HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 21 1995subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 21, 1995
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 1995
meeting were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Brad walker, Chairman
Suzanne McCarthy
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ramsay Ball
Bill Putnam
Doyle Daniel
Pam Adcock
Joe Selz
Ron Woods
Diane Chachere
Mizan Rahman
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 21, 1995
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
III. Presentation of the Consent Agenda
IV. Presentation of Hearing Items
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Next Month's Meeting Dates:
Filing Date: February 27, 1995
Planning Commission Meeting: April 4, 1995
Subdivision Committee Meeting: March 16, 1995
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 21, 1995
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Leatrice Ann Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5 -24 -NN)
B. Revocation of McCrary -- Short -Form Planned Residential
Development (Z-5108)
C. Alltel Cellular Tower, Southedge Drive Site -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z-5906)
D. Lewis Street Church of Christ -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5931)
E. Candlewood Re -Zoning - R-2 and R-4 to MF -12 and OS
(Z-1791-8)
F. Amendment Package - Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Chenal Valley Addition, Lot 74 -- Preliminary Plat
(5 -867 -PP)
2. Replat of Parcel "B" of the Amended Plat of Robinwood --
Preliminary Plat (5-1049)
2a. Ardoin Industrial Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5-1051)
III. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS:
3. Hunter's Green -- Long -Form Planned Development -Residential
(Z -4587-A)
4. Hermitage Road Business Center -- Amended Short -Form Planned
Office Development (Z -5583-A)
5. Westergard -- Short -Form Planned Development -- Residential
(Z-5946)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
6. Capitol City Packaging, Inc. -- Site Plan Review
(Z-4555-8)
Page 2
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
7. Jarrett Barber Shop -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -1976-A)
8. Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z -3454-A)
9. George Jett's Gas and Service Station -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z -5843-A)
16. Global Interdenominational Revival Center -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z -5874-A)
11. U -Haul of Arkansas -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5944)
12. Looper Office/Warehouse -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5945)
13. Champagnolle Park -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5947)
14. St. Paul United Methodist Church Day Care Center --
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4942-A)
15. Harris Book Store -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5948)
VI, OTHER MATTER•
16. Amend the City Master Street Plan for 32nd Street from Fair
Park to West Campus
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
NAME: LEATRICE ANN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Beyond the present end of Beckingham Road, Huntleigh
Dr., and Westport Loop.
DEVELOPER:
A. S. ROSEN AND ASSOCIATES
9101 Rodney Parham
Little Rock, AR 72205
223-0647
AREA: 22 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS:
ENGINEER:
WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
364-1666
83 FT. NEW STREET: 2,937.5
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a revised preliminary plat for a 22 -acre
tract which is in an area for which a preliminary plat was
previously approved, known as West Port Subdivision; West Port
Subdivision being in an area which was, prior to that, included
in a preliminary plat known as Hillsboro, Phase IX. The new
subdivision, Leatrice Ann subdivision, proposes to increase the
density of the area from 62 lots to 83, but the street layout is
to stay substantially as proposed and approved in the West Port
Subdivision preliminary plat. (The applicant notes that clearing
and grading for the streets and placing of some of the utilities
were undertaken in the past according to the originally approved
layout, and it is more feasible to work with the layout on which
construction was begun than to propose a revised layout. Lots
which were, in the West Port Subdivision, 90 and 100 feet in
width have, in the Leatrice Ann layout, been decreased to 60 and
65 feet.) The total length of new streets to be constructed in
the plat remains as was originally approved at 2937.5 feet. The
area is zoned R-2, and the applicant proposes that homes in
Leatrice Ann subdivision are to have a minimum floor area of
1,800 square feet for single -story dwellings and 2,000 square
feet for two-story homes. No variances are requested.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for
Leatrice Ann subdivision is requested. No variances are
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. There are
perhaps parts of two lots which are fairly level; however,
the majority of the area is extremely hilly, with grades
predominantly ranging from 12 to 26 percent.
The current zoning of the area is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) the grades indicated on the
streets exceed the maximum permitted by Code; 2) Sidewalks
will be required on Westport Loop, but are not shown on the
plat; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required; a grading permit
will be required; 4) street plans, stormwater detention, and
boundary survey requirements will be required; and, 5) the
area designated as a private drive must be widened to 24
feet; provide a minimum 10 foot radii at the private drive
and the street interface.
Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges,
an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area.
Water main extensions will be required. Each lot obtaining
service must have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on the
right-of-way from which it is served, or a private street
must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements at the
boundary of the subdivision and at a number of internal lot
lines.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department approved the preliminary plat without
comment.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 31-87 of the Subdivision Regulations require the
application to provide the following information which has
not been noted: the type of the subdivision being proposed;
the name and address of the owner of record, and the source
of title of the ownership; any existing and proposed
covenants and restrictions; the average size of lots and the
minimum lot size; and the source of water supply and the
means of wastewater proposed.
Sec. 31-89 of the Subdivision Regulation requires the
preliminary plat to provide the following information which
has not been shown: the names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision, with the plat book and
page number or instrument number; the names of owners of
unplatted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision, and the
names of all owners of platted tracts in excess of 2 1/2
acres; the zoning classifications within the plat and of
abutting areas; and the location of proposed PAGIS
monuments.
Sections. 31-367 through 31-376 of the Subdivision
Regulations requires that, when areas of a plat have an
average grade of 18% or greater, the Hillside regulations
are applicable. This requires, among other things, larger
lot sizes. An analysis of the subdivision for the
applicability of these standards has not been supplied.
It is noted that eight lots on the north side of Westport
Loop are shown to face a private drive, and that two lots at
the north end of the Huntleigh Ct. cul-de-sac show access
easements for their access to the cul-de-sac. Water Works
indicates that, for lots to receive water service, each lot
obtaining service must have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage
on the right-of-way from which it is served, or,
alternatively, the Planning Commission may approve a private
street to serve the lots. Sec. 31-;231 of the Subdivision
Regulations provides that: "Every lot shall abut upon a
public street, except where private streets are explicitly
approved by the Planning Commission.', Sec. 31-207 states:
"Private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission.... The design standards shall conform to public
street standards.... Private streets are permissible only
in the form of culs-de-sac and short loop streets, and only
when ... these streets can be adequately served by all public
service vehicles...." The application must include a
request of the Commission that a private street be allowed,
or the plat must be re -designed to provide public streets to
serve all lots. The lots off the north end of the Huntleigh
Ct. cul-de-sac must either be shown as pipestem lots (for
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
the required frontage on the right-of-way), or the area must
be re -designed so that each lot has the required frontage on
the public street. (In the R-2 zoning district, the minimum
frontage for lots is 60 feet, pursuant to Sec. 36-254 of the
zoning Regulations.) Sec. 31-232(8) states that pipestem
lots are prohibited in residential subdivisions; therefore,
either the design for the area must be changed to eliminate
the suggested pipestem lots, or a waiver of the prohibition
on pipestem lots must be sought. Such a waiver must be
approved by the Board of Directors.
Section 31-231(b) states: "No residential lot shall be more
than three (3) times as deep as it is wide. There are four
lots to the east of the Beckingham Rd. extension which
exceed this limitation. Either the lots must be made wider
so that the ratio is maintained, or, alternatively, the
depth of the lots could be shortened, and the remaining area
to the west shown as a "Tract", the maintenance of which
would have to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance.
The private drive for access to the rear of eight of the
lots on the north side of Westport Loop is extremely narrow
and steep. Sanitation trucks may not, as the drive is
designed, be able to use the private drive for garbage pick-
up. Public Works suggests that the "T" design be changed to
a loop design, and that the radii at intersections be
minimums of 20 feet.
E. ANALYSIS•
An analysis of the area pursuant to the Hillside regulations
has not been provided; therefore, staff is unable to
determine the maximum number of lots permitted in the area,
nor the minimum size of lots which will be necessary to meet
the requirements. From reviewing the contours provided on
the plat, even without the Hillside regulations analysis, it
can be presumed that much of the area will fall under the
Hillside regulations, and that these regulations will
require 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. The plat,
then, proposes too many lots and lots which are too small.
The applicant requests no waivers or variances; yet, the
design will require waivers from the pipestem lot
restriction, or a re -design; a variance from the
requirement that lots be no more than three times as deep as
they are wide, or a re -design; and, a variance from the
Commission to permit a private street to serve a number of
the lots.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the public hearing on this item be
deferred until the required information is provided and a
new plat has been submitted, then reviewed by the various
utilities and departments and the Subdivision Committee.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters & Associates, was present.
Staff outlined the request and reviewed with Mr. Daters the
comments contained in the discussion outline. The comment
regarding the requirement for an analysis of the plat area for
conformance with the Hillside provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations was discussed. Mr. Daters reported that the area
proposed to be platted had previously been proposed as a
preliminary plat with substantially larger lots; that the
location of the streets and some of the lot lines was set due to
some of the utilities already being in place. Staff indicted
that much of the area will have to conform to the Hillside
regulations, which will require a minimum lot size of at least
10,000 square feet; therefore, at least some of the lots which
are proposed are too small. Mr. Daters responded that he may
delete the area affected by the Hillside regulations from the
current application, and leave the area which is not affected by
these regulations in the current preliminary plat application,
allowing him time to do the required Hillside regulations
analysis. The Public Works staff indicated that it would be
better for garbage truck access to the steep lots if the common
access drive made a loop, instead of a "T". The Neighborhoods
and Planning staff related that, if a private street system is
proposed to serve the lots off Westport Loop, then the applicant
must specifically request approval by the Planning Commission for
the private street. It was also noted that the lots must be
served by a private street, meeting the requirements for a
street, and not be a private drive. It was noted that the lots
at the end of the Huntleigh Ct. cul-de-sac could not be served
with private drives; that, if the configuration of the lots were
not changed, then pipestem lots would be required, and that a
waiver of the pipestem lot restriction would have to be requested
and approved. The Subdivision Committee members confirmed with
Mr. Daters that the revised information would be forthcoming, and
that all deficiencies noted in the discussion would be remedied.
The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
A
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc.,
representing the applicant, asked that the item be deferred until
the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1995. He
indicated that, by that time, the applicant would be ready to
proceed, or the item would be withdrawn.
Dr. A. J. Zolten submitted a petition containing the names of
persons who are in opposition to the proposed re -platting of the
site. He spoke in opposition to the proposed re -plat, saying
that the property owners in the Westport Subdivision had bought
their lots with the developer's assurance that the area now being
developed as Leatrice Ann Subdivision would be developed as part
of Westport Subdivision, and would be under the Bill of Assurance
of Westport Subdivision. He supported the applicant's request
for a deferral, and indicated that the neighboring property
owners needed time to meet with the Leatrice Ann developers.
Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, explained that the area
encompassed by the Leatrice Ann Subdivision is not part of an
area covered by an existing Bill of Assurance, and that the Bill
of Assurance for Westport Subdivision did not govern the type
development in the Leatrice Ann area. He explained that, as long
as a proposed subdivision meets the City Subdivision and Zoning
regulations, the Planning Commission cannot deny approval because
of considerations for whether the lot or dwelling sizes may not
be compatible with the other development in the area.
A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the item
until the February 21, 1995 Commission meeting, and the motion
carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and
0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that a letter, dated February 16, 1995, had been
received from the project engineer, asking that the item be
withdrawn from consideration by the Commission. The item was
included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and the withdrawal
was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
0
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5108
NAME: REVOCATION OF MCCRARY -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 1401 S. Pulaski St.
DEVELOPER•
Carlton McCrary
1401 S. Pulaski St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.16 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD APPROVED USES: Single -Family Residence and
Research and Development
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT• 7
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND AND REQUEST:
On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a PRD for
the restoration of an unused firehouse structure. The structure
contained approximately 3,300 square feet on each of its two
floors. The upper level was to be used for the applicant's
residence. On the lower level, approximately 40 percent of the
area in the former fire equipment garage was to be used for
research and development of a "Tag -a -long Stroller", an invention
being developed by the applicant. On January 3, 1989, in
Ordinance No. 15,618, the Board of Directors approved the PRD.
In June of 1993, a complaint was received that the owner/original
applicant in the PRD was repairing automobiles on the PRD site.
Subsequent to that, Zoning Enforcement officers noted that the
owner, Mr. McCrary, was collecting antique automobiles and
restoring them on the property. Cars with dealer tags have been
noted. The Zoning Enforcement personnel have a copy of an
application for from the Arkansas State Police for a used motor
vehicle dealer license for I. I. Inc./Tony McCrary Motors,
located at 1401 S. Pulaski. The license and the accompanying
insurance and surety bond are for I. I., Inc., dba Tony McCrary
Motors, 1401 S. Pulaski St. The Arkansas State Police inspection
report states that the "Place of business is used primarily for
the sale of used motor vehicles"; that there is a "sign
identifying the business as a used motor vehicle dealership which
is legible from the street"; that there is a "telephone number
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5108
listed in the name of the business; that the dealer has a
license; etc. This report is dated August 12, 1994.
Mr. McCrary has been given a warning notice by the Zoning
Enforcement Officer and has been notified that the car dealer and
repair activity is not in compliance with his approved PRD. He
has failed to respond to the communications from the
Neighborhoods and Planning staff, except to state that he
contests the assertions by the inspector.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action to
recommend revocation of the PRD to the Board of Directors, and
that the zoning of the property revert to its former C-3 status.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reported
that Mr. McCrary had been notified that the requested revocation
had been placed on the agenda for the November 29, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting, and that the Subdivision Committee meeting
was to be held on November 10. Staff reviewed the information
concerning the apparent violation of the PRD zoning with the
Committee members, and the Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff presented the request from Zoning Enforcement to revoke the
applicant's PRD; however, the applicant nor anyone to represent him
was present. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item
until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried
with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that the Zoning Enforcement Division is pursuing
enforcement of the alleged violation of the terms of the PRD in
Municipal Court, and staff recommended that the item be deferred
to the February 21, 1995 Planning Commission agenda, pending the
outcome of the Court hearing. The deferral was approved with the
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that the Mr. McCrary had filed an application
staff for the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. McCrary
be seeking approval of an amendment to his PRD to permit the
continued uses of the PRD which were cited by the Zoning
Enforcement Division as not being permitted in his existing
2
with
will
PRD,
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5108
and which prompted the enforcement action to be undertaken.
Staff recommended deferral of the revocation of Mr. McCrary's PRD
pending the outcome of his request to amend his PRD to permit the
uses to be included as a permitted use in the PRD. The item was
included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and
0 abstentions.
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-5906
NAME:
LOCATION•
Alltel Cellular Tower - Southedge
Drive Site Conditional Use Permit
1100 Southedge Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Alltel Mobile Communications of
Arkansas by Tracy Gill
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 100 foot tall,
monopole cellular tower on this
MF -24 zoned property. Associated
with the tower is an unmanned 28
foot by 17 foot equipment shelter.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the north side of Southedge
Drive, one block north of Rodney Parham Road and directly
west of the Spring Meadows Apartment Complex.
2. Comoatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed tower site is in an area of mixed zoning and
uses located along the north side of Rodney Parham Road.
The properties fronting onto Rodney Parham are primarily
zoned C-3 and contain a variety of commercial uses.
Behind these, and separating them from the single-family
residential neighborhood to the north, is an area of
multifamily zoning containing several apartment complexes.
The proposed tower site is shielded from the residential
neighborhood to the north by an apartment complex.
The Treasure Hill neighborhood, to the south, is separated
from the tower site by the commercial development on Rodney
Parham. The proposed 100 foot tower should not have a
negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site will be reached by a 15 foot access easement off of
Southedge Drive. Parking is provided at the tower site for
the service technician who will occasionally visit the site
for maintenance purposes. No other on-site parking is
required.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5906
4.
5.
M
7.
LIM
Screening and Buffers
The base of the tower site will be enclosed by an 8 foot
tall, wood privacy fence. Where adjacent to the apartment
complex, the tower site and parking space will be further
screened by planting 5 foot tall, evergreen shrubs.
City Engineer Comments
Access to the site must be taken through Lot 10, which is
occupied by the apartment complex. No new driveway will be
allowed onto Southedge Drive at this point.
Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a sewer main
extension with easements will be required if sewer service
is necessary. The Fire Department requires the driveway to
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The site only has a 15 foot
access easement to Southedge Drive.
Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole tower on this
MF -24 zoned site. The proposed tower site is shielded
somewhat from the nearest single-family neighborhoods by a
two-story apartment complex and by commercial development
along Rodney Parham Road.
Staff feels that the proposed 100 foot tower is a reasonable
use for this site and is supportive of the request, however
one important issue must be resolved prior to the Planning
Commission acting on this matter.
During the initial review of this application, it became
apparent that the small piece of property on which the tower
lease area is located was illegally subdivided from the
larger property on which the apartment complex is located.
This was later confirmed by the applicant.
In light of this development,
appropriate to defer action on
subdivision issue is resolved.
Staff Recommendation
staff feels that it would be
the proposed tower until the
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the property is
properly subdivided.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5906
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
informed the Committee that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting. A
subdivision application will be filed for that same meeting. The
Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting in order to
address the subdivision issue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a
second deferral, this time to the February 21, 1995 commission
meeting. The applicant is continuing work to resolve the
subdivision issue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the February 21, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Randal Frazier was present representing Alltel. Staff informed
the Committee that the Board of Directors will consider a waiver
of the Subdivision regulations to permit approval of a final plat
of this lot at their February 7, 1995 meeting. Assuming the
Board approves the waiver, this would resolve the subdivision
issue and staff's recommendation will be approval, subject to the
base of the tower site being screened from the adjacent multi-
family property.
After a discussion of the surrounding zoning and uses, Mr. Frazier
was urged to bring photographs or drawings depicting the design of
the proposed tower. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5906
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Randal Frazier was present representing Alltel. Several
individuals were present in opposition and many letters opposed
to the tower had been received by the Planning Staff. Staff
advised the Commission that the applicant desired to withdraw the
application. Mr. Frazier concurred. The item was placed on the
Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (Ball).
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-5931
NAME:
LOCATION•
Lewis Street Church of Christ -
Conditional Use Permit
2716 South Lewis Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lewis Street Church of Christ by
Robert James
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 60 foot by 100
foot multi-purpose building on this
existing, R-3 zoned church site.
The building will primarily have an
open floor plan, providing an
indoor basketball court that can
also be used for other church
activities and gatherings.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Lewis Street Church of Christ is located on the west side of
Lewis Street, 1 Block north of Asher Avenue.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
A church has existed at this location for many years. The
church property is located on the fringe of a large, single
family neighborhood. Properties north and west of the
church site are primarily zoned single family residential.
The properties to the east and south, fronting onto Asher
Avenue, are of mixed zoning and contain uses ranging from
offices to retail and light manufacturing. The proposed
mutli-purpose building will not affect the church's
continued compatibility with this neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing 540 seat auditorium was constructed in 1961-62.
At that time, the Little Rock Board of Adjustment approved a
parking variance allowing 24 on-site parking spaces rather
than the 54 required by the Ordinance Standard in effect at
that time. The church plans to place some new on-site
parking around the proposed multi-purpose building. The
church has an agreement from the owner of a large parking
lot across Lewis Street allowing church members to use the
parking lot. This proposal before the Planning Commission
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5931
does not generate the need for additional parking since the
seating capacity of the worship area is not being increased.
A three year deferral of the requirement to pave the parking
lot around the new building is requested.
4. Screening and Buffers
Buffers of 9 1/2 feet in width (6 1/2 feet minimum with
transfer) are required along Lewis Street and along the
western perimeter of the proposed development. The
Landscape Ordinance requires 6 feet in these areas. A
6 foot high opaque wood fence or dense evergreen plantings
are required adjacent to the residential property along the
western section. The Landscape Ordinance requires that 6%
of the interior of the vehicular use areas be landscaped and
a 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public
parking and building be provided (some flexibility with the
building landscape requirement is allowed). Protective
borders to protect plantings from vehicular traffic will be
necessary.
5. City Engineer Comments
The following are required prior to the issuance of a
building permit:
1. Contour information for the site along with sketch
grading and drainage plan.
2. Drainage easements, stormwater detention and sidewalk
3. Dedicate right-of-way on Lewis Street to 25 feet from
centerline.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
Lewis Street Church of Christ seeks approval of a
conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a
60 foot by 100 foot, multi-purpose building on this R-3
zoned property. The new building is proposed to be
constructed on vacant property located south of the existing
church building. This vacant property has been used as an
unimproved parking area by some of the church members over
the years. As part of this project being proposed by the
church, the property around the multi-purpose building is to
be developed into a proper parking lot which meets City
Standards. The church is asking a three year deferral of
the requirement to pave this parking area around the
multi-purpose building. Based on an agreement with the
0a
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5931
owner of a large parking lot across Lewis Street, the Board
of Adjustment approved a parking variance in 1961. That
agreement has been renewed with the current owners of that
large parking lot, Rush Engineer Rebuilders.
The church is located at the southern fringe of a large
residential neighborhood and is located in an area of mixed
zoning. Staff believes that the proposed multi-purpose
building will not have a negative effect on the adjacent
neighborhood and is supportive of the request.
The addition of this proposed new parking adjacent to the
multi-purpose building will bring the church closer to
compliance with the City's parking requirements. Staff
supports the requested three year deferral of the
requirement to pave this parking area. The required
screening, where adjacent to residential property, should be
installed at this time.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
and compliance with the City Engineer's Comments.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested three year
deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot adjacent
to the multi-purpose building. The required screening,
where adjacent to residential property, should be installed
at this time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
outlined the Landscaping and City Engineer Comments noted above.
After brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were
no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to
follow procedure in notifying adjacent property owners and
recommended that the item be deferred to allow for proper notice.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
February 21, 1995 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
r
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5931
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
informed the Committee that the notices had been sent in
compliance with the required procedure.
After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there
were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the
notices had been sent in compliance with the required procedure
and that there were no other outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and
compliance with the City Engineer's Comments. The Commission
also approved the requested three year deferral of the
requirement to pave the parking lot adjacent to the multi-purpose
building subject to the required screening being installed at
this time.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: E Z -1791-B
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Char -Beck Trust
R. Wingfield Martin
Candlewood Area (North of the
Kroger on Hwy. 10)
Rezone from R-2, R-4 and R-5
to MF -24 and OS
Multi -Family
131.82 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
South
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2 and R-5
East
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
West
- Vacant
and
Single -Family,
zoned
R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The area under consideration, 132 acres, is currently zoned
R-2, R-4 and R-5. The request is to rezone the acreage to
MF -24 and OS along a majority of the perimeter of the site.
The land area is situated east of Pinnacle Valley Road,
north of Hwy. 10 (directly north of the Kroger Center) and
west of the Candlewood Subdivision (the end of Rivercrest
Drive). The current zoning was approved in 1965 and 1966.
In 1984 a PRD was filed for the land, but the plan was never
finalized.
The surrounding zoning is primarily R-2. Directly to the
south, there are some R-5 and 0-2 tracts. There is some
commercial zoning, C-3 and PCD, along Hwy. 10. Land use
includes single family and commercial. As with the zoning,
the commercial uses are found adjacent to Hwy. 10, including
the Kroger development and a commercial center on the south
side of Hwy. 10.
At this time, the adopted land use plan identifies the
entire site for single family use, and does not even
recognized the existing R-5 zoning. Based on the previous
zoning action and the property's location, it appears that
increasing the amount of land for multi -family is
reasonable. However, without seeing more specifics about a
development concept and the land, it would be somewhat
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: E Z -1791-B (Cont.)
premature to establish an overall density of 24 units per
acre. A number of issues, such as topography and
circulation, need to be looked at to determine the
appropriate density for the site or if a MF -24 density is
too high for the area. Another concern that needs to be
reviewed is the land use plan and whether a plan amendment
is justified. There are too many questions that need be
answered before a rezoning of 132 acres to MF -24 can be
considered. Staff's position is that the item needs to be
deferred to give the city and the applicant more time to
study the area and the site.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is in the River Mountain District. The recommended
land use is single family. The proposed density is too
high, while some multifamily may be appropriate, a blanket
zoning is not. Due to the nature of the site, additional
information should be required as to the location,
arrangement and number of units.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Engineering is recommending that the dedication of any
right-of-way occur through the plat or as part of a site
plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request be deferred to allow the
applicant to submit additional information and/or a plan for
the development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994)
At the beginning of the hearing, staff informed the
Commission that the applicant agreed with deferring the item
and requested a 60 day deferral. There were several
interested individuals in attendance and they did not object
to the deferral.
The item was added to the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 28, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. (The Planning Commission action also waived the
bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five
working days prior to the hearing.)
2
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: E Z -1791-B (Cont.)
UPDATE
Representatives of the owner, Char -Beck Trust, and the staff
met to discuss various issues associated with this rezoning
request. During the meeting, it was suggested that MF -12
would be a more appropriate density for the area. The
applicant has submitted a letter and is amending the
application from MF -24 to MF -12 for the R-2 and R-4 areas.
The existing R-5 will remain and an OS buffer will be
established through rezoning action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred for at least 30 days. As part of the
Consent Agenda, the issue was deferred to the August 9, 1994
hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The
Planning Commission also waived the bylaw provision
requiring 5 day written notice for a deferral.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994)
The request was represented by Herb Rule. There were 6
objectors in attendance. Staff reminded the Commission that
the application had been amended to MF -12 and OS for the R-2
and R-4 areas with a minimum 150 foot OS area and no zoning
change for the two existing R-5 locations. Staff then
indicated basic support for the MF -12 and OS proposal.
Staff then recommended MF -12 for the R-5 site in the
southeast corner of the property and increasing the OS to
200 feet adjacent to the lots on Rivercrest.
Herb Rule spoke and discussed.the property's ownership and
gave some history. Mr. Rule told the Commission there was a
pending offer and the impact would be minimal because of a
reduction in the overall density. He continued by reviewing
previous planning efforts for the property and described the
site in detail. Mr. Rule also responded to a question about
access and presented a graphic showing a conceptual street
layout. He also offered some comments about the Master
Street Plan.
Rita Daniel, a 20 year resident of the area and past -
president of the homeowners association, then addressed the
Planning Commission. Ms. Daniel discussed the issue of the
Highway 10 Plan and traffic impacts from a multifamily
development. She told the Commission that the neighborhood
had met with the applicant and representatives of the owner.
3
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: E Z -1791-B (Cont.
Ms. Daniel also made some comments about the proposed
buffers and the existing R-5 areas. Ms. Daniel then
informed the Commission that the neighborhood would like to
continue to talk to the applicant, but they were opposed to
the current request.
Gary Hendershott spoke against the proposed rezoning and
said it would cause problems for the area. Mr. Hendershott
said the rezoning was inconsistent with the adopted plan and
the surrounding neighborhoods. He said the property has
potential for single family development and also described
the scenic quality of Highway 10. Mr. Hendershott then
reviewed and discussed some of the neighborhood's concerns
and they included:
• a drop in real estate values
• noise pollution
• environmental impact
• quality control
• crime
He also said that the rezoning would have a negative impact
on the neighborhood.
Donna Williams talked about the area and possible impacts on
the environment. Ms. Williams went on to discuss problems
with a multifamily development and said she was opposed to
the requested MF -12 rezoning.
Joseph Story read a letter into the record and said the
neighborhood voted to oppose the rezoning.
Jan Butenschoen, representing the River Valley Property
Owners Association, spoke against the rezoning and said the
residents were opposed to the multifamily rezoning.
Gary Hendershott spoke again and said there were no details
on the development concept. Mr. Hendershott said that
having a plan to review would provide an increase level of
comfort.
There was a lengthy discussion about various issues
associated with the request.
Comments were offered by several commissioners and
Commissioner Putnam said he was concerned with the lack of
information.
Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
discussed the site and location of the buildable land.
Herb Rule then introduced Mike Berg, a realtor.
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO • E Z -1791-B (Cont.)
Mike Berg then spoke and said that he was representing the
potential developer and the proposal was for "high-end"
apartments. Mr. Berg went on to say there would be one
access point into the property and security was an issue.
He then discussed traffic issues and said the development
would be of the highest quality. Mr. Berg also presented a
conceptual elevation of the project.
There was some discussion about the PRD process.
Herb Rule spoke again and made some comments about site plan
review and utilizing a PRD. Mr. Rule also said that a
multifamily development was the highest and best use of the
land. Mr. Rule then suggested that a deferral would
probably be appropriate. Mr. Rule also said that the owner
would agree to rezoning the southern R-5 site to MF -12, as
recommended by the staff.
There was a long discussion about the site and the PRD
process.
Herb Rule then requested a deferral of at least 60 days.
The Planning Commission voted to defer the item to the
October 18, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
The applicant was present. There were no other interested
parties in attendance. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred for a minimum of 4 months to give the owner adequate
time to develop a plan, address all the issues and to
resubmit the request as a PRD. The owner's representative
agreed to the deferral, and the issue was placed on the
Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to defer
the item to the February 21, 1995 meeting. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B. Putnam). (The
Commission also waived the bylaws to allow the rezoning
request to be deferred for more than 90 days.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request to
withdraw the rezoning issue. As part of the Consent Agenda,
the item was withdrawn without prejudice. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
5
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: F
SUBJECT: Public hearing on the 1994 Annual Ordinance Amendments
for Zoning and Subdivision
REQUEST: That the Planning Commission receive comments from all
agencies, citizens and organizations and formulate a
recommendation to the City Board of Directors.
HISTORY•
Preliminary - This package of amendments was developed over the
later months of 1993 and offered to the full commission on
January 25, 1994 for comment. The Commission added several items
for discussion and directed staff to close the list. Richard
wood, of Staff, outlined the tentative work schedule for the
project and advised the Commission that due to the 1993 package
extending to February 1994. This work would possibly extend into
1995.
On February 8, the staff presented the revised list that was to
be distributed to the mailing list. The Commission directed that
staff and Plans Committee begin work.
PHASE I
This phase was initiated February 11, 1994 by the mailing of
approximately 45 copies of the material to the mailing list
requesting comment.
The Committee through several work sessions developed the
amendment package working with staff and some comment from
contacts.
The Committee completed Phase I and placed it on the April 5
commission agenda. The Commission accepted the work and placed
it on hold for later public hearing. This package consisted of
eight (8) areas of change. Phase II package was mailed to
contacts on May 2, 1994.
PHASE II
The Committee through several work sessions developed the
amendment language working with staff and some comment from
contacts. This package completed on July 2, 1994. The Committee
placed this item on the commission agenda for July 12, 1994. The
commission accepted the work and placed it on hold for later
public hearing. This package consisted of thirteen (13) areas of
change.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
Phase III was then mailed to contacts on August 2, 1994.
PHASE III
The Committee through several work sessions developed the
amendment language working with staff and some comment from
contacts. This package was completed in October and set for
commission agenda November 1, 1994. The Commission accepted the
work and placed it on hold for later public hearing. This
package consisted of six (6) areas of change. Phase IV was
mailed to contacts on October 4, 1994.
PHASE IV
The Committee through several work sessions completed Phase IV
and the last of the proposals. The package was completed on
January 10, 1995, and set for commission hearing on February 7,
1995. At that meeting, staff will offer the entire amendment
package in ordinance form for public hearing. Again a mail
notice will be sent to all persons on the contacts list advising
them of the hearing date. A copy of the discussion outline will
be included with a request for comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995)
Chairman Walker recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for
purposes of introducing this item to the public hearing. Wood
identified the package and that this was a public hearing for
purposes of adopting this year's annual ordinance amendments.
Wood pointed out that there were 55 changes in this material and
they could be presented to the Planning Commission in several
ways.
Chairman Walker suggested that the best approach would be to
allow members of the Commission or persons in attendance to come
forward and raise individual issues with which they are concerned
or involved.
The first question was posed by Commissioner Adcock. Her
question concerned an item at the bottom of page 4 of the
ordinance amendments. This proposed change dealt with the
allowable space outside for display for seasonal and temporary
sales. Wood explained that the 50% factor in that paragraph is
admittedly a large number. However, the types of stores which
typically have this type of display are not of the Wal-Mart
character and would typically have less than this amount of
displayed merchandise.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F (Cont.)
Commissioner Adcock expanded on her question by asking why the
significant increase. Wood responded by saying that this was a
response to the tremendous ongoing enforcement problem with
outdoor display.
Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment. He felt the
Commission has not had this long enough to go through all the
various sections and subsections and digest all of the material
presented.
In response to Commissioner Putnam's concern, Chairman Walker
suggested that this public hearing could simply be a working
session to hear all comments and that a vote on the matter be
deferred until the next scheduled meeting. Staff indicated that
this arrangement would be acceptable.
The Chairman then confirmed that this would be a working session
only and that the public hearing would be deferred to February 21
for the final vote.
For purpose of clarification of the structure of this package,
Wood pointed out to Commissioner Putnam and the commission that
the amendments structure allows an individual to place this
package beside their current copy of the ordinance. By looking
at each subsection and the numbers included beside it, be able to
make a comparison of that regulation in the book versus what is
purposed.
Wood expanded on Commissioner Putnam's question concerning
subsection (p) by stating that we were simply changing
nomenclature and going from plant sales to temporary sales
outside, which was a more inclusive term and covered more than
vegetation.
Chairman Walker and Commissioner Putnam briefly discussed the
format and annual review procedure. Wood provided additional
comments concerning the annual review process: who is involved,
what is involved and those actions that lead to today's public
hearing.
There being no further comments or questions from the members of
the Commission. The Chairman then asked if there were those
persons present with questions and specific items in this
package.
Stephen Giles, the Deputy City Attorney, indicated that he had
several questions once others had completed their comments.
There were several persons in attendance that indicated they had
comments. The first of these was Kathleen Oleson. Ms. Oleson
came forward and identified her position relative to representing
the Pulaski County League of Women Voters. Her comment dealt
9
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • F (Cont.)
with the concerns of the League with the expansion of the time
and amount of outdoor display which this ordinance amendment will
permit. She had several comments relative to how these kinds of
activities impact the concaunity in a visual fashion. She offered
comments concerning the effects of the recent banner ordinance
adoption and the kind of effects that it had on local street
systems and neighborhoods.
Her comments indicated that the League was concerned about the
impact of banners and outdoor displays and such as that on recent
gains in landscaping and other site treatment about the City.
Ms. Oleson was questioned as to what specific item within this
package was of concern. She indicated that it was the same
material that Commissioner Adcock had questioned that dealing
with the expansion of display area as well as the length of time
and the manner in which it could be displayed.
Richard wood, of the Staff, reported that one of the primary
reasons for the introduction of this amendment was to align
outdoor sales or promotional events with the banner provisions,
which are currently included in the ordinance. This allows the
banner to be on the property a greater period of time than the
actual promotional event.
The Chairman then recognized Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney,
for purposes of several comments. Giles' comments dealt with
conditional use permits and the circumstances where a denial of
the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Board. He
indicated that there were some questions concerning whether or
not items of evidence submitted at the Board level could be dealt
with at that time if they had not been reviewed by the Planning
Commission during its public hearing process. Giles indicated
that there had been some discussion at the Board level about
limiting the introduction of additional materials, reviewing only
that information on materials that was presented in the Planning
Commission hearing.
Giles stated that he was opened to suggestions or comments on
this matter from the Commission and that modification of some
language in this package could accommodate the needed changes.
Giles indicated the appropriate location to introduce such
language modification as he proposed would be on page 1 of the
ordinance draft. Giles then moved to a second area which he
desired to comment on. This is located on page 3 of the
ordinance draft. Mr. Giles pointed out in paragraph b in
subsection (h) there was some language there that bothered him
somewhat as to construction. He stated that this is the kind of
language that he occasionally encounters when reading through the
ordinance and likes to make changes when he feels that it is
appropriate to clarify the intent of the language within the
paragraph.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
In this instance, Mr. Giles pointed out that in the fourth line
the words "more restrictive classification" was somewhat
confusing. He felt like that the rest of paragraph is
understandable and is workable. However, these three words can
cause confusion. Giles introduced two words in place of these
three, instead of "more restrictive classification"; he suggested
inserting two words "less intensity" ending the sentence at that
point.
Mr. Giles then moved to his next and last item which was on page
6 of the ordinance under subsection (y), paragraph c. Mr. Giles
pointed out that in this paragraph there are several words which
he would like to change to avoid misunderstanding and to make the
paragraph read better. He indicated in the first sentence, the
second line the word "finds." He feels like there are better
words to serve the intended purpose. He stated that the words
"reasonably believes" inserted for the word "finds" would work
better in this sentence. Additionally, the agenda reference to
his or her opinion he felt that could be eliminated in "its
entirety once reasonably believed" is inserted above. These
words makes the sentence read better.
Following Mr. Giles' comments, Chairman Walker suggested that for
purposes of the conditional use permit modification that he
needed to delay that until the next years' annual review package
in as much as there had not been public discussion or offering
for comment from others.
Richard Wood offered a comment concerning the delay of this item.
He stated that for purposes of obtaining input from outside
sources, the general public, professionals and others that this
package of materials in several forms have been mailed four or
five times this year. On each occasion requesting other persons
to become involved and comment on the suggested changes. He
stated that although mailing this again might be the requirement
of law to serve that particular need, practically speaking, it
would probably be a waste of postage.
Giles offered that his feelings on the subject were that if
conditions were placed on the appeal process that it would put
more of a burden on the applicant to present its case more
strongly at the Planning Commission level instead of introducing
matters at the City Board level that the Planning Commission had
not dealt with.
Commissioner Woods then offered a comment that he would have a
problem with restricting someone from developing additional
information unless you let them return to the Planning Commission
with that.
Stephen Giles then inserted a comment about a special meetings to
consider additional information that not previously heard by the
5
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission might hold
a special called meeting to re -introduce the case and the new
material. After being referred back from the Board or prior to
going to the Board. Giles stated that the whole case is
developed at the Planning Commission level and what is reviewed
by the Board is the appropriateness of the Commission's action.
Commissioner Chachere questioned whether or not it would be the
Board's decision to send it back to the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Chachere's question about who would
make the decision to return the matter to the Commission. Giles
pointed out that it could possibly be a role of the staff.
Commissioner Daniel then offered his comments on items that are
presented to the Commission and then are presented to the Board
of Directors in a somewhat different fashion. He stated that he
like the idea of issues coming back to the Planning Commission if
additional information and support of the application is
developed.
After additional comments involving the Chairman and Stephen
Giles, the question was posed as to whether or not we want to
move this item to the 1996 Amendment Package and delete it from
these proposals. Staff offered that deferral of the issue would
perhaps be until 1996 in as much as a 1995 package has not been
proposed. Comment closed without specific resolution of the
point. The point being to withdraw the item from this package.
Chairman Walker then recognized Marie Dougan, representing Little
Rock Municipal Water Works. The comments offered by Ms. Dougan
centered upon the subsection (ww), which in this draft of the
ordinance remains blank. She understood that it has to do with
the proposal to modify the .DXF diskette format for PAGIS) and
final plats. Wood stated that because there was the expanded
text of this provision of ordinance attached to the back of the
package and the specific subsection is blank at this time, this
subject is open for discussion and no resolution is offered.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that there were a couple
of gentlemen here earlier with Mr. White who he felt would
address the subject. However, Mr. Joe White remains in the room
and perhaps will offer some commentary.
Prior to Mr. White offering his commentary, Richard Wood offered
a little background on this subject. He pointed out that for a
number of months he had attempted to gain the involvement of the
engineering and land survey community in as much as that group of
professionals had offered problems attached to the filing of
diskettes. Wood stated that he had received little or no input
from that community. As recent as 3 weeks ago, a letter was
R.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
mailed to all the design professionals involved in this
requirement with the response being zero.
Wood stated that at this time he still does not understand the
total problem and would appreciate the development community
would coming forward to identify the subject matter. This staff
does not propose to offer changes in as much as our office and
Public Works do not desire to change the code.
After a brief discussion between the Chairman, Commissioner
Putnam and Richard Wood of staff, Joe White was invited to come
forward and offer his comments on the subject.
Mr. White begin his comments by stating that he had no problems
with the requirement currently existing in the ordinance.
Mr. White indicated that some others in the development community
had told him that they had problems with it. He offered to meet
them at the meeting today and help them discuss the matter.
However, they have not put in an appearance.
Mr. White then added a comment that he did have a problem with
another issue that is included with this ordinance. This problem
is dealing with the final platting arrangement and the assemblage
of all small -lot filings within a single overall plat. Before
Mr. White offered his comment, he asked a question of the
Commission as to what precipitated this ordinance amendment. The
Chairman asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to respond.
Wood offered a lengthy explanation of the involvement of the
County Assessor's Office and others and attempting to remedy the
problems associated with filing lots one, two or three at a time
without a follow-up plat encompassing all of the lots and streets
that are filed of record.
Wood pointed out that the record system at the courthouse is in
disarray because there are no overall plats of many subdivisions.
He further indicated that creates a terrific amount of additional
Paperwork in his office as well as the assessor's office.
Attempting to keep track of all these developments.
Wood pointed out that most of the engineering firms dealing with
large subdivisions work from a computer base and it occurred to
him that if this is developed over a period of time, eventually
the computer could simply be asked to print out an overall plat
of the subdivisions encompassing all of the previous phases.
Joe White offered commentary on what he perceived to be some of
the problems attendant to trying to make this ordinance amendment
work. He indicated several subdivisions with which he has some
familiarity that have filed plats of record, one lot per
occasion. He indicated what he thought was some of the legal and
7
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.
physical constraints as well as changes in engineers and
ownerships over a period of years.
There were several options then for remedying the perceived
problem. These were offered by Mr. White and by the Chairman,
Mr. Walker. Richard Wood, of the staff, offered brief comments
on what he perceived to be the staff's problem with this current
type of filing approach.
Commissioner Willis then suggested a new approach to the problem
that being the filing of the preliminary plat of record at the
courthouse when the first phase of lots were placed of record.
This point was discussed at length by several commissioners as
well as Mr. White. It was suggested that perhaps it might be in
order to pull this item from this year's amendment package and
delay it until a later time in order to allow additional work on
the language and review of the problems.
Chairman Walker then recognized Commissioner Rahman. He
identified Mr. Rahman as being a professional engineer and
perhaps having some insight into this problem. Commissioner
Rahman indicated that he felt this was not a problem. The
Committee has discussed it at length in the work sessions. He
felt that the problems identified attendant to the process in
this amendment can be worked around or with to accomplish the end
product.
Commissioner Rahman said that his feelings were that if a single
engineer had worked on so many phases of a subdivision more than
one lot or more. Increments that he should be able to combine
those lots and place them of record.
Chairman Walker then iden'Cified what he felt was impossible
entanglements or legal questions concerning who filed a combined
plat after some of the lots have been sold and they were in
various holdings. Chairman Walker pointed out that it may be
that the Commission needs an additional time period to work with
staff and others toward resolving the questions attendant to this
request.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, stated rather than accomplish a
quick fix he would rather see the item pulled from this package
for later disposition.
Chairman walker asked Marie Dougan, of the Little Rock Water
Works if she had further comments on this subject. She offered
that not to the specific discussion held. She felt like that the
record should reflect an overall boundary survey of the
subdivision at some point because these fragmented and one lot
filings do not produce the public record with the overall
boundary of the preliminary plat.
L
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.
The discussion then moved to the possibility of the first final
plat being filed with a boundary which will encompass the entire
preliminary plat identifying all of the unplatted portion as a
tract or lot for future development.
Joe White then offered comments in support of those expressed by
Marie Dougan and the Chairman. The Chairman then suggested it
looked like it was appropriate to pull this item from this
package at this time. Chairman Walker took this opportunity to
offer an idea concerning the entire Planning commission acting as
a committee as opposed to a five -person body reviewing these
proposals apart from the balance of the Commission.
Chairman Walker then asked if there were additional questions
from others concerning these amendments. Commissioner Putnam
made a request of staff as to what was being accomplished with
the subsection dealing with Hwy. 10 and Chenal Overlays. Richard
Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that not a single word
was being changed in the text as currently adopted by the City
Board. The only modification in the code is that these two
overlay districts are being codified for the first time and
brought into the zoning ordinance where they should have been
placed initially. They were adopted by the City Board as
freestanding ordinances which makes it somewhat difficult to keep
the materials in a single resource location.
Richard Wood then introduced another item that he wanted some
support or clarification on from the City Attorney. This had to
do with a two page addendum to the ordinance amendment package
which was a follow-up to the PUD Ordinance rewrite. Wood asked
of Stephen Giles whether the City Attorney's Office desired to
continue their press for inclusion of the eight new P.U.D. and
PD -Districts within theses amendments.
Mr. Giles offered comments to the effect that his office needed
to follow-up on the legal action involving the National Home
Center on Hwy. 10. Wherein our ordinance was challenged as to
single use. Mr. Giles added additional commentary regarding the
structure of the revised P.U.D. and PD standards. He identified
for the Commission what the 8 districts mean and the new form.
Mr. Giles closed his comments by saying that it was not a big
deal to include these but that he felt it would serve consistency
and yes, he needed them on the ordinance.
Wood then stated that his presentation was concluded. The
Chairman then pointed out that assuming the Commission accepts
his direction and that a vote on this proposal is deferred for
two weeks until the next meeting. He would hope that this item
would be placed on the agenda as the first item as a deferred
matter.
0
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.
Kathleen Oleson at this point injected a question and asked for
clarification of a point concerning the planned industrial versus
planned district industrial. Mr. Giles, of the City Attorney's
Office, stated that he could respond to her question. He offered
some history again of the modification of the ordinance to follow
through on the decision in the Pfeifer case. He clarified the
difference between a P.U.D. district being multiple use and a PD -
,District means single use.
Chairman Walker in the absence of further comments from the other
commissioners or others in attendance, he asked for a motion on
the proposal to defer the item vote until the meeting on the 21st
of February. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a
vote of it ayes, 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Chairman Walker then identified Item "F" on the agenda for
continuation of public hearing. This item was deferred from the
last Planning Commission meeting on February 7. The deferral was
in order to allow additional review time for various parties
involved.
To begin the hearing, a question was posed to staff concerning
the issue raise at the last meeting about the amount of building
facade area utilized as the ground coverage allowable for open
display. The question was asked, "If this number was not
excessive and why change it?" Richard Wood, of the Staff,
responded by saying that he had reviewed the item and had
determined the conversation at the last meeting was wrong. There
is not a change in the percentage of building facade.
The current 50% of facade area has existed in the ordinance since
the initial adoption. Wood further expanded the comment by
stating that the typical single retail outlet would have a
building facade area that would not be significant in size and
that 50% of that building facade would not be an excessive amount
of ground coverage.
The discussion then moved to a question which was identified by
Chairman Walker. The question originated with Mrs. Kathleen
Oleson representing the Pulaski County League of Women Voters.
Mrs. Oleson's question dealt with an item on page 13, which
indicated a change of responsibility from the Planning Commission
to the Board of Adjustment for purposes of hearing variances to
the floodplain regulations, setbacks specifically from the
floodway. She offered some concerns as to the line of
responsibility.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded to the question by stating
that this was not a change in direction in the ordinance, but was
10
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.)
a change in the ordinance to address current procedure. The
Board of Adjustment currently has this authority; however, this
ordinance had the Planning Commission installed in that position.
Therefore, there is no change in the practical application of the
regulations.
Mrs. Oleson then moved to a second question which has originated
'from the amendment proposal dealing with Bill of Assurance and
the removal of staff from the position of approving or
authorizing the filing of certain Bills of Assurance. After
presenting several concerns related to the staff removing itself
from the approval processes, Mrs. Oleson stated that primary
concern was notice to property owners within a subdivision that
such a modification might be occurring. Also, their interest in
this matter should be protected by some type of notice procedure
to assure that their interests were provided for.
Richard Wood and Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office,
both offered responses to Mrs. Oleson's concerns. The general
response being that the City's involvement and the Bill of
Assurance is limited to those items set forth in the ordinance,
especially for the creation of new lots in a subdivision. The
particular concern is that on such cases as building line
modifications by the Board of Adjustment that the City is not in
a position to require someone to gain certain percentages of
property owners' signatures and file amended Bills of Assurance.
Practically speaking, in many cases this cannot be done by an
applicant due to the volume of property owners involved in a
large plat, in some instances opposition from other property
owners. The process of the variance is a public hearing process
which does bring into play notice to adjacent property owners.
It was pointed out to the Commission that the staff has been -
working with Mr. Giles' office to create a stamp which would be
included on Bill of Assurance amendments that was submitted for
our review_. The stamp simply stating those things which the City
has some concern or responsibility for and those things which we
are not approving or authorizing by signature.
It was further pointed out to the Commission that all applicants
that approach the staff for a building line waiver or variance
from the Board of Adjustment are instructed thoroughly as to the
problems they may encounter in dealing with an amended Bill of
Assurance. They are advised that we will process the paperwork
for the revised plat after approval by the Board of Adjustment,
but the Bill of Assurance concern becomes one for them to
resolve.
Mrs. Oleson then introduced her third comment concerning this
amendment package which had to deal with the process. She
outlined for the Commission what she understood was the typical
review process involving a committee. Certain timeframes for
11
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION -
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.
introducing certain elements to the Commission and then later
public hearings. All of these various steps involve the public
through various mailings and notice. The primary concern in this
comment had to do with the Planning Commission typically placing.
these ordinance amendments at the bottom of a public hearing
agenda which means that there are heard late in the day when
everyone involved is tired and ready to leave; therefore, the
amendments are hurriedly dealt with and acted upon.
Many times the Commission determines that a full presentation of
the items is not necessary; therefore, those interested parties
who watch and follow planning commission meetings over a
television channel are not availed of the opportunity to know
what is going on. Mrs. Oleson pointed out that the last
Commission meeting on this year's package of amendments is a
typical example in that there has never been a full presentation
by the staff of all the amendments and what they affect,
presented to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Walker then addressed the issue. He responded to Mrs.
Oleson's comments by saying that he takes her comment to be
supportive of the new approach by the Planning Commission which
will require all committee level discussions to involve all of
the commissioners in a hearing format before the cameras.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, then responded to the previous
comments by stating that a rewrite of the Walker procedural
guideline under which the Commission and staff has been operating
the last four or five years will require a rewrite. Wood stated
that the procedure would be totally different and that he will
prepare such a reconstruction of the outline and provide that for
the Commission.
In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Wood pointed
out that he would still be bringing the amendments to the
Commission in small increments, perhaps four or five per each
occasion and have a full hearing'on each of those before
proceeding to the next.
Chairman Walker then asked for a vote on the item which is on the
floor for consideration, being Item "F" of the agenda. A motion
was made to approve the 1994 Amendment Package as revised and
presented to the Commission. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
12
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5 -867 -PP
NAME: CHENAL VALLEY ADDITION, LOT 74 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the south side of and approximately 1,000 feet east
of the present end of Champagnolle Drive, south of Chenal Parkway
in Chenal valley.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Jack McCray Joe White
DELTIC FARM AND TIMER CO., INC. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
#7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72221 Little Rock, AR 72201
821-5555 374-1666
AREA: 5.14 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1004
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Neighborhood Park
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 5.14 acre tract in
order to develop a neighborhood park for property owners in
Chenal Valley. Since the site is beyond the present limits of
the current Chenal Valley development in an area which has not
been platted, the proposed preliminary plat includes a strip of
land to be used for right-of-way for the extension of
Champagnolle Dr. to the park site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for a
neighborhood park site is requested. No variances from
applicable regulations are proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The site lies
approximately 1,000 feet east of the present edge of the
Chenal Valley development, south of the proposed extension
of Champagnolle Dr.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -867 -PP
The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The R-2 district
extends to properties to the east, south, and west. A large
0-2 zoning district lies to the north, north of the proposed
alignment of Champagnolle Dr.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) the Master Street Plan will
require construction of a sidewalk along the Champagnolle
Dr. right-of-way; 2) street plans, stormwater detention, and
a boundary survey will be required; and, 3) a sketch grading
and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186,
is required.
Water Utilities comments that a water main extension will be
required. An acreage charge of $300 per acre, in addition
to the normal connection fees, applies. (5.14 acres @
$300/acre = $1,542.00)
Wastewater Utilities comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements along
the east and west property lines.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff notes that:
1) Sec. 31-87 of the Subdivision Regulations requires the
following information, which has not been supplied, to
be included in the application for preliminary plat
review: a) the type of subdivision which is being
proposed is to be identified; b) the name and address
of the owner of record is to be furnished; c) the
source of title is to be shown; d) any existing and the
proposed covenants and restrictions are to be
identified; e) the proposed source of water and the
means of wastewater disposal is to be reported; and, f)
any variances and/or waivers are to be requested; e.g.,
if a waiver from the requirement to provide a turn-
around at the end of Champagnolle Dr. is to be sought,
a request for the waiver must be made by the applicant.
2) Sec. 31-89 of the Subdivision Regulations requires, in
addition to the information submitted, the following
items be included on the preliminary plat drawing: a)
contours are to be shown on the plat; b) the proposed
street design is to be shown, and the location of
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -867 -PP
sidewalks is to be designated; c) the minimum front
building setback line is to be shown; d) natural
features (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded
areas, etc.) and cultural features (streets, bridges,
culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission
lines, easements, park areas, structures, city and
county lines, section lines, etc.) are to be shown; e)
a storm drainage analysis for any watercourses entering
and leaving the site is to be supplies; f) the date of
the survey is to be noted; g) a preliminary storm
drainage plan is to be provided; h) the names of
recorded subdivision abutting the proposed subdivision
(with book & page number, or instrument number) or the
names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the
proposed subdivision, and the names of all owners of
platted tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres are to be
shown; i) the zoning classifications within the plat
and abutting areas is to be shown; j) the certification
that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for
record in the offices of the state surveyor and the
Circuit Clerk within the last 7 years is to be provided
and executed; k) the certificates of preliminary
surveying accuracy and preliminary engineering accuracy
are to be executed; 1) a preliminary Bill of Assurance
is to be provided; and, m) the location of proposed
PAGIS monuments are to be shown.
3) Sec. 31-202(c) of the Subdivision Regulations requires
that, in the case of temporary dead-end streets, the
planning commission may require a temporary easement
for a turnaround. The need for a turn -around may or
may not be applicable at the temporary dead-end of
Champagnolle Dr. There will be a park drive and the
parking area which can provide a turn -around, unless
the park drive is to be closed off to the public when
the park is closed or is not in use. If the drive and
parking area will be available to the public for a
turn -around, the temporary turn -around may not be
needed. The developer may want to request that the
planning commission not make a temporary turn -around a
requirement if the park drive and parking lot will be
available to serve this purpose; otherwise, the
temporary turn -around should be required.
4) Sec. 31-202(d) requires the developer furnish an
information sign indicating that the dead-end is
temporary. The developer needs to be prepared to
furnish this sign.
3
.February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -867 -PP
E. ANALYSIS:
The plat furnished by the applicant is in the format of a
final plat, in stead of being in the required format for a
preliminary plat. This accounts for the majority of the
deficiencies in the information furnished on the plat. The
needed preliminary plat information and a drawing -in the
proper format must be furnished. Any waivers or variances
which the applicant wants to request must be noted.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat,
subject to the applicant furnishing the required information and
the drawing being provided with the required exhibits and
information. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the
developer providing a temporary turn -around if the park drive
will be available for the public to use as a turn -around;
otherwise, the temporary turn -around should be provided.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters & Associates, the project
engineer, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Daters
outlined the request, and staff presented the discussion outline
information. The Committee reviewed the plat and the discussion
outline, and asked Mr. Daters for his response to the written
comments. Mr. Daters indicated that a proper preliminary plat,
in lieu of the plat in the final plat format, would be submitted.
The committee discussed the need for a temporary turn -around at
the end of Champagnolle Dr., since there would be the possibility
of a gate to limit access to the park when the park is closed.
Mr. Daters indicated that he would discuss with the applicant
whether access to the park would be limited, or whether the park
drive could be used by the public for a turn -around. He would
then, depending on the applicant's instructions, report to the
Commission on whether a temporary turn -round would be needed, and
whether a waiver would be requested. The Committee forwarded the
proposal to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that a revised site plan had been submitted which
provides for a space between the edge of the Champagnolle Dr.
pavement and the proposed park gate which will provide an
adequate space for vehicle turn -around. Staff recommended
approval of the requested wavier of a separate temporary turn -
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -857 -PP
around at the end of Champagnolle Dr. Staff reported that there
were deficiencies which remain: the drawing which has been
submitted in a final plat format in lieu of the preliminary plat
format, and required preliminary plat data and information has
not been supplied. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary
plat, subject to the applicant furnishing the required
preliminary plat information contained in the agenda "write-up".
Approval of the requested turn -around waiver and the preliminary
plat was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval and was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
5
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1049
NAME: REPLAT OF PARCEL "B" OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF ROBINWOOD
-- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Beyond the south end of Foxcroft Rd., lying between
the existing Foxcroft and Robinwood Subdivisions.
DEVELOPER•
Robert Hardy and
John A. Davis, III
#5 Collins
Industrial Place
Maumelle, AR 72113
758-5553
AREA: 6.5508 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ENGINEER•
James L. Phillips
BLAYLOCK, TREET, PHILLIPS AND
ASSOCIATES, INC.
1501 Market Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72211
224-3922
NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 650
PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
None
The applicant proposes the replat of a 6.5508 acre tract,
designated as Parcel "B" in the Robinwood subdivision, in order
to develop six single-family residential home sites.
Additionally, there are two sites designated as "tracts" which
are to be set aside as not developable. The building sites are
to range in size from just over .05 acre to nearly 1.25 acres,
with the average size being approximately 0.80 acres. The two
tracts are 0.33 acre and 0.47 acre. The alignment of the present
southern end of Foxcroft Rd., at the northeast corner of the
plat, controls the alignment of the Foxcroft Rd. extension into
the property, and, along with the steep grades of the property,
limit the location and number of buildable lots. The two
unbuilable tracts, notes the applicant, are the result of these
limitations, and they are proposed be sold to abutting property
owners. The applicant proposes: a) to construct a 4 foot wide
sidewalk abutting the back of the curb, in lieu of the required 5
foot wide sidewalk in such locations; 2) to provide an "in -lieu"
contribution for stormwater detention, since the project is
within 3,000 feet of the Arkansas River and on-site detention
facilities would, he suggests, delay runoff and complicate other
upstream drainage; and, 3) a 15 foot front building setback line.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission
of a preliminary plat for the development of a previously
platted tract in the Robinwood subdivision. Approval by the
City Engineer for providing a 4 foot wide sidewalk abutting
the back of the curb, in lieu of the required 5 foot wide
sidewalk which is required in these types of location, is
requested. Approval by the City Engineer for payment of an
"in -lieu" payment for the required on-site stormwater
detention facilities is requested, due, according to the
applicant, to the Arkansas River being within 3,000 feet of
the project site and on-site detention facilities possibly
delaying runoff and complicating other upstream drainage.
The applicant requests approval of a 15 foot front building
setback line. No variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The site is
extremely hilly; the average slope on the site is 270.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, and the zoning of
all surrounding areas is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a sketch grading and drainage
plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required,
and that a grading permit will be required.
Public Works notes that a 4 foot sidewalk adjacent to the
curb and in -lieu for Stormwater Detention were approved by
the City Engineer as requested by the applicant.
water Utilities comments that a water main extension will be
required.
Wastewater Utilities will require a sewer main extension,
with easements.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff notes that:
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1049
1) Sec. 31-87 of the Subdivision Regulations requires
that, in addition to the information supplied, the
source of water supply and the means of wastewater
disposal be indicated.
2) Sec. 31-89 of the Subdivision Regulations requires
that, in addition to the information supplied, the
following be shown: a) natural features (drainage
channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and
cultural features (streets, bridges, culverts, utility
lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements,
park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) are to be
shown; b) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage
data for all watercourses entering and leaving the
boundaries is to be provided; c) a preliminary storm
drainage plan incorporating proposed easement
dimensions and typical ditch sections is to be
supplied; d) the zoning classification(s) within the
plat and abutting area is to be shown; and, d)
certification is to be provided that the plat has been
surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of
the state surveyor and the Circuit Clerk within the
last 7 years.
3) Sec. 31-371 permits, where grades exceed 18%, front
building setbacks of 15 feet. The applicant has
requested the 15 foot setback. Since the average grade
is 27'x, exceeding the 18% criterion, the requested
building setback is permissible.
4) Sec. 31-232(e) states that side lot lines shall be at
right angles to the street right-of-way line, or be
radial to curving street lines, and adds that
deflections from a true tangent shall be avoided.
There is one lot line, the north line of Lot 6, which
fails to meet this standard. The applicant, however,
has noted that there is a rational basis for the
location of the line as shown: that it is an extension
of the fixed north property line of existing Robinwood
lots; that it is a common property line with an
undevelopable tract; that, by locating the property
line as shown, needed additional area is provided to
Lot 6 to meet the minimum lot size required by the
Hillside Subdivision regulations; and, because of the
grades, access to Lot 6 needs to be taken as far to the
north, adjacent to the location of the lot line which
is shown, as possible.
5) The plat shows Tracts A & B, and the proposed Bill of
Assurance indicates that these are not to be buildable
lots. The Bill of Assurance must provide for their
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049
maintenance (e.g., by permitting their sale or by
providing an entity to be responsible for the
maintenance).
6) Sec. 31-361, the Hillside Subdivision regulations,
requires an analysis by the developer for the
determination of the maximum number of lots and the
minimum lot sizes. The applicant has submitted the
information indicating that the area is subject to
these regulations, and has indicated that the maximum
number of lots is six, and the minimum lot size is
22,000 square feet. The development is in compliance
with the Hillside Subdivision regulations.
E. ANALYSIS•
The development is in substantial conformance with the
Subdivision Regulations. There are only minor deficiencies
in the submitted information. The standard that side lot
lines be perpendicular to the front lot line, or be radial
to curving streets, is a modification of a design standard
issue which the Commission may grant when there is
justification for the modification. The applicant has
furnished information justifying the needed modification.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and of
the requested design standard modification for the side lot
line of Lot 6.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Robert Hardy, one of the applicants, and Mr. James Phillips,
the project engineer, were present. Staff described the proposed
development, and Mr. Phillips outlined the history of the site
and the proposal. The Committee reviewed with the applicant and
the engineer the information furnished in the printed discussion
outline. Mr. Phillips indicated that he would furnish the needed
information. There was a brief discussion of the two tracts
which have been proposed. Mr. Hardy indicated that he would
probably offer to sell the tracts to the abutting property owners
to the north. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-1049
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff outlined the proposal, and reported that the applicant had
met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for a
preliminary plat. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary
plat.
Mr. Jim Phillips, the project engineer, was present.
Mr. Phillips indicated that, because of the topography of the
site, the site will be difficult to develop, but that the
proposed preliminary plat met all applicable requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Dr. Jim Wilson, who resides in a home which backs up to the
proposed development area, spoke in opposition to the
development. Dr. Wilson indicated that there are 12 properties
which abut the proposed development, and he was speaking for the
property owners of each of these. Dr. Wilson stated that he had
a petition signed by 20 persons who are owners of the 12 lots,
and that all of the owners are in opposition to the proposed
development. He said that the petition covers three areas of
concern; that the first two areas are Bill of Assurance issues,
and, that, although he realized such issues are outside the
Planning Commission's area of responsibility, he wanted to place
the developer on notice of the opposition of the abutting
property owners. He stated that the proposed development is on
ground that was designated in the Robinwood Bill of Assurance as
a "green space", and that each of the persons who bought property
abutting the site bought the property with the assurance that the
parcel, designated as "Parcel B 1" would remain a green space,
and located and oriented their homes under that assurance. He
stated that the Robinwood Bill of Assurance requires certain
minimum lot sizes, and that the lot sizes proposed in the
development are smaller than those required by the Bill of
Assurance. He maintained that the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations pertaining to Hillside developments had not been
properly applied to the planning and design of the proposed
development; specifically, that the total number of "lots
whether they are called lots or tracts should not exceed 6,
instead of having 6 lots plus 2 tracts. He stated that, since
the provisions of Sec. 31-232(e) require side lot lines to be
perpendicular to a right-of-way line, or radial if the right-of-
way is curved, the side lot line of Lot 6 is not in conformance
with the Subdivision Regulations; that if the side lot line of
Lot 6 is made to conform to the regulations, the lot size would
be reduced, and Lot 6 would not meet the minimum lot size
required by the Hillside regulations.
Dr. Wilson said that he had wanted to express his and the
neighbors' position at the Subdivision Committee meeting, but had
5
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1049
been told that his first opportunity to have input was as the
Planning Commission hearing. He said that the developers make
their "pitch" at the Subdivision Committee meeting, without the
neighbors being able to be present. He said that he understands
that the Committee then makes its recommendation to the
Commission, and that the Commission generally follows the
Committee's recommendation; and, that, by the time the neighbors
have input, their opposition is futile. He said that the
Commission should apply the Regulations "even -handily". He asked
that the proposed subdivision be rejected, or, at least, its
approval be deferred until the Bill of Assurance issues are
resolved.
Chairperson Walker, responding to Dr. Wilson's comments regarding
the Subdivision Committee meetings and role, stated that the
Subdivision Committee reviews the applicant's plans and
submittals for completeness and in view of compliance with the
technical requirements of the Regulations, and that the Committee
meeting is an opportunity for members to preview the application
and enhance their familiarity with the proposal. He stated that
observers are always welcome at any meeting of the Commission or
its Committees, but that comments from others than the applicant,
Committee members, and staff are permitted only with specific
approval of the Chairperson. He related that, like the Board of
Directors Agenda meeting, comments by observers is extremely
limited. He said that the Commission would hear all information
presented by all involved, and make its decision based on that
information.
Staff pointed out that the Subdivision Committee does not make a
recommendation to the Commission.
Chairperson Walker added that the staff makes the recommendation
based on its review and based on the proposal's compliance with
the Regulations. He asked staff if the two issues, one regarding
the Hillside Regulations and the other regarding the side lot
line of Lot 6, had been resolved.
Staff responded that the development was in full compliance with
the Hillside Regulations; that the applicant's calculations had
been reviewed; that the Hillside Regulations require deduction of
the street right-of-way and areas set aside for "green space";
and, that there is a distinction in the Regulations between
"lots" and "tracts". Staff responded that Sec. 235 permits side
lot lines to be adjusted from perpendicular or from being radial
"if a variation will give a better street or lot plan or (will)
allow better utilization (or better) conservation of energy."
Again, staff stated that the proposed preliminary plat meets all
the technical requirements of all applicable ordinances, and
approval of the preliminary plat was recommended.
0
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049
Mr. Don Hamilton spoke in opposition to the proposed development.
He stated that he owned a lot to the southwest of the proposed
development and lives in a home on another lot. He said that he
wanted to echo Dr. Wilson's objections, and said that it is not
equitable for the developer to utilize an area that has been set
aside as a "green space" for years for a speculative development
which will affect adversely the existing homes' value and the
homeowners' quality of life. He, reiterating Dr. Wilson's
contention, stated that the Hillside Regulations will permit only
6 divisions of the acreage, and that the developer is proposing
8 divisions of the land; that the developer cannot call 6 of the
divisions "lots" and 2 others "tracts". He stated that he had
not been provided a copy of the calculations to verify how the
developer had arrived at the maximum number of lots to be
permitted or their minimum size pursuant to the Hillside
Regulations, and made the request that he be provided a copy of
these calculations. He said that the development should be
compatible with the existing development; that the existing
homeowners are due that consideration.
Mr. Phillips explained that the total actual acreage of the site
is 6.55 acres, more or less; and that, based on the Hillside
Regulations, each lot is to be a minimum of 22, 000 squarer feet
(or, roughly, 1/2 acre), and that since there is over 6 acres,
the Hillside Regulations would permit 12 lots. Because of the
geometry of the site, placing the street in the location demanded
by the slopes causes 2 of the tracts to be inaccessible and,
therefore, undevelopable, and the location of the drainage area
limits the number of lots to the 6 which are shown. Responding
to the contention that the lots are not in conformance with the
minimum lot sizes required in the Robinwood Bill of Assurance, he
said that the minimum lot size required in the Robinwood Bill of
Assurance is 15,000 square feet, in contrast to the 22,000 square
foot minimum being proposed.
In response to questions from Commissioners Ball and Putnam and
Chairperson Walker, staff explained that maintenance of the
undevelopable tracts will have to be provided for, either in the
Bill of Assurance or by their sale; that they will not be
maintained by the City.
Commissioner Daniel recommended that the request be deferred,
since the applicant has not met with the neighborhood, and
recommended that such a meeting be held, or, at least, that such
a meeting be offered.
Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson cautioned the
Commission that the proposal is for a subdivision, and that if a
subdivision meets the City's Regulations, it is not a matter
which can be negotiated. Input from and negation with the
neighborhood is not a requirement for approval, he said. The
7
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1049
Robinwood neighborhood, Mr. Lawson related, is the neighborhood
which attempted to influence the Planning Commission to impose
development standards on a new abutting subdivision so that the
new development would be in keeping with the character of the
existing Robinwood neighborhood, and this resulted in the City
being sued which resulted in the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling
that the City may impose only the City's Subdivision and other
applicable regulations; that the City may not impose other
standards.
Commissioner Putnam pointed out that all the neighbors apparently
know of the proposed development, since they are present, or are
represented.
Mr. John Davis, the applicant, related that he and his partner,
Mr. Robert Hardy, are not real estate developers; that they both
had been looking for building sites on which to build homes, and
had been made aware of the subject tract. It was listed with a
Realtor, he said, and, in fact, the adjoining property owners had
made an offer on the land. He and Mr. Hardy, according to the
Realtor's report to them, had made a better offer, and it was
accepted. He took exception to the idea related by Dr. Wilson
that he and Mr. Hardy had "slipped around" to buy the land. He
said that, if the tract is part of an official "green area,,,
neither he or Mr. Hardy were aware of it. He added, in response
to Mr. Hamilton's complaint about the inequity of usurping the
neighbors' "green area", that it was certainly inequitable for
the abutting property owners to assume they could retain the
"green area" without buying it, and that the cost of buying it
was minuscule in relation to the value of the homes and
properties of the neighbors. He reported that he and Mr. Hardy
had, on their initiative, visited with a number of the abutting
property owners, but that none of the neighbors had taken the
initiative to contact them. He asked that the request be acted
on by the Commission, and not deferred.
Commissioner Willis asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles if the
Commission could require additional neighborhood meetings.
Mr. Giles indicated that as long as the notification requirements
had been met, at least on a subdivision issue, the Commission may
not impose additional requirements. Questions of
"compatibility", in a subdivision matter, are not applicable. He
cited the Richardson case, involving the Robinwood neighborhood,
which resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that the City cannot
impose standards other than those included in the Subdivision and
other applicable regulations. All the Planning Commission may do
in a subdivision issue is determine that all the applicable
standards are met. He said, however, that, on zoning matters,
neighborhood meeting are appropriate and needed, and should be
encouraged.
E:7
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1049
Dr. Sam Welch, a neighboring property owner, explained that,
indeed, the neighbors had made an offer on the tract; that he had
written a check, personally, for the earnest money; that the
Realtor had returned within an hour of their tendering their
offer to report that another offer had been accepted by the
seller; that their offer had been within 10% of the accepted
offer; that the timing of the second, higher, offer being within
an hour of their making an offer seemed "fishy" to him; and, that
they had not had an opportunity to make a counter offer. He said
that the developers had, indeed, contacted a number of the
abutting property owners, and had indicated that they might be
able to buy lots or tracts behind their homes. He said that he
would like for action on the matter to be deferred until this
could be investigated.
Chairperson Walker asked for comments from the Commission members
regarding the suggested deferral.
Commissioner Daniel reiterated his suggestion that the applicant
request a deferral, and said that, if the applicant did not seek
a deferral, he would vote against the approval of the preliminary
plat.
Chairperson Walker asked Mr. Daniel if he could take Mr. Daniel's
comments as a motion for deferral.
Commissioner Daniel responded, "No." Any deferral, as far as he
is concerned, he said, is up to the applicant.
Chairperson Walker cautioned Commissioner Daniel about basing his
vote on matters other than those which can be substantiated by
the applicable ordinance provisions. He said that Mr. Daniel's
statement may make the applicant make a decision regarding his
application for a reason which cannot be justified by the
Regulations.
Deputy City Attorney Giles advised that the Commission may defer
an item "for cause".
Chairperson Walker called for a vote on deferral of the item, but
the deferral failed with the vote of 3 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent,
and 0 abstentions.
A motion was made and seconded to
The motion carried with the vote
0 abstentions.
approve the preliminary plat.
of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 2a FILE NO.: 5-1051
NAME: ARDOIN INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: On the west side of South Shackleford Road,
approximately 0.4 mile south of the Colonel Glenn Road
interseciton
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Pete Ardoin Pat McGetrick
c/o James Osborne MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
CENTRAL STRUCTURES COMPANY 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
P. 0. Box 95031 Little Rock, AR 722111
Little Rock, AR 72295 223-9900
376-3694
AREA: 4.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 396
ZONING: I-1 PROPOSED USES: Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Access to property to be gained from an
existing private street in an access easement.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision, with access to the
proposed interior lot, Lot 2, to be by way of an existing private
drive in an access easement which is to abut the south boundary
of the proposed subdivision. The east property line of the
subdivision and of the proposed Lot 1 abuts Shackleford Road, and
Lot 1 is proposed to have frontage on both Shackleford Road and
the private drive.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for the
proposed subdivision is requested. Approval by the Planning
Commission for use of an existing private drive and an
access easement for access to the subdivision is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared in preparation
for construction on Lot 2.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1051
The existing zoning of the site is I-1. The Little Rock
Waterworks plant property abuts the site on the south and
west, and it is Little Rock Waterworks which developed the
private street which abuts the south boundary of the
proposed subdivision, and which owns the property on which
the access easement is proposed to be provided. The Little
Rock Waterworks tract to the south and west is zoned I-1, as
is the tract across Shackleford Rd. to the east. Abutting
the site to the north is R-2 property.
C•. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) dedication of right-of-way
along S. Shackleford Rd. to provide a minimum of 45 feet
from the centerline of S. Shackleford Rd. and construction
of one-half of a 60 -foot street section pursuant to Master
Street Plan standards for a minor arterial roadway will be
required; 2) a 20 foot radius will be required at the
corner of S. Shackleford Rd. and Waterworks Dr.; 3) evidence
must be provided of the right of access to the site from the
private drive and access easement; 4) a sidewalk will be
required along the Waterworks Dr. frontage of the site; 5)
an easement will be required for proposed stormwater
detention facilities; 6) driveways must conform to the
requirements of Sec. 31-210; 7) proposed ditch sections are
required; 8) stormwater detention must be provided; 9)
utility excavations within the right-of-way shall be
performed in compliance with Article V of Sec. 30; and, 10)
a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements
of Sec. 29-186, is required; a grading permit will be
required.
Water Utilities comments that: 1) the Fire Department needs
to evaluate this project to determine the location of
required fire hydrant(s); and, 2) a pro -rata front footage
charge of $12.00 per foot applies, in addition to normal
connection charges, along Clearwater Dr. (Waterworks Dr.)
(486.09 feet @ $12.00 per foot = $8,833.08)
Wastewater Utilities comments that sewer is available, with
no adverse effect.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff comments that:
1) Sec. 31-87 of the Subdivision Regulations requires the
following information, which has not been supplied, to
be included in the application for preliminary plat
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1051
review: a) the name and address of the owner of
record is to be furnished; b) the source of title is to
be shown; c) any existing and the proposed covenants
and restrictions are to be identified; d) the proposed
source of water and the means of wastewater disposal is
to be indicated; e) the linear feet of proposed or
required street construction is to be noted; and, (f
any variances and/or waivers are to be requested; e.g.,
if a waiver from the requirement to provide Master
Street Plan improvements along S. Sharckleford Rd. is
desired, a request for the waiver must be made by the
applicant.
2) Sec. 31-89 of the Subdivision Regulations requires, in
addition to the information submitted, the following
items be included on the preliminary plat drawing: a)
the proposed street design is to be shown, and the
location of sidewalks is to be designated; b) natural
features (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded
areas, etc.) and cultural features (streets, bridges,
culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission
lines, easements, park areas, structures, city and
county lines, section lines, etc.) are to be shown; c)
a storm drainage analysis for any watercourses entering
and leaving the site is to be supplied; d) a
preliminary storm drainage plan is to be provided; e)
the names of recorded subdivision abutting the proposed
subdivision (with book & page number or instrument
number), and the names of owners of all land abutting
the proposed subdivision are to be shown; f) the zoning
classifications within the plat and abutting areas is
to be shown; g) an adequate physical description of all
monuments shall be shown, indicating the size, type of
material, and construction; and, h) the certificates of
preliminary surveying accuracy and preliminary
engineering accuracy are to be executed;
3. The zoning Regulations, in Sec. 36-2, Definitions,
states that a lot must have frontage on a public
dedicated right-of-way or other approved private drive.
Sec. 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations requires
that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except
where a private street is explicitly approved by the
Planning Commission. Sec. 31-207 permits the Planning
Commission to approve private streets to serve
commercial developments under limited circumstances;
e.g., when the design standards for a public street are
followed, and for developments of less than five acres
where short loop or cul-de-sac streets are adequate to
serve the area. Sec. 31-207 requires the permanent
maintenance of a private street is to be provided for
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1051
in the Bill of Assurance. The applicant has requested
approval of access to the subdivision to be by way of
the existing private street constructed by and for the
Little Rock Waterworks to its facility. The developer
must provide evidence of the availability of this
private drive for use for access to the subject
development; must provide evidence that an access
easement for his use has been established; and must
provide information on the permanent maintenance of the
private street.
E. ANALYSIS•
Assuming that the applicant can provide the required
evidence of his right to utilize the existing Waterworks
private street, and will be provided an access easement by
Waterworks, the proposed subdivision meets the requirement
for access to the interior lot. There are only minor
deficiencies remaining in the submittal.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the applicant furnishing documentation that Waterworks
has approved an access easement for the applicant's benefit
along Waterworks Dr., and that evidence is furnished which
provides for the permanent maintenance of Waterworks Dr.
Staff recommends approval of the use of private drive for
access to the subdivision.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Jim Osborne, representing the applicant, was present. The
applicant had requested a site plan review for a development on
the tract, with the tract being a single lot incompassing the
entire 4.4 acre tract. In the discussion on the item, the
applicant indicated that he would probably want to divide the
site at a later date, and sell or develop the S. Shackleford Rd.
frontage at that time. Staff pointed out that, if a preliminary
plat were proposed concurrent with the site plan review, and
development of the S. Shackleford Rd. fronting lot were developed
at a later date, the required Master Street Plan improvements
along S. Shackleford Rd. could be deferred until the second lot
were developed. Mr. Osborne indicated that the applicant would
want to pursue this course and reported that Mr. Pat McGetrick,
the project engineer, would provide the required preliminary plat
for review. The Committee forwarded the site plan review item to
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1051
the Commission with the understanding that a preliminary plat
review would be added to the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that a letter from Waterworks had been furnished
by the applicant indicating that Waterworks would approve and
file the required access easement for access to the south
boundary for the proposed subdivision. Staff recommended the
item be approved, subject to the access easement being furnished
and filed at the Circuit Clerk's office. The item was included
on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
5
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z -4587 -
NAME: HUNTER'S GREEN -- LONG -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -
RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION: Northwest of the cul-de-sac at the west end of
Hunter's Geln Blvd., approximately 1000 feet west of Napa Valley
Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Frank Riggins
HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
1500 Union National Plaza P. 0. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203
372-3425 375-5331
AREA: 10 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 58 FT. NEW STREET: 1765
ZONING• PRD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
1) A waiver is requested from the requirement that a sidewalk
be constructed along at least one side of a standard
residential street.
2) Approval is requested of a private street system for the
development.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development of a 10 acre tract for 58
"zero lot line" single-family homes, with the development
including construction of approximately 1765 linear feet of
street and the provision of common areas to include a club house,
swimming pool, tennis court, a series of ponds, and landscaped
areas in 2.93 acres of the site. The project is proposed to be
developed as a single phase. The lots on which the homes are to
be constructed will range in size of from 4480 square feet to
approximately 8508 square feet, with building setbacks from the
south and east boundaries of the site being 15 feet and, on the
west and north, 25 foot building setbacks being provided. Front
building setbacks from the private street access easement are
proposed to be 12.5 feet. One side of each of the homes will set
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
on the side property line; a 10 foot side yard setback is
established on the opposing property line. The lots lying around
the perimeter of the site are, typically, 80 feet deep and 68
feet wide; the interior lots which back up to the central common
area are, typically, 45 feet wide by 90 feet deep. It is
anticipated that homes will range in size of from 1550 square
feet to over 1850 square feet. The interior street is to be a
loop street, with an entrance off the Hunter's Glen Blvd. cul-de-
sac, and is proposed to be a private street. A 6 foot high brick
fence is to be built at the perimeter of the property, with
access to be controlled by an electric gate. The Bill of
Assurance will establish a property owners association, and the
association will be responsible for maintenance of the street and
the private fire protection system, as well as the brick fence
and the common areas and Facilities. The street is proposed to
be built wider than a standard residential street (30 feet in
lieu of 27 feet), and the applicant requests that no sidewalk be
required to be constructed along this interior private street.
The applicant proposes that individual home buyers be permitted
to construct covers over patios, and that these covers may be
built no closer to property lines than 3 feet. No out -buildings
will be permitted.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a Planned Development -
Residential. Approval of a waiver from the requirement to
construct a sidewalk along at least one side of a standard
residential street is requested. Approval of a private
steeet system to serve the development is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and is wooded. The
topography slopes downward approximately 16 feet from the
entrance at Hunter's Glen Blvd. towards the west, and rises
approximately 12 feet from the entrance to the site towards
the north.
The current zoning of the tract is PRD. There is a
developed PRD, Hunter's Cove PRD, immediately to the south
of the proposed development. Immediately to the east is a
developement in an FM -12 zoning district. To the north and
west is R-2 zoned property.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that: 1) a sketch grading and
drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, and
a grading permit will be required; ADPC&E must be contacted
for approval prior to starting work; 2) aprons at the
interface between the private street and Hunter's Glenn
Blvd. should not extend beyond the extension of the property
corners to the center of the 110 foot diameter right-of-way
dedication; 3) it is recommended that the corners of the
private street layout be modified to 75 foot radii and that
common drives be shown for corner lots; 4) sidewalks are
required along at least one side of the street; and 5)
pedestrian access points need to be provided to the common
area from various points along the loop street.
Water Utilities comments that a water main extension will be
required and that fire hydrants will be private.
Wastewater Utilities comments that a sewer main extension,
with easements, will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff comments that:
1) Sec. 31-207 of the Subdivision Regulations provides
that the Planning Commission may permit new private
streets; that it shall be incumbent on the applicant to
demonstrate the appropriateness of a private street;
and that the developer is to provide for the permanent
maintenance of the street, water lines, fire hydrants,
and other utility facilities in the Bill of Assurance.
Sec. 31-207 states that private streets are permissible
only in the foz:a of culs-de-sac and short loop streets,
and where there is no possibility of through traffic.
The design meets these tests, and the preliminary Bill
of Assurance submitted provides for the required
maintenance.
2) Sec. 31-2, the definitions section, provides that a
loop street which does not exceed 1,500 feet meets the
requirements for a minor residential street. Sec. 31-
209 requires sidewalks on standard residential streets,
but not on minor residential streets. The loop portion
KI
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
of the street is approx. 1615 feet long. The applicant
has asked that the sidewalks be waived; instead of a
waiver, however, a variance from the standard for
classification of a minor residential street is
suggested, permitting the loop street to be classified
as a minor residential street, and thus accomplish the
desired effect of no sidewalk being required.
The applicant has proposed a 30 foot wide street
section in lieu of the 27 foot street section which is
required for a standard residential street or 24 foot
street section required for a minor residential street,
and is providing pedestrian access ways to the common
area from various points along the loop street. This
is an attempt to provide a viable pedestrian
circulation system which does not include sidewalks.
3) Landscape review has no comments on this development.
4) The Planning staff reports that the proposed
development is in the Chenal District, where the Plan
recommends single-family development. There is, then,
no land use issue.
E. ANALYSIS•
The proposed development is for a single-family use, and is
in conformance with the adopted land use plan. The
applicant has complied with Public Works design
requirements. The remaining issues are minimal and can
easily be addressed. The request that no sidewalks be
required along the loop street requires a minimal variance
of the standard for classification of the loop street as a
minor residential street.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD -R, and recommends
approval of a variance to permit the 1615 foot loop street
to be classified as a minor residential street, thus
eliminating the requirement that a sidewalk along the street
be required.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present to
represent the applicant. Staff presented the site plan and
outlined the proposed development; Mr. Riggins reviewed the
printed items in the discussion outline. The Committee asked for
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.:Z-4587-A
Staff discussed with Mr. Riggins and the Committee the various
requirements, and Mr. Riggins indicated that the concerns would
be addressed. The Committee forwarded the request to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMM_ISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Mr. Frank Riggins, representing the applicant was present. Staff
outlined the proposal, indicating that the item had been included
on the Consent Agenda, with a recombination from staff of
approval. (The item had been removed from the Consent Agenda
when 2 neighbors had completed registration cards and had
expressed opposition to the development.) Mr. Riggins deferred
his presentation until the objecting neighbors had expressed the
reasons for their position.
Ms. Mary Ann Lehman spoke in opposition to the development. She
indicated that she lives in Marlow Manor, backing up to the north
side of, as she describes it, "the meadow". She reported that
the area is a habitat for wildlife, including foxes which come
into her back yard, having become "friendly", and which have
raised pups. She made an emotional appeal that this meadow not
be lost, saying that it is all "very upsetting". She complained
that the development would increase traffic in the area, and
related that traffic had increased dramatically over the 10 years
she has lived in the area; that this increased traffic has caused
the addition of traffic signals, has slowed her travel to get to
work, and has caused her to have to change her route to work to
avoid the traffic and added signals. She pointed out that the
site plan proposes a very dense development; that is it
substantially more dense than Countrywood, immediately to the
east; and that the traffic from such a dense development will
significantly affect the area. She recalled that there is
supposed to be a 50 foot easement around the perimeter of the 10 -
acre site which was imposed at some time in the past. She asked
for a comparison of the density and lot sizes of what is being
requested versus the density and lot sizes of the surrounding
developments.
Mr. E. R. "Ray" Gutherie, indicating that he lives in Hunter's
Cove, immediately south of the proposed development, reported
that the "horseshoe" turn -around at the west end of Hunter's Glen
Blvd. is so narrow that it is difficult for trucks to make the
turn -around when they get to the west end of the street. He said
that the median is torn up when the trucks drive on the grass as
they try to make the turn. He asked that the turn -around be
widened to provide a greater turning radius. He also asked that
any damage to the street and median done during construction of
the new development be repaired by the developer.
5
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
Mr. Riggins responded that he would commit to making any repairs
to the road or median caused by construction traffic, but that
modification of the median or street is outside the scope of what
his client can do without approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
He indicated that he would visit with Traffic Engineering
regarding this matter.
Mr. Gutherie wanted assurance that the stormwater drainage
leaving the Hunter's Cove property would not be blocked by the
wall to be built or the site development of the new project.
Mr. Riggins assured him that provision for the stormwater had
been provided for in the planning for the Hunter's Green project.
Chairperson Walker asked for clarification of two issues: one,
the status of the existing PRD and Mrs. Lehman's statement
regarding the existence of a 50 foot building line around the
perimeter of the project; and two, Mrs. Lehman's assertion that
the project's density was too great.
Staff responded that the current zoning of the site is PRD; that,
subsequent to the PRD zoning being approved, there was a rezoning
request for apartments to be constructed on the site, and, as
part of the Planning Commission approval of the rezoning request,
a 50 foot buffer was imposed. The requested rezoning was never
finalized, so the buffer was never put in place. The existing
PRD zoning did not require the buffer, and the proposed PD -R
would not impose such a buffer, since the proposal is for single-
family homes abutting single-family homes. Staff pointed out
that the density of the proposed development is 58 single-family
homes on 10 acres, or 5.8 units per acre. Lots range in size
from a minimum of 4,320 square feet to over 8,500 square feet.
The Zoning Ordinance, staff pointed out, permits lots as small as
4,000 square feet in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts for "zero -
lot -line" developments, with minimum lot widths of 35 feet. MF -6
developments, staff related, permit 6 dwelling units per acre,
with a minimum tract size of 7,000 square feet per dwelling. The
58 dwellings proposed would require a tract of 9.32 acres. The
development, then, conforms to the MF -6 requirements. Staff
pointed out that the development immediately to the east,
Countrywood Condominiums, is zoned MF -12, which permits
developments with twice the density of the MF -6 district, or
12 units per acre. The PRD to the south, Hunter's Cove, has a
similar development to the one proposed. Staff reiterated the
recommendation for approval.
Commissioner Woods expressed his concern that the development was
too dense, and said that, visually, the density would seem
greater than the attached dwellings in the apartments, since
there would be individual homes.
M
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
Staff pointed out that, on the area zoning map included in the
agenda packet, in Marlow Manor to the north, there are 8 single-
family homes shown, and, in the proposed development plan, there
are 7 homes which will back up to these 8 Marlow Manor Homes;
therefore, visually, there will not be that much difference from
the single-family development to the north.
Following some additional discussion about the density issue, a
motion was made and seconded to approve the PD -R zoning. Since
the vote for approval was 5 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and
d abstentions, and since the Bylaws provide for an automatic
deferral when at least 6 affirmative votes are not cast, the item
was deferred until the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing.
7
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z -5583 -
NAME: HERMITAGE ROAD BUSINESS CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM
PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of Hermitage Road, approximately 700
feet east of Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Mike Dudley
ALLTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
P. 0. Box 2177
Little Rock, AR 72203
661-5102
AREA: 5.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: POD PROPOSED USES: Office Warehouse, Mini -Storage
Facility, and Antenna Tower
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES RE UESTED: None.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to amend an existing POD in order to
construct a 150 foot tall "monopole" antenna tower on the
developed site at the northwest corner of the lot. Associated
equipment for the cellular transmission facility is proposed to
be located in the existing mini -storage facility, immediately
adjacent to the antenna structure. No other changes to the
existing POD site plan or POD approved uses are proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planing Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested to amend an existing POD in order
to add a cullular antenna tower use to the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed. In November, 1992, the Planning
Commission approved a site plan for an office warehouse and
mini -storage facility at the site, and, on December 15,
1992, in Ordinance No. 16,323, the Board of Directors
approved the "Hermitage Road Mini -Warehouse POD".
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5583-A
Immediately across Hermitage Rd. is Home Quarters home
improvement center, an established PCD. Immediately to the
west is a PCD, although development of this PCD has never
taken place. To the east and south is R-2 zoned property.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works had no comments.
Water Utilities had no comments.
Wastewater Utilities had no comments.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the amended plan
without comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Sec. 36-451 of the Zoning Regulations states that the
"planned unit development districts are established to
permit the combination of subdivisions and zoning
review... into one process in order that all aspects of a
proposed development can be reviewed and acted upon
simultaneously. It is...the intent of this article to
permit the use of flexible guidelines rather than fixed
zoning or subdivision regulations in the ... review of
specific development plans." Staff notes, then, that, other
than the Planning Commission reviewing and approving the
antenna tower height, there are no height standards which
are established for planned unit development districts which
need to be addressed.
Landscape review reports no comments on this amendment to
the POD plan.
The Planning staff notes that the development is in the I-
430 Land Use District, and that the plan recommends
commercial uses. There are, reports the Planning staff, no
land use issues associated with this proposal.
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed use in conformance with the adopted Land Use
Plan, and there are no outstanding issues to be addressed.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5583-A
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the
existing POD in order for a 150 foot high antenna tower to
be erected.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Randy Frazier, attorney for the applicant, was present.
Staff outlined the request, and the Committee reviewed the
proposed development site plan. There was no discussion of the
item, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission
for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved, and
recommended approval of the amended POD. The item was included
on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
3
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-5946
NAME: WESTERGARD -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION: On the east side of Arknsas Highway 300, approximately
600 feet south of the West Pinnacle Valley Road intersection,
outside the City Limits
DEVELOPER•
LINDA R. WESTERGARD
7510 Highway 300
Little Rock, AR 72212
868-8905
AREA: 5.01 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Bed and Breakfast; antique shop;
residence.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Waiver from the Master Street Plan requirements to make road
improvements along the Highway 300 frontage of the site.
2) Waiver from the requirementS
Regulations, which requires
parking spaces.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
of Article VIII of the Zoning
paving of internal drives and
The applicant proposes to utilize existing buildings located on
the site as a "Bed and Breakfast" and as an antique shop, as well
as to continue to reside on the site. The applicant owns 23
acres, but requests consideration of a 5.01 acre portion of the
total acreage for designation as "Planned Development -
Residential". The 5.01 acres includes a 5,500 square foot log
home, in which the applicant lives and in which the Bed and
Breakfast is proposed to be established, and a large log barn of
over 8,000 square feet in which the antique shop is proposed to
be established. The remaining acreage is pasture land. The
applicant anticipates, initially, utilizing three upstairs bed
rooms (one being a 2 -room suite), each with a private bath room,
for the Bed and Breakfast use. The second phase, to follow in
one to two or more years, involves converting the lower floor of
the existing barn into an antique shop. The antique shop is to
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5946
be an "upscale" shop, capitalizing on the atmosphere of the log
barn. The exterior of the barn will appear, except for closing
in the ends, basically unchanged. The third phase involves an
expansion of the Bed and Breakfast use to include the addition of
two more bedroom areas, one additional bedroom involving the
conversion of the existing garage to a bedroom suite; the other
the use of a third floor area for a bedroom. The applicant
proposes to erect a carved wood sign not larger than 3 feet by 4
feet at the driveway entrance to the existing home -Bed and
Breakfast, and a similar sign at the driveway entrance to the
antique shop. The existing driveway entrance from Highway 300 is
proposed to be used for the residential and Bed and Breakfast
use, and a second driveway at the north property line off Highway
300 is proposed to be constructed for access to the antique shop.
The applicant states that it is their and their neighbor's desire
that the site remain visually the same as it is, and requests a
waiver from the requirement to pave the internal driveways and
parking spaces. The applicant requests a waiver from the Master
Street Plan requirement that State Highway 300 be improved to
Minor Arterial standards, and that concrete aprons be provided at
the entrance drives. The applicant states that the state has
recently improved Highway 300, and that there are no plans to
make further improvements within the next ten years. The
applicant notes that, as part of the state widening and improving
Highway 300, under -drive culvert pipe and paved aprons were
provided for both drive locations.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors for a PD -Residential is requested. waivers are
requested from the requirements to make Master Street Plan
improvements in the Highway 300 right-of-way, including the
providing of concrete aprons within the right-of-way, or to
pave internal driveways and parking spaces.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is outside the City Limits, in a rural setting.
The residences are generally on large tracts. There are
scattered neighborhood commercial uses in the area. There
is a C-1 zone approximately 600 feet to the north of the
proposed development, and scattered non -conforming
commercial uses along Highway 300.
The site is currently zoned R-2, with all land surrounding
the site being R-2.
E
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5946
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) right-of-way to provide a
minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of Highway 300 will
be required to be dedicated; 2) the stone fence at the
entrance, which would, presumably, be on public right-of-way
following dedication of additonal right-of-way, will either
have to be removed or a franchise will need to be received
from the county to leave the fence in its present location;
3) the Master Street Plan will require construction of one-
half of Highway 300 to minor arterial standards, and street
construction plans for road improvements will be required;
4) concrete driveway aprons within the Highway 300 right-of-
way must be provided; and, 5) internal driveways and parking
areas must be all-weather surfaces, and the driveways are to
be a minimum of 24 feet in width.
Water Utilities comments that no City water service is
available.
Wastewater Utilities comments that the site is outside the
Wastewater service boundary.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff notes that:
1) The existing and proposed vehicle circulation system
within the property is requested to remain gravel
drives and parking. City regulations, Article VIII of
the Zoning Regulations, require these to be all-
weather.
2) Sec. 36-456 requires that the location of handicapped
parking stalls be provided and shown, and that the
accessibility requirements stipulated by the Arkansas
Fire Code be addressed. Handicapped parking and
walkways must be provided, and these must be all-
weather. The Building Codes division confirms that
paved, reserved parking and accessibility of the
building for the physically handicapped is required.
3) Landscape review comments that a six foot high opaque
screen, either dense evergreen plantings or a good
neighbor wooden fence, should be provided to screen the
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5946
proposed parking lot for the antique shop from the
property to the north.
4) Sec. 36-452 states that incidental commercial and
office uses are permitted in the PUD and PD zoning
districts.
The Planning staff notes that the proposed use is in the Pinnacle
District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single
family uses. The PD -Residential is in conformance with the plan.
The City Attorney's office comments that, in order for Master
Street Plan improvements to be imposed, substantial change in use
and intensity must be implemented. This application may not be a
substantial enough change to warrant imposing these street
improvements.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Bed and Breakfast use retains the residential character
of the land, and as long as the antique shop is clearly an
incidental use, it may be approved in the Planned District
as an incidental use in a PD -R district. Limitations on the
intensity of the antique shop use to maintain its
"incidental" character must be established.
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff spoke with a State
Highway Department engineer, who confirmed the applicant's
position that there are no plans which would be implemented
in the next ten years to make additional improvements to
Highway 300. The area is outside the City Limits, and it is
not expected that the area will be annexed within the
foreseeable future. The waiver of improvements in the
right-of-way, as long as the right-of-way has been (or will
be) dedicated, is justified. The applicant states that,
when the state widened and improved Highway 300, the issue
of the franchise for the stone fence within the right-of-way
was addressed. If a franchise has not been approved, this
needs to be done.
The interior drives are, and the proposed drives and parking
areas are proposed to be, gravel. The applicant requests
that this gravel surface be retained in order to retain the
rural atmosphere. If the gravel drives and parking areas
are permitted, then some means needs to be provided to keep
the gravel in the roadway or parking area. Handicap parking
and access to buildings needs to be all-weather.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5946
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD -Residential, subject to
the establishment of guidelines to keep the antique shop use
clearly incidental to the residential use of the property.
The planning staff recommends approval of the waiver from
the Master Street Plan requirements for Highway 300,
including the requirement that concrete aprons be
substituted for the existing paved aprons, subject to either
verifying that the required right-of-way has been dedicated,
or, if it has not, then dedicating the needed right-of-way,
and subject to providing evidence that a franchise for the
stone fence been granted by the County. The Planning staff
recommends approval of the requested waiver from the
requirement to pave the internal drives and parking areas,
subject to: 1) providing paved handicap parking spaces, as
required; 2) providing some type of borders along the gravel
drives and parking areas to control the "creeping" or
spreading of gravel beyond the designated drives or parking
areas; and, 3) providing paving for a 100 foot section of
the driveways from the edge of Highway 300 inward onto the
applicant's property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicants, Mrs. Linda Westergard, was present. She
presented photographs of the site and a written narrative
outlining the proposal. Staff reviewed with her the written
comments in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff
explained the Master Street Plan requirements for improvements to
Highway 300, and noted the need for concrete aprons from the
right-of-way line to the roadway. Public Works and Planning
staff members discussed the requirements for paved parking and
driveways. The Public Works staff indicated that they could
probably support the requested wavier from the requirement to
pave the internal driveways if there were a length of pavement
provided at the right-of-way so•that vehicles would not tack mud
onto the roadway. The applicant noted that the original proposal
had included a request for a "Tea Room" on the second floor of
the barn, but that, due to staff concerns, this request would be
deleted from the application. The Committee forwarded the
application to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that the City Attorney's office had reviewed the
proposed uses of the PZD, and had determined that, with the
E7
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5946
mixture of uses, it needed to proceed under the PUD ordinance as
a PRD. Staff recommended approval of the PRD, subject to the
future antique shop being secondary and accessory to the
residential uses of the property. Staff recommended approval of
the requested waiver for improvements to Highway 300, subject to
the applicant seeking and receiving a franchise from the County
for the existing rock fence at the driveway entrance. Staff
recommended approval of the requested wavier for improvements to
the interior driveways and parking areas, subject to the first
100 feet of the driveways being paved to keep mud and gravel from
being tracked onto the Highway 300 pavement; subject to edging
being provided to keep the gravel contained in the driveways;
and, subject to paved handicap parking spaces and walks, as
required, being provided. The item was approved with the vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions.
2
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -4555-B
NAME: CAPITOL CITY PACKAGING, INC. -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the west side of South Shackleford Road,
approximately 0.4 mile south of the Colonel Glenn Road
interseciton
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
Pete Ardoin Pat McGetrick
c/o James Osborne MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
CENTRAL STRUCTURES COMPANY 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
P. O. Box 95031 Little Rock, AR 722111
Little Rock, AR 72295 223-9900
376-3694
AREA: 2.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-1 PROPOSED USES: Packaging Supplies and Service
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant: proposes the development of a 2.5 acre lot, which
is to have its frontage on and access from an existing private
street, Waterworks Dr., and an access easement which lie along
the lot's southern boundary. A 30,000 square foot, single -story,
building is proposed to be erected, and parking for 58 vehicles
is to be provided. Landscaping, to meet City standards, is
proposed.
STAFF REPORT•
The application is coupled with Item 2a, Ardoin Industrial
Subdivision Preliminary Plat. In the preliminary plat issue, the
access from a private street and the requirements for
establishment of an access easement are addressed. The approval
of the preliminary plat and the Planning Commission granting the
variance for the private street and access easement are required
for the approval of the site plan for the subject item.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4555-B
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission of the proposed site
plan is requested. No variances are requested as part of
this item.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared in preparation
for the constructton of the building.
The existing zoning is I-1, and this I-1 district extends to
all land to the west, south, and across S. Shackleford Rd.
to the east. Immediately to the north of the site is R-2
zoned land.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a sketch grading and drainage
plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required;
a grading permit will be required.
Water Utilities comments that: 1) The Fire Department needs
to evaluate this project to determine the location of
required fire hydrant(s); and 2) A pro -rata front footage
charge of $12.00 per foot applies, in addition to normal
connection charges, along Clearwater Dr. (486.09 feet @
$12.00 per foot = $8,833.08)
Wastewater Utilities comments that sewer is available, with
no adverse effect.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Neighborhoods and Planning Staff comments that 1) The
availability of public utilities, with the size and locaiton
shown, is to be addressed on the site plan; and 2) On site
fire hydrants, both existing and proposed, are to be shown.
Landscape review comments that a six foot high opaque screen
will be required along the northern perimeter of the site.
This screen may be a wood fence with its face directed
northward, or be dense evergreen plantings. With the
exception of those areas devoted to loading and unloading,
six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must
be landscaped. A three-foot wide landscape strip between
the public parking areas and the building is required,
except at doorways.
E
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4555-B
E. ANALYSIS•
There are only minor deficiencies in the submittal to be
addressed, and these may easily be completed. The site
plan, as revised and presented, is sufficiently detailed and
complete to meet the requirements of'the regulations.
Subject to the approval of Item 2a, Ardoin Industrial
Subdivison Preliminary Plat; approval of the private drive
for access to the site; and, providing evidence of the
establishment of an access easement along the south boundary
of the site to provide the required legal access to the lot,
the site plan can be approved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
conditions noted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Mr. Jim Osborne, representing the applicant, was present. The
applicant had requested a site plan review for a development to
include the property extending to S. Shackleford Rd., with the
tract being a single 4.4 acre lot. In the discussion on the
item, the applicant indicated that he would probably want to
divide the site at a later date, and sell or develop the S.
Shackleford Rd. frontage at that time. Staff pointed out that,
if a preliminary plat were proposed concurrent with the site plan
review, and development of the S. Shackleford Rd. fronting lot
were developed at a later date, the required Master Street Plan
improvements along S. Shackleford Rd. could be deferred until the
second lot were developed. Mr. Osborne indicated that the
applicant would want to pursue this course and reported that
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, would provide the
required preliminary plat and a revised site plan for review.
The Committee reviewed with Mr. Osborne the information presented
in the discussion outline, and Mr. Osborne responded that the
deficiencies would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the
site plan review item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Staff reported that there were no issues to resolve; that
waterworks had approved the needed access to the site from their
private street. Staff recommended approval for the site plan,
subject to the conditions for approval of the preliminary plat
being met, and subject to a final plat for the Lot 2 being
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4555-B
approved and filed with the Circuit Clerk. The item
on the ConsentAgenda for approval, and was approved
0 nays, 2
vote of 9 ayes, absent, and 0 abstentions.
N
was included
with the
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -1976-A
NAME: Jarrett Barber Shop - Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 2001 West 12th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lewis Jarrett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the use of this
existing, 0-3 zoned building and
property as a two -chair barber
shop.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
Site Location
The property is located at the southwest corner of West 12th
and Summit Streets.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property and the existing building were zoned from "C",
Two -Family District (corresponds to "R-411) to "E-1", Quiet
Office District (correspondence to 110-311) in 1966. The
property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses
ranging from R-3 single family to C-4 open display
commercial. A Harvest Foods grocery store occupies the
block across Summit Street and a large church occupies most
of the block in which the proposed barber shop is to be
located.
The proposed use of this 0-3 zoned property as a barber shop
is not incompatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkina
If this 1,059± square foot building is used as a barber
shop, it will require 5 on-site parking spaces. There are
3 parking spaces on the site. A largely unused parking lot
for the Harvest Foods grocery store is located across Summit
Street and a large church parking lot is located adjacent to
the south of the subject property. A two -space parking
variance would not appear to negatively impact the
neighborhood.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -1976-A
4. Screening and Buffers
No expansion of the building or parking lot is proposed.
All improvements are in place. No additional screening or
buffers are required.
5. City Engineer Comments
Repair broken driveway apron and install handicap ramp at
the intersection of West 12th and Summit Streets.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports the sewer service
line location is unknown. A sewer main is available in the
alley to the west of this property.
Little Rock Water Works reports the maximum meter size
available off the existing main is 3/4 inch.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the
use of this existing 0-3 zoned building as a two -chair
barber shop. Staff believes the request to be a reasonable
use of the property which would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
There are two points that need to be addressed related to
the proposed use. Staff believes that signage for the site
should be limited to signage allowed in the office zones.
This limits the ground -mounted sign to 6 feet in height and
64 square feet in area.
The second point concerns possible ancillary activities
which may be added to the barber shop. Staff is comfortable
with supporting the use of the property as a barber shop but
wants it made clear that any ancillary, commercial
activities such as a concession stand, snack bar or other
retail activities are not to be permitted on the site.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to
allow the use of this 0-3 zoned building as a two -chair
barber shop subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office
zones.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1976-A
3. No ancillary, commercial activities are to be permitted
on the site.
Staff also recommends approval of the two -space parking
variance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted the comments outlined in the staff recommendation. The
Committee determined it was appropriate to limit signage to that
allowed in office zones and to restrict any ancillary commercial
activities from the site. The two -space parking variance was not
seen as an issue of concern.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant 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
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office zones.
3. No ancillary, commercial activities are to be permitted on
the site.
The Commission also approved the two space parking variance. The
vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
NAME: Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church
- Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 16100 Otter Creek Parkway
OWNER/APPLICANT: Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church
by Thomas Hodges of the Otter Creek
Land Company
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow construction of
a church on this MF -6 zoned, 2.5±
acre site. The sanctuary will have
a seating capacity of 291 people,
including the choir. No day-care
or private school programs are
proposed.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The proposed church site is located on the west side of
Otter Creek Parkway, between Fawn Tree Drive and Wimbledon
Loop; in the Otter Creek Community.
2. Compatibility with Neiahborhood
This MF -6 zoned, 2.5 acre site is located in the heart of
Otter Creek, a large, single family residential
neighborhood. The property fronts on a collector street and
is located directly across from an elementary school. A 100
foot wide AP&L easement is located north of the site and the
150 foot wide Callagahan Creek easement is adjacent to the
south. The two, large easements separate the proposed
church site from the single family residential properties.
No ancillary uses such as a day-care program and private
school are proposed.
The proposed use of this property as a church should be
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed church will have a sanctuary capacity of 291
persons, including the choir. Based on a requirement of one
space for every 4 seats, the site requires 72 parking
spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 104 on-site
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
parking spaces, four of which are designated for handicap
use.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. The land use buffers on the north and south
perimeters should be 6 feet in width and should contain
opaque screening. Due to the nature of the abutting
properties, the 100 foot AP&L easement and the 150 foot
Callagahan Creek easement, the screening may not be
necessary. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the
buffer width to 5 feet. The reduced buffer will be
landscaped as the Landscape Ordinance requires.
5. City Engineer Comments
Sidewalks per the Master Street Plan are required on the
Otter Creek Parkway frontage. Stormwater detention is
required. A sketch grading and drainage plan meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186 are required before
construction. A grading permit is required. A development
permit is required for the flood hazard area. A 25 foot
setback adjacent to the floodway of Callagahan Branch is
required.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments
The driveway between the building and the south property
line must be 20 feet in width. Fire lanes must be marked
with City regulation no parking/two zone signs. Additional
public and/or private fire hydrants may be needed.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a church on this MF -6 zoned, 2.5± acre
site. Construction will consist of a single building
containing worship and educational space as well as space
for associated activities such as a fellowship hall and
office areas. No day-care center or private school
activities are proposed. Future expansion of the
educational space is shown on the site plan. Worship
services would be conducted on Sunday and mid -week, using a
normal church schedule. The property is located on a
collector street and is separated from adjacent residences
by a 100 foot AP&L easement and a 150 foot creek easement.
On-site parking, exceeding ordinance requirements, is
provided. Staff believes the proposed church to be a
reasonable use of this property and is supportive of the
request.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to
construct a church on this MF -6 zoned site subject to:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances with this exception. Staff recommends
approval of the reduced 5 foot buffer on the north and
south perimeters as shown on the proposed site plan.
Staff also recommends approval of a waiver of the screening
requirement on the north and south perimeters due to the
nature of the adjacent properties. Landscaping on these
perimeters will be installed in compliance with the City's
Landscape Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicant, Thomas Hodges, was present. Staff presented the
item and outlined the landscaping, City Engineer, Utility and
Fire Department Comments noted above.
It was determined that a reduction in the buffer and screening
requirements on the north and south perimeters may be appropriate
considering the use on the adjacent properties.
In response to a question from staff, Mr. Hodges stated that the
building would not exceed 35 feet in height. He stated that an
ornamental feature, such as a cross, may extend above the
building.
Mr. Hodges was directed to provide details on signage and parking
lot lighting. He was advised that any parking lot lighting must
be low-level and directional, aimed away from adjacent
properties.
After a discussion of proposed landscaping, Mr. Hodges was urged
to provide more interior landscaping in the front parking lot to
break up the large, paved area.
Mr. Hodges stated that the building could be shifted to provide
the required 25 foot setback from Callagahan Branch and the
required 20 foot wide driveway.
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
Staff advised Mr. Hodges to provide a revised site plan
incorporating the required changes and providing the requested
details on signage and lighting.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that a
revised site plan had been submitted which addressed staff's
concerns and that there were no other 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 and Fire Department Comments
3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
with this exception. A reduced buffer of 5 feet was
approved on the north and south perimeters.
4. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office and
institutional zones.
5. Any parking lot lighting is to be low-level and directional,
aimed away from adjacent properties.
The Commission also approved a waiver of the screening
requirement on the north and south perimeters due to the nature
of the adjacent properties.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5843-A
NAME:
LOCATION•
George Jett's Gas and Service
Station - Conditional Use Permit
3101 West Markham Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: George Jett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the expansion of
the existing auto repair garage,
service station and car wash
facility located on this C-3 zoned
property. The applicant proposes
to expand the building by adding
one additional service bay.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located at the southwest corner of West
Markham and Johnson Streets.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Although this property is located in the predominantly
single family Hillcrest/Stiffts Station neighborhood, there
are other nonresidential uses in the vicinity. This
property forms the western anchor of a small commercial area
extending along West Markham from Vernon Street to Johnson
Street.
This site has a long established history of use as a service
station and auto repair garage. The station stood vacant
for over one year until Mr. Jett obtained a conditional use
permit on June 28, 1994 allowing it to be reopened.
Adding one more service bay should not affect the business's
continued compatibility with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Once the proposed expansion is complete, the 1,747 square
foot facility will require 11 on-site parking spaces. The
site is paved nearly from property line to property line and
there is sufficient area for parking, including the service
bays and the stacking space at the pump islands.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -5843-A
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. The Landscape Ordinance requires a landscaping
upgrade equal to the expansion proposed. However, this site
does not have appropriate areas available for landscaping.
Therefore, a request for a waiver of the requirement has
been submitted to the City Beautiful Commission. The
applicant has agreed to screen the holding area with a 6
foot tall, opaque fence.
5. City Engineer Comments
Repair broken curb, sidewalks and driveway apron. Install
handicap ramp at the intersection of West Markham and
Johnson Streets.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
This C-3 zoned site has a long history of use as a service
station and auto repair garage. After standing vacant for a
period of more than one year, the property lost its
nonconforming status. The Planning Commission, on
June 28, 1994, approved a conditional use permit allowing
the applicant to open the current auto repair garage,
service station and car wash.
Since that time, the applicant's business has increased to
the point that he feels it is necessary to add an additional
service bay. The proposed addition will be designed in the
same style as the existing building and will exceed the
required setbacks from adjacent properties.
Staff believes the proposal is reasonable and supports the
request.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use
permit subject to:
1. No wrecked or inoperable vehicles being stored on site.
2. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
2
, February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5843-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicant, George Jett, was present. Staff presented the
item and noted the City Engineer and Landscape Comments outlined
above. Mr. Jett presented a letter from the owners of the
residence adjacent to the south of the service station. These
property owners requested that the Planning Commission not
require Mr. Jett to place an opaque privacy fence along the
property line between the two lots.
The neighbors stated in their letter that a privacy fence would
afford a thief the opportunity to hide, making their property a
potential site for a burglary. The Committee determined that it
would be appropriate to waive the screening requirement in light
of the neighbor's request.
After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there
were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant 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
the following conditions:
1. No wrecked or inoperable vehicles are to be stored on the
site.
2. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
The Commission approved a waiver of the requirement to install an
opaque screen on the south property line (as was requested by the
adjacent property owner).
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
K
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -5874-A
NAME:
LOCATION•
Global Interdominational Revival
Center - Conditional Use Permit
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 and approved for
deferral to the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting. In its vote,
the Planning Commission also directed the applicant to provide
the required supporting documentation to staff no later than the
February 27, 1995 filing date.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-5944
NAME:
LOCATION:
U -Haul of Arkansas - Conditional
Use Permit
3221 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Kenneth Okpala and Jay Harrison
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the rental of
U -Haul trucks and trailers from the
convenience store located on this
C-3 zoned property. The applicant
proposes to display approximately 4
trucks and 3 trailers on the site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located at the northeast corner of West 33rd
Street and John Barrow Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The subject property consists of a small strip shopping
center located on the east side of Barrow Road, between West
32nd and West 33rd Streets. The center contains a small
convenience store with gas pumps, a 4 -bay coin operated car
wash, a beauty salon and a City of Little Rock neighborhood
alert center.
A second small, neighborhood commercial center is located
southwest of this site, across John Barrow Road.
These commercial properties are located on John Barrow Road,
which bisects the John Barrow neighborhood, a large,
primarily single-family development.
Staff has taken a consistent position that any commercial
uses on this portion of John Barrow Road should be more of a
neighborhood commercial nature. Due to the relationship of
these commercial properties to the adjacent single-family
residential properties, low intensity, retail type uses are
more appropriate.
Staff does not believe the display and rental of trucks and
trailers is compatible with the neighborhood.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains adequate parking and stacking space for
the uses currently in place. The applicant has already
parked trucks and trailers on the property. This creates
two immediate problems. Some of the vehicles are being
parked on an unpaved portion of the lot in violation of city
code. Those vehicles parked on the pavement are taking up
required parking and blocking the driveway.
4. Screening and Buffers
A landscaping upgrade within the northern and northwestern
buffer areas would serve to help improve the appearance of
the site.
If a larger area is paved to accommodate the parking of
these vehicles, that new parking area must be landscaped and
buffered to comply with city code.
5. City Engineer Comments
Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way for the alley.
Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way for west 33rd
Street. If the alley is to be used as access, improve it to
comply with code.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments
Parking of vehicles and trailers will have to be put in a
designated area of the property so as not to interfere with
Fire Department access to all of the property.
7. Analysis
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow the rental of U -Haul trucks and trailers from the
convenience store located on this C-3 zoned property.
Staff cannot support the request and bases their opposition
on the following issues. Staff has consistently taken the
position that the commercial properties located in the heart
of the John Barrow neighborhood should only be occupied by
low intensity, neighborhood commercial uses. The display
and rental of trucks and trailers is not consistent with
this view. The site is relatively small, with limited area
available for display and storage of trucks and trailers.
Those vehicles already being displayed on the site are
either parking on an unpaved portion of the property in
violation of City Code or are parked in front of the
F,
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944
convenience store which creates a congested situation for
other traffic on the site.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of this application as being too
intense of a use and incompatible with the adjacent
neighborhood.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Jay Harrison, of U -Haul of Arkansas, was present. Staff
presented the item and noted the City Engineer, Landscaping, Fire
Department and Parking Comments outlined above. Mr. Harrison was
directed to provide details on any proposed signage for the
U -Haul business. He was also advised to provide a letter of
authorization from the owner of the property and to have the
owner of the property complete the right-of-way dedication form.
Mr. Harrison stated that he would speak with the owner regarding
the required paperwork and the required right-of-way dedication.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the location of the
trucks and trailers on the site.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, explained the
requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for the alley and
West 33rd Street and to improve the alley.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Kenneth Okpala and Kenneth Vadnais were
application. There were two objectors
John Barrow Neighborhood Association.
and after outlining the concerns noted
offered a recommendation of denial.
(FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
present representing the
present representing the
Staff presented the item
in the staff analysis,
Kenneth Vadnais, of U -Haul Co. of Arkansas, addressed the
Commission. He stated that additional paving will be put in to
accommodate the U -Haul trucks and trailers. Mr. Vadnais stated
that this new parking area will be properly landscaped and
buffered.
He continued by stating that notices had been sent to adjacent
property owners and there appeared to be no opposition to the
proposed use. Mr. Vadnais concluded by stating that there would
be no vehicle repair taking place at this site and that the
proposed use was appropriate for the neighborhood.
K
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944
Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Vadnais if he had had any contact
with the neighborhood association. Mr. Vadnais responded that
the required notices had been sent and that he received no
response. Commissioner Adcock stated that she had received
negative comments from the neighborhood association.
Commission Willis asked how many vehicles were to be displayed on
the site. Mr. Vadnais responded that four trucks and four
trailers of varying sizes were to be kept at this location.
In response to a question from Commissioner Willis, Bob Brown,
Plans Review Specialist, stated that a 6 foot wide buffer would
be required on Barrow Road and a 13 foot wide buffer would be
required on West 32nd Street if a new parking area was built.
Betty Snyder, President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposal. She stated that 45-50 persons present at a February
20, 1995 Association meeting voted to oppose the application.
In response to a question from Chairman Walker, Ms. Snyder stated
that the proposed use was out of character with the neighborhood,
whether the parking area was paved and landscaped or not.
George Brown, Vice President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item.
He stated that the proposed use was not compatible with the John
Barrow Neighborhood Plan which had been developed over the past 1
1/2 years. Mr. Brown stated that the neighborhood was united in
support of the Plan.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woods, Tim Polk,
Assistant Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, stated that the John Barrow Neighborhood Plan
encompassed John Barrow, Kensington, Campus Place and Twin Lakes
neighborhoods.
After further discussion, Commissioner Willis and Chairman Walker
each expressed a desire to see a site plan showing the proposed
new parking area and the associated landscaping and screening.
Mr. Vadnais responded that a plan will be produced showing the
proposed improvements.
Mr. Polk stated that staff's recommendation would still be denial
based on the inappropriate nature of this use in a primarily
residential neighborhood. He stated that the John Barrow
Neighborhood Plan indicated that any additional commercial uses
should be located along Kanis Road or Asher Avenue.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the item to
the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was granted
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944
to allow the applicant to prepare a revised site plan and meet
with the neighborhood.
The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
61
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5945
NAME:
LOCATION:
Looper Office/Warehouse -
Conditional Use Permit
7223 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Danny Looper
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the phased
development of a multi -building
office/warehouse complex on this
C-3 zoned, 3.3± acre site. A
variance is requested to allow a
reduced rear yard setback of 15
feet for a portion of the project
which is located at the northeast
corner of the property. A rear
yard setback of 25 feet is required
in the C-3 zone.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located approximately 220 feet east of Geyer
Springs Road, at its intersection with Forbing Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This 3.3± acre tract is located in an area of mixed zoning
and uses ranging from single family residential to
mini -warehouses. A large area of commercial and industrial
zoning extends along this portion of Geyer Springs Road.
The property currently contains a sub -standard,
nonconforming mobile home park. The redevelopment of this
property as an office/warehouse complex is compatible with
the neighborhood.
Attention must be given to properly screening/buffering this
site from the adjacent single-family residential properties.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant proposes to access the site via a 50 foot
access easement off of Geyer Springs Road. The site plan
proposes 99 on-site parking spaces. The percentage of
mixture of office and warehouse determines the required.
parking. Based on a mix of 30% office and 70% warehouse,
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5945
this 42,900 square foot development requires 51 on-site
parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A six foot tall, opaque wood fence with its
face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are
required adjacent to the residential properties to the east
and north. A three foot wide landscape strip is required
between the public parking areas and the buildings.
5. City Engineer Comments
Recommend improving the access drive to Geyer Springs Road
and recommend a minimum street width of 24 feet with curb
and gutter. The apron should be concrete at Geyer Springs
Road. Stormwater detention and boundary survey requirements
will be required. A sketch grading and drainage plan
meeting the requirements of Section 29-186 are required
before construction. A grading permit is required.
6. Utility and Fire Devartment Comments
On-site fire protection is required. The Little Rock Fire
Department will need to evaluate the site to determine the
location of required private fire hydrants. Regulation city
no parking/tow away signs are required by the Little Rock
Fire Department.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the phased development of a multi -building office/warehouse
complex on this C-3 zoned 3.3± acre site. The property is
currently occupied by a nonconforming mobile home park
containing approximately 24 mobile homes.
The proposed development consists of a total of five
buildings with a total building area of 42,900 square feet.
The applicant proposes to construct the shell of each
building and then finish out the interior to meet the needs
of the tenants. The proposed use mixture is 30% office and
70% warehouse. The 30% office square footage is a maximum.
Some tenants may not require that much office space and may
require a greater percentage of warehouse space.
Residentially zoned property is adjacent to the east and
north of this site. As such, the relationship of this
commercial development to the residential property must be
addressed. The perimeters adjacent to the residential
property must be properly landscaped, screened and buffered.
2
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5945
The walls of the buildings facing the residential property
shall have no openings, doors or signage except as may be
required by the building code or Fire Department as a safety
device. All parking lot lighting must be low-level and
directional, aimed away from adjacent residential
properties.
Staff feels that the proposed development is a reasonable
use of this property and supports the application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to
allow for the phased development of an office/warehouse
complex on this C-3 zoned property subject to the following
conditions:
1. The use mixture within each leased area is to be 30%
office and 70% warehouse. The 30% office square
footage is a maximum, allowing individual tenants to
have less square footage devoted to office than 30%.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
3. The wall of the buildings facing residential property
are not to have any openings, doors or signage except
as may be required by building codes or the Fire
Department as a safety device.
4. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
5. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
6. All lighting is to be low-level and directional, aimed
away from adjacent residential properties. A maximum
light pole height of 20 feet and no lighting allowed on
the back of the buildings facing the residential
properties is recommended.
7. Dumpsters shall be screened on at least three sides to
a height of 8 feet and shall be located away from the
perimeters adjacent to residential properties.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a reduced
rear yard setback of 15 feet for the one building located at
the northeast corner of the property. The reduced setback
area will be landscaped and buffered to comply with City
Code.
Q
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5945
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Danny Looper and James Butler were present representing the
application. Staff presented the item and noted the landscaping,
City Engineer, Utility and Fire Department comments outlined
above.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, gave further
details on the suggested improvements to the access drive to
Geyer Springs Road.
Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, pointed out the landscaping
and buffer requirements.
In response to a question from staff, Mr. Looper stated that
there would be no openings in the wall of the buildings which
face residential property.
Mr. Looper was asked to provide a percentage of the mix of office
and warehouse space. (The proposed use mix of 30% office and 70%
warehouse was later provided to staff.)
Mr. Looper was directed to provide details on any proposed
signage and the parking lot lighting. It was suggested that the
parking lot lighting be low-level and directional, aimed away
from the adjacent residential properties. A light pole height of
20 feet was suggested by staff.
Mr. Looper and Mr. Butler were directed to provide a revised site
plan incorporating the needed changes.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan and additional
information which addressed staff's concerns.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The use mixture within each leased area is to be 30% office
and 70% warehouse. The 30% office square footage is a
maximum, allowing individual tenants to have less square
footage devoted to office than 30%.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5945
3. The wall of the buildings facing residential property are
not to have any openings, doors or signage except as may be
required by building codes or the Fire Department as a
safety device.
4. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
5. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments
6. All lighting is to be low-level and directional, aimed away
from adjacent residential properties. A maximum light pole
height of 20 feet and no lighting allowed on the back of the
buildings facing the residential properties is recommended.
7. Dumpsters shall be screened on at least three sides to a
height of 8 feet and shall be located away from the
perimeters adjacent to residential properties.
The Commission also approved a variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback of 15 feet for the one building located at the
northeast corner of the property.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
5
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-5947
NAME: Champagnolle Park - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: South side of Champagnolle Drive in
Section 35, T -2-N, R -14-W; Chenal
Valley Addition
OWNER/APPLICANT: Deltic Farm and Timber Company by
Joe White
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
development of a private,
subdivision recreational area on
this R-2 zoned, 3.73 acre site.
The proposed development will
include a 30 car parking lot,
swimming pool, playground and an
outdoor basketball court. This
item is associated with Item No. 1,
Chenal Valley Addition, Lot 74
Preliminary Plat.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the south side of the proposed
extension of Champagnolle Drive, approximately one-half mile
south of Chenal Valley Drive.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposed park is to be located within the Chenal Valley
Addition, an expanding residential subdivision on the
western perimeter of the City. All property in the vicinity
of the park is currently vacant, comprised primarily of
undeveloped wood land. Zoning in the area ranges from R-2,
Single Family to 0-2, Office and Institutional. The
development of this property as a private, subdivision
recreational area is compatible with the neighborhood, which
will actually develop around the park.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant proposes to construct a 30 space parking lot,
taking access via a single driveway off of Champagnolle
Drive. A circular drop-off will be located at the entrance
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5947
to the pool house. There are no regulations regarding the
number of parking spaces required for this type of use.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A six foot tall opaque wood fence with its
face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are
required to screen the proposed areas of activity from the
residential properties to the south, east and west.
5. City Encrineer Comments
Street plans, stormwater detention and boundary survey
requirements will be required. A sketch grading and
drainage plan meeting the requirements of Section 29-186 are
required before construction. A grading permit is required.
Interior drives must be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
6. Utility and Fire DeUartment Comments
A water main extension will be required to serve this
property. An acreage charge of $300/acre applies in
addition to the normal connection fee (5.14 acre at $300 =
$1,542.00).
7. Analysis
Deltic Farm and Timber Company, developer of Chenal Valley
proposes to construct a small, private, subdivision
recreation area to serve the residents of this expanding,
residential development. The private park will serve only
the residents of Chenal Valley and will offer the typical
amenities associated with a private, subdivision park.
These include a pool, playground and outdoor activity area.
The park will be maintained by the neighborhood association.
Although the proposed park is located in an undeveloped,
heavily wooded area, the adjacent properties will ultimately
be occupied by single-family residences. As such, the
park's areas of activity need to be screened to protect
adjacent residential property.
Staff feels that the proposed park is a reasonable use for
this property and, as such, supports the application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of
allow for the development of
recreational area on this R-2
following conditions:
2
the conditional use permit
a private, subdivision
zoned property subject to
to
the
, February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5947
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
3. Compliance with Utility Comments
4. All parking lot lighting is to be low-level and
directional, aimed away from adjacent residential
properties.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Tim Daters was present representing the item. Staff presented
both the preliminary plat and conditional use permit and they
were discussed concurrently. Staff noted the City Engineer,
Landscaping and Utility Comments outlined above.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the treatment of
Champagnolle Drive which is proposed to temporarily terminate
just past the end of the park. The applicant was directed to
construct some form of turnaround at the end of the street.
Mr. Daters was advised to provide details on the proposed pool's
hours of operation and on any signage proposed for the site.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there
were no outstanding issues. The park will be open year-round
from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. The swimming pool will be
open from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from Memorial Day through Labor
Day. A lockable gate at the main entrance will control access to
the property.
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 City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
3.
Compliance
with
Utility Comments
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5947
4. All parking lot lighting is to be low-level and directional,
aimed away from adjacent properties.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z -4942-A
NAME: St. Paul United Methodist Church
Day Care Center - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 2223 Durwood Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: St. Paul United Methodist Church by
Betsy Glavin, Child Care Director
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow this existing
church to operate a day care center
with a maximum enrollment of 75
children with 10 employees. The
proposed day care center will be
located within the existing church
building. A second, church owned
lot is also included in the
application. The day care center's
playground is located on the rear
portion of this second lot. A
residential structure occupies the
front portion of the lot. At some
point, this residential structure
may be used by the church and day
care as classroom space. Both
properties are zoned R-4.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the east side of Durwood Road,
between Pine Valley and Hawthorne Roads.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
St. Paul United Methodist Church has been an element of this
neighborhood for the better part of 50 years. The
surrounding neighborhood is primarily single-family
residential, however a small area of duplex residences is
located adjacent to the west of the church site. A small
neighborhood commercial center is located north of the
church site, at Durwood and Hawthorne. By utilizing
existing church facilities, the proposed day care center
should have a minimal impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4942-A
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
For years this church had no on-site parking. In December
of 1987, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use
permit to allow for the development of a 33 space parking
lot just south of the main church building. This parking
lot will be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed day
care center which requires a total of 17 on-site parking and
loading/unloading spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
Although the playground area has been used by the church in
the past, it has never been adequately screened from
residences adjacent to the south and east. A six foot tall,
opaque fence should be installed on the east and south
perimeters of the playground area.
5. City Engineer Comments
Extend sidewalk on Durwood Road to the south property line
of the lot south of the existing parking lot.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments
No utility comments.
Little Rock Fire Department states no children can be put on
the second floor of the building.
7. Analysis
St. Paul United Methodist Church requests a conditional use
permit to allow for the operation of a day-care center
within this existing R-4 zoned church. The playground is
located on the rear portion of the church owned lot directly
south of the parking lot. The structure on this adjacent
lot will continue to be used as a residence for the
foreseeable future but, at some point, may be converted to
classrooms which will be used by the church and the day-care
center.
The proposed day-care center will serve children six weeks
to twelve years and will be open from 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
The center will serve as many as 75 children and will employ
up to ten staff at full capacity. It is anticipated that
full capacity will not be reached for some time; therefore,
the number of children and staff will be less until that
date when full capacity is reached.
E
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4942-A
When considering a day care center of this magnitude,
several factors must be taken into consideration.
This first consideration is the introduction of an
institutional use of this size into a residential
neighborhood. St. Paul Methodist Church has been located in
this neighborhood for many years. The church sanctuary has
a seating capacity of 500. By utilizing the existing church
facility, the day care center lessens the impact of adding
another nonresidential use to the neighborhood.
A second consideration is that of providing adequate parking
and drop-off space for the proposed day-care center. There
is an existing 33 space parking lot on the site. This
parking lot is more than adequate to meet the day-care
center's needs and is so designed that children can be
dropped off and picked up at the building's entrance without
vehicles having to be parked in the street.
The applicant proposes to utilize the existing playground
which is located south of the parking lot. Although this
playground area has been used for some time, it has never
been properly screened. A six foot tall, opaque fence
should be installed on the east and south perimeters of the
playground to screen it from adjacent residential
properties.
The applicant proposes a ground -mounted sign 2 feet by 3
feet in size. The sign will be placed on the lawn at the
south end of the building, near the entrance to the day-care
center.
Staff believes the proposed day-care center to be a
reasonable use for this property and supports the
application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. A six foot tall, opaque fence, with the finished side
facing outward, being placed on the south and east
perimeters of the playground.
3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comments
3
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4942-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
Betsy Glavin, director of the proposed day-care center was
present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer,
Fire Department and Screening comments outlined above. Ms. Glavin
stated that those conditions would be complied with.
After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were
no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant 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
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. A six foot tall, opaque fence, with the finished side facing
outward, is to be placed on the south and east perimeters of
the playground.
3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comments
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
February 21, 1995
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5948
NAME•
LOCATION•
Harris Bookstore - Conditional Use
Permit
6300 Scott Hamilton Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Arlan Harris
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the use of this
existing, I-2 zoned building and
property as an adult arcade and
adult bookstore.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the west side of Scott Hamilton
Road, approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with
West 65th Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The property is located within the West 65th Street
Industrial Park, a large area of industrial zoning and uses
located either side of West 65th Street.
This property is within an area identified to the federal
courts as being appropriate as a potential location for a
sexually oriented business in compliance with Ordinance No.
15,629.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The property is fully developed and is currently being used
as a truck sales and service center. The applicant will
re -mark 21 parking spaces on a paved portion of the lot.
The parking will exceed ordinance requirements.
4. Screening and Buffers
The site is zoned I-2 as is all adjacent property. There is
no buffer requirement.
Although not required by Ordinance, the applicant is
installing several areas of landscaping around the public
parking lot.
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
5. City Engineer Comments
Repair broken driveway apron.
This property lies in an area of shallow flooding with the
100 year depths of less than one foot.
The base flood elevation in this area is 257 NAD 1927.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments
No comments
7. Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance
Section 4 of Little Rock Ordinance No. 15,629 which
regulates the location of Sexually Oriented Businesses
states:
(1) A person commits an offense if he operates or causes to
be operated a sexually oriented business within 750
feet of:
(a) a church or other religious facility;
(b) a public or private elementary, secondary or post-
secondary school;
(c) a boundary of a residential zone (R-1, R-2, R-3,
R-4, MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, MF -24, R-5, R-6, R-7, HR,
MR, HDR or PRD) or any single family or multiple
family residential use;
(d) a public park;
(e) a hospital or other medical facility; or
(f) properties listed on the National Register of
Historical Places or local Historic Districts as
identified by in the Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program.
(2) A person commits an offense if he causes or permits the
operation, establishment, or maintenance of a sexually
oriented business within 750 feet of another sexually
oriented business.
The property in question complies with those guidelines
outlined above.
Fa
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
8. Staff Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the
use of this existing I-2 zoned building and property as an
adult arcade and adult bookstore.
Little Rock Ordinance No. 15,629 defines adult arcade and
adult bookstore as the following:
(1) Adult Arcade -- Any place to which the public is
permitted or invited wherein coin-operated or slug -
operated or electronically, electrically, or
mechanically controlled image -producing devices are
maintained to show images to five or fewer viewers at
one time, and where the images so displayed are
distinguished or characterized by the depicting or
describing of "SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES" or
"SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS".
(2) Adult Bookstore or Adult Video Store -- A commercial
establishment which, as one of its principal business
purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of
consideration any one or more of the following:
(a) books, magazines, periodicals or other printed
matter, or photographs, films, motion pictures,
video cassettes, or video reproductions, slides or
other visual representations which depict or
describe "SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES" or
"SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS"; or
(b) instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are
designed for use in connection with "SPECIFIED
SEXUAL ACTIVITIES."
That same ordinance regulates the location of such
businesses by defining a specific distance of separation
which these uses must maintain from several other uses (see
Section 7 above).
This property is within an area identified to the federal
court as being appropriate as a potential location for a
sexually oriented business in compliance with Ordinance No.
15,629.
Staff believes the proposed use to be appropriate for this
property and supports the application.
Staff would recommend that any signage be low key and of
muted colors and that there not be a "mural type" sign with
graphics, pictures or product advertising. In response to
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
that concern, Mr. Harris has proposed a ground mounted sign
4 feet by 8 feet in area and 18 feet in height; and a wall
sign, on the front wall of the building, 2 feet by 8 feet in
area.
9. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Landscaping being installed as proposed on the site
plan submitted by the applicant.
3. Signage being low key and of muted colors.
a. The ground mounted sign is to be 4 feet by 8 feet
in area and 18 feet in height.
b. The single wall sign to be 2 feet by 8 feet in
area.
C. There is not to be any "mural type" signage with
graphics, pictures or product advertising.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(FEBRUARY 2, 1995)
The applicant, Arlan Harris, was present. Staff presented that
item and outlined the City Engineer and Signage Comments noted
above. Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, discussed the
proposed landscaping and stated that it exceeded ordinance
requirements.
After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there
were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that several telephone calls and
letters in opposition to the proposal had been received. Staff
presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no
outstanding issues.
Mr. Harris offered no additional comments at that point.
Frank Butler, of Strauss Distributing Company which owns property
in the area, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that
the bookstore/arcade would generate vehicular traffic which would
affect truck traffic in the neighborhood.
4
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
Tom Brock, of Geyer Springs First Baptist Church, addressed the
Commission in opposition to the item.
Bob Hardin, representing the property at 3700 West 65th Street,
spoke in opposition to the item. He stated that the proposed use
was incompatible with the neighborhood and would have a negative
impact on traffic coming to his business. Mr. Hardin concluded
by stating that new businesses are moving into the area and this
proposed use would be detrimental to the business climate of the
neighborhood.
Paul Majors, of J and B Supply, addressed the Commission in
opposition to the item.. He also stated that the proposed use
would generate traffic which would impact truck traffic in the
area. Mr. Majors concluded by stating that he also spoke for
Gerald Johnson, owner of the property at 6320 Scott Hamilton, who
is also opposed to the item.
Beverly Nelson, President of the Meadowcliff/Brookwood
Neighborhood Association spoke in opposition to the
bookstore/arcade.
Verlene Williamson presented a petition in opposition to the item
signed by the members of Geyer Springs First Baptist Church.
(Staff did not receive a copy of the petition and, as such, it is
not in the file.)
In response to a request from Chairman Walker, Stephen Giles of
the City Attorney's Office, spoke about the City's Ordinance
which regulates sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Giles stated
that constitutionally this use cannot be excluded just because
some persons find it offensive. The location of such uses, he
continued, can be regulated via land use regulations. Mr. Giles
concluded by stating that the Planning Commission must look at
Ordinance guidelines to determine whether to approve or deny the
conditional use permit; what goes on inside the business is a
constitutionally protected First Amendment right.
Mr. Harris then addressed the Commission. He presented a list of
video stores which he claims are renting the same videos which
will be available at this proposed business. Mr. Harris also
presented a petition signed by customers of his business in favor
of this proposed location. (Staff did not receive a copy of the
petition and, as such, it is not in the file.)
In response to a question from Chairman Walker, Mr. Harris stated
that there will be no access to his site from Dividend Street.
Chairman Walker asked Mr. Harris if he currently had a business
that was out of compliance with the City's Sexually Oriented
61
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
Business Ordinance. Mr. Harris responded that he did but that it
would close when this one was approved.
Chairman Walker asked why the location, which is out of
compliance, is still open. Mr. Harris responded that no one had
told him to close it. Mr. Giles stated he would review the
matter with the Zoning Enforcement staff.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the exact use of the
property. The use is as described in Little Rock Ordinance No.
15,629 as an adult arcade and adult bookstore or adult video
store.
In response to a question from the Commission, Dana Carney, of
the Planning Staff, described the proposed signage and
landscaping improvements.
Commissioner Willis asked if this site complied with all aspects
of the 750 foot separation outlined in the Ordinance. Mr. Carney
responded that he had prepared a map showing the 750 foot
perimeter and made a site inspection to assure compliance.
After further discussion, Chairman Walker asked what the hours of
the business would be. Mr. Harris responded that the business
would be open 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Putnam asked if this site complies with Ordinance
Standards and is denied, will there be a lawsuit. Mr. Giles
responded that there would be a lawsuit, in his opinion.
Mr. Harris stated that the argument that this use will hurt
business in the area is unfounded. He gave an example of a
company which just recently made a large investment in a property
located within 750 feet of the adult arcade/bookstore at 65th and
Murray Streets.
Mr. Giles asked the Commissioners to consider what it was about
this use, other than its sexual nature, that they objected to.
Chairman Walker stated if it wasn't for the Ordinance that
relegates this use to this location, the application would not be
at the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she had to consider the
businesses and residents already in place before allowing a new
use into an area.
In response to a question from the Commission, Bob Brown, Plans
Review Specialist, discussed the proposed landscaping plan for
the site.
N
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
After a brief discussion, the question was called and a vote
taken. The vote was 2 ayes, 4 noes, 3 absent and 2 abstaining
(Putnam, Woods).
Due to a lack of 6 votes either for or against the item, it was
automatically deferred to the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting.
7
February 21, 1995
FILE NO.• 16
NAME: Amend the City Master Street
Plan
LOCATION: 32nd Street Fair Park to West
Campus
REQUEST: Change location to Collector
SOURCE: Public Works Department
STAFF REPORT•
The street in question functions as a major entrance point to
UALR. With the addition of a parking deck, the traffic demands
are likely to continue or increase. The surrounding uses are all
University related and likely to remain in public use. The
actual uses may even intensify (dorms, etc.).
The City of Little Rock as part of a Bond Program plans to widen
Fair Park from 32nd Street to Asher. This project is in part to
better access UALR. 32nd Street is the continuation of this
project.
With the surrounding development and traffic volumes more than a
local residential street is needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(FEBRUARY 21, 1995)
Bill Henry, Manager Traffic Engineering, indicated that 32nd
Street was and is a major entrance to UALR. As a result, part of
the Fair Park widening proposes widening 32nd to collector
standard. Since federal money will be used for the project, the
road must be classified a collector to use the money. By
unanimous vote (7 for 0 against) the item was approved.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MASTER STREET
PLAN, UPGRADING 32ND STREET FROM FAIR
PARK TO WEST CAMPUS FROM LOCAL TO
COLLECTOR AND FOR OTHER MATTERS.
WHEREAS, the Engineering Staff believes there is a need
for 32nd Street to be classified Collector; and,
WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission after
review of the amendment recommends the classification be
changed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Master Street Plan map is changed to
add a collector along 32nd Street from Fair Park to West
Campus Drive.
SECTION 2. The Master Street Plan text in the Chapter
entitled "Functional Classification of Street System,
collectors" section is amended as follows:
• � M
Description From To
West 32nd Street Fair Park Blvd. West Campus Drive
PASSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
C I 1;
y, ►'i( NS O / r
Ov
ag
r
28thr
2 Py
W r �
'7i
ROCKr
_ H
t d
+-
a PVT
i PVT
Psrel
R
V PVT oA+VI /M
'QOM .h la[ A � Alf
P V t
a � a
I
_j
coowra.
I;
�i
29th
MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT
Revision
TRS WEST 32ND STREET ITEM No.
PD
-N- 1
CT 6
J
owl
0
0
W
W
F-
0
Z
0
o
z
z
J
T
I
w
0
11111111111
MOMMEMEMEMOM
MOMMEMMMEN
ffinumalm"NumumMEMOMEMOMMEM
ummanwoomumn
mummommommu
wommommommom
MMEMOMMONCUMON
mummullonnom
MEMEMEMMEmal
MIMEMEMEMEN
mamommummon
MEMINEMBEEMME
MOMMEMEM
ERE
MEMBEENUMME
EMMEEMEMEMEN
MEMEEMOMMEM
ei��ummEw
o�v
monew
000
ft
En
w
r
Z
U
February 21, 1995
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Date
Chairman