HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_08 29 1996subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 29, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission meeting
were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Pam Adcock..
Sissi Brandon
Doyle Daniel
Hugh Earnest
Herb Hawn
Suzanne McCarthy
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
Larry Lichty
Mizan Rahman
One Open Position
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 29, 1996
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Riverdale Mini -Storage -- Site Plan Review (5-1041-A)
B. Candlewood Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review
(S-548-I)
C. Rock Ridge Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1184)
D. Detection System Revised POD (Z-5838-A)
E. HumanOSociety Long -Form PCD (Z-6165)
F. Grace Lutheran Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5473-A)
G. Alltel -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5737-A)
H. Riverfront Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment (at Jessie Road)
(G-23-245-A)
I. Mason Street/Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-246)
J. 14902 Alexander Road R-2 to 0-1 (Z-6159)
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. H & S Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-1109)
2. Heatherbrae Subdivision Phases 3 and 4 -- Preliminary Plat
(5-717-F)
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
3. StaMar Driving Range PD-C (Z-6178)
4. Vogel -Jones Highway 10 PD-C (Z-6179)
5. Ragan Safe and Vault PD-C (Z-6183)
6. Dean Coffee Company PD-C (Z-6180)
7. "The Edge" - 1010 East 3rd Street PD-I (Z-6166)
Agenda, Page 2
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
8. Ashley -Hankins -- Site Plan (S-1004-C)
9. Dillard's Executive Offices Expansion -- Site Plan
(Z-5098-B)
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
10. Hall Day Care Conditional Use (Z-6175)
11. Garrett Conditional Use Permit (Z-6176)
12. Clark Conditional Use Permit (Z-6177)
13. Hodges Conditional Use Permit (Z-6181)
14. Jones Conditional Use Permit (Z-6182)
VI. SPECIAL USE PERMITS:
15. Elrod Day -Care Family Home Special Use Permit -- located at
6717 West 65th Street (Z-6173)
VII. OTHER MATTERS:
16. G-23-251 walnut Street (at Kavanaugh Blvd.) Right -of -Way
Abandonment
17. G-25-172 Commerce Street (north of East Markham Street) -
Street Name Change
August 29, 1990
ITEM NO.• A FILE NO • S-1041 A
NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- REVISED SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN
LOCATION: 1024 Jessie Road
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
John Haley BCC GBN (Blass Firm)
Riverdale Mini -Storage 303 West Capitol Avenue
875 Union Building Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 2.91 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 or 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• I-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights (4)
CENSUS TRACT• 15
PROPOSED USES: Office Space
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None at submittal - to be determined by the
right-of-way abandonment.
BACKGROUND•
This parcel of land is partially composed of excess street right-
of-way and a remnant of the mini -storage development site. The
applicant has previously attempted to gain -use of the excess
right-of-way for development purposes, he is again on this agenda
with a petition to abandon if all requirements of the filing can
be met. The developer has not indicated at this time if there
will be a replat to make this a separate lot. If that is done,
it may relieve some problems with design.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To construct two stories of office space above a parking
structure that will provide up to 38 spaces on one level. The
initial application indicates a separate drive access from Jessie
Road than that used by mini -storage.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The expansion of the project area of the mini -storage to add
office space. This is being accomplished by submittal of a
revised Subdivision Site Plan. The end product to be four
buildings on a lot or possibly a two lot plat.
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1041-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This is a rough parcel of land with drainage and flood plain
problems and street problems with a private road. The
abutting uses are a mix of Office, Commercial and Warehouse.
zoning is mixed in the this area ranging from Office to the
north and east to Commercial and Industrial along the
railroad right-of-way.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Please note address assigned by GIS (1024 Jessie Road).
The design of the building will be required to comply
with FEMA regulations. The parking is in the flood
plain and does not have to be constructed above the
Base Flood Elevation. However, the stair towers and
elevator shaft will need to be at or above BFE of
256.3, or be flood proofed to this elevation. A
grading plan with a Special Flood Hazard Permit is
required prior to any construction. See G-23-245-A
comments (right-of-way abandonment).
Respond to requirements concerning the drainageway and
the reconstruction of Jessie Road to Commercial Street
Standards. Also, a sidewalk on Riverfront Drive shall
be constructed as a part of this project. The proposed
drive is too close to existing drive recently
constructed and should be a minimum of 100 feet from
the intersection of Riverfront Drive (a minor arterial)
per City Ordinance. Recommend combining drives and
using a common access point.
Utilities:
Sewer/exist 10" and 27" line available, contact
Wastewater.
Water/A main extension will be required. Fire
Department will evaluate the site to determine whether
additional public and/or private fire hydrants will be
required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone/approved as submitted.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• The site plan should be redrawn to include all existing
buildings.
2
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1041-A
• Will there be a plat with this on a separate lot?
• Delete parking space nine, won't work.
• Indicate signage, building and pole mounted.
• Turn radii on drives should be shown.
• Detail on plan areas for grass or landscaping.
• Detail on canopy as to height-clearance-signage, setback
from new right-of-way line. (Required at 30 feet on
Riverfront Drive.)
• Setback from Jessie Road is 50 feet.
• Fully dimension all physical improvements.
The full on -site buffer width required along Riverfront
Drive is 40 feet. The minimum requirement when transferring
buffer area to another part of the site is 27 feet. The
width of the proposed buffer cannot be determined until the
right-of-way issue has been worked out. At this time, the
amount of right-of-way to be added to this site from the
abandonments is unknown.
E. ANALYSIS•
This application is premature given the several significant
issues developed by staff. The right-of-way line and future
property line require resolution prior to determining
buffers, landscaping, setback, parking design, etc.
The use and general concept is good and has possibilities
after resolution of issues.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Deferral of the request until October 10, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
The staff presented its comments on the submittal, stating that
there were too many issues unresolved and the drawing requires
more information. The staff felt that it could not deal with the
proposed building without knowing how much land is involved.
Until such time as the City decides how much land will be turned
back to this owner, the lot line on Riverfront Drive is unknown.
A lengthy discussion was held on the subject of bringing all data
and graphics up to date, by the Thursday, May 23 deadline.
Someone raised a question about the railroad ownership and their
participation. It was staff position that the railroad must sign
3
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1041-A
as a participant. A general discussion then involved the right-
of-way and why the abandonment issue is before the Commission.
Staff question about a need for a plat produced a response from
the applicant that a plat would not be done, this will be one
lot.
Richard wood noted for the record that a variance will be
required if this is all considered one lot, the depth of the lot
east/west requires a 40 foot buffer along Riverfront Drive. The
present plan cannot handle that. A brief discussion involved
sidewalk and the proposed jogging trail that Parks Department is
developing. No resolution was gained at the approach to in -lieu
or building it.
The applicant then accepted the Committee request that the
requirements noted be dealt with by next Thursday, May 23, 1996.
The item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 28, 1996)
This applicant responded to the many unresolved issues by
requesting in writing a deferral of the application to July 18th
and the Subdivision Committee on June 27th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
As requested by the applicant in writing, a -deferral of this item
was determined to be in order. The Commission placed this item
on the Consent Agenda for deferral to July 18, 1996. A motion to
that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996)
There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee
meeting in as much as the applicant had not made contact with
staff concerning resolution of the street abandonment or the site
plan review. The Staff and Committee would suggest that the item
be carried forward at least one additional review period which
would place the item before the Commission on August 29, 1996.
4
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1041-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 18, 1996)
The Staff offered the applicant's request for deferral to the
Planning Commission on August 29, 1996. After a brief
discussion, the Commission determined it 'appropriate to place
this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
There was no committee discussion on this item. The applicant is
still working to resolve the companion Riverfront Drive right-of-
way abandonment (G-23-245-A).
This item is to deferred until the October 10, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the
Planning Commission on October 10, 1996. This item was included
as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-548-I
NAME: CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension,
approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd.
and the Kroger Center.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Joe White, Jr.
McCASLIN DEVELOPMENT WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5950 Berkshire Ln. 401 S. Victory St.
Suite 800 LB 37 Little Rock, AR 72201
Dallas, TX 75225
AREA:
39.32 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS:
1 FT. NEW STREET: 3,500
ZONING:
R-2
PROPOSED USES:
Multi -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: River Mountain (1)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include
construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three-
story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family
building is to contain approximately 10;000-square feet per
floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an
additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to
be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000
square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives
totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site
from its "dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a
total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future
public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the
north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west
boundary of the site. No variances are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan
is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded.
The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the
"dead-end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope
is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a
August 29, 199d
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548 I
rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along
which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40
feet of rise.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a
pending applicant to -be heard on May 9, 1996, for the
rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract
to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the
site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise,
all surrounding properties are zoned R-2
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan,
with the location, width, intersections, curve radii,
and grades conforming to City ordinances.
The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width,
minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet
in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be
27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the
plans along these drives.
Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any
land alteration.
The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies.
Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement
will be required around the full perimeter of the site.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension
from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be
required to obtain water service to this project. On -Site
fire protection will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity
contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison
Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project.
The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that
adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to
the fire hydrants.
OA
August 29, 199v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31.13 requires "large-scale developments involving the
construction of two (2) or more buildings (on a
site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section".
Because of the multiple buildings being constructed, the
Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review
and approval of the proposed site plan.
Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site plan review submittal
indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property,
indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family
development and land use buffers are required. The
topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this,
but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with
by the applicant and the Commission.
Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of
all existing and proposed utility and street easements and
all existing public improvements within the site be shown.
The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not
assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street
(shown as a "Future Public Street") extends westward across
the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made,
and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the
lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the
street.
Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of
the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is
mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in
some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and
parking areas is critical.
Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the
site, showing the exact property lines, and including a
statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not
been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not
meet the requirements as such.
The availability of public utilities has not been fully
addressed.
Water: A water main extension from the tank to the west end
of Rivercrest Drive will be required to obtain water service
to this project. On -site fire protection will be required.
3
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548 I
The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not
been identified.
Sec. 36-502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes,
that 1% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit.
The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit.
The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a
collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd.
The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to
provide for this extension, nor to build the street to
collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan
is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the
Planning and Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given
by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a change
should be made. Otherwise, conformance with the Master
Street Plan is mandated.
The Plans Review Specialist comments:
The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow
for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient
area for landscaping. The development will be required
to comply with both the Land Use Buffer and Landscaping
Ordinances.
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation- of the
roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the
roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super-
elevation- means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the
curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a
flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance
with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by
Public Works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public
Works standards.
Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master
Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be
initiated by the applicant.
The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of
the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs
to be addressed.
4
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the
applicant's request to withdrawn the Site Plan application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 4, 1996)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the
project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present.
Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the
Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the
proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff,
reported on the Public Works comments, and discussed in detail
the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be
built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west,
as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the
internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the
issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed
the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information,
indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic
information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May
9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on
the property which will be heard on that date.' Staff recommended
approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included
on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MAY 16, 1996)
This item was not discussed in as much as there are continuing
discussions between the developer and staff on street issues.
The item requires deferral to the July 18, 1996 Subdivision
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Commission as
suggested by the Subdivision Committee in order to permit
additional time for the developer and staff to complete
discussion of the street issues and the developer to determine
acquisition of the property.
5
August 29, 199_
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-548 I
The Consent Agenda for deferral until July 18, 1996 was approved
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DUNE 27, 1996)
This item was not discussed at the Subdivision -Committee meeting
due to the applicant's failure to provide additional information
as to resolution of the site plan access and location of the
primary road to the site. The Staff and Committee would suggest
that this item be continued one additional deferral or until
August 29, 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996)
The Staff offered comment to the effect that this applicant and
the staff require additional time to determine the design of
certain street access to serve the proposed development. Staff
suggested this matter will be resolved prior to the next
Subdivision Committee meeting on August 8 or staff will ask that
it be withdrawn from further consideration. Staff suggested that
it be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29,
1996.
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it
appropriate to defer the item to August 29, 1996. A motion to
that effect was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays,
3 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Tim Daters, project engineer asked to withdrawn the Site Plan
request.
The item will be forwarded to the full Commission for action on
the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
The Staff relayed the applicant's request to withdraw the Site
Plan Review. This item was included as part of the Consent
Withdrawal Agenda.
A motion to approve the Consent Withdrawal Agenda. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
6
August 29, 19—
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO • S-1104
NAME: ROCK RIDGE ROAD SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Rock Ridge Road at Highway 10 (immediately south of
Lake Maumelle)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Bob Beason White-Daters
4125 Studer Road 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 13.1 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 750
ZONING: None -outside PROPOSED USES: Single Family
Jurisdiction of Zoning
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20, Pinnacle
CENSUS TRACT: 42.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED:
BACKGROUND•
1) Boundary Street Improvements
2) Double frontage lots
This is a semi -rural area in the west end of the planning
jurisdiction. The area is in the -design -and development stages
of a water improvement district. This district will probably
generate a number of plats in the near future as the mains are
installed.
A.
PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
To develop a residential plat utilizing the current Rock
Ridge Road and building other improvements to less than full
urban standards. Septic tanks will be used in as much as
there is no sanitary sewer system in the area. No phasing
plan was submitted but it is assumed that the plat will be
phased to meet market need for the area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The topographic information is incomplete but it appears
that the land rises 30± feet from Hwy. 10 to the east
property boundary. There are no abrupt changes in grade.
This hill mass is generally undisturbed.
August 29, 19�. _
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1104
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this writing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior
to construction. Stormwater detention, ADPC&E permit,
USACE permit, grading permit, and a sketch grading and
drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction.
Since there does not exist a Master Street Plan for
this area, recommend deferral or approval based on the
assumed standards. Highway 10 is a principal arterial
and would require 110 feet of right-of-way with added
lanes to bring to 30 feet from centerline. Staff can
support a 5 foot utility and drainage easement with the
existing shown 50 feet of right-of-way due to absence
of a MSP. Staff does feel that since Highway 10 in
this area is still rural in nature full Master Street
Plan widening is not appropriate. However, staff would
support a waiver of the full standards (assuming they
are adopted prior to approval of this preliminary plat)
with the condition that Highway 10 be widened to
accommodate left turns into the two streets with
appropriate shoulders. These streets are in a curve
with speeds in excess of 55 MPH. 1992 traffic count is
5860 ADT similar to current collector volumes. Current
pavement is 28 feet in width, col -lector standard is 36
feet. The cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to
residential street standards. The lengths would
indicate a need for normal residential street
standards, including sidewalks. AHTD permits will be
required. Street lights are required for this street
and subdivision, coordinate their construction with
street construction.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment
Water: Execution of water service agreement
is required. water main extension
required.
Arkla: OK
AP&L: No response, this writing
Southwestern Bell: OK
Fire Department: 50 feet minimum radius on turn-
around.
2
August 29, 19�_
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1104
County Planning:
• Concern expressed about water quality in Maumelle water
shed.
• Septic systems should be closely reviewed by county
sanitarian.
• Consider width of Rock Ridge if additional lots are
added. It is county maintained.
• Open ditch section for improvements is OR provided design
is approved by county and bonded one year.
Planning Division: No comment
F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape
No comment
Planning Staff
The following are deficiencies in the submittal and plat
design.
• No survey stamp included.
• Source of dedication or right-of-way easement on current
Rock Ridge Road.
• Will there be phasing of lots.
• Source of title - ownership certificates.
• 750 feet unnamed street
• Location of water line to service site, will septic tanks
work/perk tests.
• Boundary data deficient, need angles, bearings etc.
• All building lines
• Contour information incomplete
• Abutting plats and/or owners
• Legal description missing
• Phasing plan
• PAGIS Monument
• Engineer certificate blank
• Show pavement and right-of-way width on Highway 10.
• Bill of Assurance is required.
• Street names required, show.
• Corner radii at Highway 10 on both streets
G. ANALYSIS•
This plat is viewed by staff of Planning as well as Public
Works to be to far out of conformance to deal with at this
meeting. There are a number of areas of requirement that
3
August 29, 19_ _
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1104
this owner may not be willing to address, such as street
improvements.
This engineer is placed in a difficult situation by not
having done a proper survey, but working from an old survey.
Much of -that survey information is not shown here. This
owner needs to discuss this matter with his engineer,
redraft his application and return for the August Planning
Commission meeting.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
That this preliminary be deferred to the Planning Commission
meeting on October 10, 1996.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 27, 1996)
The applicant was present as was Tim Daters, the engineer for the
plat. Both Planning and Public works Staff outlined what were,
staff felt, to many issues to resolve at Subdivision Committee.
Mr. Daters offered comments concerning the manner of the filing
and what they had hoped to accomplish. A number of questions
were raised by Committee members as to why the filing when it was
apparently not ready. The owned indicated he was somewhat taken
unaware by the staff's requirements and inability to support
waivers. After commentary on how to proceed the owner decided he
would agree to deferral.
The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final
disposition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 18, 1996)
The Staff identified for the Commission this applicant's request
for deferral to August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing. The request
is based upon the Subdivision Committee meeting wherein the
engineer and the owner observed more problems and developing
issues than they were prepared to deal with. They have requested
time to reconsider their application in time for consideration in
the next review cycle of the Subdivision Committee. Staff feels
comfortable with the deferral.
A brief discussion of the matter was followed by a motion to
place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A vote on
the motion produced 7-ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 19:
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1104
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
There was no discussion of this item. The engineer submitted a
letter requesting a deferral until the next Planning Commission
meeting.
This item is to be deferred until the October 10, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the
Planning Commission on October 10, 1996. This item was included
as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 199u
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO • Z-5838-A
NAME: DETECTION SYSTEMS -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 14703 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER!
Detection Systems, Inc.
14703 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm
P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
AREA: 2.92 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
Z NING: POD/Proposed PCD PROPOSED USES: Office/Mini-Storage
PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Improvements on Kanis Road
BACKGROUND•
This application is the extension of a POD whereby the owner was
permitted to located his business offices on the lot in a
transition zone. That zone extends along the west side of Kanis,
south to Cooper Orbit and north toward Pride Valley Road.
Commercial is not included in the current Planned Office
District.
That POD maintained the balance of the tract as residential
without a plan.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
To continue the development of this long narrow tract in a
useful and productive manner. Proposed are six long
buildings each about 20 feet by 250 feet long. The proposed
buildings will have a painted, nonreflective, ribbed metal
roof. The color is to be green. The westernmost 50 feet of
the tract is proposed as a buffer.
There will be RV parking adjacent.to the buffer.
The POD use, detection systems will remain on the front 200
feet plus or minus. There will be a resident manager housed
in this existing building.
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5838-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is generally rising in elevation from the east at
Kanis Road (460 feet M.S.L.) to the west end of tract (550
foot M.S.L.). This is"a 90 foot change over 1,249 feet or
almost one quarter mile. This site not completely cleared
and has only the front buildings currently. The site abuts
a county road standard two lane road (Kanis Road) as primary
access. Most abutting lands are developed similarly with
Kanis uses and long somewhat unused rear areas.
Public Transportation
None in this area
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None at this writing
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
The Traffic Engineer recommends a 20 foot center isle.
Do not park recreational vehicles in the rear lot.
Room needed to accommodate truck turn -around. Dedicate
Master Street Plan right-of-way to 45 feet from
centerline. Provide In -Lieu for Master Street Plan
improvements for frontage. A grading permit is
required prior to construction.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary
Water: An acreage charge will apply. On
site mains and hydrant plan needed.
Arkla: OK
AP&L: No response at this writing
Southwestern Bell: Need easements
Fire Department: Need 50 foot minimum radius at west
end/RV parking
County Planning: No comment
2
August 29, 199,,
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5838-A
F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape
Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape
Ordinance requirements. Trees and shrubs will be required
around the perimeter of the site.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required
to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic.
There are many unresolved issues attendant to this project
as follows:
• Area devoted to landscaping needs to be defined - equal
or less than code.
• Show Kanis right-of-way existing and Master Street Plan.
• Turning radius in RV area is not adequate - limit on
length.
Planning Division:
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Transition. The previous
zoning was POD and Single Family (R-2) which is in
conformance. The requested change expands the nonresidential
use area and character. The resulting proposal is in conflict
with the Plan. There has not been a change in the area to
justify amendment of the Plan.
G. ANALYSIS•
The dimensions of the site are approximately 120 foot of
frontage on Kanis Road by 1,200 feet deep. The Land Use
Plan indicates that this proposal would be appropriate for
only the first 150 feet west of Kanis Road. Beyond that
point to the west, the Land Use Plan calls for Single
Family.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Deferral of this item until the Planning Commission meeting
of September 12, 1996. During the continuance, staff will
review the Land Use Plan for this area and report back to
the Commission on September 12, 1996.
3
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5838-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present for the application. He offered
comments in support of the application. Planning and Public
Works staff presented'a lengthy list of design issues that
perhaps the owner has not thought through. Some of these were
noted as fire and safety issues and needed additional work.
The Committee questioned Mr. Riggins about time and the
possibility of deferral. After discussion of all the issues, the
Committee suggested placement on Consent for deferral and bring
it back next month.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996)
The Chairman asked that Staff present this item for discussion.
The staff offered its recommendation which was this proposal be
placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996
meeting. Staff stated the reason for the deferral was that there
were a sufficient number of problems at the Subdivision Committee
level which precluded the completion of a review in time for the
Planning Commission's hearing on this case. The Subdivision
Committee directed that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda
for deferral.
Without further discussion, the item was placed on the floor for
a motion. A motion was made to add this item to the Consent
Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996 meeting. The motion
was seconded and passed by a vote of-7 ayes,- 0 nays, 3 absent and
1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present to represent the applicant.
Planning Staff reviewed with the engineer the deficiency list
prepared at the June 27, 1996 Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr.
Riggins unveiled an updated layout which answered the Fire
Department turnaround concerns. However, many of the questions
from staff remain unanswered. Mr. Riggins agreed to submit a
revised plan.
The item is to forwarded to the full Commission provided that a
revised plan is submitted to staff no later than 5:00 p.m.
Thursday, August 15,-1996.
4
August 29, 199u
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5838-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the
Planning Commission on September 12, 1996. This item was
included as -part of -the Consent'Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 19.
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-6165
NAME: HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI COUNTY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 14600 Colonel Glenn Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Humane Society of The Mehlburger Firm
Pulaski County Frank Riggins
14600 Colonel Glenn Road P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72210 Little Rock, AR 72203
227-6166 375-5331
AREA: 3.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Humane Society
Animal Shelter
PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REOUESTED: 1) Street Improvements along Colonel Glenn
Road
2) Filing fee
BACKGROUND•
This application is the culmination of much effort and time in
design, site search and fundraising. Planning Staff has over
time assisted in attempts to locate a good affordable properly
zoned site with the result that the society has chosen to remain
on the existing site. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of
the area adjacent. A PCD was chosen as the vehicle since it
afforded site plan review for all involved and would probably be
better received.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
A one lot PCD with one primary structure and removal of all
existing building and use areas once constructed. Parking,
landscaping-and•all basic elements of ordinance are
addressed.
August 29, 19__
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A tract of land occupied by a varied and nonfunctioning or
poorly functioning animal compound. Much of the activity is
outdoor.' " The' parking -does not -meet any -standard of design.
Maneuvering of cars on the site involves the street creating
a hazard. There are multiple buildings and pens crowded
onto mostly the east one-half of the site which has over
time had many of the trees removed.
Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street on the
Master Street Plan but is a two lane county asphalt road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has at this writing received numerous calls primarily
from adjacent owners opposing the project. There are ten
letters in the file from objectors.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior
to construction permit. Street improvements for this
principal arterial are required. Dedicate right-of-way
to 55 feet from centerline and construct 100 percent of
culvert crossings to accommodate a 25 year rain event.
Street improvements involve -widening to 30 feet from
centerline with a sidewalk. 1992 traffic count appears
to be in the 3000 to 5000 ADT range for the section
adjacent to site.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT:
ilities and Fire Department/County Plannin
Wastewater: Outside service area - No comment
Water: Has existing service, contact Water
Works if additional service is
needed.
AP&L: No response at this writing
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
Fire Department: Outside city limits
County Planning: OK
2
August 29, 19-.,
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165
F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape
Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance
requirements... "A six foot high* -opaque --screen, either a
wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the business
activity of this site from adjacent residential properties
to the north, east and west. Existing natural dense
vegetation on site can count toward fulfilling this
requirement. The Landscape Ordinance requires that six
percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be
landscape with interior islands. The proposed western
parking area will require 544 square feet of interior
landscaping while the proposed eastern parking lot is short
of -the 1,116 square foot interior landscaping requirement by
243 square feet.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required
to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic.
The following are the follow-up items on the PCD submittal
and basic questions about development.
• Timing on existing building removal
• Site lighting, how tall, how many, where placed and
directed.
• On site drainage features
• Treatment of outdoor runs
• Hours of operation
• Signage, building and freestanding
• Any overhear doors
• Dead animal disposal
• Sound systems, external
• Dumpster, treatment and pickup time
• Number of full time personnel, paid or otherwise.
• Will there be a full time on site manager?
Planning Division:
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. There has
been no.change in the area. There is -no justification for
plan amendment at this time.
3
August 29, 195_
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
G. ANALYSIS•
The Planning Staff has been acquainted with some of the
needs, issues and players in this development proposal for
sometime This-- includes -people -on both sides of the issue
at hand. We are well aware that this property was not
included at the time of the extraterritorial zoning
establishment. The concerns that we have voiced to those
involved is that how such a project is done is at least as
important as whether it is done. There are few sites that
we can point to as alternate locations, but each of them has
negatives much as the neighborhood at hand. The thorough
review of this project by staff, City Engineer and myriad
others will surely produce an end -product that can better
suit all involved. We do not feel that simply saying no and
remain as is a solution. We feel the nonconforming status
has some value to staying here and rebuilding. A planned
development is an acceptable means of doing so.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the project be approved but that it be
retitled as a PD-C in as much as all the uses included
within this building are one use. we strongly recommend
neighborhood involvement as well as addressing all of the
many design issues raised by Planning and Public Works
Department in paragraphs D, E and F above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: - (JUNE 27, 1996)
The application was represented by Mr. Frank Riggins of the
Mehlburger Firm. Mr. Riggins was accompanied by others as agents
of the Humane Society. Mr. Riggins presented the application and
addressed the concerns offered by City Staff. A lengthy
discussion followed with numerous questions about traffic,
drainage, construction and others. Chief among these was a
question as to whether the Humane Society has met with neighbors.
The response was no, and this prompted the Committee to direct
they do so, before the public hearing. David Scherer, of Public
Works, offered comments on traffic and access plus safety issues
attendant to the current poor parking arrangement. The curb cut
spacing at less than 300 feet was not viewed as a problem since
there is over 200 feet between them and a long property front on
the street.
4
August 29, 19:,,
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996)
Prior to the initiation of discussion of this item, the Chairman
offered extended comment on the effects of the shortage of
commissioners at this-meeting"arid"-the"potential effect upon such
an item as the one about to be presented. Steve Giles of the
City Attorney's Office offered comments. His comments had to do
with the applicant's ability to bring an application back to the
Commission of the same or substantially the same request within
one year of action.
The item about to be heard is a rezoning or a PCD item which has
to go to the City Board. So to make a point of clarification,
the City Attorney in concurring with Jim Lawson determined that
should this item not receive the required six votes for approval
or denial, it would go on to the City Board of Directors with a
recommendation of denial.
The Chairman then identified that the application belongs to the
applicant and they had a right to present their case and proceed
with the application before the Commission.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, injected at this point a statement
that perhaps the staff needed to layout the basic issues and
offer staff recommendation. The Chairman concurred in this
comment and asked that staff proceed.
Wood stated that he would make a brief comment and offered that
David Scherer, of Public Works, perhaps could offer some
commentary on the street improvements that would be involved.
Wood proceeded to read the staff recommendation and presented the
application as a PCD. He outlined the basic issues and the staff
position being one of approval supporting maintenance of a use
that is already there. The proposal before the Commission would
only improve the circumstances.
At the end of Wood's comments, Jim Lawson of the Staff offered a
comment. He had received information that there was a property
line dispute involved in this issue about to be presented, but
this is not an issue the Planning Commission could resolve.
The Chairman commented this was a title issue and the title
company had apparently made the description error. However, this
would be resolved. David Scherer, of Public Works, then came
forward to offer a brief comment.
Mr. Scherer's comments included notations on the type of street
improvements which would be constructed if this plan is approved
and the difference between this and the Master Street Plan
requirement. He also discussed the spacing on the driveways
which would be required normally 300 feet, but in this case they
5
August 29, 19-,
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-616
are somewhat closer. The total property frontage is a quite long
frontage. Scherer also commented on the drainage issues which
have been discussed by the developer and Public Works and those
have been covered.
Chairman- Putnam stated -he �f elt -like the -Commission needed to
backup a little bit to a point where we could identify the
spokeperson or persons for the Humane Society and what they wish
to do in these circumstances. Wes Lowder came forward
identifying himself with his firm as being an agent for the
Humane Society in this application.
Mr. Lowder stated that he hated proceeding under these current
circumstances with the unforeseen attendance problem with the
Commission and the large number of people present. These folks
have to come back for another hearing at a later date, if
deferred. He stated, -even though the Commission might have a
problem with the vote, even if someone abstains, the item will
still have the opportunity of proceeding to the Board of
Directors for a hearing at that level."
Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Lowder if his constituents or the
applicants were in accordance with this comment. Mr. Lowder
stated that in the interest of time and considering the agenda
today and the number of people here, he did not want all of his
side of the issue or the involved parties to speak to the
Commission on the application. At this point, Mr. Lowder asked
that all the persons present in the room on the Humane Society
issue being for the application to please stand. There were a
number of persons standing, approximately 20 people. At this
point, Mr. Lowder identified Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger
Firm as being the person who filed this application and attended
the Subdivision Committee and that he would offer the
presentation.
Chairman Putnam directed a question to a Mr. Engstrom, the lead
person for the opposition to the Humane Society proposal. The
question being whether or not they had concerns about the
applicant proceeding with making a presentation of the
application before hearing from the objectors.
Mr. Engstrom's response was that they should proceed with
presenting the application. Mr. Frank Riggins then came forward
and proceeded to offer commentary on the application. He offered
a brief presentation of the issue and restated some of the points
raised by Richard Wood, of the Staff, and the staff
recommendation. He -first _.stated this is a.3 1/2 acre tract
located along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and this
property had been occupied approximately 20 years by the Humane
Society with the previous user being a chinchilla or fur ranch of
some sort. He stated the proposal before the Planning Commission
August 29, 15_,)
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-61
was a state of the art replacement structure or facility for the
existing activities on the property.
He briefly identified the existing circumstance for the buildings
and grounds being in a state of poor repair with a strong need
for upgrade. "He stated that the Humane --Society is currently
involved in a fund raising program to construct this building.
He identified the intended structure to serve the kinds of animal
maintenance and care which the current building provides, except
it would be provided in an enclosed building plus allowing four
educational office space, treatment rooms, adoption rooms and
such. He stated the primary intent is to keep the animals indoor
with some of the cages having guillotine type doors so that the
animals can get fresh air and spend some time outdoors as well as
allowing maintenance of their cages on the interior. The animals
would be retained on the inside of the building at night. He
described the proposed plan as allowing more on -site parking so
as to resolve the current problems on -site.
He stated the plan would provide for landscaping buffers and
landscaping in accordance with city code. He also restated a
comment offered by David Scherer, of Public Works, that in this
redevelopment there will be an additional lane provided on Kanis
Road so as to provide a left turn lane to enter and exit the
property. He stated the hours of operation will be from 1:00 to
8:00 p.m. from Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and on Saturday and
Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The facility would be closed
to public on Wednesdays. There will be one ground mounted
monument type sign on the Colonel Glenn frontage and that the
parking lot lighting will be programmed to go off one hour after
the facility closes each day.
In closing his comments and presentation, he requested the
Planning Commission's aid and assistance in the continuance of
the Humane Society's program and efforts on this property. He
stated that a "no" vote by the Planning Commission will simply
keep them there where they are in the current facilities and
would keep all of the other elements in place such as the poor
parking, backing into Colonel Glenn, outdoor cages, etc. A "no"
vote would be rejection of what they feel will be a significant
improvement of what is there now.
The Chairman then turned his attention to the cards of speakers
which had been turned in previously. He identified that there
were three persons that had signed cards. After identifying them
as being present, the Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes Lowder who
came forward again. He. stated for the record that there 15+
people present that he had encouraged not fill out cards and
simply not overburdening the Commission's time with excessive
number of speakers. He closed his comment by saying that he
would appreciate these people being granted the same opportunity
7
August 29, 19_
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165
to speak that the opposition would be granted if they are all
allowed to come forward to address the issue.
Chairman Putnam identified that the Planning Commission had
recently established a time line for hearing public hearing items
and 45 minutes is the..alloted-time for -hearing -a case with both
sides of the issue. Mr. Lowder stated that he wished to proceed
with the three persons present, who wish to speak to the
application.
The first one to come forward was Ms. Shawna Skoronski. She made
a single statement which was she wanted to hear the opposition's
comments before proceeding.
A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and the City
Attorney as to the appropriateness of the procedure suggested by
Ms. Skoronski. Steve Giles,of the City Attorney's Office,
responded by saying that the bylaws proposed that the applicant
present a case then the opposition. Again Ms. Skoronski stated
that she would like to hear what the opposition is from those
persons present. She appreciates the Commission's position
relative to the bylaws, but she would like to know what those
items are that she needs to respond to..
A lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney and
several commissioners as to the appropriateness of the action to
be taken with no resolution. The Chairman then asked Ms.
Skoronski if there were others present on the "for" side of the
issue that wished to address the Commission at this time. She
stated that there were not. It was agreed upon between Ms.
Skoronski and the Chairman that he then offer the floor to the
opposition.
Mr. Steve Engstrom came forward as the principal or the leader of
the opposition. Mr. Engstrom offered comments to the effect that
he was the unofficial leader of the opposition representing most
of the people that live in the valley below Ellis Mountain and in
close proximity to this application. He requested that everyone
present in the room in opposition to this application please
stand (20+). He followed up by asking those who live in the
valley remain standing and others be seated. He then turned his
attention to those persons present who identified themselves as
being in support of the application stand, if they lived in the
valley. He proceeded with his presentation by identifying
himself as an attorney and as resident of the area since March
1974, prior to the Humane Society's movement into the valley.
Engstrom indicated that his patio and other outdoor facilities of
his residential property had been affected by the activities of
the Humane Society. He stated that his attendance at the meeting
today was for one primary reason, to act as a panel moderator for
a number of persons who wish to make prepared statements. He
8
August 29, 19_ .
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO Z-616
stated that the opposition had worked diligently toward making a
presentation and would present an organized objection in a serial
manner. The objections would be presented by topics and by
different spokespersons.
He then moved -his- comments - to a statement that -he felt the Humane
Society served a community purpose and was a noble cause. He did
not want the issue of their activity in this regard to cloud the
issue. He stated the issues which he saw were: first, being the
enterprise as it exists and as proposed is simply to big for that
site and whether the application presented to the Planning
Commission is flawed in several respects with regard to noise and
traffic, with waste and with regard to poor management. And
last, they have too much going on to put it right here meaning
that site.
Engstrom identified the first speaker for the opposition as being
Andrew Hubert. Mr. Hubert came forward and presented a brief
statement then identified that he and his companion had bought a
sound level meter to perform certain sound tests from certain
distances. He stated that the presentation he was about to make
was a recording of the noise level at approximately 60 feet from
the outdoor pens. He then proceeded to produce a sound measuring
device and a recording device on which he played back a tape of
multiple dogs barking. At this point the tape becomes too noisy
to pick up conversation which was attempted by Mr. Hubert above
the noise of the tape playing and some of comments he offered had
to do with the level of sound recording and pain threshold for a
person observing these noise levels. He stated that this noise
goes on behind the Humane Society at all hours of the day and
night. -
After the playing of the tape, Mr. Hubert proceeded to offer some
additional commentary. He introduced and identified a resident
of the area by the name of Mrs. Beverly Williamson. He stated
that this person had recently had their residence appraised and
had been told by their appraiser that the value was reduced by
the presence of the Humane Society. He stated that persons in
the area were unable to entertain due to constant noise coming
from the facility. Mr. Hubert then demonstrated with the
assistance of another gentleman the coping skills utilized by
neighbors in order to sleep at night. Much of the following
conversation was off the microphone and was not legible but had
to do with certain plugs that were inserted in the ears in order
to baffle the sound disturbance.
Mr. Hubert..continued..his-commentary by stating that others in the
area utilized the same thing plus fans or other devices to shield
themselves from the noise disturbance. He stated a key question
then as how all of this new facility provided for a reduction of
these issues. He stated the construction of this building will
bring the noise closer to residents than current and will
9
August 29, 19__
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-61
increase an already intolerable situation and the increase in the
number of dogs and traffic would inevitably increase an already
bad situation.
In closing, Mr. Hubert commented that as far as he knew all other
central Arkansas -facilities of. -similar -nature are completely
enclosed and he did not feel they were able to address the noise
factor on the currently owned parcel. Mr. Engstrom then
identified the second person as a presenter, Mr. Erin Glitten.
Mr. Glitten proceeded to offer comments and in lieu of those that
had been proposed by his father. He indicated that his propose
in speaking was to address the issue of traffic. He pointed out
safety related issues relating to traffic in this section of
Colonel Glenn Road upon which a number of the persons present in
opposition currently lived. He identified the Humane Society as
being located on a short but dangerous stretch of Colonel Glenn
Road. He identified the road as being very narrow with no
shoulders and open ditches and a continuous set of blind curves.
He identified that there were countless accidents over a period
of years in this stretch of the roadway. He proceeded to offer
statistics from the County Sheriff's Department and the Arkansas
State Police which resulted in him saying that 31% of the
accidents along Colonel Glenn Road in this part of the county
were produced in this area which is 10% of the roadway.
He then turned his comments to the Little Rock Master Street Plan
and identified that which is required by ordinance and this was a
principal arterial with 110 feet of right-of-way and would be at
least five lanes with turning movement lanes provided. He also
pointed out that the future development -to -this roadway to that
standard is a considerable period off. He stated the right-of-
way required for Colonel Glenn Road substantially reduces the
amount of area available for the development of the site. He
felt the dedication of right-of-way would reduce the property
from over 3 acres to about 2.55 acres. This gentleman closed his
remarks.
Mr. Engstrom then identified the next speaker, Dr. Howard
Stephens and Dr. Mary Baeyens. These two speakers addressed the
subject of water and waste treatment. Dr. Stephens came forward
and identified himself as having been past president of the
Pulaski County Humane Society. He stated that he felt like at
the time they moved to this location their size was appropriate
to the amount of land being occupied and was adequate for the
number of animals they were keeping. He identified a flood
instance of the earlier occupancy by the Humane Society and the
destructive effects of that flood. Most of the facility being
under water. He offered photographic evidence of this
circumstance.
M11
August 29, iS ,
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
As a nonconforming use on this premise within a single family
neighborhood, they should go along at their current pace. But
once they initiate an application to broaden their activities and
expand, they have too much planned for this site and the
neighborhood simply does not believe them when they offer the
large parking -lots, -the large building and other activities on
this narrow sliver of land.
He felt this issue should be placed on a tract of land that is
large enough to give an effective buffer. He stated 20 acres
somewhere would solve the noise problem and other such
activities. He stated that he did not believe them when they
said they could not go some place else.
At this point, Ms. Skoronski came forward again and offered a
question to the staff. The question being did not the staff
attempt -to help the society earlier in attempting to locate
another site that would be adequate. This generated a discussion
between several parties of which some were lost because generally
they were not speaking into the microphone.
Jim Lawson addressed the Chairman saying he thought at this
point, Mr. Lowder wanted to address the Commission relatively to
a deferral of his application. Mr. Lowder came forward and
stated for the record that they would like a deferral and an
opportunity to answer some of the neighborhood's concerns.
Jim Lawson then offered a statement which ended by offering the
staff's assistance in setting up such a neighborhood meeting and
identifying the Commission's issues which would be dealt with at
that meeting. However, he specifically stated that he wanted to
hold a civil meeting and address issues such as were addressed
today and not where neighbors said they simply do not want the
Society on this property. Therefore, the only purpose of that
meeting would be to attempt to clarify the issues. However, this
meeting would not be a meeting for him to attempt to gain the
neighborhood support for the Humane Society.
Commissioner Earnest inserted a thought that the issues to be
addressed should be on the material submitted to the Commission.
He identified items 1 through 5 on the petition. Jim Lawson, of
the Staff, accepted this as the direction for staff and for the
meeting.
Commissioner Lichty then identified a person in the audience and
asked him to come forward to make a comment if he had one to
offer. This gentleman.identified himself as Cole Williamson who
is a resident of the Colonel Glenn area. The question that he
posed was did not the Planning Commission offer to this group as
well as others at the beginning of the meeting the opportunity to
defer their case if they felt uncomfortable with the attendance
of the Commission at this time.
11
August 29, 195
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
The question was clarified by Staff and identified by the
Chairman that this issue dealt with the quorum present and those
persons who may have desired a deferral due to that circumstance.
The Chairman then offered an extended explanation of what he
attempted to do at the early part of the meeting and it was the
applicant's option to pursue the hearing at a later time.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who stated
that she hoped the land boundary dispute could be resolved before
it comes back to the Planning Commission.
Jim Lawson pointed out the Planning Commission could not resolve
the land dispute and he felt like the City Attorney's Office
supported us in this contention. He stated that he proposes no
structure or physical improvement be located in such a fashion as
to encroach upon the disputed boundary.
Commissioner McCarthy then stated her appreciation to the
neighborhood opposition and congratulated them on doing a very
good presentation. She also stated for the neighborhood that
they should not leave here feeling this was all for naught but
the issues were well presented and the Commission did hear them.
Maybe once the neighborhood and the applicant are together and
discuss this, some of the issues can be resolved.
Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion. The motion being that
this item be deferred until such time as the meeting can be held
under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawson of the Staff. The motion
was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and
1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
There was no representative of the project present. Staff
indicated that a meeting between the neighbors and project
proponents is scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 1996, 6:15 p.m.
at the Metro Plan Conference Room 501 West Markham Street. This
meeting was setup at the request of the Planning Commission at
their July 18, 1996 meeting.
The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for
action.
0IVa
August 29, 195
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on
the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full
Commission can request- -a-deferral at this time. Mr: Wes Lowder
of the Mehlburger firm requested a deferral to the Planning
Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included
as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
13
August 29, 1.,96
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-5473-A
NAME: Grace Lutheran Church -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hillcrest
Avenue and North Lookout Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Grace Lutheran Church/
Richard W. Groh
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a church
family life center on this R-2
zoned church property. A
setback variance is requested
for the proposed family life
center along Hillcrest Avenue.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The church is located at the northeast corner of
Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout Drive, across
Hillcrest Avenue to the north from Mount St. Mary
Academy.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property immediately north and east of the proposed
family life center is zoned R-2 and contains single-
family residential structures. The church owns the
house at 5101 North Lookout.
The property to the south (across Hillcrest Avenue)
consists of the Mount St. Mary Academy development.
The property across Lookout Drive to the west contains
a multifamily residential development and commercial
uses along Kavanaugh Blvd.
The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on
the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Two access points are proposed along Hillcrest Avenue.
August 29, i>96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5473-A
The proposed use will not require any additional
parking, as the church's seating capacity will not
change.
There is an existing 17-space parking lot on the site.
A 20+ space parking area is proposed with the family
life center development. This additional parking
should help alleviate some of the on -street parking
along Hillcrest Avenue.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping for the
proposed vehicular parking and driveway meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque wood fence with its face side
directed outward or dense evergreen plantings will be
required to screen this site from the residential
properties to the east.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
Because of the size of the proposed expansion an
upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance will be required where any existing
deficiencies exist.
5. City Engineer Comments:.
Provide stormwater detention analysis and provide a
sketch grading and drainage plan prior to construction.
Dedicate right-of-way for Hillcrest Avenue to 30 feet
from centerline and construct 1/2 street improvements
from Kavanaugh to the east to 18 feet from centerline
with a sidewalk. Current street is less than 27 feet
in width. Mount St. Mary's is planning similar
widening with future construction on the opposite side
of Hillcrest. Together a 36 foot street would meet
ordinance and be of great benefit to both facilities.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Little Rock wastewater - Sewer service available, not
adversely affected. If pump station is required for
basement area of project, utility approval is required.
Little Rock Fire Department - Additional fire hydrants
may be required.
2
August 29, 1y96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5473-A
Southwestern Bell - Retain existing easements to
maintain existing cables.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a family life center on the
R-2 zoned Grace Lutheran Church church property at the
northeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout
Drive. The proposed family life center would be located
immediately east of the existing church building, on the
east side of the alley right-of-way. The applicant has
also filed a right-of-way abandonment application for the
alley (G-23-250).
The proposed family life center will include a daycare
center (presently housed in the existing church
building), a kitchen, a church office area, and an area
to be used for general church -related activities. The
architectural design, exterior walls, windows,
entrances, roof slopes and finishes will be of the same
materials and design as the original church building.
The applicant is also proposing to add 20+ parking
spaces to the site. The majority of these spaces will
be located on the east side of the proposed family life
center, with a few spaces possibly being located on the
north side of the building, between the building and
the asphalt driveway. As noted earlier, the proposed
building will not require any additional parking, but
the additional parking proposed will help alleviate
some of the on -street parking along Hillcrest Avenue.
The applicant is also requesting a setback variance for
the proposed building along Hillcrest Avenue. The
required front -yard setback along Hillcrest Avenue is
25 feet. After right-of-way dedication for Hillcrest
Avenue, the applicant is proposing a setback of 8.5
feet. This particular setback is requested because it
is the churches wish to "line up" the proposed family
life center with the existing church building.
In addition to the alley right-of-way, the church
property immediately east of the existing church
building contains three (3) single-family residences
and a portion of the abandoned Van Buren Street right-
of-way. The church has offered the three (3) single-
family residences to be moved to other areas of the
Hillcrest neighborhood, or otherwise removed.
On October 8, 1991, Grace Lutheran Church was approved
for a conditional use permit to demolish the
3
August 29, Iv96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5473-A
residential structure at 5111 N. Lookout and convert
the lot into a parking area to serve the church. As a
condition of approval, the church agreed in writing to
a five (5) year moratorium on any further demolition of
their buildings. The moratorium included residences on
property then owned by the church or purchased within
the five year period. The church will not remove the
three (3) single-family residences prior to October 8,
1996.
Based on the uses and zoning in this general area, the
proposed church family life center should not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
application and of the requested setback variance,
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments
2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
4. The alley right-of-way must be abandoned.
5. None of the three single-family residences are to
be removed from the site prior to -October 8, 1996.
6. None of the three single family residences are to
be removed from the site prior to the church
obtaining a building permit for the family life
center building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996)
Julius Breckling and Dick Groh were present, representing
the application. Mr. Breckling gave a brief description of
the proposal.
David Scherer (Public works) and Bob Brown (Site Plan
Review) reviewed their comments with the Committee.
There was a brief discussion of the proposed church
expansion and the neighborhood in general. The requested
setback variance and the moratorium on building demolition
were discussed briefly.
4
August 29, 1596
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996)
Julius Breckling and Herman Bemberg were present,
representing the application. There were three persons
present to speak in opposition to the item.
Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that
the applicant had requested a deferral of the item.
Herman Bemberg, representing the church, gave a brief
description of the proposal. Mr. Bemberg stated that he
would request a deferral of the item.
There was a brief discussion as to whether a deferral of the
item would be appropriate.
Jim Vandenberg, of the Hillcrest Residents Association,
stated that he would also like for the item to be deferred
in order for the church to work out additional details with
the neighborhood.
Drexel Jordan, 5014 Hillcrest Avenue, informed the
Commission that he was "straddling the fence" regarding this
item. He stated that he had concerns regarding the
proposal.
After a brief discussion, -aa-motion was made to defer this
item to the August 29, 1996 Subdivision Agenda. The motion
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and
1 open position.
The applicant was directed by the Commission to meet with
the neighborhood and attempt to resolve any outstanding
issues.
STAFF UPDATE:
On August 15, 1996 a neighborhood meeting was held at Grace
Lutheran Church. Jim Vandenberg was present, representing
the Hillcrest Residents Association. Several of the
church's neighbors were also present.
The church's day care was one of the issues discussed. The
church representatives confirmed that the existing day care,
which is licensed by the state of Arkansas for a maximum of
31 children, would remain at that same operating level which
has existed on the site for a number of years. The church
5
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A
representatives stated that the day care would be moved into
the new family life center building but would not increase
the number of children cared for.
Another issue discussed was the removal of the three
residences. Jim Vandenberg expressed interest in having the
residences moved to vacant lots in the area. Mr. Vandenberg
stated that he possibly knows of a property owner who could
take the homes. After further discussion, the church
representatives and Mr. Vandenberg agreed that none of the
three single family residences would be removed from the
site prior to the church obtaining a building permit for the
family life center building. This will give the Hillcrest
Neighborhood Association more time to find a recipient for
the houses. This will be made a condition of approval by
staff. (See "Staff Recommendation" #6)
The church representatives also assured Mr. Vandenberg that
the architectural style and quality of the family life
center building would be the same as the original church
building or the family life center would not be built.
There were other brief discussions regarding the parking
situation and the new proposed parking area, the overall
site design and the Public Works, requirements. When
discussion concluded, Mr. Vandenberg stated that he was
pleased with the overall plan and stated that the Hillcrest
Residents Association was in favor of the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
A
August 29, 1y96
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO • z-5737-A
NAME•
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
Alltel - Conditional Use
Permit
7525 West Markham Street
Faith Evangelical Lutheran
Church/Alltel by
Carrick B. Inabnett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 103 foot
tall cellular communications
monopole tower and an 11 foot
by 24 foot equipment building
on this R-2 zoned church
property. A height variance
has been requested for the
monopole tower.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located at the southeast corner of West
Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue.
2. Compatibility with Neicrhborhood:
The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively single
family residential, zoned R-2. Faith Evangelical
Lutheran Church has existed at this site for 20+ years.
Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower will not
be compatible with the established single-family
residential neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site can be gained by utilizing an
existing drive from Mississippi or West Markham Street.
Parking will be provided at the tower site for a
service technician who..will occasionally visit the site
for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is
required.
August 29, -L196
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5737-A
4. Screenina and Buffers:
No Comments
5. City Engineer Comments:
Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way for Markham
Street. Master Street Plan calls for 80 feet or 40
feet from centerline. Mississippi requires 80 feet or
40 feet at intersection plus additional right-of-way as
required for a right -turn lane. Thus 50 feet from
centerline. 1992 traffic counts are 19,110 for Markham
and 11,720 ADT for Mississippi in the area of this
intersection.
6. Utility Comments:
No Comments received.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular
communication monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot
equipment building on this R-2 zoned existing Faith
Lutheran Church property.
The proposed monopole tower will be located at the
southeast corner of the existing church building,
approximately 25 feet north of -the -residential property
which fronts on Briarwood Drive. The base of the tower
will be enclosed by a small masonry wall. Additionally,
three (3) crosses will be placed on the monopole. These
crosses will be approximately 12 feet in height and 5
feet wide and will be mounted at the top of the monopole,
one at each corner of the triangular -shaped antenna
structure. The crosses and the monopole will be painted
white.
The proposed equipment building will be located along the
east side of the church building. The equipment building
will be located within an open below -ground area which
the church utilizes as a playground area. The equipment
building will not be visible from west Markham Street or
the adjacent residential properties.
The applicant is also requesting a height variance for
the monopole tower. A height of 103 feet is requested
for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet)
allowed by ordinance.
2
August 29, !.,96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5737-A
Alltel is proposing this monopole tower site in order to
provide better service to its cellular customers in this
area along West Markham Street. Alltel has expressed to
Staff that none of the nearby commercial or industrial
zoning (in any direction) and none of the nearby existing
structures (the AT&T tower at Rushing Circle, the
Southwestern Bell tower at Cantrell and Keightly Road)
will suit their needs. Alltel has also informed staff
that co -location on this proposed tower would be
possible, but it would depend on the particular antenna
request.
The proposed monopole tower site will be located in the
heart of an established single-family residential
neighborhood. In staff's opinion, this proposed use will
not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
application. Staff feels that the proposed monopole
tower is not compatible with the surrounding
established neighborhood.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996)
Carrick Inabnett along with representatives from Alltel were
present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal.
There was a general discussion relating to the proposed
location of the monopole tower. The applicant stated that
this particular site is needed based on the existing
infrastructure of towers within the city.
There was also brief discussion relating to possible co -
location on this proposed tower and the proposed location of
this tower within the church property.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996)
Carrick Inabnett and Alissa Coffield were present,
representing the application. There were several objectors
present.
3
August 29, -L196
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A
Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that
the applicant had requested a deferral of the item, based on
the reduced number of commissioners present.
Sandy Williams addressed the Commission. She stated that
the neighborhood met with the applicants on July 7, 1996.
She stated her concerns (and the neighborhood concerns) with
the proposed monopole.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mrs. Williams if the neighborhood
would be interested in meeting with the applicants again.
Mrs. Williams stated that they would not.
Carrick Inabnett spoke on the item. He stated that because
of the opposition to the proposal, he would like the
application to be heard by the full Commission. He
therefore requested that the item be deferred.
Commissioner Adcock asked if Alltel would be willing to meet
with the other cellular companies regarding co -location
issues.
Alissa Coffield stated that Alltel would agree to the
meeting.
There was a brief discussion regarding the deferral request.
A motion was made to defer the item to the August 29, 1996
Subdivision meeting. The motion was approved by a majority
vote of 4 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and l open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
Carrick Inabnett, Alissa Coffield and Tim Rounsaville were
present representing the application.
Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, discussed the necessity of this
site and capacity issues with the Committee.
Alissa Coffield, also of Alltel, discussed the proposed
location of the monopole and equipment building within the
church site.
There were brief discussions regarding the location of the
monopole in relation to the single family residences and the
possibility of co -location. The Alltel representatives
stated that this monopole would allow a second, future, user
at the 70 foot level.
4
August 29, -L-496
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5737-A
After further discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The applicant was present. There were several persons
present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the
item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 agenda, as offered
by Chairman Woods, due to only eight commissioners being
present.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
5
August 29, ,.996
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO • G-23-245-A
Name:
Location:
Owner/Applicant:
Request:
Riverfront Drive Right -
of -Way Abandonment
Located at Riverfront
Drive (at Jessie Road),
north of and adjacent to
the Little Rock Western
Railroad right-of-way.
John Haley and Chris
Robertson/Fred Chilcote
To abandon the excess
right-of-way for
Riverfront Drive, north
and adjacent to the
Little Rock Western
Railroad right-of-way.
The applicant has not been able to obtain all necessary
documents needed for staff to conduct a proper review of
this item.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a deferral of this
item until the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission Subdivision
Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 6, 1996)
The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred
until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The
applicant is working toward obtaining all necessary
paperwork to complete the application process.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
The applicant is continuing to work toward obtaining all
necessary documents needed for staff to review the item.
The applicant has submitted at letter requesting that the
item be deferred until the August 29, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
August 29, 1-796
SIIHDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-245
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 18, 1996)
The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred
until the Subdivision Agenda of August 29, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
August 29, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred to
the Subdivision Agenda of October 10, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
The Commission waived the by-laws with a
0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position, as
applicant's third request for deferral. -
vote of 8 ayes,
this was the
2
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO • G-23-246
Name: Mason Street and Hardin
Road Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: 11,000 Block of Kanis
Road - North Side
Owner/Applicant: Robert M. Brown,
Applicant
Recuest: To abandon that portion
of Mason Street and
Hardin Road located at
Kanis Road, running North
504± feet and 417± feet
respectively, for use as
utility easement areas.
Mason Street will be
maintained as a private
drive for access to
adjacent properties to
the east.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav
2.
The Public Works response
property owners responses.
response is deferred until
provided. There do exist
existing building and pres
of these right-of-ways. L
provided to each separate,
stands, access to the rear
ownership (Tract 51 and 52
Master Street Plan
depends on the adjacent
Therefore, Public Works
further information is
issues involving access to
criptive rights by the users
egal access has to be
parcel. As the proposal
parcels within this
would require access.
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
The Director of Public Works agreed to a 6 months
deferral of the dedication of right-of-way for these
two streets at the time of rezoning. This was to allow
the applicant time to investigate the possibility of
closing these right-of-ways.
August 29, 1:06
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246
Required right-of-way for Kanis Road was dedicated at
the time of rezoning.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Mason Street is a narrow drive, which is used to access
two residences and a salvage yard business to the east.
Hardin Road is vacant and undeveloped.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the areas of this abandonment will be
used as utility easement areas. Mason Street will be
maintained as a private drive for access to the eastern
properties.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Mason Street: Surrounding uses include two single
family residential structures and a salvage yard
to the east, which gain access from Mason Street.
There are three single family residences to the
west, all of which are accessed from Kanis Road.
Hardin Road: Surrounding uses include the same three
single family residential structures to the east
and single-family residential uses to the west,
all of which gain access from Kanis Road.
Abandoning these rights -of -way will have no effect
on the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced.
8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Fire Department - Mason Street needs to remain open to
provide access to properties on the east side.
AP&L - Retain the rights -of -way for easements (egress
and ingress).
Southwestern Bell - retain the rights -of -way for
utility easements.
ARKLA - No objection
Little Rock Water Works - No objection
Little Rock Wastewater - Retain the rights -of -way for
utility easements.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent
property owners.
E
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-246
Mason Street: Once abandoned, the area of the
proposed abandonment will be divided equally
between the owners of Tracts 50, 51, 62 and 63 of
the West Highland Addition to the City of Little
Rock.
Hardin Street: Once abandoned, the area of the
proposed abandonment will be divided equally
between the owners of Tracts 52, 53, 60 and 61 of
the West Highland Addition to the City of Little
Rock.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the
public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the
following conditions:
1. Mason Street being maintained as a private drive for
access to adjacent properties to the east.
2. The areas of this abandonment being retained as utility
easements.
3. Tracts 51, 52, 61 and 62 of the West Highland Addition
to the City of Little.Rock.being treated -as a single
piece of property for the purpose of gaining access
from Kanis Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning
Staff, explained to the Committee that the applicant had
submitted a letter requesting deferral of this item to the
April 25, 1996 Planning Commission agenda and that this item
would be submitted to the Subdivision Committee for comments
on April 4, 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 14, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
requested deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996
Planning Commission Agenda. Staff recommended approval of
the deferral.
3
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (APRIL 4, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning
Staff, gave a brief description of the proposed right-of-way
abandonments.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
requested deferral of this item to the July 18, 1996
Planning Commission agenda. Staff recommended approval of
the deferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
July 18, 1996 commission meeting. The motion was passed on
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 18, 1996)
The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has
submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred
until the Subdivision Agenda of August 29, 1996. Staff
recommended approval of the deferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
August 29, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent,
and 1 open position. A waiver of the Planning Commission
Bylaws was also approved by the same vote, as this was the
applicant's third request for deferral.
N
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246
STAFF UPDATE•
A. Mason Street Right -of -Way Abandonment:
All abutting owners of record have signed the petition
for abandonment with the exception of the owner of
Tract 47 (see sketch labeled "Exhibit A"). The
controlling partners of Tract 47 are located out of
state and their local representatives/partners were not
interested in considering the request.
A mutual access easement agreement has been executed by
the applicant and owners who require access until
future development activity changes their
circumstances.
This easement agreement will be recorded if the
abandonment is approved.
B. Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment:
The applicant was unable to obtain the cooperation of a
key owner with frontage along the west side of this
right-of-way. There are no specific intentions to
develop an access or any of the property at this time.
Therefore, the applicant wishes to amend this
application. The applicant requests a deferral of the
required right-of-way dedication along the eastern side
of Hardin Road (as -required -by -a-recent rezoning of
property east of this right-of-way).
The request is to defer the 30 foot right-of-way
dedication along the east side of Hardin Road for a
period of five (5) years or until one of the adjoining
properties (east or west sides only) is proposed for
subdivision or development and the need for this right-
of-way is confirmed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation -on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
F1
LOT 4R ITRACI _
O.P. WEST PARTNERSHIP TT FZCV.7— . . —F— — — - - Ihi-r\jQlz—L\Qj
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO NORTH
CLOSED BY ORDINANCE 013,743
15.0 FEET TO —
TRACT 51 OWNERS
TRACT 51
VOGEL-HUGHES-JONES, PARTNERSHIP
16.0 FEET TO —
TRACT 62 OWNERS
-S-FRAM TRACT 62
VOGEL-HUGHES-JONES, PARTNERSHIP
PART OF TRACT 50
J.B. WEYRES
PART OF TRACT 50
P.L.PLUNKETT
—15.0 FEET TO
TRACT 50 OWNERS
TRACT 50
PART OF TRACT 50
O.L. PLUNKETT ET AL
15.0 FEET TO
TRACT 63 OWNERS
TRACT 63
' O.L. PLUNKETT ET AL
G-23-246
REET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
EXHIBIT A
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: J Z-6159
Owner: Earl and Barbara Brisendine
Applicant: Barbara Brisendine
Location: 14902 Alexander Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-1
Purpose: Use existing structure as
offices for food service
broker
Size: 2.0± acres
Existing Use: One story brick residential
structure which is occupied by
Brisco Food Service, Inc.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
lot and
Single Family homes; zoned R-2
South
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
East
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
West
- Vacant,
wooded
and Single Family homes; zoned
.
R=7A (also City
of Alexander)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS -
Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial, 90 feet of
right-of-way and 60 feet of pavement with sidewalk.
Dedicate right-of-way to bring property line to 45 feet from
centerline. Driveway must be improved for structure to be
used as office. Any planned construction will involve
widening of one-half the road to minor arterial standards
and the construction of a sidewalk. At the time of permit
other development related issues will be discussed. AHTD
approval will be required for construction within right-of-
way, after City approval. Current construction is a 22 foot
pavement with open ditches and no sidewalk. 1992 traffic
count for Alexander Road is 1560.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The
adopted Plan recommends Single Family. There have not been
any changes in the area to justify a plan amendment to
Office. Staff cannot support the introduction of
nonresidential use at this time.
August 29, 1>-46
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J Z-6159 (Cont.)
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2± acre
tract from "R-2" Single Family to "O-1" Quiet Office. The
property contains a one-story, brick and frame residential
structure which has been converted into offices by Briscoe
Food Service, Inc. The applicant states she was not aware
that the property was in the City of Little Rock until a
representative of the City's Code Enforcement Staff issued
her a notice for violating the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is located at the extreme southwest corner of
the City, adjacent to the City of Alexander. The area is
rural in nature, comprised primarily of single family homes
on larger lots. Large areas are undeveloped and wooded. A
partially developed manufactured home subdivision is
adjacent to the west.
The primary zoning in the area is R-2, with the manufactured
home subdivision being zoned R-7A. Both of these
designations are single family residential. within the city
limits, there is no nonresidential zoning within the
vicinity of this site.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan is reflective of the
existing zoning by indicating single family for this entire
area with the exception of the manufactured home subdivision
which is shown as MH on the Plan. The nearest
nonresidential on the Plan is well north of this site, at
I-30 and County Line Road.
The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for this site.
There are no other nonresidentially zoned properties within
the vicinity of this site. All surrounding uses are single
family. Staff cannot support the requested 0-1 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed -the Commission that the applicant
had submitted a letter on May 13, 1996 asking that the item
be deferred to the August 1, 1996 commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the August 1, 1996 meeting by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel).
2
August 29, 1y96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J Z-6159 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 1, 1996)
The Chairman identified for those present for today's
meeting that there was a potential vote problem with the
Commission since there were only eight of the eleven members
present and six votes are required for final action.
The Chairman asked if the applicant wished to address this
circumstance and perhaps request a deferral. The applicant
came forward and identified herself as Barbara Brisending, a
resident at 14902 Alexander Road which is the subject
property. She stated for the record that because of the
attendance circumstance she desired that her application be
deferred. The Chairman requested that staff provide the
appropriate deferral date. Richard wood, of the Staff,
stated that the August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing is the
next scheduled meeting for items of this nature.
A brief discussion then followed involving Commissioner
Daniel, the Chairman and Staff members as to the appropriate
meeting for the placement of this item for deferral. wood
stated that the deferral needs to go to at least the
subdivision agenda since the staff does not normally place
public hearing items of this nature on the Planning Hearing.
A question was posed by a gentleman in the audience as what
position the item would hold on the new agenda. The
Chairman and Staff identified that it would-be a.deferred
item and would be one of the first items introduced. The
Chairman asked for a motion from the Commission. A motion
to defer the application to August 29, 1996 was made. The
motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes,
0 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstention
(McCarthy).
The Chairman then stated for the record that the item has
been deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The applicant, Barbara Brisendine, was present. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial.
Ms. Brisendine handed out a letter in support of her
application and a map showing other non-residential uses in
the area. She also presented photographs of those non-
residential uses. She stated that the area was clearly not
a residential area but had several other uses.
3
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J Z-6159 (Cont.)
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Ms.
Brisendine described the food brokerage business being
conducted at 14902 Alexander Road. She stated that there
were no trucks or deliveries other than UPS trucks bringing
literature to the site. She stated that the business
employed approximately 6 people, several of which traveled
and were only rarely at the office. Ms. Brisendine stated
that there was no inventory kept at the site. She stated
that the business had been operating at the site since
December, 1995. Ms. Brisendine concluded by stating that it
had been suggested to her that she might amend her
application to a PUD and that she was willing to do so.
Commissioner Putnam commented that there would still be a
land use issue.
Commissioner Daniel commented that he had visited the site
and had noticed many non-residential uses in the area.
In response to questions from Commissioners Brandon and
Putnam, Ms. Brisendine stated that the house was occupied as
a residence when she bought the property but that it was
used solely as an office now.
There was then a further discussion of the uses in the area.
Commissioner Hawn suggested that a PUD might be appropriate;
one that allows the existing use and retains the residential
character of the house.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated
that a Planned Development might be an appropriate
compromise. He suggested that the application might be
amended to a Planned Development - Office for this specific
use, retaining the residential character of the property and
restricting signage on the site. Such an application, he
stated, would not be in conflict with the Plan and would not
require a plan change.
Ms. Brisendine stated that she wanted to have a sign on the
property to identify the site for customers and delivery
persons.
Commissioner Adcock asked why the Plan showed the area to be
single family when there were so many nonresidential uses in
the area. Mr. Lawson responded that those uses were
nonconforming. He stated that staff was agreeable to a
deferral if the Commission wanted staff to do a review of
the Land Use Plan for the whole area.
In response to a question, Ms. Brisendine stated that there
was no ground -mounted sign on the property. She described
4
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J _Z-6159 (Cont.
the only signage as an 18 inch by 8 foot sign, mounted below
the eave of the house.
Commissioner McCarthy asked if a Planned Development would
require a plan change. Mr. Lawson responded that a PD-O for
this specific use, with conditions assuring that the
residential character was maintained, would not require a
plan change. Anything beyond that, he stated, would require
a review of the Plan for the larger area.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Lawson
stated that the survey submitted with the application would
be sufficient for the Planned Development, if the applicant
worked with staff to address issues such as landscaping and
parking.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,
addressed the Commission. She stated that the League was
opposed to the original rezoning request because it opened
the possibility of expanding nonresidential zoning in the
area. She stated that the League was not opposed to a
Planned Development that allowed this specific use and
retained the property's residential character.
Ms. Brisendine stated for the record that she was amending
her application to a Planned Development - Office.
A motion was made to approve the Briscoe Food Service, Inc.
Planned Development - Office as described by the applicant
with the permitted use of the property to be limited to
Briscoe Food Service, Inc. and -single -family -residential.
The single family residential was added to allow the
convertibility of the property back to residential should
Briscoe Food Service, Inc. ever vacate the site. The
approval allowed signage limited to the-18 inch by 8 foot
sign mounted on the building, beneath the eave, and did not
allow any additional wall or ground -mounted signs.
The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1109
NAME: H&S SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On west side of Crystal Valley Road south of
Whippoorwill Lane
DEVELOPER•
Harold D. and Shirley Smith
18201 Lawson Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
DEVELOPER•
Rodney and Chandra Russell
#30 Art Pond Road
Conway, AR 72032
AREA: 13.37 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3
ZONING: R-2 Single Family District
PLANNING DISTRICT: #17 Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
ENGINEER•
FT. NEW STREET: None
PROPOSED USES•
Single Family and Planned
Commercial Development
1) Street Improvements on Crystal Valley Road
2) Lot depth -to -width ratio for Lot 1
BACKGROUND•
This preliminary plat seeks to legitimize 30 foot strip along the
southern boundary of what is shown as Lot 1 which was recently
sold from Mr. and Mrs. Smith to Mr. and Mrs. Russell. A
companion application to the preliminary plat will also allow
Mr. Smith to construct an office/warehouse building on property
shown as -Lot 2 on -the plat. (PD-C Z-6180)
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1109
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
This preliminary plat will create three lots. Two will
accommodate existing single family residences and one for a
proposed Planned Development Commercial use.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land is heavily wooded and gradually slopes to the
southwest. A one-story frame home with a shop out building
is located on Lot 1. A single family story home is located
on Lot 3 with detached storage and greenhouse structures.
Proposed Lot 2 is vacant.
Public Transportation
There is no service to these lots.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None received at this writing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Grading and drainage plan with soil loss calculations
is required prior to construction. Stormwater
Detention will be required. Crystal-Valley•Road is a
principal arterial per the Master Street Plan.
Dedicate 55 feet from centerline according to the
standards set for principal arterial particularly the
radius required for the horizontal curve is to be 1,400
feet. 1/2 Street improvements for frontage are
required by ordinance, staff recommends commercial
widening to create center -turn lane and tapers for
business and a deferral of the remaining improvements
until further development occurs or five years. 1992
average daily traffic was 1,840 vehicle per day.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/LANDSCAPE:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
Water: No objection. Execution of pre -
annexation agreement and approval
from City required.
AP&L: No comment
K,
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1109
Fire Department: Hydrants installed no more than 800
feet apart. Access to structures
require a 15 foot driveway that will
support fire apparatus.
County Planning: No comment
Landscape: No comment
F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• Show surrounding land uses and zoning.
• Label right-of-way on Crystal Valley Road.
G. ANALYSIS•
This plat will create three parcels. Lots 1 and 3 have
existing single family homes. An office/warehouse building
is proposed on Lot 2. The applicant is request a waiver of
street improvements on Crystal Valley Road. Staff
recommends widening to create a center -turn lane for the
proposed business on Lot 2. A deferral of the remaining
improvements is recommended for up to five years. (See
Public Works comments)
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the preliminary plat without a waiver of street
improvements. Staff recommends that a portion of the
Crystal Valley Road improvements be deferred when other
development occurs or up to five years as outlined in the
staff comments of paragraphs D, E and F.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Jim Summerlin and Harold Smith were present to answer
questions. Planning staff asked that the 55 foot proposed street
dedication from centerline of Crystal Valley Road be shown on the
preliminary plat. David Scherer required adjacent to Lot 2
commercial widening to create a center -turn lane and tapers be
required. The remaining road improvements can be deferred up to
five years.
The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for
consideration.
3
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO 5-1109
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
When the meeting was called to order, it was apparent that no
more than 8 commissioners would be present. The Planning
Commission Bylaws require a minimum of 6 affirmative votes for an
item to be approved.
Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on
the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full
Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Harold Smith
requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on
October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent
Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO • S-717-F
NAME: HEATHERBRAE SUBDIVISION PHASES 3 AND 4-- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: North of Taylor Loop Road east of Gooch Road and west
of Glen Valley Drive
DEVELOPER•
Woodhaven Development Company
8721 Warden Road
Sherwood, AR 72116
AREA: Phase 3 - 3.49 ACRES
Phase 4 - 3.06 ACRES
ENGINEER•
William L. Dean, P.E.
Civil Design Incorporated
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
NUMBER OF LOTS: Phase 3 - 12 lots
Phase 4 - 10 lots
FT. NEW STREET: 834 LF
PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
This proposal will create an additional 22 single family lots in
the Heatherbrae Subdivision which was initially final platted in
1987. Approximately, seven finished lots from previous phases
remain vacant at this time.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
To create 22 new single family residential lots in two
phases as an extension of the existing Heatherbrae
Subdivision. Glenn Valley Drive will be extended to the
west. Heatherbrae Court and Glenstone Drive will be
developed running north to south.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land is flat, heavily wooded and covered with dense
underbrush. Existing phases of -Heatherbrae Subdivision are
immediately adjacent to the east and south. Glen Valley
Drive stubs into the site and will serve as access to the
site. The Gooch Drive residential neighborhood is located
to the west and south.
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-717-F
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None to date.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Continue sidewalk on Glen Valley to intersection.
Drainage easement shown on the west property line must
contain all flows off site shown to be in excess of 453
cfs, staff recommends that due to flows in this
drainage that the easement shall be an open space tract
and not contained on individual lots. If the drainage
is to be contained in an open ditch, 4 foot chainlink
fencing will be required adjacent to drainage easement
to restrict access from small children, safety concerns
raised by the other existing drainage ditches in the
City has caused this to be a policy adopted by the
Board of Directors. Ownership must be established to
provide tailout of the drainage to the north to
properly intercept the existing floodway. This
subdivision cannot begin construction until the
engineering plans are approved with proper development
permit, NPDES, and grading permits due to past problems
with Phase 2. An above ground drainage easement will
be required on Phase 2, 3, and 4 lots to accommodate
the major storm event as required by City Ordinance.
This major drainage easement will be graded and
restricted as to use by lot purchasers concerning
construction of fences, landscaping and fill as
required by Ordinance. The pipes and ditches planned
as shown have not been approved by the engineering
staff. Ditches are generally not acceptable and may
require stormdrain piping or concrete lining.
Stormwater detention shall be provided for Phase 1, 2,
3 and 4 this construction. Stormwater detention from
previous phases 1 and 2 was deferred to phase 3.
Current traffic count numbers for Taylor Loop are not
available. Subdivision will add approximately 220
trips per day to traffic volume on Taylor Loop.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with
easements.
Water: water main extension required.
AP&L: OK
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
2
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-717-F
Fire Department: Turnaround for fire apparatus should
be at least 50 foot radius.
County Planningr: No comment
Landscape: No comment
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
• Phase 3 Lot No. 3 does not meet minimum depth.
• Show radii of streets and right-of-ways.
• Label abutting owners and zoning.
• Show open space tract to accommodate drainage flows.
G. ANALYSIS•
The developer proposes to add 10 lots in Phase 3 and another
12 lots in Phase 4. Phase 3 Lot 3 does not meet minimum lot
depth. Thus, the lot configuration at the cul-de-sac on the
proposed Glenstone Drive should be changed. Public works
is requiring that stormwater detention for Phases 1, 2, 3
and 4 should be provided at this time. This may require
alteration to the lots planned for Phase 4 on the east side
of proposed street Heatherbrae Court.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of preliminary plat provided that the developer
eliminate Lot 3 of phase 3 and merge that area with
surrounding cul-de-sac lots. Approval -is subject to the
conditions listed in paragraphs D, E, and F of this staff
report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Bill Dean, project engineer, was present to answer questions.
Planning Staff noted that Phase 3 Lot 3 did not meet minimum lot
depth requirements. Staff noted that street radii and right-of-
ways need to be shown on the preliminary plat. David Scherer
discussed drainage concerns that impacted the two existing phases
as well as phases 3 and 4. He indicated that drainage was
originally planned to exit phase 2 through a pipe situated
between Lots 20 and 21 then continuing off -site through an
easement into a creek. This offsite easement was never obtained
and the drainage structure not completed. Public Works is now
requiring an above ground drainage system on an open space tract
rather than an easement covering lots in Phase 2, 3 and 4.
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-717-F
The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for
determination.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
Mr. Bill Dean, project engineer, requested that the two cul-de-
sac streets be shown as minor residential streets. He also asked
that the rear setback line along the western boundary of the
subdivision be modified. This would include Lots 6-10 in Phase
III and Lots 1-4 in Phase IV. The applicant is proposing to
reduce the rear setback requirement for these lots from 25 feet
to 15 feet. This request is in order to "...achieve the utility
of those particular lots for the particular sizes of houses that
are anticipated." Mr. Dean is requesting this variance in order
to offset the Public Works requirement of a open tract for
drainage ditch purposes.
Commissioner Daniel asked several questions concerning Mr. Dean's
statement. Following this exchange Larry Jones recommended that
the item be sent back to Subdivision Committee to review these
last minute revisions to the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Adcock asked that the applicant's request a
deferral. Mr. Dean requested a deferral to October 10, 1996
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion to defer the item to October 10, 1996 meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open
position. Commissioner Brandon was not in the room during the
vote on the motion. -- -
4
August 29, 1990
ITEM NO.• 3 FILE NO • Z-6178
NAME: STAMAR DRIVING RANGE -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 9222 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Gerald Staley Samuel F. Davis
14200 Wimbledon 5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72204
AREA: 19.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Driving range and
outdoor recreation
PLANNING DISTRICT: #16 Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND•
This owner approached staff with a request for a variety of
outdoor recreational uses centered around a golf driving range.
Staff recommended that the land owner apply for -a Planned
Commercial Development designation of this 19.2 acre parcel.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A one lot PCD consisting of a golf course driving range,
practice green, pro shop, baseball batting cages, parking
and landscaping. Proposed hours of operation are 10:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently vacant. Several older dwellings were
recently removed by the current owner. Three domestic water
wells remain and may be used for irrigation purposes on the
future driving range. A small pond consisting of .7 acres
is situated in the southwest portion of the site. The
property is bordered by Stagecoach Road and rural
residential on the east, a 100 foot wide AP&L easement on
the south, a 40 foot Arkla easement to the west, and vacant
land on the north.
August 29, 199%.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6178
Stagecoach Road is a minor
Street Plan but currently
with open ditches.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
arterial street on the Master
exist as a 24 foot asphalt road
Staff has received several calls mostly from passersbys on
Stagecoach Road. To date all calls have been supportive of
the proposal.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A development permit will be required prior to
construction. A portion of the property is located in
the flood plain. A sketch grading and drainage plan
with soil loss calculations is also required. The
drainage maps indicate a pond in excess of one acre,
provide documentation as to Little Rock Corps of
Engineers approval for draining this pond. Stagecoach
is a minor arterial, thus dedicate 45 feet of right-of-
way from centerline widen to 30 feet from centerline
with a sidewalk or contribute in -lieu fees for like
amount. Existing Stagecoach is a 24 foot asphalt lane
with open ditches. Traffic Count was 7,790 ADT in
1992.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely
affected.
Water: Service charge is $150/acre and
$15/front foot.
AP&L: No comment
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
Fire Department: A 50 foot radius by the proposed
equipment shed is required. No fire
hydrants are shown on the site plan.
We need a hydrant within 500 feet of
all buildings.
County Planning: No comment
2
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6178
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Areas set aside for street and land use buffers meet and
exceed ordinance requirements. Six percent of the interior
of the vehicular use area will be required to be landscaped
with interior landscaped islands. Landscaped islands are
required to be at least 100 square feet in area.
Because the property to the north, south and east are zoned
residential, opaque screening is required by ordinance.
This screening can consist of dense evergreen plantings or
six foot high wood fence with its face directed outward.
Since the property to the south is used for public
utilities, screening in this area may not serve much of a
purpose. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be
required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
Issues:
The following are unresolved items on the PCD submittal.
• Show culvert under Stagecoach Road on site plan.
• What are the overall dimensions of the batting cage
area?
• Define number of batting cage stations within area
termed "batting cages".
• Show all proposed fire hydrants.
• Why was the size of the pro shop increased in the
revised submittal after Subdivision Committee review
from 1,800 square feet to 4,500 square feet?
• what are the dimensions of the "practice green" area.
Planning Division:
The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily. At this time,
Staff cannot recommend a Plan amendment to nonresidential.
However if the use is limited to a driving range, it is
staff's opinion that the request would not be in conflict
with the adopted Plan. In other areas and in the zoning
ordinance golf courses have been considered appropriate uses
in a residential area.
3
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178
G. ANALYSIS•
The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily uses for
this site. A golf driving range can be viewed as a
transitional use in an area planned for residential
development. A small Pro Shop and practice green are
compatible uses with a golf driving range facility.
The introduction of baseball batting cages and the proposed
hours of operation (Monday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. -
10:00 p.m.) changes the nature of the proposal to more of a
general outdoor recreational facility. This type of
proposal as submitted by the applicant would not be
appropriate in an area designated as multifamily in the Land
Use Plan.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of the PCD request (Z-6178) with the deletion of
the batting cages and with a Pro Shop not to exceed 2,000
square feet. Exterior lighting except for security lighting
should be eliminated. This would limit the period of
operation to day time hours. Approval is subject to the
conditions listed in paragraphs D, E, F or this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Gerald Staley and Stan Martin represented the project. Planning
staff requested more specific -information on hours of operation,
lighting and signage, adjacent utility easements and the culvert
under Stagecoach Road. Public works indicated that the size of
an existing pond that is to be drained needs to be determined.
The developers contribution to future improvements to Stagecoach
was discussed. Staff noted the Fire Departments requirement that
a hydrant be provided within 500 feet of all structures.
The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for
determination.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
After presentation of the staff report, Mr. Lawson indicated that
the project as proposed is a "activity center" which is in
conflict with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Lawson stated that the
batting cage element of the proposal would be a C-4 use. He
stated that this could result in this portion of Stagecoach Road
becoming commercial.
4
August 29, 199b
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-617
Applicant Gerald Staley indicated that the proposed uses can be
considered commercial but the complex except for the structures
are not permanent. He stated that his project will provide a
place for the Otter Creek Community youth to go. Commissioner
Brandon ask Mr. Staley why he changed the project description
after the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Staley stated that
the civil engineer who drew the original site plan should have
shown The Pro Shop as 3,000 rather than 1,800 square feet in
size.
Commissioner Adcock asked if the applicant planned to include
miniature golf in his proposal. Mr. Staley stated that if the
initial elements of the facility were economically successful
than he plans to have a future phase that would include miniature
golf.
The applicant presented a lighting plan to the Commission. He
indicated the importance of lighting in respect to the golf
driving range.
Sonya Martin spoke in support of the project and read a letter
from Coach Randy Rutherford of Fair High School. Walter Coleman
IV read a letter from Coach Mike Johnson from Fair High School in
support of the project.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Lawson changed the staff
recommendation to denial since the proposal is in conflict with
the multifamily designation on the Land Use Plan. He also stated
that staff does not have a good feel for the proposal since the
applicant has continually changed the project description.
In response, Mr. Staley and Mr. Stan Martin stated that the
proposed project is a good use for this 19 acre site. Mr. Martin
said there is widespread support of this project in the Otter
Creek Community. They showed to the Commission typical elevation
and architectural style of the proposed Pro Shop.
Commissioner Adcock and Chairman Woods asked for the neighborhood
association position on the project. Commissioner Hawn would
like to see staff look at the Land Use Plan for this site and
area. Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated the Commission
policy in this type of matter is that they discuss the land use
issue at one meeting and the proposal itself at a subsequent
meeting.
A motion to defer the land use decision on this item to
September 26, 1996 and consider the Planned Development for this
site on November 21, 1996. The motion passed 8 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 1990
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO • Z-6179
NAME: VOGEL-JONES HIGHWAY 10 -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 14103 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Vogel -Jones Realty Company Robert Brown
11212 Financial Center Parkway Development Consultants, Inc.
Little Rock, AR 72211 10809 Executive Center Dr.
Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.77 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the Subdivision Committee meeting, the engineer requested a
deferral until October 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
This will allow the applicant to pursue site specific uses for
the property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Robert Brown represented the applicant. Planning Staff asked
Mr. Brown to provide a specific list of uses for the site.
Parking opportunities are limited since approximately one-third.
on the property is within the floodway. Mr. Brown indicated he
had submitted to staff a list of 50 uses from "C-3" designation.
Staff again asked for a more limited list of specific uses.
Public Works will require 55 feet to be dedicated from the
centerline of Highway 10 and construct a sidewalk. Staff noted
that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial.
The Committee recommended this item be forwarded to the full
Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The Staff offered the applicant's request for deferral to the
Planning Commission on October 10, 1996. This item was included
as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral.
Agusut 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6179
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
2
August 29, 1990
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO • Z-6183
NAME: RAGAN SAFE AND VAULT -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 7101 North Chicot Road
DEVELOPER:
George and Mary Ragan
7101 North Chicot Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER•
Laha Engineers, Inc.
6602 Baseline Road
Suite "E"
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 0.63 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USE: Ragan Safe and Vault
PLANNING DISTRICT: #15 Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 20.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Street Improvements along Chicot Road
2) Parking lot improvements
3) Landscaping improvements
BACKGROUND•
Ragan Safe and Vault Company has been -at -this site --since 1976.
They sell, install, and service bank equipment. Most of the
equipment is shipped directly to the job site. The existing
concrete block and metal building is approximately 3,000 square
feet and is used as a combination of office, repair shop and
storage. They have six employees of which four work in the field
installing or servicing equipment. A single family house is also
on the same parcel. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of the
surrounding area. A PD-C was chosen since it would limit the
commercial use to 0.63 acres of the 2.98 acre lot.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
A one lot PD-C that will allow the applicant to add a 1,500
square foot addition to the existing building to accommodate
storage. -The -applicant would like to utilize the existing
gravel parking lot and provide no additional landscaping.
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6183
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A 2.98 acre tract of land with an existing commercial use
and single family home. There are several out buildings
located behind the home. Single family homes border the
site on the north and east. An older home is to the south
with two-story apartments adjacent to that parcel.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
None to date.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
A development permit is required. Minimum Floor
elevation required is 269.7 NGVD and existing structure
shall be flood proofed to this elevation due to the
proposed substantial improvement proposed. Street is
19 feet wide and has open ditches without sidewalk.
Dedicate 30 feet right-of-way from centerline and
improve frontage to 18 feet from centerline with a
sidewalk or contribute in -lieu for this amount of
improvements of 15% of the development costs. Provide
concrete apron and paved parking as approved by the
Traffic Engineer. 1992 traffic count was 1,530 ADT.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely
affected.
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
Water: A service fee of $150/acre and on
site fire protection are required.
AP&L:
Fire Department: Make sure you have a fire hydrant
within 500 feet of any part of
building.
County Planning: No comment
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape•
A six foot high opaque screen, either dense evergreen
plantings or a wooden fence with its face directed outward,
2
August 29, 199u
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6183
is required along the southern perimeter. Since the
proposed expansion is a 49% increase in building area a 49%
increase in required landscaping toward compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance is necessary.
Issues:
The following are unresolved items on the PCD submittal.
• will there be modifications to existing signage and
exterior lighting?
• Will the number of employees stationed on -site change?
• Is the exterior rear open storage to continue?
Planning Division:
The site is located in the Geyer Springs West. The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The use pattern is
in place and has not changed since the Plan's adoption.
Staff cannot support a change in the Plan at this time.
G. ANALYSIS:
The existing site is a nonconforming use. The applicant has
utilized the building for his business since 1976. He
wishes to add a 1,500 square feet warehouse to the existing
3,000 square foot structure. The adopted Land Use Plan
recommends Single Family for this property. Ragan Safe and
Vault is the only commercial use in the general area.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the project be denied because it is
inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. The applicant
can continue the operation in the present nonconforming
status.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. George Ragan and Troy Laha presented the project to the
Committee. Planning Staff asked several questions concerning the
operation of the business. Public Works will require the
dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way from centerline with
improvements to 18 feet and sidewalk. It may be more cost
effective for the applicant to contribute in -lieu fees in the
amount of 15% of the proposed development costs. The applicant
stated that he is requesting a waiver of street improvements
along Chicot Road, parking lot and landscaping requirements.
3
August 29, 199v
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6183
The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the full
Commission for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
Troy Laha and David Ragan representing the applicant passed out
some pictures of the site. They explained that the business has
no walk-in customers and the number of employees will remain the
same. The estimated cost of their building addition is $12,000.
They passed out a letter dated August 1, 1996 from the South
Brookwood Ponderosa Neighborhood Association in support of the
project.
Jim Lawson told the Commission that one way to approach this item
is to consider it as a minor expansion of a nonconforming use
through the PCD process. It would not be recognized as a
commercial change on the Land Use Plan. The existing use would
be limited to the Ragan's stay at the site.
David Scherer explained to the Commission the 15% hardship rule
in respect to required street improvements. The applicant can
elect to pay 15% of the total cost of all requirements (i.e.
parking, landscaping, building, street, curb, gutter et al) to a
city improvement fund instead of putting in the improvements.
Commissioners Putnam and Adcock discussed the current parking
situation at the site.
A motion was made that the Planning Commission recognize the
structure as a nonconforming use and a PD-C be approved for
exclusive use as "Ragan Safe and Vault". The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
A second motion to waive parking lot and landscape improvements
and that the 15% hardship in -lieu fee be paid instead of
requiring street improvements on Chicot Road. The applicant
indicated he was in agreement. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 2 absent, and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.• 6 FILE NO • Z-6180
NAME: DEAN'S COFFEE COMPANY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On west side of Crystal Valley Road south of
Whippoorwill Lane
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Harold and Shirley Smith
18201 Lawson Road
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 1.23 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2/Proposed PCD PROPOSED USES: Office/Warehouse
PLANNING DISTRICT: #17 Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Street improvements on Crystal Valley Road
BACKGROUND•
This development is proposed for Lot 2 of the companion
preliminary plat (S-1109). The applicant wishes to relocate his
existing business to this location. The lots situated to the
north and south of this site have existing single family homes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant seeks permission for Dean's Coffee Company to
construct a 4,500 square foot office/warehouse building on
property presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Smith who are also
the owners of Dean's Coffee Company. The proposed office
uses are allocated 1,000 square feet and the warehouse 3,500
square feet. Eight parking spaces are shown on the site
plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The vacant site is wooded and gradually slopes to the
southwest. A one story frame home with a shop outbuilding
is located to the north. A single story brick home is
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6180
located to the south with detached st
structures. There are three existing
of Crystal Valley Road south of this
Public Transportation
None in this area
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
orage and greenhouse
PCD's along both sides
proposal.
Staff has received one letter. Mr. Rodney Russell who owns
the property immediately to the north of this site at 17125
Crystal Valley Road expressed concerns in respect to the
architectural design and layout of the proposal.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
Crystal Valley Road is a principal arterial per the
Master Street Plan. Dedicate 55 feet from centerline
according to the standards set for principal arterial
particularly the radius required for the horizontal
curve is to be 1,400 feet. 1/2 street improvements for
frontage are required by ordinance, staff recommends
commercial widening to create center -turn lane and
tapers for business and a deferral of the remaining
improvements until further development occurs or five
years. 1992 average daily traffic was 1,840 vehicle
per day.
A grading plan with soil loss calculations is required
prior to construction. Existing street is 23 feet wide
with open ditch without sidewalk. The driveway needs
to be 25 feet from property line and the turn -out must
be within the property corner extension perpendicular
to centerline of roadway. Stormwater detention will be
required.
E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary
Arkla: OK
Southwestern Bell: OK
Water: Execution of pre -annexation agreement
and approval from city required.
AP&L : No comment
Fire Department: OK
County Planning: No comment
2
August 29, 199u
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6180
F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed
ordinance requirements. Additional screening will be
required along the northern, southern and western site
perimeters in areas where the existing natural vegetation
are unable to provide the year-round screening necessary.
This can be accomplished with additional evergreen plantings
where needed.
Issues:
The following are unresolved items on the PCD submittal.
• Show all building dimensions.
• Position drive a minimum of 25 feet from property line.
• Taper drive to preserve mature trees.
• Show surrounding land uses and zoning.
• Submit lighting and signage plan.
• Dumpster location should be shown.
• Show right-of-way for Crystal Valley Road.
• No stacked parking will be allowed.
• Correct legal description on site plan.
Planning Division:
The site is located in the Crystal Valley District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Community Shopping and
Single Family. There is no land use issue.
G. ANALYSIS•
The applicant failed to provided a revised site plan to
staff on the time line established by the Subdivision
Committee. Therefore, staff has not had adequate time to
review the proposal.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral until the October 10, 1996
Planning Commission meeting.
7
August 29, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6180
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Mr. Jim Summerlin, project engineer, and Mr. Harold Smith were
present to answer questions. Planning Staff asked that the 55
foot proposed street dedication from centerline of Crystal Valley
Road be shown on the site plan. David Scherer will require a
turn -lane at the entrance from Crystal Valley Road. The access
drive needs to be moved a minimum of 25 feet from the property
line. The remaining road improvements can be deferred up to five
years.
The applicant needs to make the mentioned changes to the site
plan and submit copies to the Planning and Public Works staff no
later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday on August 15, 1996. Provided a
timely revised submittal is made, the item is to be forwarded to
the full Commission for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
When the meeting was called to order, it was apparent that no
more than 8 commissioners would be present. The Planning
Commission Bylaws require a minimum of 6 affirmative votes for an
item to be approved.
Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on
the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full
Commission can request a deferral at this time.
Mr. Harold Smith requested a deferral -to the Planning Commission
meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of
the Consent Agenda for deferral.
A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 195.,
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO • Z-6166
NAME: "THE EDGE" PD-I
LOCATION: 1010 East 3rd Street
DEVELOPER: -ENGINEER:
Dennis and Danny Martindill
P. O. Box 5556
Jacksonville, AR 72076
372-5657
AREA: 1.78 ACRES FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-3 PROPOSED USES: Restaurant and Private Club
PLANNING DISTRICT: #7 I-30
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
PROPOSAL:
To amend Ordinance No. 17,238 to allow a 8 foot by 12 foot sign
addition "The Edge" to an existing 2 1/2 foot by 37 foot band
sign on the western portion of the roof structure.
STAFF REPORT:
The PD-I request for a restaurant private club was submitted to
the Board of Directors without a Planning Commission
recommendation. The Board of Directors approved the PD-I in July
1996 as Ordinance No. 17,238.
On July 19, 1996 the applicant was issued a "Courtesy Notice" by
Code Enforcement for a unpermitted roof sign. In addition they
have two wall -painted signs both facing Second Street on the
northeast and northwest block walls. There is also a pole sign
in the parking lot facing Second Street and a pole sign at the
corner of 3rd and Byrd Streets.
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6166
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the request for an 8 foot by 12 foot addition to the
existing roof sign. Staff would recommend that the applicant
utilize the 2 1/2 foot by 37 foot band sign. The two wall -
painted signs on the block walls facing second street would
remain. The pole sign in the parking lot facing Second Street
and a pole sign at the corner of 3rd and Byrd Streets would
remain.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
Mr. Fred Grey represented the project applicants. He told the
Commission that a roof sign is needed to provide for better
visibility of "The Edge". He said that to date the private club
has had 17,000 visitors since opening July 23, 1996. In addition
50 full and part-time positions have been created and the
surrounding area has been cleaned up by the owners of "The Edge".
Mr. Grey showed pictures of several other roof signs in the
generally area.
Mr. Lawson stated that the roof sign is not in keeping with the
historic nature of the building. There was a extensive
discussion among the commissioners as to why the Planning
Commission was bypassed in the original PD-I request.
A motion to amend the PD-I ordinance to include 8 foot by 12 foot
roof sign that says "The Edge". The vote on the motion was
5 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. A minimum of
6 ayes are required to approve a motion. The motion fails and
the applicant's request is denied.
0a
3t 29, 1996
NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S-1004-C
ASHLEY-HANKINS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOPER• ENGINEER•
Ashley
Lakewood Village
'z Little Rock, AR 72116
3.83 ACRES
RG• C-3
Tim Daters
White-Daters and Assoc.
401 South Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
RING DISTRICT: #19 Chenal
US TRACT• 42.06
ANCES REQUESTED: None
'ROUND:
parcel was created as Lot 3 of the Chenal Square Preliminary
(S-1004). Lot 1 has been developed as a Coulson Oil -
Br King joint facility (Z-5869). No development proposals
the remaining two lots has been submitted at this time.
PROPOSAL:
To develop two retail use buildings and a structure proposed
as a restaurant near the corner of West Markham and Chenal
Parkway Streets. Building "A" will consist of 8,000 square
feet and utilized for retail uses. Building "B" is designed
for 24,000 square feet of shop -retail uses. The last
building is designated as a freestanding 3,200 square foot
Fazoli's restaurant. A total of 171 parking spaces with
accompanying landscaping is planned.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The site
has 505 feet of frontage on Chenal Parkway and a driveway
access from WestMarkhamStreet. The West Markham Street
right-of-way alignment, which existed prior to Chenal
Parkway being developed crosses the northwest corner of the
site. This right-of-way has been abandoned and the utility
easement remains. The Arkansas Power and Light Service
Center abuts the site to the east.
-C
A
en
e
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1004-C
G. ANALYSIS:
The site plan for Lot 3 as proposed is compatibility with
adjacent commercial uses. The design of internal streets,
parking and landscaping conform with adopted ordinances. At
this time nothing has been submitted for Lots 2 or 4.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of site plan (Z-6166) for Lot 3 of Ashley -Hankins
commercial center located generally at West Markham and
Chenal Parkway. Approval is subject to conditions listed in
paragraphs D, E, and F of this report.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Tim Daters, project engineer, represented the applicant and
answered questions. Staff indicated that there was not
sufficient detail on the plans submitted for proper review.
Public Works will require a grading and drainage plan. David
Scherer asked Tim Daters to address the issue of access to
adjacent property with the drive shown on the east property line.
The applicant needs to provide a site plan with specific details
including all dimensions to the Planning and Public Works staff
no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 15, 1996. Provided a
timely revised submittal is made, the item is to be forwarded to
the full Commission for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
Larry Jones indicated to the Planning Commission that staff was
adding the requirement for a 10 foot minimum easement along
Chenal Parkway to accommodate a sidewalk and public utilities.
This item was included as part of the Consent Approval Agenda.
A motion to approve the Consent Approval Agenda. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
f
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-5098-B
NAME: DILLARD'S EXECUTIVE OFFICES EXPANSION - SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: 1600 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Dillards
1600 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
AREA• 17.5 ACRES
ZONING: 0-2
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
ENGINEER:
Tim Daters
White-Daters Engineers
401 victory Street
PROPOSED USES: Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: #5 Downtown
CENSUS TRACT• 9
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None at this time
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
FT. NEW STREET• 0
The engineer has requested a deferral until October 10, 1996
Planning Commission meeting. This will allow the applicant to
further define the specifics of the proposal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
Staff was unable to review and comment on the submittal because
it lacks a specific project description. The applicant's
engineer has requested a deferral.
The Committee recommended this item be deferred until the
September 19, 1996 Subdivision Committee meeting.
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.• 10 FILE NO • Z-6175
NAME: Hall Day Care - Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 2723/2725 S. Broadway
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bobby Hall
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for a day
care (20 children) within the
existing duplex on this R-3
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
Site Location:
The proposed day care site is located on the east side
of South Broadway, approximately three blocks south of
Roosevelt Road.
Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is surrounded by single family and two-family
residential uses and zoning, with commercial uses and
zoning located one block west along Arch Street. The
proposed use of the property as a day care should not
have an adverse effect -on the neighborhood.
On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to this property is gained by utilizing either
of two drives from South Broadway.
The proposed use of the property as a day care will
require one (1) off-street parking space per employee
plus on -site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of
one (1) for each ten (10) children accommodated. The
applicant proposes a day care which will accommodate a
maximum of 20 children and two employees. Therefore,
two (2) off-street parking spaces and two (2) on -site
loading and unloading spaces are required. The
applicant meets this requirement with the site plan
submitted, and no additional parking is required.
4. Screening and Buffers:
A six foot high opaque wooden fence with its face side
directed outward should be required to screen the
August 29, 1�>-6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6175
proposed playground area from the residential property
to the north, south and east.
5. Public Works Comments:
No issues apparent. Broadway is a 30 foot street with
a 4 foot sidewalk in 80 feet of right-of-way.
Roosevelt Roads traffic count was 14,990 ADT and Arch
Street was 5,720 ADT in 1992.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - 8" sewer main located in rear
of lot. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for
details.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for a day care to be located within this existing
duplex, which is zoned R-3. The duplex is located at
2723/2725 S. Broadway.
The facility will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m.,
and will accommodate a maximum of twenty (20) students (2
1/2 years old and up) and two employees. According to
state child care licensing, this staff to student ratio
is appropriate for two and a half year old children and
UP.
According to the site plan, there will be two (2) parking
spaces in the rear of the facility which will serve as
employee parking and two (2) spaces in front of the
facility which will be utilized as loading and unloading
spaces. The applicant proposes to place small signs
designating the parking spaces for their appropriate use.
This parking arrangement complies with ordinance
requirements.
With proper screening of the playground area from
adjacent residential uses, this proposed day care should
not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility Comments
2
August 29, 1yy6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6175
UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Bobby Hall and Barbara Epps were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a brief description of the
proposal.
There was a brief discussion regarding the number of
students proposed and the required parking.
Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, reviewed his
screening requirements with the Committee.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
August 29, 1y06
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6176
NAME•
LOCATION•
Garrett - Conditional Use
Permit
625 Nix Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Howard Ray Garrett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by
54 foot 1996 model
multisectional manufactured
home on this R-2 zoned
property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The site is located on the east side of Nix Road,
approximately one block south of Archer Lane. Archer
Lane runs west off of Gamble Road, approximately 1/2
mile north of Kanis Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is located in an area predominantly single
family in nature.
The Cedar Ridge Addition is located west of this site
across Nix Road with the Shadow Ridge Addition located
to the northwest. There is also a mixture of single
family residences north of this site. The property
south and east of this site is mostly wooded with a
scattering of single family residences. There are also
a few other manufactured homes in this general area.
With compliance with the ordinance established minimum
siting standards, the placement of this manufactured
home should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing a gravel
drive from Nix Road.
Adequate parking is provided at the site to serve the
single family residence.
August 29, 1>:o6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: it (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6176
4. Screenina and Buffers:
No comments
5. Public Works Comments:
Property is located on a 16 foot wide chipseal street
with open ditches and no sidewalk. Construct apron for
gravel drive. An asphalt apron versus concrete would
be acceptable from edge of pavement to property line
per City Ordinance Section 30-43.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer main extension required
with easements.
Little Rock Water Works - An acreage charge of
$300/acre applies in addition to normal connection
fees.
7. Staff Analysis:
This issue is before the Little Rock Planning
Commission as result of a recent zoning enforcement
action taken on the property at 625 Nix Road. An
inspection of the property by the Zoning Enforcement
staff revealed that a 14 foot by 70 foot nonconforming
mobile home had been removed from the site and replaced
with a 28 foot by-54 foot 1996 model multisectional
manufactured home. The 14 foot by 70 foot mobile had
existed on the site since prior to annexation of this
area in 1985. There is also a 10 foot by 12 foot
concrete block accessory building which currently
exists on this site.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a conditional
use permit to allow for the placement of the 28 foot by
54 foot manufactured home on this property at 625 Nix
Road, which is zoned R-2.
As noted above, the new manufactured home has already
been placed on the site. The applicant is requesting
variances from the ordinance required front and side
yard setbacks. The new manufactured home has small
porches on the front and north sides which are
approximately 2.5 feet above grade. The applicant is
proposing a front yard setback of 24 feet, which is one
(1) foot short of the 25 foot front yard setback as
required by ordinance. The applicant is also proposing
a side yard setback (north side) of two (2) feet, which
K
August 29, 1y96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6176
is six (6) feet short of the 8 foot side yard setback
required by ordinance.
Staff is recommending that the applicant file a right-
of-way abandonment application for the 10 foot platted
alley which is immediately north of this site.
Abandoning this alley right-of-way will increase the
side yard setback (north side of structure) and be much
closer to compliance with ordinance standards.
With compliance with the ordinance established minimum
siting standards, the placement of this manufactured
home should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use
permit and of the requested variances with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility Comments
3. Compliance with the following minimum siting
standards as required by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5):
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.
4. The applicant must file a right-of-way abandonment
application for the alley right-of-way immediately
north of this site.
3
August 29, 1a96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6176
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal. Staff explained to the
Committee that this request is a result -of an enforcement
action as the manufactured home was placed on the site
without a permit.
David Scherer, Public Works, reviewed his comments with the
Committee.
There was a brief discussion regarding the setback variances
requested and the staff's suggestion to abandon the alley
right-of-way.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 1y96
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6177
NAME: Clark - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 17412 Lawson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert L. Clark
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by 60
foot model multisectional
manufactured home on this R-2
zoned property.
STAFF REPORT•
On August 8, 1996 the applicant, Robert L. Clark, submitted
a letter to staff requesting that this conditional use
permit be withdrawn. Staff recommends approval of the
withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant
submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn.
Staff recommended approval of the withdrawal.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the consent Agenda for withdrawal. A
motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position.
August 29, 1y96
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6181
C.JI
LOCATION:
Hodges - Conditional Use
Permit
Woodland Drive (East end)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas L. Hodges
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of 19 multisectional
manufactured homes on 19 lots
within the Rolling Pines
Subdivision, Phase II (Lots
18-21, 23-29, 52-54, 61-63,
98-99). The property is zoned
R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is located at
the easterly end of Woodland Drive. Woodland Drive
runs east off of Sardis Road, approximately 3/4 mile
south of Alexander Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is surrounded
by single family residential uses and zoning. The
property north, south and east of this site is vacant
and wooded. There are a number of single family
residences located to the west (along Woodland Drive)
between this subdivision and Sardis Road. There is
also a single family residence on what is shown as Lot
22 on the attached site plan.
With compliance with the ordinance established minimum
siting standards, the placement of these manufactured
homes should not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The applicant proposes a single access point to each of
the 19 lots.
August 29, L>96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181
The applicant will also provide at least one (1) off-
street parking space for each of the 19 proposed
manufactured homes.
4. Screenina and Buffers:
No comments
5. Public Works Comments:
If developer intends to clear all sites at one time, a
grading plan with soil loss calculations is required
prior to construction.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Fire Department - A fire hydrant is
required within 800 feet of any of the proposed
buildings.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of 19 multisectional
manufactured homes on the 19 lots within the Rolling
Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-21, 23-29, 52-54,
61-63, 98-99). The property is zoned R-2.
The applicant is proposing a building envelope
(buildable area) for each lot which will allow for a
multisectional manufactured -home. It appears that all
of the building envelopes meet minimum ordinance
requirements regarding building setbacks and no
variances are required.
There will be a single access point to each of the lots
and the applicant will provide at least one (1) off-
street parking space for each of the proposed
dwellings.
The majority of the land surrounding this subdivision
is vacant and heavily wooded with approximately two
dozen existing single family homes west of this
subdivision along woodland Drive. With compliance with
the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the
placement of these 19 manufactured homes should not
have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
2
August 29, X_,96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6181
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public works Comments
2. Compliance with the Little Rock Fire Department
Comments
3. Compliance with the following minimum siting
standards as required by the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5):
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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
Tommy Hodges was present, representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
There was a brief discussion pertaining to this general area
and the type of manufactured home proposed.
Staff informed Mr. Hodges that side yard setback variances
would be required for Lots 54, 61, 63 and 98. Mr. Hodges
responded that these lots would be revised to meet the
required setbacks.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
3
August 29, L.,96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6181
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The applicant was present. There were several persons
present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the
item be deferred to the-October-10, 1996 agenda, as offered
by Chairman Woods, due to only eight commissioners being
present.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the
October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
4
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO 14 FILE NO.: Z-6182
NAME:
Jones - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 8900A Johnson Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: Barbara Jones
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 16 foot by 70
foot 1995 model manufactured
home on this R-2 zoned
property, to serve as an
accessory dwelling.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The proposed manufactured home site is located at the
end of Johnson Lane which is located at the east end of
Johnson Road. Johnson Road runs east off of Heinke
Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property north of this site is zoned R-2 and is
vacant and wooded. The property immediately east of
this site is also mostly vacant and wooded and is zoned
OS. There is a single -wide manufactured home located
on the lot immediately west of this site with a large
concrete block shop building and a duplex located
immediately to the south. There are several other
single family residences in this general area.
With compliance with the ordinance established minimum
siting standards and the proper replatting of this lot,
the placement of this manufactured home should not have
an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The applicant will gain access to the proposed
manufactured home accessory dwelling from Johnson Lane.
Ample area exists at the proposed site for parking at
least one (1) vehicle.
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6182
4. ,Screening and Buffers:
No comments
5. Public Works Comments:
Existing drive is 11 foot-'chipseal-without sidewalks.
Johnson was included in the list of county roads under
the Mackey Court Order that designated a 50 foot
prescriptive easement for the roadways. With platting,
dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way with dedication for an
offset bulb cul-de-sac. Subdivision regulations
require public street access to newly platted lots, the
11 foot chipseal does not qualify as a minimum
residential street access. Thus, to subdivide, the
street needs to be brought up to a minimum standard of
20 feet as specified as minimum secondary access width.
A Traffic Engineering approved turn -around will also be
required.
There appears to be a conflict with the Master Street
Plan South Loop construction. Recommend that the
engineer of record plot the South loop proposed
location on the plan.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer main extension required
with easements.
Little Rock Fire Department - A fire hydrant is
required within 800 feet -of these buildings.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a 16 foot by 70 foot 1995
model manufactured home on this property to serve as an
accessory dwelling. The property is zoned R-2.
The 16 foot by 70 foot manufactured home has already
been placed on the site. In addition, there is a
single-family dwelling, a multisectional manufactured
home, and three accessory buildings on this four acre
tract (as shown on the site plan).
The applicant is also proposing a two -lot replat of
this property. Tract "A"will-include approximately
1/2 acre with the multisectional manufactured home.
Tract "B" will be made up of approximately 3.35 acres
and include the single family dwelling, the three
2
August 29, 15�6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont ) FILE NO • Z 6182
accessory buildings and the proposed manufactured home
accessory dwelling. Both tracts will take access from
Johnson Lane.
The applicant, Barbara Jones, is proposing the
manufactured home accessory dwelling as a residence for
her mother. Mrs. Jones has stated that her mother's
health is failing and that she needs to live close to
her children and grandchildren so that they may help
with her day-to-day needs.
As noted in the Public Works Comments, there appears to
be a conflict with the Master Street Plan South Loop
construction. There is an upcoming proposal to
downgrade the South Loop from an expressway to a
principal arterial. Public Works recommends that the
applicant have the engineer of record plot the South
Loop proposed location on the site plan. According to
the Master Street Plan, it is the City's responsibility
to determine the exact location of the right-of-way and
extent of right-of-way necessary for the provisions of
said facility, and shall require, in conjunction with
the approval of the conditional use permit application,
the dedication or reservation of the right-of-way.
Therefore, staff is recommending, as a condition of
approval, that the possible South Loop conflict must be
resolved.
This general area contains a mixture of single family
uses on larger lots. With compliance with the
ordinance established minimum siting standards and the
proper replatting of this lot, the placement of this
manufactured home accessory dwelling should not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
S. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
3. Compliance with the following minimum siting
.standards..as..required by.._the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance, Section 36-262(d)(2):
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or
fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
3
August 29, 15,6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6182
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. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standard.
4. The applicant must complete a two -lot replat of
this property.
5. The exact location of the proposed South Loop must
be confirmed and any right-of-way issues resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposal, including the required two -lot
replat.
David Scherer, Public Works, discussed his comments with the
Committee.
There was a discussion regarding the apparent conflict with
the Master Street Plan South Loop and the possible deferral
of this item.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
David Scherer, Public -Works, addressed the Commission during
the reading of the Consent Agenda. He stated that he would
work with the applicant to resolve issues regarding the
South Loop location and requirements. He also stated that
dedication for Johnson Lane would occur with the replatting
of the lot.
4
August 29, 15y6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6182
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
5
August 29, 1796
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO • Z-6173
Name•
Location•
Owner/Applicant:
Proposal•
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Elrod Day Care Family Home
Special Use Permit
6717 West 65th Street
Harvey and Demaris Elrod
A special use permit is
requested to allow the
occupant of 6717 West 65th
Street to operate a day care
family home. The property is
zoned R-2.
The general purpose of Section 36-54 states: "Special use
permits provide a method of control over certain types of
land uses which, while not requiring the full review process
of the conditional use permits, do require some review
procedure which allows for determination of their
appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are
proposed and for public comment." These uses include bed
and breakfast hotels, family care facilities and day care
family homes.
The site and location criteria established by the Zoning
Ordinance for day care family homes are a follow:
a. This use may be located only in a single-family home,
occupied by the care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas.
C. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the
care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six
(6) children from households other than the care
givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all
districts where day care. centers are not. allowed by
right.
6717 West 65th is located at the southern fringe of a large
single family residential neighborhood. All surrounding
properties are zoned R-2. Single family homes are adjacent
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-617
to the east, west and south as well across 65th Street to
the north. The site consists of a typical single family
residential structure. The property has a back yard
enclosed by a chain -link fence which provides adequate play
area.
The primary use of the property will remain single family
residential. The special use permit will allow the occupant
of the home to keep from 6-10 children. No signage will be
allowed beyond that allowed in single family zones. The
applicant must receive any required licenses from the state.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow
a day-care family home subject to compliance with the site
and location criteria established for day care family homes
in Section 36-54 of the Code of Ordinances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
subject to compliance with the site and location criteria
established for day-care family homes in Section 36-54 of
the Code of Ordinances. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position.
2
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO • G-23-251
Nam
Location•
Owner/Applicant:
Walnut Street Exclusive Right -
of -Way Abandonment
Walnut Street at Kavanaugh
Blvd. - 2601 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Middle March, Ltd./Kyle Boswell
Request: To abandon the west 7 feet of
the first 137 feet of Walnut
Street south of Kavanaugh
Blvd., with the abandonment
tapering back to the standard
60 foot right-of-way over the
first (north) 25 feet.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way:
There is no public need for this right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan:
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-
of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets:
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain:
The proposed area of abandonment contains the concrete
slab and steps from the Ice House Center building which
recently burned.
5. Development Potential:
Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be
incorporated into the adjacent commercial property.
This area will be used for the construction of concrete
steps and retaining walls to serve the new commercial
development.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect:
The properties to the south and the east (across Walnut
Street) contain single family residential structures.
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-251
The property across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the north
contains the parking lot for the former Ice House
Center and the properties to the west, along Kavanaugh
Blvd., include a mixture of commercial uses.
Abandoning this right-of-way should have no effect on
the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position:
No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting
property owners as well as the Hillcrest Residents
Association have been notified of the public hearing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
AP&L - No objection. No easements required.
ARKLA - No objection. No easements required.
Southwestern Bell - No objection. No easements
required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility - No objection. No
easements required.
Little Rock Water Works - No objection. No easements
required.
9. Reversionary Rights:
All reversionary rights will extend to Middle March,
Ltd.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues:
Abandoning this right-of-way will not effect the public
welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the exclusive right-of-way
abandonment. .
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief
description of the proposed right-of-way abandonment.
David Scherer briefly discussed the proposal and the Public
Works issues involved.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
2
August 29, IY96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23 251
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as
recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.
The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent,
and 1 open position.
3
August 29, 1996
ITEM NO.• 17 FILE NO • G-25-172
Name: Commerce Street - Street Name
Change
Location: Commerce Street north of East
Markham Street, between East
Markham Street and Riverfront
Park
Petitioner: City of Little Rock
Reouest: To change the name of this
portion of Commerce Street to
St. Vincent Plaza.
Abutting Uses and Ownerships:
The River Market development
of this portion of Commerce
(Terminal Building) located
Pacific Railroad Company is
No buildings take a Commerce
Neighborhood Effect:
is located along the west side
Street with the Museum Center
along the east side. The Union
also an abutting property owner.
Street address.
The proposal should have no effect on the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Position:
The property owners whose property adjoins this block of
Commerce Street have been notified of this proposal for
street name change.
The River Market District Private Property Owners
Association, the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the
East End Civic League have also been notified of the
proposal for street name change.
Effect on Public Services:
No street addresses will change as a result of this street
name change. Only one street sign will need to be changed.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal before the Planning Commission is to change the
name of one block of Commerce Street to St. Vincent Plaza.
The River Market is located along the west side of this
block with the Museum Center (Terminal Building) located on
August 29, 1y96
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-172
the east side. All owners of property abutting this portion
of Commerce Street have been notified of the proposal as
have the River Market District Private Property Owners
Association, the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the
East End Civic League.
Staff has received a letter from the City of Little Rock
Public Works Department stating that the proposed name
change is not acceptable. Public Works states that "the
proposed name of St. Vincent Plaza duplicates an existing
street name of St. Vincent Drive," and the distinction of
"Plaza" versus "Drive" is insufficient within the guideline
of the City ordinance regulating addressing. Public Works
states that the problem with the proposed change is that St.
Vincent Drive is not in close proximity to the proposed St.
Vincent Plaza, and that it is very conceivable that a
situation could arise in requesting 911 services where
confusion over these two names could cause emergency
vehicles to be dispatched to an area five miles from where
they are really needed. And, most critical, the street name
currently in use is for a major hospital in the City.'
Staff has also received a letter from Louie Caudell, Little
Rock Chief of Police. Chief Caudell also states that the
proposed name change could cause confusion with responding
emergency personnel and this confusion could cause delays in
the immediate response to calls for service. Chief Caudell
states that public safety issues should take precedence in
any decision to rename a portion of Commerce Street and
requests that the proposed street name change be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Given the fact that no businesses or buildings will take a
"St. Vincent Plaza" address, staff recommends approval of
the street name change.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 8, 1996)
Staff gave a brief description of the street name change
proposal.
After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the
presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission
for final action.
E
.August 29, 19.,6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-25-172
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 29, 1996)
Staff presented the item to the Planning Commission with a
recommendation of approval. Staff referenced the letters
and concerns presented by the -Public Works Department, the
Little Rock Police Department and the River Market Private
Property Owners Association.
Jim Lawson, Planning Director, informed the Commission that
St. Vincent's has made a sizable contribution to the
development of the River Market area. Mr. Lawson stated
that in honor of the contribution it is proposed to rename
the street to St. Vincent Plaza. Mr. Lawson stated that
this area of Commerce Street is a "plaza -like" area and at
many times is not utilized as a through street.
Mr. Lawson also stated that if an emergency arises in this
area that it would probably be called in to 911 services as
something other than St. Vincent Plaza (Riverfront Park or
River Market for example).
Chairman Woods asked if there would be a street sign reading
"St. Vincent Plaza".
Mr. Lawson responded that he was not sure of the answer to
that question. He stated he did not know if it would be.a
street sign or something like a plaque.
Commissioner Hawn stated that it should not be assumed that
a 911 call would not be called in as -"St. Vincent Plaza".
There was a brief discussion concerning the erection of a
plaque in this area honoring St. Vincent's rather than
renaming the street.
Commissioner Brandon stated that she is opposed to the name
change because the police department is opposed.
Mr. Lawson explained that this request comes from the Board
of Directors and the Planning Commission recommendation
would be forwarded to the Board.
Commissioner Adcock stated that if the Commission recommends
denial, the Board of Directors needs to know why. (Safety
reasons).
David Scherer asked if it has been considered to abandon
this right-of-way.
There was a brief discussion pertaining to Mr. Scherer's
question.
3
August 29, 1yy6
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO • G 25 172
Chairman Wood called the question. The Planning Commission
voted to recommend denial of the street name change request
by a vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position.
4
1���11��1111/1
�I�OOl11610�1l711�
�I�l7H01�l1l1l1ll�lll
�►\l7�0�10�70l7�11�
O�10►1l7�IL7l7l70�1l1
B/Nl1�11lt1l1�1l�I��l
8'■��OI�Ot1�0110
B►�o��u�uoo■io
e��uiin�►�iii�
e�voo�ioomm�
o►��m�v���o
�I�OklIlllklk1�01
O1�OL1L7�I�1tl�7tllvl
�\1ok11�1�ILlll�ltl�l�l
C1��uO►v0alu�7■1N
c�i►�uo���om��
m�om�►�ovi�v
o■mov�u000�v
131MooMIN
mime
N
�
I
IHII
OQ
H
E
Q
z
Hzw13Z4WU
HQ
E
M
azw
z
�HtllN
Nzx
Wa1��OQa3►ax
Q
H
�>4
Q
z
Q
.maw
U
4
z0
M
w
O
��aQ
h
Q C]
M
ZZ►Z
M
a01a
M
0>+
x
viH
O
W
H
O
X
w
Q
a
.
\t
z
H
Q
E
M
ro
H
z
w
m
Q
W
Q
z
•
August 29, 1996
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further- business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 6:45 p.m.