HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 20 1993subI
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 20,1993
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Presentation Of the Consent Agenda
Staff presented the eleven (11)items for consideration.
Iv.Members Present:Brad Walker,Chairman
Ramsay Ball
Diane Chachere
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam
Joe Selz
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ronald Woods
J'im VonTungeln
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
'I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 20,1993
DEFERRED ITEM
A.Pilgrim Road PCD and Right-of-Way Abandonment of Pilgrim Road
and Alhambra Court (Z-5654)
B.Shannon Hills Wastewater Treatment Facility Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5664)
C.Martin Street Right-of-way Abandonment (G-23-186)
D.Rezoning of 6213 and 6223 Lancaster Road —R-2 to R-5 (Z-5665)
PRELIMI ARY LATS:
1.point West Fourth Addition —Preliminary Plat (S-54-S)
2.Point Glen Subdivision —Preliminary Plat (S-970)
3.Heatherbrae Subdivision,Phase II,Lots 1-38 —PreliminaryPlatandReplatofLot7andTract"A"(S-717-C)
4.Charleston Heights —preliminary Plat (S-767-A)
5.Hinson Manor Office Park,Lots 2 and 3 —Preliminary Plat(8-830-B)
SITE PL REVIEW
6.Fellowship Bible Church Offices and Classroom Building —SitePlanReview(Z-4550-A)
7.Arkansas Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Clinic —Site Plan
Review (Z-3689-E)
C D TIONAL E PE IT:
8.Grace Community Church -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4524-B)
9.Simmons Beauty Shop —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5051-A)
10.Hughes Manufactured Home —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5672)
11.Kearney Day Care Center —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5674)
12.philander Smith College —Conditional Use permit (z-5675)
~REZ N~IQ:
13.Rezoning of the South 150 feet of Lot 2,Erwin Addition totheCityofLittleRock,Pulaski County,Arkansas (Bowman Road
between West Markham and Chenal Parkway),from 0-3 to C-l.
(Z-5524-A)
April 20,1993
ITEM A FILE Z-654
NAME:Pilgrim Road —Long-form PCD and Right-of-Way Abandonment of
Pilgrim Road and Alhambra Court
ML ~ATIO :South side of Chenal Parkway,SE corner at Bowman Road
~DEVEI PER EIIEIgEER:
JAMES A.MOSES PAT MCGETRICK
MOSES-MOSARI MCGETRICK ENGINEERS
Real Estate 11,225 Huron Lane
225 East Markham Little Rock,AR 72211LittleRock,AR 72201 223-9900
376-6555
AREA:12.15 acres BER F L T :1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONINQ:R-2 Single Family PROPO ED USES:A home improvement
to PCD merchandising center
commercial complex
PL I DI TRI T:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARI E RE E TED:None
STATEMENT OF PR P SAL:
This applicant proposes a PUD for purposes of developing a "Home
Quarters"facility on this property.The "Home Quarters"store
proposed for this site would consist of 104,000 square feet of
building and 30,000 square feet of garden center.There would be
parking for 480 cars on the site with access provided off both
Bowman and Hermitage Roads.There is no access point proposed on
the Parkway nor a median cut on the parkway.
The request as filed includes a request that the basic C-3 uses in
the zoning ordinance also be allowed on this site,The petitioncarriesarequestthatthecityabandonPilgrimRoadandAlhambra
Court,both of which are streets bisecting the site.
A.PR P
This application consists of multiple ownerships in a triangle
of land bounded by two arterial streets and a collectorstreet.The property has restricted access at this time due
to the control of access along the Parkway,and the commercial
ordinance requirement for driveway separation on arterial
April 20,1993
KIBDZVZSZON
TEM N .:A n PILE NO :Z-4
streets.The property would presumably be replatted into a
single tract combining the abandoned rights-of-way and lots
into a single parcel.
B.ONDITION
This tract of land has a varied land use mix at this time.
There are several single family properties occupied byresidences,There is at least one C-4 use in the form of acontractor's building along the Hermitage Road side of thetract.Most of the land area is in a natural state,with
trees and natural undergrowth.The land area has a
significant elevation change from the Hermitage/Bowman area
falling to the east toward the Parkway at Autumn Road.This
would require significant land reform in order to build.
The adjacent streets are varied as to condition.The ParkwayistoMasterStreetPlanstandardsatthistime;however,
Bowman Road is being reviewed by the Public Works DepartmentforsignificantreconstructiontocomplywiththeminorarterialstandardsinassociationwiththeWal-Mart
development.Hermitage Road lying along the south side of the
property remains a narrow and steep two lane county road
standard with open ditches.This street would require
significant modification in the development of this site.
C.E INHERING UTILITY MME T
Public Works reports that they will require a Traffic
Engineering Impact study.The curb cut on Bowman Road is not
permitted.Access should be taken from Hermitage Road.The
Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply.A sewer main
extension will be required with easements to serve this site.
The Water Works reports a pro rata front footage charge of
$12.00 per foot along Bowman Road.There is a 6 inch main in
Pilgrim Road which will need to be abandoned.An on-site fire
service plan should be provided illustrating the line sizes
and locations of fire hydrants.Adjustment to or abandonmentofcertainfacilitiesinBowmanRoadmayberequired.
D.I TE H I AL DE I
This application fails one critical point at this time.
Complete ownership is not represented in the application.
There is one or more of the several property owners which have
not submitted a letter of authorization.Additionally,thecityofLittleRockownstwoparcelswithintheboundaryof
the application.That property ownership should be resolved
with the City of Little Rock.A landscaping plan for the site
2
April 20,1993
SUBDIVISION
I EM ~A n FILE N .:Z-4
should be presented involving not only landscaping,but the
buffer standards.A grading plan for the site should be
submitted.A section through the site running east to west is
required.
Hermitage Road should be constructed to a commercial collector
standard with any necessary right-of-way dedicated to a
collector standard.A contribution to the Bowman Road
construction would be appropriate.The enlargement of the
buffer along Bowman Road to about 40 feet will be required
based upon the 5%lot depth requirement.
E.hKhhXRXS:
The Planning staff's view of this application is that the siteiscurrentlyconfiguredinaninappropriatemannerto
accommodate a structure of the nature proposed.The
significant land reforming,the access problem,and inability
to provide most of the parking in front of the store are
significant problems for which we do not immediately find
answers.There will be a significant coordination problem
between this site and the Wal-Mart development on the west
side of Bowman Road as to the excavation for and the
construction of Bowman Road to a five lane arterial.
Significant reconstruction along Hermitage Road will probably
be required in order to match the new grades at the
intersection of Hermitage and Bowman once the project along
Bowman is completed.
Public Works has indicated to us that there should be serious
consideration given to a redesign of the entire intersection
at Hermitage,Autumn and the Parkway since the five wayintersectioncurrentlyoperatesataveryunsafelevel.
F.TAFF RE MMENDATI
The Planning staff's recommendation is a deferral of this
application in order to resolve the several significant issues
pointed out in the several paragraphs above.Specifically,
that associated with the ownership of the land and a means of
coordinating this project with the adjacent Wal-Mart project.
S BDIVI I N MMITTEE MME T:(JANUARY 7,1993)
The staff presented to the Committee a statement from Mr.Moses
that he was unable to secure all of the commitments from the
various property owners within this application.He desired adeferraltotheMarch9PlanningCommissionagenda.There was nodiscussionofthisitem.The matter was placed on the agenda for
purposes of the deferral to March 9.
3
April 20,1993
~TTBDI~VI I
ITEM 'n FILE Z-
P I MMI I A TI (JANUARY 26,1993)
The Commission accepted a request from Mr.Moses,the applicant,
for deferral of this request until March 9,1993 in order to afford
the applicant sufficient time to restructure the application and
downsize the acreage.A motion to defer the item was made and
passed by a vote of 10 eyes,0 nays and 1 absent.
REVI ED PR P RE E T:
Prior to the filing date for the March 9,1993 planning Commission
hearing,Mr.James Moses contacted staff and indicated that he
needed additional time to amend his proposal and to obtain
authorization from all property owners involved to pursue the
matter.He asked to defer this item to the April 20 hearing in
lieu of the earlier date as proposed at the January 26 Commission
hearing.The item was removed from the March 9 agenda.
The revised proposal is for the construction of the "Home Quarters"
facility to contain 104,090 square feet.,plus a garden center of
31,726 square feet.and parking for 507 vehicles.The proposal is
for the building to face east,with all parking in front of the
building.The rear of the building is to face Bowman Rd.,with
access for loading to be from Bowman Rd.Two access drives are
shown from Hermitage Rd.
The applicant anticipates paying their "fair share"of the
improvement costs for Bowman and Hermitage Roads,indicating that
they anticipate being responsible for one side only of the cost for
these streets.
The applicant has submitted documentation that all property owners
within the boundary of the proposed development have authorized the
applicant to represent them in putting this application together.
The applicant is negotiating with the City in acquiring the City-
owned parcels and states that it is their understanding that the
City is willing to sell,and that executing an agreement to sell is
a critical element in the proposal.
ADDITIONAL REVI ED ENG ER
Little Rock Water Works reports that the 6"main in Hermitage Rd.
will have to be replaced with an 8"main.
Public Works Engineering comments that the Hermitage Road-Autumn
Dr.-Chenal parkway intersection is to be re-designed and re-aligned
in the future.Care should be exercised by the developer in
locating the access drive at the east end of the site to avoidconflictwiththere-routing of Hermitage Rd.to the south.
4
April 20,1993
~U~B~DD 1~7~I~S~I~
IT M n F
Engineering observed that the seven parking spaces at the far east
extent of the property,with access from the drive,are not
acceptable.Engineering reiterated that the Stormwater Detention
and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable.
The Fire Department,Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.,and Little
Rock Wastewater utility have reviewed the site plan and have
approved the proposal as submitted.Arkansas power and Light Co.
reports that additional easements are required,and returned the
plat with the locations noted.
UBDIVISIO MMITTEE MME T:(April 1,1993)
Representatives of the developer,the engineer,and Home Quarters
were present at the Committee meeting.Staff presented the item.
Mr.Pat McGetrick,project engineer,responded to comments from
Public Work Engineering:the east drive entrance is approximately
200 ft.from the Hermitage-Autumn-Chenal intersection,and should
not be affected by the proposed re-alignment of that intersection,
and the seven parking spaces which were cited as not being
acceptable can be removed.Mr.McGetrick also reported that the
west drive from Hermitage may be relocated further west in line
with the drive along the front of the building,avoiding a
maneuvering bottleneck with the double 90 degree turns as presently
shown.The representative of Home Quarters reported that the
garden center area is to be increased to take the entire area north
of the store.This will eliminate the drive along the north of the
garden center and keep traffic from trying to use this drive to
access the property by way of Bowman Rd.The Bowman Rd.entrance,
the Home Quarters representative reiterated,is to be limited to
merchandise loading only.
Following the discussion,the Committee recommended the item bereferredtotheCommissionforfinalresolution.
ING C MMI I N ACTION:(APRIL 20,1993)
Mr.Jim Lawson,Department Director,presented the item,explainingthatallrequirementsnecessaryforapprovaloftheprojecthave
been met.He added that the Home Quarters and Wal-Mart/Sam's
developers are cooperating in a joint project to construct the
segment of Bowman Road which is contiguous to and lies betweentheirtwopropertiesandthecostsofwhichtheyareresponsible;further,that Home Quarters has agreed to build the full width of
Hermitage Road which is contiguous to the Home Quarters'roperty
and for which they would normally be responsible for only half the
width of the improvements.Mr.Lawson explained that the City has
no mechanism for participating in the improvements to the street on
5
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~II g
ITEM Cont.FILE Z-5 4
the other half of the right-of-way and,when the property is
developed on the opposite side of the street,being reimbursed at
that time by the developer.To avoid the pitfall which would existifonlyone-half the street were built as part of the Home
Quarters'evelopment (e.g.,differences in grades between the
existing street section and the reconstructed section;site is
inaccessibility and traffic congestion with only one-half the
street constructed at the outset;etc.),Home Quarters is prepared
to build the entire width of Hermitage Road without assurance of
heing reimbursed the costs which would normally be those of the
property owners on the opposite side of the right-of-way when that
property is developed.
Mr.Jim Moses was present to represent the developer.He indicated
that a number of Home Quarters officials were present to answer any
questions the Commission might have.Mr.Moses presented colored
renderings showing the proposed site development plan an the
exterior views of the building.He indicated that Home Quarters
uses the same exterior wall treatments on all four sides of the
building to enhance the aesthetics of the building on all sides.
(This,conceded,is contrary to many situations where the
decorative materials are placed on the front of the building,but
the other faces of the buildings are plain.)Mr.Moses explained
that the rear loading area off Bowman Road will be shielded by a
wall which will be constructed of the same masonry materials as the
building walls and will blend with the building.He reported that
Home Quarters will erect a pylon sign on Bowman Road,approximately
centered along the right-of-way.
After Mr.Moses'resentation and a brief discussion period,the
motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the item to
the Board of Directors.The motion passed with 9 ayes and
2 abstentions.The item includes the exclusive abandonment of the
right-of-way of Pilgrim Road and Alhambra Court,and the creation
of the "Pilgrim Road PCD".
6
April 20,1993
ITEM B FILE
gAME:Shannon Hills Wastewater Treatment
Facility —Conditional Use Permit
WYATT )5:The SW 1/4,SE 1/4 and the West
330 feet of the North 1/2,SE 1/4,
SE 1/4,Section 16,T-l-S,R-13-W,
Little Rock,Arkansas.
0 ER APPLI T:Shannon Hills Water,Sewer and
Fire Protection Improvement
District No.3/Charles Brown,Agent
~POPD AL:A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction and operation of a
waste water treatment facility on
this R-2 zoned 45.5 acres site.
RDI E DE I T ARD
l.ite Location
The site is located 1/4 mile East of the intersection of
Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road;directly north of and
adjacent to the pulaski County/Saline County line.
2.C m atibili wi h i hborhood
The predominance of the adjacent neighborhood is comprised
of vacant R-2 zoned property.Directly west of this site is
a 600 foot wide cleared strip utilized by ApaL for a main
transmission line.The nearest occupied residential
properties within the Little Rock city limits appear to be
approximately 600 feet to the west and 600 feet to the east.
Directly south of and adjacent to this site are several
single family homes.These homes are located in the Saline
County community of Shannon Hills.
A 70 acre tract located directly north of and adjacent to
this property has been donated to the city for future park
development.
The applicant is proposing to construct an open,pond type
sewage treatment plant utilizing four cells and a 13 acre
open pond.
April 20,1993
TEM ntin FILE N Z-4
Due to the proximity of adjacent residential uses and the
future proposed park,it is felt by staff that this
particular proposed sewage treatment plant is inappropriate
for this neighborhood and would have a detrimental effect on
the adjacent properties.
3 ~—r P in
The applicant is proposing to construct a single 12 foot
wide all-weather road which will access the pump station and
treatment cells and pond.
4.Screenin and Buff rs
Determining an adequate amount of buffer for this type use
is difficult,but at the very least compliance with the
landscape and buffer ordinances is required.There is not
sufficient area set aside on the west perimeter of this site
to comply with the buffer ordinance requirements.
5.'e r omme
Provide an engineering study by a waste water specialist.
Right-of-way dedication and Master Street Plan improvements
are required for County Line Road which is to extend along
the south perimeter of this site.
6.Utilit Comments
Little Rock Waste Water Utility has voiced objections to
this project with Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology in the past and still feels this is not an
appropriate use for this property.The discharge from this
property could be detrimental to the down stream watershed.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works has a 16 inch water main
in a 20 foot easement across the north line of this
property.This main and easement should be shown.The
applicant should obtain approval and comply with any health
department requirements for protecting this main.
7.~An 1 ~i
After an intensive review of this proposal involving the
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning,City Engineer's
Office,Little Rock Waste Water Utility and Little Rock
Municipal water Works,a consensus has been reached that
this proposal is inappropriate and should not be supported.
In addition to those listed above,several items of concern
have been raised and are listed as follows:
2
April 20,1993
ITEM n 'n FILE NO.—4
A.The applicant has yet to provide an engineering study
by a waste water specialist showing how this particular
proposed treatment plant will work.
B.The applicant has yet to provide documentation of
review and approval for this system by Arkansas
Pollution Control and Ecology and other reviewing
agencies.
C.Staff understands that the City of Shannon Hills has
previously entered into a contractual agreement with
the City of Little Rock to tie onto Little Rock's sewer
system.
D.Based on that contract,Little Rock Waste Water Utility
has extended a force main to within 5 feet of the
Shannon Hills sewer line.
E.The treatment plant constructed by the City of Little
Rock,located east of the airport,was designed to
handle the watershed south and east of the city,
including Shannon Hills.
F.This proposed treatment plant discharges into Otter
Creek which flows into the City of Little Rock.
G.The area along Otter Creek is designated parks/open
space on the land use plan.This proposed use could
violate the plan.
8.Staff Rec mm n i n
Staff recommends denial of this application as being an
inappropriate use of this property,and not in the best
interest of the citizens of the City of Little Rock.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ENT:(FEBRUARY 18,1993)
Charles Brown was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item and outlined the various concerns noted above.
A lengthy discussion then followed between Mr.Brown and the
Committee members in which Mr.Brown explained the history of the
relationship between Shannon Hills and the Little Rock Waste
Water Utility.He further stated that it was necessary for
Shannon Hills to construct this waste water treatment plant.
Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer's Office addressed the
Committee and explained the need for the right-of-way dedication
and Master Street Plan improvements for County Line Road.He
3
April 20,1993
I B n FI E
stated that the applicant could make in lieu contributions for
the impxovements to County Line Road.
Bob Brown of the City staff explained the need for requiredbuffersadjacenttoresidentialproperty.
After fux'ther discussion,the Committee forwarded this item tothefullCommissionforfinalresolution.
PL MMI I TI (MARCH 9,1993)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,informed the Commission thattheapplicanthadrequestedadeferraluntiltheApril20,1993PlanningCommissionmeeting.The applicant stated that there are
some modifications which need to be made to the site plan,and
which must be reviewed by the Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology prior to submitting the item to the Planning Commission.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this application was deferred totheApril20,1993 Planning Commission meeting.The vote was
9 eyes,0 noes and 2 absent.
S BDVI I ITTEE (APRIL 1,1993)
Tim Lemons was present representing the application.StaffpresentedtheitemandinformedtheCommitteethatarevised siteplanhadbeenreceivedwhichaddressessomeofstaff's concerns.
The revised site plan shows the required right-of-way dedicationforCountyLineRoadandtherequiredbufferonallpex'imetersotherthanthewestperimeter.The west perimeter is adjacent toa300footwideAP&L easement and the normally required buffex
may not be necessaxy.
Staff informed the Committee that several outstanding issues haveyettoberesolvedandlistedthemasfollows:
1.In lieu contributions for Master Street Plan improvementsarerequix'ed for County Line Road.
2.Provide documentation of review and approval for this system
by Arkansas Pollution Control and Bcology and otherreviewingagencies.
3.Provide engineering study by wastewater specialists.
4.There is an existing water main on the north perimeter ofthisproperty.Show Health Department approval ofdischargingupstreamandinsuchcloseproximityto thiswatermain.
4
April 20,1993
ITEM NO.~B n in FIL '-4
5.The area along Otter Creek is designated parkslopen space on
the land use plan.would this use violate the plan?
6.This proposed plant is directly adjacent to a proposed
future 70 acre park.
7.All outstanding concerns remain regarding the validity of
constructing this plant when previous arrangements have been
made for Shannon Hills to tie onto Little Rock's sewer
system.
8.Indicate specific treatment of the areas set aside for
buffers to comply with ordinance requirements.
9.A 6 foot screening fence is required along the south
perimeter.
Mr.Lemons addressed the Committee and informed them that
documentation is forthcoming which will address concerns noted in
Items No.2,3 and 4 listed above.
He stated that state law requires the site to be enclosed with a
6 foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire,and not a wood
screening fence as was suggested by staff.Mr.Lemons was
informed that it was even more imperative that he submit plans
for specific treatment of the buffer areas if he intended to
utilize natural vegetation as screening in lieu of the screening
fence.
Mr.Lemons was advised to have the required documentation and
revisions to staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
P I MMISSI A TI (APRIL 20,1993)
Charles Brown was present representing the application.There
were several objectors present.
Jim Lawson,Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning,presented the item and a staff recommendation of
denial.He then presented a list of reasons for denial as
follows:
1.In conflict with the development standards and review
guidelines as outlined in Section 36-107.
(1)The proposed use is so designed,located and proposed
to be operated that the public health,safety and
welfare will be protected.
5
.'April 20,1993
ITEM PILE N '-4
(2)The proposed land use is compatible with and will not
adversely effect other properties in the area where itisproposedtobelocated.
(7)Safeguards proposed to limit obnoxious or offensive
emission including lighting,noise,glare,dust and
odor are addressed.
2.An unproven design for this application.
3.Could adversely affect the city's stormwater management
responsibility.Shannon Hills'urrent facility is not
properly operated and is under an EPA mandate.
4.Located in a single family area,next to a school.
5.Located adjacent to a 70 acre city park.
6.An agreement had been made in 1984 to tie on to Little Rock
Wastewater system.The Pourche plant system,when designed,
included the Shannon Hills service area.
7.Little Rock sewer main within 5 feet of Shannon Hills'ine
with an in-city use rate.
8.Many citizens of Shannon Hills are opposed to the treatmentfacility.
9.State Health Department recommends connecting to Little
Rock's sewer.
In response to a question from the Commission,Don Hamilton,
Wastewater Attorney,stated that shannon Hills and Little Rock
had signed a contract whereby Shannon Hills would tie onto Little
Rock's Wastewater system.He further stated that Little Rock has
made an offer to settle with Shannon Hills and may end up incourt.
Commissioner Putnam then asked about the Planning Commission
being involved in this dispute with Saline County and itscitizens.Assistant City Attorney Stephen Giles then informed
the Commission that they should only address the land use
question and the effect of this proposed wastewater treatment
plant on those residents of the area,including those in ShannonHills.
Rick Barger,Director of Operations for Little Rock Wastewaterutility,then addressed the Commission.He made several points
which are listed as follows:
1.The proposed plant discharge from this wastewater treatment
plant will run through the City of Little Rock,including
Hindman park and Interstate park.
6
April 20,1993
ITEM Con inu FILE N Z-4
2.Little Rock wastewater system lines in this area are
designed to accommodate Shannon Hills.
3.The proposed Shannon Hills Treatment plant is an
inappropriate process,not yet proven to be workable.
4.Shannon Hills has a history of noncompliance in wastewater
treatment.
5.Shannon Hills paid $150,000 to lay lines to within two feetofexistingLittleRockwastewaterlines.
6.Little Rock has received national goal awards for compliance
in wastewater management.This level of performance may be
in jeopardy if the proposed wastewater treatment plant isbuilt.
7.The proposed wastewater treatment plant will produce odors
and mosquitoes which will have a negative effect on thecitizensofLittleRock.
Commissioner Nicholson then asked why Shannon Hills is proposingtobuildthisplant.
Mr.Barger stated that there is a perceived cost savings of $5.00
a month to the citizens of Shannon Hills if they build their own
plant rather than tie on to Little Rock's Wastewater system.
Commissioner Willis then asked how Shannon Hills'astewater
Treatment was being handled now.
Mr.Barger stated that they are discharging partially treated
waste into Otter Creek at this time.
Commissioner Chachere asked if the Little Rock Wastewater
Treatment Plant can handle Shannon Hills'astewater.
Mr.Barger stated that Little Rock could handle Shannon
Hills'astewater.Little Rock's Wastewater Treatment Plant is
operating only at 60%capacity and Shannon Hills'astewater
would add only one to two percent.Shannon Hills has only about
500 customers and Little Rock has 50,000.
Jerry Gardner,of the Public Works Department,then addressed the
Commission.He stated that under the Clean water Act of 1987,the City of I ittle Rock is responsible for "policing"anyentitiesthatdischargeintoLittleRockstreams.This would
make Little Rock responsible for the performance of ShannonHills'astewater Plant.Little Rock would act as a regulatory
agency to oversee that plant.
7
April 20,1993
ITEM NO.:B n in PILE '-4
Commissioner VonTungeln then stated that the operation of this
proposed plant seems to be an important component of the land use
review of this project.
Mr.Gardner stated that is why he felt it important to inform the
Commission.
Charles Brown,agent for the application,then addressed the
Commission.He stated that Shannon Hills deems the previously
mentioned contract to be breached.He then presented
documentation to the Commission reinforcing his argument that the
City of Little Rock had breached that contract.
Mr.Brown then made several statements to the Commission in
support of the application.
He stated that the proposed plant would have no effect on Little
Rock residences as there are no homes within 600 feet of the
proposed plant.He stated that the Health Department and the
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology had approved the
proposed plant.
Mr.Brown then stated that this particular location was the best
location for the proposed plant due to its distance from adjacent
residences and the required gravity flow for the wastewater
treatment plant.
Mr.Brown then stated that Shannon Hills could relocate its
wastewater treatment plant upstream,but would still have
discharge into Otter Creek.
At this point,Chairman Walker then recused and stepped down from
the discussion.
Tim Lemons,the engineer for the proposed wastewater treatment
plant developer,then addressed the Commission.He stated that
the Pollution Control and Ecology Department and the Arkansas
Department of Health have approved the design of this plant.He
further stated that the constructed wetlands type of wastewater
treatment plant has been proven to work.
Commissioner putnam then stated that the Commission must focus on
land use questions and not technological issues.He furtherstatedthattheCommissionneededtohearfromthecitizens who
were present at the hearing.
Commissioner Woods then asked why the citizens of Shannon Hillsareagainsttheproposalifitissupposedtocostless,
Mr.Brown then stated that there is a political situation overcontroloftheShannonHillsSewerCommission.
8
April 20,1993
ITEM NO.:B n in FILE
Commissioner Oleson then stated that she agreed with Commissioner
Putnam,this is a land use issue.
Beverly Rook,of 11300 Donnie Drive,then addressed the
Commission.She stated that her property borders the proposed
sewer plant.She further stated that the property has been clear
cut and has created a runoff problem which has flooded her
property and created a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
Bob Rollins,of 13400 Meyer Lane,then addressed the Commission.
He stated that he was in opposition to the proposed plant due toitsproximitytoresidentialproperties.Mr.Rollins stated that
a neighbor had tried to sell his home,but had lost the sale duetotheproposedwastewatertreatmentplant.He stated that he
hopes Little Rock and Shannon Hills can come to an agreement
which would allow Shannon Hills to tie on to Little Rock's
wastewater treatment system.Mr.Rollins then presented severallettersfromnearbyLittleRockresidentsinoppositiontothe
proposed treatment plant.
Mr.Ellery Cook,of 14700 Allen Drive,then addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed wastewater treatment
plant.
Laura Chandler Mozisek,of 11424 Donnie Drive,then addressed the
Commission.She stated that she is concerned about property
values in the area.She further stated that she had a fear that
the proposed treatment plant would create a problem with snakes
and mosquitoes.Ms.Mozisek expressed hope that Shannon Hills
and Little Rock can work out an equitable contract to allow
Shannon Hills to tie on to Little Rock's wastewater treatment
system.Ms.Mozisek stated that under Little Rock City Code,
Section 36-107,this proposed treatment plant will adverselyeffecttheadjacentresidencesandshouldbedenied.
James Wood,of 15 Sheila Lane,presented a lengthy list of
reasons why the proposed treatment plant should be denied.
Ted Meyer,of 12820 Meyer Lane,then addressed the Commission in
opposition to the proposed wastewater treatment plant.He statedthatShannonHillshasnotmaintaineditscurrentplant.Hefurtherstatedthatmaintenanceishisnumberoneconcern,and hefearsthattheproposedwastewatertreatmentplantwillhavea
detrimental impact,if not properly maintained.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,then
addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed wastewater
treatment plant.She stated that the plant was an inappropriate
land use in this area.Ms.Bell stated that the surrounding
properties are residential and that the proposed plant would have
a negative impact on future residential development.
9
April 20,1993
ITEM ~B n in e FILE 2-
Mr.Joe Sullivan,of 13302 Meyer Lane,then addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed plant.
Two other individuals in opposition to the proposed treatment
plant,Allen Long and sammie Jones,did not address the
Commission.
Commissioner Oleson then asked if anything can be done about the
clear cutting that has taken place on the property.
Jerry Gardner stated that the Excavation and Clearing Ordinance
does cover this case.There should have been a permit obtained.
The Excavation and Clearing Ordinance reguires that a perimeter
of uncleared trees be left and that erosion concerns be
addressed.
Assistant City Attorney Stephen Giles stated that a violation of
this ordinance is a misdemeanor and is prosecutable in Little
Rock Municipal Court.
Charles Brown then stated that the site had been cleared before
the Shannon Hills Water,Sewer and Fire Protection Improvement
District bought it.
At a request from Commissioner Nicholson,Mr.Lawson used an
aerial photograph of the area to point out the zoning and uses in
this vicinity.
Commissioner McDaniel then stated that he thought this proposal
was a bad land use and that he could not support it.
Further discussion then followed.
Commissioner Nicholson then stated that based on the adjacent
uses,the existing zoning in the vicinity and the inappropriate
nature of this proposed land use,she was making a motion to deny
the application.
A vote was taken on the motion to deny.The vote was 9 ayes,
0 noes,1 absent and 1 abstention (walker).The application was
denied.
10
April 20,1993
ITEM 0 C FILE 0..-2 -1
NAME:Martin Street Right-of-Way
Abandonment
~LOFTI g:Martin Street;south of Asher
Avenue
OWNER APPLI T:Various Owners/James Washington,
representing Word of Outreach
Christian Center,Applicant
R~EtlB T:To abandon all that part of Martin
Street right-of-way lying north of
the north line of Lot 4,Shelby and
Reynold's Subdivision and south of
the south right-of-way line of
Asher Avenue.
~ST FF REVIEW:
l.li f r hi Ri ht-f W
The initial response from other departments indicates no
public need for this portion of right-of-way.There has
been concern voiced that the abandoned right-of-way be
retained as an access easement.
2.Mas er r t Pl n
Review of the Master Street Plan indicates no need for this
portion of right-of-way.
3.Ri h —f-W I es i En ineer Comments
If this right-of-way is abandoned,West 26th Street will
become a dead-end street,ending at the former Martin
Street.It will be necessary for the applicant to construct
a cul-de-sac or hammerhead on West 26th Street to allowtraffictoproperlyenterandexitthisblockofWest26thStreet.
Reconstruct Martin Street at its intersection with Asher
Avenue to driveway standards.
One home on Martin Street will be left with no direct access
to public right-of-way if this abandonment is approved.
4.r ri i of Ri h —f-W Terr in
The right-of-way is currently paved,only a small portion
has curb and gutter.The remainder has dirt shoulders.
April 20,1993
ITEM n inu FILE :-2 -1
5.Dv1 m n i
Once abandoned,this right-of-way will be incorporated into
the Word of Outreach Christian Center which is expanding
south of Asher Avenue.The abandoned right-of-way will be
used as driveway and parking.
6.i hb rh L nd an Eff
Martin Street,south of Asher,is only one block long.
Brown Street located one block east is a through street
extending from Asher Avenue to Roosevelt Road.It appears
that the majority of traffic in the immediate vicinitY uses
Brown Street.
There is one home that uses this right-of-waY.The
applicant is proposing to maintain Martin Street as an
access easement to serve this property.
7.Nei hborho P i i n
No neighborhood position has been voiced as of this writing.
8.n P li rvic r '
The utility companies have voiced support for the proposed
abandonment subject to the area of the right-of-way being
retained as a utility easement.The Little Rock Fire
Department reguires that the abandoned right-of-way be
retained as an access easement.
9.Reversion Ri h
All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property
owners.
10.P li Welf r n I
The abandonment of this portion of right-of-way will allow
Word of Outreach Christian Center to continue to expand
south of Asher Avenue,providing a stabilizing influence on
this neighborhood.
ST F AT I
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the area
of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility and
access easement,the applicant constructing a cul-de-sac or
hammerhead at the end of West 26th Street where it terminates at
2
April 20,1993
ITEM NO n in P E '2 -1
the abandoned Martin Street right-of-way and Martin Street being
reconstructed to driveway standards at its intersection with
Asher Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSIO A TI (MARCH 23,1993)
Joseph Irby was present representing Word of Outreach Christian
Center.There were no objectors present.Dana Carney,of the
Planning staff,informed the Commission that the applicant was
unable to resolve all issues with one of the property owners,and
needed to request a deferral.chairman walker asked Mr.Irby if
he was requesting a deferral,and Mr.Irby responded that he was.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was deferred to the
April 20,1993 Planning Commission meeting.The vote was 9 eyes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
S BDIVI IO OMMITTEE E T:(APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff informed the Committee thatalladjacentpropertyownershavenotyetsignedtheapplication
agreeing to the proposed abandonment.
It was suggested by the Committee that the applicant pull this
application from the agenda until such time as all adjacent
property owners agree,and then bring the item back to the
Planning Commission.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSI N ACTION:(APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,informed the Commission that
the applicant had written requesting that this item be withdrawn.
As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
April 20,1993
ITEM D Z-
Owner:Beverly Dickson
Applicant:Beverly Dickson
Location:6213 and 6223 Lancaster Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to R-5
Purpose:Multifamily
Size:0.69 acres
Existing Use:Single-Family
SURR NDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single-Family,zoned R-2
South —Single-Family,zoned R-2
East —Vacant,zoned R-2
west —Single-Family,zoned R-2
TAFF
The property in question,6213 and 6223 Lancaster,has two
detached single family residences on it,and the owner would
like to convert an accessory dwelling into a dwelling unit.
Because of the two existing houses on the one lot,a
rezoning to R-5 has been requested to allow the third unit.
The conditional use permit process for an accessory dwelling
cannot be used in this situation because the lot already has
two residences,and the ordinance requires that one dwelling
unit must be occupied by the owner.Therefore,a reclassi-
fication is needed to permit the three units,even though
the proposal is for three detached structures and not the
conventional arrangement of attached multifamily units.
Zoning found in the general vicinity of Lancaster and West
65th Street is R-2,R-5,0-3,C-3,C-4,I-2 and OS.ThereisR-5 land on Lancaster,south of the site under
consideration,however,the two lots are occupied by single
family residences.At this time,a majority of the R-5
zoning is along Butler Road where there is a concentration
of multifamily units.The nonresidential zoned properties
are adjacent to West 65th,with the exception of an 0-3
parcel that fronts Lancaster,Land use is similar to the
existing zoning and includes single family,multifamily,a
church and various types of commercial uses.Along
Lancaster,there is a commercial user at West 65th Street
and a nonconforming use,an eating place,north of 6213 and
6223 Lancaster.All of the other lots adjacent to Lancaster
are either single family or vacant.
April 20,1993
ITEM NO D Z-n
The proposed R-5 zoning is in conflict with the adopted
plan,65th Street East,and the staff does not support the
request.The plan's multifamily line is to the south of the
property under consideration and it is our position that the
recommended land use boundary should be maintained.
Approving the R-5 could create additional problems for the
neighborhood,which has already been impacted by some of the
R-5 sites found along Butler Road.Another concern is that
a R-5 reclassification could allow up to 15 units based on
the lot size,30,000 square feet,and the land area per
family requirement in R-5.A large number of units on a
single tract could create a very undesirable living
environment for the property,and spill over into the
neighborhood.
Adding a third dwelling on the site is not unreasonable,
however,staff feels that a R-5 rezoning is not in the best
interest of the neighborhood.Options that could limit the
number of units should be considered such as a PRD or
replatting a tract into two lots,and then the additional
unit could possibly be an accessory dwelling providing thatitmeetsalloftheordinancerequirements,
L E P
The proposed multifamily zoning is to the north of a
designated multifamily area (not adjacent).The plan calls
for single family.The city's actions should not encourage
the intrusion of multifamily into a stable single family
area.Development should be kept to a low density in order
to protect the existing development.
N I EERING C ENT
There are none to be reported.
T R 0 ENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning.
P A TI (MARCH 23,1993)
The applicant,Beverly Dickson,was present.There were two
objectors in attendance.Ms.Dickson spoke and reviewed her
request.She said that all she wanted to do was convert the
accessory structure into a third dwelling unit,and was not
2
April 20,1993
I D 2-
interested in an apartment type development.Ms.Dickson
went on to describe the property and then answered some
questions.
There were some comments made about various issues,
including utilizing the pRD process for the project.
Anne Johnston,representing the Wakefield Neighborhood
ASSOCiation,described the neighborhood and said there were
too many apartments in the area now.Ms.Johnston voiced
her concerns with the density that R-5 allows,and asked the
Commission to avoid rezoning the site to R-5.
Tammy Ashley,a resident of the neighborhood,said that
adding the third unit did not present a problem,but the
real concern was the R-5 request and objected to the
rezoning.
Comments were then offered by various individuals,including
Richard Wood,Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
staff,who discussed replatting the property and street
improvements.
Beverly Dickson spoke again and told the Commission that she
only wants to use the accessory building for a third
dwelling unit.Ms.Dickson said she was not interested in
having a number of units on the property.
After some additional comments,Beverly Dickson agreed to a
deferral of the request.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 20,1993.
The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and
2 absent.
gTTAFF IPDATE:
The applicant has amended to request from R-5 to a PRO for
three (3)dwelling units.The site plan was reviewed with
the Subdivision Committee and no issues were raised.The
following waivers have been requested:
1.Street improvements
2.Paved parking3.Additional filing fees for the PRD4.A second notification of the property owners
Staff supports the PRD and the waivers.
3
April 20,1993
n
P I MMI I TI (APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant,Beverly Dickson,was present.There were no
objectors in attendance.Staff reported that Ms.Dickson
had submitted a letter requesting that her application be
amended to a pRD for three (3)units.Staff also stated
Ms.Dickson was requesting a waiver of street improvements,
additional filing fees and notification of the property
owners for the PRD.Staff informed the Commission that the
necessary site plan was reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee.
Beverly Dickson spoke and verbally amended her request to a
PRD fOr three (3)units.Ms.Dickson made some additional
comments.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the PRD for three
(3)units and the requested waivers.The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
4
April 20,1993
ITEM 1 ILE 4-
SAME:POINT WEST FOURTH ADDITION --PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION:ApproximatelY 2,000 feet south of Kanis Road and
4,500 feet west of Bowman Road„at the south end of Mesquite
Drive
]25VELQPER:~E~IEER:
BOB SANDERS PAT MCGETRICK
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
2722 Military Road 11225 Huron Lane
Benton,AR 72015 Little Rock,AR 72221
847-0799 223-9900
AREA:6.54 AC.ER OF LOTS:25 FT.OF NEW S :835
ZONING:R-2 ~PR P(~ED ~E:Single FamilY Residential
PL DI TRICT:18
~CE 8 TRA T:42.07
VARIAN E RE E TED:None
TAT OF PR POSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 6.54 acre tract adjacent to and south and west of the existing
Point West Subdivision.The plat proposes the development of 25residentiallotsand835linealfeetofnewstreetconstruction.
One street will be the extension to the south of the existing
Mesquite Drive to terminate in a cul-de-sac.The second streetisacovestreetapproximately200linealfeetlongwhichwillalsoterminateinacul-de-sac.This cove street qualifies as a
minor residential street.No variances from the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance are requested.
A.PR P AL RE E T:
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to
contain 25 residential lots with two streets totaling
approximately 835 feet in length.One street,a covestreet,is proposed to be built to minor residential street
standards;the second,the extension of Mesquite Drive from
Point West Third Addition,is proposed to be a standardresidentialstreet.
April 20,1993
SgBDIVI~SI 5
ITEM 0 in e FIL 4-
B.E I TI ITI
The site is currently undeveloped and is covered in natural
vegetation and trees.To the north and east are existing
phases of the Point west Subdivision,to the north being a
phase in which new homes are just now beginning to be
constructed.To the west is undeveloped "R-2"land.To the
south is the flood plain of Panther Branch.
C.E I EERIN UTILITY MME
Public Works Engineering Division comments that sidewalks
are required to be constructed on one side of Mesquite
Drive.They pointed out that the cul-de-sac termination of
Mesquite Drive is too close to the south boundary of the
subdivision,the requirement being that
cul-de-sacs must be no closer to the edge of the subdivision
than 50 feet.Engineering comments that the Storm water
Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable and
that PAGIS monuments will be required.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works relates that water main
extensions will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main
extensions,with easements,will be required.They caution
that the sewer extension will be subject to reimbursement
fees for the Panther Branch Outfall.
Arkansas Power and Light and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
each will require additional easements.Their requirements
are shown on returned drawings.
D,ISSUE LE AL TE HN L DE I
The project engineer,in his cover letter in which
consideration of the project is asked,indicated that a
sidewalk would be constructed on one side of Mesquite Dr.;
that the storm water Detention and Excavation ordinances
would be adhered to;and that PAGIS monuments would be set.
The remaining issue is the proximity of the
cul-de-sac to the subdivision boundary,and this issue needs
to be addressed.
The developer needs to be in contact with wastewater Utility
regarding the Panther Branch Outfall reimbursement fee and
with the utility companies for easement requirements.
2
April 20,1993
ggQDXVI~IH
ITEM NO.:1 C n inu FILE NO.—4-
E.ANALYSIS:
The application presents no unusual situations ordifficulties.No variances from the Ordinance are requested.It is not anticipated that relocating the Mesquite Drive
cul-de-sac further away from the subdivision boundary will
present an insurmountable problem to the subdivision's
design and maximum utilization of the property.
F.TAFF RE MME ATI
The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
subject to the revisions and requirements noted.
SUBDIVISION OMMITTEE MME T:(APRIL 1,1993)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,project engineer,was present at the Committee
meeting.The planning staff presented the item;the EngineeringstaffmembercommentedontheEngineeringcomments.Mr.
McGetrick stated his position that the Ordinance requirements
would be met and that he would be able to move the Mesquite Drive
cul-de-sac further north so that it would meet the minimum
requirements of the Ordinance.The Committee forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING MMI IO A TION:(APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda,and as such was approved in the unanimous eleven-member
approval of the Consent Agenda.
3
April 20,1993
I 2 FILE NO.—7
Point Glen Subdivision --Preliminary Plat
QQCCATI )5:Approximately 1,500 feet south of Kanis Road and
4,500 feet west of Bowman Road,at the west end of westglen Dr.
~DEVEL PEE:E~IE~E
ROD COLEMAN PAT MCGETRICK
ERC PROPERTIES MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
815 Fort St.11225 Huron Ln.
Fort Smith,AR 72923 Little Rock,AR 72221
452-9950 223-9900
AREA:6.26 AC.ER F LOTS:25 FT OF NEW STREE :882
ZONING:R-2 ~PR P ~ED MES:Single family residential
P TRI T:18
HKK~~T:42.07
VARI ES RE UE T :None
STATEMENT F PR P AL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 6.26 acre tract adjacent to and west of the Point West
SuMivision.The plat proposes the development of 25 residential
lots and 882 feet of new street construction.One street will be
the extension to the west of the existing Westglen Drive in POint
West Subdivision;the second,a cul-de-sac street off Westglen
Dr.to the north a distance of 562 feet.The cul-de-sac street
qualifies as a minor residential street.No variances from the
SuMivision Ordinance are requested.
A.PR P AL RE E T
APProval by the Planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to
contain 25 lots along two streets containing 882 feet of new
street construction.One street,the cul-de-sac street,is
proposed to be build to minor residential street standards
without sidewalks;the other,the extension of the existing
Pointglen Drive,is proposed to be a standard residential
street with sidewalks constructed on one side.
April 20,1993
ggBDIVI~IH
ITEM ~2 n i FILE
B.EXI TIN 0 I
The site currently is in its natural state with vegetation
and trees.Point West Subdivision forms the east boundary
of the proposed site.An O-l zoned parcel which faces Eanis
Road is on the north of the proposed development.
Undeveloped R-2 zoned land lie on the south and west.
C.E INEERI G UTILITY MMENTS:
Public Work Engineering Division comments that sidewalks are
required to be constructed on one side of westglen Dr.,but
concur that the cul-de-sac street meets the requirements for
classification as a minor residential street which does not
require a sidewalk.Engineering Division adds that the
Storm Water Detention and the Excavation Ordinance are
applicable and that PAGIS monuments will be required.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a water main
extension will be required to serve the development.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main
extensions,with easements will be required.
Little Rock Fire Department approved the plat as submitted.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.each commented that additional easements are required as
shown on the returned drawings.
D.ISSUES LEGAL TEC I AL DESI
In the project engineer's cover letter in which approval of
the plat was requested,the engineer indicated that a
sidewalk would be constructed on Westglen Dr.and that the
location of PAGIS monuments should be shown.The engineer
also indicated that the Storm Water Detention and the
ExCavation Ordinance would be complied with.The
Engineering staff's requirements,then,were already
addressed.The only remaining issues are the additional
easements which the public utilities have indicated in their
responses.
E .AgAL~YI
This application presents no unusual situations or
difficulties.Only minimal items remain to comply with all
requirements.No variances from Ordinance are requested.
2
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~II g
ITEM 2 n in FILE N '7
F.TAFF RECOMME ATI NS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to
the requirements as outlined.
(APRIL 1,1993)
Mr.pat McGetrick,project engineer,was in attendance to
represent the applicant.The planning Staff presented the item.
Mr.McGetrick expanded on the planned development.After a
review by the Subdivision Committee,the Committee forwarded the
application to the Commission for final disposition.
IITTMF PDATE:
A revised plat was presented by the project engineer addressingallconcernsexpressedbystaffandtheCommitteemembers.No
issues remain and staff recommends approval of this item.
PL I MMI I ACTION:(APRIL 20,1993)
This item was recommended by staff for inclusion on the Consent
Agenda for approval.However,one property owner was present at
the hearing to express concern about the effect of the
development on his property,so the item was placed on the
regular agenda.
Mr.Pat McGetrick,project engineer,and the property owner,
Mr.Terry Buckley,had a brief conversation and then
Mr.McGetrick addressed the Commission.He outlined the scheme
of the proposed development.Mr.Buckley reported that he and
Mr.McGetrick had resolved his concerns.After a brief
discussion with Commission members on the nature of Mr.Buckley'
concerns,it was moved and seconded to approve the item.The
item passed with nine members voting aye,one member absent,and
two members out of the room.
3
April 20,1993
ITEM FILE -717-
KAME:Heatherbrae Subdivision,Phase II,Lots 1-38
Preliminary Plat and Re-plat of Lot 7 and Tract "AN
ML GATI )5:Northwest off Heatherbrae circle,approximately
1,000 feet north of Taylor Loop Road
~DEPEL PER:~EZEEER0
JODI WILSON WILLIAM DEAN
WOODHAVEN DEVELOPMENT CO.CIVIL DESIGN,INC.
8721 Warden Rd.1001 Fair Park Blvd.
Sherwood,AR 72116 Little Rock,AR 72204
835-6258 7666-4418
AREA:13.01 AC.ER F LOTS:38 FT.NEW S REET:2,000 Ft.
~ZI:R-2 PROP ED USES:Single-family residential
P I DI TRI T:1
SENSES TENET:40.06
VARIANCE RE E TED:None
TATEME T F PR P AL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 13.01 acre tract as a Phase II development north and west of
the existing Heatherbrae SuMivision.Also proposed is the
replatting of two parcels in the original Heatherbrae Subdivision
to provide an access point to the Phase II development and the
construction of the street into the area from the existing
subdivision.Phase II is proposed to have 38 lots and 2,000 feet
of new street construction.It is proposed that one street
traverse the length of the property with four "courts"off thisstreet.Replatting of the two tracts in the existing subdivisionisnecessitatedbytheneedtoconstructthenewstreetthrough
the existing Tract NAN.The new Tracts NA-1N and NA-2N are
proposed to be left undeveloped and designated as NOpen Space".
A.PROP AL RE UE T:
Approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning CommissionisrequestedforthedevelopmentofasuMivisiontocontain
38 lots along 2,000 feet of new streets and the re-platting
of two tracts in the existing Heatherbrae SuMivision to
allow access to the new Phase II suMivision.A sidewalk is
April 20,1993
K/RDXZXRZQH
ITEM N n in ed FILE NO
proposed to be constructed along the one street which is to
run the length of the development;no sidewalks are proposed
for the four "courts"/cul-de-sac streets.
B.EXI TI ITI
The site is currently undeveloped pasture land and wooded
acreage and is zoned R-2.The existing Heatherbrae
Subdivision is at the south-east corner of the proposed
Phase II development.To the east is property owned by the
City of Little Rock and is intended as a future City park.
To the south and west is rural residential land zoned R-2.
To the north is the Good Earth Center in a "AF"(Agriculture
and Farming)zone and undeveloped "R-2"land.
C.ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENT
Public works Engineering comments that sidewalks are
required along one side of Glen Valley Dr.,the street which
is to traverse the length of the subdivision;that the width
of the right-of-way and streets is required to be shown on
the plat;that the locations of PAGIS monuments are to be
shown;and that the Storm Water Detention and the Excavation
Ordinances are applicable to this development.
Engineering's review indicates that the reverse curves and
the 90 degree turn in the street at the access from
Heatherbrae Circle are unacceptable and that re-design of
this portion of the street is required.It was noted that
the property to the east of the Phase II development,and
north of the existing Heatherbrae Subdivision,is City-owned
property which is designated as a future park site.Access
to this future park should be provided.
Little Rock water Works relates that a water main extensionisrequired.Also,water works comments that there is an
existing 8"main crossing the south-east corner of the
property which needs to be either abandoned or incorporated
into the water system of the project;that if it is
incorporated into the system,an easement is required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer
extensions with easements are required.Further,they
comment,that Wastewater Utility needs to be contacted for
allowable connection points and for main sizing.
The Little Rock Fire Department approved the plat as
submitted.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.each commented that additional easements would be
required as shown on the returned drawings.
2
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~I I g
ITEM n in FILE -717—
D.I LE AL TE I
Pursuant to the Engineering comments,redesign of the street
to eliminate the reverse curves and the 90 degree turn are
required at the entrance to the addition.The drawings are
to be revised to show the width of the right-of-way and the
width of the proposed streets.The sidewalk is to be shown
along East Glen Dr.Provide access to the future park.
Since "Tract A-1"is almost totally encumbered by an ARXLA
Gas utility easement,and the tract is indicated by the
developer as "open space",providing an access easement to
the park property at this tract should seem appropriate.
Revise the plat to show the easements required by the
private utilities and by Little Rock Water works.
E.ANALYSIS:
There are no unusual circumstances or problems associated
with this development.It is not anticipated that the
requirements by Engineering will involve insurmountable
problems.
F.T F RECOMMENDATIO
The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat,
subject to meeting the requirements cited,
BDIVI I 0 ITTEE MME T APRIL 1,1993)
Neither the developer nor the project engineer were present at
the Subdivision Committee meeting.Mr.Pat McGetrick,who was
present on other matters,indicated that he would deliver any
comments of the committee to the project engineer.The planningstaffpresentedtheitem,and the Engineering Staff discussed the
engineering observations and requirements.It was observed that
Tract "A-1",since it is made unusable by the ARKLA easement,
would make an ideal location for an access easement to the park
land to the north.The Committee recommended that this tract be
set aside for this purpose.After this discussion,the Committee
recommended that the item be forwarded to the Commission for
final disposition,subject to the requirements noted.
PL I MMI I A TI (APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda,and as such was approved in the unanimous eleven-member
approval of the Consent Agenda.
3
April 20,1993
ITEM 4 F E -7 7-A
K458:CHARLESTON HEIGHTS --PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION:Approximately 700 feet south of Taylor Loop Road off
Affolter Lane
~DEVEL PEE:~EE PEEVE:
MR.BILL HASTINGS MR.JOE WHITE
RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORSE,INC.WHITE-DATERS a ASSOC.,INC.
1501 N.University 401 victory Street
Little Rock,AR 72217 Little Rock,AR 72201
664-7807 374-1666
AREA:43.04 ACRES BER OF LOTS:95 FT EW TREET:6,557 ft.
ZONING:R-2 PROPO ED USES:Single-family Residential
PL I DI TRI T:1
Q~N gg TK%QX:42.06
VARIANCES RE E TED:
1)Allowance of 10+grades at various intersections;and
2)Exemption from sidewalk requirement on various streets.
STATEMENT OF PROP AL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 42.07 acre tract to contain 95 residential lots and new streets
with a total length of 6,557 feet.Access is proposed to be
prohibited to the lots bordering the street shown as Chenal
Valley Loop,necessitating two 100 foot deep "courts"and private
drives for rear entry to four lots.Variances from Subdivision
Ordinance requirements are proposed involving minimum street
grades at various intersections and sidewalk requirements on
various standard residential streets and on the street shown as
Chenal Valley Loop.
A.PR P AL RE E T:
Approval of the planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to
contain 95 lots.Streets qualifying as minor residentialstreetsareproposedtobebuiltwithoutsidewalks.
Variances from the sidewalk requirement are proposed for
standard residential streets as shown on the plat,as is the
requirement for sidewalks on both sides of Chenal valley
April 20,1993
~BDZVIBZO
ITEM .4 in FILE NO S-7-A
Loop.Chenal Valley Loop within this subdivision is proposed
to be a collector street with a 48 foot street in an 80 foot
right-of-way.Access to the site is proposed to be by way
of Wesley Drive in Deer Park SuMivision until Chenal Valley
Loop is extended to intersect with Taylor Loop Road.
Approval of the Board of Directors is requested for the
variances.
B.TI NDITI
The site is presently undeveloped land,with natural
vegetation and trees.To the north is Deer Park SuMivision
which is zoned R-2.To the east is the "24-hour Club"which
is located in an R-2 zone.The land to the west and south
is undeveloped R-2 acreage.
C.ENGINEERI TILITY COMMENTS:
Public Work Engineering Division reports that,according to
the Master Street Plan,the street shown as Chenal Valley
Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street with a 60
foot street in a 90 foot right-of-way.The DivieiOn also
dislikes the "Chenal Valley Loop"name,indicating that the
repetition of the Chenal Valley name is confusing.Since
Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial
street,Engineering maintains that access to this street
should be limited;that one intersection of the loop street
shown as Charleston Lane should be eliminated and this
street should be terminated in a cul-de-sac;that the two
"courts"should he eliminated and access to the lots should
be gained from a rear-entry private drive.Engineering
observed that by shifting Chenal Valley Loop further west,
the cul-de-sac on Charleston Lane could be accomplished and
lots on the west side of Chenal Valley Loop would be single-
depth lots which would be amenable to the rear-entry scheme.
Engineering commented that Chenal Valley Loop needs
sidewalks on both sides per the requirements for the minor
arterial street designation.Engineering noted that the
east-west streets shown as Forest Dale Dr.and Pilot Lane,
with the section of Wesley Drive which connects these two
streets,should be built to collector standards with
sidewalks as required by the ordinance.Engineering
observed that the Stormwater Detention and Excavation
Ordinances are applicable and that PAGIS monuments are
required.
Little Rock Water Works responded that water main extensions
would be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reported that there is an
existing sewer outfall located on the property.Sewer main
extensions,with easements,will be required.
2
April 20,1993
SgBD~IVI'~IH
ITEM .~4 n in PILE .-7 7-A
The Pire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Both Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co.noted that additional easements are reguired,
and returned drawings showing their reguirements.
D.I E LE TE H I AL DE IG
Streets which meet the criteria to be designated as Minor
Residential Streets are permitted to have grades of 16+.
Standard residential streets may have up to 15+.However,
there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section
31-206,Intersections and Alignment,Paragraph D)which
states that "in approaching intersections,the leveling area
shall have a grade not exceeding 5%from a distance of not
less than 30 feet measured from the nearest curb".The
variance reguest is for permission for 10%grades at four
intersections.
The developer has also shown sidewalks on one side only of
Chenal Valley Loop,Pilot Lane,Forest Dale Drive,and a
segment of Wesley Drive.A variance is reguested from the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks on
other standard residential streets,as well as on both sides
of the collector street.
As noted in the Engineering comments above,significant
redesign of the subdivision is recommended.
E.~ALY'~I
This site presents somewhat difficult problems involving lot
and street layouts and access.Ninety-five lots are
anticipated.Por the time being,until Chenal Valley Loop
is extended to Taylor Loop Road,the only access to the
development is by way of Wesley Drive,a standard
residential street,from Deer Park Subdivision.If Chenal
Valley Loop is to be part of a minor arterial system,design
of the lots and access to this roadway should be carefully
thought out.Forest Dale Dr.is shown extending to the west
edge of the subdivision for future extension into the
property to the west.Additional lots developed to the west
could add significant traffic on this and other streets in
Charleston Heights.
F.TAPF RE MM ATI
It is recommended that standard residential streets be
required to have the sidewalks constructed as reguired by
the Ordinance.Mobile Court,from Wesley Drive south to the
cul-de-sac,Ridgefield Court,the two courts off Chenal
3
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~II g
ITEM 4 F E -7 7-A
Valley Loop (if these remain),and Charleston Lane may be
built to minor residential street standards.Forest Dale
Drive,Wesley Drive,Pilot Lane,and Mobile Court from
Wesley Drive to Forest Dale Dr.should be constructed to
standard residential street standards.Pursuant to
Engineering Division's comments,Forest Dale Dr.-Wesley
Drive-Pilot Lane traffic design should be shown to collector
standards.Eliminating the two courts off Chenal Valley
Loop and re-configuring Charleston Lane as a cul-de-sac
street should be considered.The variance to allow 10'4
grades at the leveling area of intersections should be
discouraged.Approval of the basic concept of the
subdivision,though,is recommended.
SUBDIVI I MMIT E C MME T:
Mr.Joe White,project engineer,and Mr.Bill Hastings with RPM
were present.Planning Staff presented the item;Engineering
elaborated on their comments.Mr.White reacted that he
vehemently disagreed with the Engineering comments:he felt that
Chenal Valley Loop should not be required to be built to minorarterialstandards,that the engineering comments regarding thesitelayoutweretotallywithoutmerit;and that the requirement
to build two of the streets and a portion of a third to collector
standards were not acceptable.Mr.White responded that,since
there was no hurry in bringing this item to the Commission,he
would prefer to defer the item at this time to allow him time to
reconsider the observations cited.Staff indicated that a
meeting could be set up in a matter of days with the engineering
personnel and planning staff and the developer/engineer to review
the comments and requirements,and that an attempt would be made
by the City to reach an agreement with the developer/engineer
which would allow the subdivision to proceed to the Commission.
Mr.White and Mr.Hastings agreed to trying to reconcile thedifferencesatsuchameeting.
~TAF PDATE:
A letter,dated April 15,1993,from Mr.Joe White was received
by staff,in which the developer requested deferral of this itemuntiltheJune1,1993 hearing date.Staff recommends approvalofthisrequest.
PL I MMI I ACT (APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda for deferral,and as such was approved in the unanimous
eleven-member approval of the Consent Agenda.
4
April 20,1993
ITEM FILE .'-B
HAMEd Hinson Manor Office park,Lots 2 and 3 --PreliminarY Plat
~LD ARID:12 201 5'o 0
DE~LtEPER 0 ~EI
E'ER:
STEVE BONDS JOE WHITE
THE HATHAWAY GROUP WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
3600 Cantrell Road,¹301 401 VictorY
Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
663-5400 374-1666
AREA:4.2939 Acres NUMBER F LOT :2 FT.NEW TREET:0
ZONING:0-2 PR PO ED U ES:Nursing Home and Office Building
PLANNING DI TRI T:2
SEESDS PRIICP:22.05
VARIANCES R TED:None
STAT T F PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
a 4.29 acre tract to contain two EO-2E lots.One of the lots is
proposed to front on Hinson Road;the other (rear)lot is
proposed to have its access from the adjoining lot in the
Pleasant Valley Living Center property to the east.Lot 3 of the
subdivision is proposed to be sold to and joined to the Pleasant
Valley Living Center property once the suMivision is approved.
Lot 2 is proposed to be developed as church offices and church
classrooms for Fellowship Bible Church.No variances from
applicable ordinances are requested.
A.PR P SAL RE E T:
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a
preliminary plat for the development of a suMivision to
contain two lots in an 0-2 zone for future development of
0-2 uses.
B.TI G ITIO
Lot 2,the front lot facing Hinson Road,has been cleared.
The two residential structures which stood on this property
have been razed.Lot 3,at the rear of the property,is
presently undeveloped,wooded,and contains natural
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~QH
ITEM N n i FILE —0-B
vegetation.To the west is the new Public Library and
professional offices.To the south is a residential area.
To the east are professional offices and the existing
nursing home facility to which Lot 3 is planned to be
joined.Across Hinson Road to the north is the golf course
and residential areas.
C.E I ERI TILITY T
Public Works Engineering Division observed that Lot 3,the
rear lot,is land-locked,with no public access provided.
The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinance are
applicable,as is the requirement to show PAGIS monuments.
The Fire Department approved the plat as submitted.
Little Rock Water Works Utility comments that there is a
water main in place to the east and that on-site fire
protection will be required.
Little Rock wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main
extension,with easements,will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co.and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.will require additional easements,and returned a copy
of the plat with their requirements noted.
D ISSUES LEGAL TECH I ALLY DE I
The matter of creating a land-locked lot must be addressed.
Creating this condition is prohibited.Public right-of-way
must be provided to each lot in a subdivision.
E.AQALY~I
To address the issue of the creation of a land-locked lot,
one of three options is possible:provide a right-of-way to
this rear lot;alternatively,the subdivision might be
platted as one lot at the outset,then,in a subsequent
action,the rear portion could be separated and platted as
part of the nursing home property when there is a
contractual basis for joining the two parcels;or,third,
plat the Pleasant Valley Living Center property as a part of
this subdivision.
F.TAFF RE MMENDATI N
Staff recommends denial of the request until the matter of
the land-locked lot is addressed satisfactorily.
2
April 20,1993
gggg~VI EP&~IN
ITEM i d ILE —-B
BDI ION C MMITTEE MME T:
Staff presented the item.Mr.Steve Bonds,the developer,and
Mr.Joe White,project engineer,were present to respond to the
comments presented.There was discussion as to whether Lot 1,on
which the Public Library now sits,need be shown on this currentplat.Mr.White indicated that he could remove Lot 1 and show
the Pleasant Valley Living Center property on the Hinson Manor
Office park plat.He reported that the option of platting the
nursing home with this current plat,thus providing the access to
the rear of the property by way of the right of way to the
nursing home,was the way he planned to pursue the objections to
the plat as submitted,He indicated that he would present an
amended plat to staff within the following week.The Committee
agreed with the solution proposed,and agreed to forward the plattotheCommissionforapprovaliftheobjectionswere
appropriately dealt with.
~STAFF P TE:
In response to the objections cited above,the developer
presented a revised plat showing a one-lot "Hinson Manor Office
Park"subdivision of the front two-acres of the tract,and a
revised "pleasant Valley Living Center Addition"to include the
rear tract of the former plat of Hinson Manor Office Park plus
the adjoining existing Pleasant Valley Living Center tract.Staff objected to this proposed plat,since it crated two
subdivisions on one plat.In response,a letter was received
from the agent for the owner of the tracts which were to have
been Hinson Manor Office Park indicating their approval of theentiretracttobeincludedinandknownasPleasantValley
Living Center Addition.Staff recommends approval of thissolution.
PL I NATI N:(APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda for approval with the condition noted above,and as such
was approved in the unanimous eleven-member approval of the
Consent Agenda.
3
April 20,1993
I LE Z-4 -A
NAME:Fellowship Bible church offices and classroom Building
Site Plan Review
~L ~ATI N:12,201 Hinson Road
~DERED PER:E T E I EER:
JOHN A.REES LEWIS,ELLIOTT &STUDER
REES DEVELOPMENT CO.11225 Huron Ln.,Suite 104
12115 Hinson Rd.I ittle Rock,AR 72211LittleRock,AR 72212
223-2228 AND
JOE WHITE
WHITE-DATERS &ASSOC.,INC.
401 victoryLittleRock,AR 72201
374-1666
AREA:2 Acres ER F L T :1 FT W TREET:None
~ZING:0-2 ~PR P ED llDES:Church Offices and Classrooms
PL I DI TRI T:2
~EK'PE~TEA T:22.05
VARI E R E E :None
TATE NT OF ROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to develop a 2-acre site for office space
and adult teaching classrooms for Fellowship Bible Church.The
building is proposed to be a two-story masonry facility with
14,000 square feet per floor,or 28,000 square feet total.Thesiteistoincludeparkingfor113vehicles.
A.PR P AL RE E T:
The review and approval by the Planning Commission of thesiteplanisrequestedforthedevelopmentofthetwo-acresiteforchurchofficesandadultclassrooms.Proposed is asitetoincludeatwo-story,28,000 square foot building and
parking for 113 vehicles.
April 20,1993
ggBB IV~II g
ITEM 0 :6 ntin ed F E '-4 -A
B.EXI TI DITI
The site is presently vacant,with the foundations remains
of two houses which until recently occupied a portion of the
front of the property.The remainder of the front of the
property and the rear portion of the lot are undeveloped,
with natural vegetation and trees.
C.E I EERI TILITY MMENT
Public Works Engineering Division comments that the Storm
Water Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable
in the development of this site.
Little Rock Water Works points out that a fire hydrant may
be needed on Hinson Road near the north-east corner of the
property.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is
available to the site.
The Fire Department approved the site plan as presented.
Arkansas Power and Light and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
each need additional easements,as shown on the returned
site plant from these utilities.
D.I E LE AL TE H I AL DESI N:
The Site Plan and Survey submitted to date have only sketchy
information provided and are incomplete.The Site Locator
Map has been omitted,causing Waste Water Utility to comment
that they were unable to identify with certainty the site in
question.The landscaping plan has not been furnished.The
survey has not included the ownership statement required.
Miscellaneous additional data required for submission of
plans for Site Plan review has not been furnished.
Completed documents are required.
Notification of adjoining property owners,and furnishing
proof of notification,is required.
This lot is part of the Hinson Manor Office Park Preliminary
Plat under consideration by the Commission at this hearing.
The creation of the lot on which the Fellowship Bible Churchfacilityistobesituatediscreatingaland-locked lot to
the rear of the facility.A solution to creating this
untenable condition involving the rear lot is necessary.
2
April 20,1993
KlBDIVZRZQH
ITEM N Con in FILE N Z-4 0-A
E ~hHhhXSMI
Assuming that the problem of the creation of the land-locked
lot behind the property allotted for the Fellowship Bible
Church development,there do not appear to be insurmountable
problems remaining which cannot be successfully addressed.
The site development plan which has been submitted,although
incomplete,has received factorable comments from staff and
the utility personnel.Completed and comprehensive
documents are required.
F.STAFF RE MME ATI
Staff recommends approval of the site plan,subject to
receipt of completed documents to include a properly
completed site plan,survey,landscaping plan,etc.,and an
agreeable solution to the problem of the land-locked rearlot.
SUBDIVI ION OMMITTEE MME T:
Staff presented the item,and,after a brief discussion to
identify the site location to Committee members and an overview
of the site layout,the Committee recommended that the site plan
be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final disposition,
subject to the requirements of the staff recommendation.
BTTAFF PDATE:
This item is contingent on approval of and establishing of the
subdivision proposed as "Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition",
originally proposed at "Hinson Manor Office Park".Staff
recommends approval of this item.
P I ISSION AC I (APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda for approval with the condition cited,and as such was
approved in the unanimous eleven-member approval of the Consent
Agenda.
3
April 20,1993
TEM N 7 FILE :Z-6 9-E
KAME:Arkansas Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Clinic --Site
Plan Review
~L ~ATI 5;¹21 Corporate Hill Drive
MDZFJaQRRR:AR HIT E INEER:
RON TABOR J'AMES R.WILLIAMS
FLAKE,TABOR,TUCKER,WELLS TOWNLEY WILLIAMS ARCHITECT,InC.
AND KELLEY ¹18 Corporate Hill Dr.
P.O.Box 990 Little Rock,AR 72205
Little Rock,AR 72203 224-1900
376-8005
AND
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron LaneLittleRock,AR 72221
223-9900
A~R :2.21 ACres NUMBER F LOT :1 FT.NEW TREET:None
ZONING:0-2 PROPO ED E :Medical Clinic and Offices
P IN DISTR T:2
~CENSU TIIACT:22 05
VARIANCES E VESTED:None
F PR P AL:
The applicant proposes the development of a 2.21 acre tract to
include a 9,643 square foot building and parking for 96 vehicles.
There are areas designated for future expansion of the facility.
A.PR P AL RE T:
Review and approval of the Site Plan by the planning
Commission is requested for a development of a new facility
for Arkansas Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Clinic.Thesiteistoincludedevelopmentofabuildingwith9,643
square feet and parking for 96 vehicles.
April 20,1993
ggBDIV~I I 5
ITEM N .7 n 'd F LE N .:Z —-E
B,EXISTI 0 IT
The site is presently undeveloped and wooded.To the rear of
the property,between the property and Interstate Highway
630,is City-owned property designated as "Open Space".
C.E INEERIN MMENT
Public Works Engineering DivieiOn commenta that one parking
space,at the far north-west corner of the parking area and
within the neck of the access drive,is unacceptable.It
should either be eliminated or the head-in parking along the
north-west portion of the lot should be moved further east.
The engineering staff observed that access to the City-owned
"open space"at the rear of the property should be provided,
and recommend that a 20 foot access easement be provided
along the west property line of the development to be left
in its natural state.Engineering reminds the developer
that the Storm Water Detention and Excavation Ordinances are
applicable.
Little Rock Water Works observed that the existing easement
for water the water main should be designated as a water
easement.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reported that sewer is
available to the site with no adverse effects.
The Fire Department approved the Site Plan without comment.
Arkansas Power and Light and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
both approved the site plan as submitted.
D.ISSUES LE AL TE HNICAL DESIGN:
The site plan submitted fails to show the quantitative data
required:building area,lot size,and building coverage of
the lot.The Site Plan/Survey fail to include information
as to ownership of the property.
A notation on the Site Plan indicates the "approximate"
location of the flood plain as being on the property and
very near the building.A definitive determination of the
flood plain limits is required.
Access to the "open space"is desirable.
Notification of adjacent property owners,and furnishing of
proof of notification,is required.
2
April 20,1993
ggBD IV~II
ITEM 'n in d FILE Z-
E.A~HI!LYSI
Staff review and utility personnel comments reflect apositivereviewoftheproposeddevelopment.Only minordeficienciesandrequirementsremain.
F.TAFF RE MME A I
Staff recommends approval,subject to the requirementsnoted:providing an access easement to the "open space",
removing or relocating one parking space,etc.
SUBDIVI I COMMITTEE MME
Staff presented this item.Mr.Pat McGetrick,project engineer,
was present to receive staff comments and to discuss the proposed
development.The staff recommendation to provide an access
easement on the part of the developer to the "open space"wasdiscussed,as was the recommendation that the one parking spacebeeliminatedorrelocated.Mr.McGetrick indicated that he
would deliver these comments to the architect and developer.
With this discussion,the Committee recommended that the siteplanbereferredtotheCommissionforfinaldisposition,subjecttotherequirementsnoted.
STAFF UPDATE:
A revised site plan was presented by the project engineer withallconcernsaddressed.Parks Department reported to staff thattherewasnodesireontheirparttopursueanaccesseasementonthewestpropertylineasoriginallysuggested.No issues remainunresolved.
P IN OMMI I A TI (APRIL 20,1993)
This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent
Agenda for approval,and as such was approved in the unanimouseleven-member approval of the Consent Agenda.
3
April 20,1993
TEM N FILE Z-4 24-B
gAME:Grace Community Church—
Conditional Use Permit
~LO ATIQg:Highway 10 at Sam Peck Road
(north side)
APPLI T:Resolution Trust Corporation/Grace
Community Church
~POPO AL:The applicant is re&Zuesting a
conditional use permit to allow for
the phased construction of a church
and related facilities on 15 acres
of this MF-12 zoned,22 acre site.
At a later date,the applicant will
come back to the Commission with a
request to rezone and replat the
remaining 7 acres.
RD N E DE I T ARDS:
tion
This site is located on the north side of Highway 10 at itsintersectionwithSamPeckRoad.
2.om ibili wi h i hborh
The site is located on a principal arterial in a
neighborhood of mixed,transitional type zoning.
Last year,the Planning Commission approved conditional use
permits to allow two churches to be located approximately
700 feet east of this site,one on the north side of Highway10andoneonthesouthside.
Directly west and north of this site is River Mountain Park,
which provides a substantial buffer for the residentialpropertiesinthevicinity.
South of Highway 10 is a large multifamily development and
two large athletic clubs/associations.
The proposed use of this property as a church,withattentiongiventobufferingtheresidentiallyzonedpropertytotheeast,appears to be compatible with the
neighborhood and staff is supportive of the proposal.
April 20,1993
KLUDIK~H
TEM C ntinu d FILE Z-4 24-B
3 ~n-i P rki
The applicant is proposing a substantial parking area which
will be built in phases to coincide with the development of
the church.The final seating capacity of the sanctuary
will be 1,500,requiring 375 parking spaces.The completed
parking lot will have 674+spaces,exceeding the ordinance
requirement.
4.creenin an Buff r
Compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinances
and the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance is required.The
applicant is proposing to retain a large wooded area along
the north perimeter and in the northeast corner of the site.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
Eliminate the two driveways on the west and east and provide
one common access in the approximate center for church and
office subdivision.Construct sidewalk along Highway 10.
Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply.
6.'
mm n
Little Rock Municipal Water Works states "a pro rata front
footage charge of $15/front foot applies.On-site fire
protection will be required.A main extension may be
required to serve outlots,unless the property has frontage
on the 16 inch main on the west.It also has a $15/front
foot pro rata front footage charge."
Little Rock Wastewater Utilities states "sewer main
extension required with easements.Sewer must be extended
to each separate parcel of land."
Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along
the west,north and a portion of the east perimeter.
7.A~nl ~i
The issue before the Planning Commission is a conditional
use permit requested to allow for the development of a
church on 15 acres of a 22 acre,MF-12 zoned site.
The applicant will be filing an application to subdivide thesiteandrezonetheremaining7acresatalaterdate.Any
endorsement of this conditional use permit application is
not an endorsement of the replatting or rezoning.
2
April 20,1993
QQBD IV~IQ5
TEM Cnin P Z-4 24-B
The use of this property as a church is compatible with the
other uses in the immediate vicinity and with adherence to
the Highway 10 Overlay standards and resolution of the
various concerns noted above,staff is supportive of the
proposal.
8.taff Re mmendati n
Staff recommends approval of this application,subject to
compliance with City Engineer comments,Utility comments,
landscape and buffer ordinances and Highway 10 Overlay
Ordinance.
SUBDIVISI MMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and
outlined comments submitted by the City Engineer and the utility
companies.Other unresolved items of concern noted by staff are
as follows:
1.Property has not been replatted.An application for
replatting has been filed,but will not be heard until
June 1,1993.
2.Submit a lighting plan for the parking lot and drives.
3.Submit,in writing,a detailed outline of the proposed
phasing plan of the development and tie it to the phasing of
the parking.
4.The east/west drive paralleling Highway 10 intrudes into the
required 40 foot front buffer.
5.The north/south drives and future parking lot intrude into
the required 25 foot buffers.
6.All required landscape areas must have a water sprinkler
system.
7.Screening is required along perimeters adjacent toresidentiallyzonedproperties.
A discussion then followed concerning the City Engineer's
requirement that the entire site be limited to one access on
Highway 10.It was determined that the conditional use permit
could be reviewed by the Planning Commission and that the
question of access to Highway 10 could be resolved at the time
the application to replat the property is reviewed.
3
April 20,1993
XlBDZVZSZQN
ITEM n inu FILE .:Z-4 24-B
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNIN COMMI SI N TI N:(APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant,Olan Asbury,was present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,informed the Commission that
the applicant was requesting a deferral to the June 1,1993
Planning Commission meeting,but had not submitted the request,
in writing,five days prior to this day's meeting.
Chairman Walker asked if there was any one present in opposition.
There were none.
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 1,1993 Planning Commission meeting.The
vote to defer was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
April 20,1993
ITEM 0 FILE N Z--A
SAME:Simmons Beauty Shop —Conditional
Vse Permit
~AOCAPI 2301 Gaines Street
R APPLI ANT:Betty A.Simmons
~PROPO AA:The applicant proposes to convert
this vacant,0-3 zoned structure
into a beauty shop with five
operator stations.Ms.Simmons is
requesting a waiver of the on-site
parking requirement and $125.00
filing fee.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARD
1.~Si e L~oc '
This property is located at the southeast corner of West
23rd Street and Gaines Street.
2.i ili wi h i hborhood
This property is adjacent to a large commercial node with a
variety of retail,commercial uses.
The block on which this property sits forms an 0-3 buffer
between that commercial node and the large residential
neighborhood extending to the north and west.The
residential property directly west of this site is zoned
R-5 Vrban Residence District.
A beauty shop,with no more than five operator stations is a
commercial operation of minor intensity and should not
effect the integrity of that 0-3 buffer protecting the
residential neighborhood.
Staff feels that this proposed beauty shop is an appropriate
use of this 0-3 zoned property.
3.n-i e Dr'rkin
The structure in question is 1,200 square feet in area.A
1,200 square foot beauty shop requires six on-site parking
spaces.The applicant is requesting a waiver of required
on-site parking and is proposing on-street parking.
Ms.Simmons has an agreement with the owner of a parkinglot,located one-half block east of this site,which would
allow her to utilize some of that parking lot'8 spaces.
April 20,1993
BUBBZZRXQH
ITEM N n inu d FI E '-56 1-A
4.'n ff r
There are no screening and buffer requirements.
5.''n
Provide on-site parking.
6.ili Comments
No negative utility comments received as of this writing.
7.~An i~i
This issue was before the Planning Commission at its
March 9,1993 meeting.At that meeting,several
neighborhood residents voiced concerns about the lack of
on-site parking,and the proposed beauty shop's possible
impact on the neighborhood.The item was subsequently
withdrawn.
Ms.Simmons has made an effort to address the lack of
on-site parking by obtaining an agreement with the owner of
a nearby parking lot,which will allow her to utilize some
of the parking lot's spaces.Staff would recommend that the
employees of the proposed beauty shop be required to utilize
the parking lot,thus reducing the amount of on-street
parking.
Ms.Simmons currently operates a beauty shop at 605 West
23rd Street,almost directly across the street from thissite.She has seven operators and no on-site parking.
By reducing the number of operators to five and by requiring
the employees to utilize the nearby parking lot,staff feels
this proposed new location will have less of an impact on
the neighborhood than Ms.Simmons'urrent location.
There are nine structures located in the 2300 Block of
Gaines Street.Eight of those nine structures,including
2301 Qaines,are currently condemned by the City.As
recently as April 5,1993,one of the condemned,vacant
structures was vandalized and set on fire.Allowing the use
of this property for a beauty shop may provide somestabilityintheblock.
8.ff R mm n i n
Staff recommends approval of this application for a beauty
shop with five operator stations,subject to the employees
parking on the parking lot located one-half block east of
this site.
2
April 20,1993
gUBDIV~I I g
ITEM ont in FILE N Z-1-A
UBDIV I ITTEE 0 T:(APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant,BettY Simmons,was present.Staff presented the
item and informed the Committee that Ms.Simmons was requesting a
waiver of the required on-site parking and a waiver of the
$125.00 filing fee.
Ms.Simmons addressed the Committee and stated that she had an
agreement whereby her employees can use a parking lot located
one-half block east of the proposed beauty shop.
Commissioner Woods stated that he had been by the site and
observed that most of the structures in the 2300 Block of Gaines
Street appeared to be vacant.He further stated that
Ms.Simmons'urrent location is across West 23rd Street and she
has no on-site parking now.Commissioner Woods told the
Committee that he did not feel that this proposed use would
create any parking problems for the neighborhood and was an
attempt to use one of the vacant structures in the neighborhood,
many of which are in an unsafe condition.
Ms.Simmons stated that she had visited with some of the
neighborhood residents in an attempt to inform them of her plans.
A brief discussion followed,after which the Committee then
forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTI (APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant,Betty Simmons,was present.There was one
objector present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and astaffrecommendationofapproval.Mr.Carney informed the
Commission that letters in opposition to the proposed beauty shop
had been sent to staff from John Jarrard and Theodore Holder.He
further informed the Commission that Kathy Wells,of the Downtown
Neighborhood Association,had written indicating that there may
be some interest in residential use of properties in this block,
and asking that this application be denied.
Ms.Simmons then addressed the Commission.She stated that her
business had been located across the street from this location
for 13 years and that her moving to 2301 Gaines Street would not
have a negative impact on the neighborhood.She further stated
that she was reducing the number of employees from seven to five
and was providing off-street parking for these employees at a
nearby parking lot.
3
April 20,1993
ggBDIVI~I
ITEM C ntin FILE NO.2-
Commissioner woods stated that he had been by the site and
observed that most of the structures in the 2300 Block of Gaines
Street appeared to be vacant.He further stated that he did not
feel that this proposed use would create any parking problems for
the neighborhood.Commissioner woods stated that Ms.
Simmons'urrentlocationisdirectlyacrossWest23rdStreetand she has
no on-site parking now.He stated that he felt this proposed use
was an attempt to use one of the vacant structures in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Willis asked Ms,Simmons if she would be willing to
have the entrance on West 23rd Street rather than facing Gaines
Street.Ms.Simmons stated that she would agree to having a
23rd Street entrance and no entrance on Gaines Street.
Beverly Hood Jones,of 2222 Gaines Street,then addressed the
Commission in opposition to the proposed beauty shop.She stated
that other condemned structures in this area of downtown had been
restored as residential dwellings.She further stated that
parking would be a problem and that it already is a problem in
this area.Ms.Jones completed her statement by saying that
allowing this use would harm residential revitalization efforts
for this block.
Further discussion then followed between Ms.Jones and
Commissioner Woods.
Commissioner Nicholson stated that she is a resident of the
neighborhood and believes that this area needs to go residential
in order to provide stability.
Commissioner VonTungeln stated that there will always be problems
like this,as long as this area is zoned 0-3 and perhaps the City
should look at downzoning the area.
Further discussion then followed concerning Ms.
Simmons'nvestmentintheneighborhoodasabusinessowner rather than a
resident.
Commissioner Putnam stated that Ms.Simmons had been in the
neighborhood for 13 years.He further stated that she was going
from being a renter to being a property owner,and property
owners have an investment in the neighborhood.
Commissioner McDaniel then voiced his approval of the
application,
Ms.Jones told the Commission that Ms.Simmons should relocate to
a commercially zoned site in the area,perhaps along Arch Street.
4
April 20„1993
ggBDIVI~I g
I n in P E Z-1-A
Further discussion then followed concerning measures that
Ms.Simmons could take to reduce the impact that her business
might have on the nearby residential properties.
Commissioner Willis then made a motion to approve the application
with the following conditions:
1.There is to be no signage on the Gaines Street side of the
building or property.
2.The entrance to the beauty shop is to be on West 23rdStreet.
3.The beauty shop's employees are to park on the nearby
commercial parking lot,as allowed by the agreement which
Ms.Simmons has obtained.
The vote was 8 ayes,2 noes and 1 absent.The application was
approved.
A motion was then made to waive the $125.00 filing fee.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and
1 abstention (Oleson).
5
April 20,1993
ITEM NO.:10 FILE N .:Z-72
NAME:Hughes Manufactured Home
Conditional Use Permit
~LQAATI lg:10,020 Nash Lane
WNER APPLI T:Robert and Debra Hughes
~PROPO RL:The applicants are requesting a
conditional use permit to allow for
the placement of a 28 by 60 foot
doublewide,manufactured home on
this R-2 zoned,6.5 acre site.
The manufactured home is to be kept
on the property for a period not to
exceed 5 years,or until the Hughes
build their permanent,site built
home,at which time the
manufactured home will be removed
from the property.
RDI E DE STANDARD
1.Sit L ion
This property is located on the west side of Nash Lane,
midway between Sibley Hole Road and Mabelvale west Road.
2.C atibili wi h i rh
The immediate neighborhood is primarily single familyresidential,although there are large areas of
nonresidential zoning and uses on the west side of Nash
Lane.
Immediately north of this site is a large church site.
Directly west of and adjacent to this site is a large areaofundeveloped0-3 zoned property and a large I-2 zonedtractwhichisusedasanequipmentstorageyardforCentral
Arkansas Tractor.
The proposed use,basement of a doublewide manufactured home
on a 6.5 acre tract of land is compatible with the
neighborhood.
3.On-i Driv an Parkin
The applicant is proposing to extend the existing drivewayoffofNashLane.
April 20,1993
5~BXZXg ION
TEN NO.:1 Co t'E '-72
4.'
H f r
There are no screening or buffer requirements.
5.i r
Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way along Nash Lane.
6.U ili mmen
No negative utility comments as of this writing.
7.A~1
The Hughes are requesting a conditional use permit to place
a doublewide,manufactured home on this site for a period
not to exceed 5 years,or until they build their permanentsitebuilthome,at which time the manufactured home will be
removed from the property.
The proposed manufactured home will be placed approximately
150 feet off of the street on a 6.5 acre tract of land.
This proposal should not have a negative impact on the
adjacent neighborhood,and staff is supportive of the
application.
8.ff Re omm n ation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City Engineer's Comments and compliance
with ordinance minimum site design standards as follow:
a.A pitched roof of three &3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
&14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.
c.Permanent foundation
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.All homes shall be multisectional,
h.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
2
April 20,1993
SllBDIV~II g
ITEM N :1 n in FI 2-72
UBDIVISION C T C MMENT:(APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant,Robert Hughes,was present.Staff presented the
item and the informed the Committee that the City Engineer's
Comment was the only outstanding issue.
After a brief discussion,Mr.Hughes agreed to dedicate the
needed right-of-way.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
p MMI I A T (APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant,Robert Hughes,was present.There were no
objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and astaffrecommendationofapproval.He informed the Commission
that staff had received two letters from individuals in
opposition to the proposed manufactured home.
Chairman Walker asked if there was any one present in opposition.
There were none.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as perstaffrecommendation.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
April 20,1993
ITEM 11 FILE Z-74
5AME:Kearney Day Care Center—
Conditional Use Permit
li~OATI g:4698 Confederate Blvd.
APPLI T:Julius D.Kearney
~PR ~PEAL:The applicant is proposing to
convert the existing structure on
this R-2 zoned property into a day
care center for 20 children with
two employees.
ORDINANCE DESIGN ST ARD
1.~i~Lg~in
The property is located on the south side of Confederate
Blvd.(Highway 365)approximately 700 feet west of the
southeast city limits line.
2.Co ti ili wi h N i hbor
The uses and zoning in the immediate neighborhood are
varied,ranging from single family homes to heavy industrial
uses.The property fronts onto a minor arterial street.
There are two churches located to the south of this site.
One of the churches owns the large tract directly west of
the proposed day care center.
A barber and beauty shop is adjacent to the east.
The proposed day care center does appear to be compatible
with the neighborhood.
3.n-i Drives n P rkin
A day care center for 20 children with two employees
requires four on-site parking,drop-off/pickup spaces.The
applicant is proposing to utilize the existing,gravel
driveway and two spaces and will add two more gravel,
parking spaces.
4.r nin B f r
The proposed playground area is directly adjacent to the
west property line.It would be appropriate to require a
6 foot screening fence along the west property line adjacent
to the proposed playground area.
April 20,1993
JQBDIV~II g
ITEM .11 n i PILE .:—7
5.i En in r omm n
Extend the driveway through,making a circular driveway for
better drop-off/pickup and adjust the parking spaces
accordingly.
6.ili mm n
None as of this writing.
7.~ill 1
Staff feels that this proposed day care center is an
appropriate use for this property.The proposed day care
center is small in scale and is located on a tract of land
larger than one acre in size.The uses in the immediate
vicinity are varied,including several churches,commercial
uses and industrial uses.
The applicant is providing adequate parking,but needs to
redesign the driveway as suggested by the City Engineer.A
circular driveway would provide safer access to the site
from Confederate Blvd.(State Highway 365).
8.ff R n i n
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with City Engineer's Comments.
SVBDIVI I MMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and
noted the City Engineer's Comment.The Committee was also
informed that staff was supportive of the applicant's request not
to have to pave the driveway and parking spaces.
After a brief discussion about the surrounding uses in the
neighborhood,the Committee determined that the proposed day care
center was an appropriate use of this property.
The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
P I MMI I A (APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant,Julius Kearney,was present.There were no
objectors present.
2
april 20,1993
ggBDIV~H
I ~11 Cninu F E .2 —4
Dana Carney,of the planning staff,presented the item and a
staff recommendation of approval.He informed the Commission
that the applicant had agreed to install a circular driveway and
to adjust the parking spaces as requested by the City Engineer's
Office.Mr.Carney also informed the Commission that staff was
supportive of the applicant's request not to have to pave the
driveway and parking spaces,to use gravel instead.
After a brief discussion,this item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved subject to compliance with City Engineer's
comments.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
April 20,1993
TEM 12 FILE '-67
NAME:Philander Smith College
Conditional Use Permit
~LQAATI )5:812 West 12th Street
E APPLI Philander Smith College/Ron Woods,
Applicant
PAOPIAALL Philander Smith College is
requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for the construction of a
gymnasium,physical education
building,business school building,
swimming pool and a future academic
building on this R-4 zoned campus.
The applicant is requesting a
setback variance from the Chester
Street (West)and I-630 (North)
property lines (25 feet required in
both cases).
RDI E DE ION T DARDS:
1.Sit i n
The campus is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Chester Street and I-630.The proposed
improvements are located in the northwest corner of the
campus ~
2.o at'i wi h Nei rhoo
Philander Smith College has been an integral part of this
neighborhood for many years.The proposed construction is
to take place on the existing campus and does not involve
any expansion of the campus grounds.
The proposed improvements should not have a negative impact
on the neighborhood.
3.—i riv nd P rkin
The applicant is proposing to construct several new parking
lots with a total of 135 parking spaces in conjunction with
the new development.Eight of the new spaces are to be
designated as handicapped.
April 20,1993
SUBD~IVI I 5
T 12 n in d F E:Z-5 7
4.r nin nd B fe
The required buffer has been reduced on the north and the
northeast perimeter,adjacent to the I-630 south frontage
road.Due to the configuration of the frontage road,there
is a large green space between the campus grounds and the
street itself.
Compliance with the City's landscape ordinance is required.
The site plan,as submitted,shows landscaping areas
exceeding ordinance requirements.
5.i En ineer mment
Construct handicapped ramps and sidewalks along Chester
Street.Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances
apply.
6.Util'm n s
Little Rock Municipal Water Works requires that care be
taken to protect the 36 inch and 16 inch water mains in
11th Street.The swimming pool discharge must meet specific
requirements,contact Little Rock wastewater Utility.
7 .Ana 1ZZii
These proposed new improvements are another sign of the
revitalization and current growth taking place on the
Philander Smith College campus.These are the first new
buildings to be constructed on the campus in almost two
decades.
Improvements have been made to upgrade the campus and staff
is supportive of these proposed new additions to an
important element of the downtown Little Rock community.
8.taff R c mmen i n
Staff recommends approval of the application,as submitted,
subject to compliance with the city Engineer and Utility
Comments.
UBDIVISI MMITTEE 0 E (APRIL 1,1993)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted
the issues raised by the City Engineer and the utility companies.
The Committee was also informed that setback variances are
requested on the north and west perimeters,adjacent to the
Highway Department right-of-way.
2
April 20,1993
~BBDZVZ D N
IT ~12 n in FILE .:Z-7
After a brief discussion,it was determined that there were no
outstanding issues and the Committee forwarded this item to the
full Commission for final resolution.
P I MMI I A TI (APRIL 20,1993)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,presented the item and a
staff recommendation of approval.Ee informed the Commission
that the applicant had agreed to comply with the City Engineer's
comments regarding handicapped ramps and sidewalks along Chester
Street.
This item was then placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,
subject to compliance with the City Engineer and Utility
Comments.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
April 20,1993
I 1 Z-4-A
Owner:Stephen Scollard
Applicant:Michael Tierney
Location:East side of Bowman Road
(between West Markham and
Chenal Parkway)
Request:Rezone from 0-3 to C-1
Purpose:Bookstore
Size:0.64 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USB AND ZONING
North —vacant,zoned 0-3
South —Single-Family,zoned R-2
Bast —Single-Family,zoned R-2
West —Vacant,zoned C-3
TAFF ALY I
The request before the Commission is to rezone a parcel on
Bowman Road from 0-3 to C-l,and the proposed use is a
bookstore.The property was rezoned to its current
classification in 1992.The site has 150 feet of frontage
on Bowman ROad and a depth of approximately 185 feet.The
right-of-way along the south property line is unimproved and
the property is vacant.
Zoning found in the general area is R-2,0-3,C-3 and PCD.
The property in question abuts R-2 on two sides and 0-3 on
the north side.Across Bowman,the zoning is C-3,which
stretches from West Markham to south of the Chenal Parkway.
On the east side of Bowman Road,the zoning includes 0-3,
C-3 and R-2;the C-3 is at the southeast corner of Bowman
and West Markham.The most recent reclassification in the
area involved 40+acres at the southwest corner of Bowman
and Chenal Parkway,and the acreage was rezoned to C-3.The
majority of existing commercial zoning was approved through
the original Rock Creek Plan which was accomplished in the
mid-1970's.
Land use is very similar to the zoning and includes single
family,banks,commercial and a TV studio.The commercial
uses range from a large retailer to auto service,and there
April 20,1993
ITEM NO 1 Z-5 24-Con
are a number of commercial centers in the area.A high
percentage of the nonresidential land is undeveloped.
The adopted I-430 Plan shows the east side of Bowman from
the right-of-way on south to West Markham as suburban
office.Other land use designations recommended for the
area are single family,office,commercial,mixed office and
commercial,multifamily and open space.Directly to the
south of the site is a narrow open space area which extends
from Bowman to pass Autumn Road,and its primary function is
to provide a buffer between the single family lots in the
Birchwood Subdivision and the nonresidential areas to the
south.
In 1992,a major plan amendment was undertaken and approved
for the Bowman/Chenal Parkway intersection.The plan was
amended to show the southwest,southeast and northeast
corners of the intersection for the "mixed office and
commercial"uses,and the amendment was done in conjunction
with a C-3 rezoning of the southwest corner of Chenal
Parkway and Bowman Road.A revision of the plan was needed
to better reflect the development trends found in the area
and to create a more workable land use pattern.
After careful review of this C-1 request and the plan,it
appears that the amendment should have also included the
office strip along the east side of Bowman.It is thestaff's position that mixed office and commercial is a more
appropriate land use configuration for the property and,
therefore,supports the proposed C-1 reclassification.With
certain requirements,buffering and site plan review,a
C-1 rezoning should not have an adverse impact on the
surrounding properties,especially the residential lots to
the east.(A plan amendment will be prepared and forwarded
to the City Board in the near future.)
LAND E PLAN ELE T
The adopted plan calls for suburban office.This use is low
key with a scale compatible with single family.The intent
of the suburban office was to help buffer the existing
single family homes from typical commercial development.It
is important that the impacts of any nonresidential use
along the east side of Bowman Road be negligible.Any
2
April 20,1993
ITEM 1 2-24-A n
commercial development must be carefully reviewed,similar
to a Planned Unit Development review:
Site Layout
Signage
Lighting
Hours of Business
Parking
Deliveries
Waste Disposal,etc.
It is possible for a carefully designed small scale
commercial use to be compatible in scale and provide a
transition to single family from the larger more car
oriented commercial.An amendment to Mixed Office and
Commercial is recommended to meet the needs of the applicant
and adjacent single family.
ENGINEERING COMME T
There are none to be reported.
TAFP RE MM DATI N
Staff recommends approval of the C-1 rezoning with the
condition that there be site plan review prior to any site
preparation taking place on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSI A TI (APRIL 20,1993)
The request was represented by Maury Mitchell.The
applicant,Michael Tierney,was also present,There were no
objectors in attendance.
Maury Mitchell spoke and agreed to the staff's
recommendation to have site plan review at staff level.
Commissioner Kathleen Oleson made some comments and
expressed some concerns with several of the conditional uses
in the C-1 district.
Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,addressed the use
guestion and restricting them in a C-1 application.
Mr.Giles indicated that the Commission could only restrict
an use in a PUD.
Michael Tierney,the proposed purchaser of the property,
spoke and said that he owns two comic bookstores and he has
been in Little Rock for four years.Mr.Tierney said that
3
Agril 20,1993
1 Z-
the bookstore would be compatible with the neighborhood and
his hours of operation were 10:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Additional comments were offered by various individuals.
The question was then called on the C-1 request.The C-1
was recommended for approval by a vote of 9 eyes,1 nay and
1 absent.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD F'as walsy
DATE 4 d'C'onszu 7 dddgnrdrgd!
MEMBER 't 3 6 4 T 1f fZ 8 lO A 5 D Z '4 'la l3
BALL,RAMSEY A~/////
CHACHERE,DIANE /
WILLIS,EMMETT Ap,y ////
MCDANIEL,JOHN /
NICHOLSON,JERILYN /'
OLESON,KATHLEEN hB ~
VONTUNGELN,JIM ///
PUTNAM,BILL //'
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.A A A A 4
WALKER,BRAD
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY
CHACHERE,DIANE
WILLIS,EMMETT
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.LEFT AT 3;P
WALKER,BRAD
Meeting Adjourned g CX!P.M.
AYE 0 NAYE 4 ABSENT ~ABSTAIN +LEFT R~%DIJRl hlCz DlSCV 5$lCg AJ
~D VdTh.
I
April 20,1993
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Date
c
Chai n Se re