HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 27 1995subI.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 27, 1995
9:00 A.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the May 16, 1995
meeting were approved as mailed.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Brad Walker, Chairman
Suzanne McCarthy
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Bill Putnam
Doyle Daniel
Pam Adcock
Joe Selz
Diane Chachere
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
Ramsay Ball
Stephen Giles
7 °. j
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 27, 1995
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A Freeway Business Park -- Amended Long -Form Planned
Development -Office (Z -4249-B)
B. Young -- Short -Form Planned Development -Commercial
(Z-5979)
C. National Homecare Villages, Inc. -- Short -Form PRD
(Z -5896-A)
D. Global Interdenominational Revival Center --
Conditional Use Permit (Z -5874-A)
E. Montessori Day School -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5984)
F. North Pierce Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment
(G-23-232)
G. 1401 S. Battery St., Rezoning from R-3 to 0-1 (Z-5989)
H. Master Street Amendment -- Wellington Subdivision Area,
west of St. Charles Addition/Chenal
I. West Highway 10, Suburban Water District Improvement
District No. 344, described as generally along and
either side of State Highway 10, from Morgan Cemetery
Road to 011ie Lane (G-40-12)
J. Amend the City Master Street Plan to change the
classification of roadways and alignments in the area
north of Chenal Parkway, south of West Loop and west of
St. Charles Subdivision.
II. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. Hospice Home Care Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat
(5-1070)
1a. Kingwood Place Addition, Lots M-1 & M-2 -- Preliminary
Plat (5-1059-A)
Agenda, Page 2
III. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
2. Hospice Home Care, Inc. -- Short -Form Planned Office
Development (Z -4175-A)
3. Riverside Box Supply, Inc. -- Short -Form Planned
Commercial Development (Z -4796-A)
4. Dusty Edwards Management and Realty Co. -- Short -Form
Planned Office Development (Z-5998)
IV. CONDITIONAL USES:
5. Arsenic and Old Lace Antiques -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -3269-B)
6. Cullipher Accessory Dwelling -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5996)
7. Davis Accessory Dwelling -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5999)
8. Jimerson Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Bikeway --
Conditional Use Permit (Z-6000)
9. Joe Esco Tire Company -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-6001)
10. Pulaski Academy -- Conditional Use Permit Time
Extension (Z -4246-B)
V. STREET NAME CHANGE:
11. Hardin Road -- Name Change to Financial Centre Court
(G-25-169)
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK, LOT 6 -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE
LOCATION: On the south side of I-630, between Rodney Parham Rd.
and Hughes St.
DEVELOPER:
Mr. Dave Grundfest, III
THE DAVE GRUNDFEST CO.
P. O. Box 192525
Little Rock, AR 72219
568-2324
AREA: 1.141 ACRES
ZONING• PD -O
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 21.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
AGENT:
Mr. Jeff Hathaway
THE HATHAWAY GROUP
100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120
Little Rock, AR 72202-2214
663-5400
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
None
PROPOSED USES:
FT. NEW STREET: 0
Auto Paint and
Body Rebuilding Shop
On March 22, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on and recommended approval of the "Freeway Business Park
-- Long -Form POD" (Z -4249-A). On May 3, 1994, the Board of
Directors approved an ordinance establishing the POD, Ordinance
No. 16,644. The list of approved uses was: "clinic (medical,
dental, and optical); duplication shops; establishment of a
religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization;
governmental or private recreational uses, including but not
limited to golf course, tennis courses, swimming pools,
playgrounds, day camps, and passive recreational open space
(enclosed only); group care facility; laboratory (no biological
activity); library, art gallery, museum ,or other similar use;
mortuary or funeral home; nursing home or convalescent home;
office (general or professional); photography studio; private
school or kindergarten; school (business); school (commercial or
trade); school (public or denominational); studio (broadcasting
or recording); studio (broadcasting and recording); antenna
(limited to no higher than 60 feet); studio (art, music, speech,
drama, dance, or other artistic endeavors); travel bureau;
antique shop; book and stationery store; camera shop; cigar,
tobacco, or candy store; custom sewing or millinery; florist
shop; health studio or spa (enclosed); jewelry store; key shop;
tailor shop; job printing, lithographer, printing, or
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: _Z -4249-B
blueprinting; parking, commercial lot, or garage; office
showroom/warehouse; school (commercial, trade, or craft); studio
(music, dance, or ceramics); appliance repair (no small engine
repair); hauling and storage; landscape service; lawn and garden
center (enclosed); light fabrication and assembly process; mini -
warehouse; office warehouse; school, business; warehouse and
wholesaling." This list of proposed and approved uses was taken
from the list of approved uses in the 0-3 and I-1 zoning
districts.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the addition of one more use to the list
of approved uses for Freeway Business Park: an auto paint and
body rebuilding shop. The additional use is to be limited to Lot
6 only. The applicant states that "Nothing about this amendment
would substantially change the overall spirit and intent of the
previously approved POD, which is that of a small, mixed-use
business park...." Proposed is construction of a building to be
8,000 to 10,000 square feet in size, with predominantly the
office use visible from the front/Freeway Dr. face of the
building. (No overhead doors are to be located on this face of
the building.) The applicant maintains that the "proposed
development will be completely different from what is typically
though of as a 'body shop'....11 The applicant states that the
building will be a "handsome" building which will be nicer than
the Parker Cadillac Body Shop PCD recently approved. "It will
have all outside storage areas completely screened by opaque
fencing and located behind the building.... Odors and fumes will
not be a factor because all painting actives will be conducted in
a modern enclosed paint booth, and because High Volume Low
Pressure (H.V.L.P.) spray guns will be used .... This exceeds
current E.P.A. standards." The applicant indicates that the
hours of operation are to be from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. No change
to the originally approved site plan is requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is proposed to add an additional use to the
list of approved uses to be applicable only for Lot 6 of
Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form POD. An amended POD is,
therefore, requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Freeway Business Park is currently being developed, with
site work being underway and construction of the interior
roadway, Freeway Drive, to commence shortly.
2
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
Lot 6, the lot being affected by the proposed change, is an
interior lot in the Freeway Business Park. The zoning
surrounding Lot 6, then, is POD (except to the north where
I-630 abuts). The zoning surrounding the Freeway Business
Park includes an R-4 residential area to the east, a
cemetery, zoned R-2, to the south, and a C-3 tract to the
west. I-630 bounds the site to the north.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Since the proposal involved only a use issue, no comments
from engineering or the utilities were requested.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The approval of the original POD was specific in its list of
approved uses. This list was negotiated by the developer at
that time and the University Park neighborhood to the east.
The addition of a use requires an amendment to the POD,
involving conducting the public hearing, approval by the
Planning Commission, and an amending ordinance passed by the
Board of Directors.
The Planned Development Ordinance does not restrict the
amount of commercial development which can be included in a
Planned Office Development. It is the overall character and
the predominant uses which determine whether a development
is considered a POD versus another classification.
The Planning staff reports that, with the mixture of uses
already approved, the one additional use which has been
requested by the applicant, with the conditions proposed by
the applicant, and with the location of the lot being an
interior lot, no conflict with the adopted POD appears to
exist.
E. ANALYSIS•
If, indeed, the building is a "handsome" one, and retains
the "look" of an office building which is in keeping with
the Plannedf0 fice Development, and, since the mixture of
permitted uses is so broad to include 0-3 and I-1 uses, the
one additional use, as portrayed, does not appear to
conflict with the character of approved POD.
Any residential use is separated from the affected lot, Lot
6, by over 1,000 feet
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the list of
permitted uses to include the requested auto paint and body
rebuilding shop.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995)
Mr. Jeff Hathaway, agent for the proposed buyer, offered to be
present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but staff related
that, since the requested action involved no site plan issues,
but only a use issue, there would be no discussion of the item at
the Subdivision Committee meeting. At the meeting, staff
outlined the requested change, and, without discussion, the
Committee forwarded the item to the full commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995)
Staff presented the item, and reported that the staff
recommendation was for approval of the requested additional use
for Lot 6 of an auto body and repair shop, noting that the lot is
approximately 1,000 feet away from the nearest residence to the
east in the University Park neighborhood, and that the applicant
is proposing that the building resemble an office building from
the front in keeping with the original plan for the area. Staff
pointed out that a petition from the University Park neighborhood
had been received, objecting to the amendment to the POD.
Mr. Jeff Hathaway, identifying himself as the agent for the
applicant, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out
that the added use is a relatively minor change to the POD uses
previously approved. He indicated that the applicant, Mr. Larry
Golden, was present and was planning to build a "state-of-the-
art" body repair facility. He reported that the applicant would
commit to having no chain link fencing along the Freeway Dr.
frontage of the lot, but, instead, would provide a 6 foot high
privacy fence; and, that there would be no overhead doors facing
Freeway Dr. He maintained that: 1) due to the distance and the
elevation difference between the site and the residences to the
east in University Park; 2) due to the 6 foot high brick fence
required to be constructed in the original POD application along
Hughes St.; and 3) due to the donation of the lots abutting the
site along Hughes St. to the University Park Neighborhood
Association reqluired in the original POD, there would be no
effect on the neighborhood. He also pointed out that there would
be three additional commercial lots between the neighborhood and
the proposed body shop site. He explained that from the top of
the brick fence to be erected along the Hughes St. right-of-way
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
to the top of the proposed body shop building is a difference of
18 feet in elevation. With a 20 foot high building, the total
elevation difference between the top of the brick fence along
Hughes St. to the ground elevation at the building is 38 feet.
He explained that traffic, both through the University Park
neighborhood and within the POD area should not be impacted at
all, since no traffic has access to the abutting neighborhood,
and the proposed business is in keeping with the nature of the
businesses already approved. He pointed out that the approved
list of uses already includes uses such as "trade school" and
"commercial parking lot"; that, like a commercial body shop, a
trade school often has body shop training facilities as part of
its activities, and, like a parking lot, cars will be parked on
the proposed facility's premises on a short-term basis while they
are being repaired. He concluded by maintaining that the
original concept of a multi -lot, mixed use business park is not
be compromised by the addition of the use being proposed.
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on the type of
fencing to be installed along the I-630 frontage of the lot, and
on the hours of operation.
Mr. Larry Golden, the applicant, explained that down both side
property lines, a wood privacy fence is proposed; however,
because there is an existing chain link fence installed by the
Highway Department along the freeway right-of-way, there has been
no decision on the type or need of additional fencing in that
location. He explained that the hours of operation are 7:30 to
5:30, but that, when there is a need to get a collision repair
completed expeditiously, he would anticipate to be able to begin
work earlier than 7:30 and stay after hours. He would not, he
stated, be a 24-hour operation, though, and he would not have a
second shift. He added that the POD already has a 6:00 AM to
9:00 PM restriction on activity for the mini -storage use, and he
would abide by that restriction in the operation of his business.
Commissioner McCarthy asked for information on the number of
employees of the business, and on the method of painting
automobiles.
Mr. Golden explained that he would probably being with 6
employees, and would anticipate growing to employ 13-14 persons.
He stated that all painting is done in an EPA -approved booth
which is sealed to prevent escape of fumes. Air, he said, is
filtered, and there are no toxic emissions permitted.
Commissioner Willis asked for information on the number of cars
which will be repaired at any one time.
Mr. Golden said that there are 10 work stalls proposed, including
the paint booth, and that the back lot should park 15 vehicles.
There will be, then a maximum of 20-25 cars on the premises at
5
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
any one time. He added that all stalls are accessed from a
center aisle; that there are doors on each end of the building,
thus eliminating needing individual stall doors to the outside.
He used in his presentation an architectural rendering of the
proposed building elevations, and he and Mr. Hathaway said that
the drawings presented are probably fairly close to the building
layout, elevations, and exterior finishes to be constructed, and
the finished building will resemble the design presented to the
Commission.
Commissioner Willis asked for information on the ground elevation
difference between I-630 and the site.
Mr. Golden said that there is a significant elevation difference,
since access to I-630 from Rodney Parham involves driving up a
significant on-ramp, and Hughes St., at the other end of the
project, also involves driving up and over a bridge over I-630.
Commissioner Willis and Commissioner Woods commented, then, that
I-630 traffic would be looking down onto the site.
Mr. Al Porter, representing the University Park neighborhood,
expressed the neighborhood's opposition to the addition of the
use to the POD. He said that the neighborhood did not want to
change the character of the POD. A POD had been approved by the
neighborhood originally, in 1994, to keep from having to deal
with changes and modifications, and the negotiated POD uses
approved in 1994 are those the neighborhood wants to stand by, he
said. He pointed out that a petition, signed by 135 University
Park residents, had been presented in opposition to the change.
Commissioner Woods expressed concern that, if a body shop is
constructed in the middle of the development, then that use will
set the character of the rest of the development, and the
character will be different from what was originally envisioned
for the "business park".
Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson agreed that the
first use probably will set the precedent for other uses, but he
questioned whether a "paint and body shop" is still the same
"animal" as what we think of as a paint and body shop, with
clanging and banging and beating out of metal. He recalled that,
when dealing with the Parker Cadillac Paint and Body Shop, the
Commission heard that collision repair facilities are not the
same any longer; that parts are replaced rather than
straightened; that parts are less and less metal and are
plastics, instead; and that there are no fumes associated with
the business any longer. In the case of the Parker Cadillac Body
Shop, the use was permitted directly across the street from a
residential area. He said that the collision repair facility
proposed is not the same as what would have been classified as a
C-4 use, but rather, would appear, from the exterior, as any
6
s
June 27, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
other business use which is consistent with the type approved in
the original POD, except for the storage of cars outside the
building.
Commissioner Woods expressed concern that wrecked cars would be
parked at the rear of the facility, with traffic on I-630 looking
down on these vehicles. He noted that, at Parker Cadillac Body
Shop, the cars are concealed at the rear of the building. He
said that he felt that the freeway corridor would be adversely
affected by having wrecked cars visible from I-630.
Commissioner Adcock expressed concern about possible noise from
the body rebuilding activities which would affect not only the
abutting businesses, but the neighborhood.
Mr. Golden reiterated that the collision damage business is
different from what is normally considered to be a body shop;
that with the advent of plastics, the various body parts of cars
are not beat out, but are replaced. He also maintained that the
building design will contain any noise which is generated within
the building.
Commissioner Selz asked whether the overhead doors at the ends of
the building would be left closed or open.
Mr. Golden responded that the doors are to be left open, since
the shop is not air conditioned.
Commissioner Woods, returning to his concern about the visual
impact of wrecked cars being visible from I-630, said that
approval of the use would affect not only the business park and
University Park, but the whole city.
Mr. Golden responded that the lot at the rear of his facility,
which would be visible from I-630, would not be that different
from a commercial parking lot which is permitted, or from a
parking lot which is associated with any other business which
might be developed on the particular lot in question.
Mr. Hathaway reviewed the list of possible uses which was
approved in the POD, and said that such uses as a lawn and garden
center, schools, light fabrication and process business,
warehouse, etc., would have the same visual impact as the
proposed collision repair facility.
Mr. John Talley, a member of the University Park neighborhood
association, spoke in opposition to the amended POD, saying that
this change will lead to other changes.
Mr. Hathaway pointed out that the Freeway Business Park developer
is the proposed seller of the lot to Mr. Golden, and that the
developer will still be trying to sell the other lots in the
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. : A (Cont. ) FILE NO. : Z-4249-B
development; that it would not be in the developer' s best
interests to box himself in to selling a lot for a use which
would restrict viable sales to other buyers; and, that the
developer is very comfortable with the compatibility of Mr.
Golden's use to other uses of the remaining lots.
Commissioner Chachere expressed concern that those in cars on 2-
630, albeit not necessarily drivers of vehicles, would be looking
down on damaged and wrecked cars, and, with the possibility of a
trade embargo with Japan, cars might have to wait for repair
parts for extended periods of time.
Mr. Golden responded that the storage of vehicles to be repaired
is for short-term storage only. He said that a fence could not
be built tall enough to completely shield the view of the rear of
the lot from 1-630, but that there is a row of trees which acts
as a partial screen at this time, especially in this time of
year. He offered to plant additional trees along the I-630
right-of-way line.
Mr. Hathaway expressed the opinion that, due to the location of
the traffic lanes on 1-630 and the height of the embankment
dropping off from the interstate, that the view from the
interstate does not include the area of Mr. Golden' s rear parking
lot, but would be to the south of the lot across the building,
street, and cemetery; to see the rear of the lot, one would have
to be able to look straight down, and the topography will not
permit that.
Commissioner McCarthy suggested that the applicant seek
suggestions on ways to visually screen the parking area from the
interstate.
Commissioner Daniels suggested that cars waiting to be repaired
be kept in a covered building.
Mr. Golden responded that he could not commit to such an option
without studying the costs, but that he would be amenable to
planting a row of trees along the right-of-way line.
Commissioner Woods pointed out that planting trees would not
provide immediate screening; that a period of years would be
needed to create the visual screening.
Mr. Hathaway suggested that a row of evergreen trees be planted
along the right-of-way with a spacing of 10 feet on center, with
the trees to be 3" caliper at planting.
Chairperson walker called the question, and the motion to approve
the amended POD, as modified, was automatically deferred until
the June 27, 1995 Commission hearing due to a vote of 3 ayes,
5 nays, 2 abstentions, and 1 absent not giving the required
8
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. : A (Cont. ) FILE NO. : Z-4249-B
6 votes for against an item for it to be either approved or
defeated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman determined to take this item next in the order of
the agenda. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, offered the staff
recommendation and an overview of the status of this request.
Sims pointed out that this item is on this agenda because it was
deferred automatically at the last meeting due to a lack of votes
to either approve or deny the application.
The Chairman then recognized Jeff Hathaway, of the Hathaway
Group, representing this application. Mr. Hathaway presented his
application and updated the Commission on the history of the
application, both at the previous meeting and current status.
Mr. Hathaway pointed out the several concerns and stated that
they were legitimate. He offered that he and the owner of the
proposed business would be offering solutions to those concerns.
Mr. Hathaway then introduced Mr. Larry Golden who was in
attendance. Mr. Golden is the prospective owner of this new
development.
Mr. Golden came to the microphone and identified himself. He
stated for the record that there were four concerns at the last
Planning Commission meeting which he will address. He stated
that he had provided Bobby Sims with a letter identifying the
concerns and solutions and that he had held a meeting with the
neighborhood. He stated that the four concerns that were
identified last time were as follows:
1. View of damaged vehicles from 1-430
2 . Future development of lots in Freeway Business
Park around this development
3 . Noise generated by the proposed facility
4 . Paint emissions
Mr. Golden offered a video which was placed in the room system.
The VCR playing the video on the screen for both the audience and
the Commission. The video basically dealt with visibility of the
site from I-430 as well as the adjacent street. He used this
video to illustrate how screening fences along the freeway side
of the property 8 feet in height would screen storage of damaged
vehicles from view. Golden also agreed that the storage of
vehicles would be limited to the eastern 2/3 of the premises,
which is the least visible area of the site. No vehicles would
be parked on the western 1/3 of the premises because of their
potential visibility. This would include both employees '
vehicles and damaged vehicles.
9
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. : A (Cont. ) FILE NO. : Z-4249-B
Golden continued his comments by offering a commentary during the
presentation of the video. He followed the presentation by
offering two additional elements to respond to concerns. These
were the installation of a single access door or service entrance
on each side of the building to limit the effect rather than
having an individual bay door for each stall. Also these doors
would be screened along the property lines adjacent by the
planting of a minimum of 3 inch caliber trees on the property
line. He also indicated that these trees would have the effect
of eventual screening and visual and physical separation of this
use from potential office users adjacent.
He then presented several letters from owners and occupants of
shopping centers and areas in west Little Rock that were adjacent
to or across the street from existing auto repair facilities of
the nature he proposes. These communications indicated that the
businesses have no concern about noise or other activities
effecting their occupancy.
Golden then moved on to address the final issue or concern,
raised previously, and that being paint emissions. He introduced
a communication from the Arkansas State Department of Labor,
which is the monitoring agent for the OSHA standards. This
letter indicated that the technical and operational level as well
as the mechanical equipment installed would meet all
expectations. The communication also pointed out that any
emissions that were released would not be of such a level or
effect as to cause concern for any adjacent property.
In response to a question from Commissioner Daniels, the
applicant indicated that if a single tree planted across from
each of the two bay doors was not sufficient in the view of the
Commission, he would be happy to increase that number to 2, 3 or
4 or as appropriate. With that response he completed his
presentation. The Chairman then stated that there were two cards
of persons present in opposition who wish to speak. The first
person to present arguments against the application did not
identify herself when approaching the microphone. She offered
comments as follows.
She offered an extensive history of the previous application and
all of the various conditions and arrangements that have been
developed to protect her neighborhood, which is east of Hughes
Street. (Note: This person was later identified as Chris
White, residing at 913 South Hughes Street. )
The next person to present arguments identified himself as
Mr. Albert J. Porter of 6615 Sherry Drive. Mr. Porter' s comments
and presentation offered a lengthy history of the use mix and the
lots that were committed to various uses and types of uses.
Mr. Porter also pointed out that there were certain restrictions
10
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B
by use for certain lots within the agreement that was reached
with the developer and the neighborhood. Mr. Porter also
indicated that it was surprising to see that the first use
proposed here is a body shop which is totally different from the
kinds of uses that were in the original approved list.
Mr. Porter concluded his remarks and the Chairman then asked if
the applicant desired to rebut those remarks or make further
comments. The owner stated for the record 2 points. The first
of these being that the use mix which was originally approved was
a list allowed across all of the various lots with some
additional allowed on certain lots. His second comment, that,
paint emission clarification by OSHA are what he hoped to reach
within five years.
The Chairman then closed the public hearing and placed the issue
before the Commission for a vote. He began an explanation of the
several additional conditions offered by the applicant.
At this point, a commissioner asked a question. The question
being as to whether this application involves the one lot. A
response by Bobby Sims was, "Yes, this use would be for this lot
only." Further clarification was that additional body shops
would not be allowed within the plat. This is the only lot to be
utilized for that purpose. Before proceeding with the vote on
the matter, the Chairman included an additional modification by
the applicant which was a limitation that no auto parts would be
stored on the outside of the structure.
The item was then placed on the floor for a vote. This produced
a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. The application is
approved.
11
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5957
NAME: YOUNG -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL
LOCATION: On the north side of Colonel Glenn Rd., approximately
3/4 mile west of the Lawson Rd. intersection, outside the City
Limits.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER:
MERLE E. YOUNG HOPE ENGINEERING
13320 Colonel Glenn Rd. 406 W. South St.
Little Rock, AR 72210 Benton, AR 72015
225-7523 778-0786
AREA: 2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONI R-2 PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
Mini -Storage & Boat and
Recreational Vehicle Storage
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the Master Street
Plan improvements along the Colonel Glenn Rd. frontage of the
site.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a 2 -acre development, one acre, the
eastern -most site, being proposed for a mini -storage development;
the second acre, the western -most site, being for a boat and
recreational vehicle storage yard. Each of the sites has 282.50
feet of frontage on Colonel Glenn Rd. The mini -storage area is
proposed to contain four buildings, each 30 feet wide by 100 feet
long. Security lighting for the mini -storage area is to be
located on the front face of each of the four buildings and along
the rear of the property line. Security lighting for the boat
and recreational vehicle storage yard is proposed to be located
at each of the four corners of the lot. The site is to be
completely surrounded by a 6 foot high chain link fence, with
barbed wire on top. The boat and recreational vehicle storage
yard is to be an open lot completely surrounded by a similar
fence. Each of the two lots has a single gate driveway entrance
off Colonel Glenn. Landscaping along the Colonel Glenn frontage
of the tract is proposed. Five vehicle parking spaces are
indicated to be provided on the mini -storage lot. An on-site
manager will attend the site, and hours of operation for the
facility will be from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, seven days per week.
Access to the site after hours will be available by contacting an
attendant by way of a pager. The construction of the mini-
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957
storage buildings is planned to be phased over a period of time,
depending upon business.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a PD -C. Review by the
Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval of the
waiver of street improvements along Colonel Glenn is
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped. It is currently a pasture, with
scattered trees.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The R-2 zoning
district extends to the properties to the east, north, and
west. Across Colonel Glenn Rd., the zoning is AF. The area
is approximately 1/4 mile outside the City Limits.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the plat has some
technical requirements which need clarification; 2) Colonel
Glenn is a Principal Arterial; so, dedication of right-of-
way to provide a minimum of 55 feet from centerline and
construction of additional roadway to provide a street width
of 33 feet from the centerline, with a sidewalk, is
required; 3) a stormwater detention analysis is required;
and, 4) the security gates must be moved back to allow for
off street parking in front of the gates.
Water Works comments that the proposed development is
outside the City Limits, but recommends that fire hydrants
be installed.
Wastewater comments that the proposed development is outside
the service boundary of Wastewater Utility. No service is
available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement
at the perimeter of the site and along the common lot line.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department comments that an on-site fire hydrant
may be required.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that:
The 2 -acre tract is part of a larger tract, and a
proper subdivision, including the larger tract from
which the two 1 -acre lots are taken, must be provided
and approved by the Planning Commission.
The site plan needs to show sidewalks, drives,
landscape areas, the proposed treatment of the
perimeter of the property, etc.
The project narrative indicates that there will be an
on-site manager. The location of the office is not
shown. The office use must be requested and the office
area must be designated.
Landscape review comments that: a land use buffer of
28' in width is required (19' minimum with transfers)
with a 6' high opaque screen along the eastern and
western site perimeters; to the north, the buffer is
required to be 8' in width, and have a 6' high opaque
screen; (The screening may consist of a wooden "good
neighbor" fence or be dense evergreen plantings.); and,
the buffer requirement along Col. Glenn Rd. is 8' in
width (As a part of the land use buffers, trees and
shrubs are required to be planted unless otherwise
present.).
The Planning Staff comments that the site is in the
Ellis Mountain planning district, and that the adopted
Land Use Plan for this area recommends only single-
family uses. The proposed development use is in
conflict with the Land Use Plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are critical deficiencies in the submittal: the site
is not properly subdivided from the "parent" tract; the
required right-of-way for Colonel Glenn Rd. is not provided;
the plan does not show the required landscaping buffers and
interior landscaping; etc. The use is in conflict with the
Land Use Plan.
Public works can support a deferral from the Master Street
Plan improvements along Colonel Glenn Rd., but dedication of
the required right-of-way must be provided. Dedication of
the right-of-way which is required will drastically effect
the plan.
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the PD -C.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995)
Mr. and Mrs. Merle Young, the applicants, were present. Staff
outlined the requested use and reviewed with the Committee
members the site plan which was submitted. Staff and the
Committee members reviewed with the Young's the comments
contained in the discussion outline. The Young's said that the
dedication of the required right-of-way could be provided, but
that a waiver of the Master Street Plan improvements for Colonel
Glenn Rd. would be requested. The landscaping and buffer
requirements were reviewed by staff, and the Young's said that
the site plan would be amended to provide the required landscape
and buffer areas. The Committee, after informing the Young's
that the revised site plans would need to be submitted to staff,
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had, immediately prior to the
opening of the hearing, related that he wanted to request a
deferral of his item. Staff recommended that the item be added
to the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 27, 1995
Commission meeting. Mr. Young was asked by the Chair to make his
request for deferral to the Commission, which Mr. Young did. The
deferral of the item was approved with the approval of the
Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions,
and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The Planning Commission was presented with a written request from
the applicant for withdrawal of this item from further
consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the application per
the.applicant's request. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
4
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
NAME: NATIONAL HOMECARE VILLAGES, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED
DISTRICT -RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION: In the Pankey Community, between Black St. and Wells
St., south of Piggee St., approximately 0.20 mile south of
Cantrell Rd.
ENGINEER•
Willard Proctor, Jr., Agent Charles E. Miller
WILLARD PROCTOR, JR. ATTORNEY CHARLIE MILLER ENGINEERING
1619 S. Broadway 1500 Aldersgate Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72206 Little Rock, AR 72205
378-7720 225-7106
AREA• 2 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 450
PROPOSED USES: Multi-Family/Elderly Housing
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement to
dedicate additional right-of-way for and to construct boundary
streets along the south and east boundaries of the tract, and
along the east one-half of the north boundary of the tract.
BACKGROUND•
The item was previously submitted as a re -zoning request, in
which the appellant had requested a rezoning from R-2 to R-5. At
the May 30, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, however, the
applicant agreed to modify the rezoning to a planned development
request.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to develop the 2 acre tract for elderly
housing. The facility is to be housed in an "L" -shaped, two-
story building containing a total of 56 apartments. Of the 56
total units, 20 are to be efficiency apartments, 35 are to be one
bedroom units, and one unit is to be a two bedroom unit which is
to be the residence of the manager. The building is to include a
library, a recreation room, an exercise facility, a medical exam
facility, a manager's and support staff offices, a dining room,
and a kitchen facility. On-site parking for 32 vehicles is
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
proposed. One-half street improvements to Black St. (the west
boundary street) and to the west 150 feet of Piggee St. the north
boundary street) are proposed, as is improvement to the existing
wooden bridge located approximately 800 feet north of the site on
Black St. A waiver of the requirement to improve the remaining
boundary streets (the west and south boundary streets, and the
east one-half north boundary street) is requested. Landscaping
as required by the Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is to be
provided.
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a planned development for an
elderly housing facility, and for a wavier of the boundary
street requirements for two of the boundary streets (along
the east and south boundaries of the site) and for the east
150 feet of a third boundary street (the north boundary
street). The applicant proposes to construct a bridge to
Master Street Plan standards to replace the existing wooden
bridge structure on Black St., the bridge being located
approximately 800 feet north of the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are two single-family homes located along the
northern -most edge of the site, but, for the most part, the
site is undeveloped. Thick woods cover the southern and
eastern areas of the tract. There is a significant
differential in ground elevation across the site, with an
approximate 60 foot drop from the northwest corner of the
tract to the southeast corner.
The boundary streets along all four sides of the tract are
either totally undeveloped or are substandard. Access to
the site is from the northwest corner of the block, where
Black St. dead -ends into the tract. Black St. along the
western boundary of the site is undeveloped. Piggee St. is
a "trail" to the eastern -most residence on the block, but
for the remainder of the northern boundary of the site,
Piggee St. is undeveloped. Wells St. and Douglas St. are
only dedicated rights-of-way along the eastern and southern
boundaries, respectively, of the site; they are totally
undeveloped.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2. All surrounding
land is zoned R-2. There are existing homes on the site, as
well as on lots across Piggee St. to the north and on Wells
St. to the east. There is a new single-family neighborhood
being developed to the west, with a number of developed lots
backing up to the subject site.
PA
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896-
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff notes the following:
1) Black St. is designated as a collector street on the
Master Street Plan; the other boundary streets are
designated as standard residential streets.
Construction of half street improvements to Master
Street Plan standards (one-half of a 36 foot roadway
for Black St. and one-half of a 27 foot roadway for the
other three boundary streets), including construction
of sidewalks, are required by the Ordinance.
Dedication of additional right-of-way to meet Master
Street Plan standards is required: 10 additional feet
along Black St. and 5 additional feet along the other
three boundary streets. A minimum 20 foot radial
dedication at intersections is required.
The existing wooden bridge on Black St., located
approximately 800 feet north of the applicant's site,
and approximately 250 feet south of Cantrell Rd., is
substandard, and cannot support the weight of emergency
vehicles or construction -laden trucks. Access to the
site, then, is severely limited, and off-site
improvements to the bridge must be made in order for
the development to have proper access.
Public Works can support the waiver of right-of-way
dedication and street improvements for the east and
south boundary streets, as well as the east one-half of
the north boundary street, as long as the applicant
agrees to meet the City Engineer's requirements for
street improvements along both the Black St. boundary
street and the Piggee St. boundary from Black St.
eastward approximately 150 feet, as well as agreeing to
re -construct the Black St. bridge to a standard
required by the City Engineer.
2) There is a platted north -south alley shown on the
original Pankey Subdivision plat. For the project, as
presented, to proceed, the alley must be abandoned,
with no easements retained.
3) The northern -most driveway on Black St. is too close to
the intersection. The Master Street Plan requires that
driveway entrances be no closer to intersections than
100 feet. It is recommended that a variance of this
standard be pursued by the applicant to permit the
driveway to be located 50 feet from the intersection.
4) Driveways must be shown to be 20 feet in width,
minimum, and must be designated as "one-way".
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5896-
5) The drive approach off Piggee St. does not conform to
the Master Street Plan standards. It must be modified
to permit maneuvering off-street and to permit trucks
to unload without backing onto or blocking the street.
6) An excavation permit must be obtained prior to any
construction activity.
7) A stormwater detention analysis is required. The
analysis for drainage must address the off-site
capacity of existing drainage, as required by the
ordinance. All street drainage is to be underground,
conforming to City standards.
Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be
required.
The Fire Department comments that the drive-thru shall be
designated a fire lane, and must be a minimum of 20' in
width. On-site fire hydrants may be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-201.h states that: "Whenever a proposed
(development) abuts a partially dedicated or
constructed... street, the developer shall provide the
minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-
of-way. The portion of the boundary streets on the half of
the right-of-way abutting the applicant's site are, pursuant
to the Code, to be constructed to Master Street Plan
standards, with the required right-of-way dedicated. If
this is not proposed to be done, then, waivers of this
requirement must be approved by the Board of Directors. The
applicant, as a response to this requirement, is seeking a
waiver of these requirements for the east, south, and a
portion of the north boundary streets. Dedication of the
required right-of-way and construction of the street
improvements, to standards imposed by the City Engineer, are
proposed for the west and a portion of the north boundary
street, as is construction of a new bridge to replace a sub-
standard bridge off-site on Black St.
The site plan is to show sidewalks, landscaping, and
buffering.
The Code requires, in Sec. 36-502.1, that, for elderly
housing, 0.5 parking spaces be provided per unit. This
development proposes 55 elderly housing units and 1
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
apartment for the manager. The required parking, then,
would be 27.5 spaces for the elderly housing, plus 1.5
spaces for the standard multi -family unit, or, a total of 29
spaces. The applicant proposes 32 spaces.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
comments that the buffer width requirement along Black St.
is 14.5' (9.5' average with transfer). At no point should
the buffer drop below 61; the Landscape Ordinance requires
6' minimum. No buffering has been shown on the submitted
plan between the proposed parking lot and the right-of-way
of Black St.
The Planning staff point out that the proposed project is in
the River Mountain planning district, and that the adopted
Land Use Plan calls for this and the surrounding areas to be
developed for single-family uses. The multi-family/elderly
housing use which is proposed is in conflict with the
adopted plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Public Works staff points out that the northern -most
driveway onto Black St. is too close to the intersection,
and recommends that a variance be requested by the applicant
to permit the driveway to be 50 feet from the intersection,
in lieu of 100 feet as required by the Ordinance. A
variance for this deviation from Ordinance standards has not
been requested by the applicant. Either the site plan must
show the relocation of the driveway to a point not closer
than 100 feet from the intersection, or a variance must be
requested.
The development involves construction of a 2 -story °L11 -
shaped, multi -family building. The adopted Land Use Plan
calls for the area to be developed in single-family uses.
The multi -family character of the proposed development does
not conform to the adopted plan. It is incompatible with
the planned single-family development character of the
surrounding area and with the single-family residential
subdivision which is developing to the west
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
Mr. Willard Proctor, the agent for the developer, was present.
Staff outlined the request and reviewed with the Committee
members and applicant the comments contained in the discussion
5
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
outline. Mr. Proctor indicated that he would prepare and submit
the needed information, and that the site plan would be revised
to conform to the Public Works requirements. The Committee
forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, offered the staff recommendation,
a brief history of the application and an update on the filing. The
Chairman then identified for the record that there was only one card
of a person present wishing to speak on this matter. This was a
person speaking in favor of the petition. The applicant, Willard
Proctor, then came forward.
Mr. Proctor offered a lengthy history of his application and
began presenting this proposal with the several variances that
are requested. He pointed out the site plan that is being
reviewed does not contain some of the amendments he desires to
make at this time. Mr. Proctor clarified for the record that
this is not a nursing home but a retirement center, apartments if
you will. He stated that the variances he was requesting are as
follows:
1. The requirement of dedication of right-of-way along Black
Road adjacent to the site on the west. He stated the only
streets that they wanted to develop would be Black Road
along the west side in approximately 1/2 the length of
Piggee Street on the north boundary. At this point he also
indicated that the Public Works Department had made a
requirement that he improve the bridge across Isom Creek,
which lies approximately one block north this development.
This would be done in order to accommodate access by
emergency vehicles. It is currently a poor standard, wooden
structure.
2. The second variance would be from the requirement that he
improve the other two boundary streets on this block that
being the east line and the south line.
In response to a question from a commissioner, Mr. Proctor
pointed out that he did have an agreement with Public Works on
the construction of the bridge and for reduction of certain
standards on abutting streets.
3. The next item or exception he pointed out was the driveway
distance from the corner.
He desired to have less than the required 100 feet.
He then moved his comments to the issue of amendments to the
application. The first of these being the planting of a 6 foot
6
June 27, 1995
SIIHDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896-A
minimum width strip around the perimeter as a screening and
buffering device. The next change indicated that he is
proceeding with an application to abandon the alley that runs
north and south through this block. It will be required prior to
final platting or obtaining building permits.
The next item of change on the plan would be the modification of
the turning radius on Piggee Street entrance to accommodate truck
access since this is the service entry. Mr. Proctor then moved
his comments to the staff recommendation of denial. He pointed
out that the staff's primary objection was based upon the adopted
land use plan for the area which indicated single family and that
his project is obviously multifamily. In defense of his position
and his application, he offered that people who come here come to
live here -- not like apartments.
Proctor indicated that their facilities would be on-site such as
dining and meeting rooms. Some transportation off-site may be
offered, they would also have their personal and recreational
needs cared for on the premises. He pointed that the design of
his structure would compliment the neighborhood. He stated that
the existing zoning would lead to the construction of low cost
housing in the area. His project would perhaps be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Proctor then offered to receive comments or questions. The
first of these came from Commissioner Willis who asked how he
arrived at the unit count. His response generally was that he
felt this number could be accommodated by the neighborhood and
the size of property. He also indicated that it was similar to
what other areas could accommodate and contain.
Commissioner Adcock asked for an explanation of his term
"efficiency apartment." He indicated that his efficiency units
would not have a kitchen, but that these units would be served by
central dining facilities. He was also questioned as to the
character of the medical on-site facility. He indicated this was
nothing more than a mini -doctor's office since most of the
occupants would be elderly.
Commissioner Adcock then raised a question as to whether or not
the building was handicap accessible, the appropriate heights for
cabinets, doorway passage, hallways and such. Mr. Proctor's
response was that the building was designed for the elderly.
There will be units provided with special design but this would
be primarily ambulatory residents.
In response to several questions from the Commission, Mr. Proctor
went on record as saying, He would commit to certain minimum
percentages of these units being for the elderly and they would
not be open for rental for younger persons. At this point,
Commissioner Daniels pointed out his objection to this would be
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
the reduction of the street right-of-way to less than what would
be required. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, inserted a
comment at this point that he felt the Public Works Department
needed to insert their thoughts into the record.
David Scherer, of the Public Works Engineering section, presented
Public Works' position on this matter. He stated this was
basically an undeveloped area with limited or poor access over
narrow streets with wooden bridges. He pointed out specifically,
that, what Public Works would feel comfortable with is a tradeoff
and would be the elimination of improvements of two boundary
streets which have little possibility for future development
because of the terrain. These improvements could be swapped off
to obtain improvements off-site specifically the bridge and
roadway approach to the development. He stated that the
additional right-of-way was requested along Black Road to support
the widening of that street to the appropriate collector
standard. Further, the proper pavement would be constructed with
a turn around at the south end. He stated that the dedication of
the
10 feet on Black Road would give the minimum 50 foot right-of-way
required for the 36 foot pavement.
Mr. Scherer identified the issue of the driveway access point
being required by ordinance to be at least 100 feet from the
intersection. He said, given the circumstances of the
development in and about this area and potential for this street,
Public Works could support the placement of the driveway
approximately 50 feet. To further expand on Public Works
requirements for 36 foot pavement, he pointed to the fact that
the ordinance requires for nonresidential uses or high density
uses that the collector standard street be constructed. He
pointed out that Public Works was going to require significant
improvements on Black Road away from this site, including the
bridge and that would be expensive.
Scherer stated that the bridge would have to be designed to carry
a 36 foot roadway as well as 100 year flood plain requirements
for Isom Creek. To clarify another point, Bobby Sims, of the
Planning Staff, asked Mr. Scherer to comment on the 50 foot
right-of-way when normally 36 is placed in a 60 foot collector.
Mr. Scherer pointed out that 10 feet is all that this property
owner could be required from this side with the existing 40 makes
50. The additional 10 feet would have to come from the west side
if that were ever developed and dedicated.
Mr. Scherer then responded following comments about adjacent
properties primarily being the Old Oak area of secluded Hill
Subdivision. He stated that a Phase V plat was being reviewed by
Public Works Department and that, that, plat does extend Old Oak
Drive to Black Road somewhat north of this project area. A
commissioner questioned Mr. Scherer as to whether or not the
8
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896-A
City's future access needs would be met by the agreement that
Public Works has agreed to. Mr. Scherer stated yes.
Commissioner Chachere then posed a question as to whether or not
Public Works was making their requirement on Black Road from
Highway 10 all the way to the tract to be developed. A response
from Mr. Scherer was, "Yes, from Highway 10 down to the
termination device on Black Road adjacent to this property." He
completed his comment by stating that he thought that this was
approximately three city blocks.
Commissioner Putnam then posed a question to the applicant,
Mr. Willard Proctor, as to whether or not he understood and was
willing to build the street from Highway 10 to collector standard
all the way to his project. Mr. Proctor indicated that he
understood and that he was willing to and would meet with Public
Works to work this out. Commissioner Putnam then posed a
question to Bobby Sims as to whether or not the development of
this project violates the intended purpose of the River Mountain
Land Use Plan. Sims' response was, "Yes, it is in conflict with
the Plan."
Tony Bozynski, of the Planning Staff, then came to the microphone
to answer a question of Mr. Putnam as to whether or not variances
from that plan could be obtained. Bozynski offered a history of
the Plan in this area and the numerous efforts to change the plan
to rezone parcels within the Pankey Community. He indicated that
of all the plans that have been presented, (some of which were
not adopted) all of them indicated that the subject area was to
be retained for single family residential development. He stated
that he felt this would be a significant departure from the Plan
as now approved. He further stated that this land use plan was
adopted with the cooperation of the neighborhood.
Bozynski indicated that the Donaghey Plan, a recent effort in the
neighborhood, although not adopted, indicated west of Black Road
a site for multifamily occupancy. He stated that the 56 units on
this approximately 2 acres of land is rather high density for
this area of Highway 10. He stated that the Plan where
multifamily is reflected indicates densities of 10 to 12 units
per acre. He stated that he was not certain at this point
whether staff could offer a recommendation on amending the plan
should the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
application. He stated that staff would have to go back and look
at a broader picture because this is a significant departure from
the Plan.
In a response to a question from Commissioner Willis, Bozynski
pointed out that this site is approximately one block south of
the area indicated on the Donaghey Plan for multifamily and
across the street.
V]
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
In a response to a question from Commissioner Chachere about
residences in the immediate area, Bozynski responded by stating
that the Secluded Hill Subdivision is being developed immediately
across Black Road on a large acreage tract. There are residences
nearby in Pankey to the north and to the east. He pointed out
that once the several houses on this block are removed that there
will not be single family dwellings immediately adjacent, except
to the west and terrain separates that visually from this site.
In response to a question from Commissioner Willis about Black
Road connection to Old Oak and Secluded Hills, Bozynski stated
that it is a Master Street Plan connection shown as a collector.
David Scherer, of the Public Works Department, buttressed
Bozynski's remarks by indicating that Phase V of the Secluded
Hills plat does include the extension of Old Oak Drive.
The Chairman then moved the meeting to cards of opposition. He
indicated that there was one from Ruth Bell, of the League of
Women Voters. Mrs. Bell indicated that the League's position
with regard to plans is that they be maintained unless there is
some clear and compelling reason to make a modification in an
adopted plan. She made a comment that there were no attendees
from the adjacent Pankey neighborhood although their concerns
were being voiced by her in their absence. She stated that the
League would like the Planning Commission to reject this
application.
The Chairman then asked whether Mr. Proctor, the applicant,
desired to respond to anything that had been previously stated or
offer new commentary. Mr. Proctor came forward and pointed out
that there were persons present from Pankey. He pointed out that
they were in favor of the project. He reminded the Commission
that notices did go out to all the appropriate Pankey residences.
Mr. Proctor then restated several of his previous comments
concerning density, access and such as well as his tentative
agreement with Public Works Department on a construction of
access.
Commissioner Willis then asked Mr. Proctor whether he proposed to
erect a direction and identification sign at Black Road and
Highway 10. Mr. Proctor responded by saying no. The discussion
then moved to whether or not Mr. Proctor proposed to or would
accept the idea of natural and undisturbed buffers, especially
along the east side in lieu of a landscaped strip. Commissioner
Willis then asked whether Mr. Brown could come forward and
provide the Commission with insight on the Landscape Ordinance
relationship to this project.
After a lengthy discussion of ordinance requirements between
Mr. Brown and several commissioners, the Chairman asked Mr.
Proctor if would be willing to accept the Ordinance Standards for
10
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5896 -
screening and buffering on the perimeter of his project. Mr.
Proctor responded by saying yes.
Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, injected a thought at this
point to the effect that so far all the plan consisted of was a
building footprint and sketchy access and parking layout. All of
these amendments being offered should be prepared and
resubmitted. In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam,
Sims pointed out that the PRD would be transferable to another
property owner; however, the project would have to remain the
same.
The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission for a vote
including in his comments the several modifications and waivers that
would be requested by Mr. Proctor before the Board of Directors.
These were: the agreement with Public Works on the streets, the
reduction and improvements on some and the extension of off-site
improvements in other areas. The second was a commitment to
limiting the project to a legal specified number of occupants of
certain ages. That he would meet the Ordinance requirements and
design standards for the Buffer and Landscape Ordinances. The
Chairman asked for additional comments from the Commission. There
being none, the matter was placed on the floor for a vote. For the
record, the Chairman indicated the elevations presented and this
application would be made part of the record. The vote on the
application presented was 7 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention.
The application is approved.
11
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
NAME: Global Interdominational Revival
Center - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1608 South Rock Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rev. Bobby Marshall
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit has been
requested allowing for the use of
this R-2 zoned, two-story
residential structure as a church.
STAFF COMMENT
The applicant has failed to provide staff with any information
regarding the use proposed for the property at 1608 S. Rock
Street. Without this pertinent information, staff was unable to
properly review the application. Staff recommends that the item
be deferred to the April 4, 1995 Planning Commission meeting and
that the applicant be directed to provide the required supporting
documentation to staff no later than the February 27, 1995 filing
date.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to
provide any information regarding the use proposed for the
property. Also, no proof of notification to the property owners
within 200 feet had been submitted.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda
deferral to the April 4, 1995 Commission
the Planning Commission also directed the
the required supporting documentation to
February 27, 1995 filing date.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
and approved for
meeting. In its vote,
applicant to provide
staff no later than the
SUBDIVISION_ COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
the applicant had not provided any of the required supporting
documentation. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission with a recommendation that the
item be withdrawn.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had provided the required information, but it was too
late for the information to be reviewed and considered in this
agenda. As such, the applicant requested a second deferral, this
time to the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the May 16, 1995 Commission agenda to allow for staff
review. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining
(Willis).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
1608 S. Rock Street is located on the west side of Rock
Street, between East 16th and East 17th Streets.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This property is located in the heart of an older,
established residential neighborhood comprised primary of
single family homes with a scattering of duplex residences
and some larger homes which have been converted to
multifamily. Although the surrounding uses are primarily
residential in nature, there are several non-residential
uses within the immediate vicinity including other churches
and a large nursing home.
If the proposed use were more of a traditionally defined
small church, with worship meetings two days a week and some
minor level of other associated activities, it would be more
compatible with the neighborhood. However, in addition to
the "traditional" biweekly worship times, this church will
provide a wide range of community and social programs which
conceivably could involve activities at the site from 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 - 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Staff feels
that a use generating this level of activity within what is
basically a residential structure is not compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The applicant has indicated that a congregation currently
numbering approximately 14 persons meets for worship at the
site. Based on a parking requirement of 1 on-site parking
space for each 4 persons, 3 on-site parking spaces are
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
required. The upper floor of this two story structure will
be utilized by the applicant as his dwelling, requiring 1
on-site parking space. The site currently has no on-site
parking and none is proposed.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Based on the fact that no outside activities such as a
playground or parking lot are proposed, there is no
screening or buffering required.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
a. If access is taken from the alley to any parking
proposed on the site, improve the alley.
b. Repair broken sidewalk and curb
C. Traffic Engineering recommends denial due to lack of
on-site parking.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments from the utility companies
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
use of the existing, R-4 zoned residential structure located
at 1608 S. Rock Street as a church and dwelling.
The second floor of the two-story structure will be utilized
by the applicant as his dwelling.
The first floor of the structure is proposed to be used by
the Global Interdenominational Revival Center as a place of
worship and to provide various community and social
services. The applicant has submitted the following
calendar of activities which would take place at the site.
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
SUNDAY 9:30
a.m.
- 12:00
p.m.
6:00
p.m.
- 8:00
p.m.
MONDAY 6:00
p.m.
- 7:00
p.m.
TUESDAY 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
THURSDAY
5:30
p.m. -
7:30
p.m.
FRIDAY
5:00
p.m. -
6:30
p.m.
SATURDAY 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
MORNING WORSHIP
EVENING WORSHIP
SPIRITUAL AWARENESS
BIBLE STUDY
PARENTING SESSIONS
PRAYER/BIBLE STUDY
TRUSTEE MEETING
FOOD PANTRY
COMMUNITY SPEAKERS
COMMUNITY YOUTH OUTREACH
VETERANS CRISIS WORKSHOP
In addition to the above activities, the church will provide
counseling services daily from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The applicant has also stated that he will utilize one
bedroom of his dwelling to provide temporary shelter to
individuals in need of a place to stay.
The applicant states his goal is to provide these needed
services to persons living in the immediate community
surrounding the church. The counseling and intervention
programs are aimed at an increasingly volatile younger
population which is turning more and more to gang activity.
The parenting sessions are designed to provide counseling
and training for parents and expectant parents. The church
will also distribute to the community food stuffs which it
has received through donations from various businesses and
individuals.
While it is undeniable that there is a need for all of these
activities, staff questions the appropriateness of utilizing
this residence in such a manner. The site is located in the
heart of what is primarily a single family residential
neighborhoods. There has been substantial private and
public effort made to revitalize properties within close
proximity of this site. The applicant proposes to utilize
the property basically "as is" without providing any site
improvements such as on-site parking which are typically
associated with such a use. Finally, based on the
applicant's schedule of proposed activities, it is
conceivable that there could be activities at this site from
8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. This level of
proposed activity is not compatible with the neighborhood.
As such, staff cannot support this application.
4
June 27, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5874-
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of this application as being too
intensive a use and incompatible with this residential
neighborhood.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 27, 1995)
The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. Staff presented
the item and the schedule of activities proposed by the
applicant. The City Engineer's Comments were noted.
Rev. Marshall briefly discussed the proposed use and the
importance of providing the proposed services to the community.
It was noted that the church would primarily serve residents of
the neighborhood who are within walking distance of the site,
thus lessening the impact of no on-site parking being provided.
Rev. Marshall was asked to provide more information on his
proposal to utilize one bedroom of the home to provide temporary
lodging to persons in need.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 16, 1995)
The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There was one
objector present. One letter of opposition had been presented to
the Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
denial.
Rev. Marshall addressed the Commission in support of his
application. He stated that it would be a mistake to miss an
opportunity to help this distressed neighborhood. Rev. Marshall
continued by stating that his programs provide needed
opportunities for the residents of the community. He closed by
stating that the City had ignored the neighborhood and allowed it
to deteriorate.
Commissioner Willis asked Rev. Marshall if he had considered
reducing the level of activity at the site so that there would
not be activity 7 days a week. Rev. Marshall stated that he
would be willing to amend his application, as long as he is able
to maintain a presence in the neighborhood.
Chairman Walker stated that the Planning Commission's struggle is
that a particular location may not be appropriate for a proposed
5
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
use although the need for the services offered by that use may be
great.
Rev. Marshall stated that Global (Global Interdenominational
Revival Center) had no plans to "homestead" at 1608 Rock. He
stated that an alternative location may soon be available. He
then invited Commission members to come to the site and view his
operation.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woods, Rev. Marshall
stated that the new location, on McAlmont Street near the
Rockefeller School, would be available in approximately 4 months.
In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Jim Lawson,
Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated
that there were many zoning districts which allow churches,
although a conditional use permit may be required in some
districts.
Mr. Floyd Marshall addressed the Commission in support of the
application. He asked the Commission to identify ways to reduce
activities which would allow Global to remain where it is.
Rev. Marshall reiterated that Global would be moving. He stated
"that is the bottom line." Rev. Marshall continued by stating
that he recognized the historical value of the neighborhood and
that he was working to beautify the area.
Commissioner Chachere asked Rev. Marshall if he would amend his
application to ask for approval, with a time limit.
Floyd Marshall stated that the proposed new location might also
require a conditional use permit and that a time limit should
allow adequate time to go through the process at the new site.
Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Lawson if staff would recommend
approval of an amended application which included a time limit
and a reduction in the level of activity. Mr. Lawson responded
that there were too many unknown issues to speculate on such a
proposal. Mr. Lawson stated that staff would be glad to meet
with Rev. Marshall to consider an amended application.
Commissioner Chachere asked if there had been any code
enforcement activity at 1608 Rock Street. Kenny Scott, of the
City's Code Enforcement Staff, responded that there had not been
any enforcement at that location.
Commissioner Chachere questioned staff's interpretation that the
proposed use is too intensive for the site.
Mr. Floyd Marshall stated that Global had helped the community
and asked what the citizens of the City wanted.
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A
In response to a question from Commissioner Rahman, Rev. Marshall
stated that Global's social activities included G.E.D.
educational programs and classes and a community food
distribution program. He stated that as many as 400-500 boxes of
food are distributed at a time.
Chairman Walker stated that it had been suggested that a one year
period be approved. He asked Rev. Marshall if he would be
inclined to amend his application to reflect a one year approval.
Rev. Marshall responded that he wished to modify his application
to a one year approval.
Rita Spillenger, of 1609 Cumberland, addressed the Commission in
opposition to the item. She stated that she was uncomfortable
opposing such a program in theory, but questioned why Rev. Marshall
did not seek a more appropriate location. Ms. Spillenger stated
that those people who were opposed to this application were not
necessarily opposed to the goals of the program. She stated that
she was suspicious of a temporary approval. Ms. Spillenger stated
that there was currently a tremendous amount of activity at the
site.
In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Ms.
Spillenger stated that Global should locate to a site that is
properly zoned. She stated that she had made complaints to the
Code Enforcement staff but was told that any enforcement would be
suspended until the Planning Commission acted on the application.
Ms. Spillenger stated that she believed the neighborhood to be no
safer for Rev. Marshall's presence.
In response to a statement from Commissioner Putnam, Ms. Spillenger
stated that activities have taken place at 1608 Rock for the past
2 1/2-3 years.
Jim Lawson stated that the applicant had not yet proposed any
reduction in the level of activity at the site, only a one year
time limit.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she agreed with staff's
recommendation. She stated that the item had been deferred and
modified numerous times and that activities had been taking place
on the site the entire time, without proper approval.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he agreed with Commissioner
Adcock.
Commissioner Daniels noted that the applicant had proposed to
relocate in 4 months and that no application had been filed for
the new location. He questioned if the applicant was going to
wait and then drag the process out at the new site.
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
After a further discussion, Jim Lawson urged the Commission to
vote on the item.
Commissioner Willis noted that it was time for the applicant to
amend his application. He then briefly discussed with the
applicant eliminating some of the activities at the site.
Commissioner Chachere also urged a reduction in the level of
activity at the site.
Commissioner Woods stated that, in a good faith effort, the
applicant should get the process started to gain approval to use
the proposed new site.
Chairman Walker stated that a condition will be added that an
application be filed for the new site within 30 days of the
Commission's action on 1608 Rock Street.
Commissioner Woods stated that he wanted the condition added that
any approval be only for one year and that the property revert to
residential at that point, regardless of the outcome of the
application which is to be filed for the new site.
Commissioner Willis noted that there had not yet been any
proposal submitted to reduce activities at 1608 Rock Street.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Jim Lawson
stated that it would be very difficult to enforce an hours of
operation limitation for this proposed use.
A motion was then made to defer the item to the June 27, 1995
Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to
further refine and amend his application. The vote on the motion
to defer was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining
(Daniels).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
informed the Committee that the applicant had amended the
conditional use permit application to request approval for a
period of one year only. The schedule of activities had also
been amended and is now as follows:
L.1
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
SUNDAY NO ACTIVITIES
MONDAY 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
TUESDAY 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
THURSDAY
5:30
P.M. -
7:30
P.M.
FRIDAY
5:00
p.m. -
6:30
p.m.
SATURDAY 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
SPIRITUAL AWARENESS
BIBLE STUDY
PARENTING SESSIONS
PRAYER/BIBLE STUDY
TRUSTEE MEETING
FOOD PANTRY
COMMUNITY SPEAKERS
VA VISITATION HOMELESS VETS
COMMUNITY YOUTH OUTREACH
VETERANS CRISIS WORKSHOP
In addition to the above activities, the church will still
provide counseling services daily from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
After reviewing the schedule of activities, the committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There were no
objectors present. One letter of opposition had been received
and forwarded to the Commission. Staff presented the item and
noted the revisions to the proposed schedule of activities and
the fact that the applicant was requesting a one year approval
only. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that staff had
reviewed the proposed schedule and still felt that this was an
inappropriate use for this site. As such, staff's recommendation
was still denial of the application.
Rev. Marshall addressed the Commission in support of his
application. He stated that the amended application and revised
schedule of activities were a response to concerns raised by the
Commission at its May 16, 1995 meeting.
Commissioner Rahman questioned activities currently taking place
at the site and noted the letter received from Joan Gould
alleging ongoing violations on the property.
Floyd Marshall responded that there were some activities on the
site provided for area children.
After a brief heated discussion, Commissioner Putnam asked staff
if the site was currently in compliance.
9
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 -
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, responded that there were activities occurring on the
site without an approved conditional use permit. He noted that
Rev. Marshall had eliminated Sunday activities in the revised
schedule and questioned whether such a move was appropriate for a
church.
Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles noted the Development
standards and review guidelines established in the Ordinance
which are to be used in determining the appropriateness of a
proposed conditional use permit. He stated that the Commission
must find that the proposed land use is compatible with and will
not adversely effect other property in the area where it is
proposed to be located.
The question was called and a vote was take
application, including the revised schedule
one year limitation. The vote was 6 ayes, 2
1 abstaining (Putnam).
10
n on the amended
of activities and the
noes, 2 absent and
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO E FILE NO.• 7-5984
NAME:
Montessori Day School - Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 5201 Jerry Road
OWNER/APPLICANT• Dorothy B. Moffett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
conversion of this R-2 zoned
residential structure into a
private school with an enrollment
of 20 students and a staff of 6.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The property is located on the east side of Jerry Drive, one
lot south of Cantrell Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This property is located at the northern fringe of a large
area of single family residential zoning which extends to
the south and east of the site. There are several
nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity, along the
Cantrell Road corridor. A bank is located adjacent to the
north of the site and a church is located across Jerry road
to the west. A small shopping center is located on the
north side of Cantrell road, one block west of this site.
The residentially zoned property adjacent to the south is
vacant and heavily wooded. The property itself is in an
area designated as Transition Zone on the land use plan.
With attention to properly screening the adjacent
residential property, this proposed, small private school
should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The proposed pre-primary elementary school with an
enrollment of 20 students and 6 employees requires 6
employee parking spaces and loading/unloading spaces to
accommodate 2 vehicles. The proposed site plan provides 7
parking spaces and an adequate area for loading/unloading
with stacking space.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5984
4. Screening and Buffers:
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. The buffer along the southern perimeter varies
from 3-4 feet in width; a 5 foot buffer is required. A six
foot tall opaque screen is required on perimeters adjacent
to residential property. A protective border is required to
protect all landscaped areas from vehicle traffic.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Dedicate right-of-way on Jerry Road to 30 feet from
centerline. Master Street Plan improvements are required on
Jerry Road, including widened street width, curb, gutter and
sidewalk. Provide storm water detention analysis.
Driveways should have a 15 foot minimum radii and must be
marked as one-way entrance and exit with signs and pavement
markings.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow the use of this existing, R-2 zoned residential
structure as a private, pre-primary elementary school
(Montessori School). The school will have a maximum
enrollment of 20 children and will employ 6 employees. The
hours of operation will be Monday -Friday primarily 8:30 a.m.
to 11:45 a.m. However some children will be present until
2:15 p.m. and fewer might remain until 5:00 p.m. depending
on parental need.
The applicant is proposing to construct a circular driveway,
taking access off of Jerry Road, and 7 parking spaces. The
structure will be extensively remodeled with the primary
external change being the addition of a drive through canopy
on the front of the building.
Although the surrounding area is zoned primarily
residential, single family homes are located adjacent only
to the rear of the site. The residentially zoned property
adjacent to the south is vacant and heavily wooded. Other
uses in the area include a church, a bank and several
commercial uses located along Cantrell Road.
The applicant proposes to place the playground in the rear
yard of the property. The playground area must be screened
from adjacent residential property and staff feels that a 6
K
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO E (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-5984
foot, opaque wood fence should be placed on the eastern
perimeter of the site to screen those single family homes
adjacent to the east.
With attention to property screening the adjacent
residential property, staff feels that the proposed private,
pre-primary elementary school is a reasonable use for this
site.
8. staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the reduction
in the southern land use buffer to 4 feet, since the
adjacent property is undeveloped and heavily wooded.
C. The playground area is to be screened from the adjacent
residential properties. The screening on the eastern
perimeter must be a 6 foot tall, opaque wood fence
designed in "good -neighbor" fashion so that the
finished side of the fence faces outward.
d. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office and
institutional zones.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 27, 1995)
The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. Staff presented the
item and outlined the City Engineer, Landscaping/Screening and
Signage Comments noted above.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Staff, gave greater detail
on the comments from his office.
A discussion followed concerning screening of the playground.
The Committee felt that a 6 foot, opaque wood fence should be
installed on the eastern perimeter. The applicant agreed to this
provision.
The Committee felt it was reasonable to allow a reduction in the
southern perimeter land use buffer to 4 feet since the adjacent
property is vacant and heavily wooded.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5984
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 16, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The
Commission was informed that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting to allow time to
resolve a Bill of Assurance issue. The applicant's request for
deferral was received three working days prior to the meeting
rather than the 5 days required by the Commission bylaws.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission. The vote was 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent. The vote also included a waiver of the
bylaws to allow the 3 day notice of deferral.
One objector appeared at the meeting after the Consent Agenda had
been approved. Virginia Miles, of #2 Westchase Drive, was
informed of the Commission's action in deferring the item to the
June 27, 1995 meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
the applicant was unable to resolve a Bill of Assurance conflict
and had requested that the item be withdrawn. The Committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: G-23-232
Name: North Pierce Street Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: The undeveloped 145 feet of North
Pierce Street between Grandview
Drive and Scenic Drive
Owner/Applicant: Audrey Henry and J. Gaston
Williamson
Recruest: To abandon the platted but
undeveloped north 145 feet of North
Pierce Street right-of-way between
Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for This Riaht-of-Wav
The right-of-way has never been developed. There is no
public need for this portion of right-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this portion of
undeveloped right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The portion of the Pierce Street right-of-way proposed for
abandonment has never been developed. The property is
heavily wooded, sloping up from Scenic Drive.
5. Development Potential
The lots on the west side of Pierce Street are platted in an
east to west pattern. Once the right-of-way is abandoned,
the southern 2 lots will have no direct street frontage.
The applicant has mentioned the possibility of replatting
the 3 lots and the west half of the abandoned right-of-way
into lots with a north to south pattern, fronting onto
Scenic Drive.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-232
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The right-of-way has never been developed. The area of the
abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a utility and
drainage easement. Abandonment of the right-of-way will
have no effect on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced. Both adjoining
property owners are parties to the abandonment. The Heights
Neighborhood Association was notified of this action.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a
utility and drainage easement. There will be no effect on
public services or utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
Reversionary rights extend to the adjoining property owners,
David and Kimbra Henry and James Gaston Williamson.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandonment of this unused portion of public right-of-way
will return to the private sector a land area that will be
beneficial to the real estate tax base. There will be no
effect on the public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this portion of
undeveloped right-of-way subject to the area of the right-of-way
being retained as a utility and drainage easement.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995)
The applicants were not present. Staff presented the item and
noted that the area of the abandoned right-of-way is to be
retained as a utility and drainage easement. The Committee
determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded
the item to the full Commission.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-232
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 16, 1995)
Stuart Holcomb was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. One letter of opposition had been
presented to the Commission. Staff informed the Commission that
one of the applicants, J. Gaston Williamson, had requested that
the item be deferred to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The vote was
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
there was nothing new to report. David Scherer, of the City
Engineer's Office, stated that he had recently reviewed plans
submitted by the applicant for the construction of Pierce Street.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated he would contact the
applicant to determine if the abandonment application was to be
withdrawn.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: G Z-5989
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Dr. William H. and Ron Woods
Dr. William H. and Ron Woods
1401 Battery Street
Rezone from R-3 to 0-1
Office Occupancy
52' X 105' or .12 acres
Residential, rental
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Multifamily, zoned R-3
South - Single -Family, zoned R-3
East - Single -Family, zoned R-3
West - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject site lies within an area of the City which is
experiencing problems with the housing stock, deteriorating
public and commercial buildings. The land use and zoning
south of West 14th Street is residential with a mix of
apartment, duplex and one family with a park in the next
block south.
The only break in the land use is a small mortuary at 16th
Street.
The land use and zoning to the north is generally R-3 and
R-5 with a grocery store at 12th Street and Battery.
Given the zoning and use mix with the problems this
neighborhood is working to resolve, it does not need another
nonresidential use. This is especially the case when the
site at issue is substandard for a residential lot in size
and has no potential for provision of off-street parking.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the Central City District. The Plan
recommends single family use. Conditions have not changed
to justify a change to a nonresidential use.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 (Cont.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. Provide handicap access ramps at corner.
2. Repair curb and sidewalks adjacent to the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial of the application
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995)
Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the item
offering the staff's recommendation of denial of this
application. Wood expanded on this written staff
recommendation to say that this is an area of the city
currently experiencing a number of significant problems.
They range from crime to abandoned houses and boarded and
secured structures which are in the process of being saved.
Wood indicated that the staff's position of denial of the
application is based upon a desire to maintain the
nonresidential uses to the north of 14th Street and in other
areas where they are currently located. Wood pointed out
that south of 14th Street there is very little in the way of
nonresidential. The introduction of further nonresidential
activities such as office uses could perhaps be detrimental
to the neighborhood and its efforts.
The Chairman then recognized a representative of the owner,
Juania Freeman. Ms. Freeman offered some historical notes
on the ownership of the property. It having been purchased
in 1988 and the continuing history of poor maintenance by
the renters of the property and the difficulty in keeping
the structure occupied with responsible parties. She
offered commentary on the condition of the neighborhood as
to how it is deteriorating. She indicated that with this
difficult neighborhood and with the tenant situation that
the owner felt like that the best thing at this time would
be perhaps to occupy a portion of the building with his
architectural firm; thereby, offering to upgrade the
structure and provide maintenance. In response to a
question from the Chairman, she stated that there was no
significant modification of the structure proposed.
Commissioner Chachere then offered several comments relative
to this use and other nonresidential uses nearby. She
indicated her experience with the neighborhood and that her
office is just a couple blocks to the east. In replying to
Commissioner Chachere, Richard Wood of Staff again offered a
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 (Cont.)
basis for the recommendation and some history on the
expansion of office type uses relative to the former Baptist
Hospital location.
Commissioner Chachere then offered comments as to her
knowledge of a number of businesses such as the beauty shop,
approximately two blocks to the east and other business
eastward from there to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive.
She expressed some curiosity as to why this was
inappropriate when properties that close had been approved
by the Commission and the Board in recent times.
Wood pointed out that it was actually a little more than a
couple of blocks to the east, and there was an old
commercial established area that had been there for many
years which runs back to the east to Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. Drive along 14th Street.
Commissioner Chachere then offered that there were, even
beyond Central High School a number of nonresidential uses,
commercial and industrial. Staff pointed out that some of
those uses as far west as Thayer Street did have a negative
impact on that area. Uses such as the former florist at the
corner of Park and 14th Streets heavily impacted the
neighborhood with what was an industrial zoning and use.
Wood stated that an office of the nature proposed probably
would not offer a significant negative impact on the
neighborhood but that once you cross that demarcation line,
the question then is how much and where do you stop?
A lengthy discussion then involved the staff, the applicant
and several members of the Commission. Commissioner Daniels
then injected a point extracted from the staff's write-up in
this agenda which had to do with the actions of appropriate
parking on this property. This elicited a response from
several persons present as to the required parking, its
design and where it might be located.
It was determined during the course of this discussion that
the existing provision for parking is barely two spaces on
the eastside of the current duplex. Some persons that live
there apparently park on the street or on the sidewalk.
This point of discussion eventually reached a state to where
it was pointed out that a variance would surely have to be
dealt with for parking if the land use question is answered
by rezoning this property.
The Chairman then turned the subject to those persons in
attendance who wish to comment in objection to this
application. The first person offering comments was a
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 (Cont.)
Mr. Riggs representing the neighborhood CDC and the
neighborhood association. He identified himself as living
on Summit Street in the block to the west.
Mr. Riggs offered a lengthy commentary on efforts by this
neighborhood, the City and other organizations to raise this
neighborhood to a better and safer environment by the
rebuilding of the single family infrastructure. He
indicated that the change of this use to a business activity
was inappropriate and was not compatible with the efforts
that he observed in this neighborhood at this time. He
pointed out that there was currently a parking problem in
the area for tenants of the duplex and others where they are
parking on the street or on the sidewalks.
Commissioner Chachere then posed a question concerning the
timeframe that the CDC or the neighborhood had for returning
viability to this residential area. Mr. Riggs indicated
that it was ongoing now that it was not a future proposition
but that homes were being occupied, constructed and
provisions made for others at this time.
A lengthy discussion then followed concerning security and
criminal elements within the neighborhood. This discussion
was led by Commissioner Chachere and based upon her
experiences.
The Chairman then recognized Ms. Annie Abrams, a member of
the local neighborhood association and an involved citizens.
Ms. Abrams presented a lengthy discussion of neighborhood
issues as well as her objection to the conversion of this
structure to the business activity. Ms. Abrams, response to
a question from a commissioner, stated that she was a
resident of the area on Wolfe Street.
The Chairman upon the completion of comments from Ms. Abrams
asked Ms. Freeman if she would like to add further
commentary. Ms. Freeman restated some of her previous
concerns about the condition of the property and the
condition of the neighborhood and her reason for requesting
the rezoning. She completed her comments by stating that
Mr. Woods, the owner, would at this time request a deferral
of the matter.
A discussion then followed involving the appropriateness and
the procedure for deferral of items, especially when there
is a commissioner involved in the application. Staff
inserted a comment at this point in the discussion to state
that there was not a planning commission meeting in two
4
June 27, 1995
BDIVISI
i5ivy-wz 0 e 6. CGIOII?
weeks. Staff was going to recommend, that this meeting not
be held because there are no items to be presented. The
next following agenda would be June 27, 1995.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Riggs for closing comment.
He restated several items that he offered at the earlier
presentation. In a response to a comment from Commissioner
Chachere, the Chairman pointed out that the Commission
typically accepted and allowed the applicant the first
deferral requested.
The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for
consideration of the applicants request for deferral. A
vote on the item produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and
1 abstention (Ron Woods). The item was deferred until
June 27.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the staff
recommendation as presented at the last Planning Commission
meeting. Wood stated that there have been no changes in the
proposal and no additional contact with the applicant since
that meeting.
The Chairman then asked if the applicant was present or a
representative would like to come forward and present the
case. Mr. William Woods, Jr. identified himself as acting
in behalf of the applicant. He restated the application's
purpose and intent which was to salvage the existing
residential structure being a duplex and provide a portion
of it for use as an architectural office for a family
operation. Mr. Woods offered an excerpt from the Zoning
Ordinance from the 0-1 District listing. He offered
commentary to the effect that the purpose and intent set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance matches exactly the proposed
usage and occupancy of the structure in question. He
offered that the Ordinance supports the family's contention
that the proposed architectural office would be compatible
with the residential neighborhood and would offer stability
to this block.
Mr. Woods offered additional history of maintenance problems
on this residential structure. He suggested that the
property was no longer desirable as a residential use. Mr.
Woods pointed out the occupancy and land use of adjacent
structures in the area as being supportive of the
application. Mr. Woods identified a beauty shop, a couple
of blocks to the east, and a former architectural firm
office in a residence located several blocks to the south as
being supportive of this application. Mr. Woods closed his
commentary.
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • G Z-5989 (Cont.)
Questions were then posed by the Commission. Commissioner
McDaniel asked whether there was any potential involvement
by other land uses allowed in the 0-1 district. Mr. Woods
responded by stating that the intent was to operate an
architectural office. He stated that was basically it and
offered no other uses or occupancy proposed at this time.
The Chairman then stated that there were two cards turned in
by persons wishing to address this issue. The first of
these was Mr. Leroy James. The Chairman was told by a
member of the audience that Mr. James had left the meeting
earlier. Before the next speaker came forward to address
the issue for the rezoning, it was pointed out that Mr. John
Lewellen had turned in a card in support of the application
but had to leave the meeting early.
Mr. Larry Rogers then came forward. He identified himself
as being in support of the application for the 0-1 zoning.
Mr. Rogers offered a lengthy history of his involvement in
this neighborhood through membership in the association of
Central High School as well as the ACORN and CDC
organizations. Mr. Rogers identified what he felt were
growth activities in the area, Children's Hospital and such,
and their involvement in the expansion of nonresidential.
He stated that he felt this activity as an architect's
office would enhance the neighborhood and would not be a
detriment. He pointed out that Mr. Woods' occupancy as an
office would not change the exterior character of the
building. He proposes no building additions.
The next person wishing to address this matter was Mr. James
Bankhead, a resident of the immediate area. He identified
himself as currently serving as vice president of the local
CDC. He pointed out that one of the goals of the CDC was to
develop a neighborhood that was balanced between the several
kinds of land uses, office business and residential. He
stated that regardless of what may have been reported to the
Commission earlier, the CDC believes that businesses and
residential can compliment each other.
The next speaker that was identified by the Chairman and
invited to come forward and offer comments, identified
herself as Shawna Freeman. She further identified herself
as an employee of the architectural firm. She stated that
she was present to answer any questions about the firm and
its proposed occupancy. The Chairman asked her to address
whether or not this business would occupy the entire
structure. She stated that most of it would be used by the
business, but that perhaps once remodeling is accomplished a
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • G Z-5989 (Cont.)
portion of it could be rented out as a dwelling unit. In
response to a question from the Chairman, she pointed out
there are two dwelling units in the building at this time.
The Chairman then raised a question as to whether or not
restrictions would be imposed or whether the applicant
proposed to add restrictions on the occupancy.
In response to comments of the Chairman concerning the
conditions, Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, pointed out
that on a zoning such as this unless the applicant proposed
the conditions they could not be imposed by the Commission.
The Chairman then asked Richard Wood if it was appropriate
to ask the applicant whether he intended to place
restrictions on the use. Richard Wood pointed out that the
0-1 District is already quite restricted as to the number
and types of uses permitted and in would perhaps not be
appropriate to try to deal with conditioning the occupancy.
Wood followed that comment by stating that even should this
property be rezoned to 0-1, the use proposed would require a
Board of Adjustment consideration for a parking variance in
as much as there is little or no parking on the site
currently.
In response to a second question from the Chairman, Wood
pointed out that the site plan presented does not indicate
parking but that perhaps you could get two spaces behind the
structure off West 14th Street. Commissioner Chachere then
offered a thought that, because the change to the proposed
business would have to go the Board of Adjustment for
parking variance that conditions could be and might be
imposed at that time on usage or other elements of the
occupancy.
Commissioner Adcock then asked whether there was any on -
street parking adjacent to the site. The applicant's
representative came forward and stated that she thought that
you could perhaps park at least four cars on the site, two
perhaps by ordinance. She did not address the question of
on -street parking. However, there are several spaces in the
immediate area as well as part of the front yard that is
currently being used by residential tenants.
A general discussion then followed involving both staff, the
applicant and various commissioners as to the number of
spaces which might be obtained on the property in compliance
with the ordinance or the practical application.
commissioner Chachere says her memory of the last meeting
was that there were two employees of the firm that could
park back there and the current parking would be sufficient.
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • G Z-5989 (Cont.)
Commissioner Adcock then ask Richard Wood, of the Planning
Staff, whether the deficiency in parking was part of the
reason that staff opposed the rezoning. wood's response was
no and then followed-up on a second question by Commissioner
Adcock which was whether -the Board of Adjustment should hear
the variance before the rezoning is accomplished. wood
stated, "No, that should not be done."
Wood pointed out that the land use question has to be
resolved first before the Board has jurisdiction. Wood
closed his comments by pointing out that the absence of
proper parking is an element that the Commission can take
into consideration in determination as to whether the change
of use is appropriate.
The Chairman then reintroduced the idea, perhaps, of putting
conditions on the application. He stated that perhaps the
Commission should just move on with dealing with the land
use issue and leave any conditions or such to a hearing
before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant pointed out
that she was aware that there was a deficiency in parking
and whatever the City requires the owner will work to
resolve that.
The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on this
item. There being none he stated that the item then is on
the floor for a vote by the Commission as filed, to 0-1. A
vote on the application produced 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent
and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The application is approved.
8
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: H MASTER STREET AMENDMENT
NAME:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Master Street Amendment --
Wellington Subdivision Area, west
of St. Charles Addition/Chenal
(JUNE 27, 1995)
This item was previously approved by the Little Rock Planning
Commission. For that reason, no item appears and no action was
taken by the Commission effecting the Commission's previous
actions.
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • I FILE NO.: G-40-12
Name:
West Highway 10 Suburban Water
Improvement District No. 344
Location: 2,450± acres located generally
along and either side of State
Highway 10, from Morgan Cemetery
Road to 011ie Lane
Owner/Applicant: Various property owners/
J. Mark Spradley, Applicant
Proposal: To approve formation of an
improvement district for the
purpose of constructing a sanitary
water works distribution system
within the district by connecting
to the Little Rock Water Works
system.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way
The need is expressed in a petition signed by individuals
representing a majority in the number of property owners,
area and assessed value within the proposed district.
2. Master Street Plan
There is no Master Street Plan issue. The majority of the
proposed improvement district lies outside of the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction and is not currently subject
to the provisions of the Master Street Plan.
3. Characteristics of the District
The proposed district is comprised of two large nodes
containing a total of 2,450 acres, Within the district are
240 properties. Much of the district's land is undeveloped.
There are 153 homes and several nonresidential uses.
4. Development Potential
Much of the land within the district's boundarys is
undeveloped so there is certainly the potential for future
development. The district lies along and either side of
Highway 10, beginning just west of the city limits near
Chenal Parkway. The property to the west of the City has
proven to be desirable for development and there is no
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-40-12
reason to expect this area to be any different. Extension
of city water services would only enhance the developability
of the area. The large majority of the district is outside
of the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning the
City would have no control over future development. Staff
believes it is important to extend the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction out five miles from the
current city limits which would give some level of control
over future development in this area.
5. Staff Analysis
The applicants propose to form an improvement district for
the purpose of constructing a sanitary water works
distribution system within the district by connecting to the
Little Rock Water Works system.
Since the proposed district is located in its entirety
outside of the City, it will be a county district. An
application has been filed with the office of the Pulaski
County Judge asking for approval of the formation of the
district.
Only a small portion of the district is located within the
City's planning area (extraterritorial jurisdiction), which
has not been expanded since May 1988. The eastern boundary
of the district is within 1 mile of the current city limits
and the entirety of the district is located along one of the
city's primary development corridors, Highway 10.
Since the City is being asked to approve the extension of
water services into the district and since the proposed
district is located in an area that is developmentally
attractive, staff believes it is appropriate to consider the
ramifications of allowing unregulated development in this
area. Certainly, once city water service has been extended
into this area, its development potential increases.
Staff supports the formation of the district and the
extension of city water services however, staff firmly
believes that the City's Planning Boundary should be
extended to its full five miles from the current city
limits, as is allowed by state law. At this time, staff
does not propose extending zoning beyond the current
planning boundary. The extension of the planning boundary
will give the City a level of control over future
development through its Subdivision Ordinance.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-40-12
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the formation of the improvement
district and of the extension of water services to the district
subject to the following conditions:
1. The infrastructure of the district is to be designed to
comply with those standards established by the City of
Little Rock Water Commission.
2. As is established City Policy, no properties located outside
of the city limits will be permitted to tie onto the city
water system until those properties are annexed into the
City of Little Rock or a pre -annexation agreement has been
executed.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve extending
the City's Planning Boundary to its full five miles from the
current city limits to encompass this proposed improvement
district.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had written
requesting that the item be deferred to the June 27, 1995
Commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The vote was
6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
the County hearing on the formation of the district was scheduled
for later in June. The Committee was reminded of the conditions
outlined in the staff recommendation, including the condition
that the City's Planning Boundary be extended to its full five
miles to encompass the proposed district.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
J. Mark Spradley was present representing the Improvement
District. Several other individuals in support of the District's
formation were present. There were no objectors present. Staff
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • I (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-40-12
presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to
the two conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation. Staff
also recommended that the Planning Commission approve extending
the City's Planning Boundary to its full five miles from the
current city limits to encompass the proposed Improvement
District.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
all conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation, including
the extension of the City's Planning Boundary. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • J
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Amend the City Master Street
Plan
North of Chenal Parkway, south
of West Loop and west of
St. Charles Subdivision
Change the classification of
roadways and alignments
Property Owner
A property owner requested an arterial be downgraded to a
collector. Planning staff after review of the area found that
the proponents request was not appropriate due to no decrease in
intensity of use. Further, the arterial had been added because
of increased zoning along the collector and extension of the road
creating a through movement.
Upon further request for review, staff believes that if the
alignment is altered together with the alignments of several
collectors and the addition of a collector, the downgrade may
work. However, this would offset several property owners. In
order to allow the affected owners time for review and comment on
the plan changes, additional time is needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(NOVEMBER 15, 1994)
Walter Malone, Planner II, stated that a property owner had
requested the downgrading of an arterial north of Chenal Parkway
and south of the West Loop. The request affects four property
owners and staff is meeting with each to review alternatives.
To this point, there is not an agreement among the parties,
however, staff believes that by the first meeting in 1995 the
issues should be resolved. By unanimous vote the Commission
deferred the item to the first plan meeting in 1995.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that Staff recommended
action for only a part of the requested area. A north -south
arterial, just to the west of the St. Charles Subdivision would
be downgraded to a collector. Mr. Malone briefly outlined other
changes under review.
The arterial to be downgraded was pointed out on a large Master
Street Plan map. After some discussion and distribution of the
letter from an adjacent property owner, the Commission voted
unanimously to downgrade Wellington Place Drive to a collector.
STAFF UPDATE: (MAY 1995)
The City Master Street Plan shows an arterial north of Chenal
Parkway to the West Loop. Based on agreements made by City Staff
and the four property owners affected the Arterial will be
realigned to more closely parallel the Parkway. This alignment
should help with traffic demands on the Parkway. The effect of
moving the alignment will result in the realigning of several
collectors. The rezoning request has trigger the reintroduction
before the Commission of the previously agreed to Master Street
Plan changes (among the four property owners and City Staff).
The attached map delineates the proposed Master Street Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. By
unanimous vote, the item was deferred.
KI
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 1 FILE NO.: S-1070
NAME: HOSPICE HOME CARE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: North of and beyond the present end of Dover Dr.,
approximately 700 feet north of W. 36th. Street and 0.30 mile
east of Shackleford Rd.
DEVELOPER:
Michael Aureli
HOSPICE HOME CARE FOUNDATION
1501 N. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72207
666-9697
AREA: 9.691 ACRES NUMBER OF LOT
ZONING: MF -18
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
ENGINEER•
Frank Riggins
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
3 FT. NEW STREET: 100
PROPOSED USES: General Offices &
Hospice Residential Care
1. Approval of a waiver of the requirement that all lots are to
abut upon a public street or, where approved by the Planning
Commission, a private street, to permit an interior lot to
have its access to the public street by way of an access
easement.
2. Approval of a variance from the requirement that a cul-de-sac
on a commercial street be constructed to commercial
standards, and permit the construction of the cul-de-sac to
residential standards.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for a 9.691 acre tract,
involving the extension of Dover Dr. onto the property,
terminating in a cul-de-sac, with two lots abutting the Dover Dr.
cul-de-sac, and 1 lot gaining access to the Dover Dr. cul-de-sac
by way of an access easement. The cul-de-sac is proposed to be
constructed to residential cul-de-sac standards, in lieu of
commercial standard, and a variance from the commercial cul-de-
sac standards is requested.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-107
The applicant explains that the Hospice Home Care Foundation, a
non-profit corporation, is the "umbrella" corporate entity which
is buying the land and is the developer of the subdivision. A
subsidiary corporate entity, Hospice Home Care, Inc., a "for
profit" corporate entity, will then develop the designated Lot 3,
with the foundation developing the area designated as Lot 2 and
retaining for future development the area designated as Lot 1.
Because of the corporate structural needs, the development under
the auspices of the foundation and the development by the "for
profit" corporation need to be on different lots. The proposed
development, however, will act as a single site, with cross -
access to the Lot 2 area to be provided by a private driveway.
The applicant explains that extending the public street into the
tract to abut Lot 2, or constructing a private "street" (to
street standards) to Lot 2 would not be in keeping with the
character of a singular campus atmosphere which they are trying
to create. A waiver of the requirement that each lot is to have
access on a public or private street, then, is requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a
preliminary plat is requested. Review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is
requested for: 1) a waiver of the requirement that all lots
abut upon a public or a private street, permitting an
interior lot to have its access to a public street by way of
an access easement; and 2) a variance from the requirement
that the cul-de-sac on a commercial street be constructed to
commercial cul-de-sac standards, permitting the proposed
cul-de-sac to be constructed to residential standards.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, and is heavily wooded. There is a
40 foot ground elevation differential across the site, with
the slope of the ground generally falling from the northwest
corner of the site to the southeast corner. There is a
small lake off-site to the east, over which Lots 2 and 3
look.
The existing zoning of the tract is MF -18. There is an
extension of the MF -18 zoning to the west, where the "Our
way" development is located. To the north is a large MF -12
tract, which is part of the "ERC" (Ecumenical Retirement
Center) grounds, and which is being retained for future
development by ERC. To the east is a large R-2 area, and,
to the south is R-2 zoned land, with a church facility
located in this area. At the southwest corner of the tract
is a PCD in which the United Cerebral Palsy offices are
located.
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1070
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff notes the following:
1) It is recommended that the access easement across Lot 3
to provide access to Lot 2 be increased in width to
accommodate a private street. The private street
should conform to City standards, and driveways
abutting the private street should conform to the
Ordinance requirements. A sidewalk is required by the
ordinance to be constructed on each side of the private
street. A 271 private street is acceptable; however, a
turn -around devise at the end of the street is required
unless a waiver is sought. A concrete apron will be
required at the cul-de-sac for this private street.
2) For the proposed cul-de-sac, right-of-way must be
dedicated and Master Street Plan improvements are
required to be constructed. A maintenance bond for the
street improvements must be submitted prior to final
platting of the property. A sidewalk is required
adjacent to the cul-de-sac frontage. The cul-de-sac
right-of-way should be a minimum of 110 feet in
diameter, with 130 feet recommended, and the pavement
diameter should be 90 feet minimum, with 100 feet
recommended. The cul-de-sac design which is proposed
is for a residential street; Dover Dr. is designated as
a commercial street, and a commercial standard cul-de-
sac is required.
3) Stormwater detention is required for the subdivision.
Open ditches are generally not permitted by the
Stormwater management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning
Commission approval. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9) Show water
courses entering the tract and the planned exit points
for drainage. Easements off-site for this drainage may
be required.
4) A grading permit and NPDES NOI is required before any
construction may begin on the site.
Water Works comments that a water main extension may be
required. Each lot must have frontage on a water main.
Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution
analysis may be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
f
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1070
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
Their drawing proposes a 7.5' easement at the perimeter of
Lot 3.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that:
Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public
street, except where private streets are explicitly approved
by the Planning Commission". Sec. 31-207 states that the
Planning Commission may approved non-residential private
streets when the design standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance are used as a basis for review. The applicant,
however, does not want to construct a private "street",
meeting street standards; instead, the applicant proposes a
driveway across Lot 3, through a parking lot, with the
driveway being in a 24 foot access easement. A waiver of
the requirement of Sec. 31-231, then, is proposed, to permit
the required access to the interior lot to be accomplished
by the 24 foot wide access easement across Lot 3.
Sec. 31-209 deals with requirements for commercial street
rights-of-way, pavement widths, and sidewalks. As noted by
Public Works, the cul-de-sac design, as proposed, does not
meet these standards. The applicant notes that originally,
Dover Dr. was planned to extend northward to tie into the
street system to be developed as part of the ERC campus.
With the termination of Dover Dr. at the south edge of the
applicant's property, with the few possible development
sites along Dover Dr., and with the limited amount of
traffic either using Dover Dr. presently or to be generated
by the applicant's development, a commercial standard cul-
de-sac is unneeded, and, would negatively affect the
residential -natural setting which the applicant is trying to
retain for the development.
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicant's proposal to create a lot which does not have
the required frontage on either a public street or on a
private street meeting the standards for a public street
requires a waiver of the requirements of Sec. 31-231.
Because of the demands of the applicant's corporate
structures and site design considerations, the design of the
subdivision, whereby access to the interior lot is provided
by way of a driveway (not a "street") in an access easement,
the requested waiver is reasonable. Consideration, however,
should be given to the possibility of a different entity
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1070
eventually becoming involved, and the corporate relationship
being different. In that case, a driveway in an access
easement may not be appropriate. Since this preliminary
plat is part of a planned development, a requirement of the
planned development should be imposed which restricts the
lot arrangement and access provisions to the applicant only;
that any subsequent ownership or subdivision will require
review by the Planning Commission, and this could involve a
requirement to provide a public or private street access to
Lot 2 and the elimination of the access easement.
Because of the short length of Dover Dr. (750 feet); because
it will not be extended as a collector street to the north;
because of the sparse development which exists, or can exist
in the future, along its frontage; because of the zoning and
uses of the property along its boundary; and, because of the
very light traffic to be generated by the proposed
development, the cul-de-sac variance (to permit a
residential rather than a commercial cul-de-sac right-of-way
and pavement diameter) is reasonable.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the Board of Directors approving the waiver of the
requirement for frontage on a public or private street and
the variance from the requirement for providing right-of-way
for and constructing a commercial standard cul-de-sac.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
Mr. Michael Aureli, representing the applicant, and Mr. Frank
Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineering firm,
were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the
Committee members reviewed with Misters Aureli and Riggins the
comments contained in the discussion out
explained the nature of the proposed dev
for their need to have two separate lots
to be undertaken by the two corporate en
that the non-profit foundation will be p
retaining the Lot 1 area for future deve
hospice care facility on Lot 2, then, se
profit" subsidiary for development of an
explained that it is important to retain
residential/non-commercial "look" as pos
only a driveway access to the Hospice Ca
on Lot 2, not a street. Mr. Riggins exp
the residential standard cul-de-sac desi
variance from the requirement to constru
5
Line. Mr. Aureli
�lopment and the reasons
for the two developments
:ities involved; the fact
irchasing the property,
Lopment, and developing a
Lling Lot 3 to its "for
office building. He
as much of a
:ible, and that they want
^e facility to be located
.ained the rationale for
rn, and indicated that a
:t the cul-de-sac to
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.• 5-1070
commercial street standards will be pursued. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, to present
this item for public hearing and offer a staff recommendation.
Sims responded by saying that Item Nos. 1 and 2 should be heard
together since they are the same property. Item No. 1 is a
preliminary plat and Item No. 2 is the planned office district
application. Sims then offered a lengthy explanation of the
background of this property. He identified this application as
being somewhat different because the typical planned unit
development for single use development incorporates the platin
the planned unit development hearing process.
In this instance, the total ownership is some 10 acres in area.
The proposed development for Hospice Care occupies two lots in
one corner of this tract with the rest remaining undeveloped or
without a proposal at this time thereby requiring a separate
preliminary plat. Sims also pointed out that this PUD
application will classify all of the 10 acres as a planned
development. This will eliminate the potential for MF -18 zoning
developing on a portion of the property and taking access from
the cul-de-sac.
Sims stated that he had received no negative comments from the
neighborhood about this application. He stated that the staff
would have placed this application on Consent Agenda, except that
there was some change made in the proposal. That is, the
applicant will submit a revised application incorporating the
entire area.
Staff responded to a question from Chairman Walker by saying,
that, at this point, the Staff and the applicant are in consensus
on the application.
Chairman Walker then recognized Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger
Engineering Firm. Mr. Riggins came forward to make the
presentation for the application. Mr. Riggins introduced Michael
Railey, the director of Hospice Home Care, as well as Charles
Witsell, with the architectural firm. Mr. Riggins offered a
lengthy presentation involving a discussion of the patients and
the type of care that is offered both on the premises and at the
patient's residence. He described the office operation as being
a base for the employees working off-site. He stated that the
developers of this site see their operation expanding in
in-patient care, thereby, producing a need for additional
structures at some point in the future.
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1070
Mr. Riggins stated this is a site that they were looking for to
fulfill their need for a quiet forested area away from noise and
disturbance. The additional land area is without proposed
structure, and at this time it allows the developer flexibility
for making those additions or modifications in the future.
Mr. Riggins then asked Mr. Witsell to come forward and present
his part of the presentation.
Mr. Witsell offered some graphics in presenting the site plan.
He offered comments on the adjacent land uses, their type and
proximity to this project. He then described the topography of
this site as one containing a significant fall from a hill mass
on the west to a lake front lying along the east perimeter of
the property. He described the property as being wooded.
Mr. Witsell stated the cul-de-sac that would be produced at the
end of Dover Drive would then be followed by a gate. The gate
would provide security at the entrance to the private drive and
the drive would serve the second lot in the project.
Mr. Witsell then moved to a discussion of the type of business
activity carried on off-site, which is the care of persons that
are dying. He stated the developers are moving to a second level
of activity which will be the in-house care of patients;
therefore, requiring a second type of structural involvement on
this property and the second lot. This structure would be
in-patient and would be the first one in the state. Mr. Witsell
described the first building as basically an office for employees
that work off-site. The building also will warehouse the
equipment and supplies that they utilize, such as oxygen
equipment and hospital beds.
He then discussed the layout of the parking and pointed to those
areas devoted to employee parking as well as the driveways and
circulation. In the second development on the second lot, Mr.
Witsell described it as being occupied by 12 to 20 beds as
individual rooms for patients. He described the environment that
would be retained about this structure to enhance the living
environment for those persons who are terminal. Mr. Witsell said
that if the plan is successful in the future, then the plan would
be expanded to incorporate additional structures on other areas
of the site. He concluded his remarks.
Chairman Walker then asked if Public Works Department wished to
address the matter. David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering
Design section, came forward and offered general comments on the
review by his department, the various concerns they had raised
and position on several waivers. Scherer offered specific
comments on the cul-de-sac which he feels should be constructed
to a collector street standard since it is the terminus of a 36
foot collector street.
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1070
He then moved to a discussion of private streets and the
relationship of the lot in this development which will be served
by an easement through a driveway. It is a concern the tie to
the potential for future expansion of this project and service of
additional buildings by this driveway and easement relationship.
The ordinance clearly requires that the drive be constructed in
the same standards as a public street.
Scherer then raised the subject of sidewalk which had not been
addressed by the applicant in their presentation. There is a
sidewalk required on at least one side around the cul-de-sac. He
pointed out that the plan apparently is supposed to replace the
sidewalk with private residential walking trails. In a
discussion with Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, it was
determined that a waiver had not been requested for the sidewalk
and it was noted that it would be required. Scherer then
commented that the interior circulation street does have a lot of
head -in parking which backs or maneuvers into this drive area.
He stated that this relationship would need to be reviewed
further if the project expanded because there are some blind
spots and dangerous traffic relationships created.
Scherer stated that the Traffic Engineering Office would like
some right of refusal in this design at some point in the future
to deal with these issues. Commissioner Woods posed a question
as to why this street standard was required to go to commercial.
He asked if it was because this is office. The current street
was constructed as a residential collector. Scherer indicated
that the ordinance requires a commercial standard because this is
a business activity.
A discussion then followed involving Commissioner woods and David
Scherer about the need of sidewalks and where they would go and
who they would serve. It was agreed that the sidewalk currently
runs down the east side of the street, running to this site from
36th Street. But, that possibly in -lieu of a sidewalk an
internal circulation plan needs to be devised that would tie to
the existing sidewalk.
Commissioner Woods then posed a question, What is the anticipated
traffic count? Mr. Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Firm,
approached the lectern and discussed with Bobby Sims the issues
that had been presented by David Scherer. Mr. Riggins indicated
to staff that he thought he had included the subject of sidewalks
in previous discussion and written material submitted. He said
there would be an internalized circulation plan for pedestrians.
In response to one of David Scherer's comments about emergency
vehicles, Mr. Riggins stated that they wanted to preserve the
private residential low-key activity of environment.
In order to do this, some of the conventional kinds of
landclearing and wide thoroughfares would not be compatible. He
8
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -107Q
stated the architecture would be residential in character. Mr.
Riggins then asked the director of the facility to come forward
and offer comments on the development proposal.
Mr. Witsell stated that this land was being purchased from the
ecumenical retirement center which owns properties to the north
and west. He described the composition of the employees and how
many of them come to the office at given times, the hours of
operation and days per week at the visited site. He stated that
the frequency of these employees visiting the site would be low
with little traffic generation at a given time. Mr. Witsell
stated there would be 7 to 10 people on staff that would work
there each day. These people are recordkeepers and
administrative staff.
Mr. Witsell commented on the traffic generation from the
in-patient care facility as being quite low because these persons
would not be having automobiles and driving. The only persons
that would come to this structure would perhaps be family members
or medical personnel. He stated that this would perhaps be only
8 to 10 cars per day.
Mr. Riggins returned to the lectern and offered that there was an
additional variance which he would like to enter into the record.
The variance include a fence along the lake side of the property.
The developers felt like this fence of the height required would
be obstructive to their development and would eliminate part of
the environment they were seeking. Mr. Riggins stated that this
site was selected because of the view of the lake through the
trees and the fence would eliminate this. (Staff Note: This
fence was not required in a manner that the City Board of
Directors will have to deal with a variance. It will be a site
plan variance only.)
Chairman Walker asked Mr. Riggins to describe the ownership -
relationship around the lake. Mr. Riggins pointed out there was
a property owners association controlling the land area around
the lake.
There was a brief discussion about this ownership -relationship as
to whether or not there were other parties permitted to utilize
the facilities around the lake. Mr. Riggins stated he was not
aware that there was a relationship between the MF -18 site and
the property owners association that require the payment of dues.
Mr. Riggins then moved to his commentary to the subject of a
neighborhood meeting which was held approximately two weeks ago.
There was an invitation extended to the residential area adjacent
and there were several representatives of the association and
residential area present at that meeting. In response to a
question from the Chairman, Mr. Riggins stated the neighborhood
did not respond to the fence issue. It was not discussed.
9
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1070
Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that staff did
attend that neighborhood meeting and there were no objectors in
attendance at that time. Sims then offered a brief comment
describing the basis for the approach chosen with the private
drive and the isolated lot. This had to do with the mortgage
relationship and separate titles dealing with the inpatient
versus outpatient business activity. He also stated the
developers' intent to obtain the waiver on the residential versus
the commercial cul-de-sac dimension. The Chairman injected a
thought at this point that Public Works did not apparently
support the variance on the cul-de-sac dimension. Sims then
pointed to the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac as being a second
issue for a waiver or a variance.
A brief discussion between the Chairman and Bobby Sims determined
that during a commercial review for site plan, that the internal
circulation system was such that it required a waiver from the
City Board, unlike that in a residential design where there was
some flexibility.
At the request of the Chairman, David Scherer came to the lectern
and pointed out that his department would perhaps support the
circulation system once reviewed as in -lieu of the sidewalk
around the cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Woods then offered commentary about the sidewalk and
the residential street standard. He preferred that it not be
upgraded to commercial standards because of children playing in
the area. He stated that at this time Dover Drive was a
residential street and it was platted as residential for some 750
feet with sidewalk on the east side. In a brief exchange between
the Chairman and Commissioner Woods, it was understood that he
being a resident of that street as well as a commissioner did not
want to see the expansion of the street to commercial standards
because it might encourage commercial activity.
The Chairman then stated that the discussion was apparently
complete and presentations are complete. He pointed out there
was a notice issue that has been cured by time. The notices
mailed to the neighborhood identified the meeting as starting at
12:30 when it began at 9:00 a.m. He stated for the record that
he did not feel it would be required that they have a motion and
waive the bylaws.
The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission for a
vote also stating the specific variances or waivers that were
requested. The first of these to be included is the private
street or the lot platting without public street frontage. The
second being an on-site internal circulation plan in -lieu of
sidewalks, thereby waiving sidewalks around the cul-de-sac. The
third as being a variance to reduce the cul-de-sac diameter from
10
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.• S-107
commercial to residential standard that is 90 to 80 feet or to a
diameter that is agreed upon by Public Works. He pointed out the
fence along the east property line as a requested waiver although
not required action by the City Board of Directors.
Chairman Walker then asked for a vote on Item Nos. 1 and 2 as
presented. The item produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application for preliminary plat and planned
office development is approved, with the variances forwarded to
the Board of Directors for final action.
11
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: lA FILE NO.: S -1059 -
NAME: RINGWOOD PLACE ADDITION, LOTS M-1 & M-2 -- PRELIMINARY
PLAT
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet south of Pine Valley Road and
600 feet northwest of Sunset Circle.
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
H. Bradley Walker Joe White
WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201
666-4242 374-1666
AREA: 2.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 500±
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Approval of a private street in an access
easement for access from a public street to the lots.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a two -lot subdivision of an existing lot,
and proposes to provide access to the two lots by way of a
private street in an access easement across another owner's tract
which lies between the applicant's tract and a public street.
Since the public street, Pine Valley Rd., is a dedicated right-
of-way and is a partially improved roadway for a portion of its
length from Sunset Circle, the applicant proposes to extend a
driving surface, to be in keeping with the width and type of the
existing roadway, from the present end of the pavement to the
proposed private street access point. A variance is requested to
be approved by the Planning Commission for the private street and
access easement. No other variances or waivers are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
for a preliminary plat for a two -lot subdivision. Approval
by the Planning Commission is requested for a private street
and access easement to provide the needed access to the two
lots.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • lA (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently heavily wooded and is on an extremely
steep hillside. There is approximately 100 feet of
elevation change across the two lots, dropping from the
southeast corner of the east lot to the northwest corner of
the west lot. There is approximately a 20 foot elevation
differential form the north edge of the lots to Pine Valley
Rd. where the proposed private street is to intersect;
however, there is a 30-50 foot deep draw which lies between
the lots and Pine Valley Rd.
The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning
being the exclusive zoning district of all surrounding land.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff provided the following comments:
1) There is required information missing from the
preliminary plat. A complete listing of the
deficiencies is available from the Public Works staff.
2) The Pine Valley right-of-way has significant horizontal
and vertical alignment changes. The road has a
dedicated right-of-way; however, there only exists a
10' asphalt lane that dead -ends at the residence
opposite the planned private drive. Pine Valley will
require improvements to minimum City standards to the
point of access to this private drive. There needs to
be a proper turn -around constructed at the end of Pine
Valley Rd.
3) The preliminary plat indicates that an access easement
will provide access to lots which do not abut a public
street; therefore, the street should be designed as a
private residential street with construction conforming
to City standards. Waivers of the grades, radii, turn-
around, width of street, and provision for open
drainage should be sought (unless the street will
conform to the standards of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances). Private streets require Public Work's
approval of the construction and plans.
4) Open ditches are generally not permitted by the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and approved by the City Engineer. Any planned
drainage ditches must be shown on the preliminary plat.
Show water courses entering the subdivision and the
planned exit points for drainage. Easements off-site
for this drainage may be required.
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
Water Works comments that a water main extension will be
required.
Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required. Pump stations will not be
acceptable.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Their
drawing proposes a 15' easement at the perimeter of the
subdivision, and a 15' easement straddling the Lot M -1-M-2
line.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. commented that easements
will be required. They show a 10' easement along the east,
south, and north perimeter of the subdivision.
The Fire Department notes that the grade of the roadways to
the lots are far too steep for fire apparatus to negotiate
in inclement weather; that this could keep the fire
department from getting to the location. A maximum grade of
14% needs to be maintained for all roadways.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public
street, except where private streets are explicitly approved
by the Planning Commission". Sec. 31-207 states: "The
design standards shall conform to public street standards as
specified in this chapter." The applicant is seeking
Planning Commission approval of a private street in an
access easement to provide the required access to the lots.
Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information
furnished, the following be identified: the type of
subdivision being proposed; the name and address of the
owner of record and the source of title giving deed record
book and page number or instrument number; any existing and
the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, the source of
water supply and the means of wastewater disposal.
Sec. 31-89 requires that on the plat, in addition to the
information shown, the following be provided: the design of
the street improvements; the front yard setback; natural
features (i.e., drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded
areas, and watercourses) and cultural features (i.e.,
bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power lines,
and park areas); a storm drainage analysis and preliminary
storm drainage plan; the names of recorded subdivision
abutting the proposed site, with plat book and page number
or instrument number; the names of all owners of landlocked
parcels which are contiguous to the subdivision; an accurate
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
physical description of all
classifications of the plat
Proposed PAGIS monuments are
E. ANALYSIS•
monuments; and the zoning
area and of all abutting lands.
to be identified.
if a subdivision of land meets the minimum requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance, the approval of that subdivision
of land cannot be denied. The R-2 zoning district requires
a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, with a minimum lot
width of 60 feet and a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. The
Subdivision Ordinance requires that either a lot have
frontage on a public street or a private street. It
requires approval by the Planning Commission for a private
street, and sets certain tests for approval of a private
street. (See. Sec. 31-207) The Subdivision Ordinance
requires that a private street meet the requirements of the
Ordinance as to design standards.
The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for size. The request for
access to the lots by way of a private street in an access
easement meet the requirements for approval. The question,
though, is can a roadway be constructed which meets City
standards within the access easement which has been
indicated on the plan? The City Engineer states that it
cannot. The Fire Department reports that the grades which
would be necessary for the private street to follow the
contours shown would be too steep. The requirement of Sec.
31-207, wherein the requirement that private streets meet
public street standards for design and construction, cannot,
according to the information shown and furnished, be met.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of preliminary plat due to access to
the site not being able to be provided which will meet Code.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
No one was present to present the application. Staff outlined
the request, and the Planning and Public works staff discussed
with the Committee members the staff concerns noted in the
discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman identified this item for public hearing and recognized
Deputy City Attorney, Stephen Giles, for purposes of offering
commentary prior to the hearing.
Mr. Giles recognized this as an opportunity to once again deal
with planned areas within the city limits. He pointed out that
he would make a preliminary statement and bring out a couple of
issues he felt needed to be discussed. Giles pointed out that
several commissioners had indicated apparent confusion about the
role of the Planning Commission in this matter. He pointed out
that this is not a zoning issue or rezoning application and it is
a subdivision plat. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance
establishes land use districts and allows residential uses.
These uses are located on property is the subject of the
Subdivision Regulations. The issue here according to Mr. Giles
is whether or not this plat as submitted meets the requirements
for the Subdivision Ordinance. He also pointed for the record
that he is an adjacent property owner owning a small portion of
Tract M. His property fronting upon Kingwood Drive.
Giles stated that he made this statement in order to place it in
the record. He felt he could participate in this hearing because
he was not a voting member of the Planning Commission. Giles
then moved to his commentary to issues involving subdivision
plats. He specifically covered the issue of the Robert
Richardson replat and the Robinwood-Foxcroft neighborhood. The
ramifications of the decision in that case and how they apply in
this matter. Giles then pointed out that the Planning
Commission's only role in this application is a determination as
to whether the plat conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance. He
pointed out that the Planning Commission's secondary role in this
application is the determination of the appropriateness of the
extension of a private road to serve the lots.
Giles concluded his remarks by briefly reading various excerpts
from the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to private drives,
the replatting of properties and this plat in general.
Commissioner Willis then acting as Chairman asked that Mr. White,
representing the Engineering firm of White-Daters, proceed with
making a presentation. He discussed the design elements of the
modified roadway to provide the private street from Pine Valley
Road to the two lots that will be served. Mr. White pointed out
that the design presented for this private street meets all of
Public Works' design criteria. He pointed out that there were no
waiver requests attendant to this application.
5
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A
Mr. White identified Mr. Gene Ludwig who was attending the
meeting with him who could offer information if required. Mr.
Ludwig then came forward to address the Commission and offered
comments to the effect that people should not be concerned about
these two lots being a forerunner to a larger development of this
area. That is not the intent here and various conditions written
into this proposal restricts any further development of this
property. The covenants that are being offered by Mr. Brad
Walker and two adjacent property owners will be part of the
record if approval of this plat is obtained.
After the conclusion of Mr. Ludwig's remarks, the Chairman then
directed attention to numerous cards that had been submitted by
persons attending and wishing to speak against this application.
There were 13 of these cards. He requested that if there was a
spokesperson for the neighborhood and the objection, let that
person come forward but he would not limit anyone's ability to
speak on the matter.
Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, at this point asked the
Chairman for permission to insert staff commentary on this
subject in as much as the staff has not offered his position or
recommendation. Lawson pointed out that the Staff does recommend
approval if the plat as being in conformance with the Ordinance.
He stated, Public Works should be heard on this matter.
A brief discussion was inserted at this point concerning the
covenants opposed by Mr. Walker and offered by Mr. Ludwig.
Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, addressed these as being
important elements of the application filing, especially for the
comfort level of the neighborhood and purchasers of the lots.
The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works, for
purposes of that City department's comments. Scherer offered a
full review of the application and its construction elements as
proposed involving Pine Valley Road and the private street. He
stated the plan that had been submitted appears to meet all
residential street standards for a private street as required by
Ordinance. Scherer described Pine Valley Road and this area
where it leaves Sunset Lane and traverses the hillside toward
this development as being a very narrow 10± foot wide driveway.
It in no way meets minimum street standards for residential
street.
He then offered additional commentary on communication between
his office and Mr. Walker and Mr. White concerning the design
requirements Public Works would insist upon for Pine Valley Road.
Scherer stated that Pine Valley needs to be improved beyond its
existing 10 foot width.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving the Chairman and
Mr. Scherer discussing the design requirements of the private
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM _NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A
street and Pine Valley. Scherer stated that his assumption was
that Pine Valley Road's improvements would include curb and
gutter.
Commissioner Doyle Daniel then inserted a question that he
addressed to Mr. White. His question had to do with whether or
not Pine Valley Road would be properly expanded in width to
accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. White's response was yes.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Phillip Anderson who came
forward as a spokesperson for the neighborhood. He identified
himself as being an attorney with the firm of Williamson and
Anderson. He stated for the record that he represented Chuck and
Margaret Ensminger, Walter Hussman and his wife and Ben Hussman.
Mr. Anderson presented a graphic outlining the location of
various lots of the persons that he represented and their
relationships to the application. He then moved his comments to
discussion of the process involved in this application.
Mr. Anderson's' first point offered was that he took issue with
Public Works' statement that there was not a waiver. He then
identified that Mr. Gene Levy would address the Commission with
some specific issues and that he would then be followed by
Mr. Walter Hussman. He stated that he wanted to assure the
record reflected there was a general plan for this neighborhood.
He then entered into some commentary about the Staff. He thought
that perhaps in this instance the Staff of the Planning
Commission was not as diligent as with most developers when
dealing with this application of its chairman. He included a
comment that perhaps there was procedural items and issues that
were not covered in a manner that other owners and developers
would perhaps be required to follow.
Mr. Anderson then offered additional statements in support of his
accusation that staff had not required the proper review and
submittal of information. He itemized the various items from the
Subdivision Ordinance including names, various forms and other
submittal requirements. He specifically pointed out that a
letter required by Ordinance was supposed to have been faxed to
him, but was in fact, not ever delivered. He concluded his
remarks by again offering a statement that the Commission should
be aware by his presentation that all of the requirements of
Ordinance have not been met; thereby, bringing into question the
issue of whether or not the plat is complete and in conformance
with the Ordinance. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this is the
one opportunity for the neighborhood to have its input and review
the information in the plat.
He then raised a question while leaving the lectern that the
issue of the cul-de-sac length should be addressed. He
specifically directed that to Mr. White and then asked that
Mr. Levy come forward and address this matter. Mr. Levy came
7
June 27, 1995
SIIHDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
forward and offered his thought on the cul-de-sac length issue as
being that he felt the street was being extended greater than the
1,000 feet allowed by Ordinance.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving Commissioner Willis,
acting Chairman, and the attorney for the neighborhood. The
discussion primarily centered upon the Staff's involvement and
the filing of this application and whether their actions were
appropriate.
Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment that the Commission
and the persons speaking to the matter from the audience were
getting away from the issue at hand, and we should return to the
application.
Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, then added a comment at this
point that many of the issues raised for discussion by the
objectors' attorney are matters of record in the Staff's office.
We do not have to be told what these items are as far as the
persons' address, names and such.
Mr. Gene Levy then came forward to offer his comments and
objection to this application, and in support of those offered by
Mr. Anderson. He briefly described Pine Valley Road, its current
physical state. Mr. Levy then presented a series of photographic
representations of the neighborhood. He presented a map and then
indicated the ravine that is principally involved in the creation
of the private roadway. His presentation illustrated the
neighborhood environment.
Mr. Levy then moved his comments to describe the individual
properties along Pine Valley Road and the adjacent area to the
subject plat. Identifying persons building these homes and the
architects involved, Mr. Lawson injected a comment into the
presentation offering to the Commission that the presentation as
being made was entering into land use kinds of concerns and
getting away from the plat at hand.
The Chairman again admonished the presenters for the objectors to
maintain the issue at hand and not stray to other issues and
being redundant. Mr. Levy then returned to his presentation and
offered some photographic and other graphic materials indicating
in the topographic, the physical layout of the area and the
structural involvement of the neighborhood. Mr. Levy added
additional commentary about the length of the street combining
Pine valley as well as the private road added further comments
about the location of the turnaround device. He also stated that
a variance had not been requested for the lengthy roadway and one
should be required.
Mr. Levy then offered a lengthy discussion on the construction
involved in placing the private roadway across the ravine. He
8
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A
offered a estimate from computations that he had available to him
that it would take approximately 16,000 cubic yards of dirt to
accomplish the private road construction as identified by
Mr. White's drawing. Mr. Levy offered a statement that it would
take 1,600 dump truck loads in order to move that much dirt into
the neighborhood. He also offered that it would do severe
violence to the neighborhood streets.
After additional lengthy comments on design of the private road
and dangers to the neighborhood, Mr. Levy stated that his
estimate was that it would cost $250,000 and off-site
improvements in order to access these two lots. Mr. Levy then
offered extensive commentary by quoting sections of the Ordinance
dealing with the design of private streets. In concluding his
remarks, Mr. Levy additionally added to the commentary that he
had previously offered about the design and the floor work that
would have to be accomplished and the excavation and change of
grade to accommodate the roadway and the ravine.
Commissioner Willis then stated that he had a question for Staff
as to whether or not Pine Valley Road currently is wide enough to
service emergency vehicles. David Scherer, of Public Works,
responded by saying that in its current condition it is not but
it has been offered by Mr. Walker to widen the street to a
sufficient width to accommodate vehicles. During the course of a
lengthy discussion between several commissioners and Mr. Scherer,
the Deputy City Attorney posed a question as to whether or not
the 27 foot street could be constructed within the 50 foot right-
of-way existing on Pine valley without moving into the creek.
Scherer indicated that he could not determine that with the
information he had at hand.
A brief discussion was held between Commissioner Rahman and
Scherer dealing with whether or not permits of various types
would be needed for soil control and erosion and flood control.
Scherer indicated that there were permits for most of these, but
there would not be permit requirements for environmental
concerns. He indicated that if there were permits required from
state level those would be the kind of things that he would work
with the applicant on.
Commissioner Putnam then stated that he would like to ask
Mr. Levy a question. The question was whether improvement
requirements to Pine valley Road included in the $250,000
estimate projected by Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy responded by saying
that there were improvement requirements approximately 10 feet of
widening into Pine Valley included into that figure.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walter Hussman who came forward
to offer comments and objections. Mr. Hussman offered a brief
history of the neighborhood from his perspective having moved
into that neighborhood several years ago. He offered that there
9
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A
had been no changes since 1950's style development area until
such time as the Planning Commission moved into the area. He
offered a concern that weighs very much on the minds of the
people of the neighborhood, that being the potential for future
sales of additional lots. Mr. Hussman then described the
dimensional relationships of his lots and his adjacent neighbors
to the Pine Valley Road. He stated that this development would
fundamentally change the neighborhood. He stated that he felt
like the widening or the construction of Pine Valley Road to the
standards proposed would impact the adjacent yard area or the
creek side of the right-of-way. A lot of trees would be moved or
cut from this site during this project.
Mr. Hussman stated his observation was that the plan offered by
Mr. Walker keeps changing. He offered some thoughts on the
projected numbers of dump trucks and fill material to be brought
to the site. He then offered comments on the economics of
selling these two lots with the enormous cost of tax the physical
improvements that will have to be installed. Mr. Hussman then
offered his perspective on how many lots could be obtained from
this valley area if additional development is to occur that being
some 45 in number. Developing everything down to the river that
is not now developed. He then offered commentary on the geology
of the area bluffs overlooking the Arkansas River and the
attractiveness of maintaining the current development status
along the river overview.
Mr. Hussman then offered comments related to an agreement
presumably entered into with Mrs. Law, a current property owner.
Such agreement had not been presented to him and he had not had
the opportunity to observe its content.
Mr. Hussman continued his commentary by stating that he had
Mr. Gene Levy, a design professional, as well as the Mehlburger
Firm's staff present. The professionals have reviewed these
proposals and prepared their commentary. He stated that these
gentlemen were reluctant because they work with this Commission
and would feel uncomfortable dealing with this matter in the
fashion required. Mr. Hussman concluded his remarks by
requesting that the Commission not do this to him, to his
neighborhood or to his city.
Mr. Anderson then returned to the lectern and told the Chairman
that the mayor of Cammack Village was present and would like to
offer comment on this matter. Acting Chairman Willis then
instructed the audience that he is still had numerous cards
before him of persons wishing to speak on the matter. He
reminded these persons that they should address the issue
specifically and not repeat information that had previously been
offered. At this point, Mr. Anderson indicated that the persons
who have addressed the Commission had addressed the concerns that
they have desired to, although he could not speak for everyone.
10
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
After a brief discussion between Mr. Anderson and Acting Chairman
Willis, it was determined that there were approximately three
additional persons wishing to address this matter. The first of
these to approach the lectern offering his comments was Mr.
Robert Eubanks. He identified himself as the mayor of Cammack
Village and a practicing attorney. He offered extensive
commentary on the effect of the projected 1,600 dump trucks on
the streets between Cammack Village and the lots, and the
destructive effect of their passage. He then offered some
commentary on his perception of the history of this case and his
surprise of learning that this proposal was before the
Commission. He continued his commentary by offering that the
Cammack Village area is a community of narrow streets without
sidewalks and certainly some congestion in certain areas. Mayor
Eubanks of Cammack Village indicated that children in the area
play in the creek and he fears this will be affected by this
project.
The next person to approach the lectern to offer his commentary
was Mr. Jim Conner. Mr. Conner, a resident of the Sunset Drive
area, identified himself as a professional planner, real estate
investor and Little Rock businessman. He then continued by
offering his commentary on this proposal. His assessment covered
the potential impact both of this project and the potential for
additional development in the area. He expressed some concern
that Mr. Walker would submit an application of this nature with
this neighborhood opposed. He said that nobody knows what the
legal relationships are involved in this proposal, he sees a
clear conflict of interest. Mr. Conner requested that Mr. Walker
withdraw the application, and if such does not occur he stated
that he would like to see the Planning Commission deny this
matter. He stated that he would like to see the Ensminger's
replat their properties into a single one house lot. Mr. Conner
concluded his remarks.
The Chairman then recognized the next speaker being Ruth Bell, of
the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Bell offered a statement that
she had often observed applications hartily contested during
hearing before the Commission cause additional development in an
area.
A follow-up question to that statement was how would the
Commission react to such future applications if this item is
approved. Acting Chairman Willis pointed out that the only
answer he could offer is that each application would be handled
on its on merits. That concluded the speakers from the audience.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment.
Commissioner Putnam offered his historical relationship to the
Graham Hall property, which is now occupied by the Ensminger
family and that he purchased the land for that structure. He
11
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
offered various comments on his relationship to developments in
the immediate area overlooking the river. He concluded his
remarks by stating that he would like to see the area left alone
and let this development in this neighborhood remain much as it
is.
Acting Chairman Willis then recognized Commissioner Daniel for
his thoughts. There was an interruption by a person in the
audience identifying herself as having turned in a card and
desiring to speak on the matter. The Chairman again reminded the
audience that he had asked for the show of hands for speakers but
would allow additional speakers if so desired and announce their
intention at this point. This person identified herself as being
an owner in the area and she stated to the Chairman that she
hated to see the item proceed to a conclusion without having all
of the information from both sides of the matter.
By request from the Chairman, this speaker identified herself as
being Yvonne Law. Commissioner Daniel responded to a question by
the Chairman by stating that he would hold his question to a
later point in the hearing. Ms. Law then approached the lectern
and proceeded to offer her comments on the subject. She offered
general commentary on the current state of access and the matter
in which the private street would be gated and controled for
access to the two lots. These access points would not be
observed from Sunset Drive. Ms. Law stated that this road at one
point did go down to the river. Her family had a 40 year history
in this property adjacent to Pine Valley Road and had a part in
its termination at its current end.
Ms. Law stated that current termination of Pine Valley Road was
not an accident. Ms. Law produced a graphic illustrating the
area and she also offered a brief history of the agreement that
was being offered for attachment to the land. She offered
general information as to who owned what property at various
areas around Sunset Drive and Pine Valley Road. Ms. Law then
introduced to the Commission a copy of a plat having preliminary
plat approval status from the Planning Commission authorizing
Mr. Ensminger to subdivide into 7 lots. She pointed out
particularly that the plat proposes the reopening of the closed
abandoned portion of Pine Valley Road. Her perception of this
plat was, that, it indicated that Ensminger at least at that
point had no concern for the development of adjacent properties
surrounding their residence.
She then moved her comments to the agreement discussed with
Mr. Walker to control access and development of the two lots
that are projected out of this Tract M. She indicated that any
attempt to use the easement for any other purpose or access to
these two lots would cause the easement to revert to her family.
She concluded her remarks by stating that the Ensmingers who
owned property on one side of Pine Valley Road have a right to
FIPa
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A
use that road and take access. But apparently, the Ensmingers
feel that persons owing property on the other side of Pine Valley
Road do not have the right to develop their property.
Chairman Willis then moved the discussion back to the Commission.
Commissioner Daniel then made the statement that he had asked
permission to offer previously. This had to do with a visit to
the site and his perceptions of the existing roadway terrain and
adjacent properties. He expanded his comment to include
emergency vehicles and problems with access and turning radius
onto this narrow roadway.
Chairman Willis then posed a question to Joe White. He asked
Mr. White to address the issue of the number of trucks coming to
the site and possible time frame or duration of their accessing
this property, and as to what routes that they might possibly
utilize. Mr. White responded that any material coming to the
site would have to come down Pine Valley Road. Mr. White
indicated that they had looked at the design of these slopes and
they would possibly use such devices as gabions. The utilization
of these devices would significantly reduce the number of trucks.
Chairman Willis then asked Mr. white to respond to the question
of dust. Mr. White pointed out that these haulers would have to
be permitted and the roadway would have to be maintained and wet
down to reduce dirt and the City would control those types of
things. The Chairman then queried the Commission members as to
further comments. At this point, Commissioner Mizan asked
Mr. White if he was not going to use the design that was offered
by the opposition. Mr. White stated that it was similar and the
grades would be similar; however, the construction types would
not necessarily be the same. The horizontal configuration would
be much the same but their slopes would be different. He stated
they would probably use a fill and gabions that would reduce the
slope.
Commissioner Adcock then asked Mr. white if he still would have
to cut down a significant number of trees. Mr. White pointed out
that the design that he hoped to utilize would not remove as many
trees as was offered in the illustration.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walker's attorney who returned
to the lectern. He offered a lengthy comment concluding that the
law in this matter is clear. If you meet minimum standards, it
must be approved. He went on to offer a reading from the
Richardson case that had previously been discussed by various
persons in this hearing. He stated that since Mr. Walker was
willing to accept the higher standards to meet the Ordinance and
avoid a waiver, the law requires the Commission to approve this
application.
13
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
He stated that many of the issues he identified as "picky little
issues" had been addressed by the court in the Richardson case.
He pointed to the fact that it must all be resolved before the
final plat is concluded. He stated that nothing will take place
here unless a final plat is approved. Before the final plat is
approved, Mr. Walker will have to fully comply with the
requirements. He stated that many of the arguments presented had
been a "smoke screen" and that Mrs. Law has capably covered the
issue of access and future development of this area. Anyone
desiring to develop further in this area would have to come
before the Planning Commission. He stated that although there
had been some objection to the provision of a private street, he
felt that the construction of a private street at this point
would enure to the benefit of everyone in the area by excluding
people who had no business in the area.
He went on to say, that, although it had been suggested by one of
the speakers that no changes had occurred in this neighborhood
for 50 years, Mrs. Law had pointed out, the Ensmingers had filed
a plat to had six additional lots to their property. He closed
his remarks by requesting that Mr. Walker not be discriminated
against simply because he is on the Commission and he has done
everything to eliminate discretion.
Chairman Willis then closed the discussion on this item. After a
brief commentary, Willis suggested to the applicant that the
applicant should perhaps pursue the idea of curb and gutter
versus a lower street standards.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for a vote
instructing them that they were voting on the plat identified
Item 111A" on the agenda consisting of Lots M1 and M2. The vote
on the application produced a count of 5 ayes, 4 nays and
2 absent.
The Chairman then questioned the Deputy City Attorney as to the
status of the application. It was agreed that the application
was automatically deferred per bylaw requirement. In this
instance, the application did not receive 6 votes affirmative or
negative. Commissioner Chachere posed a question at this point
of whether or not this was the second deferral of this item with
this circumstance and what happens at this point. Does it go to
the Board? Mr. Giles, of the City Attorney's Staff, advised the
Commission that this was a first deferral because the previous
application had been withdrawn because it was a different
property. This is a resubmittal on a separate site. The
Chairman then asked the staff to produce a date for deferral of
this item. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, identified
August 8, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. being the rehearing date.
14
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • lA (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 -
Chairman then asked the staff to produce a date for deferral of
this item. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, identified
August 8, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. being the rehearing date.
15
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
NAME: HOSPICE HOME CARE, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: North of and beyond the present end of Dover Dr.,
approximately 700 feet north of W. 36th. St. and 0.30 mile east
of Shackleford Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Michael Aureli Frank Riggins
HOSPICE HOME CARE FOUNDATION THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
1501 N. University Ave. P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 172207 Little Rock, AR 72203
666-9697 375-5331
AREA: 9,691 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 100
ZONING: MF -18
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES•
None
General Offices &
Hospice Residential Care
The applicant proposes a planned development for the Hospice Home
Care Foundation, involving construction of an office building for
the Hospice Home Care, Inc., two hospice residential care
buildings for the Hospice Home Care Foundation, and retention of
a 5.5 acre lot for future development.
The office building for Hospice Home Care, Inc. is to be the
first phase of the project, and is to be built as soon as funds
are raised. This building is planned to be a 5,000± square foot
building per floor, with, possibly, two floors. The hospice
residential care facility is proposed to consist of two
buildings, with the first of these being built as funding becomes
available, and the second being built as both funding and the
occupancy rate can justify its being built. Each of these two
residential buildings is to be single -story, and each are planned
to have a maximum of 10,000± square feet of floor area. Parking
for 58 vehicles is proposed to be provided on site. The cul-de-
sac to be built at the end of Dover Dr. is proposed to be built
to residential cul-de-sac standards.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
The applicant states that a hospice residential care facility is
one where terminally ill persons are cared for. The Hospice Home
Care Foundation's goal is to care for the terminally ill person
in as much of a home -like setting as possible. The site,
therefore, is proposed to retain as much of a peaceful, park -like
setting as possible, and as much of the natural environment of
the site is proposed to be retained as possible, especially to
the south and east overlooking the lake in the abutting
residential subdivision. The architecture of the buildings will
be residential in character and materials. Driveways and parking
areas are proposed to be asphalt, but with no curb and gutter.
Drainage is proposed to be directed towards detention storage
facilities on site thorough a system of swales and underground
drainage pipes. Lighting on-site is to be provided by low
intensity fixtures on twelve to fifteen foot poles, located in
the parking and driveway areas. Signage will consist of a
monument -type sign at the entrance to the property, with on-site
directional signs being eye level. The site features are to
include a gazebo and, possibly a small chapel. Hours of
operation for the office building are normal business hours. The
hospice residential care facility, however, will be staffed
around the clock, and family members may arrive at any time of
the day or night.
The applicant explains that the Hospice Home Care Foundation, a
non-profit corporation, is the "umbrella" corporate entity which
is buying the land and is the developer. A subsidiary corporate
entity, Hospice Home Care, Inc., a "for profit" corporate entity,
will then develop the proposed office building on Lot 3 of the
subdivision. The foundation will develop the hospice residential
care facility on Lot 2, and will retain Lot 1 for future
development. Because of the corporate structural needs, the
development under the auspices of the foundation and the
development by the "for profit" corporation need to be on
different lots. The proposed development, however, will act as a
single site, with cross -access to the Lot 2 area to be provided
by a private driveway. The applicant explains that extending
Dover Dr. as a public street into the tract to abut Lot 2, or
constructing a private "street" (to street standards) to Lot 2
would not be in keeping with the character of a singular campus,
park -like atmosphere which they are trying to create, and a
waiver of this requirement is being sought as part of the
preliminary plat approval. Likewise, the residential standard
cul-de-sac is, the applicant, feels completely adequate for their
own needs and the needs of existing and future development along
Dover Dr. A variance from the requirement to construct a
commercial standard cul-de-sac is being sought, also, as part of
the preliminary plat approval.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175-
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested a planned development for
development of a 9.691 acre site to include construction of
an office building, two hospice residential care buildings,
and retention of a 5.50 acre lot for future development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, and is heavily wooded. There is a
40 foot ground elevation differential across the site, with
the slope of the ground generally falling from the northwest
corner of the site to the southeast corner. There is a
small lake off-site to the east, over which Lots 2 and 3
look.
The existing zoning of the tract is MF -18. There is an
extension of the MF -18 zoning to the west, where the "Our
Way" development is located. To the north is a large MF -12
tract, which is part of the "ERC" (Ecumenical Retirement
Center) grounds, and which is being retained for future
development by ERC. To the east is a large R-2 area, and,
to the south is R-2 zoned land, with a church facility
located in this area. At the southwest corner of the tract
is a PCD in which the United Cerebral Palsy offices are
located.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:_.
The Public Works staff comments that:
1) It is recommended that the access easement be increased
to accommodate a private street in the easement that
extends from the Dover Dr. cul-de-sac to provide the
required access for Lot 2. This private street should
conform to City standards, and driveways abutting this
private street should conform to the ordinance. A
sidewalk will be required to be constructed on each
side of the private street. A 27 foot wide street is
acceptable; however, a turn -around devise at the north
end of the private street is required, unless a waiver
is sought. A concrete apron will be required at the
cul-de-sac for this private street.
2) Right-of-way for the cul-de-sac must be dedicated, and
a Master Street Plan improvements must be constructed
for the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac right of way should
be a minimum of 100 feet, with 130 feet recommended.
The pavement diameter should be a minimum of 90 feet,
with 100 feet recommended. A sidewalk is required
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
adjacent to the cul-de-sac frontage. A maintenance
bond must be posted prior to final platting of the
property.
3) A grading permit and NPDES NOI is required before any
construction may begin.
4) Stormwater detention is required for the development.
Open ditches are generally not permitted by the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and be approved by the City Engineer. Show water
courses entering the property and the planned exist
point for drainage. Easements off-site for this
drainage may be required. Evaluation of the off-site
drainage systems capacity will be required.
Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution
analysis may be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
Their drawing proposes a 7.5' easement at the perimeter of
the lot.
The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways are
to be a minimum of 20 feet. Fire hydrants shown may need to
be moved to facilitate any sprinkler connections.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
comments that the areas set aside for buffers and
landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A portion of the
street buffer drops below the full requirement of 20 feet,
but exceeds the requirement of a 20 foot average. Provision
for buffering of the site from abutting residential zoning
districts must be made.
The Planning staff reports that the site is in the I-430
Planning District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan
recommends single-family use for the area. The proposed use
is more institutional and/or low density multi -family in
reality. Since currently two large churches are located on
either side of W. 36th. St. at Dover Dr., and there are
other institutional uses on abutting properties, staff
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
proposed to recognize these churches and the other
institutional uses, and include the hospice site as a public
institutional use in a land use plan amendment. The
request, therefore, would then be in conformance with the
plan.
As pointed out in the preliminary plat "write-up", the
provision of access to the otherwise "land -locked" Lot 2 by
way of a driveway in an access easement can be supported by
the Planning staff, as long as there is the legal
relationship between the Hospice Home Care Foundation and
Hospice Home Care, Inc. which has been explained by the
applicant. If, in the future, this legal relationship
changes, or Lots 2 or 3 are sold to another entity, or there
is a re -subdivision of Lot 1, then the access issue of Lot 2
needs to be reviewed. It might be necessary, in such an
eventuality, that proper access to Lot 2 be provided by a
public or private street, as approved by the Planning
Commission.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are no deficiencies in the planned development site
plan, and, subject to the approval of the preliminary plat
and the waiver and variance being requested in the
application for preliminary plat approval, there are no
remaining issues to be resolved.
In the approval of the planned development, the requirement
noted above involving review of the access issue for Lot 2
if conditions change should be addressed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the planned development,
subject to the preliminary plat being approved, including
the waiver and variance requested, and subject to access to
Lot 2 being re -reviewed if the legal status of the ownership
of Lots 1, 2, or 3 of the subdivision changes.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 8, 1995)
Mr. Michael Aureli, representing the applicant, and Mr. Frank
Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineering firm,
were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the
Committee members reviewed with Misters Aureli and Riggins the
comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Aureli
explained the nature of the proposed development and the reasons
for their need to have two separate lots for the two developments
to be undertaken by the two corporate entities involved; the fact
that the non-profit foundation will be purchasing the property,
67
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
explained that it is important to retain as much of a
residential/non-commercial "look" as possible, and that they want
only a driveway access to the Hospice Care facility to be located
on Lot 2, not a street. Mr. Riggins explained the rationale for
the residential standard cul-de-sac design, and indicated that a
variance from the requirement to construct the cul-de-sac to
commercial street standards will be pursued. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, to present
this item for public hearing and offer a staff recommendation.
Sims responded by saying that Item Nos. 1 and 2 should be heard
together since they are the same property. Item No. 1 is a
preliminary plat and Item No. 2 is the planned office district
application. Sims then offered a lengthy explanation of the
background of this property. He identified this application as
being somewhat different because the typical planned unit
development for single use development incorporates the plat in
the planned unit development hearing process.
In this instance, the total ownership is some 10 acres in area.
The proposed development for Hospice Care occupies two lots in
one corner of this tract with the rest remaining undeveloped or
without a proposal at this time thereby requiring a separate
preliminary plat. Sims also pointed out that this PUD
application will classify all of the 10 acres as a planned
development. This will eliminate the potential for MF -18 zoning
developing on a portion of the property and taking access from
the cul-de-sac.
Sims stated that he had received no negative comments from the
neighborhood about this application. He stated that the staff
would have placed this application on Consent Agenda, except that
there was some change made in the proposal. That is, the
applicant will submit a revised application incorporating the
entire area.
Staff responded to a question from Chairman Walker by saying,
that, at this point, the Staff and the applicant are in consensus
on the application.
Chairman Walker then recognized Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger
Engineering Firm. Mr. Riggins came forward to make the
presentation for the application. Mr. Riggins introduced Michael
Railey, the director of Hospice Home Care, as well as Charles
Witsell, with the architectural firm. Mr. Riggins offered a
lengthy presentation involving a discussion of the patients and
the type of care that is offered both on the premises and at the
patient's residence. He described the office operation as being
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175-A
a base for the employees working off-site. He stated that the
developers of this site see their operation expanding in
in-patient care, thereby, producing a need for additional
structures at some point in the future.
Mr. Riggins stated this is a site that they were looking for to
fulfill their need for a quiet forested area away from noise and
disturbance. The additional land area is without proposed
structure, and at this time it allows the developer flexibility
for making those additions or modifications in the future.
Mr. Riggins then asked Mr. Witsell to come forward and present
his part of the presentation.
Mr. Witsell offered some graphics in presenting the site plan.
He offered comments on the adjacent land uses, their type and
proximity to this project. He then described the topography of
this site as one containing a significant fall from a hill mass
on the west to a lake front lying along the east perimeter of
the property. He described the property as being wooded.
Mr. Witsell stated the cul-de-sac that would be produced at the
end of Dover Drive would then be followed by a gate. The gate
would provide security at the entrance to the private drive and
the drive would serve the second lot in the project.
Mr. Witsell then moved to a discussion of the type of business
activity carried on off-site, which is the care of persons that
are dying. He stated the developers are moving to a second level
of activity which will be the in-house care of patients;
therefore, requiring a second type of structural involvement on
this property and the second lot. This structure would be
in-patient and would be the first one in the state. Mr. Witsell
described the first building as basically an office for employees
that work off-site. The building also will warehouse the
equipment and supplies that they utilize, such as oxygen
equipment and hospital beds.
He then discussed the layout of the parking and pointed to those
areas devoted to employee parking as well as the driveways and
circulation. In the second development on the second lot, Mr.
Witsell described it as being occupied by 12 to 20 beds as
individual rooms for patients. He described the environment that
would be retained about this structure to enhance the living
environment for those persons who are terminal. Mr. Witsell said
that if the plan is successful in the future, then the plan would
be expanded to incorporate additional structures on other areas
of the site. He concluded his remarks.
Chairman Walker then asked if Public Works Department wished to
address the matter. David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering
Design section, came forward and offered general comments on the
review by his department, the various concerns they had raised
and position on several waivers. Scherer offered specific
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM un • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
comments on the cul-de-sac which he feels should be constructed
to a collector street standard since it is the terminus of a 36
foot collector street.
He then moved to a discussion of private streets and the
relationship of the lot in this development which will be served
by an easement through a driveway. It is a concern the tie to
the potential for future expansion of this project and service of
additional buildings by this driveway and easement relationship.
The ordinance clearly requires that the drive be constructed in
the same standards as a public street.
Scherer then raised the subject of sidewalk which had not been
addressed by the applicant in their presentation. There is a
sidewalk required on at least one side around the cul-de-sac. He
pointed out that the plan apparently is supposed to replace the
sidewalk with private residential walking trails. In a
discussion with Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, it was
determined that a waiver had not been requested for the sidewalk
and it was noted that it would be required. Scherer then
commented that the interior circulation street does have a lot of
head -in parking which backs or maneuvers into this drive area.
He stated that this relationship would need to be reviewed
further if the project expanded because there are some blind
spots and dangerous traffic relationships created.
Scherer stated that the Traffic Engineering Office would like
some right of refusal in this design at some point in the future
to deal with these issues. Commissioner Woods posed a question
as to why this street standard was required to go to commercial.
He asked if it was because this is office. The current street
was constructed as a residential collector. Scherer indicated
that the ordinance requires a commercial standard because this is
a business activity.
A discussion then followed involving Commissioner Woods and David
Scherer about the need of sidewalks and where they would go and
who they would serve. It was agreed that the sidewalk currently
runs down the east side of the street, running to this site from
36th Street. But, that possibly in -lieu of a sidewalk an
internal circulation plan needs to be devised that would tie to
the existing sidewalk.
Commissioner Woods then posed a question, What is the anticipated
traffic count? Mr. Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Firm,
approached the lectern and discussed with Bobby Sims the issues
that had been presented by David Scherer. Mr. Riggins indicated
to staff that he thought he had included the subject of sidewalks
in previous discussion and written material submitted. He said
there would be an internalized circulation plan for pedestrians.
In response to one of David Scherer's comments about emergency
8
June 27, 1995
SIIHDIVISION
ITEM NO_ • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175 -
vehicles, Mr. Riggins stated that they wanted to preserve the
private residential low-key activity of environment.
In order to do this, some of the conventional kinds of
landclearing and wide thoroughfares would not be compatible. He
stated the architecture would be residential in character. Mr.
Riggins then asked the director of the facility to come forward
and offer comments on the development proposal.
Mr. Witsell stated that this land was being purchased from the
ecumenical retirement center which owns properties to the north
and west. He described the composition of the employees and how
many of them come to the office at given times, the hours of
operation and days per week at the visited site. He stated that
the frequency of these employees visiting the site would be low
with little traffic generation at a given time. Mr. Witsell
stated there would be 7 to 10 people on staff that would work
there each day. These people are recordkeepers and
administrative staff.
Mr. Witsell commented on the traffic generation from the
in-patient care facility as being quite low because these persons
would not be having automobiles and driving. The only persons
that would come to this structure would perhaps be family members
or medical personnel. He stated that this would perhaps be only
8 to 10 cars per day.
Mr. Riggins returned to the lectern and offered that there was an
additional variance which he would like to enter into the record.
The variance include a fence along the lake side of the property.
The developers felt like this fence of the height required would
be obstructive to their development and would eliminate part of
the environment they were seeking. Mr. Riggins stated that this
site was selected because of the view of the lake through the
trees and the fence would eliminate this. (Staff Note: This
fence was not required in a manner that the City Hoard of
Directors will have to deal with a variance. It will be a site
plan variance only.)
Chairman Walker asked Mr. Riggins to describe the ownership -
relationship around the lake. Mr. Riggins pointed out there was
a property owners association controlling the land area around
the lake.
There was a brief discussion about this ownership -relationship as
to whether or not there were other parties permitted to utilize
the facilities around the lake. Mr. Riggins stated he was not
aware that there was a relationship between the MF -18 site and
the property owners association that require the payment of dues.
Mr. Riggins then moved to his commentary to the subject of a
neighborhood meeting which was held approximately two weeks ago.
9
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -4175 -
There was an invitation extended to the residential area adjacent
and there were several representatives of the association and
residential area present at that meeting. In response to a
question from the Chairman, Mr. Riggins stated the neighborhood
did not respond to the fence issue. It was not discussed.
Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that staff did
attend that neighborhood meeting and there were no objectors in
attendance at that time. Sims then offered a brief comment
describing the basis for the approach chosen with the private
drive and the isolated lot. This had to do with the mortgage
relationship and separate titles dealing with the inpatient
versus outpatient business activity. He also stated the
developers' intent to obtain the waiver on the residential versus
the commercial cul-de-sac dimension. The Chairman injected a
thought at this point that Public Works did not apparently
support the variance on the cul-de-sac dimension. Sims then
pointed to the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac as being a second
issue for a waiver or a variance.
A brief discussion between the Chairman and Bobby Sims determined
that during a commercial review for site plan, that the internal
circulation system was such that it required a waiver from the
City Board, unlike that in a residential design where there was
some flexibility.
At the request of the Chairman, David Scherer came to the lectern
and pointed out that his department would perhaps support the
circulation system once reviewed as in -lieu of the sidewalk
around the cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Woods then offered commentary about the sidewalk and
the residential street standard. He preferred that it not be
upgraded to commercial standards because of children playing in
the area. He stated that at this time Dover Drive was a
residential street and it was platted as residential for some 750
feet with sidewalk on the east side. In a brief exchange between
the Chairman and Commissioner Woods, it was understood that he
being a resident of that street as well as a commissioner did not
want to see the expansion of the street to commercial standards
because it might encourage commercial activity.
The Chairman then stated that the discussion was apparently
complete and presentations are complete. He pointed out there
was a notice issue that has been cured by time. The notices
mailed to the neighborhood identified the meeting as starting at
12:30 when it began at 9:00 a.m. He stated for the record that
he did not feel it would be required that they have a motion and
waive the bylaws.
The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission for a
vote also stating the specific variances or waivers that were
10
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4175-A
requested. The first of these to be included is the private
street or the lot platting without public street frontage. The
second being an on-site internal circulation plan in -lieu of
sidewalks, thereby waiving sidewalks around the cul-de-sac. The
third as being a variance to reduce the cul-de-sac diameter from
commercial to residential standard that is 90 to 80 feet or to a
diameter that is agreed upon by Public Works. He pointed out the
fence along the east property line as a requested waiver although
not required action by the City Hoard of Directors.
Chairman Walker then asked for a vote on Item Nos. 1 and 2 as
presented. The item produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application for preliminary plat and planned
office development is approved, with the variances forwarded to
the Hoard of Directors for final action.
11
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 3 FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
NAME: RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the north side of Fourche Dam Pike, at 7008 Fourche
Dam Pike
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Kenneth R. King Samuel L. Davis
RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO., INC. S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC.
P. O. Box 95004 5301 West 8th. Street
Little Rock, AR 72295-5004 Little Rock, AR 72204
490-1569 664-0324
AREA: 9.1 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Warehouse & Distribution;
Mini -storage facility; and
single-family residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 25
CENSUS TRACT: 40.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Approval of a 5 -year deferral of boundary street
improvements to Fourche Dam Pike.
2. Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk along the Fourche
Dam Pike frontage of the site.
3. Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide a
paved driveway and maneuvering area to and around the
mini -storage facility.
4. Approval of a variance from the requirement to provide
24 foot wide driveways on the site.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a mixed-use planned development in order
to: 1) construct an addition to an existing warehousing and
distribution business facility; 2) construct two additional
mini -warehouse buildings; and, 3) continue using a residential
structure located on the property for residential use.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO_ • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
The existing warehouse and distribution building is an 18,000±
building. There is a loading dock and covered loading area in
conjunction with this building. Offices for the business are
located in a detached 950 square foot building. An asphalt
parking area for 15 vehicles is provided. There is an existing
10 foot wide asphalt drive extending northward from Fourche Dam
Pike to the north edge of the distribution -warehouse building.
This drive provides access to, not only the distribution -
warehouse building, but to the office structure, the existing
mini -storage buildings, and the residence located on the
property.
The existing mini -storage buildings are located north of the
existing distribution -warehouse building. There are two
buildings, one with 3,000 square feet; the second, 6,000 square
feet.
There is a residence on the property, immediately off Fourche Dam
Pike, plus two storage buildings.
The applicant proposes, as a phase I development, to construct a
29,000 square foot addition to the distribution -warehouse
building. This addition is planned to be built along the west
side of the existing building. It is to house, not only
additional warehousing space, but office space for the business.
It is to be a single -story building, with walls at 14 feet high
and the roof peak at 20 feet. Phase I is to be undertaken in
1995.
The phase II development is to involve the first of two
additional mini -storage buildings. This building is planned to
be a 6,000 square foot building containing 40 storage spaces.
The building is proposed to be a single -story building, with 8
foot high walls. Phase II development is proposed to take place
in 1997, or later.
The phase III development involves constructing another addition
to the distribution -warehouse building. The addition is to
provide another 40,000 square feet of warehousing area, and is to
be an extension of the phase I building to the north. This phase
is planned for 2000 or later.
The phase IV development is the construction of the second mini -
storage building. It, too, is a 6,000 square foot building,
containing 40 units, and with 8 foot high walls. This phase is
planned for 2001 or later.
The hours of operation of the business and of the mini -storage
are, currently, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The
present hours of operation are not planned to be changed. The
applicant proposes to install fencing and lighting for the
security of the site. The existing 10 foot wide asphalt driveway
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
is proposed to remain "as -is". No extension of the driveway is
proposed or is, according to the applicant, needed. The
applicant explains that, due to the very flat topography of the
site, paving around the mini -storage buildings would cause
flooding of these units; therefore, the applicant seeks a waiver
of the requirement that the access to and maneuvering space
around the mini -storage units be paved. These drives are
currently gravel, and, according to the applicant, provide
acceptable access to the mini -storage facility. The applicant
explains that there are seven employees, and that the 15 parking
spaces is sufficient. The 10 foot wide drive, the applicant
states, serves the needs of the site without any problems. A
variance from the requirement that a 24 foot drive be provided is
sought. Fourche Dam Pike is built to county road standards, and
there is no other development in the area which would cause the
roadway to be widened. The applicant, then, seeks a five-year
deferral of the requirement that Fourche Dam Pike be widened to
Master Street Plan standards. The applicant is, however,
amenable to dedicating the required right-of-way for Fourche Dam
Pike. The area is in a rural setting. There are no other
sidewalks along Fourche Dam Pike, states the applicant. A wavier
of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Fourche Dam
Pike frontage of the site, then, is requested.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a Planned Commercial
Development for a mixed use development involving a
distribution and warehousing use, a mini -storage use, and a
residential use.
A five-year deferral is requested for having to provide
boundary street improvements to Fourche Dam Pike; a wavier
is requested from the requirement that a sidewalk be
constructed along the Fourche Dam Pike frontage of the
property; a waiver is sought from the requirement that a
paved driveway and maneuvering space be provided to and
around the mini -storage buildings; and, a variance is
requested from the requirement that the on-site drives be 20
feet, and permit the existing 10 foot wide drive to remain
"as -is".
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by the applicant. It
contains the existing 18,000 square foot warehouse and a
covered dock area, a 950 square foot office structure, two
mini -storage buildings, a residence, and two out -buildings.
The site, reports the applicant, was purchased, with the
current warehouse and mini -storage buildings being built, in
1980-82, when the area was outside the City Limits. The
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
City, the applicant reports, annexed the area in 1983, from
which time there has been no additional construction
undertaken.
The site is currently zoned R-2, with the R-2 zoning
district extending to all properties surrounding the site.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff notes the following:
1) The property is located in Zone X, per FIRM 050181
0014E, dated 11/3/93. A grading and NPDES Permit
Notice of Intent must be submitted prior to beginning
work on the site.
2) All drives should asphalt and be a minimum of 24, in
width to provide adequate access for emergency
vehicles. A cul-de-sac or suitable alternative must be
provided at the end of the drive to allow vehicles to
turn around. The apron at the public street should
have minimum turn -out radii per City standards.
3) Right-of-way to meet City standards must be dedicated.
Fourche Dam Pike is a collector street, which requires
60' of right-of-way (wider if open ditches are provided
along the roadway). The minimum width of pavement is
361, and a sidewalk is required along the Fourche Dam
Pike frontage of the site. Construct 1/2 of the
required boundary street section.
4) A stormwater detention analysis is required.
Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department commented that a 20, asphalt driveway
will be required to be added. On-site fire hydrants may be
required.
4
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796-
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-201.h of the Code states: "Whenever a (development)
abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street,
the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the
required improvements and right-of-way." The applicant is
seeking a 5 -year deferral from the requirement that Fourche
Dam Pike be constructed to Master Street Plan standards, and
a waiver of the requirement to construct the sidewalk.
These two requests, the deferral and wavier of boundary
street and sidewalk requirements must be approved by the
Board of Directors. The variance involving pavement width
and the waiver of the requirement to proved a paved driveway
and maneuvering space are staff -level matters.
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
comments that a 6' high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with the face directed outward or dense evergreen planting,
is required along the north, east, and west property lines.
Additional screening may not be required west of the
proposed main building, provided the building has no windows
or doors on its west side. Trees with an average spacing of
40' and shrubs at 10' are required within the land use
buffers along the north, east, and west property lines.
Compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required.
The Planning staff reports that the planned development is
in the Port District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends
single-family use of the site. The existing use is in
conflict with the plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
Although the existing use is in conflict with the adopted
Land Use Plan, it is an existing use. The applicant
maintains that the proposed building additions and
structures are being requested in order to continue the
present non -conforming use; no change in use, or addition of
other uses is proposed. Staff can support the applicant's
request on that basis.
Because the area of the applicant's property along Fourche
Dam Pike is in an area that is not developing at this time,
staff can support the deferral of the improvements to
Fourche Dam Pike and the waiver of the sidewalk requirement.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the planned development and of
the boundary street deferral and sidewalk waiver.
5
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
Mr. Kenneth King, the applicant, was present. The Planning staff
outlined the request and reviewed with Mr. King the comments
contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff
explained the Public Works comments; specifically, the comments
concerning the Master Street Plan requirements. The Planning
staff commented that the site plan needed to have more detail
provided concerning landscaping, buffer fencing, and access
drives to the existing and new mini -storage buildings. Mr. King
responded that he would get with his design professional, and
that they would meet with staff in the following days. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, to present
the item and staff recommendation. Sims outlined the
application, the various variances and waivers that have been
requested
1. A deferral of the street improvements on the boundary
street, Fourche Dam Pike, for a period of 5 years
2. Approval of a waiver of sidewalk along Fourche Dam Pike
3. Approval of a waiver of parking and driveway maneuvering
space internal to the development to be retained as it
currently exists.
4. A waiver of the driveway width providing circulation from
the street to the various elements of the project. Normal
requirement is 20 to 24 feet. Applicant desires to retain
the approximate 10 foot driveway as it now exists.
Staff recommendation is approval of the project with a specific
position on the waivers. The recommendation concerning the
physical improvements and waivers to be offered by Public Works.
The Chairman then asked that David Scherer, of Public Works, come
forward and address this issue.
Scherer announced that Public Works did not have a problem with
the deferral of the improvements on the street, Fourche Dam Pike.
He pointed out they normally prefer less than 5 years, normally
2 or 3 years is what is offered by the Commission. He added an
additional comment, that, on some recent developments that an
additional condition was added. The additional condition was
that the improvements be installed before the time limit or at
such time as adjacent developments install improvements.
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
David Scherer stated he would prefer that the sidewalk waiver be
tied to the street and not waived in its entirety. He stated the
Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works still maintains that
the minimum 20 foot driveway be provided internal to the project.
He opposes the retention of the narrow drive to serve such a
development. He stated, that, as to the parking and other
maneuvering areas within the site, there was some general
opposition to that request.
The Chairman then asked the applicant to come forward and present
his application. Mr. Kenneth King, representing Riverside Box,
came to the lectern and offered a lengthy outline of the history
of their business, the type of business performed there and the
specific request he was placing before the Commission.
He stated this business absolutely does not have additional floor
space and expansion is imperative. He then moved his
conversation to the area of identifying businesses in the Little
Rock area, especially nearby in the port that utilize his
business facilities. King then offered a brief overview of the
geography of the area identifying streets, vacant lands and
adjacent land users. He also offered some commentary of the
composition of the proposed mini -storage. It being approximately
50/50 as far as business and residential uses. As to the
variances, he addressed the street deferral by saying he did not
think that it would make the property very attractive by adding
those improvements at this time.
The Chairman then asked Mr. King if he would respond to what
David Scherer, of Public Works, had commented on with respect to
the variances and deferral. The Chairman specifically asked him
to address the point of whether or not he was willing to add a
condition if other adjacent properties improve the street or were
required to, that he would do likewise.
Mr. King responded by saying that it would be acceptable.
Mr. King also added some comments as to the paving requirements
internal to the site. He stated that this is very sandy soil and
that there is no runoff problem at this time. But, he added that
the construction of paving, he felt like, might create a drainage
problem.
The Chairman asked Mr. King to explain some of the graphic
information presented on his site plan. Mr. King gave a brief
overview of the buildings and the development areas. The
conversation between the Chairman and Mr. King then moved to the
subject of how the internal drives, maneuvering and parking could
possibly be improved over time. A consensus was reached between
Mr. King and the Chairman.- Phase I of the project would be
allowed to construct buildings without improving drives or
parking, but when Phase II and III are brought on-line and those
7
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
permits were issued the parking, drives and maneuvering areas
will be brought up to code. Mr. King felt that this was an
acceptable arrangement and agreed a deferral in this manner could
work.
Mr. King also offered at this point that the drive servicing this
project through Phase I could be widened with initial
construction. In clarification of a question by Commissioner
Chachere, Mr. King stated that Phase I includes only the large
building addition to the existing warehouse structure, thereby,
no need to extend the gravel or paved areas for the other later
buildings at this time. Mr. King stated that access to the
building and the new expansion of Phase I will continue to
utilize the current access and drive. When the initial buildings
come for permits, the drives around the other buildings and
parking areas would be improved. Mr. King's engineer, Mr. Sam
Davis, pointed out that he would have to phase this in a way that
the drives and improvements control not the various structures
that were being proposed in that phase.
After this discussion, the Chairman asked David Scherer, of
Public Works, if the discussion here was nearing Public Works'
requirements or recommendations. Mr. Scherer stated emphatically
that the City did not support the retention or construction of
gravel parking lots. He stated that Public works would have not
trouble accepting the phased deferral of the improvements.
Scherer identified some of the problems attendant to utilizing
gravel parking lots.
There being no further comments offered by members of the
Commission, the Chairman placed the item before the Commission
for a vote as amended by the applicant. The waivers now being
modified as follows:
1. Fourche Dam Pike street improvements to be deferred for a
period of 5 years or until adjacent improvements are
initiated by others. That deferral would also include
sidewalk with the street.
2. The next and last would be a variance that would permit
Phase I to be constructed without the construction of
on-site drives or improvements. But with the initiation of
Phase II, the driveway through the site to serve that parcel
and later phases would be widened to 24 feet. Each
subsequent phase would be improved with paved drives,
parking and maneuvering.
The Chairman then asked for the vote. The vote was produced as
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. At the point of the completion of
the votes, a member of the audience gained the attention of the
Chairman and asked if she was not permitted to speak on this
matter.
8
June 27, 195
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4796 -
The Chairman said for the moment that the vote would be suspended
until a determination was made about the speaker's position.
There were two persons present, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, adjacent
residents. Mrs. Jones came to the lectern and expressed one
question which was whether or not this was a rezoning of the
property. Several persons including the Chairman and Bobby Sims,
of the Planning Staff, addressed her question by identifying the
type of classification action before the Commission and said it
was a, form of rezoning. The Chairman asked if Mrs. Jones'
question had been adequately answered. She indicated that she
was satisfied.
The Chairman then returned the issue to the Commission to confirm
the vote as previously offered. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The PCD application is approved with recommendation on
the variances and deferrals to the City Board.
9
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 4 FILE NO.• Z-5998
NAME: DUSTY EDWARDS MANAGEMENT AND REALTY CO. -- SHORT -FORM
PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the west side of Gamble Road, approximately 500
feet south of W. Markham St.
DEVELOPER•
CONTRACTOR•
Dusty Edwards Manley
DUSTY EDWARDS MANAGEMENT AND ROBERTS
REALTY, INC. GENERAL
506 Ferry St. 2701 W.
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little
AREA: 0.865 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
Roberts
AND CO.,
CONTRACTORS
7th.St.
Rock, AR 72205
FT. NEW STREET: 130
General Offices, retail sales,
& Mini -Storage Facility
The applicant proposes development of the 0.865 acre tract for a
mixed use development consisting of: 1) a 2 -story, 3,584 square
foot building, containing, on the first floor, offices for the
applicant's property management and real estate sales business, a
lock and key retail business, and the offices for the proposed
mini -storage facility, and, on the second floor, a residence for
the mini -storage facility's manager; and 2) a mini -storage
facility consisting of two single -story buildings, one a 30 foot
by 145 foot building containing 4,350 square feet; the other, a
30 foot by 225 foot building containing 6,750 square feet.
Parking spaces for 7 vehicles is to be provided. The site is to
be fenced along the south and west property lines with a 6 foot
high wood privacy fence, and, according to the applicant, is to
be "well lit".
Dedication of the required right-of-way for and construction of
the required street improvements to Gamble Rd., including
construction of the sidewalk along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the
site, is proposed. No access to and no improvements to Ferris
St. are proposed.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5998
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a mixed use planned
development No variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped; however, there is an old foundation
wall at the northeast corner of the tract.
The site is currently zoned R-2, with all the property to
the south of the site being zoned R-2. To the north, the
abutting property is zoned 0-3. To the east is 0-3 property
and an R-2 lot, and to the west, is a large MF -18 tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff notes the following:
1) Gamble Rd. is designated as a collector street in the
Master Street Plan; therefore, a 60 foot right-of-way,
with a street section that is 36' back-to-back of curb,
is required. Dedication of additional right-of-way to
provide for one-half of the required right-of-way will
be required. widening of Gamble St. must be in
accordance with the standards for a collector street,
and improvements are required for the full one-half
width of the required improvements. (Note: If the
existing chip seal has adequate base material, this
base may be able to be overlaid, subject to City
Engineer approval.) A sidewalk must be constructed
along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the site. Underground
drainage is required by the regulations. Cross-
sections and plan -and -profile drawings are required to
be submitted. An analysis of the drainage shall
accompany the design submitted.
2) A grading permit will be required prior to beginning
construction on the site.
3) The drive behind the parking spaces to the west of the
office building should be two-way, with minimum width
of 36'.
Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater Utility comments that sewer service is available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. A 15'
AP&L easement is shown along the north property line.
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5998
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal.
They noted that Southwestern Bell cable is buried, and that
cable television may be overhead.
The Fire Department commented that on-site fire hydrants may
be required.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist
comments that the full on-site street buffer width required
along Ferris St. is 14.5 feet. (The minimum requirement
with transfer is 9.6 feet.). The Landscape Ordinance
requirement for this area is 6 feet. A 3 foot wide building
landscape strip between the public parking area and the
building is required by the Landscape Ordinance.
The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Ellis
Mountain Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan
recommends office uses for this site. The proposed use is
primarily commercial, thus not in conformance with the Plan.
The Planning staff cannot recommend amendment of the Plan at
this time.
E. ANALYSIS•
The applicant has substantially complied with the technical
requirements of the ordinances in the submission. There are
some minor issues remaining, specifically, the required
building landscaping strip which must be provided not being
shown, and the required fence along the south and west
property lines not being shown.
The office use aspect of the site is in conformance with the
adopted Land Use Plan; the mini -storage use is not. Since
the mini -storage use is the overwhelmingly predominant use
of the site, the planned development, as proposed, is in
conflict with the Land Use Plan.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the planned development, as
submitted.
W
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5998
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
Mr. Dusty Edwards, the applicant, and Mr. Manley Roberts, the
proposed contractor, were present. Staff outlined the proposed
development, and the Committee members reviewed with Misters
Edwards and Roberts the comments contained in the dissuasion
outline. Mr. Roberts responded that the deficiencies in the plan
which were noted would be addressed, and Mr. Edwards indicated
that the needed information noted in the discussion outline would
be provided. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
A lengthy discussion was held. There were several persons
present objecting. One petition of objection was presented.
Many questions were raised about design, access, landscaping
driveway width for fire department access.
Much consideration was given to street improvements and building
design to make the development office in appearance. The
Chairman then asked if it would not be appropriate to defer this
item two weeks for further study.
A motion to that effect was made and passed by vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
4
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 5 FILE NO.: Z -3269-B
NAME:
Arsenic and Old Lace Antiques -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 11600 Mara Lynn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles and Faith Cavin
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use of
this existing 0-1 zoned building
and property as an antique shop.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The property is located on the north side of Mara Lynn Road,
approximately one block east of its intersection with Bowman
Road.
2. Compatibility with Neicrhborhood:
The property is zoned 0-1 and is located in an area of mixed
zoning and uses ranging from single family to multifamily
and commercial. The majority of the property in the
immediate vicinity is zoned multifamily and commercial. The
site is buffered from the nearest single family residences
by an area of open space zoning. The antique shop is a
relatively quiet use and should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkins:
The proposed 3,846 square foot antique shop requires 12
on-site parking spaces. The site plan submitted by the
applicant indicates 12 spaces. Eight of those spaces
currently exist on the site. The additional 4 spaces must
be constructed.
4. Screening and Buffers:
If building renovation exceeds 50% of the current
replacement cost of the structure, an upgrade in landscaping
will be required. The 4 additional parking spaces must
comply with the City's Landscape Ordinance.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3269-B
5. City Engineer's Comments:
The addition of the four required parking spaces may
generate a requirement for stormwater detention. The
existing driveway plan does not conform to the ordinance
standards. If construction is planned, it is recommended
that the circular drive in front of the building be
eliminated.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the use
of this existing 0-1 zoned building as an antique shop. The
building has most recently been used as a day care center.
The property is located in an area of mixed zoning, being
primarily multifamily and commercial. The nearest area of
single family homes is buffered from this site by an open
space zoned area.
The proposed antique shop should generate less vehicular
traffic throughout the week than the day care center which
was previously at this site. The day care center had a
playground located near Mara Lynn Road. The proposed
antique shop will be operated within the enclosed building.
Staff believes the proposed antique shop to be a reasonable
use of this property and is supportive of the request.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City Engineer's Comments and the City's Landscape Ordinance.
UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted the City Engineer and Landscaping Comments outline above.
The relationship of this site to the multifamily and single
family properties in the area was discussed. It was determined
that the proposed antique shop was located in such a way as to be
well buffered from the adjacent residential properties.
Staff noted that the 4 additional parking spaces at the north end
of the driveway had not yet been constructed.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3269-B
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant, Charles Cavin, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
compliance with the City Engineer's Comments and the City's
Landscape Ordinance. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 6 FILE NO.• Z-5996
NAME
Cullipher Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:
11617 Alexander Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Emma Cullipher
PROPOSAL:
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 14 foot by 60 foot
single -wide manufactured home on
this I-1 zoned 10 acre site as an
accessory dwelling. The applicant
is requesting a waiver of the
required $125.00 filing fee. If
the Commission approves the
application, it must be contingent
upon the property being downzoned
to R-2.
NOTE TO PLANNING COMMISSION:
The applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn. The
request for withdrawal was made prior to the Subdivision
Committee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 7 FILE NO.: Z-5999
NAME•
LOCATION:
Davis Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
16,400 Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Val Davis
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 16 foot by 72 foot
single -wide manufactured home on
this R-2 zoned 2.19 acre site as an
accessory dwelling.
A variance is requested to allow an
accessory dwelling greater than 700
square feet in area. The proposed
home is 1,152 square feet in area.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The property is located on the north side of Colonel Glenn
Road, approximately 3.5 miles west of I-430. The property
is 2.7 miles outside of the city limits but is within the
City's zoning and subdivision jurisdiction.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This property is located in a rural area, approximately 2.7
miles west of the city limits. Much of the property in the
immediate area is heavily wooded and undeveloped. This area
is within the City's Planning Boundary and the majority of
the property in the area is zoned R-2. A small tract of
undeveloped C-3 zoned property is located one block to the
west of this site, near the proposed intersection of Colonel
Glenn Road and the West Loop. The proposed addition of an
accessory dwelling to this 2.19 acre site should be
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The existing home and proposed accessory dwelling are
required to have one on-site parking space each. The
existing home has a paved driveway and adequate parking.
The applicant proposes to construct a second driveway and
parking area to serve the accessory dwelling.
Jane 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5999
4. Screenina and Buffers:
None required for this residential application.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Dedicate approximately 20 feet of right-of-way for the
Master Street Plan required right-of-way of 55 feet from the
centerline of Colonel Glenn Road. The proposed septic
system must not be constructed in the area of the newly
dedicated right-of-way. This property is outside of the
community FIRM map. The applicant must provide floodplain
zone information on the survey or obtain review and approval
from the Pulaski County Floodplain Administrator.
6. Utility Comments:
No comments
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the placement of a single -wide manufactured home
on this property to be used as an accessory dwelling. The
property consists of 2.19 acres located approximately 2.7
miles outside of the city limits. The property does fall
within the City's planning jurisdiction and is zoned R-2.
The proposed manufactured home is 1,152 square feet in area
which is larger than the 700 square feet allowed by the
Ordinance for accessory dwellings.
The proposed accessory dwelling would not be out of
character with the neighborhood which consists primarily of
large tracts of heavily wooded, undeveloped property and
single family homes on larger tracts of property. There are
several other mobile and manufactured homes in the area.
The proposed manufactured home is a 1995 model which will be
placed on the property in compliance with the minimum siting
standards established by the Ordinance for such structures.
Staff believes the proposed accessory dwelling to be a
reasonable use for this site and is supportive of the
request.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional use permit to
allow the placement of a single -wide manufactured home on
this property as an accessory dwelling, subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
K
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5999
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the minimum siting standards
established by the Ordinance as follow:
a. The home must comply with the minimum construction
standards of the federal mobile home regulations
of Title VI of Public Law 93-383, USC 5401;
manufactured since June 15, 1976.
b. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or
fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
C. Removal of all transport features.
d. Permanent foundation.
e. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with
the neighborhood.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
h. Off-street parking per single family dwelling
standards.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow the
proposed 101152 square foot accessory dwelling which exceeds
the 700 square foot maximum allowed by the Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant, Val Davis, was present. Staff presented the item
and noted the City Engineer and siting standard comments outlined
above.
Mr. Davis was directed to meet with staff regarding the required
right-of-way dedication and to contact the City Engineer's staff
regarding the required floodplain information.
The Committee determined that the requested size variance for the
proposed accessory dwelling was reasonable considering the size
of the property and its'location.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
3
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.• Z-5999
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant, Val Davis, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that there were no outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the minimum siting standards established by
the Ordinance as follow:
a. The home must comply with the minimum construction
standards of the federal mobile home regulations of
Title VI of Public Law 93-383, USC 5401; manufactured
since June 15, 1976.
b. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen
(14) degrees or greater.
C. Removal of all transport features.
d. Permanent foundation.
e. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
h. Off-street parking per single family dwelling
standards.
The Commission also approved the variance to allow the proposed
1,152 square foot accessory dwelling which exceeds the 700 square
foot maximum allowed by the Ordinance.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 8 FILE NO.: Z-6000
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT•
PROPOSAL•
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
Jimerson Creek Pedestrian Bridge
and Bikeway - Conditional Use
Permit
Along the south bank of the
Arkansas River from Murray Park to
River Mountain Road
City of Little Rock
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the phased
development of a city park along
the south bank of the Arkansas
River from Murray Park to River
Mountain Road.
The proposed park is to be located along the south bank of
the Arkansas River, beginning at the western end of Murray
Park and extending westward to the Corps of Engineers' boat
launch ramp at the foot of River Mountain Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The proposed park is to be located along the south bank of
the river, in an area between the railroad tracks and the
water's edge. Entrance to the park will be through either
of two existing parks, River Mountain Park or Murray Park.
The proposed park is located along the bottom of a heavily
wooded bluff which runs parallel to the river. The are
several residential properties on the upper side of the
bluff, but they are well separated from the proposed park.
The park will be compatible with the neighborhood and should
have no impact on any adjacent properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
There is existing parking located at both the east and west
ends of the proposed park, at River Mountain Park and Murray
Park. Additional parking will be installed in the west end
of the park, along that portion of the road which is
accessible to vehicular traffic.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6000
4. Screening and Buffers:
No additional screening or buffers are required.
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Base flood elevation = 261.0 NGFD. This project requires
SFNA development permit, conditioned upon approval of the
Corps of Engineer's. A certification of no increase in BFE
must be submitted. Development east of Jimerson Creek will
encroach in regulatory floodway.
6. Utility Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater reports an existing force main is
located in an exclusive easement in the area of the proposed
bridge. The contractor will be responsible for protection
of the force main during construction and any damage the
construction of the bridge may cause to the force main.
7. Staff Analysis:
The City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department
requests a conditional use permit to allow for the phased
development of a city park along the south bank of the
Arkansas River from Murray Park on the east to River
Mountain Road on the west.
The first phase of the project involves the eastern 2/3 of
the proposed park. In this initial phase a cul-de-sac will
be constructed on the existing road which is located between
the railroad tracks and the river. This cul-de-sac will
prevent traffic which enters the park from River Mountain
from driving through the length of the Park. The remaining
portion of the road, extending east of the cul-de-sac, will
be converted into a bikeway and pedestrian path. A
bike/pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Jimerson
Creek and the bikeway will continue eastward to Murray Park.
Throughout this portion of the park several reststops,
consisting of benches/shelters, trash receptacles, bike
racks and interpretive signs, will be constructed. A
fishing pier and a pavilion will be constructed near the
cul-de-sac.
The second phase of the project involves the western 1/3 of
the proposed park. This portion of the park will be vehicle
accessible, using the existing road which enters the park
from River Mountain Road. New parking lots, a fishing pier,
picnic sites and a pavilion will be constructed in this
portion of the park.
2
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6000
This park will create an additional two miles of recreation
opportunities for Little Rock citizens and staff is
supportive of the request.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City Engineer and Wastewater Utility
Company Comments.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
David Bryant was present representing the Parks and Recreation
Department. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer
and Wastewater Utility Comments outlined above.
Mr. Bryant responded that the City was working closely with the
Corps of Engineers on the project and that proper care would be
taken to avoid damage to the force main.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
David Bryant was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that it
was necessary to defer the item to allow time to resolve some
outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO • 9 FILE NO.• Z-6001
NAME:
LOCATION•
Joe Esco Tire Company - Conditional
Use Permit
1900 West 65th Street, #12
OWNER/APPLICANT: Capitol Properties, Ltd./Joe Esco
Tire Company, Applicant
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use of a
portion of this existing I-2 zoned
building as a tire retreading
facility.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The applicant proposes to occupy the last bay on the south
end of an existing 1661 foot long building located on the
east side of Allied Way. Allied Way extends south off of
West 65th Street, near its intersection with Arch Street
Pike.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The property in the nearby vicinity is zoned either I-2, I-3
or M. Uses in the area range from Industrial warehousing
and manufacturing to gravel quarries. The property directly
across Allied Way is currently vacant. The property
adjacent to the south is zoned I-3 and occupied by a
concrete batch plant. The property directly east of this
site is outside of the city limits and contains a variety of
uses. Use of a portion of this existing building as a tire
retreading facility is compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
A large, asphalt paved parking area is located in front of
the entire length of this 1,660 foot long building. There
is adequate parking for the proposed use.
4. Screening and Buffers:
No additional screening or buffering is required for this
application. All adjacent property is zoned industrial and
no building or parking expansion is proposed.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6001
5. City Engineer's Comments:
Dedicate additional right-of-way on 65th Street to 45 feet
from centerline. Dedicate a radial area for turnout at the
northwest corner of the property. A SFHA development permit
is required prior to starting work.
6. Utility Comments:
Water Works reports RPZ backflow prevention may be required.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to occupy the south 125 feet of this
1,660 foot long, I-2 zoned building as a tire retreading
facility. A conditional use permit is required since tire
retreading is considered an "industrial use not listed
(enclosed)" in the I-2 district.
The process is totally enclosed and the applicant has
submitted the following brief outline of the process:
Step #1. Pickup worn out tires from the trucking public.
Step #2. Remove all the old tread design with a Model 8120
Buffing Machine. The material removed from the
tires will be collected via an air tight,
environmentally safe dust collector.
Step #3. The new tread will be applied with state of the
art tread application equipment.
Step #4. The tires will be cured in a Pressure Chamber at
115 PSI with a 30 PSI differential and using 210
degrees of electric heat.
Step #5. When the process is complete, the newly retreaded
tires will be returned to the customers for many
more miles of use.
The property is located in an area that is appropriate for
this proposed use and staff is supportive of the request.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility Comments
3. There is to be no outside storage of materials or
merchandise.
E
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6001
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
Mark Townsend was present representing Joe ESco Tire Company.
Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer and Utility
Comments outlined above.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, explained in
greater detail the required right-of-way dedication for the
radial turn out and for West 65th Street. He also explained that
the property is located in the floodplain and that a Special
Flood Hazard Area permit is required. The applicant was directed
to meet with the City Engineer's staff on the floodplain issue.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
Mark Townsend was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility Comments
3. There is to be no outside storage of materials or
merchandise.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
June 27, 19j5
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4246-B
NAME: Pulaski Academy - Conditional Use
Permit - Time Extension
LOCATION: 12701 Hinson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Pulaski Academy/Sally Bowen
PROPOSAL: Three to five year extension of a
previously approved conditional use
permit which allowed for the use of
three temporary classroom
buildings.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On June 30, 1992, Pulaski Academy received Planning Commission
approval of an amendment to their conditional use permit.
Included in this amendment was a new 10 -year Master Plan and
three temporary classroom buildings. Due to funding,
construction did not begin until June 1994.
On August 9, 1994, the Planning commission approved the continued
use of the three temporary classroom buildings for a period of
one year or until the first building phase was completed. The
new science and fine arts center was completed in April 1995.
During this time, enrollment has continued to increase. Since
the building program is running two years behind schedule, the
applicant is requesting continued use of the temporary classroom
buildings until the building program can catch up.
Rather than rush into the next phase of the 1992 Master Plan, the
applicant is considering alternatives, including relocating part
of the school to another site. However, this is not an approved
plan yet and the applicant desires to continue use of the
temporary buildings for a period of three to five years, until a
direction is set.
Staff feels that the continued use of the temporary buildings for
a limited time is reasonable however, staff would prefer to see
that use limited to 3 years, not 5 years as requested by the
applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a three year extension to allow for
the continued use of three temporary classroom buildings.
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4246-B
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
briefly discussed the status of the site and the 1992, 10 -year
master plan.
The Committee determined that a three year extension would be
appropriate but that a five year extension would not.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
Sally Bowen was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of
approval of a 3 year extension allowing for continued use of
three temporary buildings.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and a three year
extension was approved. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
0�
June 27, 1995
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: G-25-169
Name
Location:
Hardin Road - Street Name Change
Hardin Road, north of Financial
Center Parkway
Petitioner: Various property owners represented
by John Rees
Reauest•
Abutting Uses and Ownerships:
To change the name of Hardin Road
to Financial Centre Court
Five properties front onto Hardin Road. Of those five,
Amerisuites and Citizen's Bank take their address from Financial
Center Parkway. The offices of the U.S. Geological Survey has a
Hardin Road address. Mr. Rees is nearing completion of a new
office building which will have an address on Hardin Road. The
remaining, undeveloped tract is on the corner and could take an
address from either street.
Neighborhood Effect:
Changing the street name at this time will affect only one of the
five abutting properties, the U.S. Geological Survey. The street
is a relatively short dead-end street and changing its name
should have a minimal effect on the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Position:
Four of the five abutting property owners have approved the
request.
Effect on Public Services:
One street sign will need to be changed. All utility companies
and the Fire Department have approved the change.
Staff Analysis•
The request is to change the name of Hardin Road to Financial
Centre Court to more closely align it with Financial Center
Parkway.
Hardin Road is a relatively short, dead-end street which extends
north off of Financial Center Parkway. There are 5 properties
which front onto the street, only one of which currently has a
Hardin Road address. Representatives of 4 of the properties have
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-169
agreed to the name change. This does not include the one
property which has an address on Hardin Road.
No opposition to the proposed name change has been voiced by any
of the reviewing agencies or departments.
Staff recommends approval of the request to change the name of
Hardin Road to Financial Centre Court.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. John Rees had been present
earlier but left the meeting prior to discussion of the item.
There were two objectors present. A third objector had also left
the meeting prior to the item being discussed. Staff informed
the Commission that prior to leaving the meeting, Mr. Rees had
stated it was alright by him if the Commission deferred or
withdrew the item.
Robert Ludwin, representing the United States Geological Survey,
addressed the Commission in opposition to the street name change.
He stated that the USGS was the only entity which currently had a
Hardin Road address. Mr. Ludwin stated that they would incur a
substantial cost in reprinting if the address was changed. He
concluded by stating that the applicant was not willing to share
in the reprinting cost.
A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved
with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
�A
0
cc
U
W
W
F --
O
Z
O
o�
U
O �
Z
z
z
LCL
R.
a
N
w
F-
C)
01111111111
uni
allummillall
11111mommall
M11111111111
8I10000OO110m
e..0000v0000�
o.lawanooKom
voov�,v�ov
oiiniv�vv��►'i�
immom
Ninon
slommum
eaoauvunonn
MEN
cnunuouovuu
offlonuuuuennou
o
i
uuuauumiuv
oCi°e�aovuu■iaOrin
ammunrimalMR
mounnon�
ogo
onougumuulluu
Nuunoauow
ouounoounnu
000�o�uu�d�
N
m
0.
Fq-
N
m
Q
z
LU
m
�r
Lo
w
Q
z
6
uni
N
m
0.
Fq-
N
m
Q
z
LU
m
�r
Lo
w
Q
z
6
June 27, 1995
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
/Date
mcmwmn�i