pc_02 08 1994subI.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
Presentation of the Consent Agenda
Staff presented the several items for consideration.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Chachere, Chairperson
Brad Walker
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Bill Putnam
Joe Selz
Jim VonTungeln
Emmett Willis, Jr.
One Open Position
Ramsay Ball
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
DEFERRED ITEMS•
A. Central Properties - Short -form Planned Commercial Development
(Z -54'x.2 -A)
B. Shackleford Road Industrial Park - Preliminary Plat (S-1003)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
1. Appletree Commercial Subdivision -- Long -form Planned Commercial
Development and Exclusive Abandonment of a Portion of Alamo
Circle and Shadecrest Drive and Abandonment of Various Utility
Easements (Z-5787)
2. Enderlin Mini -Storage -- Short -form Planned Commercial
Development (Z -5550-A) and Enderlin Subdivision - Preliminary
Plat (S-1006)
SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
3. Alltel IV -- Site Plan Review and Abandonment of portions of
Cedar Hill Road and Allied Drive and Abandonment of a North-South
Utility Easement (Z -3709-A)
4. Arkansas Children's Hospital Energy Building -- Site Plan Review
and Abandonment of the Easements located in the Closed Rights -of -
Way for West 11th. Street from South Wolfe to South Marshall
Streets and for West 9th. Street from South Battery to South
Marshall Streets (Z -4336-J)
S. NAPA Genuine Parts Company -- Site Plan Review (Z -4676-C)
6. Chenal Valley Apartments -- Site Plan Review (Z-5788)
6a. #26 Corporate Hill Drive -- Site Plan Review (Z -3689-F)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
7. Zu Zu's -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -5524-B)
8. Southwest Christian Academy -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5786)
OTHER MATTERS:
9. Saratoga Drive -- Street Name Change to Ranch Ridge Road
(G-25-166)
Subdivision Agenda
(Continued)
02/08/94
10. Morris Commercial Subdivision Preliminary Plat -- Time Extension
(S-980)
11. Master Street Plan Amendments -- The addition of cross section
designs for open ditch roads, seven lane arterials, divided
arterials, and an urban section for minor arterials, and to
change the classification of Chenal/Financial Center Parkway to
divided principal arterial with four and six lane sections.
12. Hillsborough Phase IIA Subdivision -- Bill of Assurance Amendment
to modify the setback requirements for Lot 65R to permit the
building setback lines which have been permitted by the Board of
Adjustment.
{
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO Z 54'12 A
NAME: CENTRAL PROPERTIES -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: At the north-west corner of Hinson Road and Rodney
Parham Road
DEVELOPER:
CENTRAL PROPERTIES
c/o John Flake
425 W. Capitol, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72203
376-8005
AREA• 4 ACRES ±
ZO ING• R-2 to PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
NUMBER OF LOTS • 1
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
CROMWELL FIRM
One Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
372-2900
FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Office & Commercial
The applicant proposes the establishment of a Planned Commercial
Development District in order to develop a 4 acre tract with
mixed office and commercial uses. The proposed buildings are
planned to be oriented toward Rodney Parham and Hinson Roads,
with an Applebee's restaurant planned at the north extremity of
the property facing Rodney Parham, a Walgreen's store at the
corner of Rodney Parham and Hinson Roads, and an office building
at the western edge of the property facing Hinson Road. Two
access drives are proposed off Rodney Parham; one off Hinson
Road. No drive accesses are proposed off the three residential
streets to the north, north-west, or west; a 30 foot landscape
buffer is proposed along these three streets. Parking for 205
cars is indicated.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
Of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD on
a 4 acre tract at the corner of Rodney Parham and Hinson
Roads. The requested PCD orients the buildings towards
these two minor arterial roadways, with access being derived
only from these two streets. Two access points are proposed
on Rodney Parham; one on Hinson. No access is proposed to
the three residential streets to the north, north-west, and
west, and a 30 foot landscape buffer is proposed along the
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5112-A
length of these three streets. The applicant proposes to
retain many of the existing trees in this 30 foot area and
to add additional trees and evergreen landscaping to provide
an all -season buffer which will, "in time", obscure the
buildings and parking from view from the residential area
beyond. Earth berms are proposed to be placed in the
"greenbelt" to protect existing trees and to maintain the
wooded appearance in this area. New landscaping is proposed
to be provided which, a related by the applicant, will
exceed City landscaping requirements. On -premise signs will
be designed and placed in conformance with the City Sign
Ordinance requirements.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is, for the most part, heavily wooded. There are
two residences on the site, one facing Rodney Parham; one
facing Hinson. A log cabin and barn stand behind/to the
west of the residence which faces Rodney Parham and lie
along the north property line of the site. Buff Lane,
Valley Club Circle, and Wendy Lane border the site on the
north, north-west, and west respectively. The current
zoning of the site is R-2. Property to the north and west
is zoned R-2. Property to the north-west is zoned R-2 and
R-4. Property across Rodney Parham is zoned PCD. Property
across Hinson is R-5, R-2, and 0-3. Diagonally across the
intersection of Rodney Parham and Hinson is C-2 zoned
property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office indicates that right-of-way must
be dedicated for Rodney Parham and Hinson Roads which is
consistent with Master Street Plan requirements. Additional
right-of-way is, therefore needed. Improvements on Rodney
Parham must be constructed, and conformance to traffic
engineering design requirements must be met for the Rodney
Parham -Hinson intersection. The northern -most access drive
on Rodney Parham must be abandoned. The Detention and
Excavation Ordinances are applicable.
Water works indicates that on-site fire protection may be
required. A water main extension may be required.
Wastewater reports that sewer is available on Hinson Road,
Wendy Lane, and on Buff Lane. The developer will be
required to extend service to the property.
Site Plan review reports that the required average buffer
width along Hinson Road is 21 feet. The requirement along
Rodney Parham Road is 20 feet. The minimum requirements are
14 feet and 13 feet respectively. The buffer width
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-A
indicated on the plan submitted drops below the 6 foot
minimum allowed at any given point. The Landscape Ordinance
requires a 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip separating
lot lease line unless an access easement is provided.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. each approved the submittal without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The application cites "Applebee's" and "Walgreen s" by name,
along with the "office building" use, and, as presently
proposed, the PCD, if established, would provide for these
two specific uses plus the office use. If the applicant
wishes to retain the option of having alternate tenants in
the two commercial building, then this must be requested.
Otherwise, only these two tenants will be permitted without
amending the PCD. Additionally, the applicant needs to be
more specific in the uses requested in the "office"
building.
The survey and plan which have been submitted are deficient.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires the site plan be
submitted on a sheet not to exceed 241, by 3611, or less than
12" by 2411, be to scale, and contain a vicinity map. The
plan is to show the proposed treatment of the perimeter of
the property (e.g., the materials and techniques for
screening and fencing) and contain a schematic landscaping
plan. The survey and plan is to show all existing and
proposed easements, the location and dimensions of
buildings, parking, etc. A preliminary plat is to be
furnished which meets all the requirements of the Ordinance:
the name of the proposed subdivision; name, address, and
source of title of the owner; name of the subdivider; legal
description; source of water and means of wastewater
disposal; vicinity map; contours at 2 foot intervals;
boundary street design and right-of-way dedication; building
set -back lines; location and description of monuments; metes
and bounds legal description; present zoning classification
of the site and of abutting properties; and inclusion and
execution of the preliminary surveying and engineering
certifications. A preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be
provided. None of this has been submitted.
Any anticipated signage needs to be shown and described.
Location(s) and size of the signs must be dealt with in the
approval of the PCD.
A development schedule is to be furnished.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-A
E. ANALYSIS•
The submittal is deficient in critically important ways, and
review cannot proceed without adequate documents being
submitted.
As far as the land use element is concerned, the Planning
staff indicates that the City Land Use Plan recommends
office use for the site, and that, while some commercial
uses might be appropriately mixed in with an office
development, the proposal is primarily a commercial
development. If a mixed office and commercial development
is pursued, then the proportion of each use must be
specified and approved and must be in conformance with the
land use plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of the application until adequate
design documents and submittals are supplied. It is
recommended that the applicant confer with staff to
determine appropriate exhibits and design requirements. It
is also recommended that the applicant confer with the
Planning staff to bring the requested uses into conformance
with the Land Use Plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 9, 1993)
The applicant, Mr. John Flake, was present, as were
representatives of the architectural firm and of the proposed
tenants. Staff presented the request and outlined the
deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The applicant and
architect reviewed the planned improvements and discussed the
staffs observations and requirements. After a lengthy
discussion involving the Committee members, applicant, and staff,
the Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the
hearing.
STAFF UPDATE
A letter has been received from the applicant dated
December 15, 1993, seeking to defer the hearing of this
item until the February 8, 1994 hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 4, 1994)
Staff reported that the item could be included on the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the February 8, 1994 hearing. The
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO Z 54'12 A
deferral was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent,
and no abstentions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mr. Joe Johnson, with Cromwell Firm Architects, was present, as
was Mr. Frank Riggins with the Mehlburger Firm. Staff reported
that the only submittals to staff, since the preceding Planning
Commission date when a deferral had been requested by the
applicant, was a revised site plan which had been delivered the
preceding evening. Staff presented this revised site plan which:
1) retains the walgreen's store, but rotates the building on the
site and designates the building as simply "commercial"; 2)
retains the office building along the west property line, but
changes it to a two-story building with 25,000 square feet in
lieu of the one-story, 10,000 square foot building submitted
originally; and, 3) substitutes a one-story, 16,000 square foot
office building along the north property line in lieu of the
Applebee's restaurant originally submitted.
Staff reviewed with the Committee and applicants' representatives
the discussion outline items. Staff noted that the required
changes to street rights-of-way, provision for additional traffic
lanes, and revisions to landscape buffers were made. Staff
Pointed out, however, that no amended application or amended
project narrative had accompanied the revised drawing. Although
the drawings denote the generic "Office" and "Commercial"
designations for the building uses, a project narrative does not
address the uses requested for these buildings. No provision has
been made for the lease lot line landscape buffers, or,
alternatively, easements at these lease lot lines. A landscape
plan has not been submitted. The requested signage has not been
submitted. The preliminary plat has not been furnished.
Mr. Johnson indicated that the needed information was
forthcoming. Staff responded that the completed submittal and
the revised information needed to be furnished by Thursday,
January 27. After a brief review by the Committee, the Committee
referred the item to the Commission for the hearing.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant has submitted plans which portray a changed site
plan from the one furnished at the Subdivision Committee meeting:
the northern -most 16,000 square foot office building has been
eliminated; however, the lot line separating it from the other
uses and the space on the site plan for this building have been
retained. There has been no change in the application or in the
narrative description of the development to confirm the indicated
5
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • A (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412 -
changes. The required preliminary plat has been submitted, as
has the preliminary Bill of Assurance; however, the required
landscape plan has not been furnished. Signage drawings for the
proposed Walgreen's were submitted.
Since the needed project narrative has not been furnished which
would allow staff to evaluate the proposed uses and character of
the site, and, because exhibits are incomplete and in an evident
state of flux due to changes in the character and make-up of the
project, staff recommends this item be deferred. If, between
preparation on this writing and the Planning Commission hearing,
the remainder of the documents are submitted, based on the site
plan which has been submitted, staff recommends denial of the
request. Staff will not support a two-story, 25,000 square foot
office building on the west property line which is just 30 feet
from the west property line. Staff will not support leaving the
lot line for a third use along the north property line and the
"hole" in the site plan for such a building. Staff can support
the one commercial use at the corner and one office use on the
site. The one office use should be one story, or, if two story,
then the lower level must be below the grade of the side
residential street so that the building appears to be one story
from the residential area. This building should be 10,000 square
feet per floor as was shown on the original site plan. Staff
does not support the signage plans for the Walgreen's store.
Item A, Central Properties (Z-5722)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant's representative, dated February 2, 1994, asking that
the item be withdrawn. The request to withdraw the item was
included in the Consent Agenda, and the approval of the
withdrawal was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one
open position, no abstentions, and one open position.
11
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO • 5-1003
NAME: SHACKLEFORD ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK
LOCATION: On the east side of Shackleford Road, approximately
0.2 miles south of Colonel Glenn Road
DEVELOPER:
KELTON BROWN, SR.
13,700 Beckenham Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72212
225-2111
AREA: 10.65 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 8
ZONING: I-1
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
ENGINEER•
ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY
200 Casey Drive
Little Rock, AR 72118
851-8806
FT. NEW STREET: 650
PROPOSED USES: Industrial
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Improvements to Shackleford Road
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
an industrial park. The site is a 10.65 acre tract, and the
creation of 8 industrial lots is proposed. Shackleford road
borders the site on the west, and a single internal street
totaling 650 feet in length is proposed. The applicant proposes
50 foot building set -back lines along the internal street
frontages; 70 foot along Shackleford Road. A 100 foot building
line is proposed along the east property line.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission
of a preliminary plat for the development of a 8 -lot
industrial park subdivision. The site is a 10.65 acre
tract. One cul-de-sac internal street is proposed with a
total length of 650 feet. The internal street is proposed
to be constructed to Master Street Plan standards; no
improvements to Shackleford Road are planned, although
dedication of the required right-of-way is proposed. The
Zoning Regulations specify a 70 foot front building line in
the I-1 zoning district; the applicant proposes to conform
to the required setback on the Shackleford frontage, but
proposes a 50 foot setback along the internal street. A
100 foot building line is proposed along the east boundary
of the subdivision as a buffer to the residential area
beyond.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • S-1003
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is mostly cleared, with the remains of the former
use as a construction yard on the site. To the north is
the site of the approved but as yet undeveloped "Buie
Mini -storage PCD11. Presently that site is occupied by a
non -conforming junk yard use. To the west and south is
additional I-1 property. Along the east property line is a
50 foot wide OS strip, with R-2 property beyond.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office reports that the internal street
layout must be redesigned to meet minimum Master Street Plan
standards. The double cul-de-sacs design does not meet that
standard. Dedication of right-of-way along Shackleford Road
and improvements of Shackleford Road to Master Street Plan
standards is required. The Detention and Excavation
Ordinances are applicable to this development. (Engineering
advises that the applicant needs to file an application for
a State permit.) PAGIS monuments must be shown. A name for
the proposed internal street must be shown.
Water Works indicates that a water main extension will be
required. A pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00 per
front foot applies in addition to the normal connection
charge for connections off Shackleford Road.
Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The application and Bill of Assurance indicate that the name
of the proposed subdivision is Shackleford Road Industrial
Park. The plat shows the name as Shackleford Industrial
Park, leaving out "Road". Make the information consistent.
The plat shows the width of the right-of-way of the internal
street, but does not show the width or location of the
street. This needs to be shown.
2
I February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • S-1003
Both the names and the book and page number or instrument
number of the recording of all abutting subdivisions must be
shown. where the abutting property is not subdivided, the
names of the owners of that property must be shown. This
information is not complete on the plat.
The zoning classifications of abutting properties are to be
shown. This is incomplete on the plat.
A certificate of preliminary surveying accuracy is required
to be included on the plat. This has been omitted.
The I-1 zoning district requires site plan review by the
Planning Commission prior to development. Each lot will
have to be reviewed in the Commission as development is
undertaken.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are fundamental problems with the design of this
subdivision involving the layout of the internal street not
meeting Master Street Plan standards, yet there is not a lot
of flexibility for modifying the layout. The applicant
needs to confer with the City Engineering office as a
re -design is considered. The remaining deficiencies can be
easily remedied. The anticipated use is in conformance with
the zoning and the Land Use Plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this request pending a
re -design of the internal street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 9, 1993)
No one was present to present this item. Staff reported that a
FAX had been received from the project engineer, Mr. Robert
Holloway, indicating that a deferral was being requested until
the February 8, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item,
then, was not reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 4, 1994)
Staff reported that the item could be included on the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the February 8, 1994 hearing. The
deferral was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent,
and no abstentions.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM MO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • 5-1003
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant has submitted a second request for a deferral of
this item. A letter dated January 20, 1994 was received in which
the applicant requests a deferral to the March 22, 1994
Commission hearing. The applicant has indicated that he has
negotiated with a buyer for the development of a significant
portion of the proposed site, and that this is necessitating a
substantive re -design of the site.
It is noted that, pursuant to the Commission Bylaws, Article V,
Section E, paragraph 9-b, the second deferral will require a
renotificaiton of the property abutting property owners, and
pursuant to paragraph 9-d, there can be no additional deferrals
granted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Since the request for the additional deferral had been received,
this fact was related to the Committee, and there was no
discussion of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant's
engineer, dated January 20, 1994, requesting a second deferral to
the March 22, 1994 Commission meeting. The request to defer the
item was included in the Consent Agenda, and the approval of the
deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open
position, no abstentions, and one open position.
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO • Z-5787
NAME: APPLETREE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION -- LONG -FORM PCD AND
EXCLUSIVE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF ALAMO CIRCLE AND
SHADECREST DRIVE AND ABANDONMENT OF VARIOUS UTILITY
EASEMENTS
LOCATION: At the Northeast Corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman
Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
APPLETREE INVESTMENT CO. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
201 E. Markham St., Suite 100 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72205
374-1554 221-7880
AREA: 7.749 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING 0-1 & R-2 to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 4.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PCD for the development of a two -lot
commercial subdivision on a 7.749 acre tract. The proposed uses
for the PCD are Best Buy with 44,844 square feet within the
proposed building and Toys -R -Us with 30,625 square feet. Parking
for 362 vehicles is shown on the site plan. Compliance with the
landscape and buffer ordinance is anticipated.
The site development will involve the recombination of a number
of lots in the Montclair Heights Subdivision and will necessitate
abandonment of undeveloped street rights-of-way and easements
within the area. Fifteen lots or portions thereof are to be
combined into two larger lots. Alamo Circle south of Birchwood
Drive and Shadecrest Drive are to be abandoned. Existing utility
easements are to be abandoned and new easements, as needed, are
to be dedicated. Right-of-way along Chenal Parkway and Bowman
Road, as needed to meet Master Street Plan requirements, is to be
dedicated. Construction of the additional lane/acceleration lane
along Chenal Parkway to meet the Master Street Plan requirements
is proposed.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a PCD to entail development of
a 7.749 acre site for retail -commercial uses. Necessitated
by this development is the abandonment of two of the
internal streets and utility easements which were platted as
part of the Montclair Heights Subdivision (Phase II), and
abandonment of these is requested. No variances or waivers
are requested.
The applicant requests approval of a PCD for the two
specific retail -commercial uses shown on the site plan:
Best Buy and Toys -R -Us. Best Buy is shown to occupy 44,844
square feet in the proposed building; Toys -R -IIs, 30,625.
Two lots are proposed. The Best Buy lot would contain 4.286
acres; the Toys -R -Us, 3.366 acres. Parking for a total of
362 vehicles is anticipated. Buffering of the site from the
Birchwood Addition to the north is proposed, as is buffering
of the commercial site from the residentially zoned property
to the east. To assist in buffering the site from the
Birchwood residences to the north, the truck dock and
compactor facility for Toys -R -Us are proposed to be enclosed
within the building. The truck dock on the south, for Best
Buy, is proposed to be screened with a masonry wall and the
compactor is proposed to be screened with a 9 foot high
privacy fence. Conformance with the landscape ordinance is
anticipated. The applicant indicates that the additional
lane/acceleration lane on Chenal Parkway is to be
constructed. Improvements to Bowman Road are to be made to
conform to Master Street Plan requirements. Participation
is anticipated with property owners in Birchwood
Subdivision, whose property abut the portion of unopened
Birchwood Drive which lies along the north property line of
the site, to abandon that portion of the right-of-way.
The undeveloped internal streets within the site are
proposed to be abandoned. Alamo Circle, from Birchwood
Drive south to Shadecrest Drive, and Shadecrest Drive, from
Alamo Circle to its termination at the eastern edge of the
site, are to be abandoned. The abandonment would involve
the right-of-way and easements. The internal and boundary
utility easements are to be abandoned, then, any needed
utility easements as identified by the utility companies are
to be dedicated in the new plat.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently primarily undeveloped; however, there
are three single family residences which face Bowman Road.
At the center of the site are two unimproved street rights -
E
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
of -way for Alamo Circle and Shadecrest Drive, and the
undeveloped portion of the site faces onto these rights-of-
way or onto Chenal Blvd. on the south. The site, excluding
the homesites, is wooded with heavy undergrowth. The
terrain slopes down from Bowman Road towards the east.
The current zoning of the site is R-2, with an 0-3 area at
the Bowman Road-Chenal Parkway intersection. The new Home
Quarters site is immediately across Chenal Parkway to the
south. Catercorner to the southwest is the new Wal-Mart
site. Across Bowman Road to the west is C-3 zoned property.
To the north, at the northwest corner of the site, is a C-1
zoned tract. An unimproved portion of Birchwood Drive
separates the proposed PCD site from the C-1 zoned tract;
however, this right-of-way is in the process of being
abandoned. Also abutting the site to the north is an
improved portion of Birchwood Drive which terminates at the
unimproved portion of the street. The street improvements
in this area are anticipated to be removed and the site
reclaimed as buffer area. The remainder of the perimeter to
the north is the Birchwood subdivision with three (3) homes
abutting the site. Along the east property line of the site
is the remaining R-2 zone of which the proposed development
was a part.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office will require a traffic study be
performed and submitted for review. The Stormwater
Detention and the Excavation Ordinances will be applicable.
The applicant will need to contact the state for the NPDES
permit.
Water Works reports that there is no objection to the
abandonment of the internal rights-of-way and easements.
The developer needs to contact the Water Works offices with
information on whether the proposed buildings are to be
sprinklered and whether the water lines are to be public or
private. The Fire Department will need to determine whether
fire hydrants are properly located. There is a $12.00 per
front foot charge which may apply along Bowman Rd.
Wastewater Utility reports that there is no objection to the
abandonment of the internal rights-of-way or easements. A
sewer main extension, with easements, will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement
along the west property line.
ARKLA Gas Co. approved the plan without comment.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5787
The Fire Department will require that "No Parking, Tow Away"
signs be placed along the west side/in front of the
building. Also, an additional fire hydrant will be required
on the east side of the building so that there is a fire
hydrant every 400 feet.
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that
the screening fence along the eastern and northern
perimeters must be a minimum of 6 feet in height, opaque,
and with its structural supports on the inside. The
dumpster area must be enclosed with an 8 foot high opaque
wall or fence on three sides.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The narrative description is inadequate. It needs to
describe the character of the development and include the
rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the
applicant.
The uses which have been submitted are for "Best Buy" and
"Toys -R -Us". Unless the project narrative is amended to
include other retail -commercial uses, then these two uses
are the only uses which will be permitted in the PCD without
an amendment to the PCD ordinance. The applicant needs to
review uses which might be alternative uses for the site and
amend the narrative.
The preliminary plat and the proposed Bill of Assurance have
not been submitted.
The Birchwood Drive right-of-way which abuts the site on the
north will need to be abandoned. The existing street
improvements will need to be removed, curb and gutter and
paving provided to terminate Birchwood Dr., and the land in
the remaining right-of-way and in the abandoned right-of-way
landscaped. Since this was not a part of the original
application, but is an added aspect of the application, and,
since it may take more time to get the required signatures
on the petitions and request the public hearing before the
Board of Directors than the original time -frame anticipated,
this added requirement may need to be a condition of the
approval.
The Planning staff indicates that the proposed development
is in the I-430 Planning District, and the proposed use is
in conformance with the plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed use of the site for
in conformance with the Land Use
plan has only minor deficiencies
4
retail -commercial uses is
Plan. The site development
which have been noted by
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
staff and the utility companies. Any remaining items to be
corrected or added can easily be accomplished by the
applicant.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to
completing the requirements for the abandonment of Birchwood
Drive and complying with the staff and utility comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Representatives of the applicant and of the engineer were
present. Staff presented the request; the applicant reviewed the
items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Robert Brown,
with DCI, mentioned that some modifications to the plan would be
made to address concerns indicated. The deficiencies in the
submittal would be corrected. Mr. Brown indicated, however, that
the requirement to pursue the abandonment of the remaining
portion of the Birchwood Drive right-of-way which abuts the site
would take more time to prepare than is available prior to the
Planning Commission hearing. He was concerned that the
additional requirement not delay the approval. It was suggested
by staff that pursuing the abandonment issue could be a condition
of the approval. Following this discussion and the review by the
Committee members present, the Committee forwarded the request to
the Commission for the review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted an acceptable
project narrative, and had added to the list of requested uses
additional C-3 uses to include: book or stationery store;
clothing store; drugstore or pharmacy; furniture store, hobby
shop; lawn and garden center, enclosed; office; office equipment
and sales; theater; and, (enclosed) retail uses not listed. All
other required information and exhibits have, staff reported,
been received, including information that: 1) the loading
dock/compactor for the Toys R Us will be enclosed as part of the
building., with a roof and walls to enclose this area to the
extent allowed by regulatory agencies; 2) the compactor will
operate during daylight hours only; 3) parking lot and outside
lighting will be designed to have minimal impact on the abutting
neighborhood; and, 4) work is under way to abandon the remaining
Birchwood Drive, at which the applicant will remove the existing
improvements and provide landscaping as required.
Staff reported that the documentation which has been submitted
for Planning Commission review of the interior streets and the
easements abandonments has omitted the documents for the
5
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO,: Z-5787
abandonment of Alamo Circle and of the east boundary easement.
Therefore, staff related, the Commission will make its
recommendation on only Shadecrest Drive and on the internal
easements. The applicant, staff reported, is submitting the
Alamo Circle abandonment directly to the Board of Directors under
the provision for adversarial abandonment.
Staff recommended that the applicant consider relocating the Toys
R Us loading dock/compactor to an area between the two stores.
Staff recommended approval of the application and of the
additional proposed uses.
A representative for the applicant, David Simmons, an architect,
presented the application. Mr. Simmons introduced Jim Eubanks,
an architect on the project, Robert Brown, with Development
Consultants, the engineering firm for the project, and Ernie
Peters, the traffic engineering consultant.
Mr. Simmons presented an overview of the project, mentioning:
that the project included two users, Best Buy and Toys R Us, but
that the- developers contract was with Best Buy who is, in turn,
negotiating with Toys R Us; that the listing of requested uses
had been amended to include those cited by staff; that there
would be no outparcels in the development; that the proposed
development is the smallest of those on the other corners where
development is taking place; that the minimum required buffers,
as required by the Landscape Ordinance, have been satisfied; that
the developer will plant trees and scrubs to block the view of
the development from the adjoining neighborhood; that lighting
will be designed to shine toward the site and away from the
neighborhood; that stormwater run-off will be directed towards
Chenal Parkway and away from the neighborhood; that the design of
the site was accomplished to minimally affect the adjoining
neighborhood; that, to accommodate the neighborhood's request,
the loading dock/compactor has been enclosed in the building;
and, that the two stores, Best Buy and Toys R Us, furnished the
developer with prototype building footprints, and indicated that
these footprints were those they wished to construct at the
Little Rock location.
Commissioner Oleson asked if the developer had considered
relocating the loading dock as suggested by staff.
Mr. Simmons responded that this could not be done; that Best Buy
and Toys R Us has related that, because of children circulating
between the two stores, the loading dock cannot be located
between the two stores. It would be unsafe. At the back of the
store, it is felt that the noise would be worse and be directed
more towards the neighborhood. The grades at the rear of the
site would also prohibit the location there.
Director Lawson explained that the staff feels that the impact on
the neighborhood needs to be minimized; that there are three
homes in Birchwood which will be most directly affected. The
6
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
location of the dock is in need of attention; that it needs to be
moved to a location further away from the homes, either between
the buildings or behind the buildings. He suggested that
tractor -trailer trucks do not typically turn their engines off
while unloading, and it will be noisy. He suggested that the
prototype footprints might not be "fixed", and that the buildings
might be able to be made narrower and deeper to allow them to fit
on the site and still leave more room at the north.
Mr. Simmons responded that the buildings cannot be moved further
south, and that the prototype building footprints cannot be
adjusted.
Chairperson Chachere asked why the dock could not be located at
the rear of the building.
Mr. Simmons explained that the grades are too severe and that a
truck cannot back the distances off Chenal that would be
required; that such a location is not feasible.
Mrs. Chachere responded that the developer needs to take the
impact of traffic off the neighborhood. They need relief from
the noise.
Mr. Robert Brown reiterated that the slopes at the rear are
steep, and that a stormwater detention pond is located there. To
accomplish moving the dock to the rear, a large retaining wall
would be required. He also mentioned that if a truck were to
stage itself off Chenal in preparation for backing north to the
dock, it would cause traffic congestion and an unsafe situation
for traffic exiting Chenal.
Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification on the situation of
the enclosed dock.
Mr. Brown responded that the enclosure would enclose the entire
truck and that the facade would be a part of the building facade;
that the roof would be a continuation of the building roof, and
the wall height would be the same as the building s. He added
that the trucks would not be left running since they would be
inside the building.
Mr. Putnam asked about the times of unloading.
Mr. Simmons explained that unloading is accomplished during the
hours of -operation, and not at night. The developer could commit
to that.
Commissioner Oleson asked if that meant when the regular
employees were there or from when someone opens the door in the
morning to when the cleaning people are there at night.
7
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5787
Mr. Eubanks responded that the trucks come in before the store
opens in the morning, but that the store opens at 10:00; so,
trucks will be coming in sometime before that. The dumpster will
operate only during daylight hours.
Commissioner Oleson asked about the theater, and commented that
this is not "light retail".
Chairperson Chachere called on citizens who were present at the
meeting, and asked for comments from those who supported the
project.
Mrs. Sara Stephens asked for the Commissions support for the
project.
The opponents were then called on by Chairperson Chachere.
Scott Robert introduced himself as president of the neighborhood
association. He presented an overview of the situation from his
and the neighborhood's viewpoint: that the land is zoned
residential, with an office zoned area at the corner of Chenal
and Bowman; the land use plan projects a commercial use at the
corner of Chenal and Bowman and Chenal and Autumn, with mixed
office and commercial on the rest of the land between the two
streets, and that commercial is logical for the Best Buy -Toys R
Us site; that the neighborhood is resigned to that; and, that the
job of the neighborhood was to try to find the most suitable
commercial use for the site. He related that the neighborhood
sees lots of good things about the proposal and that they would
like to support it. They like the types of business, although
they don't like the idea of the theater use which has been
proposed. They like the idea that there are no outparcels. They
like the fact that, with the commercial development at the
corner, the rest of the interior of the site will be office uses.
On the other hand, the neighborhood does not like the fact that
the north side of the building is just 46 feet off the property
line, which means that the building is only 60 feet away from the
rear of the closest house. The Land Use Plan, Mr. Robert
suggested, calls for a 50 foot buffer along the north property
line of the site, and the proposed site plan abandons the buffer.
The 2:1 slope rising from the north property line southward to
the building will, the neighborhood feels, cause a water run-off
problem to those whose property abut the slope. Mr. Robert
commented that the neighborhood cannot support the proposal with
these concerns unaddressed; that they can support it with
adjustments. He and others from the neighborhood had, he
suggested, tried to seek an agreement from the developer to make
the changes in the proposal, but the developer was not willing to
compromise; in fact, he reported, the developer was unwilling to
make any changes. Mr. Robert went on to say that the developer
had agreed to locate the privacy fence at the top of the slope
rather than at the property line to afford the needed benefit
from the fence.
8
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
Mr. Robert then presented his suggested layout of the site. Mr.
Ken Davis, an officer in the neighborhood association
organization, passed the proposed sketch to the Commissioners for
a close-up inspection of it. Mr. Robert related that, with only
slight adjustments, the interests of the neighborhood could be
preserved. His sketch, he related, had the same square footage
of buildings and almost the same number of parking spaces. He
proposed to make the buildings narrower but deeper, so that there
was more space between the buildings and the north property line.
The north corner of the building was, he indicated, moved 50 feet
further south. This permitted the retention of a 50 foot
undisturbed buffer. It also had the benefit of not disturbing a
natural spring which would have otherwise have had to be dealt
with; and, it would not require as much fill at the north west
corner of the site as the way the developer had proposed. There
had, Mr. Robert complained, been no response from the developer
to the neighborhood's suggestions.
Chairperson Chachere questioned Mr. Robert, asking if the
suggested changes had been presented to the applicant.
Mr. Robert responded that the developer had indicated that they
could not make the suggested changes; that the narrower, deeper
stores do not meet the prototypes which is being required by the
stores. -
Mrs. Chachere asked the developer if they would like an
opportunity to visit with Mr. Robert and see if the suggested
modifications were workable.
Mr. Simmons responded that the suggestions presented by Mr.
Robert could not be accommodated, and that they were "blindsided"
by the presentation.
Commissioner Woods interjected that a non-professional cannot
design the footprint of a building; that there are codes and
other requirements which have to be met.
Commissioner McDonald added that the Commission cannot allow
every opponent to have the freedom to redraw and redesign the
applicants proposal.
Commissioner Nicholson inquired about the statements by both Mr.
Robert and Mr. Simmons that each is saying that they are both
talking to a blank wall; that each is saying that the other is
not responsive.
Mr. Simmons responded that Mr. Robert is looking for the
concessions that Lowe's conceded, but that in the smaller scale
project represented by the current application, there is not
enough room to give a 50 foot undisturbed buffer and a 50 foot
landscape buffer, and the building footprints cannot be modified.
9
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5787
Commissioner Putnam counseled Mr. Simmons that the applicant
needed to make some concessions. Since the neighborhood
supported the proposed uses, the applicant needed to make some
adjustments.
Commissioner McDonald said that he could support the staff
recommendation and was ready for the vote on the matter.
Mr. Simmons added that the drainage concern by the neighborhood
is not a legitimate issue. There is no stormwater run-off onto
the neighboring property to the north. The applicants, he
continued, would agree to deleting the theater from the requested
uses, but the buildings, he concluded, could not be changed.
Commissioner Oleson reacted that the removal of the theater was a
good response, but observed that the 60 foot distance from the
building to the closest house was not a lot of separation.
Mr. Robert Brown interjected that the house is more than 60 feet
away.
Commissioner Walker asked for confirmation that the developer
proposed no openings in the north and east exterior walls of the
building, and that the enclosed loading dock was to be the same
facade as the rest of the building.
Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Walker that this was correct.
Mr. Walker observed that such a wall with no openings, then,
according to the Ordinance, acted as a buffer.
Mr. Brown explained that there would be a little narrow
undisturbed area along the north property line, and that trees
would be planted up the slope of the fill. The trees would be
higher, then, as they are planted up the slope, and that this
would give the effect of higher trees and more buffering.
Mr. Walker asked for clarification that the buildings could not
be moved further south.
Mr. Brown said that the Best Buy and Toys R Us people had
furnished the developers with the prototype stores, and the
developer had to meet the requested conditions. There was no
room along the south property line to move the building
substantially.
Mr. Bop Brown, the staff landscaping review specialist, related
that the required buffer along the north property line to meet
the landscaping buffer ordinance requirements is 28 feet, and
that the'wall of the building, since there are no openings other
than those required by the Fire Department, would count as a
screening wall.
10
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
Commissioner Willis asked whether the developer proposed to
provide an acceleration lane on Bowman off Chenal.
Mr. Peters responded that the development did not justify making
such a requirement.
Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer, agreed that there was no
justification to impose the costs of such a requirement on this
development.
Commissioner McDonald again suggested that the Commission accept
the staff recommendation and move to a vote.
Mr. Roberts asked, instead, that the matter be deferred in order
for the developer to inquire of the Best Buy and Toys R Us people
if the building could be modified to provide the 50 foot
undisturbed buffer and a 50 foot landscaping buffer.
Commissioner Nicholson suggested that the Commission approve the
plan with the stipulation that the neighborhood and applicant
reach a compromise prior to the matter being heard by the Board
of Directors.
Director Lawson suggested that the plan be approved contingent
upon the developer providing a 50 foot landscape buffer along the
north property line.
Commissioner Nicholson summarized the conditions: that the
building would be moved south so that there would be a minimum 50
foot landscaped buffer along the north property line; that the
theater was not part of the request; that water run-off is not to
impact the neighborhood; and that the fence would be located at
the top of the slope.
Deputy City Attorney advised that such a motion would be
appropriate.
Commissioner McDonald moved to approve the P.C.D. contingent upon
the developer meeting the stated requirements.
Chairperson Chachere returned to the cards of those who were in
opposition to the development. She called on Patty Roberts who
responded that she had nothing to add. She called on Norman
Kingrey who complained that the developer did not want to give
anything.
Mrs. Chachere asked the developer if they could accept the
conditions mentioned: the 50 foot buffer, the location of the
fence, no theater, water not being a problem to the neighborhood.
Mrs. Ruth Bell made an inquiry about traffic, saying that in the
Lowe's application it was a concern of traffic engineering and in
this application it is not. Why, she asked?
11
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5787
Mr. Henry answered that the current developer is providing
exactly the same street improvements along their boundary which
were being imposed on Lowe's, yet the current proposal does not
involve outparcels.
Commissioner Willis returned to a question about whether an
acceleration lane was being provided off Chenal onto north -bound
Bowman Rd.
Mr. Henry replied that drivers do not use acceleration lanes;
they approach an intersection and wait at the intersection for
traffic to clear before entering the intersection, instead of
driving onto the acceleration lane and merging with moving
traffic. Therefore, he continued, traffic engineering no longer
requires acceleration lanes and, instead, requires a larger
radius at major intersections. The addition of another lane is
not justified by the development of the Best Buy/Toys R Us site.
Mrs. Bell asked whether the application specified that only two
uses would be allowed on the site, or whether, in the event one
or both of the proposed uses should close, multiple uses could
occupy the buildings? If so, would that cause more traffic?
Mr. Lawson explained that there would be no restriction on the
number of uses at one time, and that retail space, whether it is
one use or multiple use, still generates the same amount of
traffic per square foot, at least as far as the regulations are
concerned, and the traffic for the building in question would
generate the same amount of projected traffic whether it had one
tenant or many.
Chairperson Chachere reported that there was a motion and a
second on the floor; that the motion was for approval with the
condition that a 50 foot landscape buffer be provided along the
north property line and that the buffer be designated on the
plan; that the fence be located at the top of the slope rather
than at the property line; that there be no run-off of storm
water onto the property to the north; and, that the request for a
theater be deleted from the applicant's request.
Mr. Lawson clarified the understandings on the buffer: the
buffer is to be a landscape buffer, not an undisturbed buffer,
but when it is designated on the plan as a buffer, it has the
same effect and is just as enforceable as a zoned buffer.
Commissioner Walker interjected that with the designation of the
buffer on the plan, as the buffer is planted and ages, the effect
of a natural buffer will be achieved and the natural buffer will
be restored. In the future, then, this restored buffer cannot be
disturbed.
12
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO Z-5787
Mr. Simmons agreed with the conditions of the motion and
Mr. Robert Brown said that the building can be shifted enough to
provide the 50 foot buffer.
Chairperson Chachere then posed the question, and the motion
passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, one absent, and one open
Position.
13
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NOS.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
NAME: ENDERLIN MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -5550-A) AND
ENDERLIN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT (S-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.
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
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.
' February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Hoard
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.
H. 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.
2
%I February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
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.
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.
3
I February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
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
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
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
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.
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
5
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006
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
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)
6
' February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
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
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
7
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & S-1006
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.
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
8
' February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5550 -A & 5-10
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.
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.
9
' February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006
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 McDonald 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 McDonald 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.
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.
10
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO • Z -3709-A
NAME: ALLTEL IV -- SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ABANDONMENT OF
PORTIONS OF CEDAR HILL ROAD AND ALLIED DRIVE AND
ABANDONMENT OF AN EAST -WEST UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATION: On the north side of Riverfront Drive at Cedar Hill
Road, at 1501 Riverfront Drive
DEVELOPER•
ALLTEL SERVICE CORP.
P. 0. Box 2177
Little Rock, AR 72203
661-8000
AREA• 36.3 ACRES
ZONING• 0-2 & 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT• 15
ENGINEER•
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
10,411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72205
221-7880
NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Offices
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to construct
sidewalks along the Riverbend Road and Cottondale Lane frontages
of the site
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes further development to their site on the
east side of Riverfront Drive north of Cottondale Drive. An
additional six story, 318,016 square foot office building is
proposed to be located north of the existing complex. New
parking for 1,337 vehicles is proposed. At the same time, the
applicant proposes abandonment of the rights-of-way for Allied
Drive and Cedar Hill Road, both of which serve only the Alltel
property, and abandonment of an easement which lies between the
east end of Cedar Hill Road and the Arkansas River to the east.
At the time traffic warrants indicate that a traffic control
signal is applicable, a signal is proposed to be installed at the
applicant's expense at the Riverfront Drive -Cedar Hill Road
intersection. The applicant anticipates conformance with the
landscaping and buffer ordinances, and with the stormwater
detention ordinance.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission is requested of a site
plan for the expansion of the Alltel facilities located on
Riverfront Drive north of Cottendale Lane. An additional
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3709-A
office building is proposed to be added to the site to the
north of the existing office complex. The new building is
to be a six -story, 318,016 square foot building. It is to
be centered on and east of the Cedar Hill Drive cul-de-sac
and backing on the Arkansas River. A terrace is proposed to
be constructed over a portion of the river levee. The
existing complex has parking facilities for 706 vehicles.
Some of these spaces will be eliminated when the new
building is constructed, and of the existing parking, 406
spaces will remain. New spaces totaling 1,337 will be
added. There will, then, be parking for 1,743 vehicles on
the grounds. This is a ratio of over 1 space per 300 square
feet of building area. A traffic signal is proposed to be
installed at the Cedar Hill Road-Riverfront Drive
intersection at such time that traffic engineering approves
the installation, with the applicant bearing the cost of the
installation.
The applicant requests abandonment of the two existing
streets, Allied Drive and Cedar Hill Rd., since they serve
only their own property and there is a need to control
access to the site. Retention of the easements in the
streets is anticipated. Erection of a security post and
gate is proposed for Allied Drive, and erection of a traffic
control gate is proposed for Cedar Hill Road. A provision
for vehicle turn -around at these gates is anticipated.
The applicant requests a waiver from the requirement to
construct a sidewalk along the existing right-of-way of the
two boundary streets to the project: Cottendale Lane on the
south and Riverbend Road on the north. With the location of
the developments along and at the eastern end of both of
these streets, it is not felt that sidewalks are needed.
Also, the applicant plans to construct a 6 foot wide asphalt
bike and jogging path along the Riverfront Drive frontage,
and requests a waiver from the requirement for the other two
sidewalks a a means of offsetting the costs of this extra
width path.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently partially developed. Centered on the
existing Allied Drive, to the east of the cul-de-sac, is an
existing complex which consists of twin seven -story office
buildings containing 103,508 square feet each, and a two-
story, 18,218 square foot building between and joining the
twin towers. There is existing parking for 706 vehicles.
Allied Drive is a public street serving the parking
facilities and for access to the offices. There are no
sidewalks on the three boundary streets, Cottondale Lane,
Riverbend Road, or Riverfront Drive, nor are there sidewalks
on the two internal streets, Allied Drive and Cedar Hill
Road.
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3709-A
The existing zoning of the site is 0-2 and 0-3, with the
majority of the site being 0-2. The area which is 0-3 lies
in the north-west quadrant of the site, from Cedar Hill Road
northward to Riverbend Road, and from a line northward from
the cul-de-sac of Cedar Hill Road to the west to Riverfront
Drive. The remainder of the site is C-2. The C-2 zoning of
the site, and multiple buildings associated with the
development of property in 0-3, necessitate site plan
review. The request for this review has, consequently, been
submitted.
ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENT
The City Engineering office cites the Ordinance requirement
for sidewalk construction along the Cottondale Lane frontage
of the site.
Traffic engineering reports that the traffic signals at
Riverfront Drive and Cedar Hill Road will have to meet
traffic warrants to justify installation of the signals, and
that the applicant will be responsible for the cost of the
installation. The signals and controllers will have to be
installed on public right-of-way, so provision for any
required right-of-way should be made as the right-of-way
abandonment proceeding of Cedar Branch Road is conducted.
Traffic engineering will permit the applicant to install the
underground conduit for the signals, but the installation
must be approved by Traffic Engineering whenever the
installation can be justified.
Water Works reports that the Utility has no objection to the
abandonment of the right-of-way for Allied Drive and the 10
foot easement as requested. There is, however, an 8 inch
water main in Cedar Hill Road, so the easements rights need
to be retained. Water Works advises that the Fire
Department will need to evaluate on-site fire protection to
determine whether fire hydrants are located as needed.
water Works will require the existing water main and
easements, as platted for Lot E-2 and recorded in instrument
number 82-20543, be shown.
Wastewater Utility indicates that there are no objections to
the abandonment of the street rights-of-way and easements as
requested, except that an easement must be retained at Cedar
Hill Road. Sewer is available. It is noted that the 50
foot easement running north and south through the property
is an exclusive sanitary sewer easement, not an undesignated
"utility" easement.
ARKLA Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved
the plan as submitted.
The Fire Department approved the site plan as submitted.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3709-A
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that
the buffer width of the proposed parking lot adjacent to
Cottondale Lane drops below the 20 foot full width
requirement. This reduction is allowed by the zoning buffer
code since the average width exceeds the requirement due to
excessive green space west of the proposed parking lot. It
should be noted, however, that should the parking lot be
expanded westward towards Riverfront Drive and this
"excessive" green space be reduced, the average depth would
also be affected. This would then either affect the
requirements along Cottondale Lane or limit the amount of
expansion of the parking lot which would be permitted. The
buffer width adjacent to the northern property which is
zoned MF -18 needs to be increased to a minimum of 27 feet.
(The full requirement without the tradeoffs is 40 feet.)
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant needs to coordinate the location and
construction of the bike and jogging path along Riverfront
Drive with the Parks and Recreation Department.
At the Cedar Hill Road intersection, adequate right-of-way
needs to be left for the installation of future traffic
signals and controllers. These facilities need to be
located on public property.
E. ANALYSIS•
Plans submitted to date have met almost all the requirements
of staff and the utility companies. Only minor refinements
are needed. No insurmountable deficiencies remain.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request and of the waivers
for sidewalk improvements to Riverbend Road and Cottendale
Lane.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mr. Alan Sanders, architect, representing Alltel and Mr. Robert
Brown, the engineer for the site planning, were present. Staff
presented the item and the comments contained in the discussion
outline. Traffic Engineering pointed out that the indication of
the planned installation of the traffic signals at Cedar Hill
Road and Riverfront Drive needed to be removed from the plan.
When Traffic Engineering has determined that the signals are
appropriate, the applicant may proceed with the installation.
Staff noted that at the traffic control gate on Cedar Hill Road,
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3709-A
a turn -around needs to be provided; that the hammer -head turn is
not adequate. Staff cautioned the applicant to seek Levee Hoard
approval of the terrace to be constructed on the levee. The
applicant indicated that there would be a revised drawing
submitted to eliminate the encroachment into the north landscape
buffer by the parking lot. After the review by the Committee
members, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that all required exhibits and information had
been received, and that there were no remaining issues to be
resolved. Staff recommended approval of the application, subject
to the applicant coordinating with the Parks and Recreation
Department on the location of the bike and jogging trail along
Riverfront Drive, and subject to gaining approval from the Board
of Directors of a waiver to delete the sidewalks along Cottondale
Lane and Riverbend Road. Staff recommended approval of the
waiver. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for
approval, and was approved as an item in the Consent Agenda with
the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one absent, and one open position.
0
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO • Z -4336-J
NAME: ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ENERGY BUILDING -- SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENTS LOCATED IN
THE CLOSED RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR WEST 11TH. STREET FROM
SOUTH WOLFE TO SOUTH MARSHALL STREETS AND FOR WEST 9TH.
STREET FROM SOUTH BATTERY TO SOUTH MARSHALL STREETS
LOCATION: On the east side of Wolfe Street at S. 11th. Street,
at 1101 S. Wolfe Street
DEVELOPER•
ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
800 S. Marshall St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
320-1100
AREA: N/A
ZONING• 0-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT• 10
ENGINEER:
J. RICHARD TAYLOR
BCCGBN Architects/Engineers
303 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201
376-6671
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Energy co -generation facility
0
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct an "Energy Building" to house
a gas powered turbine and generator to produce electrical energy
for Arkansas Children's Hospital and the Arkansas Children's
Hospital Research Institute. The Energy Building is proposed to
be a two-story facility, with 13,360 square feet on the ground
floor and 8,230 square feet on the second. Truck access drives
and a truck access court, as well as parking facilities are
proposed. Since the construction involves constructing the
building over the previously abandoned right-of-way of West 11th.
Street from S. Wolfe to S. Marshall Streets, the abandonment of
the retained easements is proposed. During the current
application process, the applicant also proposes the abandonment
of the retained easement in W. 9th. Street from Battery to
Marshall Streets.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for the Energy Building site plan. The Energy Building is
to contain a gas powered turbine and generator for
production of electrical energy for the Arkansas Children's
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4336-J
B.
C.
Hospital campus use. It is planned for waste heat from the
turbine to be captured by a heat recovery steam generator
and used to produce steam. The steam is then to be used to
heat domestic hot water and used in an absorption type
chiller to produce chilled water for air conditioning. The
Energy Building is also to house offices for the boiler room
staff and repair shops for the mechanical equipment.
The proposed Energy Building is to be located on the ACH
South Campus, directly north of the Research Institute
building, directly west of the existing Laundry building,
and east of and adjoining the previously approved
Incinerator building. Some of the existing parking lot on
Marshall Street will be taken for the building and the truck
access drive, so modifications to the parking lot off
Marshall Street is planned. Some of the existing parking
lot on Wolfe Street, as well as the location of the existing
construction offices, will be taken for the building and
truck access court, so modification to the parking lot off
Wolfe Street will be required.
The applicant requests abandonment of the retained easements
in both W. 11th. Street in the block where the proposed
Energy building is to be located, and in W. 9th. Street,
between Battery and Marshall Streets.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site for the proposed Energy Building is located
adjacent to the Arkansas Children's Hospital Laundry
building to the east and the ACH South Campus Research
Center building to the south. It abuts an existing parking
lot to the north, with S. 11th. Street forming the west
boundary. A portion of the proposed building will straddle
what was W. 11th. Street and extend northward into a portion
of the existing parking lot. The bulk of the proposed
building south of the abandoned 11th. Street will be located
in an area currently housing the Nabholz Construction Co.
temporary field office building and an area used for
construction equipment storage. The proposed building will
abut to the east of and encompass a previously approved
Incinerator building. This Incinerator building has not
been constructed at this time, but is planned for
construction as part of the Energy Building construction.
ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office reports no comments.
water works indicates that there are no objections to the
abandonment of the easements; however, because there are
existing water mains and other water facilities in both
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4336 -J
easements, these existing facilities will have to be
relocated and replaced with comparable facilities at the
developer's expense. The developer may request that the
existing facilities be abandoned and be utilized by the
applicant as private facilities after comparable facilities
are in place.
Wastewater Utility reports that there are no objections to
the abandonment of the rights-of-way. All sewer mains
located within the rights-of-way will become private sewer
mains owned and operated by the applicant. Sewer service to
the proposed building is available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. reports that there are existing
overhead electrical facilities in the easements, and that
either easements must be provided so AP&L can maintain
service to customers being served, or arrangements must be
made to relocate the services.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. reports that there are gas
facilities in both easements, but ARKLA plans to move the
facilities for the new construction.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. reports that the easement
will be required to be retained in W. 11th. Street, that
there is a working cable which serves other customers in
that easement.
The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment.
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review advises that,
where landscaping is deficient, landscaping should be
upgraded where feasible.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The site is zoned 0-2; therefore, site plan review is
required.
A site plan which meets the ordinance requirements has not
been submitted. The plan which has been submitted has no
dimensions for the proposed building or from surrounding
buildings and from property lines. No survey has been
furnished. Parking lots and drives are not dimensioned.
Fire Hydrants are not shown. No plan showing the location
of landscaping has been furnished. The submittal, then, is
deficient, and it has not been possible for staff to review
the application properly.
Arkansas Children's Hospital is growing and its facilities
are spreading further and further into the surrounding
neighborhoods and sites are being "filled-in" with new
buildings. An overall development plan and a master
development plan need to be furnished.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4336-J
E.
F.
ANALYSIS•
If a properly dimensioned plan and a survey are furnished,
and the plan contains the required information, there is
probably no reason to deny the application for the Energy
Building. There does not appear to be a problem with access
or parking, or with the proximity to other buildings.
If Arkansas Children's Hospital
the utility companies to abandon
the project may proceed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
can get the concurrence of
the street easements, then
Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the
approval of the utility companies to abandon the easements
and to the applicant furnishing the required survey and
properly dimensioned and designated site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mr. Richard Taylor, project architect, was present. Staff
presented the item and reviewed the discussion outline comments
with Mr. Taylor. The Committee reviewed the plans and the staff
comments with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor indicated that he would
provide staff with the needed plans and information as noted in
the discussion outline. He added that each of the utility
companies had been involved in meetings on the plans to close the
easements and construct the proposed co -generation facility, and
that arrangements with each of the utilities were progressing to
gain their support and approval. After the brief discussion and
review, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for
final action on the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that a site plan and survey which meet the
Ordinance requirements have been submitted and reviewed. There
are no deficiencies in the submittals, staff related, and
approval of the site plan was recommended, subject to the
applicant obtaining all required approvals from the utility
companies which have easements in the abandoned street
rights-of-way. The item was included in the Consent Agenda, and
was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position,
no abstentions, and one open position.
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO • Z -4676-C
NAME: NAPA GENUINE PARTS COMPANY -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the south side of Baseline Road approximately 300
feet east of Hilaro Springs Road, at 3405 Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:
WAYNE COOK
Genuine Parts Co.
6601 Forbing Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72209
562-8695
AREA: 0.9974 Acres
ZONING: C-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14
CENSUS TRACT: 41.08
ENGINEER•
BEN KITTLER, JR.
6133 Dena Drive
Little Rock, AR 72206
888-3960
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
The applicant proposes the development of a 1 acre ± site for a
NAPA auto parts store. The site is part of the C-2 zoned
Baseline Square Shopping Center site, and the applicant is to
purchase the lot from the Shopping Center owner. Proposed on the
site is a NAPA store with 8,000 square feet and parking for 44
vehicles. Access is to be gained from one drive entrance on
Baseline Road and two entrances from the shopping center drive.
Proposed, also, is an amended site plan for the shopping center
from which the NAPA site is being extracted to reflect the change
in the originally approved site plan due to the sale of the NAPA
site.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for the development of a 1 acre ± tract for a NAPA auto
parts store. The development involves the purchase of the
site from the abutting Baseline Square Shopping Center
owner, the construction of an 8,000 square foot store with
parking for 44 vehicles, and drive access points both from
Baseline Rd. and from the shopping center property.
Requested, also, is the approval for an amended site plan
and plat for the shopping center to create: 1) the
peripheral "outparcel" lot under separate ownership from the
shopping center ownership, and 2) the revised shopping
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4676-C
center site plan with the NAPA lot divided from the site.
No waivers or variances are requested from the applicable
ordinances.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site for the proposed NAPA store is presently vacant.
It is part of a larger tract for the Baseline Square
Shopping Center, but much of the shopping center master plan
has remained uncompleted. The approved site plan for the
shopping center, approved in 1986, shows a "L" shaped strip
center, with one "leg" across the southern portion of the
tract and the other along the eastern property line. This
latter "leg" is shown extending northward into the area to
be sold for the NAPA store, and includes parking for the
shopping center. Only Sawyer's Food Market and the Dollar
General Store along the southern property line of the
shopping center site, and occupying only a portion of the
originally planned shopping center development, have been
built. The remainder of the proposed building along the
southern property line and none of the proposed building
along the eastern property line have been built. The
shopping center tract is zoned C-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office indicates that handicap ramps
will be required.
Water Works reports that a private fire service line to
serve the shopping center to the south crosses the tract
which is to be subdivided from the shopping center site.
Arrangements will need to be made to provide for access to
and maintenance of this 8 inch lines which crosses the site,
or the line needs to be relocated.
Wastewater Utility reports that no sewer service is
available to the site. The owner/applicant will be
responsible for providing sewer service to the property. It
is reported that there is an existing sewer main across/on
the north side of Baseline Road, and that the state must
approve cutting Baseline Road to gain access to the main.
ARKLA Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. have
approved the site plan as submitted.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review reports that the
landscape buffer along the eastern perimeter must maintain a
minimum landscape buffer width of 6 feet. The full buffer
width requirement in this area, without tradeoffs, is 9
feet.
E
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4676-C
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Zoning Ordinance requires site plan review for
developments in C-2 zoning districts. Since the proposed
development is in an applicable district, site plan review
is required.
The Zoning Ordinance allows peripheral °outparcel" lots and
multiple ownerships when the plan and plat are approved by
the Planning Commission. The shopping center site meets the
ordinance requirement for a 5 -acre minimum site area, and
the outparcel lot under separate ownership may be approved.
The amended site plan for the shopping center development,
excluding the NAPA site, shows a total building development
of 97,860 square feet, with parking for 386 vehicles.
A revised final plat of the entire site will be required.
The remaining shopping center site needs to be designated as
one lot; the site being purchased by NAPA needs to be
designated and a second lot. The division of the property
into the two lots can be accomplished at the staff level
under the provisions for a "lot split" whereby "a single
lot, tract, or parcel is being split into two (2) lots." An
amended Bill of Assurance will be required to be submitted.
This Bill of Assurance also needs to address the access of
NAPA to the shopping center internal drive.
E. ANALYSIS•
The site plan has only minor deficiencies which can be
easily corrected. The approval of the site plan needs to be
conditioned on the shopping center owner completing the
drawings to amend the originally approved site plan for the
center and the final plat to properly divide the property
being submitted and filed with the Circuit Clerk. The staff
and utility comments need to be noted in the approval.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mr. Ben Kittler, Jr., the local project engineer, and Mr. John
Ayres, the architect for the shopping center developer, as well
as Misters J. D. Ashley, Sr. and Bryant Ashley, owners of the
shopping center and sellers of the site to NAPA, were present.
Staff presented the application and reviewed the comments in the
discussion outline. It was pointed out to Mr. Ayres that the lot
designated on the overall shopping center site plan as being
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4676-C
divided for NAPA did not agree with the legal description of the
lot as shown on the NAPA drawings. Mr. Ayres indicated that he
would make the change; that the NAPA legal description was the
correct one. The deficiencies with the landscape buffer,
especially along the east property line abutting the church
property, were discussed. Mr. Kittler indicated that he would
adjust the building location to meet the landscape buffer
requirements. The wastewater Utility staff also pointed out the
problem cited in their comments regarding the access to sewer.
The applicants, representatives indicated that they were aware of
this situation and had anticipated it; they have made
arrangements to get sewer service across Baseline Road. with
this review, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for final review and approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that the only remaining issue to be resolved was
the submitting of a re -plat and Bill of Assurance for the
Baseline Square Shopping Center site, and that this work is in
progress. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted the
required. revised site plan the Shopping Center and has met all
requirements for the NAPA site. Staff recommended approval of
the item and the item was included in the Consent Agenda. It
was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open
position, no abstentions, and one open position.
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5788
AME: CHENAL VALLEY APARTMENTS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway approximately 1/4
mile west of Pride Valley Road
DEVELOPER•
ARCHITECT•
SIDNEY SALESON DON JOHNSON
Area Companies, Inc. Brooks Jackson + Don Johnson
#49 Sherwood Terrace, Suite Y Architects, Inc.
Lake Bluff, IL 60044-2231 2228 Cottendale Lane
(708) 234-0008 664-8700
AREA: 11.667 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: MF -18 PROPOSED USES: Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of an apartment complex on
a 11.667 acres site entailing the construction of 116 apartment
units in 13 two and three story buildings, with 262 on-site
parking spaces. The development also involves the construction
of a building to house the complex' office, a swimming pool, and
a tennis court facility. The construction of the full width of
the new boundary street, Venture Drive, is proposed, with a
sidewalk along this frontage, with access being taken from
Venture Drive. Improvements to the existing boundary street,
Chenal Parkway, are proposed to include the construction of the
additional lane required by the Master Street Plan and the
sidewalk.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The Planning Commission is requested to approve the site
development plan for an apartment complex involving the
construction of 13 two and three story buildings with 116
apartment units on an 11.667 acre site, plus parking
facilities for 262 vehicles, a building to house the
complex, office, a tennis court and a swimming pool. The
applicant seeks approval of a plan which anticipates
construction of the full width of Venture Drive, with access
to the complex being taken from this new street, and
construction of the sidewalk along the Venture Drive
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5788
B.
C.
frontage of the site. Improvements to Chenal Parkway are
planned to include construction of the additional lane
required by the Master Street Plan and the sidewalk along
the street frontage. No waivers or variances are requested.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The
terrain is hilly, with a grade differential across the site
of approximately 26 feet. It is bounded on the east by the
undeveloped western limits of Parkway Village; on the north
by undeveloped MF -6 area which is, however, in line with the
developing St. Michael subdivision; on the west by
undeveloped 0-3 area; and on the south by undeveloped C-2
area and Chenal Blvd. The site is part of the Chenal
Commercial Park subdivision which was approved by the
Commission in March of 1993. (The 0-3 area to the west and
the C-2 area to the south of the site are in this
subdivision.) The existing zoning of the site is MF -18.
ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office indicates that the Chenal
Parkway -Venture Drive intersection must be constructed in
conformance with the Master Street Plan standards. An
additional lane will be required to be constructed on Chenal
Parkway. Venture Drive must be constructed to collector
street standards, including the construction of the required
sidewalk on the north side of the street. (The required
sidewalk on the south side of Venture Drive can be deferred
until the lot on the south side of the street is developed.)
The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will
apply to this development. The applicant needs to contact
the state for the NPDES permit.
Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be
required. Water Works advises that care must be taken to
protect the raw water facilities that cross the site. Plans
for work in the raw water line easement area must be
approved by Water Works; maximum and/or minimum cover
requirements may be specified.
Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with
easements, will be required.
ARKLA Gas Co. approved the site plan without comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department indicated that all entrance driveways
need to be a minimum width of 20 feet.
E
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5788
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review reports that a 6
foot high opaque "good neighbor" wooden fence or dense
vegetation is required along the eastern perimeter to screen
the business activity of the site from the residential
property to the east. The full buffer requirement along
this side is 40 feet, with a 27 foot minimum with tradeoffs.
The site design will be required to conform to these
standards.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The zoning ordinance requires site plan review whenever a
development involves multiple buildings on the site, thus
the request for review of this item.
There are no issues remaining to be resolved.
E. ANALYSIS•
The development is on a site which is appropriately zoned.
There are no deficiencies noted by the utilities or City
staff. No waivers or variances are requested.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the engineer on the project, was present.
Staff presented the request and Mr. McGetrick reviewed the plan
with the Committee members. The Committee reviewed the
discussion outline comments with Mr. McGetrick, and Mr. McGetrick
indicated that the deficiencies would be corrected. After only
minimal discussion, the Committee forwarded the request to the
Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that there were no outstanding issues to be
resolved, and recommended approval of the request. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda, and was approved with the vote of
9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open
position.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6a FILE NO.: Z -3689-F
NAME: #26 CORPORATE HILL DRIVE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of Corporate Hill Drive at the cul-
de-sac
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
MOSES MOSARI REAL ESTATE MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
201 E. Markham St. 11,225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211
376-6555 223-9900
AREA: 2.14 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 0-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Offices
The applicant proposes the development of a 2.14 acre site for an
office building to contain 19,200 square feet, with on-site
parking for 106 vehicles. The site is in a developed
subdivision, so no street improvements or utility extensions are
required. Landscape and buffer regulations are proposed to be
met.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for
development of a 2.14 acre site with an office building to
contain 19,200 square feet and on-site parking for 106
vehicles. The street improvements are already in place, as
are utilities, so these types of improvements are not
required. No variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is in the Corporate Hill subdivision. Streets and
utilities are in place. There are existing office buildings
to the north, east, and cater -corner to the south-east. The
site, as well as lots to the south and west are undeveloped
and wooded. The current zoning is 0-2.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6a (Continued) FILE NO • Z -3689-F
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office reports no comments.
Water Works indicates that on-site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
ARKLA Gas Co. and Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. approved
the site plan without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review reports that the
most western parking space extends 4 feet into the required
6 foot minimum width landscaping strip required by the
landscape ordinance. The 2 southern most parking spaces
extend 15 feet into the 17 foot wide street buffer which is
required along Corporate Hill Drive. By ordinance, this
buffer cannot drop below 6 feet in width at any given point.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The 0-2 zoning district requires site plan review, thus the
review request which has been made.
No proof of having mailed the required notices to property
owners within 200 feet has been submitted.
E. ANALYSIS:
Other than two very minor exceptions noted in the review for
conformance with the landscaping and buffer requirements,
there are no design deficiencies. These could be very
easily remedied.
The notice requirement may or may not have been met, but if
the notices have not been mailed, then the request needs to
be deferred.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the notices were mailed as required, then the staff
recommendation is for approval; otherwise, the item needs to
be deferred.
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 6a (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3689-F
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
A representative of the applicant, as well as the engineer were
present. Staff presented the request; Mr. McGetrick, the
engineer, reviewed the proposal with the Committee. Staff
pointed out the encroachments of the parking spaces into the
required minimum landscaping buffer, and Mr. McGetrick indicated
that these deficiencies would be remedied. There was no other
discussion, and the Committee forwarded the request to the
Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant,
dated January 31, 1994, asking that the request be withdrawn. The
request for withdrawal was included in the Consent Agenda, and was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no
abstentions, and one open position.
.K7
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO Z 5524 B
AME: Zulu's - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 401 South Bowman Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Tierney -Hale Partnership by Mark
Buerkle of Rector Phillips Morse
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 2,400 square foot
restaurant (eating place without
drive-in service) on this C-1
zoned, At acre site. An area of
outdoor dining is proposed in a
patio area to be located in front
of the building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
The site is located on the east side of Bowman Road, four
blocks south of West Markham Street.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a narrow strip of land on the
east side of Bowman Road which serves as a buffer between
the intense commercial development on the west side of
Bowman Road and the single family residential neighborhood
located to the east.
At the time this property was rezoned from 0-3 to C-1 in
1993, it was envisioned to be used for a small scale, low
intensity commercial use which would provide a transition to
single family from the larger more car -oriented commercial
area.
A highly intensive commercial use, such as the proposed
restaurant, does not comply with the transition concept
envisioned for this site and staff feels that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
A 2,400 square foot restaurant requires 24 on-site parking
spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-way
drive circling around the building with 33 on-site parking
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5524-B
spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped
accessible. A single entry point onto Bowman Road is
proposed.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen must be
constructed on the property line where adjacent to
residentially zoned properties. The dumpster must be
enclosed on three sides with an 8 foot high opaque wall or
fence.
S. City Engineer Comments
Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct
handicapped ramps. Dedicate additional 5 feet of
right-of-way on Bowman Road.
6. Utility Comments
Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along
the north property line. The area of the former Birchwood
Drive right-of-way, located adjacent to the south of this
site, was retained as a utility easement. This must be
shown on the site plan. The existing 8 inch water main must
be indicated in this easement. A sewer main extension is
required with easements.
7. Analysis
The request before the Planning Commission is a conditional
use permit to allow for the construction of a 2,400 square
foot restaurant, with outdoor dining, on this C-1 zoned
property. The C-1 neighborhood commercial district is
designed to accommodate limited retail developments within
or adjacent to neighborhood areas for the purpose of
supplying daily household needs of the residents for food,
drugs and personal services. Commercial uses within this
district should not depend on market areas larger than the
neighborhood served.
Staff feels that the proposed restaurant is so designed and
located as to serve the much broader commercial needs of the
community and will have an adverse impact on the adjacent
residential neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of this application as being
incompatible with and having an adverse effect on the
adjacent single family residential neighborhood.
E
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JANUARY 20, 1994)
Mark Buerkle and Maury Mitchell were present representing the
application. Staff presented the item and outlined the City
Engineer, Utility, and Landscape/Buffer Comments noted above.
It was pointed out that this site plan is contingent upon the
Board of Directors approving the abandonment of Birchwood Drive,
located south of this site.
The applicant was told to provide details on parking lot
lighting, hours of business, delivery hours and waste pickup
hours.
In response to a question from a commissioner, Mark Buerkle
stated that there would be no other activity in the outdoor
dining area besides dining.
A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the City Engineer
Comment to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on
Bowman Road. It was pointed out that the Master Street Plan
requires.a minimum of 45 feet from centerline and that there is
currently a right-of-way of 40 feet from centerline. This
portion of Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial street
on the Master Street Plan.
The applicant was advised to have a revised site plan and
responses to the various issues raised back to staff within a
week. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full
Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Mark Buerkle, Maury Mitchell and Andrew Hicks were present
representing the application. There were several objectors
present.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and stated
that one letter of opposition had been received.
Mark Buerkle then addressed the Commission. Mr. Buerkle gave a
brief description of the operation and asked that the Commission
approve the application.
Ken Davis, of 417 Springwood Drive, then addressed the Commission
in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Davis stated that the
proposed restaurant was too intense of a use for the property.
q
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5524-B
Patty Roberts, of 11805 Birchwood Drive, next addressed the
Commission in opposition to the application. Mrs. Roberts stated
that the odor, the noise and pests associated with the restaurant
would have a negative impact on the adjacent property owners.
Doyle Daniel, of 412 Springwood Drive, addressed the Commission
in opposition to the proposed restaurant. Mr. Daniel stated that
the outdoor seating, lights and noise associated with the
business would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential
properties. Mr. Daniel stated that the property is zoned C-1 and
is to be used as neighborhood commercial.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle to give details on the
restaurant's operation.
Mr. Buerkle responded that the restaurant was a family-oriented
business. He further stated that the restaurant was nonsmoking
and nonalcoholic and had no drive-thru. Mr. Buerkle continued by
giving greater detail on the proposed lighting and landscaping
associated with the project.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle if the dumpster could be
relocated from the rear portion of the property.
Andrew Hicks responded that the dumpster is located to the rear
of the property as the ordinance requires. Mr. Hicks stated that
the dumpster would be enclosed and pointed out that there is an
additional opaque screen along the east side of the property, on
top of the slope, which would provide maximum screening.
Commissioner Walker asked if a masonry wall could be put in place
of the opaque fence along the east side.
Mr. Hicks responded that a masonry wall could be used in that
location. He stated that the applicant will work with staff and
neighborhood residents to design the most effective screening.
Additionally, Mr. Hicks stated that the lighting on the property
would be low-level, 12 feet high, and would have minimal impact
on adjacent properties.
Ken Davis again addressed the Commission and stated that the
neighborhood is still opposed to this use. Mr. Davis stated that
the neighborhood residents were not here to discuss various
aspects of the proposal.
Maury Mitchell then addressed the Commission in favor of the
application.
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -5524-B
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, then spoke to the Commission. He stated that this
property should be used as an office use. Mr. Lawson stated that
the property was zoned C-1 for a comic bookstore but that
proposal did not develop. Mr. Lawson stated that this narrow
strip on the east side of Bowman Road should be used by low
intensity uses, not intense C-3 type uses.
Ruth Bell, of the League of women voters of Pulaski County, then
addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed
restaurant. She stated that she had concerns about the
restaurant's impact on the traffic on Bowman Road.
Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, responded to Ms. Bell's
concern. He stated that Bowman Road is, at this point, a five
lane arterial with left turn lanes. Mr. Henry stated that
traffic should not be a problem. (Note to file: prior to the
commission meeting, Mr. Henry informed the Planning Staff that
all improvements were in place on Bowman Road and that no further
right-of-way dedication was required in association with this
application.)
Mark Buerkle then closed his presentation to the Commission by
stating that the proposed restaurant is a family-oriented
restaurant and will be compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Willis then made a motion to vote on the
application. The vote was 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent and 1 open
position. The item was automatically deferred to the
March 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
5
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO • Z-5786
NAME: Southwest Christian Academy -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 11301 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: James R. Stewart, Jr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a private
school/day care on this R-2 zoned,
3.5 acre site. The proposed
enrollment will be 240 children,
ages infant through 9th grade.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed school site is located on the east side of
Geyer Springs Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of
Mabelvale Cutoff.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Southwest Christian Academy has been operating out of
Charity Community Church, located next to this site, for
seven years. The school is not associated with the church
but has been leasing space within the church. The applicant
has now reached the point where he can build a separate
facility for the school and relocate from the church
building.
Other than the church and an adjacent cemetery, there are no
other uses in the immediate vicinity. This property is
located in a rural area comprised mainly of large tracts of
vacant, heavily wooded land.
The proposed use will be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed enrollment of the day care/private school is
240 children, ages infant through 9th grade. The parking
requirement is determined by the number of classrooms and
employees. Each age group has a different requirement. The
applicant must provide greater details on the number of
classrooms and the proposed enrollment by age and grade.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5786
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A six foot high opaque screen is required to
screen this site from the adjacent residentially zoned
property to the north, south and east.
5. City Engineer Comments
Dedicate right-of-way on Geyer Springs Road to 45 feet from
centerline. Construct Master Street Plan improvements to
minor arterial standard on Geyer Springs Road. Detention
and Excavation Ordinances apply.
6. Utility Comments
A sewer main extension is required with easements. No water
service is available at this time. A water main extension
would be required. Arkansas Power and Light has existing
facilities on this site servicing the church and school. If
it has to be relocated, cost may be involved. Also, a new
easement for the new relocated line must be obtained.
7. Analysis
The proposal before the Commission is a conditional use
permit to allow for the construction of a private
school/daycare on this R-2 zoned property. Staff is
supportive of the proposal; however, there are issues which
must be resolved.
A portion of this site was created by an illegal subdivision
of the adjacent church property. The eastern 2.42 acres of
this site was recently purchased from the church without
benefit of a proper/legal subdivision taking place. This
can be resolved by Mr. Stewart and Charity Community Church
working together to create a two lot plat, combining all of
Mr. Stewart's property into one lot and leaving the
remaining church property as a second lot. It is possible
that the Commission could approve Mr. Stewart's application
subject to the subdivision issue being resolved prior to any
building permit being issued for Southwest Christian
Academy.
The church/day care currently has an enrollment of 187
children. The applicant proposes to increase that
enrollment to 240. Greater details are needed on the number
of employees and classrooms and on the proposed enrollment
by age and grade.
E
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5786
The applicant has mentioned a shared parking arrangement
with the church. A letter must be provided by the church
agreeing to this arrangement and allowing for a minimum of
five year's use of the church parking lot.
The applicant proposes to relocate three portable classroom
buildings from the church site which will be used for a
period not to exceed three years.
A three year deferral of the requirement to pave the back 17
parking spaces and driveway is requested.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
3. Compliance with Utility Comments
4. The issue concerning the illegal subdivision being
resolved and a proper two lot plat being filed prior to
a building permit being issued.
5. Adequate on-site parking being provided or a letter of
agreement being provided from the church agreeing to a
shared parking arrangement and allowing for a minimum
of five years use of the church parking lot.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested use of the
three portable buildings for a period not to exceed three
years subject to these buildings being placed in compliance
with all applicable building codes. Staff recommends
approval of the requested three year deferral of the paving
requirement for the back 17 parking spaces and driveway.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
James and Sharon Stewart were present. Staff presented the item
and outlined the Landscape/Screening, City Engineer and Utility
Comments noted above.
A discussion then followed concerning the illegal subdivision.
Staff informed the Committee that a meeting had already taken
place between staff, Mr. Stewart and the pastor of the church in
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-57
which this issue was discussed. The Committee thought the site
plan could be approved conditioned upon the subdivision issue
being resolved prior to a building permit being issued for the
day care/private school.
Mr. Stewart was directed to provide greater details on the number
of classrooms and the proposed enrollment by age and grade. He
was further directed to provide details on parking lot lighting
and signage.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that it was
appropriate to approve the placement of the portable buildings
for a period not to exceed three years and to approve a three
year deferral of the paving requirement for the back 17 parking
spaces and driveway. The portable buildings must be placed in
compliance with all applicable building codes and the area of the
unimproved parking lot must be delineated and the gravel
contained in some fashion.
The Committee urged Mr. Stewart to proceed quickly to resolve the
subdivision issue. This matter was then forwarded to the full
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
James Stewart was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that information had been received from the
applicant which addressed all outstanding issues except for the
issue of the illegal subdivision of the abutting church property.
The Commission was informed that staff recommended approval of
the application subject to the illegal subdivision issue being
resolved and a proper two lot plat being submitted and filed, and
that no building permit be allowed without the resolution of this
issue.
The Commission determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and placed this item on the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 open position. The approval also included the requested 3 year
use of the portable buildings and a 3 year deferral of the paving
requirement for the back 17 parking spaces and driveway.
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: G-25-166
Name: Saratoga Drive Street Name Change
Location: That portion of Saratoga Drive at
the east end of Calumet Road, in
The Ranch Addition.
Petitioner: Ranch Properties, Inc. by Ed Willis
Reauest: To change the name of that portion
of Saratoga Drive lying between
Lots 37, 52, 53, 114, 115 and 140,
The Ranch Addition to Ranch Ridge
Road.
1. Abutting Uses and Ownerships
The abutting property is comprised solely of single family
residential lots. One of the lots has a home currently
being constructed on it. The remaining five lots are
vacant.
2. Neighborhood Effect
The proposal will have no effect on the neighborhood.
3. Neighborhood Position
The owners of all six properties abutting this portion of
Saratoga Drive have signed the petition requesting the
street name change to Ranch Ridge Road.
4. Effect on Public Services
All city departments and public utilities have voiced no
opposition to the proposed street name change.
STAFF ANALYSIS•
The proposal before the Commission is to change the name of that
portion of Saratoga Drive lying between Lots 37, 52, 53, 114,
115, and 140, The Ranch Addition to Ranch Ridge Road. The
purpose for changing the street name is to give the street that
runs along the ridge at The Ranch one common name. The applicant
states that this is what was intended, but the street was
incorrectly identified as Saratoga Drive on the recorded plat.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. It was
determined that there were no outstanding issues and the
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Ed Willis was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved with a
Planning Commission vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE N • S-980
NAME: MORRIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT -- TIME
EXTENSION
LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and W.
Markham St.
DEVELOPER:
ANDREW J. MCDONALD, BISHOP
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESES OF LITTLE ROCK
c/o L. Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3546
Little Rock, AR 72203
372-6161
AREA: 17.619 ACRES
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ENGINEER:
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
None
The applicant relates that, because a prospective user of the
site has delayed making a decision, which has caused a delay in
making the required off-site improvements, the required off site
work will not be completed which will allow a final plat to be
executed within the twelve (12) month time -frame allowed for the
plat to remain in the preliminary plat status. The applicant
proposes a twelve (12) month extension of the time for the
preliminary plat to be effective.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission
for a twelve (12) month extension for the preliminary plat
for Morris Subdivision to be effective and binding on the
Commission. This will allow, says the applicant, the
necessary time for arrangements to be made with prospective
users for development of the site, and for the required off-
site improvements to W. Markham St. and Chenal Blvd. to be
made.
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO S-980
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded. There has been no work
undertaken to clear the site in preparation for development
or to initiate the improvements to W. Markham St. or Chenal
Parkway which were required in the approval of the
preliminary plat. The site is zoned C-3. There is one
major user area with two outparcels.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
There are no comments subsequent to or in addition to those
comments made for the original hearing date.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-94(e) states: "A
preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall
be effective and binding upon the Commission for twelve (12)
months or as long as work is actively progressing, at the
end of which time the final plat application for the
subdivision must have been submitted to the planning staff.
Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of
time set forth herein or otherwise conforming to the
requirements of this chapter shall be null and void, and the
developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the
property for preliminary approval...."
E. ANALYSIS•
The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission
on June 1, 1993. The requested time extension is the first
extension to be requested for the plat, and it is made well
in advance of the expiration of the initial twelve (12)
month time limit. This request and the granting of the
request are in conformance with previous actions by the
Commission on similar cases.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested twelve (12) month
time extension for the preliminary plat to remain active.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1943)
The item was presented to the Committee member present. Other
than indicating the location of the site and the conditions under
which the original approval had been granted, there was no
discussion. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission
for action.
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO S-980
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the request. The item was included in
the Consent Agenda, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no
nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open position.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11
TITLE: Master Street Plan
Amendment
REQUEST: Add Cross -Sections, Text and
Reclassify Chenal/Financial
Center Parkway
SOURCE: City Staff
STAFF REPORT:
In order to clean up the Master Street Plan, staff would
like to add seven new cross-sections and text to better
define two of these cross-sections. The urban arterial
section has reduced sections for older arterials approved
over a year ago. An open ditch section is added for
collector and local streets. These sections are consistent
with require roads in the port and outlining large lot
subdivisions. The seven lane section better illustrates
language which has been in the ordinance since 1988.
The Parkway text addition and sections, take the existing
median principal arterial and further define it. The first
"parkway" designation is proposed for Chenal/Financial
Center Parkway. Currently, this road is designated
expressway. The proposed reclassification includes a six
lane standard east of Kanis Road and a four lane standard
west of Kanis Road.
Copies of the cross-sections and text were distributed to
engineers, realtors and developers the week of January 18
(see attached memo).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 1994)
Jerry Gardner, Chief Civil Engineering, presented the staff
position on this item. Mr. Gardner first reviewed the
history of the Chenal-Financial Center -Rock Creek Parkway.
The adopted design standard and the Master Street Plan
requirements were discussed versus the actual right-of-way
and road construction. There are definite discrepancies and
this amendment is needed to settle the issue once and for
all with the parkway recommendation.
Mr. Gardner reviewed each of the cross-sections indicating
that most were simply clarification and the open ditch
sections were to allow for flexibility in the outlining
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued
areas. In response to Commissioner McDaniel's statement,
there was discussion about finished ditch requirements and
slopes.
Dennis Yarbro, Little Rock Water works, expressed the
Utilities' concerns about the limitation of placement of
utilities in a 10 foot easement. Also, these requirements
do not agree with the approved utility placement guide
signed off on by the City. Mr. Gardner indicated there was
not an intension of excluding utilities from the right-of-
way. However, there could be problems with utilities in the
drainage ditch area. Possibly, the sections should be
modified as to the utility placement guide. Staff will need
to review the two documents to see if this problem cannot be
resolved.
Bill Asti, CARTS Technical Advisory Committee - Little Rock
Representative, in this capacity, Mr. Asti asked that the
City wait and take the regional agencies information on how
streets should look into account before amending the plan.
There needs to be regional coordination and cooperation on
the street system. As a representative of Southwest Little
Rock and the Coalition of Neighborhoods, Mr. Asti had real
problems with a seven lane street and questioned its need or
appropriateness. Also, there are negative land use
implication of a seven lane street.
There was discussion about the need for greater carrying
capacity and likely gridlock if six and seven lane roads
were not built. The statement was made that just because we
have always done it that way does not mean we must continue.
Mr. Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
expressed the need to proceed with the Parkway portion of
the amendment.
Mr. Joe White, of White-Daters Engineering, stated he
supported the plan amendment. However, "when was enough
enough", the City needs to stop making development construct
all roads. At some point the added capacity becomes the
Public's responsibility. Before the late 1980'x, the City
stated any road more than four lanes was the Public's
responsibility. A third lane should be the Public's
responsibility to construct.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Jerry Gardner, Chief Civil Engineering, indicated the
amendment really was four items. First, the Parkway
standards and the classification of Chenal/Financial Center
2
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued
Parkway as a "Parkway". The second part is the "Residential
Street Open Drainage" alternative. This change is to
address the minor subdivisions of land in the southeast part
of the county where no curb and gutter exist for miles. It
should be noted that the City Engineer would have final say
on where this alternative is appropriate. The last two
issues are housekeeping matters. First is the open drainage
industrial section which is currently allowed but has no
cross-section representation. The last issue is the
classification of the principal arterial standard with an
initial section of 60 feet of paving and a final section of
six lanes and a median. The Chenal amendment would require
a six land section from Shackleford west to Kanis. A third
lane would be required at the time of development.
James Lasley, property owner, indicated he was against the
plan amendment. We have gone over and over on Chenal. when
the Improvement District came in, right-of-way was freely
given (though it amounted to over five acres). One hundred
feet was given and somewhere during the process that
requirement was changed to 120 feet. It is not right to
require individuals to put in a super highway. The City
should have to come in and condemn the land, if they want
it. But the City tries to get you on a building permit.
Requiring the road before a building permit is issued.
Roller -Drummond had to go the Board which voted 11-0 against
Staff, not to build the road. And what about areas already
developed, how is the road going to built in those areas?
Staff should let this area alone. The City should build a
street this major. Mr. Lasley indicated the City needed to
be careful about requirements, since Jonesboro was taken to
court and had to pay for additional right-of-way. There
should not have to be any additional voluntary giving of
more right-of-way along Chenal. In the past, the owners had
tried to be good citizens by giving right-of-way and paying
for construction of Chenal. They need to be given credit
for this.
Mr. Dickson Flake, agent for Catholic Diocese, indicated
opposition to the plan amendment. Any new requirements on
Chenal should be done by the Public. The owners have given
the right-of-way and taken out bonds for 10 to 15 years to
pay for Chenal Parkway. When the City accepted the
right-of-way and improvements, the City stated they complied
with the Master Street Plan. The City, a partner, is trying
to change the partnership rules in the middle. One does not
do that and keep partnership. It is fine for the Staff to
advise the need for more lanes due to more intense traffic,
but there is a problem making additional requirements on
owners.
Commissioner Putnam asked approximately when the City had
accepted Chenal. He was told when it opened in 1989 or
1990.
3
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued)
Mr. Robert Shults, representing Financial Center
Partnership, indicated opposition to the plan amendment.
Mr. Shults' group built a divided road (which was not
required) and paid 100 percent of the costs for the first
piece of the Parkway. There is one major problem with the
additional requirements. His group has a very narrow piece
of land from which if any additional right-of-way were
taken, the owners would not have enough land to build
anything. Mr. Shults went on to state that four lanes were
enough to expect a developer to build, any additional lanes
should be done by the City. In addition if developers build
the road, the result would be going back and forth from 4 to
6 lanes. This would create serious traffic hazards. The
whole improvement should be done at one time.
Commissioner Selz asked about stipulating that the City must
compensate for additional improvements. Stephen Giles, City
Attorney, stated each case must be reviewed on its own
merits. It is a policy decision on requiring or
compensating for additional right-of-way. Jim Lawson,
Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, suggested the
Commission send the amendment to the Board of Directors with
no recommendation. The issues of what the City has agreed
to and who pays for it are decisions that the Board of
Directors should make. In any case, the City needs to
resolve the issues one way or the other. Prospective
developments are uncertain until this is resolved.
Mr. Gardner, stated staff cannot dispute any thing that had
been said. Long term traffic projections indicate a need
for six lanes. Who builds the additional lanes is a policy
decision.
Mr. Lasley asked what was to stop the City from asking for
more later. The Commission began a discussion of how to
process with the issue.
Commissioner Putnam stated that in his experience with the
City along Geyer Springs and Baseline Road, over many years
the roads were widened and the City had to acquire land. It
is time for the City to recognize when we have given our
word. Ten feet may not seem like a lot, if you own it than
it is. It is also understandable that the staff would say
let's get it when we can. But, the City needs to give these
owners credit for the good road they have given the City.
There was discussion about deferring the Chenal portion of
the amendment and sending the rest on.
Commissioner Walker asked how the staff has administratively
been handling this since there was no discussion of it in
4
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 11 (Continu
the early case (Best Buy). Mr. Gardner stated that the Best
Buy site has a third lane on Chenal; the Wal-Mart site will
build a third lane; and for the HQ site no third lane was
required in exchange for a total reconstruction of
Hermitage. Currently, the City is requiring 120 feet of
right-of-way and a third lane of all development.
Commissioner Walker expressed a desire the set a maximum
requirement of 50 of right-of-way (per side) and two lanes
(per side) in the plan. Mr. Gardner indicated the bottom
line was who should pay for the third lane. The Commission
can recommend to the Board of Directors only two lanes, or
that the public should pay for the third lanes.
Commissioner Walker stated concern about the
constitutionality of requiring the third lane. There was
discussion about the "Parkway" and other roads which could
be given this standard. Staff informed the Commission that
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway was the only road which
would be given this classification.
Several Commissioner's expressed the desire for more
information. Mr. Lasley restated that some areas are
already developed and the problems of changing back and
forth from 2 to 3 lanes. There was more discussion about
just sending the issue on to the Board.
Commissioner Selz made a motion to approve the amendment
with the change of not requiring Chenal owners who had
already contributed to the District or Financial Center to
give additional right-of-way or build additional traffic
lanes. There was discussion about exactly what the
motion said. The vote on the motion was 5 ayes, 0 noes,
2 abstentions. Since the motion filed to get six votes, the
item was automatically deferred.
5
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 12
NAME: HILLSBORO, PHASE IIA SUBDIVISION -- BILL OF ASSURANCE
AMENDMENT FOR LOT 65R
LOCATION: #11 Finchley Court
OWNER/APPLICANT•
MIKE AND NANCY BATIE
#11 Finchley Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
228-6326
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of an
amendment to the Hillsboro Subdivision Bill of Assurance.
The Board of Adjustments granted a variance for the house,
as constructed, to encroach into the platted front yard, and
the Board's approval requires the preparation of a re -plat
of the lot showing the approved changes. A re -plat requires
an amendment to the Bill of Assurance, and the Hillsboro
Subdivision Bill of Assurance requires Planning Commission
approval of any amendment. Although such approvals have
been delegated to the staff, the applicant's attorney,
because of a lawsuit involving the variance and needing to
"dot the is and cross the t's" has requested the
Commission's approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994)
Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney presented the item.
Mr. Giles explained that the item was a request from
Mr. Mike Batie, a resident of the Hillsboro Subdivision, to
approve an amendment to the Hillsboro Subdivision's Bill of
Assurance. He explained that the applicant was seeking
Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the Bill of
Assurance in order to comply with the requirements of the
Bill of Assurance. Mr. Giles explained that the Board of
Adjustments had granted a variance to Mr. Batie in order for
his house to encroach into the front yard setback; that the
house had been built in its location as a result of a
mistake, and that the Board of Adjustments had granted the
variance in order for the house to stay as it had been
placed on the lot. Neighbors, Mr. Giles, added, had
objected to the location of the house and to the granting of
the variance, and had filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit is
pending in Chancery Court, but, the action requested by the
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO • 12 (Continued)
Planning Commission would not affect any remedies available
to the plaintiffs in court. Mr. Giles explained that City
Ordinance requires that, once the Board of Adjustments has
approved a variance, the applicant must re -plat the lot
showing the approved changes in setback, and to re -plat a
lot, an amended Bill of Assurance is required. According to
the Hillsboro Bill of Assurance, an amendment to the Bill of
Assurance for the neighborhood requires approval of over 50%
of the owners of the land area of Hillsboro Subdivision.
According to the Hillsboro Bill of Assurance, an amendment
also requires approval of the Planning Commission. Since
this matter is in court, and despite the fact that approval
of amendments to Bills of Assurance has been delegated to
the Planning staff and are not usually heard by the
Commission, Mr. Batie's attorney had requested approval by
the Commission. Mr. Giles advised the Commission that the
merits of the granting of the variance or matters in dispute
which are being argued in court are not pertinent to the
Planning Commission's hearing. The Commission, he added, is
only to verify, based on information and affidavits
presented to it, that Mr. Batie has satisfied the
requirements of the Bill of Assurance for an amendment;
that, in this case, the Commission is to verify that over
50% of the owners of the land area have signed the petition
of amendment. If the Commission determines that the
requirement has been met, then the responsibility of the
Commission has been met and the amendment should be
approved. The matter is not, he reiterated, to be reviewed
on the merits of the approval by the Board of Adjustments or
on the correctness or incorrectness of the particular
matters in dispute between Mr. Batie and his neighbors. The
meeting is not a public meeting and it is not the time to
hear arguments.
Mr. Randy Frazier, Mr. Batie's attorney, made his
presentation. He said that the bottom line is that the
Board of Adjustments allowed the encroachment; the replat
has been prepared as required; the amendment to the
Hillsboro Bill of Assurance has been prepared and executed
by the required number of property owners; that an affidavit
has been prepared by Mr. Pat McGetrick, a registered
engineer, indicating that the required number of signatures
have been affixed to the petition; and, that the Planning
Commission is being asked to approve the amendment to the
Bill of Assurance. Mr. Frazier reported that, in fact, over
58% of the owners, or 105 owners, of the land area have
signed the petition, so Mr. Batie has exceeded the
requirements. The petitions and Mr. McGetrick's affidavit
were available for inspection by the Commission, and the
affidavit was presented to the Commission.
FA
February 8, 1994
ITEM NO.: 12 (Contin
Chairperson Chachere indicated that cards had been turned in
from persons who were in attendance who objected to the
request. Mrs. Chachere recounted Mr. Giles counsel that the
Commission hearing was not the appropriate place for the
objectors to present their case.
Mr. Chris Barrier, attorney for the Hillsboro neighbors,
outlined the background of the request and reported on the
neighbors complaints and actions. He asked that the
Commission decision be deferred until after the matter had
been settled in court.
Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Giles if such a request were
appropriate.
Mr. Giles advised that the Commission is not approving the
replat or approving the action of the Board of Adjustments.
The only responsibility of the Commission is to verify that
the required number of signatures have been affixed to the
petition.
Chairperson Chachere asked if others who had turned in cards
wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Robert Haydon and
Mr. R. D. Saenz responded that they did not.
Mr. Barrier added that there are disputes on the accuracy of
the survey, and that there are issues involving
encroachments into the side yards. He also suggested that
there are persons who signed the petition who now wish to
have their names removed.
After a discussion among various Commission members and
Commission members with Mr. Barrier, the Commission agreed
that the hearing of arguments regarding disputes and whether
the variance should have been granted were inappropriate for
the Commission to hear; that the neighbors had appropriate
remedies in court; and, that the Commission's action to
approve the amendment to the Bill of Assurance would not
affect the remedies the neighbors had in court.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the amendment to
the Bill of Assurance. The request was approved with 7 ayes,
no nays, 3 absent, no abstentions, and one open position.
3
I1111�1�
111111mull
C44
�
1
,4
Q
M Ju
�n
w
�
I1111�1�
111111mull
MINIMUM
�
1
Q
�n
I 1
uj
aQui
c�
O
W
0
Q
OLD
mill
NV,
as
c
a
mills
1111100111
0
a
IonMIN
z
w
Z
a
a
I1111�1�
111111mull
MINIMUM
1
i(1 �
�n
I 1
Ell
W
IIIImmill
Q
I1111�1�
111111mull
MINIMUM
1
�n
Ell
IIIImmill
mill
mills
1111100111
IonMIN
101110111n�
1131111
�
i
1921
111111
�1111111mill111111101111e
11111111111
I1111�1�
111111mull
MINIMUM
1
�n
IIIImmill
1111100111
101110111n�
n
co
cn
F-
z
w
m
W
Q
z
r-1
ki
w
Q
`I
February 8, 1994
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Date
Chairman Se r