HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 15 1999subLITTLE ROCK PLASHING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMIQLRY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 15,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the March 4,1999 andMarch18,1999 Meetings.The minutes were approvedasmailed.
III.Members Present:Hugh EarnestBillPutnam
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Obray Nunnley
Bob Lowry
Craig Berry
Pam Adcock
Rohn Muse
Judith Faust
Members Absent:Herb Hawn
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 15,1999
I .DEFERRED I TEMS:
A.ICM,Inc.--Short-Fozm PD-0 (Z-6622)
B.Office Depot —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6629)
C.Colonel Glenn Commercial —Preliminary Plat (S-1240)
D.Kanis Road Design Overlay District
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS
1.Capitol Lakes Estates —Preliminary Plat —Time Extension(S-1100-A)
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
2.Mears —Long-Form PD-C —Time Extension (Z-4731-A)
3.Pinnacle Bank —Short-Form PD-0 (Z-5282-A)
4.Rainey Electronics —Revised PCD (Z-5537-A)
5.Target —Revised PD-C (Z-6199-C)
6.Bailey —Short-Form POD (Z-6640)
7.Homes at Granite Mountain —Long-Form PRD (Z-6641)
8.McHenry —Short-Fozm PD-0 (Z-6642)
9.Fence World —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6643)
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEWS
10.Arkansas System (Lot 3)—Zoning Site Plan Review
(Z-6051-E)
11.Cantrell Road Mini-Storage —Subdivision Site Plan (S-1245)
Agenda,Page Two
V.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
12.Wal-Mart (Baseline Road)—Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3442-G)
13.Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church —Revised Conditional
Use Permit (Z-3892-A)
14.Brenda and Harold Brown —Revised Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6312-A)
15.Oliver Elders —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6637)
16.Victoria Saviers —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6644)
VI.OTHER MATTERS:
17.Mabelvale Cutoff —Master Street Plan Amendment
18.Scott Hamilton —Master Street Plan Amendment
19.Land Use Plan Amendments (LU99-08-01 and LU99-08-04)and
Rexonings (Z-6615,Z-6618 and Z-3711-A)in the Downtown
Neighborhoods Plan Area
20.Central City Development Corridor
PU
B
L
I
C
HE
A
R
I
N
G
IT
E
M
S
80
~
'g
~
0
3
1-
4
3
0
6"
YP
Z
Z
IL
'
HI
N
S
O
N
0
IV
E
R
MA
R
MA
R
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
1-
6
3
P.
I
0
4
1
ST
H
e
A
)~
I7
0
4
N
WR
I
G
&i
n
0
GA
Z
Ol
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
0
z
CO
L
O
I
30
RO
O
S
E
00
OA
I
E
L
36
T
H
Al
I-
4
4
0
44
0
LA
W
S
O
N
Gg
P~
I
PR
I
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
W
B
O
N
Z
ZE
U
B
E
R
Io
I0
DA
V
I
I-
0
0+
O'
D
O
65
T
H
7
0
RA
I
N
E
S
VA
L
L
E
Y
14
3
0
0
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
S
I4
65
9
01
16
7
Z
B
IL
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
II
I
I
0 Y
SI
8
DI
X
O
N
HA
R
P
E
i&
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
CU
T
O
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
VI
N
S
O
N
~0
DR
E
H
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
c
GE
Y
E
R
S
P
S.
+
+0
CU
T
O
F
F
IO
Z
0
CU
T
O
F
F
IL
'
EL
6
AS
H
E
R
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
g
1
7
PR
A
T
T
0
14
5
T
H
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ap
r
i
l
15
,
19
9
9
April 15,~i9
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6622
NAME:ICM,Inc.--Short-Form PD-0
LOCATION:North side of Kanis Road,approximately 500 feet west
of Nix Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
J.Con,Inc.Marlar Engineering
P.O.Box 330 5318 J.F.K.Blvd.
Bryant,AR 72089 North Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:2.83 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the 2.83 acre site onthenorthsideofKanisRoad,approximately 500 feet westofNixRoadfromR-2 to PD-O.Independent Case Management,Inc.(ICM)proposes to construct a 2,500 square foot officebuildingonthesiteandassociatedparkingarea.The sitewillbeaccessedbyutilizingasingledrivefromKanisRoad.
Independent Case Management provides families andindividualswithadisabilityassistanceincase managementanddirectservicedelivery.The proposed building wouldbeforthepurposesofofficesfordaymeetings,stafftrainingandsomeclassroominstruction.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently undeveloped and wooded.Thegeneralareaisprimarilysingle-family residential innature.There is an office at the southwest corner of
April 15,'9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6622
Kanis and White Roads with 0-3 zoned property approximately
800 feet to the east along the south side of Kanis Road.
There is a nonconforming auto salvage yard at the northwest
corner of Kanis and Gamble Roads and VFW Post 9095 at thenortheastcornerofthatintersection.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no public comment onthisitem.The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kanis Road is listed on Master Street Plan as a minorarterial;dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from
centerline is required.(Existing traffic on Kanis Road-at Nix Road-is 3,100 vehicles/day.)2.Provide design of Kanis Road conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Provide "in-lieu of"contribution forconstructionofone-half street improvements to Kanis
Road,including 5-foot sidewalk.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Driveway location shall align with White Road;this
driveway shall be shared with adjacent property to thewest.
6.Cut and fill ordinance applies to this property.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required from the south
with easements to serve property.Pump station and
private force main will not be allowed for this
property.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:A 5 foot utility easement is requestedattherearpropertyline.
Water:An acreage charge of $600 per acre applies in
addition to normal fees.
Fire Department:No Comment.
2
April 15,i a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6622
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This property is currently shown as Transition on the Land
Use Plan and is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The proposed use is consistent with the land use category
shown.All development should adhere to the Design OverlayDistrictfortheKanisRoadCorridor,heard on the February
4,1999 agenda of the Planning Commission meeting.This
Design Overlay District,whose concepts were approved bythePlanningCommission,state that there should be a
30'aturalbufferalongthefrontage,parking should be to therearandsidesofthebuildings.There is also a curb cut
planned for White Road,and a shared driveway to the east
should be explored.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed plan does not allow for the full required 33footwideonsitestreetbufferalongKanisRoadnorthe 94footwidelandusebufferalongthewesternperimeter.
The minimum requirements with transfers are 22 feet and 6 'wfeetrespectively.
A 6 foot high opaque screen either a wooden fence or dense
evergreen plantings,is required to screen this development
from the properties to the west,east and north.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be requiredtoprotectlandscapedareasfromvehiculartraffic.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesasfeasibleonthissite.That would include on sitetreesalongKanisRoad.Extra credit toward compliance
with the Landscape Ordinance can be given when preservingtreesof6inchcaliperorlarger.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
3
April 15,1 s9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6622
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on February 18,
1999 requesting that this item be deferred to the April 15,
1999 Planning Commission agenda.The applicant is
attempting to work out the wastewater issues associated
with this property.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the deferral as requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 11,1999)
Becky Johnson,Cindy Alberding and Jerry Johnson were present,
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposed PD-0 and discussed several changes which needed to
be made in the site plan to make the plan more compatible with
the proposed Kanis Road design overlay.The applicants notedthatthehoursofoperationwouldbefrom8:00 a.m.to 5:00
p.m.,Monday through Friday.The applicants also noted that
signage would conform to the Kanis Road design overlay or as
required.
Parking was briefly discussed.The applicants stated that the
number of parking spaces as shown on the site plan were needed
based on the number of employees (6 full-time and 4 part-time),clients and visitors which would be coming to the site.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,briefly reviewed the Public Works
requirements.He indicated that the driveway location should
align with White Road and be shared with the property
immediately west.
In response to one of the Public Works comments,the applicants
noted that the proposed development would follow the slope ofthelandforthemostpartandthattherewouldbenoseverecuts.
Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,reviewed the landscape
and buffer requirements with the applicants.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-0 to thefullCommissionforresolution.
4
April 15,i 39
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6622
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
The staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
recpxested that this item be deferred to the April 15,1999
agenda.Staff supported the deferral recpxest.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to April 15,1999.A
motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Becky Johnson and Mr.Fleming were present,representing theapplication.Staff gave a brief description of the PD-0 and a
recommendation of approval with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the recpxirements as noted in paragraphs D,E
and F of this report.
2.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away fromadjacentproperty.
4.Signage must conform with the Kanis Road DOD,if adopted,
otherwise signage must conform to the Zoning Ordinance
standards for office zoned property.5.If a septic system is used,approval from the Pulaski CountyHealthDepartmentmustbereceived.
Staff noted that the only outstanding issue was Public Works
concern with the driveway location.
Becky Johnson addressed the Commission in support of the
application.Mrs.Johnson stated that if the driveway location
were moved to the west property line several large trees would
be lost.She noted that she understood if the driveway were
approved as proposed then only a right-in/right-out would exist
and this driveway would have no future median cut.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,noted that there would be a mediancutatWhiteRoad.He stated that access to this property
should be aligned with White Road and shared with the property
immediately west.
5
April 15,i a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6622
Mr.Fleming noted that they would prefer to share a drive with
the property to the east.He noted that a driveway along the
west property line would cut into a five foot bank.
Mr.Turner verified that if the driveway were approved as
proposed,it would have no median cut.There was a brief
discussion of this issue and the proposed Kanis Road Design
Overlay District.There was additional discussion as to whether
the driveway should be shared with the property to the west or
the east and the future construction of Kanis Road.
Judy Burke addressed the Commission and noted concerns with the
buffer between her property to the north and this property.She
stated that she would like to have a buffer larger than the 50footbuffershownonthesiteplan.
Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,noted that there was a 50footbuffershownonthesiteplanandthatnodevelopmentis
shown within the rear 400 feet of this property.He noted thatifanyadditionaldevelopmentisproposedinthefuture,it will
come back to the Commission for approval.
John Burnett spoke in favor of the application.He noted that
he represented the seller of the property.He stated that the
proposed use of the property would be very small scale and not
adversely effect the area.
There was additional discussion concerning the proposed Kanis
Road DOD and the Master Street Plan.
A motion was made to approve the PD-0 with the driveway location
as proposed by the applicant and with the conditions as noted bystaff.The motion was seconded.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if approving the driveway in this
location would set a precedent.Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that this application being a Planned Zoning Development
allowed this type of variation.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that therecordshouldshowthatafuturemediancutforthisdrivewaywillnotbeallowed.
The Chairman called the question.The motion passed by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
April 15,'9
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6629
NAME:Office Depot --Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:Northeast corner of University Avenue and "B"Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
A.M.,Jim &Dorothy Sullivan McGetrick and McGetrick
301 N.University Avenue 319 E.Markham Street,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72205 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-3 &R-5 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
and Multifamily
residential
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property fromR-3/R-5 to PD-C to allow the construction a 22,000 squarefootOfficeDepotstoreonthe2.09 acre site at thenortheastcornerofUniversityAvenueand"B"Street.Aparkinglotconsistingof51parkingspaceswillbelocatedonthewestsideofthebuildingandwillbeaccessedfrom"C"Street.The applicant is proposing a small employeeparkingarea(9 spaces)to be located at the east end ofthebuildingandaccessedfrom"B"Street.This "B"Streetentrancewillalsoaccommodateserviceanddeliveryvehicles.
The applicant is proposing to realign "C"Street to line upwiththedriveintoParkPlazaMallonthewestsideofUniversityAvenue.The traffic signals will be moved
April 15,~~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
slightly to accommodate the realignment.The developerwillpayforthecostoftheadditionaltrafficsignal
ecpxipment needed for "C"Street.A turn lane will beconstructedalongUniversityAvenueinfrontofthis site.
The applicant has noted that all site lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property.Theapplicantalsonotesthattheprovisionofthesignordinance(commercial signage)and landscape ordinance willbefollowed.
As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments,theproposedbuildingwillhaveahip,shingled roof and a redbrickfacade,in order to give the building an officeappearance.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The general area contains a mixture of residential,officeandcommercialusesandzoning.There are single-familyandmultifamilyresidenceslocatedtotheeast,north andsouth.There are existing office buildings to the northalongtheeastsideofUniversityAvenueandaparkinglotimmediatelyeastofthissitealongthesouthsideof"C"Street.There is an office building/beauty shop located atthesoutheastcornerofUniversityAvenueand"B"Street,with the Park Plaza Mall being located to the west acrossUniversityAvenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)letter ofsupportforthisitem,one (1)letter of opposition and two(2)phone calls requesting information.The HillcrestResidentAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.University Avenue is listed on the Master Street Plan asaprincipalarterial;dedication of right-of-way to 50feetfromcenterlineisrecpxired.(Existing traffic onUniversityAvenue-at "C"Street-is 15,000 vehicles/day.)2."C"Street should be constructed to commercial streetstandards,with 36'avement width.Dedication ofright-of-way to 30 feet from centerline is required.3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredattheintersectionsofUniversityAvenuewith"B"and"C"Streets.
2
April 15,'9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Submit plans for proposed re-signalization of theintersectionofUniversityAvenueand"C"Street.7.Submit plan for transition of "C"Street to University
Avenue.
8.Reconstruct median island on University Avenue,as
required for proposed realignment of "C"Street,and newleftturnlane,southbound off University Avenue.9.Reconstruct "B"Street to 31 feet,with 60 feet right-
of-way,is recommended.10.Reconstruct "B"Street intersection with University
Avenue.
11.Show pavement transition on "C"Street,east of
property.
12.Eliminate west driveway on "B"Street to eliminate cut-
through route to "B"Street to "C"Street.13.Conform proposed alignment of "C"Street to be collinear
with alignment of "C"Street west of University Avenue.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available on site,not adverselyaffected.Locate sewer main prior to construction.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A water main extension may be required to providefireprotectiontothisproperty.An easement should beretainedfortheexisting2"main in "C"Street.Anyneededrelocationofexistingwaterfacilitieswillbe atdeveloper's expense.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Would like to see building orientation closer toUniversityAvenue,approved as submitted however.Served
by Route ¹21.
3
April 15,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This property was the subject of a Land Use Plan that washeardonFebruary4,1999 and is in the Heights Hillcrest
Planning District.At that meeting,the plan was changedtoMixedUsefromMultifamily.There are additional
concerns:1)There will be increased traffic on "B"Street
from customers and more importantly,service and deliveryvehiclesutilizingtheloadingdockontheeastsideof thebuilding.The loading dock is only accessible from "B"
Street —a residential street that does not have sufficientwidthorconstructiontohandletrucktraffic."B"StreetisresidentialfromPierceStreetwesttotheoffice
development on University Avenue.2)This non-residential
development is twice as deep as other developments in thisareaasmeasuredoffofUniversityAvenue.The loadingdocklocatedtotherearofthestructurefurtherexacerbatesthiscondition.The loading dock should beaccessedoffof"C"Street,which will be of a width andconstructiontohandlethelargervehiclesandtheaccessibilityofthestoplight.
Landsca e Issues:
The areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet withordinancerequirements.
A 6 foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or denseevergreenplantings,are required along the eastern andnorthernperimeterswhichabutresidentialproperty.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff onFebruary17,1999.The only change to the site plan wastheeliminationofthewesternmostdrive"B"Street.Theapplicanthasnotedthatthesmallparkingareaontheeastsideofthebuilding,accessed from "B"Street,will be foremployeeparking.
The proposed site plan shows a total of 60 parking spaces.The ordinance would typically require 70 spaces for thisdevelopment.
4
April 15,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
Staff feels that the site plan as proposed,with the
building located in the east half of the property and
parking between the building and University Avenue,is not
an appropriate development for this immediate area.Staff
continues to feel that the proposed building should be
moved to the southwest corner of the property with parking
on the east and north sides.Staff is also still of the
opinion that there should be no access drives from "B"
Street and that all access should be taken from "C"Street.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the PD-C as proposed.Stafffeelsthattheproposedsitedevelopmentplanwillnot becompatiblewiththeimmediatearea.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 11,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the PD-C.Staff suggested changestotheproposedsiteplan.Those included eliminating accessdrivesfrom"B"Street and moving the building to the southwestcorneroftheproperty.
Mr.McGetrick gave a detailed description of the site plan.He
noted that the applicants are still exploring the possibility of
moving the building as suggested by staff.Mr.McGetrick statedthatthewesternmostdriveon"B"Street would be eliminated,
but the other drive was needed for employee parking.
Mr.McGetrick presented the Committee with a front elevation oftheproposedbuilding.It showed the proposed building with ahip,shingled roof and red brick facade,giving the building anofficeappearance.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Theseincludedtherealignmentof"C",Street the traffic signal at"C"Street and University Avenue,and the turn lane in front ofthisproperty.
The landscape comments were briefly reviewed.It was noted thattheproposedsiteplanconformstoordinancerequirementsforlandscapeandbufferareas,but screening needed to be shown
5
April 15,~.d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
along the east and north perimeters where adjacent to
residential property.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
Pat McGetrick and Jim Irwin were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed
PD-C site plan.Staff recommended denial of the site plan as
proposed.Staff noted that the applicant had expressed interest
in deferring the item in order to work with staff and the
neighborhood and attempt to achieve a more acceptable site plan
design.
Jim Irwin addressed the Commission.Mr.Irwin noted that it is
the intent to revise the site plan in order to address staff and
neighborhood concerns.He also stated that the property owner's
wife had unexpected surgery and he was unable to attend the
meeting.For these reasons,Mr.Irwin requested that the item
be deferred.
Commissioner Berry asked how many persons who wanted to speak ontheitemwerepresent.Chairman Earnest noted that he had 10-15
cards on the item.
There was a general discussion concerning the deferral request.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the deferral
request by the applicant (less than 5 days prior to the public
hearing)and defer the item to the April 15,1999 agenda.The
motion was seconded.
Commissioner Hawn expressed concerns with deferring the item andnothearingfromthepersonspresent.
Commissioner Downing stated that he thought that the concerns
from the persons present should be heard at the same meeting asthePD-C rezoning.There was a brief discussion regarding thisissue.
The Chairman called the question.The previous motion fordeferralpassedbyavoteof9ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.StaffnotedthatthedeferralwouldbetotheApril15,1999 agenda.
6
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6629
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Jim Irwin and Pat McGetrick were present,representing the
application.The same site plan that was given to staff on
February 17,1999 was presented.The building,parking anddriveswereinthesamelocationsasoriginallyproposed,withtheexceptionofthewesternmostdriveon"B"Street which had
been removed.
There was a detailed discussion regarding the placement of thebuildinganddrives.Moving the building to the west andleavingtworowsofparkingbetweenthebuildingandUniversity
Avenue was discussed.
The Committee looked at an aerial photo and discussed the
surrounding uses and buildings.The building design,includingfrontdoorlocation,was also discussed.
The applicant has not committed to any changes in the site planandtherefore,to staff's knowledge,the same site plan which
was previously presented will be forwarded to the full
Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletteronApril8,1999 recpxesting that the item be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal recpxest.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforwithdrawal.A motion to thateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 naysand1absent.
7
+Acr&
RECEIVED
Little Rock Planning Commission FEB 26 'I~89
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Ar.72201-1334
BY'ear
Board of Directors:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property attheNortheastcornerofUniversityAvenueand"B"Street for the construction ofanOfficeDepotstore.This proposed rezoning would allow the entire block alongUniversityAvenuefrom"B"Street to "C"Street to be available for the Office Depotstore.Although the half-block area closest to "C"Street has already been zonedcommercialforsometime,the so —called business there seems to be no more than abackyardshopandisnotlistedinthephonebookineithertheyelloworbusinesspages.This "business"has been in this state of non-operation for the 12 yearsthatwehavelivedinourhome.
My husband and I are opposed the the rezoning for two main reasons.Ourneighborhoodstreets,which are narrow with no curbs or gutters and in a state ofdisrepair,already bear a large amount of commercial traffic during the week from
7 a.m.to 5 p.m.Office Depot hours of operation are 7 a.m.to 9 p.m.MondaythroughFriday,9 a.m.to 9 p.m.Saturday,and 10 a.m,to 6 p.m.Sunday,Unless"C"Street was closed to through traffic,this would increase commercial trafficimmensely7daysaweek.There are 12 children living on the affected block of "C"
Street between University Avenue and North Pierce and their safetv is a majorconcern.
We are also concerned about our propertv value.We may already be paying realestatetaxesoninflatedpropertyvaluesandmostcertainlyourpropertywouldhavelessresidentialappealaswearetheclosesthouseonthesouthsideof"C"
Street to the land in question.As it is now,I look out my kitchen window and seelarge,old trees that would be cut down to make way for construction.I'm afraidthatthefutureviewoutmywindowwouldbethebackofahugeconcrete-block
buildi'ng.
These are only two of the reasons we oppose the rezoning and we would appreciateyourconsiderationoftheseandotherresidentialneighborhoodinterestsasyoucontemplatetherezoningissue.We and several of our neighbors plan to attend thehearingonMarch4toexpressourconcerns.
Sincerely,
Valerie Wingert
5907 "C"Street
Little Rock,Ar.72205
Sent By:AUA 6610609 02/24/99 2I39PM pygmy,Job 57 Page ]/f
ff~g
K-&l(~1
I(.i)t I.i;It (,:'.I,I '.1&,)&.)
't f (')f l.!I I I(:ku&.Ei
I I'I]1 lit]I,'&.'.(.&L.LII III (:I(&t I
1'.I X..,'&7 I -fi&&ht&,''&
!)&.,I I.'it,.).'1;I.l;II».
'~;I ]'('st(l(.'.Ilf'tt Ilt(.'ltll(:I'('it I](.'t&~ELL)()]lz()()(f,E»v()L]E(f f]L'(.:I()1(:;~]if(.t
]&I'i')l)1)(."..'LIL()f]I()f.ll(,"&..'()1].'&ll'L](.".ILOLL (.&f it 1],Olf f«(,'.I )(,.'P(')I;:I t 1 11th'(.'I','(]I&&&
.'I]1(f "E'&"
~&ll'(.'Ct (,:It](f I()ii (.'11;]]i...(.']1tl]i.rOt Lit],'i,'&I litt,'.&IO],'it I (;f t'(.:t,
I I I I it LE if i~"ifit l I I].'tf l.i]tie Ii()«k tlt.lit]I,till IEL(."I'«~i(l('.t if i.t I i It t(:.',I if y (&t't
i !I(.'I ',I]E)(')I'I]()()(fs,;it tif Ill&.'.".()I
tilt
]'I I('.'I I()tl ('&I,'I 1;Ll ',.&(.'nt ti]»(&s»('ll(..'ll it 8
(.)I I ]&«1 )&..I)()f &&x'()ll I('I.(."(.'&'ti']I I tl'(&1)(.'l St(.'P i'I (Ytt &&t'I ()L]t Ill&it l,(,~I I I
]1(.'I,'&ll[)()t'!]()(')(f 11'I i 111."IllitV(.'.(f I&)t'i'.fl]it]]i !(CPit]'iitt('.1!'()l)1 'f11(.
I](."tt'b)&']1&I
Iii'ttl(f kt(.&;&I)tt.fl '&('If!1 tf1(".(ft&&'iÃi(')ll Of I.I]]%&(,.'I'iitfl'"(V(.'(Lt](.f (X&I'It kit&I]I!
~f]'(.'«t.11(.'i»:&..'vi.'!'.I It(.'I'&if I I«it]this:tt.(".,1 iS ']li'()-'L(I&')Lts&)',itt](f iS:&
t]I'ihft LL;1 f'(.'.(1 tt]/]tl'~fh»1]t)1](I'Iyi.l Jt(.:«()il<'1](",I ti?I I ()f .It]C.)I I]C(.'4.'.f)(')I
'(&i()L]l(l Llt(.I'(,'.&I,'i(.'ll(.'l";lff1«LLl &I ].e.'St(I&,'ltfi-'il I'lL'I'~1]1)()t'}LOO('I
&(&&'El&.'i(.')('(»&I("
1 l,i v(."I I I it(l«If]&.'I."I &('&t t I('..'(&Lt tel xvl](:1'c'..~(.'v(.'1]i E s(.'I]()()li .I I (.
I'('I(.'.(.I.I I o'0]]l(f;;t I('()1)1.'I«(I I'I tis f.)t I iitl(.'.ss t'I,",1]I ()]]I()l)(&I 1 I
i.'i
]i'LLY t if]('I(.'t'i'felt]if]tt&~Ill.'ll tli«E E&tttt IIII&~&L.,(&it]tt]ts.'it(&t]IV(t(11«&f,t&&&',I t
(')",I'l(,".PE&tfti',lOL't]]Olti«(1)(.'E)()I &(V}]('.1'1 IE]c.'itt](f f.:,'.(('.1 l,ill A';I,'(
;t I'&I)t ()v('('I.1'l(i.ii&.'](.'IE)]]l.'1111k.tt]l Et]it(it&L'.st 8 I]L'I&~&lib()t'1]O()if Sf.'ll t]i &it ti(l
)'()I&'..'L&g'Ltt ]if «1 tilt],'gtt],'g I II(,'/0]]I tt'g .'IfittLI."].
.'&!I 'I ('(.''&.'1 V,
r')'/,',,—&l'.,
,"(l(t 1 »)~i(L S]])i tl1
&!1 1 /;'(..'il I (.'(1 t
l,if tl .I'()«}',:ILR '~'~0'.
E Ic.»»(.'.(&O.'-0;.'&l.RECEIVED
'A/()I'k t&t&1 -'l 7(.).'.'.FFB 24 1999
BY:
Leep-(4 2'l
w "1~Mac~
s.7 I ~
(cj((Ic~~~,~~+~
~c
~.Ar
~
o~
g s/g-&~p~—c
~g~~~L ~~4~~gg~-.
~S-ca~
e&~r
I
(~
~c~~(~
R~~~-A~~.Q
'&&)&A..
/~/g~
I
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 1999
rZ
BY
)ALE j.WUODALL P.o.Box 21018 ~Little Rock,arkansas 72221-10
Z4a H--
g-(ot'o ~1
February 15,1999
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Sirs:
This is a response to the notice I received by mail from
your office on Friday,February 12,1999 regarding a request to
rezone the property at University and B from R-3/R-5 to PD-C.
Your notice indicates this is in.order to allow the construction
of an Office Depot Store.Your notice also indicates that a
hearing will be held on this matter on March 4,1999 at City Hall.
I will not be attending the hearing on this matter but,as a
resident of the neighborhood,would like to state my feelings on
this matter.I have resided nearby at 5924 A since 1990,for the
past 9 years.I would like to state that I welcome a business like
Office Depot to this neighborhood.I think that this particular
business will be an asset to this area and that it will provide
many more positive features than it will negative.
I have no business interest in Office Depot.I also had
never met the current owners of this property,Mrs Jim Sullivan
and Mr.Sully Sullivan,until this past Saturday,February 13,when
I stopped by their property and talked to them briefly.Therefore,
I have no ulterior motive for recommending my preference that the
rezoning of this property be allowed other than as a resident who
feels that an Office Depot -Store would be a nice addition to this
neighborhood.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Dale J.Woodall
RECEIVED
FEB 1 6 ]999
BY:
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY K-G~&1
ONce Depot
DevelopmentNamePhoneAddress~M.U
For Against
Wf/8'-
/oem')
4 ~98I~~5+~F&p-
I
5 7 «i':Wi +'.-'r:--&v'':7 ~'&.j -':
C
6 c'0Z .w k7~
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
RECEIVED
eR &5»~~
r.4~
Tk~8
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
Office Depot
DevelopmentNamePhoneAddress~NM.U i
For Against
C ~r.Si:i year /~4 ~W -'~'d-=A"
3 —Fc:f-—
lu A Vn'rm of
RECEIVED
MAR 15 899
BY:
~-.I 0 ~-,-.;I//Z ~~Ca
23/7 f/o,//P //
ctit/ie Poclr,Ailransas 72207
March 4,1999 a~/3
Land Use Amendment
2-~I'&'f
Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72205
Dear Sirs:
D th S
I just returned from a ten da tri and i
orothy Sullivan,are a I in for er
y 'p n find that my business neighbors A.M.J diman
th S ',pp y'permission to develop their home-business site inelockofNorthUniversityAvenue.I am sendin th'
i 'b toldofthoo e meeting of the planning commission scheduled f
y.n 1965,I bought two duplexes at 413 and 415 Northursdayafternoontoda.In
e or
niversity and converted them into my offices where I racticed
until my retirement in 1986.It h
e e practiced as a general surgeon
en in .It has been my son,Dr.Drew Kumpuris,and his artn
office for 18 years.The office to the north,417 North Un'versit,was built later and
n occupie y my son Dr.Dean Kumpuris and his partners for 18 years.
ad'e
We have known the Sullivans throughout this ent''Th
j ctives to describe these hardworking,religious,kind individuals.
n ire ime.ere are not enou h fineg
use
The plans I have reviewed would widen "C'Street and wo Id kouma e a present non-
able street into a useable street for all residents "C"SIr'n s on eet as well as the
r ing o s o our offices.The use of the property for commercial change is not
objectionable and the development of the property should neither add nor
from the value of our medical buildings
entran
The neighborhood on "C'Street should benefit by a use bl t tuseaesrect as a point of
rance and exit on University.Parallel streets on "4'andnB"
d veloped than "C'havin
would ho e that m
aving curbs with well-paved streets with landscap tb k .
p aking C Street a wider entrance and exit onto Un'
pese ac s.I
encoura e these nei h
'n o niversity would
g eig bors to organize and develop improvements which would
enhance the value of their property.I have no objections to this real estate
development and see hope for progress in the neighborhood.
rank G.Kumpuris,M.D.
PffiCIAI.BEAL
IQNN BUEKER SOSEBEc.
NITARf FUBLC ~ABIIAII$4
PULASN COUNTY
IIT COMSSCN QFilKi:.;0.'5,".003
RECEIVED
MAR ~5 i999
SAM J.STORTHZ,JR.
810 NORTH UNIVERSITY
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72205
(50I)856-8909 g-6~&7
3/3/99
Dear Planning Commission:
I have the ofhce building next door to the proposed OfFice Depot and would welcome the
OfBce Depot to the area.
Having our ofhce down the street as well as living near the area,it would be wonderful to
be able to buy ofBce and computer supplies in the neighborhood instead of driving 10 to
15 minutes each way to the nearest ofhce supply store.It seems like everything is moving
out west,and I think it is so nice that they want to build in our area.As of now,we have
no neighborhood hardware store,dime store,computer-ofhce supply store.We have to
drive the 10-15 minutes each way to Wal-Mart,Target,Home Quarters,Of5ce Depot,
etc.to buy these items.
The property is currently surrounded by of6ce buildings,and retail buildings and the
proposed Ofhce Depot would be a wonderful addition to the area.There is curently
a Teacher's Supply Store (The Knowledge Tree)across the street from our ofhce on N.
University,and we have had no traQic or other problems.
I hope you will allow Of5ce Depot to build on N.University and look forward having
them as my neighbor.
Sincerely,
Annette Storthz
RECEIVED
MAR 15 1~99
BY'
I
Gastroenterology Robert C Power MD
Douglas F.Smart,M.D.Associates PA.C.Don Greenway,M.D.
Debra F.Morrison,M.D.409 N.University
Tom L.Meziere,M.D.Little Rock,Arkansas 72205
(501)664-6980
B.Douglas Stokes,M.D.2000 Fendley Drive,Suite 203NorthLittleRock,Arkansas 72114(501)791-3800
7h 5
Planning Division -LU Amendment
Department of Planning and Development723WestMarkhamStreet
Little Rock,AR 72201
RE:Land Use Plan Amendment
To whom it may concern:
I have talked with Brian Minyard concerning the proposed change of the single familyresidencelocatedbehindmyofficeof405and409NorthUniversity.The current request is tochangefromthecurrentofficetomulti-family zoning.The clinics at 405 and 409 NorthUniversityareopposedtothischangesincethischangewilleffectonesinglefamilyresidencewhichadjoinsourcurrentparkinglotwhichweenterfromUniversityandalsoisdirectlyacrossthestreetfromourparkinglotonCstreet.It seems the future possibility would for this to beanadditionalparkingspaceandtorezonebacktotheofficeinthefutureseemstobeinappropriate.
We are not opposed to the changes on the property south of 405 University as long aswehaveaccesstoCstreetfrombothnorthandsouthboundlanesof.University avenue.I have talked with Mr.Bob Turner and he advises that that would be the requirement if thislanduseplanwasapproved.
Thank you very much for your assistance.I may be contacted at 664-6980 if there are anyquestionsorifIcanhelpadditionally.
Sincerely,
CEIVED
James G.Dunlap,Jr.
MAR 15 1999AdministrativeDirector
JGD/akf py.
April 15,1 .9
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:S-1240
NAME:Colonel Glenn Commercial —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and
Interstate 430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Vogel Enterprises —Colonel White-Daters and Associates
Glenn Development Co.401 Victory Street
11,219 Financial Ctr.Pky.Little Rock,AR 72201
Suite 300
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:69.546 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:28 FT.NEW STREET:4,650 lf
ZONING:0-3,C-3 and C-4
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for reduced minimum driveway spacing.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 69.546 acres into 28lotswith4,650 linear feet of new streets.The propertyislocatedatthesouthwestcornerofColonelGlennRoadandInterstate430andiszoned0-3,C-3 and C-4.Theapplicantproposestofinalplatonelotatatimeas theyaresold.
The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced minimumdrivewayspacing.The variance would be for the twoproposeddriveswhichserveLots1-3 (207 feet ofseparation),the two drives which serve Lots 3-5 (250 feetofseparation)and the two drives for Lot 28 (also with 250
April 15,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
feet of separation).The ordinance requires a minimum
spacing of 300 feet,measured from center of drive to
center of drive.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property is currently vacant and heavily wooded.The
property to the south is also wooded.J.A.Fair High
School is located southwest of this site along Bowman Road.
The property across Bowman Road to the west is also wooded
with two or three residential structures along the southsideofColonelGlennRoad.There is a State Farm
Insurance office building and the Baptist System SupportCenterofficeslocatednorthacrossColonelGlennRoad.Interstate 430 is adjacent to the property's east boundary.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no public comment as of this writing.
There was no neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial;dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline is required.(Existing traffic
on Colonel Glenn is 11,400 vehicles/day.)2.Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial;dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required,plus additional 10 feet
right-of-way for right turn lane.3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornersofallpublicstreets.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets,including 5-foot sidewalks,with planned
development.
5.Streets need to be named;street names must be approved
by Public Works Department.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.Developer shall fund 50%of cost for future traffic
signal installation.
9.Submit construction-phasing plan.
10.Access to Lots 1,9,10,21,22 shall not be from
Colonel Glenn Road.
2
April 15,1 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
11.Show access locations for all lots on plat.
12.Show proposed pavement transition for Bowman Road west
of Lot 28.
13.Extend sidewalk easterly along Colonel Glenn Road to a
point abeam the east line of Lot 22.
14.Design of intersection at south corner of Lot 16 is
incomplete.Suggest larger radius and temporary cul-de-
sac.
15.Submit preliminary plat for remaining ownership,to
enhance review of southern portion of this plat.16.Submit preliminary plans for stormwater management,
including drainage easements and on-site detention.17.Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway
right-of-way.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING
Wastewater:Sewer main relocation required prior to start
of construction.Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve all lots.
APSL:Easements are requested along all street frontages
and plat boundary.Contact utility for details.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:A 10 foot utility easement is requestedattherearpropertylinesandsomesidepropertylinesoftheabuttinglots.Contact utility for details.
Water:Water main extensions required.An acreage chargeof$150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:No Comment.
G .ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff
on February 17,1999.The revised plat addresses most of
the issues as discussed by the Subdivision Committee.
3
April 15,1 s9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
The revised plat shows the access points for the proposed
lots as requested by staff.The applicant has also shown
the appropriate platted building lines for those lots
within the C-4 zoned portion of this property.The plat
also shows a future street extension which could serve the
R-2 zoned property to the southeast.
The following items must be shown on a revised preliminaryplat:
1.Source of title
2.Preliminary storm drainage plan and analysis.
There are issues relating to the variance for driveway
spacing and the requirement for right and left turn lanes
within this project and on the boundary streets which needtobeworkedout.The applicant has stated that he will
meet with Public Works and attempt to work out these issuespriortothepublichearing.Staff will report the outcometotheCommission.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and G of this report.2.As the lots are final platted,there should be somecontinuityinlotnumbering.3.Staff will present the recommendation for the requestedvariancefordrivewayspacingatthepublichearing.This issue is still in the process of being resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 11,1999)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the preliminary plat.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Daters noted that thelotswouldbefinalplattedoneatatimeastheyaresold.Staff noted that this would be acceptable as long as there was
some continuity in lot numbering.
Staff asked if the R-2 zoned property at the southeast corner ofthispropertyhadaccesstoapublicright-of-way.Mr.Daters
4
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
stated that access to the R-2 zoned property would be providedifitisdeterminedthatnoneexists.
Staff noted that the appropriate front building lines would need
to be shown for all of the C-4 zoned lots or that the C-4 zoned
portion of this plat would need to be down-zoned to C-3.Mr.
Daters noted that the appropriate building lines would be shown.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed,including
the design of the internal streets.Mr.Daters noted that these
streets are designed to a 36-foot collector street standard.
The design of the divided streets within this plat was briefly
discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the plat to the
full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
Tim Daters and Robert Vogel were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the preliminaryplat.Staff noted that the applicant had worked out the
driveway spacing and turn lane issues with Public Works and that
Public Works supported the variance for driveway spacing.Staff
also noted that the applicant had removed most of the front
platted building lines from the plat due to the fact that someofthepropertywillberezonedfromC-4 to C-3 in the future.
The applicant had noted that the appropriate platted buildinglineswouldbeshownonthefinalplatforeachlotandthat a
variance was requested for not showing the platted buildinglinesonthepreliminaryplat.Staff supported this variance
request.Staff noted that the only outstanding issue related to
the Public Works request for participation by the applicant in
the cost of the future traffic signal at Colonel Glenn and
Bowman Roads.
Tim Daters addressed the Commission in support of the
application.Mr.Daters stated that the participation by the
applicant in the cost of the future traffic signal was not
required by ordinance.Mr.Daters stated that the applicant was
not opposed to participating in the cost of the traffic signal,
but not at the 50 percent rate as requested by Public Works.
5
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
Robert Fureigh,of Public Works,stated that staff could not
require participation in the cost of a traffic signal,but could
ask the applicant for participation.He stated that this
proposed development will generate a large amount of traffic in
this general area.He stated that typically in a commercial
development,the applicant recognizes the fact that the
development will generate traffic and has no problem withtrafficsignalparticipation.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the traffic signalissue.The discussion included the possible percentage of
participation by the applicant,the amount of commercial
property in this general area and projected and current traffic
counts for this area.It was noted by Public Works that atrafficsignaliscurrentlywarrantedatthisintersection.
There was additional discussion regarding the instances when
Public Works typically requests participation in signalization
and the percentage which should be requested.Mr.Daters notedthattrafficsignalizationwasnottypicallyanissueattachedtoapreliminaryplat.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that the Planning
Commission had very little discretion with a preliminary plat.
He stated that he had reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance andcouldnotdeterminethattrafficsignalizationwasa
requirement.
Robert Vogel addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.Mr.Vogel stated that he would be willing toparticipateinthecostofthetrafficsignal,but he did not
know to what extent.He stated that J.A.Fair High School addedalargeamountoftraffictothearea.He also stated that he
was going to be making improvements to Colonel Glenn and Bowman
Roads and could take steps to make traffic signal installationeasierwiththestreetconstruction.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Vogel to what extent he would bewillingtoparticipate.
Mr.Vogel stated that based on the ordinance he was not requiredtodoanything.He stated that he was willing to participate
and was open to ideas,but stated that he should not be mandatedtoparticipateinthesignal's cost.He also stated that he didnotwanttofundthesignaluntiltheCityisreadytoconstructit.
6
April 15,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
There was additional discussion relating to the size of this
plat,other commercial property in the area and the fact that
the signal is currently warranted.
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Giles if the applicant could not
put up any money for the signal until the City is ready to
install it.Mr.Giles stated that this is a subdivision matter
and the ordinance does not address traffic signal installation.
Mr.Vogel again stated that he would work with the City to come
to some sort of an agreement on the signalization.
Mr.Fureigh noted that the property owner at the northwest
corner of the intersection was contributing 25 percent to the
signal's cost.He stated that this was a smaller piece of
property and zoned C-2.
Staff noted that Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters had
called and requested a buffer along the east side (I-430 side)
of the property.Staff noted that buffer issues are not
typically discussed with a preliminary plat.
Ralph Desmarais,of the Sierra Club,addressed the Commission
regarding the issue of tree preservation.He stated that he
would like for this issue to be deferred until a tree
preservation ordinance is passed.
Commissioner Rahman asked if the property would be cleared at
one time.
Mr.Daters noted that the property would not be cleared all at
one time.He stated that the lots along Colonel Glenn Road
would probably be developed first.
There was additional discussion relating to the percentage of
participation in the signal's cost.
Mr.Vogel stated that he felt that it was the City'
responsibility to address the concerns of the community and not
individual property owners,and that developers should not havetopaythesetypesofcosts.
There was additional discussion relating to the participation in
the traffic signal's cost.
7
April 15,1 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
Commissioner Rahman made a motion to defer the application.The
motion was seconded.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr.Giles if the Commission could deny
a preliminary plat based on a traffic signal issue.
Mr.Giles stated that if the preliminary plat met the minimum
ordinance requirements,the Commission could not impose anyadditionalrequirements.
There was discussion relating to the motion to defer.
Commissioner Adcock asked if the City had any plans for thetrafficsignalinstallation.
Mr.Fureigh stated that there was nothing in the budget at this
point to install the signal.
Mr.Daters stated that he had not requested a deferral.
Mr.Giles stated that the deferral was for cause,to allow
additional discussion between the staff and the applicant on thesignalissue.
There was discussion as to when the item would be deferred to.Staff stated that the item would need to be deferred to the
April 15,1999 agenda.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to defer the item.
The motion for deferral passed by a vote of 6 ayes,3 nays and
2 absent.
There was additional discussion concerning the date that the
item is deferred to.Staff again noted that because of the
printing deadline for the March 18 agenda,the item would needtobedeferredtoApril15.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
8
April 15,1 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1240
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted alettertostaffstatingthatacontributionof25%or a maximumof$25,000 would be made toward the future traffic signalinstallationatColonelGlennandBowmanRoads.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
9
April 15,1.9
ITEM NO.:D KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
NAME:Kanis Road Design Overlay District
LOCATION:Kanis Road from the intersection of Shackleford Road
and the intersection of Chenal Parkway
REQUEST:Establishment of a Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Kacis Road Task Force
STAFF REPORT:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed staff to
under take a s tudy o f the Kani s Road Corridor .A nine membercitizencommitteewasappointedtoserveastheKanisRoadCorridorStudyCommittee.The Committee began meeting in
December of 1996.The group met on a regular basis for 9 months
and discussed items related to the Kanis Road Corridor.One oftheitemsdiscussedwastheconceptofaDesignOverlayDistrict.
Some of the things discussed for inclusion in an overlay were;shared parking,limited curb cuts,building heights,buildingsetbacks,a 50 foot natural strip to be included in the buildingsetback,the development of a mature tree ordinance andpedestrianfriendlysidewalks.
The Kanis Committee presented several recommendations for
roadway design,future land use and the concept of a Design
Overlay District to the Planning Commission in October 1997.
There was not a majority vote by the Planning Commission on one
recommendation and the study was not forwarded to the Board.
In March 1998 staff developed and presented to the Board
recommendations for future land use,roadway design and itemsforinclusioninaDesignOverlayDistrict.In May 1998 theBoardofDirectorsreferredtheKanisRoadCorridorstudybacktothePlanningCommissionwhichheardtheiteminJune1998.
The Commission recommended:the future land use plan presented
by staff;an enhanced two-lane roadway with bike paths andcenterturnlaneatmajorintersectionswitha90footrightof
way;and the concept of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis
Road Corridor.
March 18,1 i9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
As this was happening the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan
Committee began meeting in January of 1998.Kanis Road was the
Neighborhood Action Plan's southern boundary.Over the 10
months the committee met issues related to the Kanis Road
Corridor were discussed.A concern of the group is as the city
expands west,there is a significant reduction of mature trees
and natural vegetation.
The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan was presented to the
Planning Commission (October 1998)and the Board of Directors
(December 1998).The Neighborhood Action Plan committee
recommended the adoption of a Design Overlay District for the
Kanis Road Corridor,which includes:preservation of thecharacter;facilitation of vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian
movement.
On November 17,1998 (Resolution No.10,409)of the City ofLittleRockBoardofDirectorsendorsedtheconceptoftwoseparateDesignOverlayDistrictsfortheKanisRoadcorridor
and directed staff to work with the Planning Commission and
property owners along the Kanis Road corridor to develop and
complete the Kanis Road Overlay Design District Ordinance.
To obtain public input a meeting was held on December 14,1998attheParkwayPlaceBaptistChurchtodiscusswithinterestedpersonstheDesignOverlayDistrictconcepts.Participants
were informed to the proposed roadway design,proposed land use
plan and the proposed Design Overlay District concepts for theKanisRoadCorridor.
Mr.Lawson also presented the concept of two Design OverlayDistrictsfortheKanisRoadCorridor.Overlay One (1)extends
from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road and Overlay Two (2)extends
from Bowman Road to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway.
Mr.Lawson explained in Overlay One there would be a two acre
minimum development size,a 30 foot natural buffer frontingKanisRoadandparkingwouldbeallowedfrontingtheroadway.Buildings would have a minimum 60 foot setback,rear yards would
have a 40 foot set back and side yards have a 30 foot set back.
Mr.Lawson indicated ground mounted signs would be no more than
8 feet in height and 100 square feet in area.Wall mounted
signs would be no more than 8'b of the building facade.Curbcutswouldbeallowedataminimumof600feetapart.Currently
2
March 18,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
curb cuts are allowed a 300 foot spacing.He also indicated
properties,which are located on corner lots,would have their
primary entrance fronting a side street and the Kanis Road
access would be a right-in/right-out only access.He also
indicated this design concept would be a major change to the
Master Street Plan.Should a property owner be unable to meet
these requirements the property owner would file for a Planned
Zoning Development.
He then addressed the primary differences in Overlay One and
Overlay Two.With Overlay Two the buildings would be placed 45footfromtheright-of-way of the roadway,rear yards have a 15footsetbackandsideyardshavea10footsetback.Signage
allowances are less with the maximum allowance being two squarefeetinareaforeverylinearfootoffrontagenottoexceed84
square feet and eight feet in height.Wall mounted signs shall
be no more than 4%of the building facade.
In response to a question concerning the depth of the Design
Overlay District,Mr.Lawson stated the depth would be thefirstlotor300feetshouldthelotsbelongandnarrowasin
the case of White Road.
Several comments addressed the current policy of roadwayconstruction.Citizens felt the property owners should not bear
the cost of the development of the roadway.Some suggested thecityissuebondstopayfortheconstructionoftheroadway.
One person asked if the design standards for Kanis Road were tocorrectthemistakemadewithdecidingtokeepChenalParkwayafourlaneroadway.
Several people questioned the donation of lands for the
development of bike trails and walking trails.The comments
suggested that if the city wanted these amenities along Kanis
Road then the right-of-way should be purchased,or thesefacilitiesshouldbelocatedelsewherethanalongamajor
roadway where land prices were valuable.A survey for the
proposed roadway design and the Design Overlay District was
presented to the participants.Also written comments weresolicited.
The Commission deferred this item from the January 21,1999
agenda to the February 4,1999 agenda.Several issues werediscussedasapartoftheKanisRoadCorridorStudywiththe
3
March 18,~d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Design Overlay District not being forwarded to the Board ofDirectors.The motion was made to support the Kanis Road Design
Overlay District in concept only with more discussion on issuesofconcern.
Since the February 4,1999 public hearing staff has met with
persons who raised concerns at the public hearing.Some of theissueshavebeenaddressedandcorrectedothersareattachedfor
review by the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Design Overlay District for the
Kanis Road Corridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
This item was deferred by the Planning Commission until
March 18,1999 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18 1999)
Mr.Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director introduced theitemindicatingtheKanisRoadDesignOverlayDistrictwasnota
new concept to the Commission.He stated the Commission andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforquitesometime.HeaskedtheCommissionastotheapproachfordiscussionthe
Commission wished to pursue.
Chairman Earnest indicated the Commission received a copy of the
proposed Design Overlay,which included the current proposal,aswellasthecontentsoftheall-previous.The bold italicizedaremodificationsanddeletionshavebeenstricken.ChairmanEarnestalsosuggestednotgoingthroughtheproposallinebylinebuttoaddressspecificquestionsoftheCommission.Healsoindicatedthestaffmemberwhomhadworkedmostclosely
with the modifications respond to the specific questions.
Ms.Donna James of the office of Planning and Developmentaddressedtheseconcerns.
4
March 18,~d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Chairman Earnest questioned concerning cutting,filling and
grading of the entire site.
Ms.James stated the intent of the original language was not tocontrolgrading,cutting and filling of the entire site but the
30 foot buffer area.The changes were made for clarification.
Commissioner Hawn questioned the section of protection and
replacement of trees.His concern was there were not anyguidelinesforthetreedensityrequirement.He also indicateditwasnotclearwhichareaofthesitewascoveredbythe
minimal tree removal provision.He questioned if this was theentiresiteorthe30footnaturalbuffer.
Ms.James indicated this requirement was for the 30 foot naturalbufferareaalongwiththesideandrearyardsetbacks.Asectiontoclarifythereplacementrequirementswouldbeaddedtotheproposal.
Commissioner Putnam requested the Commission hear the citizen
comments before discussion of individual items.With citizen
input,the Commission could also address the concerns of the
property owners.
Commissioner Rahman asked if land alteration of the remainder ofthesitewasaddressedintheproposal.
Ms.James indicated it was not but could be added.
Commissioner Downing stated that the proposal be morespecificallyidentifiedforthosewhowouldbeviewingathome.
Chairman Earnest indicated the proposal before the Commission
was a proposal of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis RoadCorridor.He also stated the Commission,Property Owners andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforseveralmonthsandasaresulttherewereitems,which had been stricken as well asitems,which had been added.Chairman Earnest also indicatedtheCommissionwouldhearcitizeninputontheproposal.
Dotty Funk,City Beautiful Commission stated she was workingwithacommitteeestablishedbytheMayortoexaminethecurrentlandscapingandlandalterationordinances.She indicated theTaskForcehasestablishedalistingoftrees,which were nativetotheareaandatmaturitywouldproducemoredesirabletrees.
5
March 18,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
She requested the complete listing of trees be added to the
proposal.She stated when the citizens of Little Rock say
replant trees they are saying replant trees which will grow uptobebigtrees.She also indicated the need to address
excavation as a part of the Design Overlay.
Mr.Elmer Tucker,Jr.did not address the Commission.
Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated two concerns.Itisunderstandablethatsomepropertieswouldrequirean
exception to allow for development.The topographicalsituationsalongKanisRoadwouldrequiresitereviews.The lackofwrittenguidelinesforstaffandfutureCommissionsto
determine what constitutes an exception is a concern.Also the
League would prefer all utilities be located underground.The
League understands this is very costly but the future benefits,less power outages,would be of greater benefit.
Ms.Gladys Post,White Road resident,stated she and others were
trying to protect the residential nature of the White Road area.
She indicated in the proposal access was to be taken from
secondary roads when such properties were located on cornerlots.Ms.Post indicated White Road was a 16 foot wideresidentialstreetwithdeepditchesoneachside.Currently
two cars can not pass and with the addition of traffic from
corner lot development this would only exerzerbate thesituation.Currently a development along the southwest cornerofKanisRoadandWhiteRoaddoesnothaveaccesstoWhiteRoad
due to a Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Directors.The residents'equest the
Commission not allow access to White Road from the southeast
corner of Kanis Road and White Road as well.
Mr.Bob Wilson,property owner along Kanis Road,stated his
concern was the real effect of the Design Overlay on such a
large area.This is not a neighborhood plan he stated.The
implementation of a Design Overlay District along the Kanis Roadcorridorwouldbeatremendousexpensetopropertyowners.HealsosuggesteditwasearlytobediscussingaDesignOverlay,
when the City Board of Directors had just approved what type of
roadway design.The proposed alignment is not an engineered
alignment for the roadway.He stated the importance of locationofthecenterlinebeforepropertyownerscouldexaminetherealeffectsoftheproposalwithregardtotheirproperties.
6
March 18,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Mr .Wilson also stated his concern with the city wanting
property owners to pay for the development of an area that would
benefit the city as a whole.The city should be willing to payforlandsfortheplacementofbicyclepathsandsidewalks.In
addition the city should be willing to maintain the 30 foot
natural buffer area and not leave cleaning up to the property
owners.
Mr.Ray Robbins,property owner along Kanis Road,questioned whytheDesignOverlaystoppedattheRockCreekBridgeratherthan
the proceed to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway.He stated a four lane roadway dumping into a two lane
roadway would be a traffic nightmare.
Mr.Lawson stated the item being discussed was not the roadwaydesign.Mr.Lawson suggested Mr.Bob Turner,Assistant DirectorofPublicWorks,address the question.
Mr.Turner stated the roadway proposed was a four lane divided
roadway from Bowman Road to the intersection of the Rock CreekBridge.He stated the bridge would be widened and the roadwaythenbecomesafivelaneroadway.The roadway design from the
Rock Creek Bridge to the intersection with Chenal Parkway would
be similar to the roadway from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.
Mr.Robbins questioned if the City would purchase the propertyinthe30footbufferarea.If the owner was unable to developtheproperty,and the City would not purchase the property inthe30footarea,in his opinion this was a taking.
Mr.Sid Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated for yearstheCitywasnotinterestedinKanisRoad.Now with developmenttothewest,the City was suddenly concerned with the Kanis RoadCorridor.In his opinion the City now was interested in a
parkway for people to travel.He commented on the two persons
speaking prior to him and the listing of trees presented by the
Land Alteration Task Force were both City bodies indicating what.
was good for the City.He stated the setback area resulted in atakingoflands.
Mr.Brain stated his basic objection was to set backs.In hisopinionthesetbackswereexcessive.He questioned the setback
requirements of the two sections of roadway and suggested theybetreatedthesame.He commented on only allowing two storybuildings.This results in a reduction of the value of
7
March 18,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
properties to owners along the corridor.Bike paths and the
placement in the 30 foot natural buffer area is a taking of
property.
Mr.James Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated the
result of the proposal was a taking of lands.He stated the
city was taking something with the required setbacks and the
tree set backs.His property was located along Kanis Road in
the Autumn Road and Bowman Road areas.The proposal for the
Kanis Road Corridor indicates a maximum building height of two
story buildings.In close proximity to his property there is a
five story office building and mini warehouses.One street
north,Chenal Parkway has intense uses such as large office and
commercial facilities between Shackleford Road and Bowman Road.It is anticipated the more intense development along Kanis Road
will also occur from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.The
proposed setbacks are outrageous stated Mr.Brain.If the City
wishes to build a park,then the City needs to purchase lands
and build a park.
Mr.Tim Dennis,of Precision Builders,agreed with Mr.Wilson's
comments that the Overlay was premature.Property owners can
not determine if and how the proposal will affect their propertyuntilthecenterlineoftheroadwayisdetermined.
Mr.Greg Slocum,property owner along Kanis Road,questioned how
the project was to be funded.
Chairman Earnest stated the project was in the Mayor's tax
package.
Mr.Lawson explained that the project was a part of the tax
package.However,the Board of Directors did not say if the tax
package does not pass the road would not be built.The Board
has said bring us back a Design Overlay District for the Kanis
Road Corridor,which will protect the scenic beauty of the area.
Commissioner Hawn questioned the passage of a four lane roadway
by the Board of Directors for the Kanis Road Corridor.He
commented the Commission had approved an enhanced two lane
roadway,which would protect the scenic corridor.With the
development of a four lane roadway the uses expected would be
more intense developments.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission approved an enhanced
two lane if developers were to pay for the roadway or a four
8
March 18,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
lane roadway if the City would pay for the difference in a two
lane and a four lane roadway.If developers were to pay for the
entire four lane roadway more intense developments would be
required to recoup the cost.
Commissioner Putnam suggested the Commission was not ready toactonaDesignOverlayfortheCorridor.He suggested the
Commission should wait on the vote for the tax package and also
wait on the engineering study for road placement.
Chairman Earnest reminded the Commission there was a moratorium
on building along Kanis Road.The Design Overlay is to protect
the area and at some point the moratorium will end.
Commissioner Adcock questioned how the Commission was to address
the roadway concerns when the layout was not determined.It was
impossible to visualize a roadway without knowing the exactlocationandtheaffectonproperties.
Mr.Lawson stated the roadway was determined as set by the
Master Street Plan.It was a four lane median roadway.Allthatisleftisanengineeringstudyfortheplacementoftheroad.
Mr.Bob Turner stated the proposed roadway would attempt tofollowthecurrentcenterline.In some areas there will beverticalchangesandgradechangesaswellasalignmentchanges.
The design of the road may change but not the 90 foot right-of-
way.
Mr.Lawson explained some buildings are in the current right-of-
way.Any road,which is 50 to 60 years old with structuresbuiltclosetotheroad,will have this problem.
Commissioner Rahman stated the document before the Commission
was not a complete document.In his opinion the role of the
Commission was to determine the next step.
Commissioner Downing stated staff had done a good job of placing
words staff understands but not everyone understands what was
being presented.He questioned if staff could show visually the
proposal verses the current standards.
Mr.Lawson stated staff had previously presented drawings to the
Commission and those drawings were available for review.Healsocommentedthereweretwoproposedareas.Area one was a
9
March 18,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
more Chenal like design and area two was a more
Heights/Hillcrest design.Area one setbacks would allow for two
rows of parking in front of the building and area two would
allow for no parking in the front.
Mr.Lawson also stated the Board of Directors had given a
deadline of April 20 for receiving the proposed Design OverlayDistrict.
Commissioner Faust stated there were two to three things that
needed to be added to the proposed Design Overlay District.She
wished to support the City Board and to move on the proposal as
soon as possible.The addition of information requested by the
Commission,land alteration and tree density and the addition ofvisualrepresentationsshouldallowtheCommissiontocontinuethediscussion.
Commissioner Rahman commented land alteration should be a major
component of the Design Overlay.As development occurs landswillbealtered.Also it is important to coordinate with the
Land Alteration Task Force to ensure the Design Overlay District
and the Task Force proposals are complimentary.
Commissioner Putnam made the motion to delay discussions forfuturethinking.
Commissioner Adcock requested a special meeting to hear
suggestions for additions to the Design Overlay from allinterestedparties.Comments should be solicited from the LandAlterationTaskForce.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission not act on the itembuttoestablishatimecertainforforwardingaproposaltotheBoardofDirectors.He suggested the Commission make everyattempttomeettheBoarddeadlineofApril20
Commissioner Nunnley suggested the discussion be heard at theApril1'nformal meeting of the Commission.He also stated theitemshouldbeplacedfirstontheagenda.
Chairman Earnest called the question.The motion passed 7-4-0.
Commissioner Faust made a motion to complete the work on the
Design Overlay District and to make diligent efforts to meet theBoardofDirectorsApril20deadline.
10
March 18,~d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Downing seconded the motion.
Chairman Earnest called the question.The motion passed 10-1-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
This item was placed on consent deferral to be heard at the
April 29,1999 Public Hearing.The vote 10-0-1.
11
April 15,'9
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1100-A
NAME:Capitol Lake Estates —Preliminary Plat —Final Plat
Time Extension
LOCATION:Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Road,north of
Spring Valley Manor
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
John L.Burnett,TR.William L.Dean
1501 N.University,Ste.800 Civil Design,Inc.Little Rock,AR 72207 15104 Cantrell RoadLittleRock,AR 72212
AREA:190.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:270 FT.NEW STREET:24,290
ZONING:R-2 &MF ALLOWED USES:Single Family &Multifamily
PROPOSED USE:Single Family &Multifamily
with open space
A.BACKGROUND:
On June 20,1996 the Planning Commission by a vote of 7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 abstention approved theCapitolLakesEstates—Preliminary Plat with conditions.The plat failed at the Board of Directors level onlybecausethezoningandvariouswaivers(minor streetlength,lot depth and width,pipe-stem lots,street grades)failed.
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary platresolvingdesign,Master Street Plan and easement issues.
On December 18,1997 the revised preliminary plat was
approved by the Planning Commission with a vote of 11 ayesand0naysexceptforone(1)abstaining vote on thevarianceforpipestemlotrequest.On January 20,1998,the Board of Directors approved variances for pipestem lotsandcul-de-sac length.On February 17,1998,the Board ofDirectorsapprovedordinancesestablishingtheCapitol
April 15,i a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1100-A
Lakes Municipal Property Owner's Improvement District No.6
and the Capitol Lakes Sewer Property Owner's ImprovementDistrictNo.148.
According to Chapter 31 of the Little Rock CodeofOrdinancesSection31-94(e),"A preliminaryplatapprovedbythePlanningCommissionshall beeffectiveandbindingupontheCommissionforone
(1)year from the date of approval 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."
"The Planning Commission may extend the original
preliminary approval,for a period not to exceed
one (1)year from the date of approval,when it
can be demonstrated that there are no changes in
the plat design or neighborhood that warrant a
complete review."As of this date,the finalplatapplicationforthesubdivisionhasnot been
submitted to the Planning Staff.
B.PROPOSAL:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on February 24,1999 recpxesting a one (1)year extension for the submittalofthefinalplatapplication.The preliminary plat is
dependent on construction of approximately two (2)miles of24inchoff-site sewer main.The applicant notes that the
sewer project has been in the design phase for over a yearandisnearthepointofreceiptofcompetitiveconstructionbids.Current plans are for bidding by mid-
April with a construction start by June 1,1999.
The Capitol Lakes developer has not been in a position toproceedwiththeon-site construction due to the lengthydesignphaserecpxiredfortheoff-site sewer improvements.
Based on the currently anticipated schedule for the sewerextension,it appears that on-site construction involvingstreetright-of-way clearing,earthwork and drainagefacilityinstallationwillnotstartbeforethisfall.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the one (1)year timeextensionasrecpxestedbytheapplicant.The applicantwillhaveuntilApril15,2000 to submit a final platapplicationtostaff.
2
April 15,i 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1100-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
3
April 15,-i9
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-4731-A
NAME:Mears —Long-Form PD-C —Time Extension
LOCATION:East of Battery Street,at and beyond the present
dead-end of West 2"Street and West Markham Street,abutting the
Union Pacific Railroad tracks lying to the east.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Roger Mears McGetrick and McGetrick
c/o 319 East Markham Street 319 East Markham StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-C PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouses
A.BACKGROUND:
On April 25,1996 the Planning Commission approved theMearsLong-Form PD-C with conditions by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.On June 18,1996,the Board ofDirectorspassedOrdinanceNo.17,216 which rezoned thepropertyandOrdinanceNo.17,217 which approved a waiverofstreetimprovementstoWestMarkhamandBatteryStreets.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-454(e),"The applicant shall have three (3)years from the date ofpassageoftheordinanceapprovingthepreliminaryapprovaltosubmitthefinaldevelopmentplan."This includessubmittalofthefinalplanforstaffreviewandobtainingabuildingpermit."Requests for extensions of time shallbesubmittedinwritingtothePlanningCommissionwhich
may grant extensions of not more than three (3)years."
On February 18,1999 the applicant submitted a letter tostaffrequestingathree(3)year time extension for the
approved PD-C.As of this writing,no building permit hasbeenissuedforthisproject.Some site work has takenplacewithinthesouthernportionofthepropertyduringthepasttwoorthreeyears.An inspection of the property
April 15,39
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4731-A
on March 15,1999 revealed some site work being done within
the northern portion of the property,near the BatteryStreetandGillStreetintersection.
B .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the three (3)year time
extension as requested by the applicant.The applicantwillhaveuntilApril15,2002 to submit the final
development plans for building permit review and to obtainsaidpermit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed time extension and a
recommendation of approval.
Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the time
extension.Mr.McGetrick noted that this PD-C expires on June
18,1999 and that they would try to obtain a building permit bythatdateandstartconstruction.
Commissioner Berry stated that he needed to see the site plan
design prior to voting on the time extension.
There was a brief discussion concerning the time extension and apossibilityofdeferringthisissue.
A motion was made to defer the application to May 27,1999.The
motion was seconded.
Mr.McGetrick stated that if construction is started before
May 27,1999 the time extension would be withdrawn.
Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,stated that the applicant
only needed to submit final plans and obtain a building permit
by June 18,1999,and if a building permit is obtained,the
applicant would have two years to begin construction.
The Chairman called the question.The previous motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The application was
deferred to May 27,1999.
2
April 15,i a9
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
NAME:Pinnacle Bank —Short Form PD-0
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and North Rodney
Parham Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Pinnacle Bank The Wilcox Group
2610 Cantrell Road 2222 Cottondale Lane,¹100LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:0.88 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Branch Bank
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None proposed.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.88 acre site at thenortheastcornerofRodneyParhamandNorthRodneyParhamRoadsfromR-2 to PD-0 to allow for the construction of abranchbankfacility.
The applicant proposes to construct a 3,580 square foot,two-story building to be located within the south one-halfoftheproperty.Drive-thru teller lanes are proposed onthewestsideofthebuildingwithanATMmachineonthenorthside.A'n area of parking (16 spaces)is locatedwithinthenorthone-half of the property.Two (2)accesspointsareproposedfromNorthRodneyParhamRoad.
The applicant is proposing to channelize grassy flat creekwhichrunsthroughtheeasternportionofthepropertyandrevisetheexistingfloodwayline.The applicant intendstoobtainapprovalsfromtheCorpsofEngineersandFEMA on
April 15,I a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
the floodway line revision.
The applicant notes that the hours of operation will be
from 8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 9:00a.m.to noon on Saturday.The applicant also notes that
signage will conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance
requirements for office zoning.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 0.88 acre site is currently overgrown with brush and
small trees.There is a creek located within the eastportionoftheproperty.
There is an office building and a commercial buildinglocatedadjacenttothispropertytotheeast,with single-family residences immediately north.A new office building
(Cypress Plaza)is located across North Rodney Parham Roadtothewest,with a small commercial strip center to thesouthacrossRodneyParhamRoad.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has received no comments from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Pleasant Valley and Rainwood Cove
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Rodney Parham and North Rodney Parham are listed on the
Master Street Plan as a minor arterials.Traffic on
North Rodney Parham is 13,000 vehicles per day.A
dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline isrequired.
2 ~A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofRodneyParhamandNorthRodneyParham.3.Dedicate additional 10 feet of right-of-way for right
turn lane improvements.Contact Traffic Engineer,Bill
Henry,for layout and design.4.Provide "in-lieu"contribution for North Rodney Parham
improvements.
5.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City.6.Obtain Conditional Letter of Map Revision before
beginning construction in floodway prior to development
permit for work in Special Flood Hazard Area.Contact
Ronny Loe at 371-4817 for details.7.After construction of channel improvements in floodway,
2
April 15,1 d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5282-A
obtain Letter of Map Revision to update mapped floodway
boundary.This letter is required for issuance of
building permit.
8.City Ordinance requires no structure closer than 25 feet
from floodway boundary (new or old).9.Minimum finished floor elevation of one foot above base
flood elevation proposed shall be shown on plans.
Elevation certificate must be completed and submitted to
Public Works Department for each structure prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:15"sewer main located on site.Location of
main should be shown on plat.Relocation of main will
be required prior to start of construction if proposedprojectconflictswithmainlocation.Contact Jim
Boyd at 376-2903 for details.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.Contact the Water Works
regarding meter size and location.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Plan approved as submitted.Bus may make a right
turn onto Rodney Parham Road North in the future,so radiiisimportant—o.k.as is.This site will be served by
CATA Route ¹8 —Rodney Parham.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Rodney Parham Planning District.
The proposed change from R-2 to PD-0 for a branch bank is
consistent with the Office category as shown on the Land
Use Plan.Residential uses are abutting the site to the
north and care should be taken to screen the northern
property line with landscaping,signage should be placed
near the corner,lighting should be directed away from theresidentialareasandthedumpstershouldbeasfaras
possible way from the residential areas.In light of the
additional parking spaces,parking should be pulled away
3
April 15,I d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
from the residential areas.
This site is in the River Mountain Neighborhood Plan area.
In the sustainable Natural Environment section,one of the
goals and objectives was to "Promote protection of natural
areas and systems and urban forestry.""Preserve GrassyFlatCreekinitsnaturalstate.If changes becomejustified,work with Pleasant Valley Neighborhood to
develop methods to minimize the impact."The creek should
be softened with riparian type vegetation to help mitigate
the channelization.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed southern street buffer along Rodney Parham
Road drops at one point to a width of only five feet.The
minimum width at any given point allowed by ordinance issixfeet.The full street buffer width required in this
area is sixteen feet.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
There are two major issues related to this site which needtoberesolvedpriortothisapplicationbeingpresentedto
the full Commission.These issues involve channelizationofGrassyFlatCreek,including revision of the current
floodway line,and relocation of the 15-inch sewer mainlocatedonthesite.
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 31,1999
requesting that this item be deferred to the May 27,1999
agenda to allow time to address these outstanding issues.Staff supports the deferral request.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred to the
May 27,1999 Planning Commission agenda for the reasonsstatedinparagraphG.of this report.
4
April 15,1 d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Ross McCain was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
There was a lengthy discussion relating to the major issues of
floodway and sewer main location.Staff noted that these issues
needed to be resolved prior to the application being presentedtothefullCommission.Staff stated that a deferral was
probably in order and this issue was discussed.Mr.McCainstatedthathewouldinformstaffofadeferralrequest.
The question was asked as to whether a left turn lane on North
Rodney Parham Road was needed to accommodate the proposednorthernmostdrive.Public Works representatives stated thatthisissuewouldbereviewed.
After the discussion,the Committee determined that a deferral
would be in order,to allow the applicant time to work out theissuesrelatingtofloodwayandsewermainlocation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthattheitembedeferredtotheMay27,1999
agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
5
April 15,~a9
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
NAME:Rainey Electronics —Revised PCD
LOCATION:19,023 Colonel Glenn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rainey Electronics,Inc.None
19,023 Colonel Glenn Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:5.02 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Rainey Electronics,Inc.andallC-3 permitted uses.
PROPOSED USE:Expansion of existing
commercial use,C-3 permitted
uses as alternate uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road
BACKGROUND:
On January 14,1992 the Planning Commission approved the RaineyElectronics—Short-Form PCD with a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and 1absent.The approval was for Rainey Electronics and C-3
permitted uses as alternate uses.On February 18,1992 the
Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.16,171 approving the
PCD ~
The approved site plan included the existing 9,756 square footbuildingandparkingarea.A 7,500 square foot building was
approved as Phase II and a 4,500 square foot building was
approved as Phase III.The two future buildings were to belocatedsouthwestofandbehindtheexistingbuilding.There
April 15,1 i9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
was a single access point approved from Colonel Glenn Road and
street improvements to Colonel Glenn were deferred until PhaseIIconstruction.
B.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
PCD.The current plan is to expand the existing metal
building and maintain all operations under one roof (as
opposed to multiple buildings).The applicant is proposingtoexpandtheexistingbuildinginthefollowingphases:
Phase I —60 foot by 64 foot expansion (29 feetinheight)on the west side of the building(3,840 square feet)to be used as a shop andforstorage.The existing gravel employee
parking in this area will be pushed backslightlyandcontinuetobeuseduntil
Phase II.
Phase II —80 foot by 230 foot expansion (35 feetinheight)to the rear of the building to beusedforadditionalshopandstoragespace(18,400 square feet)and a 30 foot by 64footadditiontotheeastsideofthe
building (1,920 square feet)to be utilizedasofficespace.A 28 space paved parkingareawillbeconstructedbehindthe
building.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road.The deferral would beforfive(5)years,until Phase II construction or until
development of adjacent property.
The applicant has noted that the hours of operation will befrom7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Theapplicanthasalsonotedthattherearecurrently25
employees and that an assigned parking space is provided toeachemployee.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located along the south side of Colonel
Glenn Road,just east of Burlingame Road.The sitecontainsa9,756 square foot building,which houses RaineyElectronics,and a parking area for approximately 20vehicles.There is one access point from Colonel Glenn
Road which is located along the west property line.
2
April 15,1 i9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
The general area contains several single-family residences
on large lots.There is also a vacant grocery store
building to the north across Colonel Glenn Road,a small
apartment complex to the northwest,a cemetery to thesoutheastandundevelopedpropertytothesouthand
southwest.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotifyofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of Colonel Glenn Road conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvements,including 5-foot sidewalks,with planned
development,as agreed on Phase I.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Coordinate plan review and approval with District 6,
AHTD.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water
service is needed.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The amending of the existing PCD is not in conflict with
the commercial as shown on the Land Use Plan.Loading
3
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
areas and dumpsters should be screened from any residential
areas and from the street.
This site is not covered by a neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.A landscaping upgrade equal to the
expansion proposed will be required.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
March 31,1999.The revised plan addresses the concerns
and questions as raised by the Subdivision Committee.
The revised site plan notes that there is an existing
gravel parking area in the area where Phase I constructionisproposed,and with Phase I construction this gravel area
will be shifted back and used until Phase II when a new
paved parking area will be constructed.With Phase I therewillbe36parkingspaces(18 paved and 18 gravel)and atotalof46pavedspaceswiththecompletionofPhaseII.
The applicant has noted that all of the employees are
provided assigned parking spaces.The site plan shows two
(2)visitor spaces in front of the building.The applicant
notes that there is very little customer traffic as most oftheirclientsareoutoftown.The typical ordinance
parking requirement for this use would be 59 spaces.Stafffeelsthattheparkingarrangementproposedwillbe
adequate to serve the business.
As noted in paragraph A,the applicant is requestingdeferralofstreetimprovementstoColonelGlennfor five
(5)years,Phase II construction,or development of
adjacent property,whichever occurs first.As of this
writing,Public Works has not made a recommendation on thedeferralrequest.
To staff'knowledge,there are no issues left to be
resolved.Staff feels that the proposed revisions to the
previously approved PCD are reasonable and should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
April 15,i 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD with thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances3.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.4.C-3 permitted uses will be allowed as alternate uses ofthepropertyaspermittedwiththeoriginalPCD.5.The recommendation on the deferral of street improvementsrequestwillbeforthcoming.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Robert Rainey was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Rainey noted thattherewouldbemoreparkingonthesitethanwasshownonthesiteplan.Mr.Rainey noted that all parking areas would be
shown on a revised plan.
There was a lengthy discussion relating to the requesteddeferralofstreetimprovementstoColonelGlennRoad.BobTurner,of Public Works,noted that a specific time limit neededtobeattachedtothedeferralrequest.It was suggested thatthedeferralbefor5yearsorPhaseIIconstructionor
development of adjacent property.An "in-lieu"contribution forthestreetimprovementswasbrieflydiscussedasanoption.
Bob Brown,Site Plan Review Specialist,briefly discussed theupgradeinlandscapingwhichisrequiredbasedonthebuildingexpansionproposed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application tothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
5
April 15,i 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5537-A
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
April 15,~39
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6199-C
NAME:Target —Revised PD-C
LOCATION:12,700 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Target Stores McGetrick and McGetrick
12,700 Chenal Parkway 319 E.Markham Street,Ste.202LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:10.98 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-C ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Commercial with temporary
garden center display
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 21,1996 the Planning Commission approved the Grey
Rock (Target)—Long-Form PD-C with a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and
2 absent.On December 3,1996 the Board of Directors passed
Ordinance No.17,332 approving the PD-C.
The site plan included a 123,000 scpxare foot Target Store
building and 614 on-site parking spaces.The site plan showed asingleaccesspointfromChenalParkwaywithaseconddriveto
Chenal Parkway to be shared with the Home Depot property
immediately east.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously
approved PD-C site plan by adding an area to be used for atemporarygardencenterdisplayarea.The applicant is
proposing to utilize a 21 foot by 42 foot metal frame
April 15,'9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6199-C
greenhouse structure with doors at both ends.
Approximately 16 parking spaces will be used for display ofpottedshrubsandbaggedgoods(top soil,fertilizer,etc.).This display area is located at each end of the
green house structure.
The applicant is proposing a maximum display time of 120
days per year.This conforms to the typical ordinancerequirementforcommercialproperty.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 10.98 acre site contains a 123,000 square foot TargetStorebuildingand614parkingspaces.There is a Home
Depot store immediately east of this site and commercial
property to the west.Rock Creek floodway is located tothenorth,with commercial uses to the south across Chenal
Parkway.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no neighborhood comment as of thiswriting.The St.Charles,Parkway Place and GibralterHeights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comments.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
AP&L:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No Comment.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Served by Route 45
West Markham.
2
April 15,i &9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6199-C
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Chenal Planning District for an
outdoor garden center at Target to amend an existing PCD.It is currently shown on the Land Use Plan as Commercial.
This use is similar to a use by right in C-3.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
The proposed temporary garden center display will occupy
approximately 16 parking spaces.Parking typically
required for a single-use commercial building of this sizeis342parkingspaces.There will be 598 parking spaces
remaining on the site.
The applicant is proposing the temporary display for a
maximum of 120 days per year.This request conforms to thetypicalordinancerequirementsforcommercialzoned
property (Section 36-298(4)).The applicant will need toobtainaSpecialEventpermit(s)for the display each year.
A site inspection by staff on March 15,1999 revealed thatthegreenhousestructurehadalreadybeenplacedonthesite.If approved,the Special Event permit for 1999
should begin as of this date.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstandingissuesrelatedtotherevisedPD-C request.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised PD-C with thefollowingconditions:
1.The maximum display time each year shall be 120 days.2.The applicant must obtain a Special Event permit(s)eachyear.3.The Special Event permit for 1999 shall begin as ofMarch15,1999.
3
April 15,1 d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6199-C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Randy Ebarb was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed revised site plan.
The garden center display issue was briefly discussed.Staffnotedthatthegreenhousestructurewascurrentlyonthe
property as of a March 15,1999 inspection.Staff noted that ifthisapplicationisapproved,the 120 day period for this yearshouldstartonMarch15.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Randy Ebarb was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed revised site plan and a
recommendation of approval with the conditions as noted in
paragraph H of this report.
Randy Ebarb addressed the Commission in support of the
application.
Commissioner Berry asked why this garden center area was not
shown on the original site plan.
Mr.Ebarb stated that it was an oversite on Target's part.
Commissioner Berry noted that Target is proposing to utilize
parking spaces for the garden center which Target stated were
needed with the original site plan.
Mr.Ebarb noted that the garden center area was located within asatelliteparkingareawithinthewesternportionofthe
property.
Commissioner Adcock asked how far the garden center area was
from the store building and if there would be a cash register in
the area.
Mr.Ebarb noted that the garden center area was approximately
70 feet from the store building and that there would be aregisterinthegardencenter.
4
April 15,1 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6199-C
A motion was made to approve the application as recommended
by staff.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and
1 absent.
5
April 15,1 99
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6640
NAME:Bailey —Short-Form POD
LOCATION:1723 N.University Avenue
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Mary Jane Bailey Ollen Dee Wilson
5018 Club Road,Ste.102 P.O.Box 604LittleRock,AR 72207 No.Little Rock,AR 72115
AREA:Approx.0.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single-Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Deferral of dedication of right-of-way for University Avenue
and Cantrell Road.
2.Deferral of improvement of the 31.5 foot corner curb radius
3.Deferral of sidewalk construction along University Avenue
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed a Land Use Plan change from Low
Density Residential to Suburban Office for this property on
February 4,1999.The Commission voted to deny the Land Use
Plan Amendment by a vote of 0 ayes,10 nays,and 1 absent.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
POD in order to convert the existing 1,294 square footsingle-family residential structure into an office for twobusinesses(a real estate office and an insurance office).
April 15,i a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
The applicant proposes to maintain the residential
appearance of the structure and make no exterior building
changes.The applicant will construct a small parking area
(3 spaces)within the east one-half of the property whichwillbeaccessedfromtheexisting20footalleyalongtheeastpropertyline.
The site plan also shows two (2)proposed ground-mounted
signs near the northwest corner of the property.Theapplicantnotesthatthesignswillhaveamaximumheightofsix(6)feet,a maximum area of 64 square feet and besetbackfromthepropertylinebyfive(5)feet.
The applicant has also noted that each business will have asingleemployeewithoneofficeworkertobehiredinthefutureandsharedbybothbusinesses.The hours ofoperationareproposedtobefrom8:00 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday,with some weekend activity.Theapplicanthasstatedthattherewillbeverylittle
customer or drop-in traffic at this site.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a 1,294 square foot single-familyresidentialstructure.Access to the site is gained byutilizinganexisting20footalleywhichislocatedalongtheeastpropertyline.There is a concrete slab at thenortheastcornerofthepropertywhereacarportstructurepreviouslyexisted.
There are single-family residences located immediatelysouthofthesite,across the alley to the east and acrossUniversitytothewestandnorthwest.Office and
commercial uses are located across Cantrell Road to thenorth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one petition ofoppositionwithseven(7)signatures (see attached).TheHeights,Prospect Terrace,South Normandy and Normandy-
Shannon Neighborhood Associations were notified of thepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road and University Avenue are listed on the
Master Street Plan as principal arterials;Traffic on
University South of Cantrell is 14,000 vehicles per day.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is
2
April 15,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
required.
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofCantrellandUniversity.3.Improve corner curb radius to 31.5 feet with
construction.
4.Obtain permits for improvements from District 6,AHTD.5.Repair rock retaining wall along University Avenue.
6.Show centerline of University Avenue right-of-way.7.Provide proper sidewalk,per MSP,along University
Avenue.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Location of sewer service for this structure
unknown.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility fordetails.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional waterserviceisneeded.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Served by Route 421
University Avenue.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the Heights Planning District and is
shown as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan.
This site was subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment on
February 4,1999 to change to Suburban Office and was
denied.Any development should be referenced toresidentialdevelopmentinrelationtoscreening,vehicular
use areas,retaining a residential look to the structure,residential scale signage,etc.The structure should be
designed to be able to be converted back to residential useafterwards.
This area is not covered by a neighborhood plan.A Plan
Committee has been formed and that committee has been
informed of the request.
3
April 15,1.a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
minimum ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or
dense evergreen plantings,will be required along the
southern perimeter of the site.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required
to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
Buildin Codes:
The proposed change to commercial from residential will
require a floor plan and other details submitted to the
Building Codes Division as required for remodeling and
upgrades for commercial standards.Handicap accessibilitywillberequiredfromthepavedparkingsurfacetointerior
and including sanitary facilities.The applicant will be
required to submit sufficient detail (written andpictorial)as to how this will occur.Minimum
accessibility standards are the Cabo-Ansi A117.1-1992.
Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for additional
information.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
March 31,1999.The revised plan shows a six foot
screening fence along the south property line where
adjacent to the proposed parking area and location for two
(2)ground-mounted signs as noted in paragraph A.
As noted earlier,the applicant is proposing a small
parking area (3 spaces)accessed from the existing alley
along the east property line.The typical ordinance
requirement for a 1,294 square foot office building would
be three (3)spaces.However,staff has concerns with the
number of parking spaces being adequate to serve the
proposed use of the property.The applicant has noted that
4
April 15,~J9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
there will be a future total of three (3)employees at this
location and that there will be very little customertraffic.However,if all three employees are at the site,
there will be no other place to park a vehicle without
blocking the driveway or the alley.
The applicant has also requested deferrals of right-of-way
dedication for Cantrell Road and University Avenue,
improvement of the 31.5 foot corner curb radius and the
sidewalk construction along University Avenue.The
applicant is requesting the deferrals for five (5)years,
until this property is redeveloped or until adjacent
property is redeveloped.The applicant is requesting
deferral of right-of-way dedication based on the fact that
the required right-of-way for Cantrell Road would be into
the existing building.As of this writing,Public Works
has not made a recommendation on the deferral request.
In addition to the size restriction concern staff has withthisproperty,staff feels that the residential boundry
lines which have been established over the years in this
area should be maintained.Staff feels that an office use
in this immediate area south of Cantrell Road is
inappropriate and would not be compatible with the adjacent
single-family residential.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATZONS
Staff recommends denial of the POD rezoning request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Mary Jane Bailey and J.Allen Bailey were present,representing
the application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposedsiteplan.
In response to questions from staff,Mrs.Bailey noted the
following:
1.Due to the type of offices proposed,there would be verylittle,if any,customer traffic at this location.2.A screening fence would be installed along the south propertyline.
3.Staff would be provided with a description of proposed
signage.
5
April 15,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
Public Works representatives noted that existing right-of-way
needed to be shown on the site plan to determine how much right-
of-way dedication would be required.This issue was brieflydiscussed.
The required sidewalk along University Avenue was also
discussed.The applicant was informed that a waiver of this
requirement could be requested.
The staff informed the applicant to contact the Building CodesOfficetoobtaininformationonbuilding,remodeling and
handicap accessibility.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application tothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Mary Jane Bailey and Allen Bailey were present,representing theapplication.There were several persons present supporting theapplicationandoneobjector.Staff gave a brief description oftheproposedPODandarecommendationofdenial.
Mary Jane Bailey addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.She presented photos to the Commission of thetrafficattheintersectionofUniversityAvenueandCantrell
Road.She noted that the Prospect Building was only two blockstothesouth.Mrs.Bailey noted that 18 letters of support werereceivedandsubmittedoneadditionalsupportlettertothe
Commission.She also noted that there were a number of people
which supported the land use plan amendment and those personsalsosupportedthisrezoning.
Mrs.Bailey noted the daily vehicle counts for University Avenue
and Cantrell Road.She also stated that the rock wall along thefrontpropertylinewouldberepairedasrequiredbyPublic
Works.She stated that the building will be made handicapaccessible.She also stated that the property would conform
with landscape and screening requirements.Mrs.Bailey statedthattheproposedremodelingofthestructurewouldcomplywithallbuildingcodesrequirements.
6
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
Moise Seligman spoke in favor of the application.He indicatedthattheproposaltoconvertthepropertyintoanofficewould
be an improvement to the property.
Ken Hiegel also spoke in favor of the application.He statedthatthisparticularlocationwouldbemostreasonableforanofficelocationandnotaresidencebaseontheamountoftrafficatthisintersection.
Johnny Jones addressed the Commission in favor of the
application.He stated that he owns the property immediately
south of the Bailey's property.Mr.Jones stated that the
proposed POD would vastly improve the property.
Diana Kinkead also addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.She also stated that the proposed use of the
property would be an improvement.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,addressed the
Commission in opposition to the application.She stated thatthisareaisresidentialinnatureandshouldremainthatway.
She stated that if this application is approved then it would
begin "stripping out"the residential structures along
University Avenue and Cantrell Road.
Chairman Earnest read a list of issues regarding this rezoning
which he passed out to the commissioners at the agenda meeting.
Allen Bailey addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.He stated that the application should be based onthemeritsofthisparticularproperty.He stated that if this
property were continued to be rented,then the rental value
would have to be reduced.He stated that the property is notsuitableasaresidencebasedontheamountoftrafficatthisintersection.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,stated that the deferral of streetissuesasnotedinthestaffreportwouldbesupportedbyPublic
Works.
Commissioner Putnam noted that if this rezoning is approved,it.
would cause other residences to convert to offices.
Commissioner Lowry asked if the staff was in favor of the
previous Land Use Plan Amendment for this property.
7
April 15,~99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6640
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated thatstaffwasopposedtotheLandUsePlanchange.
There was a general discussion concerning the appropriateness of
the rezoning of this property.The discussion included the usesinthisgeneralareaandthetrafficissueregardingthisintersection.
During this discussion,Commissioner Downing eluded to the factthattherezoningshouldbeforthisparticularpropertyowner.
There was additional discussion concerning the appropriatenessofthePOD.Commissioner Berry noted that the proposed rezoning
was appropriate and positive.Commissioner Faust concurred with
Commissioner Berry.She stated that this property could act asabufferfortheneighborhood.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if there was a neighborhood plan
which included this property.
Jim Lawson stated that there was no neighborhood action plan forthisarea.
Commissioner Putnam noted that this corner has been a residenceforover50yearsandhasbeenvacantforverylittletime.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that this particular
rezoning should be discussed based on its specific merits.
Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,noted that as a point ofclarification,the applicant had not requested that this POD bejustfortheirownership.
Allen Bailey asked to amend the application so that the POD
would run with Mary Jane and Allen Bailey only,as the propertyowners.
A motion was made to approve the application with the conditionsasnotedintheagendareport,and the amendment that the POD befortheBaileys'wnership only.The motion was seconded.The
motion psassed by a vote of 6 ayes,4 nays and 1 absent.Theapplicationwasapproved.
8
MAR-17-99 WED 11:22 All JANET JONES COMPANY F@ NO,22409P4 P.0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIIING BEFORE
THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ~((,I D
ON AN APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A
SHORT-FORM PLANNED ZONlNC DEVKLOPiVIENT
To ALL owners of land lying adjacent to (including across the street from)the boundary of the property
located ati
1723 N University
General Location.'&Cantrell
Owned by:
NOTICE IS HEkEBY GIVL'N THAT an application for a Planned Zoning Development of the above
property requesting a change of classification from n t 'District to of f i.ce.
has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development.A public
hearing on said application will be held by the Little Rock Planning Commission in the Board of
Directors Chamber,Second Floor,City Hall,on ',19 rta,at ~4:.~z,
p.nl,
ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MAY APPEAR and be heard at said time and place,or may notify the
Planning Cornrnission of their views on this rnatter by letter,All persons interested
in this request are invited to call or visit the Department of Planning and Development,
723 W.Mar ldmin,371-4790,and to review tl&c application and discuss same with the Planning statK
-C5yX/F~T /~74/~E~-~~~dt'+8
..eg{fC'-4&&
s
.'3((-.z.~~J //mcty.
~~w w.1%DL(N.~L-P-
'q&~q~~.8 Ax /7e.Bn~P x~~
&rtt d
'IAi P~c'-r-~''.4,
/7O/8 Pgl~IP.~ydy-P-7~~~7
72'g ry -a5ost'&.C~e RECEIVED
9
AFFIOA VlT
I hereby certify that I have notified all the property owners of r«cord within 200 feet of the above
,g I'r ~.i~Hi~ra etetri Sane tt O»hiiri t leant'intr urin hp h&lA hu
April 15,&9
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6641
NAME:Homes at Granite Mountain —Long-Form PRD
LOCATION:East side of Gilliam Park Road,approximately 700feetsouthofConfederateBlvd.(Hwy.365)
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Housing Authority of the Brooks Jackson
City of Little Rock 2228 Cottondale Lane
1000 Wolfe Street Little Rock,AR 72202LittleRock,AR 72202
AREA:approximately 9.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:Approximately 1,280 linear feet
ZOEIEG:R-2/R-5/C-3 ALLURED USES:Single-family,
multifamily,commercial
PROPOSED USE:Multifamily
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/RE VEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 9.6 acre site from R-2/R-5/C-3 to PRD to allow for development of a housingproject.The applicant proposes to construct 26 buildings
on the site,each to contain two (2)single-family unitsforatotalof52units.Twenty-six of the units will betwo-bedroom units (approximately 1,000 square feet)andtwenty-six will be three-bedroom units (approximately 1,200squarefeet).
April 15,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Each of the buildings will be single-story,wood framestructures.The materials to be used on the exteriorconsistsofcementioushardboardsidingandcompositionshingleroofs.Each unit will have a single-car driveway,covered carport and adjacent exterior storage room.Afrontporchisalsoproposedforeachunit,thereby
promoting neighborhood interaction.
As part of the development,the applicant is proposingthree(3)new streets which run from Gilliam Park Road easttoEdgeStreet.The new streets are proposed to align withexistingstreetsinthisarea.
The applicant is proposing a planted landscape buffer areawithinthenorthportionofthepropertyandtomaintaintheexistingnaturalwoodedbuffertothesouth.There are
two (2)playground areas proposed as noted on the siteplan.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The south one-half of the property contains an abandonedschoolbuilding,with the north half being vacant.Thepropertyiscurrentlyfenced.
The property to the north contains a church and two smallcommercialbuildingsalongthesouthsideofConfederateBlvd.,with the property to the south being vacant and
wooded (Gilliam Park).The property to the west acrossGilliamParkRoadcontainsseveralsingle-family residencesandalargehousingproject.The property to the eastacrossEdgeStreetalsocontainsseveralsingle-familyresidencesandthreechurches.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comments from theneighborhood.The Granite Mountain NeighborhoodAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
New streets are proposed.Preliminary plat is required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required to serve allunits.
AP&L:No Comment received.
2
April 15,~99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:There is a 36"water main that crosses this site
and it appears to be under several of the buildings.
Either the water main must be relocated or the buildingsitesmustbemodified.Contact Marie Dugan at 377-1222
for details.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Site is served by Route ¹6—Granite Mountain.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the College Station Sweet Home PlanningDistrict.The Plan shows Public Institutional and Multi-
Family for this site.When an area of Public Institutionalistobechanged,the PI is judged to be the same as the
surrounding use.Therefore,the PI would be judged to beresidential.The proposed plan of a lower density multi-
family development is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
This area is not covered by a neighborhood plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
As of this writing,there is one issue remaining to be
resolved.As noted in paragraph E.of this report,theLittleRockWaterWorksnotesthatthereisa36-inch water
main located on the property.The water main will need to
be relocated or some of the building sites will need to be
revised.Staff will attempt to have this issue resolved
prior to the public hearing.
As noted in paragraph A.of this report,the applicant is
proposing three (3)new streets to serve this development.
The applicant will need to complete a staff level
preliminary and final plat based on the proposed plan.
3
April 15,~99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
Otherwise there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the site plan and the proposed PRD should have no
adverse effects on the general area.
H.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PRD rezoning withthefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting should be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.3.A preliminary/final plat must be completed in order todedicatethenewstreets.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Brooks Jackson was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan.
In response to a question from staff,Mr.Jackson noted thattherewouldbenodumpstersonthesite.Standard city garbagepickupwouldbeutilized.
Staff noted that a final plat of the property would need to be
done in order to dedicate the new streets.
In response to another question,Mr.Brooks noted that theexterioroftheproposedbuildingswouldbeconstructedofsidingandbevariouscolors.
The water main issue was briefly discussed.Staff noted that
some of the building locations may change based on the water
main location.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application tothefullCommissionforresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted aletterrequestingthattheitembedeferredtotheMay27,1999
agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
4
April 15,1 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6641
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral.A motion to that effect
was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
5
April 15,~39
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6642
NAME:McHenry —Short-Form PD-0
LOCATION:8210 Henderson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Robert and Donna McHenry Marlar Engineering
8100 Henderson Lane 5318 J.F.K.Blvd.
Little Rock,AR 72210 No.Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:2.00 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:AF ALLOWED USES:Agriculture and Forestry,
Single-Family residential
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the two (2)acre propertyat8210HendersonRoadfromAFtoPD-0 in order to converttheexisting1,920 square foot single-family structure to
an office for a law firm.The firm is the McHenry Law Firm
which consists of four (4)lawyers and two (2)paralegals.
The firm specializes in civil litigation and does notrequirethepresenceofclientsattheofficelocation.
The applicant proposes to maintain the residential
appearance of the property.The two car garage will beconvertedintoaroom.The applicant proposes to use theexistingdrivewayonthepropertyforparking.
The applicants,Robert and Donna McHenzy,are requestingthatthePD-0 zoning be for their property ownership only.
When the law firm is closed or relocated,the property willreverttoasingle-family residential use.
April 15,1 d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6642
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a brick and frame bi-level single-familyresidenceandgraveldriveway.There are several large
hardwood trees on the property.
The general area contains several single-family residences
on large lots.There is a large amount of pasture land inthisimmediatelyareaaswellasundeveloped,woodedproperty.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comments from theneighborhood.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
There are future streets on MSP crossing this property;dedication of right-of-way for these streets is required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:A water main extension and approval of the Citywillberequiredinordertoobtainwaterservice.Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment.Not currently served by CATA.
F .ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN
'lanninDivision:
This request is in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows residential and agricultural inthisarea.In keeping with the rural nature of the area,
any development should be referenced to that type of largelotdevelopmentinrelationtoscreening,vehicular useareas,retaining a residential look to the structure,
2
April 15,1 &9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6642
residential scale signage,etc.This POD should be for
this use only and afterwards should revert to single family
and the structure should be designed to be able to be
converted to residential use afterwards.
This area is not covered by a neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comments.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on April 1,1999.The site plan shows
a smaller area (2 acres)to be rezoned than was originally
proposed.The applicant notes that the hours of operationwillbefrom8:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday.
The typical number of parking spaces required for an officeofthissizewouldbefour(4)spaces.Staff feels that
the existing driveway will accommodate four vehicles andthatnoadditionalareaofparkingshouldbeadded.Thiswillhelpmaintaintheresidentialcharacterofthe
property.As noted in paragraph A.,there will be no
client/customer traffic at this location.
As of this writing,Public Works has not commented on therevisedsiteplanandproposedareaofrezoningwithrespecttoright-of-way dedication as noted in paragraph D.It should be determined whether right-of-way dedicationwillberequiredwiththistwo(2)acre rezoning.Staffwillattempttohavethisissueresolvedpriortothe
public hearing.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with this application.Staff feels that the PD-0 as
requested by the applicant should have no adverse effect onthearea.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-0 rezoning with thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the comments as noted in paragraphs E andFofthisreport.
3
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6642
2.The PD-0 rezoning will be for Robert and Donna McHenry's
ownership and specific use only.When the law officeclosesorisrelocated,or if the McHenrys sell the
property,it will revert back to a single-familyresidentialuse.3.One small wall sign (1 to 2 square feet in area)will beallowedtoidentifythebuilding.4.Public Works will comment as to whether any additionalright-of-way dedication will be required.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Robert and Donna McHenry were present,representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
In response to questions from staff,the applicants stated that
the hours of operation would be from 8:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.It was also noted that the existing
driveway would be used for parking and that a very small wall
sign (approximately 1 square foot)would be used to identify thebuilding.These were proposed as ways to maintain theresidentialcharacteroftheproperty.
The Public Works requirement for right-of-way dedication was
discussed.A possible deferral of right-of-way dedication wasdiscussed,as was the possibility of moving the proposed zoninglinestocreateasmallerareatoberezonedwhichwouldnot
abut the right-of-way for the future streets.This issue was
discussed in detail.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the rezoning to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
4
April 15,~a9
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-6643
NAME:Fence World —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:5810 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Harold Joyner None
8105 Louwanda Dr.
Little Rock,AR 72205
AREA:Approx.2.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Commercial —fence construction
business
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed a Land Use Plan change for this
property on February 4,1999.The Commission voted to approve a
change from Single Family to Service Trades District with a voteof8ayes,2 nays and 1 absent.On March 16,1999 the Board ofDirectorsapprovedOrdinanceNo.17,957 approving the change toServiceTradesDistrictwitha50footPark/Open Space strip
along the west/southwest property line where adjacent to single-
family residences.A Planned Zoning Development is required for
any development not entirely office.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from R-2toPD-C to allow for the operation of a fence constructionbusinessonthesite.The applicant proposes to use theexisting1,860 square foot single-family residentialstructure(15 feet in height)as an office and showroom and
April 15,i &9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643
the existing 600 square foot barn structure (20 feet in
height)for a shop and storage.The applicant proposes toconstructa3,600 square foot warehouse building (15 feetinheight)between the two existing structures and a small
parking area along the southwest side of the single-familystructure.The applicant is also proposing an interior
privacy fenced area along the west and southwest sides of
the warehouse and barn structure to be used for some
storage and employee parking.There will be a six foot
screening fence along the property lines where adjacent toR-2 zoned property and an ornamental iron fence along the
two street frontages.
The applicant is proposing hours of operation to be from8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.There will
be three to five employees and customer traffic is expectedtobeverylow,as most of the work is done on thecustomers'roperty.
The applicant proposes to maintain the residentialcharacterofthepropertybymakingtheexterior design oftheproposedwarehousestructureblendinwiththeexistingbrickandframeresidentialstructure.The applicant hasnotedthattheexistingmaturetreesonthesitewillbepreserved.There is one tree which may have to be removedforconstructionofthewarehousebuildingandseveraldeadtreesonthesitewhichwillneedtoberemoved.Theapplicantalsonotesthatadditionallandscapingwill beinstalledontheproperty.
There is a sign proposed near the northeast corner of theproperty.The applicant notes that the sign will beincorporatedintotheornamentalironfence.
There is currently an existing driveway from Stagecoach
Road and the applicant is proposing an additional drive
from Shackleford Road.Both drives to the property will begatedforsecurity.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a one-story single-family residence andanaccessorybuilding.Access to the property is gained byutilizingadrivewayfromStagecoachRoad.There areseveralmaturetreesonthesite.
There is undeveloped,wooded property to the northwest andnorthacrossShacklefordRoad.There are single-familyresidencestothesouthwestandsoutheastalongStagecoach
Road,with an auto salvage yard to the east acrossStagecoachRoad.
2
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comments from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Pecan Lake Neighborhood Association wasnotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2.Stagecoach Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as aprincipalarterial.Traffic on Stagecoach,north of Tall
Timber Blvd.,is 7,000 vehicles per day.Dedication of
right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is required.3.Provide "in-lieu"contribution for construction of half-street improvements to Shackleford and Stagecoach Roads.
These required street improvements include 5-foot
sidewalks.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Obtain permits for improvements from District 6,AHTD.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works if additional water
service is needed.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment.Not currently in service area.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is in the 65 Street West Planning District.
This property is shown for STD with PK/OS on the southwest
boundary.Topics of concern include adequate screening of
3
April 15,~a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643
exterior storage yards and buildings from the residential
uses to the south and west and preserving the residential
quality of Shackleford Road.The area to the west of the
property should be well landscaped and maintained in
keeping with the PK/OS strip.The warehouse should bebuiltofmaterialsthatareresidentialinnature,
preferably blending with the existing structures.
This area is not covered by a neighborhood plan.A plan
committee has been formed and that committee has been
informed of the request.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesonthistreecoveredpropertyasfeasible.Extracredittowardcomplyingwithlandscapeandbuffer
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six inchcaliperorlarger.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site
plan to staff on March 31,1999 which addresses all of the
concerns and questions as raised by the Subdivision
Committee.
The site plan shows a small area of parking (6 spaces)adjacent to the single-family structure.The applicant hasnotedthatthisparkingwillbeusedbycustomersandthattheemployeeswillparkwithintheinteriorfencedarea.
The parking proposed should be adequate to serve the
proposed use.
The site plan also shows a proposed sign near the northeastcorneroftheproperty.As noted earlier,the applicant
proposes to incorporate the sign into the proposed
ornamental iron fence.The applicant has proposed nospecificsigndimensions.Staff feels that the sign should
be no more than six (6)feet in height and 64 square feet
4
April 15,i s9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6643
in area.This is the typical requirement for office zoned
property and should help maintain the residential character
of the area.
Staff feels that the proposed use of the property is
reasonable and should have no adverse effect on the generalarea.The applicant is proposing to maintain the
residential appearance of the property,as well as the 50footPK/OS strip along the west/southwest property line.
The applicant will also preserve the healthy mature trees
on the site except for the possible tree which may be
removed for construction of the warehouse building.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-C rezoning with thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.The proposed ground-mounted sign will have a maximumheightofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 squarefeet.3.The facade of the proposed warehouse building must matchtheexistingsingle-family structure.4.The applicant must preserve the existing mature trees onthesite,except where the new warehouse structure isproposed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Harold Joyner was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposed site plan.
In response to questions from staff,Mr.Joyner noted that the
hours of operations would be from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.He also noted that the building facade of the
proposed warehouse would match the existing residential
structure.
It was also noted that the business would have 3 to 5 employees
and that there would be very little customer traffic.The
employees will park within the interior fenced area.
Mr.Joyner indicated that a revised site plan would be submitted
showing the area and heights of all buildings and that a drawingoftheproposedsignwouldbesubmitted.
5
April 15,~d9
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6643
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.An in-
lieu contribution for the street improvements to Shackleford and
Stagecoach Roads was briefly discussed.
Mr.Joyner noted that the existing mature trees on the site
would be preserved.He stated that one tree may have to be
removed where the warehouse structure is proposed and that there
were several dead trees on the site which will need removal.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(APRZL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
April 15,~a9
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6051-E
NAME:Arkansas Systems (Lot 3)—Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION:North side of Systems Drive,at Kirk Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Chenal Technology,LLC.Whi te-Dater s and Associates
425 West Capitol,Ste.300 401 Victory StreetLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:16.34 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-2 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
None requested.
C .PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct a 150,000 square footofficebuildingonthe16.34 acre site,Lot 3,Arkansas
Systems.The building will be five (5)stories and
approximately 70 feet in height.The building will belocatednearthecenterofthesite,just east of anexistingsmalllake.
The applicant proposes to access the property at a singlepointfromSystemsDrive.A future access is planned nearthenorthwestcornerofthepropertythroughLot2,Arkansas Systems,which is immediately west.
The applicant is proposing a total of 610 parking spacesforthesite.The parking area will be located on the eastsideoftheproposedbuilding,within the eastern one-halfoftheproperty.The parking ratio proposed is
approximately one space per 245 square feet of buildingspace.
April 15,~i9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6051-E
The applicant notes that all site lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property.It is alsonotedthatsignagewillconformtotheordinance
requirements for office zoning.The applicant also
proposes to preserve many of the existing mature trees onthissiteandutilizethemwithinproposedareasof
landscaping.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant single-family residence andseveralaccessorybuildings.The property slopes downward
from Kirk Road to a small existing lake.There are a
number of mature trees on the site.
There is an office building on Lot 2,Arkansas Systemsimmediatelywest,with the remainder of the Arkansas
Systems office development to the south.There are twosingle-family residences and a large amount of pasture landtotheeastacrossKirkRoadandvacant,wooded property tothenorth.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comments from theneighborhood.There was no established neighborhoodassociationtonotifyofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramp
brought up to the current ADA Standards.2.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Show floodway and floodplain boundaries on plans.
5 ~No structure shall be closer than 25 feet from boundary.6.Dedicate right-of-way for Kirk Road extension.
Dedication shall be 30 feet from centerline.Constructhalf-street improvements.
7.Future connection,as shown on plan at northeast cornerofLot2,does not conform with preliminary plat.Revise
layout of planned development for northern portion of Lot
2 so that parking aisle is not collinear with future
connection.
8.Minimum finished floor elevation of 329.00 feet shall be
2
April 15,~~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6051-E
shown on plans.Elevation certificate must be completed
and submitted to Public Works Department for each
structure prior to Certificate of Occupancy.9.Letter of Map Revision for as-built improvements to dam
outlet,dam structure,and upstream pipe required prior
to building permit.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING
Wastewater:Service available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:An acreage charge of $600 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.Water line easements may be
required.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Area not currently served.
F .ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comments.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be requiredtoprotectlandscapedareasfromvehiculartraffic.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manytreesasfeasibleonthissite.Extra credit towardfulfillinglandscapeandsoningbufferordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six inch
caliper or larger.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
3
April 15,i.a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6051-E
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 1,1999.The revised plan addresses the issues and
questions as raised by the Subdivision Committee.The
applicant also submitted a revised preliminary plat for thesitewhichshowstherevisedlocationofthefuturestreet
connection at the northwest corner of Lot 3,Arkansas
Systems as required by Public Works.
The ordinance requires a minimum of 311 parking spaces forthisproposedofficebuilding.The applicant is proposingatotalof610parkingspacesforthesite.The applicant
submitted a letter to staff noting that 610 total parkingspacesareproposedbasedonthenumberofemployeeswhichwillbelocatedinthisbuildingandalsobasedonthe
property owner's prior experience with office developments.
The applicant also notes that the use of computer
workstations with this office development will greatly
reduce the amount of floor area typically required for eachofficeemployee.l
The proposed building exceeds all minimum setbacks as
required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for 0-2 zoned
property.The proposed building height also conforms toordinancestandards.
To staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding site designissueslefttoberesolved.The applicant is requesting novariancesorwaiverswiththisapplication.This proposedofficedevelopmentshouldhavenoadverseeffectonthe
general area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the site plan with thefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Compliance with the City's Landscape and BufferOrdinances3.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.4.Lot 3,Arkansas Systems must be final platted prior to abuildingpermitbeingissued.
4
April 15,39
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6051-E
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Tim Daters and Hank Kelley were present,representing theapplication.Staff gave a brief description of the proposedsiteplan.
The number of proposed parking spaces was briefly discussed.
Mr.Daters noted that this office use would have more employeespersquarefootagethanthetypicalofficeuse.Mr.Datersnotedthataletterofjustificationwouldbesubmitted.
Mr.Daters also noted that the parking areas would be terraced,thereby breaking up the area of parking and not have the
appearance of a "sea"of asphalt.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Thededicationofright-of-way for the Kirk Road extension wasdiscussed.The applicant also noted that he would work withPublicWorksregardingtheproposedfuturedriveconnection tothepropertywestofthissite.
Mr.Daters noted that many of the trees on this site would bepreservedandutilizedwithinproposedlandscapeareas.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan tothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
April 15,i a9
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:S-1245
NAME:Cantrell Road Mini-Storage —Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:2000 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rose Creek Industries,LLC.McGetrick and McGetrick
2228 Cottondale Ln.,Ste.101 319 E.Markham StreetLittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:3.98 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:I-3 ALLOWED USES:Industrial
PROPOSED USE:Industrial —Miniwarehouses
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for reduced front and side (east)yard setbacks.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct four (4)miniwarehousebuildingsonthe3.98 acre site which is zoned I-3.The
miniwarehouse buildings are proposed in two (2)phases asnotedontheattachedsiteplan.There is an 8,000 squarefootconcreteblockbuildingwhichhousesasigncompanyanda5,000 square foot metal building which is occupied byanautorepairgaragelocatedwithinthesouthernportionoftheproperty.These two buildings will remain on thesitewithPhaseIoftheminiwarehousedevelopmentandberemovedwithPhaseII.
A total of four (4)miniwarehouse buildings are proposed asnotedonthesiteplan.The buildings will be 12 to 18feetinheightandbeofmetalconstruction.The applicantnotesthattheroofsofthestructureswillbeconstructedofanon-reflective material or painted to reducereflection.
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1245
There will be an office for the miniwarehouse businesslocatedwithinBuildingA.There will be also a small areaforboat/RV storage at the north end of the buildings.
There will be no conditioned storage.The entire site will
be enclosed by an 8 foot chain-link fence.
There is an existing private boat ramp/dock located at the
north end of the property on the Arkansas River.This boat
ramp/dock will continue to be used by the property owner
and accessed through this property.
The applicant is requesting two (2)building setbackvariances.A front building setback variance is proposed.
The ordinance requires a 50 foot front yard setback in I-3
zoning.After additional right-of-way dedication,all fouroftheproposedbuildingswillbecloserthan50feettothefrontpropertyline.The proposed front buildingsetbacksrangefrom30to44feet.The applicant is alsorequestingasideyardsetbackvarianceforBuildingD
along the east property line.The ordinance requires a 30footsideyardsetbackandtheapplicantisproposinga10footsetbackalongthiseastpropertyline.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The southern portion of this property contains two (2)existing buildings.There is a concrete block building
which houses a sign company and a metal building whichhousesanautorepairgarage.The portion of the propertyjustnorthoftheexistingbuildingsisapproximately6to
8 feet higher than that portion where the buildings arelocated.It appears that some fill work has recently beendone.
There is a large warehouse development immediately west ofthisproperty,with a creek and other industrial buildingstotheeast.The Arkansas River is immediately north ofthispropertyandtheCantrellRoadbridgeistothesouth.There are other industrial uses and single-familyresidencesacrossCantrellRoadtothesouth.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff has received two (2)calls requesting information onthisitem,but no negative comments,as of this writing.
The Hillcrest and Capitol View Stifft Station NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
2
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1245
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Old Perryville Road is a commercial street.Traffic is
1,900 vehicles per day.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property;"in-lieu"contribution may be submitted.
4.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 357 is required to
be shown on plat and grading plans.5.Obtain permits for improvements from District 6,AHTD.6.Show floodway and floodplain boundaries on plans.7.City Ordinance requires no structure closer than 25 feet
from floodway boundary.
8.Elevation certificate must be completed and submitted to
Public Works Department for each structure prior toCertificateofOccupancy.9.Dedicate regulatory floodway to the City.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer not required for this project.No
comment.
APRL:No Comment received.
Arkla:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:On site fire protection required.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Approved as submitted.Served by CATA Route 421
University Avenue.
F .ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comments.
3
April 15,i d9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1245
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with
ordinance requirements.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be requiredtoprotectlandscapeareasfromvehiculartraffic.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review
Specialist.
Buildin Codes:
Provide a soils report from a qualified soil engineer when
applying for a new commercial building permit along with
the plan submittal.The soil report will be inclusive ofallareaswherenewbuildingswillbeconstructed.
Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for additional
information.
G.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 1,1999.The revised plan appears to address the
concerns and questions as raised by the Subdivision
Committee.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting afrontandsideyardsetbackvariance.It should be notedthattheexistingconcreteblockbuildingnearthe
southeast corner of the property is currently locatedclosertothefrontandeastsidepropertylinesthan the
proposed buildings.Staff has no problem with the variance
request.
It appears that the proposed miniwarehouse buildings will
be located more than 25 feet from the floodway line as
shown on the site plan.Therefore,no variance is requiredforthissetback.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there should be no
outstanding issues related to this site plan.The
immediate area along the north side of Cantrell Road is
zoned I-3 and contains industrial-type uses.The proposed
4
April 15,i 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1245
miniwarehouses development should have no adverse effect on
the area.
H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan withthefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Staff supports the setback variances as requested.3.Any signage must conform to the ordinance requirementsforIndustrialzoning.4.The roofs of the miniwarehouse structures must beconstructedofanon-reflective material or painted toeliminateanyreflection.5.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25 g 1999)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan.
In response to questions from staff,the applicant noted thefollowing:
1.The two existing buildings on the site would remain untilPhaseIIconstruction.2.There will be no conditioned storage.3.There may be a small amount of boat/RV storage shown on therevisedsiteplan.4.The private boat ramp/dock at the north end of this propertywillremainandbeaccessedthroughthisproperty.
The type of building construction for the proposed miniwarehouse
buildings was briefly discussed.It was noted that thestructureswouldbeofapre-fabricated metal construction.Staff noted that the roofs of the structures should be
constructed of non-reflective material.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed with theapplicant.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan tothefullCommissionforfinalaction.
5
April 15,~99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1245
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,19'99)
Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the site plan and a recommendationofapprovalsubjecttotheconditionsasnotedinthestaffreport.
Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He gave a brief description of the project.
Gus Blass addressed the Commission with concerns.He stated he
had concerns relating to flooding in the area.He also noted
concerns relating to the fence location along the west property
and where the access to this property would be.
Commissioner Rahman asked if Corps of Engineer approval was
needed.
Mr.McGetrick stated that they would obtain Corps approval.HealsostatedthataccesstothispropertywouldbefromOldPerryvilleRoadandnotthroughanyotherproperty.
Commissioner Berry stated that he had concerns with the fencing
and building configuration associated with this project.
There was a general discussion relating to the effect of thisprojectonthearea.The orientation of the buildings on this
property was also discussed,as well as landscaping for theproject.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if Old Perryville Road was potentialpublichazardandifsignageshouldbepostedprohibitingtrucks.
Bob Turner,of Public Works,stated that the curve where the
road turns into Gill Street acted as a traffic calming device.
He stated that there will be a very low volume of traffic onthisstreetandnotrafficproblemsareanticipated.
A motion was made to approve the site plan as recommended bystaff.The motion was seconded.The motion passed by a vote of10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.The application was approved.
6
April 15,1 a9
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-3442-G
NAME:Wal-Mart (Baseline Road)—Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:8801 Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Wal-Mart
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit at 8801 Baseline Road to
allow for an increased area for
seasonal display in the parking lot,
and a permanent sidewalk display
area between the entrance and the
garden center.Property is zonedI-2 and C-3,Light Industrial and
General Commercial .
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
The Wal-Mart is located on the south side of Baseline Road,east of the intersection of Baseline and I-30.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood:
This mixed zone I-2 and C-3 property is bordered on theeastandsouthbyresidentialzoning,and the west by C-3
commercial zoning.Immediately west the C-3 area is
vacant.To the northwest is a strip type shopping center.
There is a six foot wood privacy fence and green buffer
wooded area between this facility and all the residential
area to the east and south.A 40 to 50 foot OS zoned stripexistsalongtheeastsideofthisproperty,as well as an
8 foot tall iron fence right at Wal-Mart's property line.
This additional outside storage should not have anydetrimentalaffectontheresidentialareas.
The Mavis Circle and West Baseline Neighborhood
Associations,as well as Norman Floyd,were all notified ofthepublichearing.
April 15,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3442-6
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Access to the property is gained by utilizing two (2)existing driveways from Baseline Road.The western accessalsoservesthestriptypeshoppingareatothenorthwestoftheWal-Mart store.No changes are intended or
required.
The current building has 201,172 square feet,requiring 543
parking spaces.Currently,they have 849 spaces and would
be using 40 of those for seasonal display.The remaining
809 spaces still exceed ordinance requirements.
4.Buffers and Screenin
N/A
5.Public Works Comments:
Traffic on Baseline Road is 20,000 vehicles per day.
6.Utilit and Fire De artment Comments:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AEUCLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Approved as submitted.This site is served by CATA
Routes f17 and g17A —Mabelvale.
7.Staff Anal sis:
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit (C.U.P.)to amend their existing C.U.P.to double
the current parking lot temporary seasonal display area andtoalsopermitapermanentyearroundsidewalkdisplayarea
between the main store entrance and garden center fenced in
2
April 15,1 s9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3442-G
outside area.No structural changes are proposed.This
recpxest is a follow-on development of converting this storeintoasupercenter.A revised C.U.P.was approved in
April 30,1998 for the building expansion.
The existing parking lot area which is to be expanded for
seasonal display is set off to the side of the rest of the
parking.It consists of 40 spaces and does not serve as a
path to any other parking areas.Therefore,using it for
seasonal display will not affect any other parking.It is
the closest parking area to the outside garden center,
however.The only time of the year that the loss of the 40
parking spaces would probably have much of an impact would
be the Christmas shopping season,and the area would not be
used for seasonal display during that time period.The
applicant has recpxested to use the area from February 1 to
July 1 each year.That time period would recpxire a
variance because it would be five 30-day periods.The
ordinance allows only four 30-day periods per year.
The proposed area for sidewalk display is a large concretearea113feetwideby35feetdeep.A normal width walkareaof10feetadjacenttothemaindrivewayaccessroad
would be maintained.The area is in a recessed area
between the main entrance and the garden center fenced inarea.It is not in a thoroughfare.This part of the
proposal would also recpxire a variance because the
ordinance does not allow permanent full time sidewalk
displays.
A variance is also recpxired because of the total area usedforbothoutsidedisplayareas.The ordinance allows onlytheecpxivalentof50%of the facade area of the front ofthebuildingtobeusedforoutsidedisplay.This proposalisforanareaecpxalto105%of the front facade area.
Staff does not believe there will be a negative impact to
using these two areas as proposed.
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional use
permit as submitted to include the variance for one
additional 30 day period (total of 150 days)for the
parking lot seasonal display area,and a permanent sidewalk
3
April 15,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3442-G
display area as shown on the site plan,both to include anareaequalto105%of the front facade.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Scott Sanders,Wal-Mart store manager,was present representinghisapplication.Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
Committee members questioned the applicant as to why these
requests were not included in the submittal in March of 1998.
Mr.Sanders became the manager since that time and did not know
why.
Commissioner Adcock asked if the parking lot seasonal display
could be located in the northern part of the lot,the areafarthestfromthestore,rather than taking away parking closetothestore.Mr.Sanders responded that generally the area is
placed close to the store so that all shopping can be done
together after parking in one spot.Customers do not like to
have to drive over to another area away from the main store.
Being closer also facilitates staff coverage of both the inside
and outside garden center areas,and security of the
merchandise.In addition the range for remote registers is
limited and would not reach the area suggested.He would prefertoleaveitasrequested.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded it to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Scott Sanders,Wal-Mart store manager,was present representing
his application.There was one registered objector present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval as
submitted including the variance for 150 day display period in
the parking lot,a permanent sidewalk display area as shown on
the site plan,and a total area used for the two displays to
equal 105%of the front facade.
Ruth Bell representing the League of Women Voters spoke in
opposition.Ms.Bell stated their position is that three monthsisenoughtimeforopenseasonaldisplay,especially since it
4
April 15,1999
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-3442-G
usually is unsightly.She stated that increasing that time or
the area used opens the door to moving toward permanent open
very large outside displays.
Janet Berry spoke for West Baseline Neighborhood Association in
support of the proposal stating Wal-Mart has been a good
neighbor and has provided a needed line of merchandise.
Commissioners Adcock,Berry and Rahman spoke in favor of the
proposal,but emphasized the points that this kind of display
should be designed into the original construction and that this
shows they have more parking than they need since they can give
up 40 spaces for four months out of the year.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
including the variance as detailed under "Staff Recommendation."
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,and 1 absent.
5
April 15,~a9
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-3892-A
NAME:Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church
—Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1100 Napa Valley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Greek Orthodox Church
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit at 1100 Napa Valley Road to
allow for a two phase expansion
program to include two new
buildings,addition to current
church,and additional parking
areas.Property is zoned R-3,
Single Family residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
This existing church site is located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of St.Charles Blvd.and Napa
Valley Drive,filling the block between St.Charles and
Ridgehaven Road.It takes up all of tract A of the St.
Charles Subdivision.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood:
This site is zoned R-3,Single Family residential,and is
surrounded on the east,west and south by residentially
zoned properties.To the north across Ridgehaven,the
property is zoned PRD,Planned Residential District.
Most of the additional facilities proposed are to better
serve the existing congregation and should not cause
additional traffic.Plus the additional on-site parkingareaswillhelpdecreaseoff-site parking during largeractivitiesandSundayservices.
Staff does not expect an adverse affect from this proposed
expansion and feels this use will continue to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
April 15,i a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3892-A
The Hunter's Cove,St.Charles,and Carriage Creek
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The existing site has one access driveway from both St.
Charles Blvd.and Ridgehaven Road which will not be
changed.The proposed revised site plan would use that
same driveway from Ridgehaven to access the new parkinglotsaddedinPhase1and2fromthenorth.Access to the
south end of the new parking lots would be through the
existing southern parking lot.
Parking for church facilities is governed by the sanctuary
seating capacity.The current capacity is 280 which would
require 70 parking spaces based on the standard of one
space per four seats.There are currently 68 parking
spaces.Phase 1 does not change the sanctuary seating
capacity and therefore,does not change required parking.
However,Phase 1 does include an additional parking lot
with 43 spaces.That would bring the total spaces at the
end of Phase 1 to 108,including the 3 lost spaces from theoriginallot.Phase II will increase seating by 100.
Therefore,Phase II parking requirements will increase by
25 spaces to a total of 95.The proposal includes 119
spaces at the end of Phase II.
4.Buffers and Screenin
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as manyexistingtreesasfeasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling
landscaping requirements can be given when preserving treesofsixinchcaliperorlarger.
Prior to a building permit being issued,a detailed
landscape plan must be approved by the Plans ReviewSpecialist.
2
April 15,i i9
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-3892-A
5.Public Works Comments:
a.Napa Valley is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.Traffic is 11,500 vehicles per day.A
dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is
required.
b.Ridgehaven is a commercial street;dedication of right-
of-way to 30 feet from centerline is required.c."Zn-lieu"contribution required for widening of Napa
Valley for City Project.Additional widening of Napa
Valley and Ridgehaven is required by ordinance.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Utilit and Fire De artment Comments:
Water:On site fire protection may be required.Contact
the Water Works if additional meters are required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AIBA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Approved as requested;not currently in service area,
though close to Route ¹5 —West Markham.This area
may be served by smaller,circulating vehicles in the
near future.
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit for a two phase Master Plan for expansion of churchfacilities.Phase 1 would add a one-story Christian
education building (about 4,830 square feet)in the
northeast corner of the property,and a 43 space parkinglotjustwestoftheexistingparkinglot.Phase 2 would
add about 8,160 square feet on to the southwest corner of
the existing parish hall,plus another 44 space parking lot
along the west side of the property.The new parish hall
3
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3892-A
construction in Phase II will remove 61 parking spaces.
Final parking spaces after Phase II would be 119.A bell
tower and covered walk just west of the current church
building plus a small 640 square foot addition to both the
north and south sides of the church would also be a part of
Phase II.The Phase II expansion will increase sanctuary
seating from 280 to 380 seats.
The proposed site plan meets or exceeds all ordinance
setback requirements.The proposed screening and buffers
meet ordinance requirements.Proposed parking will exceed
ordinances requirements by a small amount and help reduceoff-site parking.The applicant incorporated Public Works
comments and changed the proposal to have only one driveway
access off of Ridgehaven.
The purpose of these new facilities is to better supportexistingchurchmembers,not to increase the number of
members.Therefore,traffic should not be greatly impacted
and the increased parking will help reduce off-site parking
and help traffic flow.Staff believes this is a reasonable
expansion and will be compatible with the neighborhood.
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with comments under "Screening and Buffers."b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.If any exterior lighting is installed,it must be
directed downward and inward to the property and not
directed toward any residential area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
David Sargent was present representing the application and the
church.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Mr.Sargent explained in detail the master plan and its phasing,
some history behind it,and information about how meetings with
the neighborhood associations and area property owners had
influenced the current plan.
4
April 15,I a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3892-A
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments,and their concern
over the driveway spacing along Ridgehaven.They suggested one
driveway be used for access to all parking lots from Ridgehavenorelseawaiverwouldberequiredinordertohavemorethan
one driveway for each 300 feet of street frontage.
Staff also discussed briefly the possible need to replat this
property once the additional right-of-way is dedicated torelocatetheplattedbuildinglinesthatareshownonthe survey
provided.The Committee asked the applicant to verify that
there were platted building lines.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded it on to the full Commission for finalresolution,pending the question of platted building lines and
driveway access.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant revised the proposal to maintain the existingsingleaccessfromRidgehaventoservealltheparkinglots fromthenorth.They agreed to most of the other comments except for
two.First,they have asked to leave the platted building linesastheyarealongRidgehavenandNapaValleyandnotreplatsincethisactionhasbeencausedbytheCitychangingits
Master Street Plan,increasing required right-of-way dedication.
That would reduce the setback lines to 19 feet on Napa Valley
and 11 feet on Ridgehaven.The actual building setbacks would
be 35 feet on Napa Valley and 11 feet on Ridgehaven which wouldstillmeetnormalR-3 building setbacks.
Secondly,the applicant has asked for a waiver of the cost for
widening the North 4 of Napa along the property to Ridgehavensincethisisbeingaccomplishedwith"TIP"monies.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the revised plan aspresentedincludingthebuildinglinesandPublicWorksstaff
supports the waiver request.
5
April 15,1 a9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3892-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
David Sargent was present representing the application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with
the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation."
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays,and
1 absent.
6
April 15,1 i9
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
NAME:Brenda and Harold Brown —Revised
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:2100 Vancouver Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Brenda and Harold Brown
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit at 2100 Vancouver Drive on
this R-2,Single Family residential
zoned property,to convert a 16
child day care family home to a day
care center with a maximum capacity
of 50 children.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
The existing house is located on the west side of Vancouver
Drive at the intersection with Deerwood Drive,north of
West 24 Street.This residential area is located west of
Boyle Park and east of Barrow Road.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood:
This residence/day care center is located in an area
exclusively residential in nature.Uses and zoning in this
area range from single-family surrounding this property,to
multifamily (MF-6)one block to the east.
Staff believes the continuation of the existing day care
center in the expanded capacity proposed would have adverseeffectsonthesurroundingpropertiesandtheneighborhood
due to the commercial nature of the day care center,traffic increases,noise on the playground,and the
inability of the site to support parking and drop off
requirements.
The John Barrow and Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
Staff has received at the time of this writing 10 letters
in support of the proposal from residents in the area,and
April 15,1 s9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
two phone calls opposed to the use because of anticipated
negative impacts to the neighborhood.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existingresidentialtwo-car driveway.
Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee pluson-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per10children.There would,therefore,be a requirement for
10 on-site parking spaces with 5 employees and 50 children
as originally submitted.The site cannot accommodate
10 parking spaces.
The applicant stated they may have to reduce the capacityto34childrenbasedonDepartmentofHuman
Services'equirements.A decrease to 34 children and 4 employees
would reduce the parking requirement to 7 spaces,but eventhatamountwouldbeverydifficulttoaccommodateonthissite.The applicant has stated that four (4)vehicles can
be parked on the existing driveway although these parking
spaces do not meet the ordinance requirements for minimumsizeandmaneuveringarea.
4.Buffers and Screenin
If additional parking is placed in the front,at least a
4 foot minimum buffer between the parking and the propertylineandanadditional6foottallopaquescreeninthe
form of a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings should
be installed between the new parking and adjacent
residential property.
5.Public Works Comments:
Contact Bill Henry,Traffic Engineer,for drop-off and
driveway design.Staff would prefer to maintain theresidentialappearanceofthissite.
6.Utilit and Fire De artment Comments:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
2
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AM%A:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:This site is not currently served by CATA,but it is
near Route ¹3 —Baptist Medical Center.
7.Staff Anal sis:
On August 7,1997,the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit to allow the occupant of 2100
Vancouver to operate a 16 child day-care in her home.The
applicant now proposes to convert the entire structure into
a day-care center with a maximum capacity of 50 children.
There would be no residential use of the structure.
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit to change the existing child day care family homefor16childrentoanon-residential child day care centerforfrom34to50children.The site is surrounded by a
quiet single family residential neighborhood with
multifamily MF-6 zoning a block to the east.One block to
the north the street ends in a cul-de-sac.Traffic is
generally light in this area.
The Browns are licensed for and have operated the day care
family home for 16 children at this location for the past
3 4 years.The operating hours would be 6:00 a.m.to 6:00
p.m.,Monday through Friday.Three to five employees,
depending on the number of children,will come from offsite,but one of these is the Brown'daughter who lives
next door.No one would live on site.
There is a playground area located in the rear yard of the
residence surrounded by a 6 foot privacy fence.The
applicant is proposing possibly a two (2)square foot
ground or wall sign to identify the site.
Staff feels that this higher capacity day care center would
be an inappropriate commercial intrusion deep into this
quiet,primarily single-family,residential neighborhood.
The closest commercially zoned area is several blocks to
3
April 15,1 ~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
the west on John Barrow Road.The day care family home was
established to accommodate a small day care operation
within a residential area but still maintain the
residential nature.The current C.U.P.for 16 children is
already at the higher end of the capacity considered
appropriate for a day care family home,but is less
intrusive at that level than it would be with 34 or more
children,and maintains the residential nature with the
applicant continuing to live there.
Parking and drop off is another issue of concern to staff.
Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee pluson-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per
10 children.There would,therefore,be a requirement for
10 on-site parking spaces with 5 employees and 50 children.
The site cannot accommodate 10 spaces.If the applicant
reduces the capacity to 34 children based on Department of
Human Services requirements and has 4 employees,the
parking requirement would reduce to 7 spaces,but even that
amount would be very difficult to accommodate on this site.
The applicant has stated that four (4)vehicles can be
parked on the existing driveway.These parking spaces
would not meet the ordinance requirements for minimum size
and maneuvering area.
In addition,the proposed change to a more commercial use
rather than residential will require a floor plan and otherdetailssubmittedtotheBuildingCodesDivisionas
required for remodeling and upgrades for commercial
standards.Handicap accessibility will be required from
the paved parking surface to the interior and for the
sanitary facilities.The applicant will be required to
submit sufficient detail (written and pictorial)as to howthiswilloccur.Minimum accessibility standards are the
Cabo-Ansi A117.1-1992.
In summary,staff does not believe it would be appropriatetousethissiteforanylargeranoperationthanis
currently there for three primary reasons:1)
Incompatibility with the residential nature of this area;
2)site is too small to accommodate required parking and
drop off areas;3)anticipated extensive internal upgrades
required to provide a sufficient and safe facility for this
large of an operation.
4
April 15,~i9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
primarily because of the inappropriateness and negative
impact of a commercial day care center of this magnitude
being inserted into a quiet residential neighborhood,and
also the inability of the site to support parking and drop-
off/pickup areas as required by ordinance.
While recognizing the need for day care facilities,staff
does not believe this is the place to locate one of this
capacity with the resulting negative impacts to the
neighborhood.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Brenda Brown was present representing her application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff and Committee members reviewed with the applicant the
three main areas of concern:incompatibility with the
residential nature of neighborhood;parking and drop-off areas;
and anticipated magnitude of internal upgrades required.
Mrs.Brown commented that she appreciates the concerns,but that
she sees a large need for a lot of day care located right in the
neighborhood.She has a waiting list of about 20 children and
hopes she can still obtain approval.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal,encouraged Mrs.Brown to work closely with staff on
the issues and agreed to forward the application to the full
Commission for final resolution.
STAFF UPDATE:
Mrs.Brown did discuss some of the issues with staff,but our
recommendation has not changed.
5
April 15,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6312-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Brenda Brown was present representing her application.There
were four registered objectors and three supporters present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for denial
primarily because of the inappropriateness and negative impactofacommercialdaycarecenterofthismagnitudebeinginsertedintoaquietresidentialneighborhood,and also the inability of
the site to support parking and drop-off/pickup areas as
required by ordinance.While recognizing the need for day carefacilities,staff did not believe this was the place to locate
one of this capacity with the resulting negative impacts to the
neighborhood.
Mrs.Brown explained that she felt it was appropriate to the
area because the need was there as demonstrated by her having a
waiting list of about 20 children needing care.Also,shestatedtheconcernsaboutincreasedtrafficshouldbedecreased
by having some children picked up by a van and by the fact that
her children are not all dropped off during "rush hour"times.
She showed a copy of her sign-in log to show how the drop-
off/pickups were spread out through the day.
Mr.Rodney Williams,Mrs.Janette Smith,Mrs.Valeria Freemanallspokeinfavoroftheproposalemphasizingprimarilythe
quality of care Mrs.Brown has provided.Mrs.Smith is a next
door neighbor and stated that she had experienced no problems or
negative impacts of any kind due to the current operation.
Annette Fisher spoke in opposition to the proposal.She
emphasized the petition of 31 names she submitted of people.
opposed to the proposal for the reasons 'of increased traffic,
congestion at the site during peak drop-off/pickup times,
limited access through the area due to only two ways in or out,
increased noise,health and safety issues of having so many
children in the single family home,potential crime increases
and property value decrease.
Isaac Ross spoke in opposition due to his concern over this
proposal making this a commercial area.
Shirley Basey spoke in opposition emphasizing that since there
are no sidewalks in this area and many children walk up and down
the street going to a nearby school bus stop at 22"Street,the
6
April 15,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6312-A
increased traffic to the day care would raise the safety riskstothosechildren.
Michael Handy spoke in opposition primarily due to the increasedtrafficandnoise,and changing the residential nature of the
house to a commercial business.
Commissioner Nunnley asked for a direct response to Mr.Ross's
question as to whether approval of this request would change the
area to commercials Staff and Commissioner Earnest respondedthatthiswasonlyauseissueasaC.U.P.and would not change
the zoning to commercial if approved and also that the C.U.P.
would stay with the property.Commissioner Nunnley also made
the point with the applicant that the size of operation she had
requested combined with the fact she won'be living there addedtothecommercialnaturethatpeopleareopposedto.
Commissioner Berry asked if the applicant had sought any other
location for the larger day care center.Mrs.Brown said she
had not.He added that the size of this requested proposed use
would make it commercial in nature and have a tangible negative
impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioners Faust and Rahman also spoke to the point that thesizeproposedtakesitawayfromadaycarefamilyhometoa
commercial operation which they agree would be inappropriate forthisarea.They added encouragement to the applicant to lookforappropriatespacetodevelopthelargeroperation.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted.The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,10 nays,and 1 absent.
7
April 15,39
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-6637
NAME:Oliver Elders —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:315 S.Maple Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Oliver Elders
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit
for a duplex at 315 S.Maple Street
on R-3,Single Family residential
zoned property to replace the
existing single family house.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
This site is located on the southeast corner of Plateau and
South Maple Streets and includes the first two lots on theeastsideofSouthMaple.It is two blocks south of West
Markham.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood:
This site is located on property which is zoned R-3,Single
Family residential,and is surrounded by R-3 zoned
property.Currently,there is a boarded up,one story,
single family residence on the site.There are other
duplexes in the general area and R-4 zoning one block west
and one-half block southeast.The applicant stated he
intends to construct a structure compatible in style with
the existing neighborhood structures.
Staff believes this is an appropriate use of this site and
by constructing it in a style similar to existing houses,it would be compatible with the neighborhood.
The Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association
and the Woodruff Community Development Corporation werenotifiedofthepublichearing.
April 15,~9
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6637
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Currently,there is a single gravel driveway accessing the
property from South Maple.The proposal includes 2 curb
cuts on South Maple to provide access to 4 pull-in parking
spaces arranged in two sets of two each.The ordinance
requires 3 total parking spaces,1 'c per unit.
4.Buffers and Screenin
N/A
5.Public Works Comments:
a.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 338 is required to
be shown on plat and grading plans.b.Remove existing fence from right-of-way.c.Show right-of-way on Maple and Plateau.Dedicate
additional right-of-way if less than 25 feet from
centerline.
d.Provide 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way at the
corner of Maple and Plateau.
6.Utilit and Fire De artment Comments:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AEUCLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:This site is served by Route ¹5 —West Markham.
7.Staff Anal sis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
one story duplex on this R-3 Single Family residential
zoned property.The existing single family structure would
2
April 15,~99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6637
be removed and a new structure constructed in a style
compatible with other structures in the area.
The site plan meets or exceeds all ordinance setback
requirements.Four parking spaces would be provided in two
sets of two along South Maple Street.That arrangement was
worked out with Public Works to lessen the impact of
pavement in the front yard and spread out movement on to
Maple Street.That exceeds the ordinance requirement of 3
spaces,1 4 per unit.
The area surrounding the site is all zoned R-3 and consists
of mostly older single family homes.A block and a half
west there is a large R-4 zoned area and 4 block southeast
there is a single lot zoned R-4.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this property
and that it would be compatible with the neighborhood as
long as it is constructed in a style compatible with other
structures in the area.
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with Public Works comments and
constructing the duplex in a style compatible with other
structures in the area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Oliver Elders was present representing his application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works reviewed their comments.
Staff and committee members discussed with the applicant his
proposed parking layout.The applicant was asked to meet with
Public Works and work out an alternative parking design.The
applicant was ameniable to doing that.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded it on to the full Commission for final
resolution.
3
April 15,1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6637
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant met with Public Works and came to an agreement for
a revised parking layout which is shown in the enclosed site
plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Mr.Oliver Elders was present representing his application.
There were four objectors present.Staff presented the item and
was prepared to recommend approval subject to compliance with
Public Works Comments and constructing the duplex in a style
compatible with other structures in the area.However,the
applicant had failed to notify the property owners within 200feetbycertifiedmailofthepublichearingonthisissue.
According to the Planning Commission Bylaws,that notification
failure warrants deferral to allow for notification unless the
bylaws are waived.
Mr.Elders stated he was acceptable to the deferral.However,
Mr.Gene Gentry spoke up that he and other neighbors had been
waiting to state their objectives and wanted action to proceed.
After discussion with Mr.Gentry,Mr.Elders,and input from
City Attorney Giles,Mr.Elders chose to'equest withdrawal of
his C.U.P.request.Mr.Elders said he had no intention of
,getting the community "riled up"over a duplex,so he would
rather upgrade the existing single family house than cause all
the concerns over building a new duplex.
A motion was made to approve the request for withdrawal made by
Mr.Elders.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and
2 absent.
4
April 15,s9
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-6644
NAME:Victoria Savi ers —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1711 N.Tyler Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Victoria and Mark Saviers
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permittoconverttheexistingtwo-car
garage in the rear of 1711 N.TylerStreettoanaccessorydwellingonthisR-2,Single Family residential
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location:
This site is located on the east side of N.Tyler Street,
two lots south of Cantrell.The proposed accessory
dwelling is in the rear abutting an alley.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood:
This site exists in an older residential neighborhood whichiszonedR-2,Single Family residential.Forest Park
Elementary School is one block southwest of this site.The
proposal is to convert an existing two-car garage into anaccessorydwelling.There are other similar dwellings onotherpropertiesnearbyandscatteredthroughoutthearea.
Staff believes this proposal is a reasonable use of thisexistingstructureandwillnothaveadetrimentaleffect
on the neighborhood.
Staff has received some concern from neighbors that the
dwelling not become rental property.
The Heights,Prospect Terrace,and South Normandy
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
April 15,39
SUBDZVZSZON
ZTEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6644
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
Vehicle access to this property is in the rear from an
unpaved gravel alley.There is an existing concrete pad
(27 feet by 27 feet)abutting the alley which is used for
parking and access to an existing two-car garage.Two
vehicles can easily be parked on the pad which would meet
the ordinance parking requirement.
4.Buffers and Screenin
N/A
5.Public Works Comments:
No Comments.
6.Utilit and Fire De artment Comments:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:6 inch sewer main located in alley.ContactLittleRockWastewaterUtilitypriortoconstruction.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
AKKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Approved as submitted.This site is served bypart-time Route ¹22,Pleasant Valley.
7.Staff Anal sis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow the conversion of an existing two-car garage in the
rear of the property into an accessory dwelling to be used
by a live-in nursing staff for Mr.Van Zant,the owners
father who was paralyzed by a stroke.The applicant statedthattheyarerequiredtoprovidelivingspacefortheir24
hour caregiver.The accessory dwelling is the way they
plan to meet that commitment.
2
April 15,39
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6644
The site is located in a well-established older
neighborhood in which several of the homes have detached
garages accessed from alleys in the rear of the lots.
Several of the garages have been turned partially or
totally into other uses,so this conversion would not be
out of character for this neighborhood.The applicant hasstatedthattheirintentisnottousethisdwellingasa
rental unit.Both side yards have a 6 foot privacy fence
which would screen the dwelling from adjoining neighbors.
The existing garage does not comply with all current
setback or area coverage requirements.The south side
setback is 2.2 feet versus a required 3 feet.Also,thestructurecovers38%of the rear yard setback versus a 30%
maximum allowed coverage by ordinance.Otherwise it meets
requirements.Since it is pre-existing non-conforming,it
can remain where it is as long as its alteration does notcreateanadditionalnon-conformity or increase the degreeoftheexistingnon-conformity.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this site andstructure,and would be compatible with the neighborhood.
8.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit asfiled.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 25,1999)
Brad Bartlett,the applicant's contractor,was present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposal.
Very little discussion took place other than to clarify theextentoftheworkinvolvedandreviewthereasonforthe
dwelling with the committee.
There being no issues,the Committee accepted the proposal and
forwarded,it to the full Commission for final resolution.
3
April 15,99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6644
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Victoria Saviers was present representing her application.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the
item with a recommendation for approval of the application asfiled.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays,and
1 absent.
4
April 15,1999
ITEM NO.:17
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Mabelvale Cutoff Road,from Mabelvale Main Street to Geyer Springs Road
REQUEST:Amend right-of-way from 90 feet to 70 feet;reduce pavement section.
SOURCE:Public Works Staff
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to reduce right-of-way requirement from 90 feet to
70 feet;and to reduce the pavement section from a standard minor arterial to a 4 lane section,5
lanes at major intersections with additional right-of-way (80 feet).
These changes are requested as a result of the "Metro 2020 Plan"adopted by Metroplan.Traffic
volumes do not substantiate a need for the wider right-of-way and the continuous center turn lane of
a minor arterial.The reduced right-of-way requirement will soften the impact on adjacent property.
Several residences on Mabelvale Cutoff have minimal setback from existing right-of-way.
Without this amendment,additional right-of-way taking would result in more serious setback
issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Public Work Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the Master Street Plan for
Mabelvale Cutoff Road from Mabelvale Main Street to Geyer Springs Road.The amendment
reduces the right-of-way requirement from 90 feet to 70 feet,and reduces the pavement section
from a standard minor arterial to a 4 lane section,5 lanes at major intersections with additional
right-of-way (80 feet).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
The Chairman recognized Bob Turner,Assistant Public Works Director for purposes of
introducing Item ¹17 and ¹18 and offering staff recommendation.
Bob Turner stated that Item ¹17,Mabelvale Cutoff Phase I from Chicot to Geyer Springs was
already constructed.Phase II will be from Chicot to Mabelvale Main Street.Mr.
C id Id
Turner stated that staff request is to reduce right-of-way to 70 feet and construct 4 lanes with 5
lanes at major intersections,with additional right-of-way.
The Chairman stated that the City is part of the Central Arkansas Regional Transportation Study
and the City is to apply for federal matching money.In order to qualify for federal money,City
has to comply with all requirements set at the federal level.
Mr.Turner also said that plans for Phase II of Mabelvale Cutoff have been designed and will
need to be modified to meet federal requirements.This modification of plans will lessen impact
on residents and property.This project will cost 5.1 million dollars.Commissioner Rahman
stated that he is a member of the Transportation Committee,and that continous turn lane
(currently in the MSP)is not acceptable per latest federal design standards.Commissioner
Adcock asked for clarification on request.
Mr.Turner explained that proposed change to Master Street Plan will match cross-section
required by Regional Transportation Guidelines and score additional points in competition with
other projects in Central Arkansas.In addition,Bob Turner stated that in order to be considered
more competitive for federal funding,Master Street Plan must match application.
The Chairman recognized Mr.Jim Caster,member of West Baseline Neighborhood Association.
Mr.Caster stated that this design/proposal is not what was proposed by association on last
meeting.He said that association did not have enough time to discuss proposal and requested
deferral.
The Chairman then recognized Don Thompson.He was concerned about road being 4 lanes
versus 5 lanes;may cause future traffic problems.
Next speaker was Rick Hakercamp.He lives in Shiloh Subdivision and was worried about
vertical alignment of Mabelvale Cutoff,and turns to Shiloh Subdivision,as well as the school in
the neighborhood.
The Chairman then recognized Janet Berry for comments.She stated that she moved to
Mabelvale Cutoff 4 '/~years ago and planned her landscaping around 90-foot right-of-way.She
also stated that neighborhood did not have time to meet and discuss changes.She requested that
change be denied,and allow additional time for neighborhood to discuss.She stated that this
street is also 1988 Bond Project that City is obligated to construct.
Chairman stated that Regional Board adopted standards for roadway design.
Bob Turner stated that Master Street Plan needs to be changed to 70 feet right-of-way to be
considered for approval by 2020 Metroplan.
Mr.Malone from Planning explained that rating is very strict,and that Mabelvale Cutoff project
is competing with other towns in Central Arkansas for federal funding.
C sd Id I I ~I,
Commissioner Putnam mentioned that if Master Street Plan right-of-way is not changed from 90
feet to 70 feet,the City won't get any (federal)money.Also,if change to 70-foot right-of-way is
made in Master Street Plan,it gets us some points,and perhaps get federal funding.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mr.Turner if he was positive that reduction to 70 feet right-of way
would guarantee federal funding.Mr Turner stated that thereare absolutely no guarantees.If
federal funding doesn't happen,City would in the future try to construct the project with either
City funds,developer participation,or try for federal funding in a future program.
Commissioner Rahman stated that the smaller right-of-way would save the City money;that it
would save trees;and that it is better overall for the City.
Commissioner Judy Faust pointed out that process of amending Master Street Plan must allow
more time for Planning Commission Review.Commissioner Rahman called the motion to
approve this item as submitted.The motion received a second;the motion passed by a vote of 9
ayes,1 naye,and 1 absent.
c&s'd td
ITEM NO.:18
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Scott Hamilton Drive,from 65'treet to Baseline Road
REQUEST:Amend right-of-way from 90 feet to 70 feet;reduce pavement section.
SOURCE:Public Works Staff
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to reduce right-of-way requirement from 90 feet
to 70 feet;and to reduce the pavement section from a standard minor arterial to a 4 lane section,
5 lanes at major intersections with additional right-of-way (80 feet).
These changes are requested as a result of the "Metro 2020 Plan"adopted by Metroplan.Traffic
volumes do not substantiate a need for the wider right-of-way and the continuous center turn lane
of a minor arterial.The reduced right-of-way requirement will soften the impact on adjacent
property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Public Work Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the Master Street Plan for Scott
Hamilton Road from 65'"Street to Baseline Road.The amendment reduces the right-of-way
requirement from 90 feet to 70 feet and reduces the pavement section from a standard minor
arterial to a 4 lane section,5 lanes at major intersections with additional right-of-way (80 feet).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Bob Turner,Assistant Public Works Director stated that staff request is to reduce right-of-way
width from 90 feet to 70 feet and construct 4 lanes with 5 lanes at major intersections,with
additional right-of-way.Pat Gee,with Upper Baseline Neighbor Association,spoke in support
of Master Street Plan Amendment.Other citizens that spoke in support were Mrs.Cooley and
Mr.David Robinson.Mrs.Cooley was supportive because sidewalks are needed for Scott
Hamilton Drive.
Commissioner Rahman called the motion to approve this item as submitted.The motion
received a second;the motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 naye,and 1 absent.
April 15,1-~9
ITEM NO.:19 OTHER MATTERS
NAME:Land Use and Zone Changes related
to Downtown Neighborhood Plans
LOCATION:Various,I-630 to Roosevelt and
Chester to I-30
REQUEST:Modify the Land Use Plan and
rezone properties
SOURCE:Downtown Neighborhood Plan
STAFF REPORT:
On February 4,1999 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing where these items were approved unanimously (as part of
the Consent Agenda).The items were passed on to the Board ofDirectors'arch 16 hearing.At the meeting an issue was raised
about the changes and after discussion the Board referred them
back to the Commission.
At the April 1,1999 Planning Commission informal meeting,staff
reviewed each amendment and the rezonings.Notices for the
meeting were sent to eight organizations representing the area
and two commercial property owners.The only persons attending
the meeting were representatives of the Plan Committee (the
requesting group).None of the Commissioners present had any
questions about the proposed changes.There was discussion
about whether to have a straw vote or wait to have a formal vote
on April 15
The Commission placed this item on the April 15 agenda for a
formal vote on whether to send them back to the Board of
Directors for approval.(Staff continues to recommend approval
of the land use changes LU99-08-01,LU99-08-02,LU99-08-03,
LU99-08-04 and rezonings Z-6615,Z-6616,Z-6617,Z-6618,
Z-3711-A.Staff knows of no unresolved issues.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APPRIL 15,1999)
The Commission took item 19 out of order,prior to item 17 since
those parties were discussing issues out of the room.
April 15,I 99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)OTHER MATTERS
Commissioner Berry indicated he had an issue with only one
change from Mixed Use to Low Density Residential in the area of
14 and Rock Streets.This is counter to the downtown idea of
greater densification.Commissioner Berry was concerned that
the redevelopment dynamics for the area would not support Low
Density Residential.This is of particular concern since the
tornado (and lead paint issue).Commissioner Berry expressed
the desire for the Committee to rethink this area and leave it
as MX.
Commissioner Faust made a motion to accept the Land Use Plan
Amendments and rezoning as presented.The motion was seconded.
Commissioner Berry asked that the "MX"to "LDR"area be made a
separate vote.Commissioner Faust did not accept the change to
her motion.Commissioner Rahman asked Commissioner Berry to
explain his concerns.Commissioner Berry explained that since
the tornado the area has few,if any,structures.This change
would preclude the area from having non-residential usealternatives.Commissioner Berry again asked that this area
have a separate vote.Chairman Earnest recognized CommissionerBerry's concerns but stated after hearing the presentations on
April 1 he felt comfortable with the change.There was
additional discussion about MX versus LDR and the likelihood of
redevelopment.
Commissioner Berry asked Kathy Wells,chair of "Downtown PlanforFuture"to respond.Ms.Wells,stated the area is (was)a
bunch of residents.The Plan calls for increasing residential
in the neighborhood.Mixed Use is seen as a commercial
structure with residential on the upper floors.Mixed Use in
residential areas is a problem because we want to increase home
ownership .Commissioner Berry expressed concern that the area
could not redevelop as a solely residential area.The result
would be no development —vacant land because of redevelopmentcosts.Ms.Wells stated the people in the area wantresidential.Commissioner Putnam asked that we give the
neighborhood's plan a chance to work.By a vote of 11 for
0 against the motion was approved.
2
April 15,1 ~9
ITEM NO.:20 OTHER MATTERS
NAME:Central City Redevelopment
Corridor Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Downtown Neighborhood Association
Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,gave a brief background on the
status of the Central City Redevelopment Corridor (CCRC)Design
Overlay District.Mr.Lawson stated that staff had met with the
Plans Committee,and the draft that was being reviewed at the
Planning Commission reflected the comments from the Plans
Committee.He also asked the Planning Commission for direction
on public input,boundary location,and content.
Shawn Spencer of Planning Staff presented the draft ordinance.
Mr.Spencer reviewed the four definitions in the ordinance and
went into detail on the regulations.Planning Commissioners had
some reservations on the "mass"regulations and how the
regulations would relate to an undeveloped block.Discussion
followed.
Kathy Wells,President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association
(DNA),was present.Ms.Wells stated that the purpose of the
Design Overlay District was to regulate only new construction
and not additions/renovations.She also stated that there was
concern about the "mass"regulations and the section of"materials"that dealt with materials that resemble the
appearance of wood,brick or stone.She asked the Planning
Commission to act quickly on their directions to staff.
Discussion followed.
Chairman Earnest asked Mr.Lawson if staff could meet with Ms.
Wells and work out the concerns of the Planning Commission and
the DNA.Mr.Lawson and Ms.Wells agreed to meet on Monday
March 22.Ms.Wells also asked if staff could wait on mailing
out notices to property owners until the DNA could take the
neighborhood through an educational process on the DOD.Staff
agreed to the notice process.
April 15,99
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)OTHER MATTERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reminded the Commission we were
to hear from Ms.Wells about the neighborhood's efforts to
communicate the issue and decide where we go from here.Ms.
Wells distributed a letter to the Commission.
Kathy Wells,Chair of Downtown Plan for future,stated she had
met with the East of Broadway and South of Roosevelt groups.
The "East of Broadway"group is supportive.They believe the
standards will help the area.The South of Roosevelt group
while wanting some design standard believe this is being done to
them.Therefore,they do not wish to have these standards.
Thus the area should include the area east of Governor Mansion
area not in Historic District and exclude the area south of
Roosevelt Road.There was some discussion about the "original"
overlay.The consensus was to contact owners in the corridor.
Ms.Wells asked that a draft of the letter be shown to the
neighborhood groups prior to mailing.Mr.Malone agreed thatstaffwoulddraftaletterandpassitbytheneighborhoods
prior to contact of the property owners.
2
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
PA
T
E
&
I
5
f9
9
~
CO
Y
S
E
N
T
+E
C
W
~
K
~
*-
'
A
S
m
"0
'
9
A'
~
'
'
"*
"
*
,
~i
+
~
!
"
.j
~
k
.
:
;
:
":
:
:
„
'
:
,
,
:
:
'.
.
"
'
;
;
,
j
i
b
'
f
(
(
F
'
"
';
'
~,
'
,
.
ji
v
i
;
-
'
j
'
j
!
'
i
'
,
"„
g
Q
.g
g,
fO
,
'
"
:
"
,
~
j
'
'
',
'
j"
"
'l
g
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
v'
'
e
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
2~
&
0
o
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
0
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
0
v'
0
v'A
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
f
v
s
0
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
w
~
e
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
//
P
e
p
Fe
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
Kl
F
o
r'
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
y
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
A
':
T
I
I
I
I
I
E
:
:
;
:
'
:
A
N
D
;
:
T
I
I
I
t
I
E
OU
T
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
0
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
ml
~
Co
d
0
X,
/
5
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
A
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
c5
:
f
G
P.
M
.
+
AY
E
~
NA
Y
E
+
AB
S
E
N
T
4
AB
S
T
A
I
N
April 15,1999
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
G-r-f
Date
Chai an reta