Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 10 1991subLI'ZTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION BEARING SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 16,1991 I:90 P.M. I.Roll Call and Pinding of a Quorum. The Quorum was present being nine in numbex. II.Approval of the Minutes of the px'evious meet.ing. The Minutes of the June SU„1991.meeting were approved as xeceived. III.Membexs Pxesent:Fred Perkins,Chaixman Zerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson John McDaniel Brad Walker Ramsey BallBillPutnam Joe Selz Walter Riddick,III Open Position Members Absent:Diane Chachere City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE RGCE PLANNINC COHHISSXGN SUBDIVISION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 10,1991 DEFERRED ITEN: A.Bassett —Conditional Use Permit —(2-5447) B.Smith —Conditional Use Permit —(2-5019-A) C.Selma —C'onditional Use Permit —(2-5464) D.Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witness -Conditional Use Pexmit.(2-5466) PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1.Otter Creek Industrial Service Center —Lots 1,2,and 3,Tract 2 Pxeliminary Plat —(S-45-A-12) 2.HcKinney Subdivision -Preliminax'y/Final Plat (S-928) SUBDIVISIGN SITE PLAN REVIEW 3.Parkway Hedical Plaza —13100 Chenal Paxkway —(8-929) 4.William Brandon -4201 S.Shackleford Road —(8-930) CONDITIONAL USE PERNITS: 5.Blair Property —Conditional Use permit —(2-4167-C) 6.Otter Creek Community -Conditional Use Permit/Master Plan— (2-4557-A) 7.Grace Luthex'an Church —Conditional Use Permit -(2-5473) 8.Winfield United Methodist Church —Condit.ional Use Permit(2-5480) STREET NAH CHANGES: 9.Habelvale Community —(Q-25-25) OTHER HATT RS: 10.Request to be relieved of Subdivision Ordinance Requirements,Plat and Plan at.7804 Henderson Road. LITTLE RQCK PLANNING CQNNISSIQN SUBDIVISIQN AGENDA SEPTENBER 10,1991 ABMNDBM ZQNING 11.Staff initiated zoning of Area 2 of the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Septembex 10„1991 ~BUBOIVZBI H ITEM NQ.."A NAME ".Bassett.—Condit.ional Use Pexmit (Z-5447) LQCATIQN:1308 South Pine Stx'eet QWNER APP IC T:Harry Bassett PRQPQSAL:To construct a two bay structurefox'n auto x'epaix'hop QRDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1,Site Location The South Ij3 of Lots 1 and 2,Block e„W.B.Worthen~s Addition,to the City of Little Rock,Pulaski County,Arkansas. 2.Com atibilit.with Nei hborhood A variety of different.uses are located within this area of the City.Because of such a variety from commexcial,residential, halfway house and church,this use is compatible with other uses in the surrounding area. 3.Qn-site Drives and Paxkin The alley is used to access the property.Both the alley and parking area are in need of repairs.The alley needs new asphalt laid and the parking places stripped. 4.Scxeenin and Suffers Some screening and buffers exist but in the opinion of staff some more needs to be added.There are also large barrels being kept outside the structure.The barxels being kept on site will need to be removed or placed withi~the structuxe. 5.Cit En ineex Comments The existing sidewalk should be replaced.Also the alley needs to be paved and parking has to be stripped. 6 ~A~I.818 A two bay structure exists on the site that is being used as an auto repair shop.This use is not permitted under C-3 General Commercial zoning without a Conditional Use Permit.. 1 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.:A Can nued The property is being leased at.the present time.It.is the intent of the ownex to one day convert the pxoperty to a furniture stoxe. 7.Staff Reco endation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject tc the requirements of engineering being satisfactox'ily met. SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE CONNENTS:(JUNE 6,1991) The applicant was not in attendance.Staff stated to the Commission that the notice reguirement had not.been met.Therefore,this item will have to be defex'red until the July 30,1991 meeting. SUBD1VISION COMMITTEE CGNNENTS:(JULY 18„1991) The applicant was not.in attendance.Staff informed the Committee of the status of the application was 'the same as before.Also,no contact has been made with the staff.The Committee decided to send this application on to the full Commission for action. PLANNING CGNNISSION ACTION (JUNE 18,1991) The applicant was not px'esent.Thex'e was one person present to object,Page Daniel of 1406 South Cedar.Staff reminded the Commission that this item had to be deferred due to the notice reguirement not being met.The next meeting will be held on July 30„1991.Nx .Daniels stated that he had no problems with the deferral. As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was appxoved for defexral by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 30,1991) The applicant,was not present.Thexe were no objectors in attendance.Staff stated to the Commission that the notice reguirement.still had not been completed.As part of the Co~sent Agenda,this item was deferred until the September 10,1991 public hear'i.ng by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent. 2 September 1G„1991 BIIBDIVZBtOM TEN NO.:A Conti ued PLANNING CGNMISSIGN ACTIGN:(SEPTEMBER 16,1991) The applicant.was not in attendance.There were two people present in opposit,ion.Staff informed the Commission that,the application was still incomplete.Since this was the third t.ime that.the item has been on the agenda,staff was recommending withdrawal without prejudice. The commissioners agreed with the recommendation of staff.As part. of the Consent Agenda„this item was approved for withdrawal without prejudice by a vote of 9 eyes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position. 3 September 10,1991 ITEN NO.:B NAWE:Smith —Amended Conditi.onal Use Permit (Z-5019-A) LOCATION:The south side of West 65th Street approximately 200 feet east.of Duffy Lane (6823 1/2 West 65th Street) OWNER APPLICANT:Edward D,Smith/Carroll Smith PRDPOSiLL:To amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit by expanding an existing multisectional manufactured home a total of 1,237.3 square feet,. ORDINANC DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location This property shuts West 65th Street which is current.ly shown as a minor arterial,but.is in the process of heing reduced to collector standards, 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The expansion places the structure approximately 300 feet from West 65th Street on a parcel of land that is 636.5 feet, in depth.The site is surrounded on three sides by vacant land and by single family to the north.The use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3.On-Site Drives and arkin Access to the site is taken from a 20 foot.(width)drive located on West 65th Street.. 4.Screenin a d Suffers The applicant has stated that.he has no intention of increasing the screening and buffer that,already exist. Vacant land and woods surround the site on three sides. Single family residential uses are to the north. 5.Cit.n ines Comme s The earlier approved Condi.tional Dse Permit required the applicant to submit an in-lieu fee for the construction project for 65th Street.As of this writ.ing,it has not 1 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION IT NO.:B Continued been determined whether the in-lieu fee was ever filed.If no record can be found,then the earlier request is required prior to issuance of building permits. 6.A~1 The proposed expansion of the multisectional manufactured home should not change the character of the area.The expansion will consist of (1)a carport of 17 feet by 40 feet,(2)a living room expansion of 5 feet by 26.9 feet, (3)a porch at 10 feet by 10 feet and a bedroom addition 12 feet by 26.9 feet. In June 1988,the original Conditional Use Permit was approved for 1,076.0 square feet.The new expansion will provide approximately +/-780 square feet with the porch. The carport is outside of the expanded square foot area to be counted as heated/cooled living area. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Amended Conditional Use Permit per the engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 18,1991) The applicants were in attendance.Staff stated that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting a deferral until September 10,1991. Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Department stated that the in lieu fee had not been received for the initial Conditional Use Permit.However,since the City will be taking bids on the project for 65th Street,it would be to the applicants'dvantage to request the deferral until the September 10,1991 meet. The chairman then stated that the deferral does not automatically mean that the Amended Conditional Use Permit will be approved by the full Commission.No additional discussion took place. PLANNING CO ISSION ACTION:(JULY 30,1991) The applicant was not in attendance.There were no objectors present.Staff stated that because of the recommendation from the Engineering staff,the applicant was requesting a deferral until the September 10,1991 meeting.As part of the Consent Agenda,the requested deferral was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. 2 September 10,1991 ~SBDIV1SXoll ITEN NO.:B Can inued STAFF ANENDED RECOMMENDATION:(AUGUST 27„1991) As a result of f'urther review by the enqineerinq staff,there is no reguixement far the applicant ta submit an in-lieu,fee far the construction project far 65th Stxeet.Therefore,staff is recammending appraval af the Conditions,l Use Pex'mit.as filed. PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:(SEPTENBER 10,1991) The applicant was in attendance.Bill Haafman represented the applicant.There was one persan present to speak in apposition, Daphna Bickerstaff. Nrs,Bickerstaff stated that.she did not understand why this mobile home was allawed because a few years ago her request was denied.She furthex stated the awnexs of the mabile home do nat keep their prapexty propexly cleaned.There have been several instances af an old junked car„lumber,and trash on the site, Alsa,she infarmed the Commission that the mobile home w'as placed on the site befoxe the Conditional Use Permit was obtained. Ervin Tester of the Enforcement staff stated that he had na knawledge of the mobile home being on the site before the Conditional Use Pexmit was obtained.The xeason why the case is before the Commission is due to the enfarcement.action pending against the new construction.During the enforcement,officer' inspect.ion of the site,he did nat.notice anything unsightly. Nx.Hoafman then addressed the Cammissian.He stated that his client,was expecting a new baby and the new additions were needed ta make room for the baby.He understood Nrs.Beckerstaff's ccncex'ns and hoped the city would inspect the site.He agxeed that if his clients were in violat,ian,then the City shauld pursue action. Additional discussian continued regax'ding the number and types of additions ta be made.Nr.Hoofman stated ane bedraom,enlarging the living roam,replacing a porch and expanding the carport. Nrs.Beckerstaff then asked how would the awners be allowed to use an easement to access their property.Staff stated that the easement was the common drive because the site is ane lot fx'onting Nest 65th Street..The other two lots fronting West 65th Stx'eet have their own drives.Nrs.Beckerstaff stated that.the issue was now clear. 3 September 10,1991 ~SBDXVIBXOII ITEN NO.;8 Co tinued A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit asfiled.Staff was also instructed to send an enforcement officertocheckintoMrs.Beckerstaff's complaints.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open posi.tion. 4 ITEN NG.:C MANE.Selma —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5464) LGCATIGN:997 Selma Stx'eet.,north of the Little Rock Airport GWNER APPLICANT:Sam Cooper and Claxice Cooper PRGPGSAL:Placement of a double-wide manufactured home on a R-3 lot. GRDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1 ~Site Loca'tio This site is located on the east side of the city,within the IndAAaatrial Park Addition adjacent to the Little Rock Airport,Lots 2 and 3,Block 15. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborho d Residential uses surround the site.Open land area of the Litt.le Rock Airport.is located south of the proposed site. When done according to standards,the manufactured home will be very compatible with the neighborhood. 3.Gn-S te Drives and Parkin The applicant intends on using the existing on-site drive, Parking can be provided on-site,however,some on-street parking does occur. 4.Scxeenin and Buffers The applicant plans to utilize the existing screening and buffers.There are several matuxe shrubs and trees in place. 5.Cit.En ineer Comments Thexe axe no engineering comments to report.. 6.i~! The proposed site for the douhle-wide manufactured home i.s compatible with the surrounding axes.The manufactured home will be of the type that would pass the federal,state and 1 September 10,1991 ~HUBDIV ION ITEN NO.:C Continued city regulat.iona.The applicant has agreed to remove all elements of transportation and place a permanent foundation beneath the structure,The applicant needs to specify the type of foundation proposed. There exists other storage type structures that,will remain on the lot.The existing principal structuxe will be removed in ordex to locate the double-wide manufactuxed home on the site. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending appxov'al of the double-wide manufactured home subject to all the building code xequirements being met. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JULY 18,1991) The applicant nox a representative was present.There was some discussion as to the uses of the buildings labeled as storage and the exact number.Staff was instructed to go hack to the site and take pictures of the stxuctures labeled storage. This item was sent on to the full Commission fox action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUIY 30,1991) The applicant ncr a representative was present.There wexe no objectors in attendance.Staff informed the Commission that the notice xequirement had not been met.This item would have to be defexred until September 10,1991.A motion to that affect was made as paxt of the Consent Agenda.The deferral was approved by a vote 7 eyes„0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNINC COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 10,1991) The agent.for the applicant.was in attendance.There wex.e no objectox's.Staff informed the Commission that all requirements had been met.As part of the Consent Agenda,this item was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent.and 1 open position. 2 September 10,1991 ITEN NG,:D N~E.Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witness— Conditional Use Permit (E-5466) LGCATIGN:1000 Nix Road GWNER APPLICANT:Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witness/ Don Wylie,Agent PRGPGSAL:To bring in compliance a gravel parking area on the site. GRDINANCE DESIGN S ANDARDS: 1.Site Location The site is located approximately one block north of Kanis Road. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The site has been developed in the area fax several years. Staff feels that.the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3.Gn-Site Drives and Parkin There are two exist.ing drives on the site.Parking is presently located on a gravel area on the site.Parking lots are rarely "very compat.ibis". 4.Screenin and Buffs s There exists very little screening or buffers.Tihe applicant.intends to meet,all requirements of the landscaping ordinance. 5.Cit En inee Commen'ts The applicant will have to provide curb and gutter on Nix Road. 6 A~II81 81 The Kingdom Hall was constructed in 1974 when the property was in the unincorporated part of Pulaski County.Parking was accommodated on an unpaved area. 1 Septembex 10,1991 ~BBDXVIBIOM ITEN NQ.:D Co tinued The property has been subsequently annexed by the Ci.ty and is now zoned R-2 single family residential.The proposal is for the unpaved parking area to be brought.up to city standards with pxoper paving,stripping and landscaping. A total of seventy-two paxking spaces will.be provided. 7.Staff Recommendat'on Staff reserves the right of offering a recommendat.ion u~til the Subdivision Committee Review meeting on July 18,1991. SUBDIVISION CQ ITTEE COMMENTS".(JULY 18,1991) Neither the applicant.nor a representative was present.Jerry Gardner of the Engineering Department stated that.there would have to be cuxb and gutter impx'ovements on Nix Road. No additional discussion was made.This item was sent on to the full Commission for action. PLANNING CO ISSION ACTION:(JULY 30,1991) Neither the appli.cant.nox a representative was present..There were no objectoxs in attendance.Staff informed the Commission that the application was incomplete.The applicant was requesting a deferral until the September 10,1991 public hearing.As part of the Consent Agenda,the deferral was approved by a vote of 7 eyes,0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING CGNNISSI N ACTION:(SEPT~ER 10,1991) The applicant.was in attendance.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that.all of the necessary requirements had been met,,As pax't of the Consent.Agenda,this item was appxoved by a vote of 9 eyes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 10,1991 G..NQ.8-45--1 otter'reek Industrial Service Center —Lots 1,2,and 3, Tract.2 —Preliminary Plat ~1aeA ON:Rt1 I 3 tRo d tI-30 ~DEV IOEE ENNI REER: KARATBGN U.S.REALTIES,INC.GARVER AND GARVER,P.A. 13355 Nasl Rd.&Suite 1155 P.G.Bax C-50 Dal3.as,TX 75240-6899 Little Rock,AR 72203 214-458-1200 376-3633 AH)NA:9.95 Ac.BE G ;3 T.Ew s E T:0 P G DISTRI T:16 ~CRN CN ERECT:11~O3 VARI CES UES 1.)A13.ow less than 5 ac.lots in C-2 Zoning. 2.)Allow access to Public Right-of-Way via platted access easement.ta Lots 2 and 3. 3.)Allow reductian in 40 foot building setback to canform ta existing building footprint at 3.ocatians shown an plat. A.PRGPGSAL R U 8 This owner proposes replatting an existing tract.af land of approximately 10 acres inta three large cammercial late. The northeastern lots would be serviced by a 45 foot access easement connected ta the Nabelvale West.Road and Interstate 30 service road.This would separate owner'ship of various. B.EXIST NG CG DITIGNS; This site is currently occupied by a matel,office buildings„restaurant.and convenience stare,therefare the parking,landscaping and driveway ar'e already in place. 1 September 1Q„1991 ~BUBDXVXB ON TEM NG.:1 Cont.inued FILE NG.:S-45-A-12 C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS UTILITY OMMENT'S". No engineering or utility comments. 0.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The only issues of'elated significance for legal concern are the reguested variances which wi.ll reguire the approval of the City Board of Oirectozs. E.ANALYSIS: The Pla~ni~g Staff finds vezy little of significance to comment on,related to this proposal.It is an existing commexcial development with an adeguate amount of parking, landscaping and access.The developer should take the propez'teps to assure that the Bill of Assurance pxcvides for easements,access and common maintenance of drives. F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with an appx'oval xecommendation for all vaxiances. SUBOIVISIGN COMMITTEE CONiMENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991) The applicant was xepxesented by Ronnie Hall from Carver and Carver Engineering Company.He described the plat and the history of the development.Commissioner Walker asked about.the access easements fx'om the public right-of-way.Mr.Hall explained that.plated easements would be used for access.He stated that the access easement agreement would be included.in the Bill of Assurance for future maintenance and access.It was also pointed out by the Planning Staff that.the access easement cannot be accepted as a public right-of-way because of the existing deficient pavement size and width of the easement.. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER lG,1991) Thexe were no objectors in attendance.The applicant.was represented.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval with the recommendation of the vaxiance's approval. A motion was made to that effect.and passed by a vote of 9 eyes, O nays,1 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 10,1991 ITEN NG.:2 FILE NO.:B-928 NAME:NcEinney Subdivision —PreliminarylFinal Plat LOCATION:12015 Hinson Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER". R.H.NCKINNEY,JR.THE NEHLBURGER FIRN 12015 Hinson Road 201 South IzardLittleRock,AR 72211 P.G.Box 3837LittleRock,AR 72203 375-5331 AREA:1.2 Ac.NUMBER GF LOTS:2 FT.NEN STREET".0 ZONING:0-3 PROPOSED USES:Office PLANNING DISTRICT:2 CENSUS TRACT:22.05 VARIANCES RE UESTED: 1.)Pipe —Stem Iot2.)All Street Improvements A.PROPOSAL RE UEST: The pxoposal consists of a two lot xeplat.out of a largex tract.of land.The plat,as submi.ted,,is px'oposed for office use. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is curx'ently occupied by an office building on the Hinson Road frontage and an open undeveloped tract on the back.Hinson Road is currently undex'he City of I ittle Rock Bond Improvements Px'ogram. C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Plat confoxms to widening plans for Hinson Road and there are no other engineering comments.Public Works suggested that an in-lieu contribut,ion may be reguired at the time of final plat.,if the road improvement contract has not been signed 1 September lO,1991 Stt!DI1IIBIDN IT N NO.:2 Continued FILE NO,:8-928 D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: There are no issues associated with this plat except as waiver's requested. E.A~NALY ZB: The planning Staff's review of the plat.reveals no problems with the proposal as presented.We support the plat.due to the city project adversely affecting the access to the site. F.STAFF RECONNENDATIONS; Staff recommends approval of the application as filed with a x'ecommendation of appxoval for the waivers. SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE CONNENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991) The applicant was not.pxesent„therefoxe the committee discussed this item briefly.It was determined that the applicant.should xequest,the street improvement waiver,even though the City is planning to start woxk on widening Hinson Road in the near future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 16,1991) The applicant was not present.A motion was made fox'eferx'al until September 24„1991 as requested by the applicant..A motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 16,1991 T F L N .:S-9 9 NAME:Parkway Nedical Plaza —Subdivision Site Plan Review/Plat LG~C 95:13166 Chenal Parkway ggV3~2gg:gN~IN~R: C.WILLIAM BALL„M.U.NCGETRICK ENGINEERING13166ChenalParkway11225HuronLane,Suite 266LittleRock„AR 72211 Little Rock,AR /2211 223-9966 2 '2 Ac.6 :1 N 6 G CT:I-436 —11 ~CEIIBIJB CT:22.05 VARIANCES U S D: A.P66 EU This applicant pxoposes constructing a medical facility on a2.8 acres site adjacent to Chanel Parkway.These structureswillbebuiltinthreephases.Phase I will be a familymedicalclinic„Phase II will be a medical arts building," and Phase III will be an extended care facility. B.XIS G 6 T N This property has been filled with dirt and x"ocks in oxdertodecreasethenatuxalslope.The street lying immediately on the south is chanel pax'kway,a five-lane expressway which was constxucted to city standards.There is an unopenedstreetright-of-way along the east,boundary. C.EN N RING The driveway design does not.confoxm to HSP Standards for Chenal Parkway.Engineering has suggested that this development share the existing dx'iveway with Ginny's Vineyard Apartments.The excavation and detention ordinances do apply 1 September 1O,1991 S~UD~V~IO I O."3 ont'ed ILE NQ :S-929 D.ISSUES GAL CHN CA DESIGN: There are a number of detailed items on the site plan which require some type of resolution.The items axe as follows: 1.Redesign access from Chenal Parkway to be able to share dri~e~ay with Ginny's Vineyards apartment.complex. 2.Dedicate additional right-of-way on Gamble Road. 3.Pharmacy as an accessory use zoned 0-3 is allowed only in a principal structure. 4.Conform to landscape ordinance and receive approval fxom Bob Bxown. 5.Show a sign location and size the plan as permitted by the sign xegulations. ~.Mt!LOBES: The Planning and Engineering staffs have thoroughly reviewed this submittal with respect to all elements as required by oxdinance.We find very little or no concern with the construction of the medical facility.The concerns that we will offex deal with the design of the project.Staff feels the following should be accomplished in order to improve circulation along Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road. 1.Eliminate the driveway fxom Chenal Parkway as now proposed on the plan and share the driveway with Ginny's Vineyard apartment complex.This design would eliminate most constxuction of the deceleration lane along Chenal Parkway,and also reduce the number of curbcuts. 2.The medical arts building in Phase IZ should be x'educed in size and moved west,to meet the minimum setback and landscape requixements. 3.The applicant should meet with Bob Brown from our department to discuss landscape requirements. 4,The applicant should show size and location of the permanent signs for the entire project. 5.The applicant should explain in detail the future use of Phase III building as an extended care facility. 2 September 10,1991 SUBDIVXSXON ITEN NO.;Continued FILE NO.:S-929 F.STAFP RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to develop further the application,the information provided and our position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE CONNENTS:i(AUGUST 22,1991) The applicant.was represented by Nr.NcGetrick,an engineer„and Nr.Williams„an architect.Nr.NcGetrick described the project and the different elements of the proposal.He stated that he would like to request a deferral of street improvements along Gamble Road until Phase Il develops,Also,he stated that he met with the Planning Staff to discuss options for a subdivision which would create a lot for each phase.It was pointed out that in office/commercial subdivision,less than 20 acres,the street improvements should be completed in conjunction with Phase I of the plat. Commissioner Walker stated that he would be receptive to deferring street improvements on Gamble Road until Phase II develops. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 10,1991) There were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant withdrew the site plan and filed a Preliminary Plat..The plat includes phasing a plan for the lot development. and Gamble Road improvements.The Gamble Road improvements will be constructed in accordance with the design standards approved by Public Works.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined it.appropriate to place this item cn the Consent Agenda for approval.A motion was made to that effect and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent.and 1 open position. 3 September 10,1991 T NG 'F ~NAN :William Brandon —Subdivision Site Plan Review ~0 SIGN:4201 South Shacklefoxd Road ~~p ~Q~NE «+: ALLAN BEASLEY SAN DAVIS 4210 s.shackleford 5361 West 8th Street Littl.e Rock,AR 72211 Litt.le Rock,AR 72204 225-0052 664-6324 P IN S RICT:I-430 —11 CE~NS 8 ~CQ:24.05 V AN SUB 1.)Rear setback along the north boundary of 25 feet.(required 30 feet) 2.)Reax'etback along the south boundary of 15 feet (reguixed 30 feet) A.PRGP S L U ST: This applicant,proposes to constxuct five (5)large waxehouses on a 12 acre txact presently zoned I-1.This tract of land has 254 feet of Shackleford Road fxontage, and will be developed in five phases. B.EXIS NG IGNS: This pxoperty is mostly a flat tract,of gxound with heavy foliage in place on the rear part.,and a clear area on the front..The street lying immediately to the west., Shacklefoxd Road,is a two-lane road with wide shoulders on both sides. C.ENG NEER NG CG There are minor axtex'ial right,-of-way and improvements required for shacklefoxd Road fxontage.Excavation and detention ordinances apply.The clearing and filling of this site is in pxogxess without an excavation permit. 1 Septembex 10,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.".4 Co tinued FII E NO.:S-930 D.ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: Several issues to be introduced.haze are as follows: 1.The development as proposed does not deal with the adjacent xesidential property lying to the north and paxt.ly to the south,in such a fashion as to buffer the effects of the warehouse's structures against the single family homes. 2.The structure should be designed so as to reduce the total visible elevation of the buildings fx'om the north and south. 3.The applicant should apply for an excavation permit. before clearing and filling the site. 4.The development should comply with landscape oxdinance requirements —see Nx.Bob Brown in our department. E.ANALFSIS: Staff's view of this proposal is that the pxoject.requixes additional work on the part of the architect and the developer to reduce its impact on the adjacent residential properties to the north and partly to the south.It.is our feeling that a significant buffering action should occur adjacent to the noxth and south property lines.This buffer should be plantings„a 6 foot.wooden fence and additional trees along the north andi partly to the south. The interiox landscaping needs to be increased with another 64 of the total vehiculaz area.An average of 3 feet.wide landscape strip around the building is also required. F.STAFF 8 COMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the comments made abo~e. SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22 r 1991) Allan Beasley,repx'esenting the applicant,was present, He descxibed the project.and the various elements of the proposal.The Planning Staff asked about.the screening details. Hr.Beasley stated that.he met with Bob Brown from ouz depaxtment to discuss the required landscaping.Also,he agreed to pxovide 2 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION TEN NO.;4 Continued PILE NO.:8-930 the color sketch showing the landscape area and the size of the buffer,There were no other issues of concern discussed by the Committee.The item was passed to the full Commission without any additional comments. PLANNINC CONNISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 10,1991) There were no objectors present.The application was represented.After a brief discussion,the Commission determineditappropriatetoplacethisitemontheConsentAgendafor approval.A motion was made to that effect,and passed by a vote of 9 eyes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open position. 3 September 1O,1991 ITEN NG.:5 NAME:Blair Propexty —Conditional Use Pexmit (Z-4167-C) LOCATION:9715 Colonel Glenn Road OWNER APIPI ICANT:Don Blair/Pat NcGetrick PROPOSAL:Construction of an office, showroom,and warehouse. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location The site is located on the south side of Colonel Glen Road across from Allaxd Road. 2,Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The site is surrounded by a mixture of uses from commercial/industrial to office.The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. 3.Gn-S'te Drives and Paxkin There exists on the site one common drive to access the site.Parking will be provided as required by ordinance. The warehouse portion will include fenced parking fax sevexal service vehicle (pickup trucks)used in the Ibus ines s. 4 ~S reenin and Buffexs Some screening and buffers exist,but.the applicant has agreed to meet any addit.ional requirements in which the landscape ordinance may x'squire. 5.Cit En ineex Comments A principal arterial.right-of-way is requixed for Colonel Glenn Road frontage.The applicant has agx.eed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way. 6.A~1 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the 0-3 zoned portion of the property.The front portion of the px'opexty is zoned O-3 while the rear portion is zoned R-2 Single Family. 1 September 1G„1991 ~SIIBDDIIS ON ITEN NO.:Continued The pux'pose of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow an office showroom/warehouse facility on the O-3 pox'tion of the property.The intent of the applicant is to x'emodel the existing structure on the site to add warehouse facilities. The remodeled building will have approximately 16%showroom, 494 office and 56%warehouse.The business will be servicing and providing cable boxes fox.cable companies in the surrounding areas. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff x'ecommends appxoval of the Conditional Use Permit per the engineering reguirement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTENBER 1Q,1991) The agent for the applicant was present.There were no objectors in attendance,Staff informed the Commission that.all of the reguixements had been met..As part of the Consent.Agenda,this item was approved upon the condition that.the Landscape Ordinance reguirements be meff.The vote was 9 eyes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 10,1991 I NO:6 NAME:Ottex'reek Community —Conditional Use Permit/Nester Plan (Z-4557-A) LOCATION:14000 Otter Creek Parkway OWNER APPLICANT:Gtter Creek Home Owners Associat.ion/Steve Lacey,Agent PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit.is requested to allow use of the property for expansion of new additions in the recreational.area. ORDINANCE DESIGN STAN ANDS: l.Sxte Locatio This site is located within the southwestern area of the city. The site has frontage on a collector street which affords good traffic and pedestrian access and separation fxom adjacent x'eeidences. 2.Com atibilit with Nei borh od The recreational area is in place and serves pximaxily those people who reside within the Gttex'xeek Subdivision.The site is very compatible with the neighborhood. 3.Gn-Si'te Drives and Parkin Although on-site drives and parking exist,the applicant will be providing 80 vehicul.ar parking spaces along otter Creek Boulevax'd. 4.Screenin and Buffex.s There is a large amount of natural vegetat.ion on the site. Landscaping of median between l.ance at,both ends of Otter Creek Boulevard is also proposed. 5.Cit.En ineex Comments There are no city engineexing comments to xeport,. 1 September 1O,1991 SUBBIVISION ITEN NO.:6 Continued 6.A~1 The Otter Creek Home Owners Association has submitted fox x'eview a master plan for future expansion with several additions.As part of the staff review for an earlier request,it.was determined that the Planning Commission needed to approve any new additi.ons.Hopefully with this master plan,Staff and the Commission will have a better understanding as to what direct.ion the home owners association is headed. Some of the new additions will include a gymnasium/racguetball building,a parking lot„a netwoxk of lighted walking/jogging trails and fitness txail„two new gazebo structux'es,additions to the existing clubhouse,new lighted sidewalk to "Circle K" convenience store and extension of existing swimming pool deck. Staff has requested of the applicant to submit a plan indicating what,percentage of area that will xemain natural and the same fax areas to be removed.It,has been determined by the engineering staff that no floodway issues exist.within the ax'ea of the proposed new additions. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the master plan as filed, SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991) Pat NcGetrick repx'esented the applicant..There was some discussion as to whetlher the applicant could have just.an office/warehouse versus an office,showroom/warehouse.It was determined that the intent of the ordinance is the showroom has to be apart of the applicat.ion,The applicant.agreed to provide a showroom if one was needed to accomplish the Conditional Use Permit.No other discussion transpired on this item,andi it.was sent.on the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION CT ON:(SEPTENBER 10,1991) The applicant was not in attendance.There were no oibjectoxs present..Staff informed the Board,that this item needed to be deferred because the notice reguirement had not Ibeen met..As part of the Consent Agenda,thi.s item was deferred until the October 22,1991 meeting.The vote was 9 eyes,O noes,1 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 1O,1991 ITEN NO.:7 NANE:Grace Lutheran Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5473) LOCATION:5110 Nillcrest.Street OWNER APPLICANT:Gxace Lutheran Church/Arnold Berner,Agent PROPOSAL:To convex't one lot which is zoned resident.ial into a paxking lot to serve as an accessoxy use for the church. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Loc 'on This site is located at the southeast cornex of North Lookout.and Hillcrest Street. 2.Com atibilit.with Nei hborhood The church is needing more parking in order to make it.more convenient.fox the elder'ly members of the church.If developed,there is a compatibility pxoblem with the other resident.ial use in the area. 3.On-Site Drives and Paxkin Access to the l.ot will be made from an existing seventeen foot alley.The pxoposed parking lot.will provide fifteen new parking spaces. 4.Scx'eenin and Buffex'8 The applicant.has indicated that two laxge white oak trees will be retained.If additional landscaping is needed,the applicant stated that,they would adhere to the landscaping ordinance. 5.Cit En ineer Comments The sketch submitted does not constitute a valid survey orsiteplan.The alley to be used for access is only seventeen feet.The alley is surfaced from Hillcrest Avenue to the proposed lot,but not.in the east.and west alignment.. 1 Septembex'6,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NG.:7 Continued 6.A~1 Whenever a chuxch proposes to expand in an established residential area,a mattex must be x'aised over the possible oonflicts that,expansion might create.To balance the non-residential and residential uses is often very delicate and damage to the neighborhood might.occur.The influence of the non-residential use becomes a predominate force in the area. The City of Little Rock has taken a stx'ong posit.ion regarding preservation of the housing stock within the older,established neighborhoods.Therefore,it.would not be in the city's best interest to support.the proposed parking lot. There does exist,enough parking within the area that the church could lease.In fact,staff was told of a verbal agreement that.the church has with Mount St..Naxy High School.It is a possibility that the City could erect signs to indicate on-street parking permitted only during the hours of worship sexvices on Sunday.Staff feels there are many other avenues of which the applicant could pursue. 7.Staff Recommen ation Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit. SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991) Neither the applicant or a representat.ive was in attendance. Staff gave an overview of what the applicant.was reguest.ing. Some discussion took place x'egarding the loss of another residence for a parking lot.It was then decided that the item should be sent.on to the full Commission fox action since this issue is mare of a land use guestion rather than design, PLANNING CQNNISSIQN ACTION:(SEPTENBER 10,1991) The applicant was repx.esented by Larry Behnke.There were several other people pxesent to support the church's reguest. There were several people px'esent in opposition.Tom Johnson of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association and Ruth Bell of the League of Women Votex's spoke before the Commission. Nx .Behnke addressed the commission.He stated that he had been a member of the church for forty years and wanted to present.some points in which the Commission should take into account.Gne 2 September 10,1991 SVBDIVISIQN ITEM NQ.:7 Continued paint.made was for the use of the property for a parking lat., Tbe church was built an the site whexe an old burned icehouse was located albout forty years ago.About ten to twelve years ago, the church made a decision to remain at this location because there had been a movement of chux'ches out of the central area and relocating particularly to the west.After the decisio~was made to remain at.this site„the church began to acquire four houses. There were three houses adjioining the church and one separated by one house.The chux'ch bought the property with the intention of using it far aff-street parking. Mr .Sehnke then described a seriaus traffic problem that exists on Hillcxest Street.,and said Hillcrest is a very narrow street. when cars axe parked on both sides of the street.It.would be impossible for a fixe truck to access tbe street on Sundiays without having an approaching cax.back up.The chuxch really needs some aff-street parking.The church has been in the locatian for a numbex'f years and most.af the members axe in advanced years.Comments have been made that there is some available parking withim twc blocks of the church.He and his wife recentl.y walked the two blocks and faund it was extremely difficult,ta walk those blocks,even if an agreement.cauld be made with St..Mary's Cathalic Church.In order fax the chux'ch ta provide mare services to the community,mare available parking must be kept.where the church is. Within the last year,the churah started an early childhoad develapment centex and is naw balding classes in the basement of tbe church.As the childhood center grows,more available space will be needed for addit.ianal classrooms by using the sites that have been purchased.The parents„who bxing their childxen„have a difficult itime finding parking spaces when dropping them aff. Thexe are sevexal Lutheran chux'ches west of this site; particularly aut.on Markham. Agai~,the church made the decisian to remain at this location realizing they could have purchased mare acreage out west and pxavide necessary parking.The congregation is alder„and if the off-street parking is granted,it wauld serve to make it a lot. moxe safer for those oldex membexs ta arrive at the sanctuary. Also,it is a goad possibility that.the cangregatian would increase its size and be lost without adequate parking. Mr.Behnke said it is not.known what.kind of development.would be placed an the site,since the church is thinking of acquirimg one maxe hause which faces Hillcx'est.,presently,the awner„a lady,is in a nursing home.If it is feasible,there is a good possibility that parking could be provided to the rear of these properties.However„a start,cannot be made unless tbe house, which they want to demolish is done first. 3 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:7 Continued The old frame house is approximately sixty to sixty-five years old.It has an upstairs apartment and living quarters downstairs.The house is definitely in need of repairs.This is the house that the church wants to demolish and develop fifteen parking spaces in order to coincide with their long range plans. A commissioner wanted to know if Mr.Behnke could describe the topography of the property.Mr.Behnke stated that between North Lookout and Hillcrest it slopes 10 to 12 feet.The rock wall on North Lookout would continue to be approximately 3 I/2 feet high. The wall runs along North Lookout extending to where the house, which will be demolished,is.This location will prevent an entrance or exit from being on North Lookout.The entrance itself would be off Hillcrest along the alley behind the church. Tom Johnson,president of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, stated that unfortunately,again they are proposing another parking lot that would take away from the residential character of the neighborhood.When the association was before the Commission about six or nine months ago,a point of discussion was raised over and over again concerning that a trend was being started in the neighborhood to destroy the residences for parking lots.The association is aware of several other churches anticipating changes.It is always difficult to be in opposition to good neighbors.The Association certainly does not approach any issue lightly or negatively,but reviews it with a lot of thought and study. Mr.Johnson then stated he would comment on this issue in two phases,the church's need and neighborhood issues.It is a known fact that the church was built many years ago without access to parking,however,it apparently has increased in membership without having additional parking.The thought of this church being on a corner lot in this area without parking has not been a disadvantage for the church because there is ample street parking.Mr.Johnson then passed around photos. Along Kavanaugh and Hillcrest,there are a number of on-street parking spaces.The grade up Hillcrest is steep,but not a dangerous grade.Therefore,the Association does feel there is ample space for the church to meet their parking needs.Also,it was suggested for the members whom are disabled and cannot walk a block that the church should follow suit as Pulaski Baptist Church has done.One of the deacons arrives early and places a sign,which is very simple,out in front of the church indicating parking. In looking at this request for the new parking lot,it appears to be located down in a hole behind the church.Probably the most troubling part of the proposal is a large parking lot within one block,the Mount St.Mary's parking lot.There are anywhere from 4 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.:7 Continued 100 to 150 parking spaces at this location that are not being used on Sundays.There is no apparent reason why both uses cannot reach an agreement to use this space for parking.One point made by the Association was that in order to eliminate some of the demolition,the churches,institutions and commercial people within the area will have to agree on issues as a whole rather than oppose to everyone having a separate issue. One block down from the church is a viable residential neighborhood which is not zoned for commercial uses.With issues of this nature,a point must be raised as to whether a church or any other institution has the right to demolish any property simply because they own the land.Another point always mentioned but not today,has been if this is a deteriorated house,would demolishing the house and developing a landscaped parking lot improve the appearance of the neighborhood?It is known that the church has owned the property for several years now,and if the house is deteriorated to some degree,then it is due to the negligence of the church.At some point in time,the City and the Commission need to let the property owners know that the system being used will no longer be tolerated.The Commission rules at every meeting the way people use their property.The Association does not believe that it is a valid option for churches,institutions or commercial development to come into a neighborhood,acquire property and then tear it down. The City of Little Rock is paying a dear price for neglect of residential property.One major issue before the Board of Directors and the City in general is the deterioration of neighborhoods.The City is having to step in and demolish properties themselves in some instances.There are several groups right now reviewing preservation and rehabilitation policies to decide if some of the residential structures could be salvaged.The City is now in a development phase paying closer attention to the neighborhoods and their needs.The decline of the older neighborhoods is a small step to take,but the Hillcrest neighborhood is not a neighborhood of declination. Therefore,the Association does feel that it is their responsibility to intervene with any decline or prevention at this point. Mr.Johnson stated in closing,the Association asked the Commission to take a broader view of this issue and stop looking at these proposals as isolated,little incidents of fifteen cars, one house or three houses.But look at the perspective of what is needed to be done and join the rest of the City staff and administration in looking for ways and means to enhance neighborhoods as opposed to ways of tearing them down.The policies have to be reevaluated knowing this has led to dramatic decline in the past and then change the policies. 5 ,September 1O,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.:7 Continued Now is the time for the Commission to begin thinking and looking at.ways to protect the neighborhood.Ultimately,the Commission rules on many of these issues;therefore,creating policies and devising programs to presexve housing is fine.Howevex",it is another issue when the Commission is allowed to decide on demolition of a house in a very stable and good neighborhood. An aerial map was then passed around showing the existing parking.Mr.Johnson was asked if he ox the church had met.at anyt.ime to discuss the issue at band.He then stated that.during the early stages of the project several members of the church met in Jim Lawson's office,the Birector of Neighborhoods and Planning,along with his staff for a brief discussion of the preliminary plan. Mr.Johnson was then asked another question.Is the real issue the loss of housing in the arear'e stated that the loss was due really to the system.He emphasized that one could say that this one house could not destroy the neighboxhood,or maybe the loss of the house could be compared to people moving out the neighborhood,which is a natural cycle for neighborhoods. However,one concern again raised was,at some point in t.ime,the demolition of the houses i.n the neighborhood must be stopped. Mr.Johnson indicated this would not have a large impact in viewing the overall picture.However„the accumulation of teaxing down houses would definitely make a difference.He stated that the association really wanted is to make a change in policy for demolit.ions before anymore pxojects of a negative pexspective are done in the neighborhood. A question was then asked of how the association felt about a homeowner purchasing a house next.door and razing the house in order to expend their yard area.The response was that the Association would pxobably have the same feeling x'egaxding this issue,In general,the loss of population in the ax'ea is the Association's reason for wanting to stop the demolition. Because,if the church indicates that it would not. remain and move west,then there would be a loss of population fox the area. This brings us to the point.of where no neighborhood exists without schools ox churches. The staff was then asked why the recommendation for this use is denial,when several months ago the recommendat,ion fox tbe same use was approval with several stipulations.Staff explained the reason fox the other case was because the nearest paxking lot to be used was 2 I/2 to 3 blocks away.The church members were in a posit.i.on of eithex havi.ng to remove the houses for parking or not. having paxking. 6 September 10„1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN HO.".7 Continued Jim Iawson stated Pulaski Heights Nethodist had already used all of the available parking on Noodlawn,Spruce and other streets in the area.Mow befox'e the Commission is the church's need to have cl.oser parking because Mount St.Nary's Catholic School is located there.The gate to the parking axea may not.be an advantaged for the church.Long term plans for the church ax'e to solve their parking problem by removing one or ffwo houses. Before making a recommendation,staff needs tc review the kind of parking needed to justify the removal of a house.Therefoxe, staff does not,go as far as Nr.Johnson and hold.all the houses 1004 because this point is really valid.This issue does not appear to be similax as the previous case before the Commission. Nr.Behnke stated the churc'h does not.have an agreement.with Mount St.Nary's Catholic School in oxdex to park on their property.Because of an ongoing need fox the church,this arx"angement.would not be practical.One such instance is the functions are scheduled at different times during the week. A considexable amount of discussion continued,at which time the applicant.and Nr.Johnson were asked if they would be willing to meet and discuss the possible options in order to work out the problem among themselves. Drexel Jordan then spoke and stated he lives five houses down fram the chux'ch and attends most.Sunday moxning services where no parking is available on the street.His primary concern was for the church's futuxe plans and future of the other houses the church had purchased. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters indicated what was happeni.ng now is an increase in automobiles from the past.As a result,the Homeowners Association is concerned about the dynamics of parking in the ax'ea. The discussion continued among the Commission,the applicant., opposition and staff.A motion was then made to defer this item until October 8,1991.The mo'ti.on passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position. 7 September 10,1991 I EM NO.:8 NAME:Winfield United Methodist Church— Conditional Use Permit (2-5480) LOCATION:20100 Cantrell Road OWNER APPLICANT:Trustees,Winfield United Methodist Church/Sally Bowen,Agent. PROPOSAL:To construct new additions in a phased expansion of the existing church facility. VARIANCE RE UESTED:From the Height provisions of Section 36-156.C to permit erection of church steeples,chimneys,or similar ornamental structures higher than the ordinance allows. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Locat.ion This site is located at the northeast,corner of the intersection of Highway 10 and Highway 300. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood There is no guestion as to the compatibility of the site with the neighborhood.Land use surrounding the key property is undeveloped resident.ial acreage along the north property line,vacant land zoned 0-2 on the east,a day camp to the west.and mixed uses to the south. 3,On-Site Drives and Parkin The site is served by two existing drives.The existing drive located at,the east property line will.remain.The drive located in the curve of the intersection of Highways 10 and 300 will be closed,and a new access point,will be developed at an existing drive located on the north side of the existing Southwestern Bell Telephone dial exchange facility.This drive will be a shared drive which has been arranged through an agreement.with the church and the telephone company.This drive is located at,the only safe ingress/egress point along Highway 300 because of the curved intersect.ion and the terrain. 1 September 10,1991 SUBDIVISIQN ITEN NQ.:S Continued There are 70 existing parking spaces.The applicant. proposes an additional 97 parking spaces.Future parking is estimated to be 142 parking spaces which will bring a grand total of 309 spaces.The principal facility seating capacity of 1,200„however it.is anticipated that the future sanctuary will be designed to seat less than 1,000. 4.Screenin and Suffers A six foot buffer is required along the proposed driveway according to ordinance requirements.The applicant will comply with any addit.ional landscaping. 5.Cit.B ineer Comme ts The existing drive will have to be removed at the intersect.ion of Highway 10 and 300 before the widening of Highway 10 is completed. Little Rock Nunici al Water Works Qn,-site fire protect.ion is recommended.Also,the applicant will need to contact the water works department regarding their requirements for additional water service. 6.Ana~1s~ This area is located outside of the city limits,but within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of the city.The site is wooded with approximately fifty feet difference in elevation from a high point on the east property line to a low point on the northwest corner.The 7.4 acre site has four existing structures containing approximately 17„800 square feet In the applicant"s letter requesting the Conditional Use Permit,the expansion phase is outlined as follows: A.Exist Buildings: 1.Residential structure:1,400 square feet currently used as caretaker residence„may be used for church programs (classrooms,offices)before being removed as expans1on occu1's* 2.Two-story education building:3,800 square feet. classroom building 2 September 10,1991 SUBOIVISION ITEN NO.:Cont.inued 3.One-story multi-purpose building:4,050 square feet,original sanctuary and fellowship hall,will be converted to church educational use and/or small assembly use.This building may be expanded by 1,500 square feet to contain a chapel. As an alternate,the church requests that the C.U.P.will allow for this building to be removed and replaced with the proposed sanctuary structure and the uses intended for the existing structure be located in the area where the future sanctuaryisshownonthesiteplan. 4.Existing sanctuary building:8,600 square feet two level structure containing offices, classrooms,and the present sanctuary capable of seating 450,including choir.The sanctuary currently seats 350 including choir and can be expanded by 100 seats by incorporating existing space used for other purposes into the sanctuary. The three existing buildings used for church purposes are connected by a covered walk. B.Proposed Addition:13,000 square feet,structure for additional church classrooms and fellowship hall/recreational space.The classrooms are church education classrooms (reference to classrooms or education is fox church use and not any proposed"school"operation,except as stated by the following) and for use as a day care center as regulated by the state or a "mother's day out"program or a "parent's night out"program. This space and part of the future space could accommodate up to 84 children in a day care operation which would normally operate the five business days of a week to accommodate working parents.The fellowship hall/recreation space is multi-purpose and will be used for church related purposes such as fellowship dinners, youth act.ivities,and perhaps the most intense use being a church league basketball,volleyball or other indoor recreation activities.This space will contain a stage area for church programs or the stage can accommodate up to approximately 90 spectator seats for viewing activities.The basketball court is a reduced size and not regulation size.This area is 5„600 square feet of which 800 square feet is storage and the stage area.The 4,800 square feet space could accommodate up to a 400 at a banquet style dinner. 3 September 10,1991 SUBI3IVISION ITEN NO.:8 Continued C.Future Addit.ions:Future addit.ions to the facility will be phased over a period of years.This area will be primarily used for classrooms,offices and a future sanctuary seating 800 to 1,000 as described eazlier. Total azea of these phases wil.l be 45,250 square feet used as follows:Classroom/office —32,750 square feet with 6,500 square feet on a second floor and sanctuary and its support.spaces —12,500 with 2,000 square feet being on a second level to accommodate a balcony anditssupport.spaces.The sanctuary will possibly contain a towez or cross approximately 75 feet high above the sanctuary floor. The total ground coverage of the completed facility will be 55,800 square feet (not including covered drives,porches,or walks)and a total building floor area of 87,800 square feet.Total covered area for thefacilitywillbeapproximately3,000 square feet. parking lot,lighting will be pole mounted,low level, down lighting which can be directed away from any future residential use adjacent to the pzopezty.Some "night watcher"type lighting now exists on the site„ but will eventually be phased out and zeplaced with more appropziate lighting. A small amount of existing paved parking and drive areaislocatedwithintheHighway10required40feet buffer and the assumption is that this can z'amain. Two playground areas are proposed.Gne is existing and the other's future.Each will contain fixed and portable equipment.normally associated wi.th a day care playground. A ground mounted sign facing Highway 10 now exists in the highway B.O.N.since the right-of-way has expanded, but will eventually be replaced by a monumental sign located and designed in accordance with the city ofLittleBockHighway10standards.An addi.tional sign to be placed near the Highway 300 entrance drive is also requested. Two storm water detention areas are planned as shown on the site plan with additional areas provided in some paz'king ax'eas as z'squired and needed. In zegazds to the tower or cross being approximately 75 feet. high above the sanctuary floor,the vazi.ance requested is needed.Ordinance requires that a tower or cross can only September 10,1991 SUBDIVISION ITIC NO.:S Continued be twice the height of the soning district requirement, Zoned R-2 single family,35 feet is allowed.Therefore,the applicant's tower or cross is 5 feet above the allowed height. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit including the var"iance requested. SUBOIVISION CONNITTEE COÃNENTS;(AUGUST 22,1991) The agent for the applicant was in attendance.There was some discussicn about.dedication of right-of-way on Highway 300. Engineering also discussed the closing of the drive at the intersection of Highways 10 and 300.No other discussion was made.This item was sent.on to the full.Commission for action. PINNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 10,1991) The agent for the applicant.was present.There were no objectors in attendance.Staff informed the Board that all.requirements have been met.As part.of t'e Consent Agenda,this item was approved by a vote of S ayes,0 noes„1 absent,1 abstention (Perkins),and 1 open position. 5 September 10,1991 ITEN NO.:9 OTHER MATTERS NAME;Thixteen proposed street name changes in Nabelvale LOCATION:Southwestern area of the city ~PE'I T105IER:City of Little Rock/Public Works Department. ~RE DEBT:The request is to change approximately thirteen stxeet,names within Nabelvale which conflict with the same street names in otlher areas of the city. A uttin Uses and G~l'here are a vax'iety of uses that abut these street names to be changed.A more detail sux'vey will be presented at the meeting listing the number and types of uses affected. Nei hborhood Effect: There should be very little or no adverse effect on tlhe neighboxhood since most of the people receives mail from the U.S, Post.Office Boxes. Nei hborhood Posit.ion: The neighborhood position is almost equal because there wexe call.s of support.as well as opposition. Effect on Public Services: No long term effect is expected.Thex'afore,none of the five utility companies have voiced any opposition. 1 Septembex 1O,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.:9 O HE MATTERS Continued Staff Recommendatio Staff recommends approval of the following street.name changes within the Nabelvale area. Existin Street.Names Pxo osed Street.Names 1.First Street Mann Road2.Second Street Jessica Lane3.Thixd St.xeet Sardis Road4.Fourth Street Teresa Lane5.Elm Street Darxis Drive6.South Elm Street Andx"ew Lane.7.Vine Street.Kayla Lane8.North and South Main St.Morehart Drive9.South Walnut.Street Blake Lane 1O.Hazel Street Leah Lane11.Mabelvale West Road Train Station Drive 12.Nabelvale Pike Helm Dx.ive13.No existing name April Place SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22„1991) Jerry Gaxdner of the Engineering staff informed the Committee of the reasons for the street name changes.No other discussion was made.This item was sent,on to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION AC ION:(SEPTEMBER 16,1991) The applicant was present.There were several people in attendance in opposition to the xeguest. Jerry Gardnex,a engineer with Public Works,then addressed the Commission.The Public Works department initiated the proposedstreetnamechangestocorrectanumberofduplicatedstxeet names existing within the City of Little Rock.The Nabelvale community,dating back to the tux'n of the centuxy,has grown and was annexed into the City in 1981.There aze a number of complicated oz duplicated street names within the City,particularly those which appear on the agenda. Staff has recently completed a major Public Woxks'mprovement in the Nabelvale area,which consisted of constructing an entirely new road.The road is located northwest of the zailroad tracks; and a part of the track was originally platted as West Second 2 September 1G,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NQ.:9 OTHER MATTERS Continued stxeet.Also,Main Street„formex'ly known as First Street,was extended to the post office„a block to the northwest.The City impxoved a couple of blocks changing them tc five lanes with a new five lane crossing,The improvements were made through the 1988 bond issue. Thex.efore,the decision to come up with a series of street names fox the changes was made.Because a name had to be given for the new street to avoid confusion,a second street was connected to Nabelvale Pike West road. There was a public concern for safety which staff emphasized to be the driving force and not the duplication of street name changes within the City of Little Rock.Since the City has implemented the 911 Emergency Service Center,changing the street names has made it more accuxate,and also the public was more concerned with the response time in case of an emergency. Ron Gatewood of the Gffice of Emergency Services then addressed the Commission.He stated that,his office"s main task is to dispatc'h emergency vehicles and respond to the 911 calls fox theCity.There is a potential danger with duplicated stx'eet names and addresses within the City,The system used to dispatch 911callsiscompletel.y computerized,and when calls come in on Southwestern Bell phone lines,the calls are routed out giving the number,street,name and address.For example,when the computer locates an individual address and there is noduplication,the system would only take seconds to search and find this specific infox'mation.If the street names are duplicated,the process would take more time to locate thepreciselocat.ion. Jerry Gardner stated the most important matter to accomplish is not to duplicate the street names.Staff has suggested street names which are definitely not duplicated and some extension ofothernameslikeSecondStreetcouldbechangedtoSax'dis Road. Presently,while Walnut.Stx'eet connects to Nabelvale West,,there axe many changes which have been made and continue to be made for the street system as this area continues to grow in the City. Nx's.Ax'lay B.Jackson then spoke and at.first she wanted to knowifthischangewouldbethelast.She has lived in Nabelvale for 41 years and she indicated that since they have been annexed intotheCityheraddresshaschangedthxeetimes.Secondly,sheobjectedtochangingthenameofNainStreet,which everyone isalsoobjectingtoo.The street that Nrs.Jackson lives on is named East Fourth Street and she does not like the name.The name she had chosen someone told her that.it was listed in the telephone directory. 3 September 3.0,3.991 ~Bll 0 VZHZOH ITEN NG.:9 GTHER NATTERS Continued David Hathcack,an engineer for Public Works,stated that ma aneexceptfox'he City has been allowed ta give street addresses. He further stated he had talked to pasta3.officia.ls,and theyassuredhimthat,everyone in Nabelvale had a post office box number assigned.The people in attendance disagx'eed with thestatement.It was indicated that the past.office would work vithresidencesupto18monthsandforbusinessesuptofiveyearsto imp3.ement the changes.Also,note the street names that have been selected nane axe duplicated,as well as na street names wil3.be changed again. Nr.Dalton Miller then spoke stating he lives an Nein Street.. Nast of the people Ihave mail boxes and do nat pick up their'ail at.the post office.He stated the xesidents anly knew abaut.thestreet.name changes Ibecause of a poster being tacked an anelectricalpole.He believes the residents should have had theprivilegeofknowingaboutthechangingafthestreetnames.Alsa,he indicated there was nothing mention of this in the paperandnonoti.ces vexe sent to the praperty ownex's. Nr.Miller's problem was with the changing of Nain Stx'eet because Nalbelvale is an old community amd this street.is the heart of tlhe community.His thoughts were that the City wanted to take avaythename.He then suggested Nalbelvale Drive,Nabelva3.e Blvd.or even Nabelvale Road.Nx'.Niller stated "why use a strange name when there has ~ever been a Narehaxt living on Nein Street".Hestatedthathewasonlytryingtopx'eserve some history. 'Then Nr.Miller was asked if he felt the residents cauld come upwithnamesthatwauldsatisfythecommunity„and he stated yes. Jerry Gardner stated staff would be willing to meet with theresidentsanddiscussanytypeofnameswihichthecommunityvishestoreport.Nore discussion continued on whether this itemshouldbevotedonordeferx'ed.Nr,Gardmer stated Ibe wouldpreferadeferraluntilOctaber22,1991.The mation passed byavateof8eyes,0 noes,1 absent.,1 abstentian (NcDaniel)and 1 open position. 4 September 10,1991 SUBUIVISIGN ITEN NG.:10 GTHER MATTERS APPLICANT:Clax'a Combs LGCATIGN:7804 Henderson Road PRGPGSAL RE UEST: Nxs.Clara Combs,the ownex of 0.5 acres at 7804 Henderson Road, xequested that the Planning Commission grant her relief of a subdivision ordinance plat and plan requirements.The ownex"has placed one mobile home on the property to be occupied by her daughter and her family,in addition to the single family house. The owner does not.intend to subdivide the property nor sell the mobile home. ~STAFF EPOR This type of application has been presented to the Commission in the past,The Planning Staff has visited the site and discussed several options.It.was determined that we would accept the present.conditions without.xequiring the plat at.this time. PLANNING CGNNISSIGN ACTIGN:(SEPTEINBER 10,1991) There were no objectors present.The Planning Staff presenteditsamendedrecommendationofdenial.The recommendation being based on the lot's size and the additional complaints fx'om the neighbors. The Chaixman then asked Mrs.Combs to prese~t.hex request. Mrs.Combs described the present situation,stating that herparents'ealth problems had forced hex to move next door to them.Also,she added that.she will move in their house and remove the txailer aftex the death of her parents. Commissioner NcDaniel suggested the Commission allow the applicant to keep the trailer on the property fox 24 months. After a bx'ief discussion,the Commission determined that it.was appropriate to allow a 24 month deferral period.A motion was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay,1 absent,and 1 open position. 1 September 10,1991 ZONINGI:11 NAME:Extraterritorial Zoning of Area 2 LOCATION."Area 2 of the Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction —south of Kanis Road,north of West Baseline,three miles vest of the City Limits. PROPOSAL:To zone all property R-2 Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT: The Planning Staff began the process of preparing an extraterxitoxial zoning plan in the fall of 1990.A four- step process was used.First,the Staff notified property owners within Area 2 of the intent.to zone.It vas explained to the property owners that the City Board would zone all pxopexty vithin the area R-2,Single Family Residential.Then,after s'tudying and amending the land use plan for the area,properties that are currently being used as other than single family x'esidential,and that are shown ran the amended land use plan as that use„vill be zoned for the current use. Second,the Planning Staff met on four occasio~s with pxoperty owners in Area 2.In all instances„the staff attempted to accommodate property owners'eguests for zoning within the bounds of sound planning principles. The third step of the process is to zone all properties in Area 2,to R-2.The fourth step will be to amend the land use plan and to re-zone those properties that.meet.thecx'iteria fox other than R-2 zoning. The Planning S'taff will prepare a re-zoning package to be considexed at,a futuxe Planning Commission hearing. STAFF RECONNENDAT ON: Staff xecommends that Area 2 of the Planning jurisdiction be init.ially zoned R-2,with the intent.to rezone some propexties to other than R-2. PLANNING CGMMISSIGN ACTIGN:(September Ia,1991) Rom Newman,Planning Manager,i.ntroduced Item No.11ExtraterritorialEaningafArea2,and explained the processthatStaffhasfollawedinordertobringthisitemtothe Commission,Jim Lawsan,Directar,also infarmed the Commission af the Zoning process and the di~ection in whichStaffhasfollawedsince1987.Cammissianer Walker asked ifStaffhad.any abject.ions ta the Cammissian appraving thedrafttodayandstated that he was ready ta vate. Mr.Jahm McCaleb,President af the Pulaski County Pxoperty Gwners Associat.ian,opposed the plan andi any rezoning in theareasthatlieoutsidethecitylimi.ts af Little Rack.Mr. McCaleb stated that the pr'aposed plan would create a slum wasteland in the area,tihe tax base would decline,and thattheGovernment,is taking proper'ty away fram the peaple,destraying pzaperty values and job creation in Pulaski County.Mr.McCaleb also stated that.the proposed plan is aperversianafthefreeenterprisesystem. Mr.Gene Brewer,asked that the Cammissiam delay a vate onthesoningandtahaveafifthmeet.ing out,in the area.Mz. Bx'ewer stated that peaple shauld be able ta live om theix'.andandthataneIhousepertractisnotfair.Mz.LawsaninterjectedthattheSubdivisionGxdinanceisalreadyin pl.ace in the Extraterritorial Areas.Mr.Brewer guestioned why Staff has not lhad smother meeting in the area and why was the area being zoned R-2 foz only 2 months with adifferentplantofollow.Commissioner Gleson asked Mr. Bxewer i.f he would comment on detzimental activity in theaxes.Mz.Brewer explained that.those in the area who are daing illegal activity should be penalized and others shoul.d not and he also restated that there should be a fifth meeting in the area.Mr.Lawson assured lhim tlhat there wi.ll be other meetings. Bob wilson„president of Elgor Inc.,asked that.Staff get a plan and stick with it.Mx.Wilson also guestioned as to why the green space was an his prapertyy Mr.Lawsom explained that the green space represented floodway/flood plai.n ax'ea and that,traditionally land use plans are not drawn to scale. W.C.Taylar of Crystal Valley Road,stated that the City should substitute land contxol for land use and tihat he was nat.protesting the plan but the blatant way the peaple intheaxeshavebeentres'ted. Randy NcNuxx'y stated that if he is zoned R-2,it willrestricthisbusinessof12years.Ron Newman explainedthatNxMcMuxry's business lies in the axes designated fox an exist.ing commex'cial node.N'r.Lawson stated that businesses on ma)or x'oads will be recognized and that businesses in backyards located in R-2 area will not berecognized. Ruth Bell assured the citizens that zoning the axes is apositivemoveandthat.the citizens will be bettex off inthelongxun. Commissioner Putnam stated that he could not possibly vote on an issue where he had not been privy to the meetings,andthatStaffhadnot.done an extensive study.Commissioner Putnam also stated that Staff should give the Plan moretime.Commissioner Walker stated that if the plan is approved thexe could possibly be less economic waste.Nr. Lawson stated that.Staff has been working on the plan for ayear„that the staff had held faux'ublic meetings in theaxes,and that,the rezoning of the area is based on arefinedplan.He also stated that if the plan is approved, then 10 years from now the City can zone accoxding to theplan.Nr.Lawson also stated that the land use plan has no enfoxcement power and that the longex the plan is put offthemorenonconfoxmitieswillbecreated. Ron Hopper stated that his understanding was that thisactionwouldnotbetakenatthistimeandthat.Staff was supposed to bring one plan at a time.Also,thex'e should beanoithex'eeting in the area. Commissioner Walker moved to defer action to the Nov.5th meeting and Commissionex Putnam seconded the motion. Commissioner Oleson suggested that,if the Commission could not agxee to the zoning pl.an on November 5th,they might.agree to R-2 blanket zoning. After further discussion,the Planning Commission voted onthemotionasfollows: VOTE:6 —fox' —against.-abstain Action was deferxed to the November 5th meeting. PLANTING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE H 4 10 t99l NENBER 2.9 R C D I .5 8 7 )0 ft0 4 ~ap n i+i~a 0 P 4 p W w ~~s P 4I P ~~a P p P ~~k ~~~4-~P TINE 0 Ball ~en os I+I ~ NcDaniel,John Biddiok,Walt:er XXI L AK 4'~P k rree+Ing m8gc uI-nW +AYE NAVE +ABSENT +ABSTAIN @$6,'O5 pre. September'0,1991 SUBDIVISION NINUTES There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 5:65 p.m. haxrman et.ary