the Committee the comments made in the discussion outline
and presented the request. The Committee forwarded the request
to the Commission for the review of the deficiencies noted and
for action on the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994)
Staff presented the item, and related that the notice
requirements had been met by the applicant.
Mr. Willard Proctor, an attorney representing the applicant,
outlined the request, and explained that the current proposal is
an identical one to a request made to the Commission
approximately 2 years earlier. At that time, he said, the
Commission had recommended approval of the request to the Board
of Directors, but the Board of Directors had denied the rezoning
request.
Mr. Proctor related that during the 2 -year interim, he and the
applicant's representative, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, had been
working with the neighborhood to gain the neighborhood's approval
of their proposal, and that he felt there is now a consensus of
the neighborhood to allow the commercial use of the applicant's
property for the Washing Well laundromat.
Mr. Proctor continued, saying that fairly recently, the City had
allowed a non-residential use of the property in the abutting
property to the west: a neighborhood alert center. He
complained that the applicant had been waiting and waiting for
approval of the non-residential use of their property, but that
others had come in and were getting approval for non-residential
uses which are not that dissimilar to the type uses the applicant
had been pursuing.
Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant's building was designed
and used as a commercial building from the beginning; that it was
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
never a residential structure; that it had originally been a
nightclub until it was heavily damaged by a fire; that it was
sitting vacant and was deteriorating, and was an eyesore to the
neighborhood; that the building was a non -conforming building
which had lost its legal non -conforming status due to it being
vacant after the fire; that the applicant had put a new roof on
the building a few years back in order to keep the building from
deteriorating further; but, that the applicant wished to continue
the repairs in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the
neighborhood and put the building,to a commercial use. The
required right-of-way will be dedicated, Mr. Proctor said, and
the AP&L easement will be granted. The Landscape Ordinance
requirements will be complied with.
Mr. Proctor went on to say that the real issue is apparently the
land use issue; that this issue has been the "sticky" point all
along. He explained that there has always been one person who
has said that she spoke "on behalf of the neighborhood" who has
said that the neighborhood does not want the proposed use for the
building. On the contrary, he said, when the applicant talks to
people in the neighborhood, the applicant is told by the
neighbors that they are in favor of the proposal; that, in fact,
many say they would use the laundromat if it were allowed. There
is not, he related, a laundromat anywhere in the neighborhood.
Since the individual who had spoken in opposition to the non-
residential use of the property is the same person who had gained
approval of the neighborhood alert center next door, Mr. Proctor
said that he could not see how she could still be in opposition
to the applicant's proposed non-residential use of their
property.
Chairperson Chachere inquired of Mr. Proctor if the applicant is
aware of the Donaghey Study for land uses in the Pankey area
which is currently on-going, and, if so, if the proposed use
complies with the Study's results?
Mr. Proctor responded that the applicant is aware of the Study,
and that according to the Study, the applicant's property is
supposed to be a commercial use.
Chairperson Chachere asked if the applicant had discussed the
proposed use with the neighborhood association?
Mr. Proctor explained that Mr. Bickerstaff had been in
communication with various individual in the neighborhood.
Mr. Tim Polk, Assistant Director, Neighborhoods and Planning,
interjected that the Study calls for the area in the immediate
vicinity of the applicant's property to remain residential; that
those involved in the preparation of the "Pankey Community Plan"
have indicated that commercial uses should be located on the
north side of Highway 10, and located further east towards the
Kroger Center. Mr. Polk also explained that the abutting use
which Mr. Proctor had cited as a "neighborhood alert center" is
4
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
not a City -operated alert center, but a support center operated
for the neighborhood, and that the approval of its use had not
entailed a rezoning, but a conditional use permit. The property
had remained zoned R-2.
Mr. Proctor reiterated that the existing structure is an eyesore,
but that, because it is a commercial structure, nothing can be
done with it without rezoning. The applicant has a substantial
investment in the structure and needs to be allowed to use it.
Mr. Bickerstaff pointed out that there are several similar non-
conforming uses on the south side of Highway 10, but, in the
applicant's case, the structure had lost its non -conforming
status due to extensive fire damage and its subsequent vacancy.
Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to what role
Mr. Bickerstaff had in the proposal.
Mr. Bickerstaff responded that the owner is ASCOMB Enterprises,
Inc., and that he is related to one of the principles.
Commissioner Willis asked for clarification of the proposed
signage.
Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant would comply with the
regulations and would install a monument -type sign.
Commissioner Nicholson related that the Pankey community has a
long history, and that the City had made a commitment to keep the
Pankey community residential; that until she heard from the
community that the community is ready for a change, she would not
support the rezoning. Mrs. Nicholson indicated to the applicant
that perhaps a deferral of the request should be sought until the
Donaghey Study is completed.
Mr. Proctor indicated that, indeed, a deferral would be
appropriate, and that he did request a deferral.
Commissioner Walker warned that the applicant's property is only
150 feet deep; that by denying such applicants use of their
property, the City is holding citizens hostage of a Plan for
planning purposes. If the City Plan calls for the applicant's
land to be a buffer to the residential property to the south,
then the City needs to acquire the property. If the City is not
allowing the property to be used by the applicant, then the City
needs to start paying rent on the property, he said. Mr. Walker
continued, saying that all other non -conforming uses in Pankey
have been recognized by the Donaghey Study; that the applicant's
property is the only one which is not being recognized due to its
loss of its non -conforming status. The Study needs to address
the situation regarding the applicant's property, since the
building is a commercial structure.
5
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A
Mr. Polk explained that the "plan" is the Pankey Community Plan,
and that it is being formalized and should be completed in a
matter of weeks.
Chairperson Chachere asked if the Commission were ready to vote
on a motion to defer the hearing until the next Subdivision
agenda. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing
until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion carried
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994)
Staff reported that the deferral of the item at the March 22, 1994
hearing to the May 3, 1994 hearing was based on the assumption
that the Pankey Community Plan would be completed prior to the
May 3 Commission meeting, and that the Plan would designate the
commercial use area within Pankey which the community endorsed.
Since this Plan has not been completed, staff reported that there
had been communication with Mr. Willard Proctor, the applicant's
representative in this request, regarding a further deferral of
the item. Mr. Proctor, therefore, has asked the matter be
deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. Approval of
the deferral was included in the Consent Agenda, and was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, and the applicant's
attorney, Mr. Willard Proctor, Jr., were present. Staff
presented the item it indicated that the Pankey Neighborhood Plan
was not, as for as staff know, ready with a recommendation the
location of commercial node in the neighborhood.
Mr. Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, indicated that the
neighborhood plan would be ready to provide the needed
information by the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1994.
The Chair gave the opportunity to the applicant to defer the
request to the May 31 meeting, and, after discussion involving
commission member, Mr. Bickerstaff, and Mr. Proctor, Mr. Proctor
agreed to the deferral.
A motion was made and seconded to defer the item to the
May 31, 1994 hearing, and was passed with this vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
0
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D FILE NOS.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
NAME: ENDERLIN MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -5550-A) AND
ENDERLIN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT (5-1006)
LOCATION: On the south side of Cooper Orbit Road, 1/4 mile west
of Kanis Road
DEVELOPER•
AMOS ENDERLIN
#5 Thad Lane
Little Rock, AR 72207
227-4667
AREA: 10.65 ACRES
ZONING: R-2 to PCD
(R-2 to remain
at area outside
of PCD site)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
ENGINEER•
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11,225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage at PCD
& existing non-
conforming use to
remain at area out-
side PCD site
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Three year deferral from the requirements
to construct Master Street Plan improvements for the boundary
street.
STAFF UPDATE•
The PCD request was modified by the applicant at the final
Planning Commission hearing to include the entire 10.65 acres and
to delete the variance requests.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility
on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Of the 10.65 acres owned,
he proposes to develop 5 acres for the mini -storage use and
retain the remaining 5.65 acres for his contracting business
equipment and materials storage use. Proposed is a PCD for the
development of 6 mini -storage buildings ranging in size from 50
feet wide by 390 feet long, to 40 feet wide by 140 feet long. An
existing residential structure located on the site is shown to be
retained. The applicant states that he proposes a phased
development, beginning with the larger buildings along the west
property line, and, when these buildings are completed and
leased, to proceed with phase two to involve the smaller
buildings along the east side of the PCD site. He states that he
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
will dedicate the right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards,
but that he wishes to defer the required improvements until the
project enters phase two development, or for three years,
whichever comes first. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat
to encompass the entire 10.65 acres, but proposes to final plat
only the PCD site at the outset.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for
development as a mini -storage facility. Six buildings are
proposed. Two are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 390 feet
long with 15,600 square feet in each. One is proposed to be
50 feet wide by 390 feet long with 19,500 square feet in it.
These three buildings encompass phase one of the
development. Three buildings are proposed to be 40 feet
wide by 140 feet long with 5,600 square feet in each. These
encompass phase two. The total square footage of the six
buildings is 67,500 square feet. It is proposed that the
building closest to the west property line be set 110 feet
east of that line forming a generous buffer from the
residential property to the west. An existing residential
structure is shown on the site plan as being retained. The
applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the
required right-of-way along Cooper Orbit Road to Master
Street Plan requirements, but he has requested that the
street improvements be deferred until he has competed and
leased at least the first three of the six buildings,
designated as phase one, or for three years, whichever comes
first. The applicant has indicated in conversations with
staff that he does not propose any other uses for the PCD
than "mini -storage"; no office or residential use has been
requested. The applicant requests deferral of the landscape
buffer requirement along the PCD property line which abuts
his own non -conforming industrial use property, and requests
deferral of the buffer requirement along the west property
line due to the dense timber and undergrowth along this
line. The applicant requests a deferral of the requirement
to pave the parking lot for the first building until the
completion of phase one development, allowing him to lease
the first buildings prior to paving the lot.
The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to
encompass the entire 10.65 acres. The area encompassing the
PCD would be final platted at the outset; the remainder
would remain in the preliminary plat status pending
development at a later date,
K
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The applicant's property is presently zoned R-2, but
contains a legal non -conforming industrial use. (The use
was existing when the area was annexed.) The applicant
utilizes the property for his construction company offices,
equipment storage and repair, materials and salvage storage,
and leased space for similar uses. There are stacks of used
brick and block on that portion of the tract which is
proposed to be utilized for the mini -storage facility.
There is a residence which was, from conversations with the
applicant, moved onto the site, but which remains vacant.
The site is wooded, but with most of the underbrush being
removed. The topography ranges from the low point at the
northeast corner of the property at an elevation of less
than 442 feet, to a high point mid -way along the east
property line of 502 feet, to elevations ranging from 470 to
490 along the west property line. There are residences on
the hill overlooking the site across the street and above
the site on the land to the west. A mobile home park is on
the land catercorner to the northeast, with commercial
property being at the corner of Cooper Orbit Road and Kanis
Road. There is a distinctive change in topography to the
north, west, and south-west of the site where the land
becomes more hilly. The applicant's site is more closely
identified with the flatter land along Kanis Road.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office indicates that the Ordinance
will require construction of Master Street Plan improvements
along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage of the site, involving
dedication of right-of-way to the minor arterial standard of
a total width of 90 feet, construction of one-half of a
minor arterial roadway of a total width of 60 feet, and a
sidewalk. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation
Ordinances are applicable in the development of the site.
Engineering advises that the state should be contacted for
the NPDES permit.
Water Works reports that a pro -rata front footage charge
will apply for water service to the site. The 20 foot
easement shown is a water line easement, not a non-specified
"utility" easement.
Wastewater Utility indicates that the site is outside the
service boundary of the Utility.
ARKLA Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, will require easements.
Q
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment.
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that
the full buffer width requirement around the perimeter of
the PCD site is 21 feet. The minimum requirement is
14 feet. The proposed 10 foot eastern buffer should be
increased to minimum of 14 feet. Since the adjacent
properties are zoned residential, a 6 foot high opaque "good
neighbor" wooden fence or dense vegetation is required by
the Ordinance for screening purposes. Trees and shrubs are
required within areas designated for buffers.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The required project narrative outlining the applicant's
request and describing the character and rationale behind
the request does not furnish all needed information. There
is a house which is shown remaining on the PCD site, but
there is no indication as to the use which it will be put,
nor has the application addressed alternative or accessory
uses of the PCD. If an office or on-site residence is
requested, this must be noted. This information needs to be
presented. A landscape plan is required. Any signage
proposed for the development must be designated.
A preliminary Bill of Assurance must be submitted. If the
non -conforming use area is to remain in the preliminary plat
status, a phasing plan for the plat needs to be shown,
The configuration of the two lots within the site do not
conform to the lot depth to width ratio. The requirement
needs to be addressed, or the applicant needs to address the
rationale for the decision, or the Commission needs to
review and confirm the proposed layout.
The applicant has requested a waiver, or at least a
deferral, of the application of the landscape buffer
requirements to the PCD site. He has noted that a buffer is
required along the PCD property line abutting his own
property because that property is zoned R-2. In reality,
the property is a non -conforming industrial use, the site is
large and wooded, and it "does not make sense" to require a
fence along this internal property line. He has also noted
that, along the west property line, the existing woods and
undergrowth form a natural buffer, and that he is proposing
to place the edge of the new parking lot development 91 feet
from the western property line. He therefore requests a
waiver from the buffer requirements along this west line.
The applicant request a deferral of the requirement to pave
r
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006
the parking lot of the phase one development until that
phase is completed. He proposes to provide a gravel drive
area for tenant use while he is constructing the second and
third buildings, and proposes to lease the first building
during the construction of these buildings.
The Planning staff reports that the proposed use is in
conflict with the land use plan for this area and would be a
major change in the plan. The proposed PCD is in the Ellis
Mountain District, and the plan recommends the area for
single-family development. The Planning staff admits,
however, that the plan may need to be updated and the
delineation between single-family and other transitional
uses may need to be refined. At present, the delineation
line lies along a small creek immediately to the east of the
applicant's property. It may well be more appropriately
located along the crest of the hill to the west. The
applicant's property may be better designated as being in a
"transitional" area. In any case, if the Commission
approves the PCD request, then an amendment to the Land Use
Plan will be required.
E. ANALYSIS:
The site, the applicant maintains, is not a good candidate
for single-family development because of its topography; the
proximity to the mobile home park and to Kanis Road; the
lack of sewer and natural gas and the high cost of water
service; and the lack of residential development in the
area. The applicant feels that if he is to make use of the
property in another way than his non -conforming industrial
use, a mini -storage use should be an appropriate
alternative. The mini -storage does not need the utility
services. Other mini -storage facilities owned by the
applicant, he reports, have very little traffic and close at
sundown, so the use should not be objectionable to
residential neighbors. Comments received from abutting and
area landowners have ranged from objections to a feeling
that a mini -storage facility would be an improvement to the
construction equipment and materials storage that presently
occupies the entire site.
The site involves 10.65 acres, with divisions of 5 acres or
greater. The Subdivision Ordinance allows subdivisions of
land of 5 acres or greater without Planning Commission
review. There is a concern about the configuration of the
two "lots" and their not meeting the depth to width ratio.
Each of these "lots", however, is 5 acres or greater.
5
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request due to the conflict
with the adopted land use plan. If the commission approves
the request, a land use study and plan amendment would be
required.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
The applicant, Mr. Amos Enderlin, and the engineer, Mr. Pat
McGetrick, were present. Staff presented the item and the
concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Enderlin explained
his position that the site is unsuited for residential
development, that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get the
property zoned I-2 last year, and that, if he were going to be
able to make use of his property, he needed some other option
than residential uses. He related that he felt that a mini -
storage facility is an acceptable use which is compatible with
the residential uses to the north and west, and with the mobile
home park to the northeast with the commercial uses along Kanis
Road to the east. Mr. Enderlin objected to the characterization
of the site as a "dump site" for his demolition activities, but
said that he does have salvage materials properly stored on the
site. The concern about the configuration of the lots and their
not meeting the lot depth to width ratio was brought up by staff.
Mr. Enderlin responded that, because of the topography of the
site and trying to develop that portion that would allow for
proper siting of the buildings, he needed to divide the property
as presented in the plans. Following the review and
conversation, the Committee forwarded the application to the
Commission for the hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had provided additional
information to indicate: 1) that the existing residential
structure located on the property is to be used for a resident
managers apartment and office; 2) a request for a deferral of
interior driveway paving until the completion of Phase I; 3) a
request for a deferral of the landscaping requirements along the
west property line and along the internal property line which
abuts the applicant's property until the area is annexed to the
City; 4) a request to the Board of Directors for a waiver of the
Subdivision Ordinance requirement for a lot depth to width ratio
not to exceed 3:1 to allow the "sawtooth" shaped lot to be
approved; and 5) a request to the Board of Directors for a
deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements for construction
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006
of one-half of Cooper Orbit Road and construction of a sidewalk
along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage for a period not to exceed
three (3) years, or until the completion of Phase I construction.
Staff reported that approval of the PCD would require a Land Use
Plan amendment; that the current use of the site is for
residential development, although the mobile home use cater-
corner across the street to the northeast a non-residential use,
and that the limits of non-residential uses lie along Mr.
Enderlin's property's eastern property line. The Planning Staff
had reported, staff related, that Mr. Enderlin's property and the
property lying along Cooper Orbit Road for a distance further
west could possibly be designated as a "transitional" zone use
area. The appropriate use of the site was the important question
needing discussion.
Staff also reported that the owner of abutting property had
contacted staff to report that he had not seen the required sign
posted and had not gotten certified mail notification of the
hearing. Staff reported that the sign had, indeed, been posted;
that staff had witnessed the sign being in place thirty (30) days
prior to the Planning Commission hearing and on two (2)
subsequent site visits. Staff confirmed that the certified list
from the title company had not included the neighbor's name,
consequently he had not been notified by mail, but that the
applicant had met the requirements of the bylaws by getting a
certified list from the title company and mailing the required
letters by certified mail to those whose names appeared on the
list. Evidence of the mailing has been furnished to staff.
Chairperson Chachere called on the applicant to make his
presentation.
Mr. Enderlin reported that he wished to construct a mini -storage
facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Initially, he
continued, he wanted to build the mini -storage units on about
one-half of his property and leave the remaining one-half for his
use for his demolition contracting business. He explained that
the reason that the property was being divided into two
"sawtooth" -shaped lots was due to the topography of the site;
that the area designated for the mini -storage lends itself best
to the development and forms a natural division between the
proposed development and the area to remain in its current
situation. Mr. Enderlin continued that he wished to start
renting storage units as soon as he got the first building
completed, but wished to delay paving the driveway until several
buildings were built and Phase I was complete. Since there is,
Mr. Enderlin explained, dense woods which lie along the west
property line, and since the development anticipates leaving 91
feet from the west property line to the edge of the new
development, it is felt that adding landscaping along this west
property line is unnecessary; consequently, a deferral is
N
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
requested. Since, Mr. Enderlin went on to say, the PCD site
takes about one-half of his property, leaving an internal lot
line which the Landscaping Regulations require to be landscaped,
and Mr. Enderlin sees no point in providing this landscaping
along his own abutting property, he asked for a deferral of this
landscaping requirement. Since, Mr. Enderlin concluded, the
Master Street Plan designates Cooper Orbit Road as a minor
arterial roadway, adding pavement and curb and gutter to provide
one-half of a 60 foot roadway for such a short section of Cooper
Orbit Road, especially when the grades may change when the
roadway is fully developed, seems unreasonable; consequently the
deferral is requested.
Chairperson Chachere then called on those who oppose the proposed
development to present their position.
Jo Jackson identified herself as President of the Board of the
Oasis Renewal Center. The Oasis, she continued, is located
across Cooper Orbit Road and about 500 feet further to the west.
The Center is a Christian retreat, and the Center's Board is in
opposition to the proposed mini -storage facility; the Board wants
to keep the area quiet, rustic, country -like, and a place of
beauty for people to be able to enjoy; they want people to be
able to come to the Center's restaurant and enjoy the peaceful
setting. Ms. Jackson reported that she had a letter from the
Board which outlined their objection to the proposed development.
Karen Owings identified herself as representing residents of the
Spring Valley neighborhood which lies along Cooper Orbit Road
further to the west from Mr. Enderlin's property. She reported
that 50 residents representing 36 homes had signed a petition in
opposition to the proposed development. She explained that the
entire area is residential, with the exception of Lake Nixon on
the south and Enderlin's property on the north; that approving
the development would only add another non -conforming use to the
area. She complained that Mr. Enderlin was wanting to waive
every one of the requirements for landscaping, buffers, and road
improvements.
Jane Bristow identified herself as living directly across the
street from Mr. Enderlin's property. She said that, in the past,
Mr. Enderlin had sought to re -zone the property for a concrete
batch plant, but that she has heard that he this was not what he
really wanted to do with the site; that he had sought re -zoning,
saying that he was going to do one thing and really planned to do
another. Therefore, she wondered what Mr. Enderlin was really
trying to do this time. She went on to say that she would not
mind mini -storage buildings on the site; what is there now is
devaluing the property; but, since he has never done anything to
improve the area, she did not feel that he could be relied on to
do what he says he will do this time.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006
John Burnett identified himself as the owner of over 200 acres
which lie beyond Cooper Orbit Road between the Oasis Center and
Spring Valley. He complained that Cooper Orbit Road is the only
access to 1000 acres of prime development land, and a mini -
storage facility does not make a good entrance for the future
development of the area.
Mr. Enderlin responded that his mini -storage facility would
create little traffic, in fact, much less than the Oasis creates.
He said that he is developing a mini -storage facility on Maumelle
Blvd., and that he proposes to make the facility on the proposed
site look good; that it will be an improvement to what is there
now, and that eventually he plans to phase out the construction
yard use.
Staff reported that Ms. Bristow's concerns about ulterior motives
are unfounded, since the current development request is for a
PCD. In the PCD, the uses, building layout, landscaping,
buffers, etc. are set; that the development has to conform to the
approved plan or it doesn't go in at all. Staff reiterated that
there is 90 feet of separation between the west property line and
the proposed development, and that the applicant had requested no
waivers or deferrals of landscaping along the front of the
property or the landscaping required in the interior of the
development; that the only deferral was for the interior lot line
along the applicant's own property and for adding buffer
plantings to the woods along the west property line. Staff said
that the land use was the most important issue which needed to be
dealt with.
Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification of the staff report
that a transitional zone might be appropriate.
Ron Newman of the Planing Staff reported that two years ago the
staff had performed an extensive study of the area, and that a
transition zone area might be appropriate along Cooper Orbit
Road; that the Planning Staff needed to do further study on the
immediate area and possibly update the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification about the sign which
was to be posted on the site.
Staff responded that the sign had been posted as required and was
in place just days prior to the meeting; that dozens of area
residents has seen the sign and had called in to ask about the
proposal; and, that pieces of the sign were still nailed to the
tree.
Commissioner Walker asked if a landscape plan had been submitted.
Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, responded that he had gotten a
schematic landscaping plan.
0
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006
Commissioner Walker added that the Commission has, in the past,
allowed mini -storage facilities in areas adjoining residential
areas because such a use is incidental to the residential uses;
that such uses are appropriate in an area such as the current
proposal. Mr. Walker then asked the applicant if he is willing
to do the extra things to make the project a high quality
development? The deferrals and waivers are not, Mr. Walker
concluded, in keeping with an attitude of making the development
a high quality one.
Mr. Enderlin responded that he planned to leave the trees at the
perimeter and where he could in the interior of the development,
and that he would plant trees to meet the buffer and landscaping
requirements. He promised that the development would be a high
quality one.
Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin if he would amend his
application to furnish the needed schematic landscaping plan and
the site plan with the required information on it, and amend his
application to delete the waivers and deferrals.
Mr. Enderlin responded that he would improve the plans and would
amend his application.
Commissioner Walker reiterated that Mr. Enderlin needed to make
his development look as good as any, and asked Mr. Enderlin if he
is willing to take the steps necessary to do this.
Mr. Enderlin replied that he was willing to do what was needed.
Commissioner McDaniel counseled Mr. Enderlin that the proposed
development needed to encompass the entire 10 acres; that he was
not willing to approve the 5 acre site and leave the remaining 5
acres in the present condition; that he was not willing to let
him have it both ways. He continued that he was willing to let
Mr. Enderlin try something which would improve the site, but that
it would have to be a complete project involving the entire
tract.
Mr. Enderlin explained that he was anticipating on a long-range
basis to convert the entire site to the mini -storage use, but
that he had wanted to do it in stages.
Commissioner McDaniel told Mr. Enderlin to phase the development,
but to include the whole tract.
Commissioner Nicholson recommended to Mr. Enderlin that he seek a
deferral to allow him to amend his application and site plan.
Commissioner Oleson asked the Planning Staff if they would be
able to do the study for the Land Use issue in 60 days.
10
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
Ron Newman indicated that the 60 days would be sufficient time.
Commissioner Walker encouraged Mr. Enderlin to propose a quality
project.
Commissioner Putnam related that some mini -storage facilities can
look good and be an asset the area. He cited the facility on
Green Mountain Drive.
Ms. Bristow interjected that she and her husband want all
requirements imposed so that the facility will look good.
Commissioner Chachere entertained a motion to allow Mr. Enderlin
to request a 60 -day deferral until the May 3, 1994 hearing in
which Mr. Enderlin is to modify his proposal. The motion passed
with the vote of 8 ayes, one no, one absent, no abstentions, and
one open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
The applicant, Amos Enderlin, and his engineer, Mr. Pat
McGetrick, were present.
Staff outlined the request and presented the revised plan.
Mr. McGetrick reported that, in response to the Commission's
suggestion at the previous meeting, the application was being
amended to provide: 1) for inclusion of the entire site in the
PCD as a phased development; and, 2) for an agreement to
construct the required Master Street Plan improvements along
Cooper Orbit Road.
The Committee reviewed with Mr. Enderlin and Mr. McGetrick the
revised plans and the items in the discussion outline.
Mr. McGetrick indicated that he had no questions about any of the
comments, and would make the necessary corrections in the plans.
The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994)
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the original PCD
request had been amended to include: the entire site in lieu of
being limited to the front one-half of the site; construction of
the Cooper Orbit Road improvements as required by the Master
Street Plan; and installation of the landscaping and buffering as
required by the Ordinance.
11
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, outlined the request and
the changes since the last Commission meeting. He reported that
the application now complies with all ordinance requirements
regarding landscaping and the Master Street Plan; that the
applicant had withdrawn all requests for waivers or variances.
He related that the PCD now included a 2 -lot plat, with
development scheduled over 3 phases; the first phase taking place
on Lot 1. He indicated that a solid board fence would be
constructed along the front of the property, as well as along the
side property lines. On the west, there was to be a 90 foot
buffer retained, except for the single residence which was
previously placed on the property. On the east, there are large
open space buffers containing the detention areas.
Commissioner Ball inquired of staff if, in light of the changes
in the plan, staff had changed its recommendation.
Staff related that the recommendation had not changed, since the
recommendation for denial was based on the proposed use not
complying with the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Oleson recalled that, at the previous hearing, she
had asked that staff review the Land Use Plan in the area, to see
if a change in the Plan were justified.
Ron Newman, with the planning staff, responded that staff had
taken a look at the area, and had ascertained that, since the
plan for the area had been developed and adopted in 1991, there
had been virtually no changes which would suggest changes in the
Plan. He said that neighborhood commercial is the most intense
land use in the area, and that type use is at intersections. The
only non-residential uses along Cooper Orbit Road, he continued,
are the Oasis Renewal Center and Lake Nixon at the southern end
of the road. If the transition zone is extended westward along
Cooper Orbit Road, Mr. Newman explained, it would inevitably lead
to additional non-residential uses in the area.
Mr. Jim Albert, who indicated that he lived directly across the
street from the proposed mini -storage facility, said that, if
Mr. Enderlin was going to do away with the present construction
yard use, he would support the change.
Staff explained that the proposal was for a phased development,
that the construction yard use would be eliminated over a period
of time.
In light of this explanation, Mr. Albert responded that
Mr. Enderlin has made the area a junk yard and has made no effort
to keep it clean; therefore, not believing that the construction
yard use would ever be eliminated, he said that he was against
the zoning change.
12
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006
Commissioner Nicholson addressed Mr. Albert and said that it had
been the Commission that had sent Mr. Enderlin "back to the
drawing board" to re -design the site to include the entire tract
in the PCD so that the construction yard use would be eliminated.
Also, as a result of the Commission's reaction to the original
submission, Mr. Enderlin has now withdrawn his request for
waivers.
Commissioner Willis confirmed with staff that the proposed
development is outside the City Limits of Little Rock.
Ms. Jane Bristow addressed the Commission. She related that
Mr. Enderlin's property is surrounded by residential property,
and concluded that Mr. Enderlin's property should stay
residential. She explained that she had lived on abutting
property between 1981 and 1989, but, since that time, she had
lived in a temporary home while she tried to sell the property on
Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. Enderlin's construction yard affects the
value of her property; that people don't like to look at it, and
she has not been able to sell her property. As a result, she is
probably going to have to move back to the property. She
complained that when she had tried to subdivide her property and
sell off portions of her tract, she had been stopped; yet,
Mr. Enderlin is allowed to continue to bring junk in and operate
his construction yard. Ms. Bristow also suggested that there are
already too many mini -storage units in the area, and that there
is no need for additional units.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to Ms. Bristow's
comment about there being too many mini -storage units, saying
that such factors are not legitimate land use considerations, but
are business decisions to be based on market factors; that the
Commission cannot legitimately make land use decisions on whether
or not the Commissions feels that the business decision is a wise
one or not. If too many businesses affect traffic or land
planning issues, then the Commission can address the matter from
that perspective.
Ms. Jo Jackson of the Oasis Renewal Center indicted that she had
little to add from the last Commission hearing on the issue. He
reiterated that the Oasis Renewal Center has tried to maintain a
quiet, retreat setting for reflection, and that any commercial
rezoning would detract from the aura which has been created.
Ms. Mary Waldo introduced herself as the assistant executive
director of the Oasis Renewal Center. She related that the
Center is opposed to any change in the zoning which would change
the character of the area. She said that the Oasis Renewal
Center was purposefully established in a residential area, and
had relied on the Land Use Plan's designation of the area as
residential when the facility was planned.
13
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006
Commissioner Nicholson explained to the objectors that
Mr. Enderlin's construction yard use is a legal non -conforming
use of the property which was in existence prior to the City's
jurisdiction being extended to the area.
Commissioner Putnam, responding to those who object to the
proposed development, explained that the objectors have a way of
getting rid of what they don't like in supporting the change in
the zoning; that they have a choice between a mini -storage on the
property or the property possibly staying like it is "until hell
freezes over" since it is a non -conforming use. The brick yard,
or materials yard, can remain as a non -conforming use; however,
if the PCD is approved, Mr. Enderlin will eventually have to
cease that operation and use of the property. The mini -storage
use, it would seem, is the lesser of two evils, and is a way to
get the objectionable use off the property. He pointed out that,
on Green Mountain Drive, there are a number of mini -storage
facilities, one being directly across from Fox Run, and one does
not even see them.
Commissioner Willis inquired if the City has any jurisdiction in
the area.
Deputy City Attorney Giles responded that the City has only
zoning jurisdiction in the extraterritorial area.
Commissioner Woods confirmed with Mr. Giles that the City cannot
enforce clean-up ordinances on Mr. Enderlin's property; but can
only enforce the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Putnam observed that if Mr. Enderlin could be
convinced to complete the entire project involving both the front
and back lots, then the whole site would be cleaned up and the
non -conforming situation would be ended. Mr. Putnam then asked
staff if there was a stated time -frame for completing all phases.
Staff responded that there was no time -frame proposed.
Commissioner Putnam observed that the non -conforming use could
continue forever.
Commissioner McDaniel interjected that he could support the
proposal if there were a definite time limit on the continuation
of the non -conforming use; if there was a tradeout which would
benefit the neighbors.
Commissioner Willis, addressing the applicant, asked if
Mr. Enderlin would want to amend his application to include a
time -limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use.
14
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
Commissioner McDaniel explained that the Commissioners were not
seeking to have Mr. Enderlin commit to building the remaining
phases, but only to cleaning up the site and ending the
construction yard activity.
Chairperson Chachere clarified the Commissioner's position,
and addressed Mr. Enderlin, saying that the approval of the
mini -storage PCD would be contingent on Mr. Enderlin agreeing to
cease the construction yard activity within a certain time
period.
Commissioner Selz added that the site also must be cleaned up,
not just the activity stopped.
Mr. Enderlin, reacting to the Commissioners' comments, stated
that he would agree to stop the activity and clean up the site
within one year of the beginning of the construction of the first
phase of the mini -storage PCD.
Chairperson Chachere stated that the one-year time period needed
to begin with the approval by the City.
Deputy City Attorney Giles added that the one-year time period
should be in with the date of the approval by the Board of
Directors of the PCD ordinance.
A motion was then made to approve the PCD request, with the
condition that the non -conforming construction yard activity
cease and the site be cleaned up of construction materials within
one year from the date of approval of the PCD ordinance by the
Board of Directors. The motion failed to receive the required
number of votes for a positive recommendation with the vote of
5 ayes, 5 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The item was,
therefore, deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff presented the item and recalled that the item was deferred
to the May 17th. agenda from the May 3rd. meeting because it
failed to receive the required six votes for approval or denial.
Mr. Enderlin made his appeal for approval and indicated that he
would meet Master Street Plan requirements and landscaping and
buffer requirements, and, that he would build a nice, clean
facility that would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Ms. Karen Owings spoke, indicating that she was opposed to the
development. She said that the area is predominantly
residential, and observed that, in a few years, Mr. Enderlin
could sell his property for residential development. She stated
15
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006
that a PCD would not fit into the area. She said that she lives
further west in the Spring valley area, and that Cooper Orbit
Road is the only entrance to their area, and that the road into
the area needed to be lined with residences, not commercial
development.
Mr. Elmer Jenkins spoke in objection to the development.
Commissioner Oleson observed that the Commission has not
discussed how the facility will look, and stated that the looks
of the construction is an important element of the PCD to
consider.
Commissioner Woods said that he had supported the proposal at the
previous Commission hearing because he had felt that it would of
benefit to the neighborhood in that the clutter would be
eliminated. He stated that the area is a residential area,
though, and that a sea of overhead doors does not add to the
beauty of the area.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Enderlin how long he had owned the
land, to which Mr. Enderlin answered that he had owned the land
since 1972. Mr. Putnam then asked Mr. Enderlin if there had been
any homes in the area when he had purchased the land, to which
Mr. Enderlin answered that there had not been any. Mr. Putnam
then observed that Mr. Enderlin had preceded the homes in the
area, and that the area had built up around Mr. Enderlin's use.
Mr. Putnam observed that, as a non -conforming use, Mr. Enderlin
could continue to use the property for the construction yard for
the next twenty years or more, without restriction. On the other
hand, if the mini -storage use were allowed to be developed, the
area would be cleaned up, landscaped, and fenced.
Mr. Ned Wright addressed the Commission, and said that he was
speaking on behalf of the Oasis Renewal Center. He said that the
Center is in close proximity to Mr. Enderlin's property, and that
Mr. Enderlin's property is a detriment to the beauty of the area.
He felt that Mr. Enderlin is trying to use as leverage to gain
approval for the change in zoning the nuisance which he, himself,
has created. He stated that, contrarily, there is another way
for the neighborhood to deal with the nuisance: to get a court
injunction and have the area declared a public nuisance; or, as a
self-help measure, and with court protection, to get a backhoe
and bulldozer, dig a hole, push the junk into the hole, and seal
it up.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Wright for the date the Oasis
opened, to which Mr. Wright responded that it was in 1989.
Mr. Putnam countered that Mr. Enderlin had been at his location
for 22 years; the Oasis for 5.
16
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
Ms. Pat Albert spoke in opposition to the PCD request, saying
that she had been a resident for 14 years. She said that,
originally, the construction yard had been hidden at the back of
the property, but that, over the years, it had crept towards the
front of the tract.
Ms. Jane Bristow contended that the residences were in the area
before Mr. Enderlin had started using his land for storage of
junk.
Mr. Skip Cook related that the neighbors have no confidence that
Mr. Enderlin will do what is required by the PCD plan, and asked
what assurance could be given that, indeed, the street would be
constructed and the site improvements would be made.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded that the PCD ordinance
is enforceable thorough the courts; that Mr. Enderlin would have
to build the facility in conformance with the approved PCD plans;
and, that the street improvements would have to be in place prior
to a final plat being approved.
Mr. Enderlin again related that he planned to build a nice, clean
facility, just like a lot of other such facilities around Little
Rock which are also in close proximity to residential areas.
Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin to explain how he planned
to phase the development, and to explain when the junk would be
cleared from the site.
Commissioner Oleson returned to the question posed earlier
regarding how the facility would look.
Staff reported that Mr. Enderlin had proposed to face the front
buildings with brick, but that the buildings themselves were
proposed to be a metal building system.
Commissioner Oleson observed that the plans submitted by
Mr. Enderlin are minimal, and contrasted them with the plans
submitted for other PUD developments which have a great deal of
detailed information. She complained that there was not the
needed information regarding the way the project would look,
about the lighting, the hours of operation, etc. Other
developers in their proposals have made significant
accommodations to the neighbors to gain approval; Mr. Enderlin,
she said, has not.
Commissioner Walker stated that his primary concern is for the
clean-up of the site; that he wanted to be certain that the
clean-up is part of the first phase of the development; and, that
the non -conforming use not be allowed to continue concurrently
17
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
with the development of the mini -storage facility; that
construction on the subsequent phases of development can progress
as the market dictates, but that prior to a Certificate of
Occupancy for the first phase being approved, the site be cleaned
up.
Chairperson Chachere recounted that the motion from the previous
meeting had included the provision that within one year from the
date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD
ordinance, the non -conforming use would cease and the site was to
be cleaned up.
A motion was then made to approve the PCD, contingent upon the
non -conforming use of the site being discontinued within one year
of the approval of the PCD by the Board of Directors, and that,
within that time period, the site be cleaned up and cleared of
the construction materials and other stored materials. The
motion failed with the vote to approve of 4 ayes, 6 nays,
1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
18
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
NAME: PARKER CADILLAC BODY SHOP -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of Rainwood Road, across the street
from the intersection of Wickford Lane, approximately 300 feet
west of Merrell Drive
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Parker Luxury Automobiles Norris Jerald Sparks Architect
1700 N. Shackleford Road 62 Berkshire Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72204
224-2400 660-4268
AREA: 0.857 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Automobile Paint and
Body Shop
The applicant proposes the construction of a paint and body
repair facility to consolidate the repair facilities for the
Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn automobile dealerships owned by the
applicant in the greater Little Rock area. The applicant
maintains that the facility will house "state -of -the art"
automobile paint and repair equipment and processes that are the
most technically advanced in the industry. The applicant
proposes to construct a building that is compatible with the
"superior character and appearance that he has achieved in the
architectural contribution of his Cadillac and Lexus dealership
buildings." He continues that he is "most dedicated to not only
crating a positive architectural statement..., but to maintaining
his previously established standard for aesthetic character and
quality image in all facilities." The applicant, "plans to
invest in a handsome building with abundant landscaping and
street appeal....""
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a PCD for a paint and body repair
facility to consolidate the Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn
paint and body repair facilities of the greater Little Rock
area. In addition to the paint and body repair use
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
proposed, the applicant seeks approval of all other uses by
right listed in the C-3 zoning district use category.
The applicant maintains that a "handsome building with
abundant landscaping and street appeal" is proposed, and one
that is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic
standards previous buildings for the applicant's Cadillac
and Lexus dealerships have established. No waivers or
variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, and the
topography is fairly level.
The site is currently zoned C-3, with C-3 zoned land on all
other tracts to the east and west on the south side of
Rainwood Dr. Across Rainwood, directly across the street
from the proposed development, is an R-5 tract. Diagonally
to the northwest from the site is a C-4 tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering reports that the driveway width must be reduced
to 22 feet. The parking space at the far east edge of the
front of the building will have to be eliminated. Sidewalks
will be required to be constructed along the Rainwood Dr.
frontage.
Water Works has no objections to the development.
Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that there
is no adverse effect to be considered. Existing manholes
which are located on the property must be adjusted during
construction to remain exposed at all times. Wastewater
should be contacted for details.
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 without comment.
Landscape review reports that the buffer width proposed
along Rainwood Rd. is 3 feet short of the full requirement
of 9 feet.
2
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the
Rodney Parham District. The adopted plan recommends
commercial for the site. The proposed commercial use is
questionable for this location, since the proposal is for a
C-4 use. The type of C-4 use proposed must be carefully
reviewed, with the negative impacts considered.
E. ANALYSIS•
Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial
uses of the subject tract, the proposed use is a C-4, Open
Display district use, the most intense zoning category for
commercial uses. The remainder of the property south of
Rainwood Dr. is C-3, and the uses are retail stores.
Directly across the street from the proposed site is R-5,
containing an established townhome development. To the
northwest is a C-4 area which contains a mini -storage
facility. The mini -storage C-4 use can be seen as an
accessory use to the area residential uses. A paint and
body shop, then, is much more intensive a use than anything
else in the area, and is not in keeping with the types of
uses which should be located directly across the street from
a residential community.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
A representative of the applicant and the project architect were
present. Staff presented the request and the Committee reviewed
the items contained in the discussion outline. The applicant's
representatives stated that the front overhead door was to remain
closed at all times, unless a vehicle to be repaired was to be
admitted. The vehicles to be repaired would be checked -in inside
the building, then removed to the rear parking lot. with no
other issues to be resolved, the Committee forwarded the item to
the commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994)
Staff presented the request, and indicated that revised drawings
had been submitted which addressed all technical concerns of
staff.
3
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
Mr. Fred Mosley introduced himself as the representative of the
applicant in making the presentation of the request to the
Commission. He stated that the new facility would combine all
the paint and body shop activities of the three Parker
dealerships in the greater Little Rock area, the Cadillac, the
Lexus, and the Saturn dealerships. He explained that the new
shop would include state -of -the art processes and equipment.
Landscaping would be extensive. a 6 foot masonry and wood fence
at the perimeter of the rear of the site would restrict both
access and the view of the automobile storage area from
neighbors. The front automobile access door would be closed at
all times, except when an automobile were being delivered. He
estimated that, on the average, there would be 10 vehicles
brought to the facility on The only doors which are open for
service are at the rear. From the front, he stated, the building
would look like an office building. He recalled that the
proposed site is the only remaining vacant commercial site in the
area; that the existing zoning is C-3; and, that there are other
C-4 uses in close proximity.
Mr. Rick Farnan, a representative of the paint spray boot
manufacturer, stated that the paint booth would comply with all
national standards.
Mr. Mosley went on to say that, as far as noise is concerned, the
fact that most parts are replaced rather than re -used should
alleviate this concern. Further, the front of the building would
have an exterior insulations system applied as the finish, and
this system involves foam insulation with a cement -like stucco
coating. The time of operation would be 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
There will be no delivery trucks to bring parts; the parts would
be delivered by pick-up truck from the various dealerships.
Trash would be picked up 3 times weekly, and would be retrieved
from interior bins. There is no litter, as would be expected
from C-3 businesses such as a restaurant. The Parker family has
been in the area for 20 years, and attempts to be both a good
neighbor and to maintain handsome buildings which are superior in
appearance.
Commissioner Nicholson asked where the body shop work is now
performed.
Mr. Mosley replied that the work is done at each of the
dealerships.
Commissioner Nicholson observed that the new facility would be no
worse or no better than the existing sites.
Mr. Mosley explained that the new facility should be better than
the existing facilities, since there would be state -of -the art
equipment and processes employed.
4
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A
Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to the number
of vehicles which would be repaired at any given time.
Mr. Mosley said that there are 12 repair bays and 6 paint bays,
with 22 holding spaces at the rear.
Commissioner Nicholson observed that the usual concern is for
battered and banged -up cars sitting around a paint and body shop.
Mr. Mosley replied that with the service door opened only to
admit a car for repair, and the fence at the rear holding area,
the cars to be repaired would not normally be visible to the
neighbors. He also said that the security lights at the rear
holding area have limited spread and the standards are not as
high as the building, so the night lighting should not be a
problem to the neighbors.
Mr. Chris Peek addressed the Commission, saying that he was on
the Board of Directors of the Birkshire Park Townhomes Property
Owners' Association; that the Board had authorized him to speak
for the Association in presenting its opposition to the proposed
development. Mr. Peek presented photos of the existing Parker
paint and body shop holding yards, showing stacked up bumpers and
other parts, as well as damaged autos. He expressed concern
about possible noise and the unsightly view. He was concerned
about the paint spray booth and who monitors its performance in
emission control. He stated that 10 wreckers per day, day after
day, bringing wrecked cars, would be very visible evidence that
the building is a paint and body shop.
Ms. Ruth Kent stated that she has a breathing problem, and is
concerned about the spray booth emissions. She related that she
has talked with a number of persons in the real estate business
and has been told that the proximity of the paint and body shop
to her home would lower the value of her home. She observed that
one such person was incredulous that a paint and body shop would
be considered for such a location as this one is proposed. The
Parker Body Shop would be immediately across the street from her
home.
Commissioner Willis asked Ms. Kent for her reaction to the
possibility of C-3 uses being constructed across from her home.
Ms. Kent replied that there is a stigma attached to having a
paint and body shop across the street from one's home; that she
realized that there are many C-3 uses that can be constructed,
but they would not have the same negative impact as a paint and
body shop. She went on to say that if Parker were to sell the
shop, another owner might not have the same commitment to
aesthetics as the Parkers.
5
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
various comments involving Commissioner Nicholson, Commissioner
Willis, and Commissioner Putnam attempted to clarify the
requested uses of the PCD application. Staff indicated that the
request is for a "paint and body shop" and for "all C-3 uses by
right". Therefore, any paint and body shop would be permitted,
as well as any C-3 uses, without amending the PCD.
Commissioner Nicholson stated that if Parker were going to own
the facility, and if it were limited to "Parker Body Shop", this
might make a difference.
Ms. Tess Peek stated that she had visited the existing Parker
body shop site, and said that it is just a body shop, "forget
that it is a Cadillac body shop" . There are wrecked cars stored
on the site and body parts lying around, and the existing
facility is just like any other paint and body shop.
Mr. Mosley stated that Parker intends to purchase the property
and to operate the body shop. As far as the chain link fencing
and razor wire at the existing facility, the new facility is not
going to have this type fencing; it will be the board and masonry
fence, and neighbors will not have a view of the holding area
unless they climb the fence. As far as the paint booth is
concerned, Pollution Control and Ecology will monitor the paint
booth emissions. He stated that in the application, he and the
Parker's had hoped that the townhome owners would view the
application as a chance to determine the use which would be
across the street from them, and that the use would be viewed as
a benefit to the area.
Commissioner Nicholson, reacting to the latter comment, stated
that since the application seeks approval of all C-3 uses, then,
if Parker ceases operation of the body shop, then the neighbors
do not have the chance of determining the use, as stated.
Mr. Mosely replied that Parker intends to operate the facility,
but that if, in the future, the facility could not contain the
activity, then it was felt that the building use should be able
to be converted to another use. An office building would be at
that time, he said, a possibility.
Commissioner Nicholson reminded Mr. Mosley that an office
building would not be allowed in a C-3 zoning district; that, if
an office building as an alterative use were anticipated, then
the zoning should be an 0-1, 0-2, or even 0-3. She added, that a
stated concern of the neighbors was the convertibility aspect.
Mr. Mosley stated that the PCD application could be modified to
provide for only the Parker Body Shop use, and not for any of the
other uses continued in the original application.
1.1
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
Commissioner Putnam reaffirmed that the application should be
amended to restrict the use to the Parker Body Shop only, and
that if that use ceases, any other use would have to come back to
the Commission and Board for an amendment to the PCD.
Mr. Mosley stated that the application was amended to reflect
this restriction.
Commissioner Oleson asked for the reaction of the neighbors to
the amended application, with the restrictions imposed.
Mr. Peek voiced the neighbors' rejection of the application for
any paint and body shop use on the site, despite the amendment of
the application. Ms. Kent agreed with the stated objection.
Commissioner Nicholson stated that, in her opinion, a lot of the
C-3 uses which can go in on the site without any review are much
worse than the applicant's proposal as amended, and, with the
change in technology of body shops, the Parker Body Shop will not
have the negative impact which the neighbors anticipate. She
added that, the body shop which is anticipated in this
application is not a C-4 type activity.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the
Body Shop PCD. The vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays,
0 abstentions. Without the required 6 votes
approval of the PCD, the matter was deferred
May 17, 1994 Commission hearing.
Parker Cadillac
2 absent, and
to recommend
until the
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff presented the request.
Mr. Dave Parker, who identified himself as part owner of Parker
Cadillac, Parker Lexus, and Saturn of Greater Little Rock,
outlined the changes which had been made in the application since
the previous Commission meeting: 1) have agreed to purchase
state -of -the art emission control equipment, even though less
expensive equipment would meet regulations; 2) have agreed to
make do with less than desirable parking at the front of the
building; 3) have agreed to a narrower drive than desirable to
comply with the City Engineering requirements; 4) have agreed to
construct an 8 foot high decorative fence at the perimeter of the
rear service area; 5) will provide extensive landscaping to
increase street appeal of the site; 6) will keep the front
overhead door closed at all times, except when vehicles enter;
7) will have low level parking lot lighting which will restrict
bleedover beyond the property; 8) have designed the building so
that the service doors are at the rear; 9) have agreed to
construct wooden gates at the drives which will be closed off at
7
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3606-A
night; and, 10) will have the landscaping maintained on a weekly
basis by a professional landscaping business. Noise, Mr. Parker
noted, is not a problem in a modern facility, since parts are
normally replaced and uni-body frames are straightened by a
pulling process. Mr. Parker reported that he had two noise level
engineers make noise tests at his present location and at the
proposed site, and that their report indicated that the noise
would not be a problem and would not be increased beyond normal
street level noise. Mr. Parker reiterated that the PCD was for
Parker Cadillac Body Shop only. After a conversation with a
resident on Wickford Lane, Mr. Parker related that he had agreed
to park only finished cars at the southeast corner of the lot. A
list of the concessions was distributed.
Mr. Tom Sullivan, a resident of the Birkshire Townhomes,
addressed the Commission and voiced his and the Property owners,
Association's concerns regarding the proposed body shop. He
indicated that the concerns had not changed since the previous
Commission meeting. He maintained that the request for the
rezoning was for the convenience of the Parkers, as opposed to
the expectations of the neighbors for the residential character
of their neighborhood. He expressed concern for the 10 to 12
wrecked vehicles per day which would be coming to the facility,
and for the wreckers which would be a hazard to the many elderly
drivers in the Townhome community. He distributed photographs of
the existing Parker body shop facility, showing the razor wire at
the top of the chain link fencing, and expressed concern about
the apparent need for security which is indicated by the need for
razor wire.
Ms. Brenda Germann reiterated the residents' position that they
would rather take their chances with C-3 uses which might be
developed on the site than have a body shop at the location.
Ms. Ruth Kent asked the Commissioners to do what was in the best
interest for the City and the citizens, and not vote according to
apparent vested interests.
Mr. Parker responded that on an average, only 2 wreckers per day
would bring cars to the shop. He reported that he had asked the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology to meet with
him to determine the best equipment to install to control
emissions, and to monitor the equipment and shop on an annual
basis. He indicated that, no matter what happened, no razor or
barbed wire would be installed on the fence. He stated that the
front of the new Parker Body Shop would look better than other
C-3 uses that are or have been located in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Parker to comment on the noise
level concern which had been voiced at the previous Commission
meeting.
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A
Mr. Parker indicated that Scott Foster and Sherman Smith of the
City Engineering staff had made noise level studies at the
present location and at the proposed site.
Mr. Sherman Smith confirmed the information that the noise level
at the existing site was not grater than normal conversation
levels or the levels produced by normal traffic. He stated that
the noise from the proposed use would not be able to be heard
even as far as beyond the street in front of the facility.
Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Smith to comment on the noise
levels of drive-thru speakers.
Mr. Smith responded that he would do some studies of the noise
levels at drive-thrus and report back at the next Commission
hearing.
A motion was then made and seconded to recommend approval of the
PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 4 nays,
1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
Vj
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
NAME: WALGREENS TWELFTH AND FAIR PARK -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the southwest corner of W. 12th. Street and Fair
Park Blvd.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Gary Hawkins Frank Riggins
HAWKINS-SMITH THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
7136 S. Yale, #300 P. O. Box 3837
Tulsa, OK 74136 Little Rock, AR 72203
(918) 492-2435 375-5331
AREA: 1.19 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• C-3 & R-3
(C-1 zoning request
pending)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 18
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Drug Store
The applicant proposes the construction of a new Walgreens Drug
Store, and, to provide the site for the new building, proposes to
demolish the existing buildings on the site. The new drug store
building is proposed to face the Fair Park Blvd. -W. 12th. St.
intersection, and the site is to stretch from Fair Park Blvd.
west to Taylor Street, and take the north two-thirds¢ of the
block. The building is to occupy 27% of the site and parking for
58 vehicles is proposed Driveways off Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor
Street are indicated. A drive-thru for pharmacy sales is to be
located on the west end of the building. The receiving and
dumpster area is to be located on the south side of the building.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission of a site plan for a new
Walgreens Drug Store is requested. The applicant proposes
the construction of a 13,500 square foot building on a 1.19
acre site. Provision for parking for 58 vehicles is made.
A drive-thru on the west end of the building is proposed.
The service and dumpster area are to be located on the rear -
south side of the building. No variances or waivers are
requested.
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently developed, containing a retail store
at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and W. 12th. St.; an office
at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor St.; and a
residence on Taylor St. south of the office. These
buildings are to be razed and the site cleared for the new
construction.
The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-3. The
Commission, at its April 5, 1994 hearing, recommended a
change in the zoning of the entire site to C-1. The
Commission imposed the condition on the rezoning that site
plan review be conducted. The review at this time, then, is
a result of this condition. The rezoning request is heard
by the Board of Directors on the evening of May 3, 1994.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering reports that improvements along W. 12th. St.
will be required. A right turn lane with a taper will be
required, and this will involve a requirement for 6
additional feet of right-of-way. A 31 foot radius onto Fair
Park will be required. Improvements to Taylor St. will be
required to include widening to provide a right turn lane
and a 25 foot minimum radius at the intersection with W.
12th. St. The entrance off Taylor needs to be eliminated;
Taylor cannot handle the traffic. An entrance off W. 12th.
st. may be approved. A return for backing at the southeast
parking area must be provided.
Water Works reports that the fire department needs to
evaluate this site plan to determine if additional public or
private fire hydrants are required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department reports that on the west side interior
drive, where the canopy is located, the drive width needs to
be 20 feet of unobstructed width. Also, the Fire Department
requests that "No Parking. Tow -Away" signs be placed around
the building.
Landscape review reports that the landscape strip along W.
12th. St. must maintain a minimum width of 4 feet.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site abuts R-3 zoned area at the southwest portion of
the site along the Taylor St. frontage, and residences are
located to the south on both sides of Taylor St. Adequate
2
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO • F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
buffering of the site along
concern. with the service
proximity to the residence
there needs to be imposed a
screening.
E. ANALYSIS:
this area needs to be a primary
and dumpster area in so close a
on the abutting lot to the south,
requirement for substantial
There are substantial design considerations remaining to be
remedied. The site may be too small for the development.
There are right-of-way requirements and additional traffic
lane construction requirements which will impinge on the
available land. There is the Fire Department requirement of
unobstructed access along the west side of the building.
There are landscaping and buffer requirements which must be
dealt with. There is the matter of the proximity of the
building service area to a residence which needs to be
addressed. Unless the engineer and the applicant can
accommodate these requirements, there appears that there is
insufficient land area for the proposed scale of the
building.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
There are still too many unresolved issues for staff to make
a positive recommendation. The staff will have a
recommendation after the applicant's presentation at the
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project
engineer, was present. Staff presented the request, and the City
Engineering staff reviewed with Mr. Rigging the requirements for
additional right-of-way, the construction of an additional
traffic lane, the requirements for repositioning the drive
accesses, etc. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Riggins the items
in the discussion outline, then forwarded the request to the
Commission for the hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 3, 1994)
Mr. Jim Hathaway, representing the developer, reported that there
was a need to defer the hearing on the request until the
May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. He related that there were
concerns of the neighbors who live on Taylor Street, and he, the
developer, and the neighbors need additional time to meet and try
to work out accommodations on the concerns. The request for the
deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 2 nays, 0 absent,
and 0 abstentions.
3
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
Commissioner Oleson, noticing someone who had been present at a
previous Commission meeting when that person had been incorrectly
informed that the hearing would be on that date, asked that
person if she had, indeed, been present at that previous meeting.
When the answer was in the affirmative, Ms. Oleson indicated that
it was not fair to the citizens who have taken off work to be
present on a number of occasions, then to have the hearing
deferred and have to take off work again.
Commissioner Nicholson asked staff to be sure and place the
hearing on this issue at the first of the agenda when it is heard
again.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff related that the item had been placed on the May 3, 1994
Commission agenda, but that at that meeting, the developer had
asked that the hearing be deferred until the May 17 agenda to
allow the developer an opportunity to meet with and address
concerns of neighbors. Staff also related that the site had been
recently rezoned from C-3 and R-3 to C-1; that the rezoning had
been pursued in order to construct the Walgreens store; and,
that, normally, C-1 zoning does not require site plan review, but
that the Hoard of Directors, in approving the rezoning, had
required the site plan review.
Mr. Jim Hathaway reiterated the reason for the requested
deferral: to allow him an opportunity to meet with the neighbors
and attempt to address their concerns. He reported that four
neighbors had attended the meeting, and, due to that meeting,
Walgreens had agreed to some additional concessions. Some
concerns of the neighbors, however, were not able to be
accommodate, he stated.
He indicated that the Walgreens had agreed to construct an 8 foot
high brick fence along the south boundary of the property from
Taylor Street to the west face of the building; and to construct
an 8 foot high wood fence along the south property line from the
east face of the building to the abutting building to the east.
This, he said, would completely screen off the adjacent
properties. On the Walgreens side of the brick fence, he stated
that solid plantings of Holly trees would be planted which would
create screening above the 8 foot height of the fence.
Mr. Hathaway reported that Walgreens had agreed to delete the
signage at the Taylor Street -W. 12ths. Street intersection, and
have only the sign at the Fair Park -W. 12th. Street intersection.
The landscape buffer along Taylor Street would be heavily
landscaped.
Mr. Hathaway related that the neighbors do not want a curb -cut on
Taylor Street, but that Walgreens cannot develop the site with a
drive-thru without the Taylor Street exit.
4
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
Mr. Hathaway asked the Commission members, in making their
decision, to consider the significant and costly concessions
being made by Walgreens in the development of this site; that the
introduction of the Walgreens store on the site is an upgrading
of the intersection; that the re -zoning which was sought and
approved by both the Commission and Board was undertaken with the
Walgreens in mind; and, that Walgreens does not need to be
rebuffed in another attempt to enter the Little Rock market.
Commissioner Willis asked if Walgreens would be providing
additional width of roadway to Taylor Street so that traffic
could turn onto W. 12th. Street without delaying traffic waiting
to go the opposite direction.
Mr. Bill Henry, the City's traffic engineer, responded that
Walgreens is providing a right turn land along its frontage of
Taylor Street, as well as providing a right turn land off
W. 12th. Street onto Fair Park Blvd. He stated that Walgreens
had done all that he had asked of them regarding access points
and street improvements.
Commissioner Wyrick asked Mr. Hathaway about the proposed hours
of operation.
Mr. Hathaway responded that the planned hours of operation are
8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., but that he could not make assurances
that the hours of operation would not change. He reminded the
Commission that the item is not a PCD, but a site plan review,
and hours of operation are not pertinent in site plan reviews.
Commissioner Wyrick asked about the information furnished in the
agenda write-up which indicated that the maximum size of a single
building in a C-1 zone is 10,000 square feet, versus the size of
the proposed Walgreens being 13,500 square feet, and that a
variance needed to be approved by the Commission.
Mr. Hathaway indicated that the C-1 zoning request had been
pursued at the suggestion of staff, and that he had been unaware
of the need for a variance.
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, replied that,
indeed, the C-1 zoning district has a maximum allowable for a
single establishment of 10,000 square feet, but that, in
approving the site plan, the Commission grants the needed
variance; that it is not a separate issue.
Commissioner Wyrick asked if the parking which is being provided
is sufficient. She indicated that 60 parking spaces are required
by the Ordinance, and that 51 spaces are being provided.
Commissioner Oleson said that the agenda write-up had indicated
that 58 spaces were being provided, and asked why the number had
decreased to 51.
5
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
Mr. Hathaway responded that, due to staff requirements for
additional street widths, the available land for parking on the
site had been decreased, and 7 parking spaces had been lost since
the original submission.
Staff reported that for a 13,500 square foot building, the
required number parking spaces would be 45 spaces, and that the
Walgreens site met the requirements for parking.
Mrs. Cynthia Fleming voiced her concerns about the proposed
development. She stated that she and her husband object to the
exit from the site onto Taylor Street and the drive-thru speaker
being just 38 feet from her bedroom window. She complained that,
with the in -and out traffic and the drive-thru, they would not be
able to get quality sleep time.
Commissioner Oleson asked if the drive-thru could exit to the
east.
Mr. Hathaway responded that there is an offset in the south
property line, and that the property to the east is not part of
the site. He went of to say that the drive-thru is like a bank
drive -up teller station; there is no order board with a loud
speaker. He stated that the current noise from traffic on
W. 12th. Street is much more significant than the small amount of
noise which might be generated by the traffic through the
drive-thru. He asked the Commission to weight the quality of
the redevelopment on the neighborhood.
Mr. Richard Massery introduced himself and stated that he lives
directly across from the site on the west, and complained about
the drive exit onto Taylor Street. He stated that Taylor Street
would be used for truck waiting and backing.
Mr. Markus Gorski said that he lived opposite the Taylor Street
exit, and that cars leaving the drive-thru will shine their
headlights into his bedroom window. He also was concerned that
the drive-thru speakers would be noisy and disturb his and
others' sleep. He said that the Flemings will have an 8 foot
high wall separating their home from the site; he, on the other
hand, will have no buffer to offset the effects of the traffic.
To a questions from Commissioner Willis, Commissioner Oleson, and
Commissioner Nicholson concerning the possibility of having the
drive-thru either on the east or the drive exit to the east,
Mr. Hathaway stated that all possibilities had been examined, and
that the developer needed to pursue the request as presented.
Reversing the plan would place the front entrance at the W. 12th.
Street -Taylor intersection instead of the Fair Park -W. 12th.
intersection, and this would not only be unacceptable to the
developer, but to the neighborhood. The internal deign of the
building would prohibit relocating the drive-thru on the east
2
May 3, 1994
ITEM NO.: F (Continued)FILE NO.: Z -2970-C
side of the building if the building were not flipped. Beyond
that consideration, placing the drive-thru beside the front door
would push the parking too far away from the entrance and to the
Taylor Street side. With the off -set in the south property line,
turning the drive east from the west drive-thru location would
not be possible.
Mr. Doug Fleming complained that the development would cause more
traffic on Taylor Street; that, people waiting for traffic at the
W. 12th. Street -Fair Park intersection will start cutting through
on Taylor Street to get around the intersection.
Mr. Lawson_ stated that staff supports the development. The
developer, he continued, has gone a long way in mitigating the
detrimental effects on the neighborhood, and that the City needs
the redevelopment in the area. He reiterated that there is
already a great deal of noise on W. 12th. Street from thousands
and thousands of cars per day on the street and from the
restaurants and service stations immediately across the street
from the proposed site. He reminded the Commission that the
property has been down -zoned to C-1 from C-3, in contrast to the
uses which could have been developed in the C-3 district as it
stood.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan as
presented. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays,
1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
7
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 Z -1730-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
M. C. Wins
M. C. Wins
201 West Roosevelt Road
Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Auto Sales
0.44 acres
Of f ice
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Commercial, zoned C-3
South - Single -Family, zoned R-4
East - Single -Family, zoned R-4
West - Vacant, zoned R-4
STAFF ANALYSIS
201 West Roosevelt, the southwest corner of Louisiana and
West Roosevelt, is currently zoned C-3, and the request is
to rezone the site to C-4. The owner would like to utilize
the property for auto sales, and a reclassification is
necessary to allow the proposed use. There is a small
building on the property, which appears to be used for some
type of office. The lot has 137 feet of frontage on West
Roosevelt and a dimension of 140 feet along Louisiana.
The existing zoning in the general vicinity is R-3, R-4,
R-5, R-6, 0-1, 0-3, C-3 and PCD. (The blocks north of West
23rd are in the Capitol Zoning District.) The property in
question abuts R-4 on two sides and the lots to the east are
zoned R-4. Directly across West Roosevelt, the zoning is
C-3. Land use includes single family, multifamily, office,
commercial, auto sales (the PCD at the northeast corner of
Main and West Roosevelt), a school, a community center and
churches. Besides the office use at 201 West Roosevelt, the
remainder of the block is either vacant or single family
residences. There are other undeveloped lots in the
neighborhood and some vacant buildings.
The property was rezoned to "F" (C-3) Commercial in 1964.
In July of 1984 a rezoning was requested for the property.
The C-4 was denied by both the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors and there was neighborhood opposition to
the proposed reclassification. Staff did not support the
C-4 in 1984.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • 1 Z -1730-B (Cont.)
Staff's position on the current request is that nothing has
changed since 1984 to warrant a change in the zoning to C-4.
Because of the property's relationship with the surrounding
uses, primarily single family, the existing C-3 should be
the most intense zoning for the property. Even with the
Roosevelt frontage, the property is not a desirable C-4
location and some of the uses permitted in C-4. A C-4
rezoning could have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood and encourage additional C-4 applications,
which could lead to a "strip" of C-4 uses along West
Roosevelt. The zoning pattern on the south side of West
Roosevelt should be maintained and not altered by granting
the C-4 rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is located in the Central City District. The
adopted land use plan recommends mixed area. The mixed use
designation is designed to be compatible with single family.
Nonsingle family uses should be approved with a planned unit
development review. A C-4 use is not compatible with single
family. The mixing of C-4 uses with single family uses
produces negative impacts on the single family. Therefore,
the request is in conflict with the Plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-4 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the
applicant failed to notify the required property owners. As
part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer the
issue to the June 28, 1994 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
Fa
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 Z -3121-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
T. C. I. Realty Investments
Bobby Stewart by Bill McClard
5809 Asher Avenue
Rezone from C-3 to I-2
Industrial
15.1 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Commercial, zoned C-3
South - vacant, zoned R-2
East - Vacant and Industrial, zoned R-2 and I-2
West - Commercial, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
5809 Asher Avenue is the location of the old "Asher Drive -
In" Theater, and the request is to rezone the 15 acres from
C-3 to I-2. At this time, the proposed use involves light
fabrication and assembly, warehousing, wholesaling and some
retail sales. The site is vacant and all remnants of the
drive-in have been removed, with the exception of the drives
and the viewing area. The property has 287 feet of frontage
along Asher and has a total depth of over 1450 feet.
(Several years ago, the site was rezoned to C-3 to
accommodate the possible expansion of the existing
commercial center to the west.)
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-5, MF -24, C-3, C-4,
I-2 and some OS. For properties fronting Asher, the existing
zoning configuration is C-3, C-4, and I-2. This type of
pattern is very typical for most of the Asher corridor.
(Some of the land to the east is outside the city limits.)
Land use is similar to the zoning and includes some minor
residential, commercial and industrial. The Asher/University
intersection is viewed as a major commercial location and
most of the corners have significant commercial developments.
As you move away from the intersection, the land use along
Asher becomes more mixed, however, the predominant use group
is commercial. The property in question is situated between
a well-established commercial center on the west and a long-
time industrial user, Coleman Dairy, on the east. The area
that is outside the city limits is undeveloped and used as
pasture land.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -3121-B (Cont.)
The proposed rezoning to I-2 is in conflict with the plan for
the area, which shows the site for commercial use. The plan
reinforces the existing zoning and establishes the industrial
line along the east property boundary. Rezoning the entire
15 acres to I-2 would be a significant departure from the
adopted plan, and staff cannot support the requested
reclassification. However, because of the location and the
existing zoning pattern, it appears that a more restrictive
industrial rezoning might be a reasonable option. This
approach would define a specific use area within the interior
of site and reclassify it to I-1. In this particular area,
which is more commercial than industrial, retaining the C-3
along the Asher frontage is important to future redevelopment
possibilities. I-1, with site plan review, for some of the
site could provide a good transition from the C-3 to the I-2
and ensure a development that is compatible with the nearby
commercial uses.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the I-630 District. The adopted land use
plan recommends commercial use of the site. This site was
changed to commercial to allow for the expansion of the
adjacent shopping center. The site could be developed as a
light industrial use and propose a good land use mix.
However, any industrial use should be carefully reviewed due
to the sensitive nature of the site. Traffic issue as well
as potential impacts on the proposed Fourche Bottoms Park,
Staff would recommend amending the plan to show mixed
commercial and industrial at this site.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The Master Street Plan standard for Asher Avenue is 35 feet
from the centerline. If the existing right-of-way is
deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be
required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of I-1 for defined use area and
the remainder of the site be left C-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The application was represented by Bill McClard. There were
no other interested parties in attendance. Mr. McClard
addressed the Commission and requested a deferral.
K
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 Z -3121-B (Cont.)
A motion was made to defer the item
hearing. The motion was approved by
0 nays and 1 absent. (The Planning
the bylaw requirement for requesting
notice.)
3
to the June 28, 1994
a vote of 10 ayes,
Commission also waived
a deferral by written
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 Z -4343-G
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Ranch Properties, Inc.
Edward K. Willis
6500 Patrick Country Road
Rezone from MF -12 to MF -18
Multifamily Development
14.5 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned R-2
South - Vacant, zoned 0-2
East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Commercial, zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is part of The Ranch development,
located on Highway 10, and the request is to rezone the site
from R-2 and MF -12 to MF -18. A majority of the site is MF -
12 and only a small area of R-2 is included in the proposed
reclassification. The land is undeveloped and wooded.
Zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2, 0-2, OS and PCD.
The 0-2 area extends from Patrick Country Road to Ranch
Blvd. and from the boundary of the existing MF -12 parcel to
Highway 10. The west, east and north sides of the site
adjoin R-2 land. Within The Ranch development, there are
multiple zonings and they range from single family to
commercial. The Ranch area was originally rezoned in 1986,
and the property in question was reclassified to the current
MF -12 in 1990, as part of a reconfiguration of the projects
overall zoning. Land use includes single family, office,
commercial and a church. A high percentage of the
surrounding land is still undeveloped.
Increasing the allowable density from MF -12 to MF -18 on the
14 acres is a reasonable option for the site and should not
have a noticeable impact on nearby properties. There have
always been two areas within The Ranch zoned and/or
identified for multifamily use, the MF -12 tract under
consideration and a MF -18 site adjacent to Ranch Blvd.
Based on information provided by the applicant, a
significant portion of the MF -18 area has been sold to a
nonresidential user. Therefore, it appears that there will
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • 3 Z -4343-G (Cont.)
be a reduction in the total number of multifamily units,
even with the granting of the MF -18 reclassification. The
proposed rezoning does not change the direction of The
Ranch's land use concept, nor does it violate the city's
adopted plan. The site is a logical location a multifamily
user with a density of 12 to 18 units per acre.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the Pinnacle District. The adopted land
use plan recommends multifamily use of the site. There is
no land use issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MF -18 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to
recommend approval of the MF -18. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
K
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5826
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Various Owners
John W. Hatley
1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford
Drive
Rezone from R-2 to R-5
Multifamily
0.82 acres
Multifamily (4 units)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Multifamily, zoned R-2
South - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2
East - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2 and R-5
West - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The three lots in question, 1700, 1705 and 2007 Sanford
Drive, are nonconforming multifamily uses, zoned R-2. Each
property has four units and the request is to rezone the
three locations to R-5. The owners would like to do away
with nonconforming status and the potential problems
associated with such a situation. (Sanford Drive was an
"island" and the area was annexed to the city after all the
units were constructed.) There is one building on each lot
and two of them have off-street parking.
The surrounding zoning is R-2, R-5, MF -24 and PRD. The
majority of the multifamily zoning is located along
Reservoir Road and involves several apartment developments.
Along Sanford Drive, there is a total of 33 multifamily lots
and only three are zoned R-5. The R-2 zoning is found to
the north, south and west. The surrounding land use is
either single family or multifamily. There is also one
church in the immediate vicinity.
Because of the existing land use pattern on Sanford Drive, a
R-5 reclassification of the three lots is appropriate. it
appears that the rezoning will only change the nonconforming
status of the properties and nothing else. In the R-5
district, there is a "lot area per family" requirement which
limits the number of units permitted on a tract of land.
For the lots in question, 10,000 to 11,000 square feet, the
maximum number is five units. The ordinance requires 2,000
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5826 (Cont.)
square feet of land area for lots ranging from 10,000 square
feet to 1 acre. And finally, some of the existing single
family lots were platted and developed after Sanford Drive
was annexed. Therefore, the rezoning should not have an
impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the Rodney Parham District. The adopted
land use plan recommends single family use of the sites.
After review staff recommends the existing condition be
recognized and the plan amended along Sanford Drive to show
multifamily use.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning for all three
lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance, and the R-5 rezoning request was placed on the
Consent Agenda.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the R-5. The
vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5827
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Charles R. Thomas
R. Wingfield Martin
Frazier Pike (East of Riddick
Street)
Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Industrial
6.62 acres
Pasture
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned R-2 and I-2
South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and AF
East - Vacant, zoned R-2
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question is located east of College Station,
and the request is to rezone the acreage to I-2. The land
is situated on the north side on Frazier Pike and has 236
feet of street frontage. The site is used primarily for
pasture land, but there are several structures on it,
including a single family residence. There are no immediate
plans for the property other than trying to sell it to an
industrial user.
Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, I-2 and AF
(agriculture and forestry). The existing I-2 is located
directly to the north and several hundred feet to the east.
The I-2 has frontage on Lindsay Road, one of the main entry
ways into the Port Industrial District, and extends to
Frazier Pike. The AF area is found on the south side of
Frazier Pike. Land use includes single family, churches and
industrial. The established single family neighborhoods are
primarily located to the west. There is undeveloped land
found throughout the area.
At this time, the adopted land use plan, College
Station/Sweet Home, identifies the property for single
family use and part of an open space area. The plan shows
the recommended industrial areas north and east of the
designated "park/open space,, area. Because the developed
single family area is situated to the west and the zoning
pattern, it appears that an industrial reclassification is a
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-5827 (Cont.)
reasonable option for the site. The open space area could
be modified to continue the buffer between the expanded
industrial area and the single family neighborhoods.
Increasing the industrial zoning by 6 acres should not
create any problems for the surrounding properties, nor
alter the direction of the plan. The site is adjacent to a
small tract of I-2 and there is a narrow strip of land along
the north property that is suppose to be a future street.
Therefore, access to some of the land could be from the
existing industrial area to the north and minimize the
impact on the single family residences along Frazier Pike.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the College Station/Sweet Home District.
The adopted land use plan recommends industrial and open
space uses of the site. The exact boundary of the
industrial use has never surveyed; however, this site is at
or near the transition line. If the Commission does not
draw the line with this application, in future rezoning
requests to the south and west potential plan issues are
likely to arise.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Frazier Pike is classified as a minor arterial, and the
right-of-way standard is 45 feet from the centerline.
Dedication of additional right-of-way is required because
the existing right-of-way is deficient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and
item was included on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the I-2 rezoning was
recommended for approval. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
01
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5828
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church
and Virgil Dexter Doyne
Virgil Dexter Doyne
Frazier Pike and Stout Street
Rezone from AF to R-2
Single -Family and Church
1.5 acres
Single -Family and Church
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single -Family, zoned R-2
South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned AF
East - Single -Family, zoned AF
West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned AF
STAFF ANALYSIS
This issue involves a total of seven lots and the request is
to rezone them from AF (agriculture and forestry) to R-2.
The site is located at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike
and Stout Street, which is on the eastern edge of the
College Station community. (All the lots are in the city
limits.) The property is occupied by a single family
residence, a church and several accessory structures.
The primary reason for this application is to allow the
church to add some additional floor area. In the AF
district, churches are not listed as a permitted or
conditional use. Therefore, the church is nonconforming and
the zoning ordinance prohibits the expansion of
nonconforming uses. The church needs to rezone to R-2 and
obtain a conditional use permit to allow the new
construction. (Item No. 7 is the conditional use permit
request for the church.) After discussing the situation
with the staff, the adjoining property owner agreed to
include his lots in the application because R-2 is the
proper zoning for his single family use.
Zoning is R-2, I-2 and AF, with the AF area on the south
side of Frazier Pike. (After an extensive review of files,
the staff was unable to determine why the area was
reclassified to AF.) The land use in the immediate vicinity
is primarily single family. There are several churches in
the neighborhood and there is an elementary school to the
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 Z-5828 (Cont.)
west. Some of the nearby land is undeveloped and there are
some vacant buildings in the area.
Rezoning the corner of Frazier Pike and Stout to R-2 is
compatible with the existing land use and more appropriate
for the location. The AF is somewhat misplaced, and the
adopted plan does show the area for single family use.
Therefore, the R-2 conforms to the College Station/Sweet
Home plan and there are no outstanding zoning issues.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The proposal is in the College Station/Sweet Home District.
The adopted land use plan recommends single family use.
There is no land use issue.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The site has frontage on the three streets and all the
rights-of-way are deficient. Dedication of additional
right-of-way will be required to satisfy the Master Street
Plan. The right-of-way standards are as follows:
• Frazier Pike - 45 feet from the centerline
• Stout - 25 feet from the centerline
• Avant - 25 feet from the centerline
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the R-2 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the R-2 rezoning. The vote was
10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -5828-A
NAME:
LOCATION:
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church -
Conditional Use Permit
5100 Frazier Pike
OWNER/APPLICANT: Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church by
Virgil Dexter Doyne
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the addition
of educational space and a porch to
this existing church. The church
property is currently zoned AF,
Agriculture and Forestry. An
application has been filed to
rezone this property to R-2
(Z-5828).
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 Neicxhborhood
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. On -Site Drives and Parkincr
The existing sanctuary has a seating capacity of 200
persons. No expansion of the sanctuary is proposed. A 200
seat sanctuary requires 50 on-site parking spaces. 46
parking spaces exist on-site at the present. The church
does have additional space on its property to expand the
parking lot if necessary.
4. Screening and Buffers
An upgrade in landscaping equal to the percentage of
expansion of the building is required; approximately 25%.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-A
5. City Engineer Comments
Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline on Frazier
Pike. Construct half of minor arterial street standard
improvements on Frazier Pike.
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Avant
Street. Construct half of residential street standard
improvements on Avant Street.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church requests a conditional use
permit to allow for the addition of a porch and an
1,140 square foot classroom addition to this existing,
nonconforming church. The conditional use permit is
contingent upon the property being rezoned from AF to R-2.
Staff is supportive of the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the City's
Landscape Ordinance and compliance with the City Engineer
Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. After
a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were no
outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MATT 17, 1994)
The applicant, Dexter Doyne, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
Staff advised the Commission that the applicant was requesting a
variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback of 20 feet to
compensate for the increased right-of-way being granted for
Frazier Pike. Staff recommended approval of the variance.
Fa
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5828-A
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as
recommended by staff, including the requested variance.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5829
NAME: Word of Outreach Staff Housing -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 2517 Brown Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Word of Outreach by James
Washington, Director of Church
Affairs
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 16 -unit staff
housing complex on this R-3 zoned
site. The units will serve as
housing for staff members of the
Word of Outreach Christian Center
Academy and Missions Institute.
Also requested is approval to
construct two storage buildings,
one to serve the occupants of the
staff housing complex and one to
serve the general storage needs of
the Word of Outreach campus, such
as lawn maintenance equipment.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The site is located on the east side of Brown Street, one
block south of Asher Avenue.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Although all property in the immediate vicinity of the site
is zoned R-3 and occupied by small single family residential
homes, there are many other nonresidential uses in the
neighborhood.
The Word of Outreach Ministries occupies several pieces of
property located one block north and west of this site.
These ministries include a church and private school.
A large area of C-3 zoning extends along Roosevelt Road,
located one block south of this site. Uses in this area
range from a beauty shop to restaurants and a hotel. The
Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility and a nursing
home are also located in this area.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5829
With proper attention given to screening the adjacent single
family residential properties, this proposed use should be
compatible with the neighborhood and in fact could provide a
stabilizing, residential influence.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This 16 -unit housing complex requires a total of 24 on-site
parking spaces. 42 on-site parking spaces are proposed.
Two handicapped accessible spaces are required.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along
the north and east property lines where adjacent to
residential properties. Interior landscaping must comprise
at least 6% of the vehicular use area.
5. City Engineer Comments
Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Dedicate
right-of-way on Brown Street and West 26th Street to 25 feet
from the centerline and construct half -street improvements
to Master Street Plan standards on both Brown Street and
West 26th Street.
6. Utility Comments
Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 6 foot easement along
the east property line.
7. Analysis
word of Outreach is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 16 -unit housing complex to
serve as staff housing for the church and private school.
The proposal includes the construction of two buildings
containing eight 3 -bedroom units each. The units are
ancillary to the church and private school and will not be
available for rent. The housing will be included in a
benefit package offered to those individuals on staff at the
Word of Outreach Ministries.
With proper attention to screening the adjacent single
family residential properties, this proposed use should be
compatible with the neighborhood and could provide a
stabilizing, residential influence.
Fa
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5829
Word of Outreach Ministries has experienced phenomenal
growth in the past few years. The ministries have continued
to expand onto additional properties both north and south of
Asher Avenue. Staff feels that the time has come for Word
of Outreach to design and submit a Master Plan for future
growth in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and
compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
explained the relationship of the housing to the overall Word of
Outreach campus.
The Committee agreed that the time has come for Word of Outreach
to submit a Master Plan for future growth in the area.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, James Washington, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues and that a
revised site plan had been submitted which addressed all staff
concerns.
As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as
recommended by staff.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S -964-A
NAME: WAL-MART -- REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of S. Bowman Rd. and Chenal
Parkway
DEVELOPER:
WAL-MART
Bentonville, AR
AREA: 9.13 ACRES
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
ENGINEER•
CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attn.: Todd A. Butler
110 W. Central
Bentonville, AR 727121
273-0472
NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
In approving the rezoning of the tract for the Wal -Mart -Sam's
Club Stores, the Board of Directors imposed conditions on the
approval and required site plan review of the development to
assure compliance with the conditions which had been imposed.
This ordinance, Ordinance 16,235, was passed by the Board on
July 7, 1992. The Planning Commission subsequently was presented
with and approved the site development plan on January 26, 1993.
The approved site plan included a "T.B.O." (Tire, Battery, Oil)
area on the north site of the building entailing 5,170 square
feet of building and some outside, screened -in storage. At the
northeast corner of the Wal-Mart building, a garden center was
included, involving 4982 square feet of building area, or
"enclosed season room", and 9354 square feet of fenced area which
was to be partially covered with shadecloth. The applicant now
requests a revision to the approved site plan to include the
elimination of the "T.B.O." area and the enlargement and
enhancement of the garden center facility.
The building, or "enclosed season room" portion of the garden
center is proposed to be a 70 foot by 77 foot (or, 5,390 square
foot) wing on the building. The enclosed, fenced area is
proposed to be increased to 34,080 square feet to include 6,370
square feet of shadecloth covered area and the remaining 27,710
square feet of open air area. The fence is to be 20 feet high.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A
Additionally, a conditioned greenhouse totaling 10,758 square
feet is proposed to be added. This greenhouse is described as
being constructed of translucent plastic on a steel frame.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission is requested for a revised
site plan for the Wal-Mart Store at Bowman Rd. and Chenal
Parkway. In lieu of the 5,170 square foot "T.B.O." (Tire,
Battery, Oil) area, the 4,982 square foot "enclosed season
room", and the 9,354 square foot open, fenced space, the
applicant proposes a 5,390 square foot "enclosed season
room", a 10,758 square foot conditioned greenhouse, and a
34,080 square foot fenced garden center area to include a
6,370 square foot shadecloth covered area and 27,710 square
foot open -to -air area. The fence surrounding the open area
is to be 20 feet high. The greenhouse is translucent
plastic on a steel frame construction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Construction activity at the site has begun, with rough site
work being substantially complete. Construction on the
building is immanent.
The revised site plan submitted for review indicates the
size of the Wal-Mart building to be 152,917 square feet.
This is compared with the 121,267 square foot building on
the approved site plan. Staff had approved the increase in
building size at Wal -Mart's request when Wal-Mart indicated
that the Sam's Club building would be decreased in size so
that the total square footage of approved building would not
be increased.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Because the proposal involves only a change in the footprint
of the building, elimination of one proposed activity and
the enlargement of another, the plans were not submitted to
engineering or the utility companies for comment. There
are, then, no additional comments.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant needs to furnish additional information on the
type of perimeter fencing at the garden center and the
proposed height of the greenhouse.
The revised site plan does not include the future Sam's Club
building on the drawing. The current request does not,
however, affect the approval of the Sam's Club building. It
is not shown on this plan because the plan reflects only the
current construction activity.
E
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A
E. ANALYSIS•
Areas that were either building or driveways and parking are
proposed to be used for building and fenced garden center
area. The originally approved "T.B.O." and garden center
were surrounded on the north, east, and west by concrete and
asphalt areas. A parking area was approved to the north
extending to Chenal Parkway. The revised site plan simply
includes much of the area within the fence as a garden area,
leaving a driveway at the north perimeter. Beyond the
drive, extending to Chenal, is an area reserved for a "green
area".
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994)
Staff outlined the request to the Committee, reviewing the
proposed changes in the in the site plan as indicated on the
approved versus the revised drawings. The Committee forwarded
the proposal to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
Staff explained that Wal-Mart had requested approval of a change
in the approved site plan to delete the "Tire, Battery, Oil"
(T.B.O.) service area and its drives and parking area, and
substitute a garden center area. Staff noted that, since the
originally approved site plan, a large area north of the
building, between the "T.B.O." and Chenal Parkway, had been
changed from parking to landscaped area, and that the drive off
Chenal Parkway had been moved further to the east. Staff related
that the applicant had submitted all required drawings and
information concerning the design and lighting for the proposed
garden center.
Chairperson Chachere asked the Wal-Mart representative, Mr. Todd
Butler, if he wished to make a presentation to the Commission.
Mr. Butler deferred until those who were present in opposition to
the request could relate their concerns.
Mr. Cleve Jones spoke in opposition to the requested change. He
stated that he and his family lived in a home which backs up to
the site and is the one which is closest to Chenal Parkway. He
complained that in the eight years they had lived in their home,
they had had to endure the construction of Chenal Parkway and now
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A
Wal-Mart; that when they had bought the home, they had been
surrounded by trees and beautiful land, and between the two
construction projects, they had lost practically all of these
amenities. He complained that he and his family had sacrificed
all this, and that they did not feel that they should have to
sacrifice any more. He said that the proposed garden center
would add traffic, noise, and light, and that these would be a
detriment to their sleep and peace. He said that there was
supposed to be a 50 foot natural buffer left along the west
property line of the Wal-Mart site, but that, because they are at
the north end of the site against Chenal Parkway, the 50 foot
buffer is reduced. Utility construction on the Chenal Parkway
right-of-way behind their home had involved the removal of trees.
They had lost almost all the trees, and the noise from Chenal
Parkway, plus the added noise from Wal-Mart was more sacrifice
than they though they should have to endure. Wal-Mart had
proposed a site plan, and they should, Mr. Jones contended, have
to live with their decision.
Tracy Jones spoke in opposition to the proposal. She recalled
that, in January of 1993, Wal -Mart's Todd Butler has assured
those in attendance at the meeting that there would be a dawn to
dusk rule enforced for the construction activity, but that this
has been disregarded. Construction activity until 11:00 or 12:00
at night was bad, but, she said, she could live with this
intrusion because it was temporary. A garden center, on the
other hand, would be permanent. Its lights and traffic would be
on-going. There is a curb cut at the northwest corner of the
site which is right behind their home, and traffic will be in and
out all the time. She and her husband have, she said, been
pushed far enough, and it is time for Wal-Mart to have to live
with their original decision and not be granted the change to add
the garden center. She added that she had measured and taken
pictures to be sure that the required open space was not
disturbed. She was convinced that the utility work and the
removal of the trees had occurred on Chenal Parkway right-of-way.
Commissioner McDaniel confirmed with Mrs. Jones that the open
space had not been disturbed, and asked if she would be happier
if the trees in the right-of-way had not been removed.
Mrs. Jones replied that it would help if there were a tree buffer
at the rear of their home, including on that portion of the rear
of their property which is abutted by Chenal Parkway.
Mr. Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that utility
contractors must restore the land following utility construction,
but that trees cannot be placed back over utility lines.
Mrs. Jones returned to the discussion of the construction
activity in that portion of the utility easement which lies
within hers and her husband's property, and said that their fence
�, I
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -964-A
and railroad ties had been torn up. She said that, over the nine
years they had lived at the location, contractors had been in the
utility easement a number of times, and that always before, the
fence and railroad ties had been replaced. She said that Todd
Butler had told her following Wal -Mart's contractor's work that
they were not required to replace the ties and landscaping. The
job superintendent, though, has told her that he would be certain
that the dirt and ties would be replaced.
Mrs. Jones concluded by saying that, if the trees in the easement
had been left in place, they would have been a buffer between
them and the site, and the garden center would not be as much of
a problem as it would without the trees.
Mr. Todd Butler explained that the Joneses had done landscaping
work in the easement area, and that Wal-Mart would do what is
required, but explained to the Commissioners that the replacement
of landscaping or asphalt in easements is the responsibility of
the landowner. The Joneses had placed landscaping in the sewer
easement over the sewer line, and to gain access to the sewer
line, the landscaping had had to be removed.
Commissioner Walker confirmed that Wal-Mart had done the minimum
necessary to tap onto the existing sewer line which is in the
sewer easement lying partially on the Joneses property.
Mr. Butler explained that, because of the excessive depth of the
sewer line, 12 feet, the ditch was required to be wide at the
top, but that all work had been done in the easement.
Commissioner Oleson complained about the developer accessing the
sewer main through the designated open space, and said that
citizens are assured that there would be an open space in a
location such as this, then the developer disregards the
assurances,
Mr. Jones interjected that he wanted to be certain that the
Commissioners realized how bright the lights are on the Home
Quarters garden center across Bowman Road, and realized how this
type of lighting would light up the area around the Wal-Mart
site.
Mr. Butler replied that, when the site was originally approved,
the lighting at the rear of the site was to be 4 foot high
bollard lights to reduce the blead-over lighting to the adjoining
property, and that the light standards on the rest of the
property were of a reduced height to limit the light spread to
the adjoining properties. He stated that the lighting design
would be handled to limit the effect of the lighting on the
properties to the west.
5
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-964-A
Mr. Butler reminded the Commission that, when the original site
had been approved, the neighbors had complained about the
"T.B.O." being behind their homes and about seeing all the cars
and having the traffic and noise in the area that would be
produced. Now, the parking, drives, and that use had been
eliminated, and there is proposed a landscaped area with
landscaping materials and plant sales which should look better
than the auto parts sales and installation.
Commissioner Walker asked for confirmation on the appropriateness
of a discussion of use issues on a site plan review, to which Mr.
Giles indicated that the discussion of the lighting and location
of the garden center is an appropriate discussion.
Commissioner McDaniel, addressing the Joneses, asked for a
listing of accommodations which could be provided which would
make the approval of the revised site plan less objectionable to
them.
Mrs. Jones stated that she wanted the 8 foot high privacy fence
to extend the entire length of their rear property line. She
stated that they wanted some trees planted in the area to buffer
them from the driveway off Chenal Parkway.
Mr. Butler replied that Wal-Mart would extend the 8 foot high
fence to the Chenal Parkway right-of-way, and would work with
Wastewater to replace as many of the trees in the easement as
would be allowed, realizing that trees cannot be planted over
sewer lines.
Commissioner McDaniel asked if Wal-Mart could not plant evergreen
trees to the east of the open space which would help shield the
drive from the Joneses property.
Mr. Butler responded that additional landscape buffer depth to
include the planting of evergreen trees could be added at the
northwest corner of the Wal-Mart site in the area between the
drive off Chenal Parkway and the property line to the west.
After a lengthy discussion involving Commissioners, the planning
staff, and Mr. Giles on the appropriateness of discussions on use
issues versus site plan issues, a motion was made and seconded to
approve the revised site plan, subject to Wal-Mart extending an 8
foot high "good neighbor" privacy fence along the rear of the
Joneses property line to its intersection with the Chenal Parkway
right-of-way, re -planting trees in the utility easement to the
extent allowed by Wastewater Utility, and adding evergreen trees
to the east of the open space buffer to shield the Jones, and
other homes from the effects of the lights and traffic on the
Wal-Mart site. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 3
nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4973-B
NAME: IBSEN IMPORTS 3021 CANTRELL ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: 3021 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
MICHAEL D. IBSEN
Ibsen Imports
P. O. Box 25065
Little Rock, AR 72225
AREA: 0.894 ACRES
ZONING• PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT: 15
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
PROPOSED USES:
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
FT. NEW STREET: 0
Auto sales and display
On August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of a PCD for "boat sales and display" for Red River
Marine; the request at that time included a request for approval
of all other uses by right in the C-3 zoning district, and this
request was included in the approval. The Board of Directors
established the PCD on September 12, 1990 in Ordinance No.
15,932.
Since Red River Marine occupied the site under the initial PCD
approval, that use ceased, and Brown's Carpets & Custom Rugs, a
C-3 use, has occupied the site. Brown's is now ceasing operation
at the site, and Ibsen Imports is requesting approval to occupy
the site. Ibsen Imports proposes the addition of the sale and
display of automobiles to the list of permitted uses in the PCD.
Ibsen Imports indicates that they propose no changes in the
landscaping, pavement, or structures on the site; however, they
propose to install a wrought iron fence at the perimeter of the
site in the location of the previously approved chain link fence
which surrounded the display area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for an amendment to the present
PCD to permit the sales and display of automobiles. The
existing PCD allows the sales and display of boats, plus all
other uses by right in the C-3 zoning district. No changes
in the landscaping, pavement, or structures are requested;
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B
however, approval is requested for a wrought iron fence
along the perimeter of the property in the location of the
previously approved chain link fence.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the current location of the Brown's Carpets ,&
Custom Rugs which is closing, and was the previous location
for Red River Marine for which the PCD was originally
established. There were conditions attached to the original
approval, and these were: 1) the chain link fence was to
maintain the same setback as the building; 2) exterior
lighting was to be directed inward and downward; 3)
landscaping of the site was to be as shown of the revised
site plan; 4) temporary display of merchandise was to be
allowed outside the fence area; 5) the location of the
proposed sign was to be identified on the revised site plan;
6) the hours of operation were to be from 8:00 AM to 10:00
PM; 7) the site was to be used for a showroom and sales
facility only, and no maintenance of boats or related
equipment was to occur on the site; 8) all C-3 uses and boat
sales and display were to be permitted; 9) a note was to be
included on the revised site plan excluding from approval
the billboard which stood on the site; and, 10) the chain
link fence which was to surround the open display area was
to be removed when Red River Marine vacated the property.
The billboard has subsequently been removed. The chain link
fence was removed when Red River Marine vacated the site.
The zoning to the east and south is C-3. Across Cantrell
Rd. to the north is I-2 and 0-2 zoning. To the west, on the
bluff overlooking Cantrell Rd. is R-2 zoning.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering, for the 1990 approval, required the dedication
of additional right-of-way. This was done. There are no
additional engineering comments.
The plan was not distributed to the utility companies for
this request, since the request is for the addition of a
single use to the list of permitted uses in the PCD.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The landscaping has deteriorated over time. Plantings need
to be reestablished, then properly maintained.
There is a 20 foot fire lane easement along the east
property line which needs to be left unobstructed.
Oa
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B
E. ANALYSIS•
Prior to the establishment of the PCD, the site was utilized
in a number of different ways. Records indicate that the
initial use was a service station, and it has also been used
for auto sales. It has had various retail users in the
building. In the original write-up from the 1990 Commission
review of the PCD request, staff supported the boat sales
and display as "a reasonable option for the property", and
stated that the proposal was "consistent with the proposed
PCD for the auto sales location to the east". Staff
reaffirms this position.
The staff review for the 1990 Commission hearing included
the concern that boat sales and display was a C-4 use, but
staff supported the use if a PCD was the mechanism whereby
the use was approved and there was site design control. It
was observed that use of the site would have practical
limitations imposed because of the limited lot depth, and
because, in the C-4 zoning district, no open display is
permitted in the first 20 feet of the front yard setback.
The PCD was a means of permitting the desired use within the
limitations of the site, yet imposing site design controls.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request, with the condition
that the landscaping be reinstalled and, thereafter,
maintained, and that, should Ibsen Imports vacate the site,
the fence be removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994)
The applicant, Michael Ibsen, was present. Staff presented the
item, and Mr. Ibsen made his request for the modification of the
existing PCD to permit automobile sales and display. Mr. Ibsen
presented a rendering of the front view of the site showing the
landscaping improvements which are anticipated, and showing the
wrought iron fence which is proposed. He indicated that a chain
link fence would be installed at the rear and sides of the
property, with the wrought iron fence being limited to the front
building line location.
Commissioner Oleson stated that the Commission had wrestled with
the approval of the original PCD, concerned about the C-4 use for
boat sales and display in the C-3 area. The Commission had also
been concerned about the fence which had been requested with the
original PCD application for Red River Marine, and, consequently,
the stipulation had been placed in the approval of the PCD that
3
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) ___ _______ FILE NO.: z -4973-B
the fence was to be removed when Red River Marine vacated the
property. As required, Ms. Oleson added, the fence had been
removed and the billboard which had stood on the property had
been taken down. She explained that the removal of the billboard
as a condition of the approval of the PCD was a primary reason
for her affirmative vote on the request when the PCD was
originally approved.
Mr. Ibsen responded that he felt that an automobile sales and
display use was appropriate, since there is another dealer just
two doors to the east, and there is another dealer a couple of
blocks to the east.
Commissioner Oleson complained that the dealer two door down was
not in compliance with their PCD restrictions, since they place
display cars on the right-of-way/green space along Cantrell Rd.
Mr. Ibsen replied that the problems with the other dealers was
not his doing, and that he would like to explain what he planned
to do with his new site. He stated that, unlike the other
dealers in the area who have dozens of cars, he keeps in
inventory 12-20 cars, with an average cost of $50,000 each. He
will not have 50-100 cars sitting on his lot, since the cost is
so high, he explained. The majority of his cars, he said, will
be inside the showroom. The landscaping will be upgraded and be
attractive, as will the wrought iron fence, he concluded.
Commissioner Willis agreed that the issues to be discussed needed
to deal with the applicant's request.
Staff explained that the difference between boat sales and
display and automobile sales and display was not that much
different, and staff had felt that, since the PCD had been
approved and used for the boat sales and display use, and, since
there were automobile uses in the area, the applicant's request
had not seemed inappropriate.
Commissioner Walker interjected that he was supportive of the
revitalization efforts along Cantrell Rd, and said that it
appears that "the valley" is evolving as premium automobile
dealer area. He stated, though, that the paved -over right-of-way
should be returned to landscaping; that in the area from the curb
to the edge of the right-of-way the asphalt should be removed and
landscaping installed. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Walker
asked if the applicant planned to display automobiles in the
right-of-way.
Mr. Ibsen replied that he would like to retain the option of
displaying 1-4 cars during the day in that area; that at night,
his insurance requires that all cars be behind the fence.
Commissioner Oleson asked about the planned signage.
4
May 17, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4973-B
Mr. Ibsen produced a rendering of the proposed sign, and this
rendering showed a marquee below the identification sigh.
Commissioner Oleson suggested that there was a need to tie down
the number and location of the cars to be displayed in front of
the building.
Mr. Ibsen replied that he would like to be allowed as many as
4 cars, but that it would probably be fewer than that number, and
that the location would be in front of the showroom.
Commissioner Walker asked if a franchise needed to be sought from
the Board of Directors for display on the right-of-way.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to the question and
indicated that a franchise approved by the Board was not needed.
Commissioner Walker encouraged the applicant to return as much of
the paved area behind the curb to landscaping as possible.
Commissioner Oleson returned to the question of signage, and
asked the applicant if he was interested in removing the marquee
from the proposed sign.
Mr. Ibsen replied that he was not.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the modification to the
PCD, with the stipulation that no more than 4 cars can be
displayed at any one time in front of the building line on the
right-of-way. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 no,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
U3
w
io-
Lij
I
►:
OEO
..
z
LLJ
C!)
m
Q
LLJ
a
Z
Ll
-n
T
I�
I
I
lll�`
II
uj
�Qp
II
�
M
I
<I
I'�.IIII
I
:�I
II�IIII
IiII�II
1�
lilllll
II
I
II
I
�
LLJ
Z
E
LLJ
Z
=
0
J
CL
LL)
-'
W
LLJ
J
--
z
CL
u�=c�zOOU<C)LLJ
L�
Q
J
LJ
U
L1J
J
-�O--m
`�
Q
J
Z
Z
Y
CL
Z
c::
O
O
N
Q
J
�ZE=L)
I�
—�
2ZO
U_
>—
E-L
O
3:
Lo
3:
I
►:
OEO
..
z
LLJ
C!)
m
Q
LLJ
a
Z
Ll
-n
T
I
II
II
�
M
I
:�I
II�IIII
IiII�II
1�
lilllll
II
I
II
I
��IIII
SII
I
II
II
I�
VIII
`m
d
`
LJ.J
J
LLl
T2
<
_
�
LLJ
J
t-'�C�Lu0-'�
Jz
Z2=
Q¢
LLJ
LLJ
--lo!
LLJ
J
z
v
mwCID
Uj
O
ci
Z=
-I
U
c/�
Z
O
O
cn
U
Q
Z
-�
�j
LLJ
Y
Q
Q
-�
U
_U
J
m
>-
O
uJ,J
Q
F-
=
U
Z
O
3:
Cf)
3:
I
►:
OEO
..
z
LLJ
C!)
m
Q
LLJ
a
Z
Ll
May 17, 1994
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Date
Chairman