HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 04 1995subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 4. 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 February 21, 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
Diane Chachere
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
Joe Selz
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 4, 1995
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Hunter's Green -- Long -Form PD -R (Z -4587-A)
B. Global Interdenominational Revival Center -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z -5874-A)
C. U -Haul of Arkansas -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5944)
D. Harris Book Store -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5948)
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision -- Preliminary
Plat (5-45-A-16)
2. Hinson Loop Office Park -- Preliminary Plat (5-1028-A)
III. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS:
3. McCrary -- Amended Short -Form PRD (Z -5108-A)
4. R. D. Snell -- Short -Form PD -O (Z -5769-A)
5. BCK Contractors, Inc. -- Short -Form PD -C (Z -5930-A)
6. Donley -- Short -Form PD -C (Z-5959)
7. Harrison Place Apartments -- Short -Form PD -R (Z-5961)
8. Brodie Creek Community -- Conceptual Long -Form PRD
(Z-5963)
9. Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood -- Amended Long -
Form PRD (Z -5963-A)
10. Donahue -- Short -Form PRD (Z-5964)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
11. Handling Systems & Conveyors, Inc. -- Site Plan Review
(5-1054)
12. Otter Creek Village -- Site Plan Review (Z -3454-A)
Planning Commission Agenda, Page 2
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
13. Little Rock Friends Meeting -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -1513-B)
14. Tabernacle of Refuge Church -- Conditional Use Perrmit
(Z-5960)
15. Stone Accessory Dwelling -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5957)
16. Ish School Neighborhood Alert Center -- Conditional Use
Permit (Z-5965)
17. Long Accessory Dwelling -- Amended Conditional Use
Permit (Z -5919-A)
18. Barrow Road Church of Christ -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z-5966)
VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS:
19. Airport Rights -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-231)
VII. OTHER MATTER:
20. Kingwood Place Subdivision, Lots F1 and F2 -- Waiver of
Subdivision Regulations (5-1059)
21. Reconsideration of Previous Planning Commission Action -
Withdrawal of a R-5 rezoning in Pankey (Z-5896)
22. Sibley Hole Road Site Plan Review (Z-5949)
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
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. O. 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 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
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
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
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
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
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 form 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 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
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
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
Mr. Riggins comments and response to the discussion outline.
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.
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
PLANNING COMMISSION 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.
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.
5
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
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.
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;
6
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) --FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
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
0 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff outlined the request. Mr. David Carl, president of
Hunter's Green Development Corp., the applicant, and Mr. Frank
Riggins, representing the site engineering firm were present.
Mr. Carl indicated that the development would be patio, or
courtyard homes, and would be of high quality. He indicated that
it would be a "gated community", with a wall surrounding the
development and an electronic entrance gate. The average price
of the homes would, he said, be around $200,000, with an average
square footage of 2,000 square feet. He reported that, since the
previous Commission meeting where there was expressed concern by
some neighbors and Commission members regarding the density of
the development, the density had been reduced from 60 homes to 54
homes, a 10% reduction, he said.
Mr. Bob Tyler, a resident of the single-family subdivision
abutting the project site, spoke in support of the proposed
development. He said that, over the past years, two other
developments had been proposed for the site: one was an
apartment project, and this was unacceptable to the single-family
neighborhood; and the other was a condominium project, and,
although more acceptable than apartments, this was not what he
wanted to see developed behind his home. The proposed patio home
development would, according to his banker, increase the value of
the abutting homes. The traffic increase due to the development
would, he said, be negligible in relation to the traffic which
already uses Hinson Rd. or Napa Valley Rd. He indicated that he
deals with traffic studies every day as part of his work, and
estimated that the additional homes would increase traffic about
2%, and this 2% would be divided between the two collector
streets, or an increase of around 1% on each road. He said that
the owner of the property should have the right to develop the
property, especially with single-family dwellings, and that the
proposed development was very similar to other patio home
developments in the area, and he looked forward to having the
development behind his home.
7
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
Mr. Riggins reported that drainage concerns of neighbors would be
addressed, and he reviewed with the Commissioners and neighbors
the planned detention and stormwater system. He indicated that
there would, as provided for in the Detention Ordinance, be no
additional net increase of stormwater onto abutting properties.
Mr. Tom Oliver, identifying himself as the president of the
Marlow Manor Property Owners' Association, explained that,
initially, when incorrect information regarding the type of
development which was being proposed was disseminated, the
Association Board of Directors had raised concerns about the
development. He said that the Board and a majority of the
property owners would not object to the development, as long as
some concerns were addressed. He said that the issues regarding
drainage and traffic were concerns, and that these had been
addressed. Additionally, he related that, because of the
proximity of buildings in Hunter's Green to Marlow Manor property
owners' property lines, the Association proposed that, to afford
privacy to Marlow Manor residents, the homes to be built on lots
abutting Marlow Manor be restricted to single story homes, or
that a restriction be placed on the development to prohibit
windows on the rear of second stories.
Mr. "Trip" Vogel, who identified himself as owner of a real
estate firm, spoke in support of the proposed project. He said
that he was a resident of the Glen Eagle Subdivision, which was
the PRD immediately to the south of the proposed development
site, and said that the development would add to the value and
character of the area.
Ms. Mary Ann Lehman, a resident of Marlow Manor who had spoken at
the previous Commission meeting in opposition to the proposed
development, again spoke in opposition to it. She reiterated
that the density was too great and that it would add to an
already bad traffic problem. She also lamented that patio home
developments are not conducive to raising families, and do not
promote long-term home ownership.
Mr. Carl responded that, since he had a daughter who is in a
wheelchair, he would make all homes wheelchair accessible, and
that most of the homes would probably be single story; however,
since many of the homes would be custom built for purchasers of
lots, he could not restrict buyers of lots abutting Marlow Manor
to single -story homes or prohibit windows on the rear of the
homes. He explained that the rear building setback on the lots
abutting Marlow Manor was set at 25 feet, and that this building
setback line is the same as the building setback line for homes
in Marlow Manor and other residential areas.
Commissioners Chachere and McCarthy asked for clarification on
the requested waiver of a sidewalk for the development,
R
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
Commissioner McCarthy expressing concern for pedestrians and
their access to the common areas, and Commissioner Chachere
requesting clarification on the requested variance for a private
street system.
Mr. Carl explained that the proposal is for a loop street, and
that in residential areas, short loop streets are permitted to be
built to a "minor residential standard" which does not require a
sidewalk. He said that he was requesting that the 1765 foot long
loop street be classified as a minor residential street so that
the sidewalk could be eliminated. He said that a standard
residential street is 27 feet wide, and a minor residential
street is permitted to be 24 feet wide, but that he proposed to
construct the street 30 feet wide to provide room on the street
for pedestrians. He also pointed out that there are access
points to the common area at each of the four corners of the
interior block, providing points of access in close proximity to
all lots. He explained that he was proposing to develop the
interior street as a private street which would be maintained by
the property owners' association, and that the Bill of Assurance
would restrict on -street parking on a permanent basis. He said
that sufficient room would be provided off-street for vehicles to
park, without having to park on -street, except when a resident
had a number of guests in for a special occasion.
Staff explained that a loop street of no longer than 1500 feet
could be built to "minor residential street" standards; that in
order for the 1765 foot long loop street to be classified as a
minor residential street, a variance would be required to be
approved by the Board of Directors.
Commissioner Willis asked if there are sidewalks in the other
developments in the area, to which Mr. Vogel responded that, as
far as Glen Eagle is concerned, and to his knowledge, other
developments, as well, neither Glen Eagle or the other
developments have sidewalks.
Ms. Sandra Bernet, a resident of Marlow Manor, spoke in
opposition to the development. She said that there is a
"massive" traffic problem along Hinson Rd., and that she objected
to a development which would add more traffic to the area.
Ms. Nancy Mellen, a resident of Marlow Manor, reiterated the
traffic problem in the area, and expressed opposition to a
development which would add to the problem. She questioned
whether, when the street system was provided and Hinson Rd. was
widened, the dense developments such as the one proposed were
anticipated. She said that traditional neighborhoods should be
encouraged instead of the planned communities.
61
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4587-A
Commissioner Ball asked for clarification on the existing zoning
of the tract, to which staff responded that the existing zoning
is PRD; the site being the second half of the Glenn Eagle
development which was never developed.
Mr. Michael Grey, a resident of Marlow Manor, asked for
clarification on the distance of the homes in the proposed
development from the Marlow Manor property lines, to which Mr.
Carl responded that the rear building line for homes in Hunter's
Green would be 25 feet from the property line.
Chairperson Walker summarized the applicant's proposal: that a
PD -R with a private street system was proposed; that a variance
was requested to permit omission of the required sidewalk; and,
that the Bill of Assurance would restrict permanent on -street
parking within the planned development. The question was called,
and the proposal was approved by the Commission with the vote of
8 ayes, 2 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent.
10
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -5874-A
NAME:
LOCATION:
Global Interdominational Revival
Center - Conditional Use Permit
1608 South Rock Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rev. Bobby Marshall
PROPOSAL:
STAFF COMMENT
A conditional use permit has been
requested allowing for the use of
this R-2 zoned, two-story
residential structure as a church.
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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
the applicant had not provided any of the required supporting
documentation. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded
the item to the full Commission with a recommendation that the
item be withdrawn.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the
applicant had provided the required information, but it was too
late for the information to be reviewed and considered in this
agenda. As such, the applicant requested a second deferral, this
time to the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the May 16, 1995 Commission agenda to allow for staff
review. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining
(Willis).
0
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: C 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.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
no revised site plan had been submitted showing the vehicle
parking area and the associated landscaping and buffers.
There was no discussion. The Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Kenneth Vadnais was present representing the application. There
were 3 objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that no site plan had been submitted showing the
vehicle parking area and the associated landscaping and buffers.
Staff also reminded the Commission that the recommendation was
still denial of this application as being too intense of a use
and incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Mr. Vadnais addressed the Commission. He stated that no site
plan had been prepared because no expansion of the vehicle use
area was proposed. He stated that the application was being
amended to request only the parking of three trucks on the site,
utilizing the existing paved area in front of the convenience
store. Mr. Vadnais also informed the Commission that a meeting
had been held with the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and
the Association was still opposed to the proposed use.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was no effort made to upgrade
the site's landscaping or screening. Mr. Vadnais responded that
the applicant could not afford such improvements.
During a discussion of the site's landscaping, Commissioner
Putnam asked why U -Haul did not pay to do the landscaping
upgrade. Mr. Vadnais responded that U -Haul was only assisting
the applicant and that the company could not afford to do such
upgrades at its 13,000 sites nationwide.
Commissioner Adcock stated the proposed use goes against the John
Barrow Neighborhood plan.
Betty Snyder, President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item.
She stated that the proposed use was incompatible with the
neighborhood and asked the Commission to deny the application.
5
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944
George Brown, Vice -President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item.
He presented a petition signed by several neighborhood residents
also opposed to the proposed U -Haul facility.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition to
the application. She stated that the proposed use went against
the adopted John Barrow Neighborhood Plan.
Kenneth Vadnais again briefly addressed the Commission and asked
for approval of the application, as amended.
After a further discussion of the landscaping and screening
required on the site, the question was called and a vote taken.
The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The application was
denied.
0
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: D 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.
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
2
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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
3
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
Arpil 4, 1995
SUDDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
SUBDIVISION_ COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant, Arlan Harris, was present. Staff informed the
Committee that Mr. Harris had attemDted to answer concerns raised
at the February 21, 1995 Planning Commission meeting by
eliminating access to the site from Dividend Street, adding an
additional 100 square feet of interior landscaping to fully
comply with the Landscape Ordinance and by limiting the hours of
operation to 16 hours a day.
Mr. Harris stated that the elimination of access to Dividend
Street should answer concerns about his customers' automobile
traffic interfering with truck traffic in the area. In response
to a question from the Committee, Mr. Harris stated that the
hours of operation were the same number of hours that the
business on the site is currently using. He stated that his
hours would be from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant, Arlan Harris, was present. There were several
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that the applicant had agreed to eliminate access to
Dividend Street, add an additional 100 square feet of interior
landscaping to fully comply with the Landscape Ordinance, and to
limit the hours of operation to 16 hours per day (10:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m.).
At the request of Commissioner Putnam, Deputy City Attorney Steve
Giles gave a brief history of the Sexually Oriented Business
Ordinance. He stated that the proposed site complied with the
spacing requirements outlined in that Ordinance. Mr. Giles also
stated that the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood had
been resolved by virtue of the Board of Directors establishing
guidelines for the placement of such businesses within the
Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.
Mr. Harris offered no additional comment at this point.
Tom Brock, of Geyer Springs First Baptist Church, spoke in
opposition to the item.
7
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5948
Frank Butler also spoke against the proposed use.
Gerald Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition to the
item. He asked the Commission to impose the condition that there
is to be no live entertainment at this site. Mr. Johnson also
stated that he was concerned about the proposed hours of
operation.
Carroll Strickland, representing the Upper Baseline Road
Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the item.
Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning, addressed the Commission. He recommended that the
Commission add the condition that this proposed location not be
allowed to open until Mr. Harris' other location, closer to the
Wakefield neighborhood, is closed.
Mr. Harris and his attorney, John Wesley Hall, addressed the
Commission and stated that the other location will be closed as
soon as this proposed site is opened.
Mr. Giles recommended that the Certificate of Occupancy be
withheld at this proposed location until the business at 4717
West 65th Street is brought into compliance with the Sexually
Oriented Business Ordinance. Mr. Hall agreed to that condition.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Harris if he would reconsider the
proposed hours of operation. Mr. Harris responded that he did
not wish to change the requested hours.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Harris if he would agree to the
condition that there not be any live entertainment at this
location. Mr. Harris responded that he would agree to that
condition.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she did not agree with the
requested hours of operation and wanted the business to reduce
the number of hours it would be open.
After discussion with Mr. Hall, Mr. Giles told the Commission
that the hours of operation of a sexually oriented business was
not presented as an issue in the federal courts. He cautioned
the Commission to look at the compatibility of the proposed hours
of operation with the hours of operation of the other businesses
in the area. He reminded the Commission that there had already
been testimony that there were 24 hour a day trucking operations
in the area.
After a further discussion, the question was called and a vote
taken. The vote was 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent approving the
3
Arpil 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5948
item as recommended by staff with these additional conditions
agreed to by the applicant:
1. There is to be no access to this site from Dividend Street.
2. Additional interior landscaping is to be added to the site
in addition to that proposed in the applicant's site plan.
3. The hours of operation are limited to 16 hours per day
(10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.).
4. There is to be no live entertainment at this site.
5. No certificate of Occupancy is to be issued for this site
until Mr. Harris' existing location at 4717 West 65th Street
is brought into compliance with the provisions of Little
Rock Ordinance No. 15,629 (the Sexually Oriented Business
Ordinance).
0
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
NAME: OTTER CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION --
PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Otter Creek Parkway and
Stagecoach Road.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT GROUP MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211
455-5557 223-9900
AREA: 11.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a service easement along the
south and west property lines.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the subdivision of an 11.5 acre tract into
6 lots for the development of a commercial shopping center. To
provide the required access to internal lots, a service easement
is proposed to be platted along the south and west property
lines.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested for a preliminary
plat, and for a service easement along the south and west
property lines in order to provide the required access to
internal lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped. The land has been mostly cleared,
but scattered trees stand along the north and south property
lines and there is a thick stand of trees along the west
property line.
The site is zoned C-2, and encompasses approximately two-
thirds of a larger C-2 zoned tract. The remainder of the C-2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
zoned tract lies to the west, with an adjacent C-2 tract
abutting the site to the south. Directly across Otter Creek
Parkway to the north is a C-1 zoned site, with an MF -18
tract lying immediately west of this C-1 site and to the
northwest of the subject property. Across Stagecoach Rd. to
the east is R-2 zoned land. At the southeast corner of the
tract, across Stagecoach Rd., is a C-3 zoned tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments:
1) Driveways of minimum 36 foot in width are recommended
if left turn lanes are desired. Installation of a
traffic signal is anticipated at the intersection of
Stagecoach Rd. and Otter Creek Dr., and the drive that
is shown to be placed at this intersection should,
instead, be dedicated as a commercial street to provide
access to the adjoining commercial properties.
2) A sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required. A grading
permit will be required. The applicant should contact
ADPC&E for approval before work is begun.
3) Sidewalks will be required on both boundary streets,
and, if a street (whether public or private) is
provided along the south property line, a sidewalk will
be required along it.
4) Street plans will be required, and must be submitted to
AHTD for approval. A left turn lane will be required
in Otter Creek Blvd., and construction of improvements
to one-half of minor arterial standards will be
required for Stagecoach Rd./Highway 5.
5) Stormwater detention and boundary survey requirements
must be met.
6) Lots designated as lots 3 and 4 shall take access only
from internal drives, and will not be permitted to have
separate access point to the boundary streets.
Water Works comments that a water main extension and on-site
fire protection will be required.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide
easement around the perimeter of the plat area.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not furnished comments.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
1) In addition to the information submitted with the
application, the following must be furnished or
accomplished: a) The name and address of the owner of
record, the source of title, the average and minimum
lot sizes, any existing covenants and restrictions, the
source of water supply, and the means of wastewater
disposal are to be provided; b) A storm drainage
analysis and a preliminary storm drainage plan are to
be furnished; c) The names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and
page number or instrument number, the owners of all
land contiguous to the proposed subdivision, an
accurate description of all monuments, and the zoning
classifications within the plat and of the abutting
areas are to be shown; d) The required certifications
must be executed; and, e) A preliminary Bill of
Assurance must be submitted.
2) The proposed site does not take the entire zoning lot
which was zoned C-2 as one tract. The remainder of
this zoning lot needs to be incorporated into the area
of the preliminary plat.
3) Sec. 31-231 requires that all lots abut on a public
street, except where a private street is explicitly
approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-207
states that private street systems for non-residential
use shall be discouraged; however, that the Planning
Commission may approved limited use of private streets;
that private streets are to be limited to short loop or
cul-de-sac streets where the development served
contains less than 5 acres; and, that the design of the
private street system is to meet that of public
streets.
Sec. 31-287 states that
requires the creation o
system to provide access
Commission may authorize
in lieu of public comme
goes on to state that th
easements shall be built
standards.
3
where a commercial subdivision
f an internalized circulation
to multiple lots, the Planning
the use of a service easement
rcial streets. This section
e service drives in the service
to public street design
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
4) Sec. 31-201(h) states that new boundary streets shall
be avoided, except that the Planning Commission may
authorize such a street when the subdivider proposes to
dedicate the entire right-of-way and construct all the
required improvements. The section states that the
subdivider may not retain a parcel of land lying
between the boundary street and the property line in
order to deny access by abutting owners.
E. ANALYSIS•
There is a distinction made in the Regulations between
"service easements" for access to internal lots within
a subdivision (Pursuant to Sec. 31-287) and "private
street systems" for non-residential use (Pursuant to
Sec. 31-207). Because there is are abutting C-2 zoned
tracts to the south and west, and, because a traffic
signal is anticipated to be installed at the southern-
most drive into the proposed subdivision (making this a
major access point to not only the subject tract, but
to the abutting tracts), the southern access is more
than "access to internal lots". The regulations
restrict non-residential private streets to "short loop
or cul-de-sac streets where the development served
contains less than 5 acres". Since this southern
boundary access is more than an access point for
internal circulation, since it will serve multiple
developments on lands which exceed 5 acres, and because
of the anticipated location of a traffic signal at its
intersection with Stagecoach Rd., the street needs to
be dedicated and constructed as a public street.
Pursuant to Sec. 31-201(h), the entire width of the new
boundary street is to be constructed, and it will
provide access to the abutting properties to the south
and west.
The proposed service easement from Otter Creek Parkway
to provide access to Lot 1 meets the qualifications for
a service easement. According to the regulations,
though, the streets in such easements are to meet the
standards for public streets. The designated service
easement along the west property line, behind lots 1,
5, and 2, should, according to the Regulations, also be
constructed to public street standards, although this
is not the developer's intention. Instead, the
developer intends that the access easement along the
west property line be used for "cross access" of
delivery vehicles to the various tenants or lots, and
to be constructed to "driveway" standards. Therefore,
except for the required access easement from Otter
Creek Parkway to the northern boundary of Lot 1, the
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-16
access easement along the west property line should be
eliminated from the plat, and the cross access for
mutual use of the driveways by tenants and lot owners
should be dealt with in the Bill of Assurance. The
Commission needs to specify the standards for the
"street" or "drive" in the remaining access easement
across Lot 6 for access to Lot 1.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to the required submittal information and exhibits being
completed, and subject to the southern boundary street being
dedicated and constructed as a public street. Staff
recommends approval of the access easement from Otter Creek
Parkway across Lot 6 to the northern boundary of Lot 1 to
provide the required frontage on a public street for Lot 1,
and that the improvement in this access easement be
constructed as an integral part of the internal shopping
center driveway.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the proposal to the Subdivision Committee, and Mr.
McGetrick reviewed the discussion outline items. The Committee
reviewed the items, and discussed with Mr. McGetrick the various
concerns. The Public Works staff person reviewed the Public
works recommendations regarding the southern boundary street
improvements, and Mr. McGetrick responded that he would discuss
these concerns with his client. The Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Public Works reported that the remaining issues regarding access
along the south and west subdivision boundaries had been resolved;
that access easements would be permitted to provide access to the
interior lots and a private street would be permitted along the
southern boundary. A motion was made and seconded to approve the
preliminary plat and the private street, and the motion carried
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S -1028-A
NAME: HINSON LOOP OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop
Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Robert Brown
CLARY DEVELOPMENT CORP. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
8210 Cantrell Rd., Suite 340 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72205
225-0204 221-7880
AREA: 9.05 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 1,040
ZONING• O-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES: General Offices
1. Approval is requested of a variance for reduced street
rights-of-way widths from the requirements of the Master
Street Plan.
2. Approval is requested of a variance from the requirement to
provide sidewalks along both side of the streets, to permit
construction of a sidewalk along one side only.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of
an office subdivision on a 9.05 acre tract. Nine lots ranging in
size of from just under one half acre to over one and two-thirds
acres are proposed. Approximately 1,040 linear feet of new
public streets are planned, with one access point being from
Hinson Loop Rd.; the second, a "right in -right out only" access
point, being from Hinson Rd. A reduced street section is
requested (30 feet in lieu of the required] 36 foot section for a
commercial street), and a reduced right-of-way (41 foot minimum
versus the 60 required) is proposed due to the "limited service
area" of the streets; however, a minimum 10 foot utility easement
is to be provided beyond the right-of-way line. Dedication of
required right-of-way along both Hinson Rd. and Hinson Loop Rd.
is planned, as is construction of the required right turn lane
off Hinson Rd.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1028-A
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Planning Commission approval is requested for a preliminary
plat, and Planning Commission review and Board of Directors
approval is requested for variances from the minimum
required street and right-of-way widths pursuant to the
Master Street Plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped, heavily wooded, with a man-made
pond of approximately 1 acre in size located on the site.
a.
The site is zoned 0-3. At the northwest corner of the tract
is an office development on 0-3 zoned land. West of the
tract, is an 0-2 zoned tract and a single-family PRD. The
south is an MF -12 zoned development. To the east of the
tract, on the west side of Hinson Loop Rd. is additional 0-3
zoned property, a PCD, and some R-2 zoned property. Across
Hinson Loop Rd., where the subject property abuts Hinson
Loop Rd., there is a large PCD zoned site.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works Comments:ll
1) Construction of a right turn lane on Hinson, per the
Master Street Plan standards for connection with a
collector is required. On Hinson Loop Road,
improvements to bring the street up to the standards of
one-half of a collector must be provided.
2) Dedication of additional right-of-way for turn lanes,
in addition to the Master Street Plan requirements for
right-of-way, for both Hinson and Hinson Loop must be
provided.
3) A sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required. A grading
permit will be required.
4) A sidewalk will be required to be constructed along
Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads, and along both sides of
the new interior streets.
5) Stormwater detention for the development must be
completed prior to construction on individual parcels.
Storm drain discharge and downstream capacity of
existing system will be required. Boundary survey
requirements will be required.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1028-A
6) Storm drain lines are shown, but no information is
provided to substantiate their design. The storm drain
system may not terminate at the east property line and
discharge onto the abutting property. An easement must
be obtained and the storm drain system extended to
Hinson Loop Rd., or an alternate route must be
provided.
Water Works comments that a water main extension and on-site
fire protection will be required. A pro -rata front footage
charge of $15.00 per front foot applies for service
connections directly off the main in Hinson LOOP Rd.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the preliminary plat
without comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department comments that the entrance drive from
Hinson Rd. must be a minimum of 18 feet in width.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
In commercial and office subdivisions, the minimum street
width is to be 36 feet; the minimum right-of-way is to be 60
feet; and sidewalks are to be provided along both sides of
the streets (See Sec. 31-282).
Sec. 31-201(h) states that new boundary streets shall be
avoided, except that the Planning Commission may authorize
such a street when the subdivider proposes to dedicate the
entire right-of-way and construct all the required
improvements. The section states that the subdivider may
not retain a parcel of land lying between the boundary
street and the property line in order to deny access by
abutting owners.
The 0-3 zoning district requires a lot area of at least
14,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 100 feet.
E. ANALYSIS•
The street system which is proposed does, as the applicant
asserts, serve a limited area. As is provided for in
residential areas serving a limited number of lots and where
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1028 -
the streets are relatively short, a "minor" street section
is permitted which allows a reduced street and right-of-way
width, and eliminates the requirement for sidewalks. The
applicant proposes a 30 foot street width in lieu of the 36
foot which is required. A reduced right-of-way of a minimum
of 41 feet is proposed in lieu of the 60 foot required. (A
5 foot offset, providing 46 feet of right-of-way, exists
where the street abuts property outside the subdivision
boundary.) Eliminating the sidewalk along one side of the
street is proposed. The right-of-way width will provide
sufficient width for the sidewalks to be constructed within
the right-of-way, and the proposed utility easements will
provide the needed utility access width.
The street landscaping buffer depth is established from the
right-of-way line inward onto the property. With the
reduced right-of-way width, and with utilities being
constructed outside the right-of-way and within the boundary
of the lot, the required landscaping will be placed within
the utility easement and over utility installations. Work
by utility companies/agencies will affect the landscaping.
The proposal to reduce the width of the right-of-way will
also lessen the effective "green space" along the streets.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of
requested variances. Staff
required landscaping buffer
of the utility easements, in
line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
the preliminary plat and of the
recommends, however, that the
be measured from the inside edge
lieu of from the right-of-way
(MARCH 16, 1995)
Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, and
Mr. Jeff Maxwell, representing the developer were present. Staff
presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. Brown and Mr.
Maxwell the items contained in the discussion outline. The
Committee reviewed these items and discussed these with the
applicant and design professional. The proposed internal street
system design, the stormwater issues, boundary street
improvements issues, and submittal deficiencies were discussed.
Mr. Brown responded that he would be conferring with his client
and would present a revised plan to staff. The Committee
forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff pointed out that, since the original submission, the
applicant had changed the request to provide a public street
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1028-A
system within the subdivision in lieu of a private street system,
and that, therefore, the requested variances were moot. Staff
pointed out, however, that there were two new variances which
were proposed: 1) to permit a narrower street right-of-way than
is provided for in the Regulations, and to permit a narrower
street width than is required in office and commercial
subdivisions. Staff explained that the Subdivision Regulations
and the Master Street Plan require rights-of-way in office and
commercial subdivisions to be 60 feet in width, and streets to be
a minimum of 36 feet in width. The subdivider, staff explained,
proposes to provide 46 foot wide rights-of-way at the two
locations where the subdivision abut other properties; 41 foot
right-of-way at all other locations; and, 30 foot wide streets
throughout the subdivision. The variances proposed would, staff
explained, require Board of Directors approval. Staff stated
that both the Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planning staffs
recommend approval of the variances, as requested, explaining
that the interior street system within the subdivision involves a
short loop street and a short cul-de-sac section. Staff also
pointed out that the developer proposes to provide utility
easements outside of and along both sides of the rights-of-way
within the subdivision, and that the comment made in the staff
recommendation regarding requiring the developer to measure the
required landscaping depth from this easement line was not
applicable after the change from a private street in an access
easement to a public street. Since no one had completed a
registration card indicating an objection to the proposed
subdivision, the Chairperson called the question, and the
preliminary plat and a recommendation for approval of the
requested variances was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays,
0 abstentions, and 3 absent.
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z -5108 -
NAME: MCCRARY -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. 14th. Street and S.
Pulaski Street
DEVELOPER:
ATTORNEY:
CARLTON MCCRARY MICHAEL A. BELTRANI
1401 S. Pulaski St. 621 Cumberland, Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202
374-8669 374-6621
AREA: 0.16 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residence;
Restoration and maintenance of
personal antique automobiles
as a hobby
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 7
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STAFF UPDATE:
The "McCrary Short -Form PRD" was established in Ordinance No.
15618, on January 3, 1989. The plan approved by the Planning
Commission at the Commission meeting of November 15, 1988,
permitted two uses: use of the upstairs and a portion of the
downstairs of the old fire station for the personal residence of
the applicant, and use of the garage portion of the fire station
for research and development of the applicant's invention, the
"Tag -a -long Stroller". Since that time, the residential use has
continued, but the research and development use apparently has
ceased.
Recently, the Zoning Enforcement officer noted an accumulation of
automobiles at the site, and, after investigation, found that the
applicant had a used car dealer's license for operation of a used
car dealership at the PRD location. The applicant was notified
that the approved PRD plan did not include the use of the site
for a used car dealership, and the applicant, in response, has
requested an amendment of the PRD.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5108-A
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to amend his approved PRD plan to delete
the research and development of the "Tag -a -long Stroller" use
previously approved, and to use the entire two-story, 3,300
square foot per floor building which was formerly a fire station
as his private residence. The applicant pursues a hobby which
involves acquiring and maintaining rare, or antique, automobiles,
and he proposes to pursue this hobby from and within his
residence. He proposes that the automobiles be permitted to be
stored and maintained inside the area formerly occupied by the
fire equipment garage on the first level of the building.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval of the proposed amended PRD plan to the Board of
Directors is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is fully developed. The building was, in the past,
used as a fire station. It contains approximately 3,300
square feet per floor. The first floor contains the
kitchen, dining area, entrance foyer, and what was once the
fire equipment garage. The second floor contains the
bedrooms, living area, bathrooms, etc.
The existing zoning of the site is PRD. There is C-3 zoned
property to the east and across Pulaski St. to the west;
there is an 0-3 zoned lot across W. 12th. St. to the north;
and, there is R-4 zoned property to the south.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works has no comments on this item.
Water Works has no comments on this item.
Wastewater has no comments on this item.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5108-A
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant's cover letter/project narrative limits the
proposed use to "maintaining rare automobiles
inside... his... garage". There is no mention made of the
restoration, repair, or servicing of the automobiles, and no
exclusion was mentioned on the storing of automobiles
outside the building.
Landscape review points out that the landscaping originally
approved for the PRD site plan has not been either installed
or maintained.
The Planning Division comments that the site is in the
Central Business District. The adopted Land Use Plan
recommends Mixed Use. If the use is truly residential, with
the automobile use being a hobby, with no outside display,
sales, or restoration of automobiles, then there is no
conflict with the plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
As long as the PRD site is not used for a used car business,
and automobiles are not restored, repaired, serviced, or
stored outside the building, the proposed use, as a hobby,
should be able to be permitted as an accessory use in the
PRD. The applicant needs to clarify what is meant by
"maintenance" of the automobiles; whether he restores,
repairs, and services them. The applicant must not maintain
a used car dealer license, with the PRD location being the
designated location of the business.
The landscaping, as originally shown on the site plan
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning
Commission, should be installed and maintained, or the
application should be amended to exclude the landscaping.
The approved plan and the site conditions as they exist
should coincide.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the amended PRD, subject to
there being no outside storage, restoration, repair,
servicing, or maintenance of automobiles, and that the
applicant maintain no used car dealer license with the PRD
site being the location of the business. Staff recommends
that landscaping, to some extent, be required to be
installed along the perimeter of the building.
K
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5108-A
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant, Mr. Carlton McCrary, and Mr. Michael Beltrani, the
applicant's attorney, were present. Staff recounted the reason
for the current request for an amended PRD (that the uses, as
originally approved had apparently changed, and that the Zoning
Enforcement office had become involved due to an apparent used
car business being operated from the PRD site). Mr. Beltrani
reviewed the staff comments, but stated that Mr. McCrary is
pursuing a hobby only; that he acquires antique automobiles and
is a member of antique automobile clubs. Mr. McCrary explained
that he maintains a used car dealers license in order to buy
antique automobiles, but does not operate a used car business.
He stated that he had changed the designated address for the
maintenance of his used car dealer's license, and that it was no
longer at the PRD site. Mr. McCrary explained that he had
attempted to grow plants in a bed along the face of the building,
but that he had not been successful. He and Mr. Beltrani said
that the approved site plan needs to be amended to delete the
requirement for the landscaping around the north and west
building perimeter. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was
approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
2 absent, subject to the applicant meeting with staff for
approval of plans for and upgrading a practical the landscaping
along the two boundary street frontages of the site.
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z -5769-A
NAME: R. D. SNELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Kanis Road and White Road
DEVELOPER: ATTORNEY:
ROBERT D. SNELL KENNETH JONES
1200 White Rd. 9923 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72205
224-2832 223-9700
AREA: 0.45 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Contracting Office
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of required
improvements on Kanis Rd. and White Rd.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the use of an existing two-story building
on property which he owns as an office for his electrical
contracting business. The site is a 0.45 acre tract of land
which is to be subdivided from a larger tract which contains not
only the subject building, but also the applicant's home. The
applicant proposes to divide the property so that the tract
containing the office use is 120 feet deep (along the White Rd.
frontage of the site), with the full 165 feet of frontage along
Kanis Rd. The applicant proposes to provide the required
landscape buffer along the new property line between the two
uses; proposes to relocate the existing driveway to the site from
the side street, White Rd., to the Kanis Rd. frontage, at the
west side of the building, removing the existing driveway and re-
establishing the lawn and landscaping in the area; and proposes
to pave the new drive and the parking area. No outside storage
of construction materials or equipment is proposed. No
improvements to Kanis Rd. or White Rd. are to be made.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval of the PD -Office to the Board of Directors is
requested. A waiver of a requirement to make Master Street
Plan improvements along Kanis Rd. is requested.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5769-A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed. There is a two-story building on the
property which was previously used by the applicant for,
initially, a place for him to restore and maintain antique
automobiles in the pursuit of his antique automobile
collecting hobby, then, later, as an office for his
electrical contracting business. (The electrical
contracting business was relocated to properly zoned
property when Zoning Enforcement noted that a non-
residential use was taking place on residentially zoned
property.)
The site is part of a 1.88 acre tract which has 165 feet of
frontage on Kanis Rd. and 498 feet of frontage on White Rd.
The applicant's home is located on the tract of land which
will remain after the PD -0 site is divided from it. (The
remaining tract on which the home will sit will have 378
feet of frontage on White Rd., with 165 feet of depth.
The site is zoned R-2. All properties surrounding the site
are zoned R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments that:
1) Kanis Rd. is classified as a Minor Arterial street and
requires dedication of additional right-of-way to
provide one-half of a 90 foot right-of-way. According
to the survey provided, an additional 15 feet of right-
of-way must be dedicated. The applicant must make a
$750.00 "in -lieu contribution" for improvement costs
for Kanis Rd. (No Master Street Plan improvements will
be required for Kanis Rd. due to there being no
construction associated with the proposal.) Since the
existing drive access off White Road is proposed to be
relocated to Kanis Rd., and no access is to be taken
from White Rd. for the PD -0 site, no additional right-
of-way or Master Street Plan improvements to White Rd.
are required.
2) A stormwater detention analysis will be required to be
provided.
3) Provide a hard surface for the parking and drive. A
concrete apron is required from the right-of-way line
to the edge of the street.
Water Works has no comments on this item.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5769-A
Wastewater comments that for service to the PD site, a sewer
main extension, with easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. has not provided comments.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The application involves approval of a "lot split" in order
to divide the 1.88 acre tract into two lots, one for the
proposed office use and the other for the applicant's home.
Sec. 31-143 of the Code provides that "the Planning
Commission hereby delegates to and designates the Planning
Director the authority for approving lot splits, where a
single lot ... is being split into two (2) lots. The minimum
lot size shall be governed by the lot size specified by the
zoning ordinance classification of the subject property."
The R-2 zoning district (Sec. 36-254) requires a minimum of
7,000 square feet for single-family lots, with a minimum lot
width of not less than 60 feet. The 0-3 district (Sec. 36-
281) requires a minimum of 14,000 square feet, with a
minimum lot with of not less than 100 feet.
Landscape review comments that the structural supports for
the proposed fence along the southern property line must be
on the inside/PD side of the fence. No portion of the
proposed driveway should be closer than 6 feet to the
southern property line. Landscape plantings will be
required between the vehicular use area and the proposed 81
high fence.
The Planning Division comments that the site is in the Ellis
Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends
transitional zone. The proposed use, if truly office, is
compatible with the Plan.
E. ANALYSIS:
A plat for the proposed lot split will be required to be
prepared, approved, and filed as part of the PD process.
Both resulting lots meet all requirements, and approval of
the lot split is a staff level matter.
01
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5769-A
If the use is confined to "office" use, and there is no
outside storage of construction supplies or equipment, then
the use is compatible with the Land Use Plan.
The applicant requested a waiver of all Master Street Plan
improvements on both Kanis and White Roads. Public works,
after review of the proposed PD, deleted the improvements
requirements and has required a $750.00 "in -lieu
contribution" for Kanis Rd. improvements only.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD -0.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Mr. Kenneth Jones, the applicant's attorney, was present. Staff
outlined the proposal, and Mr. Jones reviewed the staff comments
contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Jones indicated that
Mr. Snell would be holding a neighborhood meeting in order to
work out any conflicts with the residents along White Rd. He
indicated that he would report to Mr. Snell on the staff comments
and concerns. The item was referred to the full Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The item was included by staff on the Consent Agenda for
Approval; however, a neighbor, Mr. Phil Glasscock, indicated that
he had concerns about the proposed PD -O, and Chairperson Walker,
noting that two neighbors had completed registration cards
indicating objection to the proposal, Chairperson Walker
announced that the item would be removed form the Consent Agenda
and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Staff outlined the request, and reported that the applicant had
amended his request since the original application had been
filed. Originally, staff reported, the applicant had understood
that boundary street improvements would be required on both Kanis
Rd. and White Rd., and had, as a result, requested waivers of the
improvements. Subsequently, the applicant had excluded access
from the PD -0 site to White Rd., making improvements to White Rd.
unnecessary, and Public Works had concluded that, since the PD -0
involved only a change in use, with no structural changes to the
existing building on site, a $750.00 "in -lieu" payment would be
the extent of the requirements for improvements to Kanis Rd.
Consequently, staff reported, the two originally requested
waivers were moot, and the applicant was amenable to the payment
of the $750 "in -lieu" contribution. Staff reported that, in
response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant had amended his
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5769-A
site plan to relocate the entrance drive from its location on
White Rd. to the west side of the building with access from Kanis
Rd.; that the existing access from White Rd. was to be abandoned
and landscaping in the area installed. Staff reported that all
concerns expressed by the neighborhood in correspondence directed
to staff had been addressed.
Mr. Phil Glasscock, a resident of White Rd., indicated that the
neighborhood was not in objection to the proposed use if: 1)
there was no access to White Rd. from the electrical contracting
office; 2) the site would be screened from the residential area;
3) there would be no future access to White Rd. available to the
site; and, 4) there would be a legal division of the tract,
separating the proposed office use from the residential use to
the south.
Staff explained that each of the concerns was addressed in the
staff "wright-up": that the access point had been located off
Kanis Rd., and that no change in that access could be
accomplished without amending the PD -O, which would involve the
applicant going thorough the same process as he was having to in
order to establish the PD -O; that a "lot split" would be required
to be provided and files with the County to divide the property;
and, landscaping would be established along White Rd. as a
buffer.
With Mr. Glasscock's concession that all concerns had been
addressed, Chairperson called the question, and a recommendation
for approval of the PD -0 was passed by the Commission with the
vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.• 5 FILE NO.: Z -5930-A
NAME: BCK CONTRACTORS, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
- COMMERCIAL
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Baseline Road and
Unity Lane
DEVELOPER:
Bill C. Keathley
BCK CONTRACTORS, INC.
3200 Baseline Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72209
562-1134
AREA: 0.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Contractor's office, shop, and
materials storage
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14
CENSUS TRACT: 41.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of Master Street Plan
improvements to Unity Ln.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the establishment of a PD -Commercial in
order to continue to operate his construction business from the
property. The building, he proposes, will house his office and
shop, and there will be designated areas on the premises for
outside storage of equipment and materials. The applicant
explains that all shop operations are conducted within the
building and the outside storage areas will be screened from view
from abutting properties and the streets. No improvements to the
abutting streets is anticipated. The applicant proposes that, in
addition to his construction use, the PD be approved for
conversion to all uses by right in the C-3 zoning district.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the
PD -C is requested. Approval of a waiver of Master Street
Plan improvements for Unity Ln. is requested.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5930-
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed. The building on the property was
originally built as a "Seven -Eleven" convenience store, but
was abandoned and sat vacant for a number of years. The
convenience store use existed prior to the area being within
the City Limits, and subsequently continued as a legal non-
conforming use. The non -conforming status ceased when the
use was abandoned for more than one year.
The existing zoning of the property is R-2. All surrounding
properties are zoned R-2.
The applicant is currently using the former "Seven -Eleven"
store building, but, since the current zoning is R-2, the
Zoning Enforcement division notified the applicant of the
violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has sought
to remedy the violation by gaining approval of the rezoning.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments:
1) Right-of-way dedication to provide the minimum of 45'
from the centerline of Baseline Rd. is required. Prior
to dedication of additional right-of-way, the applicant
must confirm proper site mitigation of the underground
fuel tanks which were installed and used when the
convenience store was in operation.
2) A sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186 is required. A development
permit will be required before any work being.
3) A sidewalk will be required to be built on Unity Ln.
4) Street plans and stormwater drainage for Unity Ln. will
be required. Full improvements will be required to
provide 1/2 of a 27 foot standard residential street.
5) The eastern drive on Baseline Rd. will be required to
be closed.
6) The AHTD will need to approve the proposal.
7) Sight distance obstructions at intersections are
restricted in the 50' triangular area from the right-
of-way. The fence which is shown along the Baseline
Rd. and Unity Ln. frontages of the site extends into
this triangular area, and, therefore, this portion of
the fence is in violation of the ordinance.
0
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5930 -
Water Works has no comments on this item.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there is no
adverse effect.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The subject property has, evidently, never been platted,
since the property is described by "Metes and Bounds". If a
plat is prepared, the required dedication of additional
right-of-way along Baseline Rd. may be dedicated in this
plat. Alternatively, if a plat is not prepared, the
required dedication may be accomplished with a quit -claim
deed.
The applicant speaks of the "shop" and "shop operations".
The types of activities associated with the shop need to be
clarified.
Landscape review comments that a 5 foot wide land use buffer
is required east and west of the parking lot. A three foot
wide landscape strip is required between the public parking
area and the building. If over 15 parking spaces are to be
provided, then 6% of the vehicular use area must be
landscaped with interior islands. Loading and unloading
areas are excluded from the requirement. A 6 foot high wood
fence, with its face directed outward, will be required to
screen the outdoor storage areas.
The Planning Division comments that the site is in the Geyer
Springs East District. Currently the adopted Land Use Plan
recommends Single -Family Residential uses; however, staff
has held neighborhood meetings in view of amending the Land
Use Plan. Following these meeting, the recommended amended
land use for the area is Mixed Office -Commercial; therefore,
if the Commission and Board approve the land use plan
change, the proposed commercial use will not be in conflict
with the plan.
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5930-A
E. ANALYSIS•
with proper buffering of the outside storage areas from
abutting properties and from Unity Ln., and with the "shop"
activities being accessory to the office character of the
use, then the proposed PD -C is in keeping with the uses
allowed in the amended Land Use Plan for the area.
The matter of the fence obstructing the sight triangle at
the Baseline Rd. -Unity Ln. intersection; the matter of the
proper abandonment of the underground gasoline storage
tanks; and, the matter of the proper abandonment of the
eastern -most drive off Baseline Rd. need to be addressed.
Installation of a "good neighbor" -privacy fence, or the
planting of evergreen shrubbery to provide the needed
landscaping buffering must be accomplished.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD -C, subject to the
requirements cited. Staff recommends denial of the
requested waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Mr. Bill Keathley, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined
the proposal, and Mr. Keathley reviewed the staff comments
contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Keathley inquired of
the Public works staff for information on the "sight triangle"
issue. Staff explained the regulation, saying that there can be
no obstruction within the triangle which is over 30 inches in
height above the abutting street grade. Mr. Keathley responded
that, because of the slope of the lot, the fence, within the
triangle, is not over 30 inches in height above grade of Unity
Ln. Staff indicated that if this were the case, then the
requirement is moot. The issue of the requirement to provide a
fence or evergreen shrubbery at the perimeter of the outside
storage areas was discussed. Mr. Keathley indicated that he
would comply with the requirement. The issue of the additional
right-of-way along Baseline Rd. was discussed. Mr. Keathley
indicated that, since the State had just completed the
reconstruction of Baseline Rd., all needed right-of-way should
have been taken at that time. Staff responded that the survey
which was supplied with the PD application showed inadequate
right-of-way to meet the City's Master Street Plan requirements.
Mr. Keathley responded that he would dedicate the right-of-way if
that was required. The issue of the requirement to close the
eastern -most drive was discussed. Mr. Keathley said that the
drive is not used; it is, in fact, fenced off. Staff said that
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5930-A
the driveway needs to be removed. The issue of the underground
gasoline storage tanks was discussed. Mr. Keathley said that
these had been properly abandoned; that he had the "paper work"
on this. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission
for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff reported that word had been received from the Neighborhood
Association that the Association has no objection to the proposed
PD -C, as amended. Staff also reported that he applicant had
amended his request to eliminate the request for convertibility
to all uses by right as listed in the C-3 zoning district to,
instead, convertibility to (as well as a contractor's office with
enclosed ship and exterior screened storage) all uses by right
and conditional uses as listed in the C-1 zoning district, except
for "cemetery or mausoleum", an "establishment for the care of
alcoholic, narcotic, or psychiatric patients", and a "nursing or
convalescent home".
Mr. Bill Keathley, the applicant, presented his request. He
pointed out that he is making use of an existing building which
stood vacant for a number of years, and is making practical no
structural changes. He said that he would clean up the site and
would provide the required screening of the storage areas. He
said, however, that he wanted to pursue his request for a waiver
of Master Street Plan improvements along the Unity Ln. frontage
of his site, saying that the street section on Unity Ln. from
Baseline to the residential subdivision to the north is open
ditch, without curbs and gutters, and has no sidewalk. He
pointed out that there are non -conforming auto repair and salvage
businesses both across Unity Ln. to the ease and behind his
business to the north, and that the existing road section serves
these two businesses, as well as his own. He said that it would
not be reasonable to require a short section of curb and gutter
street and a sidewalk, since neither would tie to anything, and
he did not feel that the approval of his use of an existing
building could warrant the expense of spending substantial funds
for street improvements.
There was no one in attendance who completed a registration card
indicating objection to the proposal, so Chairperson Walker
called the question. A recommendation for approval of the PD -C
and approval of the requested waivers passed with the vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5959
NAME: DONLEY -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL
LOCATION: On the west side of Old Shackleford Road, south of the
Shackleford Road intersection, at 3204 Old Shackleford Road.
DEVELOPER:
SURVEYOR:
Marty Donley Ben Kittler, Jr.
ARKANSAS POWER TOOL BEN KITTLER, JR., LAND SURVEYOR
9015 Kanis Rd. 6133 Dena Dr.
Little Rock, PR 72205 Little Rock, PR 72206
227-5995 888-3960
AREA: 1.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a deferral of Master Street
Plan improvements.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Commercial in order
to establish a business for the sale and servicing of air
operated nailers and staplers, and the sale, repair, and
maintenance of air compressors. The site is a 1.4 acre tract
with 150 feet of frontage on Old Shackleford Rd. The site
contains a 1,700 square foot brick and frame residential
structure which is proposed to be retained and used for office
space. A 40 foot by 50 foot metal building is proposed to be
added abutting the residential structure and used for shops and
warehousing. The hours of operation are stated to be from 7:30
AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The applicant proposes
that, in addition to air operated nailer and stapler and air
compressor business use requested, the PD be approved for
conversion to all uses by right listed in the C-3 zoning
district. The applicant proposes that the required Master Street
Plan improvements to Old Shackleford Rd. be deferred until "the
surrounding area develops and matures commercially".
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the
PD -C is requested. Approval of a deferral of the Master
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5959
Street Plan improvements for Old Shackleford Rd. is
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a residential structure currently located on the
property. The structure is a brick and frame, 1,700 square
foot building, and there is a concrete drive extending from
Old Shackleford Rd. to the carport enclosure.
The site is zoned R-2, with R-2 zoned property to the south
and directly to the west. Across Old Shackleford Rd. to the
east is a PCD. Abutting the property to the north is a
large PCD which is the Summit Mall PCD site.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments:
1) Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide a
minimum of one-half of a 60 foot wide commercial street
right-of-way is required.
2) Construction of one-half street improvements for Old
Shackleford Rd. will be required. (One-half of a 36
foot wide street section.) Public Works recommends
that a waiver or deferral of the required improvements
not be granted.
3) Required storm drainage must be installed. Stormwater
detention for the added runoff must be provided.
4) Only one driveway per 300 feet of frontage is allowed
by the Ordinance. One of the driveways off Old
Shackleford Rd. must be removed. A concrete apron is
required from the right-of-way line to the edge of the
street.
5) A sidewalk is required to be provided along the
frontage of the site.
Water Works had no comments of this item.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provided comments on
the proposed PD.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5959
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The subject property has, evidently, never been platted,
since the property is described by "Metes and Bounds". If a
plat is prepared, the required dedication of additional
right-of-way along Old Shackleford Rd. may be dedicated in
this plat. Alternatively, if a plat is not prepared, the
required dedication may be accomplished with a quit -claim
deed.
The applicant has requested a deferral from the required
Master Street Plan improvements to Old Shackleford Rd.
"until such time as the surrounding area develops and
matures commercially".
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque screen
is required along the southern perimeter to screen business
activity from the adjacent residential zoned property. This
screen may be a wood fence with its face directed outward or
dense evergreen plantings.
The Planning Division comments that the site is in the I-430
Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends
Mixed Office -Commercial uses. Any commercial use should
encourage a mixed office/commercial area; C-4 type uses are
not desirable.
E. ANALYSIS:
The types of uses listed in the C-4 zoning district, which
might be similar in intensity to the applicant's presumed
activities, include: auto repair garage; machinery sales
and service; office warehouse; plumbing, electrical, and air
conditioning and heating shops; service station with limited
motor vehicle repair; small engine repair; etc. The C-1
zoning district uses which might be similar in intensity to
the possible types of uses are: hardware store; medical
appliance sales; general office; tool and equipment rental
with inside display only; etc. The 0-3 zoning district uses
which might be applicable to the applicant's type of
operation include: general office or office
showroom/warehouse. Whether the proposed use in conflict or
in conformance with the Land Use Plan depends on the
intensity of the service, repair, and maintenance work
performed on the tools and equipment, and on the amount of
warehousing of tools and equipment at the facility. The
applicant needs to discuss more fully his operation, and
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5959
deal with such matters as noise which results from air
compressor repair or air -driven tool maintenance and
demonstration. The applicant needs to describe more fully
the character of the sales office aspect versus the repair
and maintenance of equipment aspect of the operation.
The PCD which was approved for the Summit Mall is
immediately adjacent to the applicant's property to the
north. If this mall site is developed, the character of the
area will change dramatically, and will affect the types of
uses recommended for the area. Presently, though, Old
Shackleford Rd. has, for the most part, retained its
residential character. There are residences, used as
residences, on both side of the full length of Old
Shackleford Rd. (Even the PCD directly across Old
Shackleford Rd. which is a key shop is a residential
structure.)
Deferrals from required Master Street Plan improvements are
not normally granted for undetermined lengths of time.
Normally, when deferrals are approved, a specified time,
generally in 5 -year increments, is imposed.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the PD, unless it can be
ascertained by the Commission that the proposed use is
primarily "office" and "office showroom/warehouse" as listed
in the 0-3 district regulations, or is similar in intensity
to those uses listed in the C-1 zoning district, such as
hardware store, medical appliance sales, tool and equipment
rental with inside display only; etc.
If the PD is recommended for approval, the Planning staff
recommends that the required right-of-way be dedicated and
the required Master Street Plan improvements be deferred for
a maximum of 5 years, or until there is other substantial
development along Shackleford Rd. -Old Shackleford Rd. in the
vicinity.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Mr. Marty Donley, the applicant, and Mr. Ben Kittler, the project
surveyor, were present. Staff outlined the proposal, and Mr.
Donley and Mr. Kittler reviewed the staff comments contained in
the discussion outline. The Committee members reviewed the plan
and discussed the applicant's proposed PD application. The
Public Works staff discussed the Public Works comments, and
pointed out that the residential driveway must be eliminated;
that only the one new driveway would be permitted. The matter of
the requirement for Master Street Plan improvements along the Old
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FI_LE NO.: Z-5959
Shackleford Rd. frontage of the site was discussed, and the
applicant indicated that he would seek a deferral of these
improvements from the Board of Directors. The Committee
forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The item had been recommended by staff for inclusion on the
Consent Agenda for Approval. Staff reported that the applicant
had submitted an explanatory letter regarding the types of
activities to be undertaken in his business; that the existing
residential structure will be devoted to office uses and the new
40 foot by 60 foot building will be, primarily, warehousing, with
one small corner (500 square feet) at the northwest corner of the
new building being devoted to repair of tools and compressors;
and, that the new building will be fully insulated to buffer
noise. Staff had recommended approval of the PD -C as requested,
including approval of a deferral of the Master Street Plan
improvements to Old Shackleford Rd.. A representative of the
abutting property owner to the south was present, however, and
indicated that he was in opposition to the request; therefore,
Chairperson Walker reported that the item would be removed from
the Consent Agenda, and would be heard on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Rusty Byrne, indicating that he was representing Mr. Nick
Baldwin, the owner of the property abutting the subject site to
the south, was present. He indicated that there are a number of
homes on Old Shackleford Rd., and that he had searched for such a
residential area prior to moving into the home in which he lives.
He said that he objected to the commercial use and possible noise
which the rezoning would bring.
Staff pointed out that the abutting property to the north is the
PCD for the Summit Mall, and that, if the Summit Mall develops as
has been indicated, the character of the area will change
radically. Staff also pointed out that, if the Summit Mall
develops, any interim street work by the applicant to Old
Shackleford Rd. will be wasted, and staff recommended that the
applicant's request for a deferral be recommended for approval.
Mr. Marty Donley, the applicant outlined his proposal, including
the request for the deferral of street improvements to Old
Shackleford Rd. He reported that, if the Summit Mall is
developed, he would have no opposition to participating in the
improvements to Old Shackleford Rd. along the frontage of his
property.
Staff responded that it is not customary to deferrals to be
granted without a "day certain" for the improvements to be made,
noting that, if there is no change at the expiration of the
deferral time period, the applicant can request an extension of
R
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5959
the deferral period. Staff recommended that a five-year deferral
be requested of the Board of Directors, or, a deferral until
there is a street improvement project entailing Master Street
Plan improvements to Old Shackleford Rd. as part of other
development in the area, or whichever comes earlier.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PD -C, and to
recommend approval of a five-year deferral, or a deferral until
there is a street construction project which involves the portion
of Old Shackleford Rd. along the applicant's frontage of the
street which is in conjunction to other development in the area,
whichever comes earlier. The motion carried with the vote of
8 ayes, 1 nay, Q abstentions, and 2 absent.
11
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.• Z-5961
NAME: HARRISON PLACE APARTMENTS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Harrison Street and
Evergreen Street
DEVELOPER•
DR. JAMES METRAILER
417 N. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72205
666-0249
AREA• 0.32 ACRES
ZONING• R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT• 15
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ARCHITECT:
Mr. Greg Peckham
HILLHOUSE ASSOCIATES
111 Center St., Suite 1510
Little Rock, AR 72201
375-1662
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential
None
The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Residential in order
to develop a multi -family residential project to contain 4
attached "townhome" dwellings on a 3.07 acre lot. Each of the
townhomes is to be a two-story, 1,250 square foot dwelling unit.
The front of the units will face Harrison St. At the rear of
each unit is proposed to be a private yard area. Beyond the rear
yard area, abutting the alley along the west boundary of the
site, concrete parking pads are proposed to be constructed. A
dumpster area is also proposed to be located off the alley. On-
site parking for 7 vehicles is provided. Improvement to the
alley is to be accomplished to City standards. An additional 2.5
feet of right-of-way along Evergreen St. is proposed, as is
construction of concrete sidewalks along both boundary streets
with a handicap ramp at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St.
intersection.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the
PD -R is requested.
I
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant. There is a single-family home abutting
the site to the north and one across the alley to the west.
The improvements in the alley are substandard. There is a
steep change in grade from the alley level down to Evergreen
St.
The site is zoned R-2. There is R-2 zoned property to the
north, south, and west. Across Harrison St. to the east is
a C-3 zoned tract which contains a shopping center and an
apartment building. To the southeast is an R-4 zoned area
which contains other multi -family dwellings.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments:
1) Dedication of additional right-of-way for Evergreen St.
is required. Evergreen is a collector, and the Master
Street Plan requires collector streets to have 60 foot
rights-of-way.
2) A 25 foot turn radius will be required at the Evergreen
St. -Harrison St. intersection.
3) Storm drains must be constructed pursuant to the
regulations, and stormwater detention from the added
runoff must be provided.
4) The width of improvements to the alley must be 20 feet
if primary access is taken from the alley Additional
dedication may be required to adequately install the
alley improvements.
5) A concrete apron is required from the right-of-way line
to the street for the alley.
6) Sidewalks are required on both boundary streets.
7) A grading permit will be required.
Water Works has no comments on this item.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there is no
adverse effect. A 6" sewer main is located in the alley.
Wastewater Utility should be contacted for details.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
V,
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not provided comments.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The project narrative needs to deal with whether the units
are anticipated to be held under one ownership or sold as
individual townhome.
The site involves using two existing platted lots. As part
of the PD process, a replat of the two lots can be prepared
and filed to combine the lots. If a replat is prepared, the
required dedication of the additional right-of-way along the
Evergreen St. frontage of the site can be dedicated. If a
replat is not prepared, the required right-of-way dedication
can be accomplished with a quit -claim deed.
The tract size is 14,000 square feet. Four units are
proposed, which is a density of 12.5 units per acre. In an
R-4 zoning district (the 2 -family district), the requirement
is for one duplex on a minimum 7000 square foot lot. With
the 14,000 square foot lot, two duplexes (four unity) would
be permitted. The MF -12 zoning district permits 12 units
per acre. The proposed development, at 12.5 units per acre,
is very close to this density.
The site is currently zoned R-2, as is the abutting
property. In the R-2 zoning district, the minimum side yard
setback is 10% of the lot width, not to exceed 8 feet. The
site is composed of two 50 foot lots, with a total width,
after dedication of the right-of-way along Evergreen St., of
97.5 feet.
Landscape review comments that the buffer requirement along
the northern and southern property lines is 5 feet in width.
The landscape ordinance requires a width of 6 feet of
landscaping north and south of the proposed vehicular use
areas. A buffer is required to separate single-family and
multi -family use areas, and this buffer can be either dense
evergreen plantings or a "good neighbor" fence. A solid
building wall with no openings can meet the qualification
for the required fencing.
The Planning Division comments that the site is in the
Heights -Hillcrest District. Although the adopted Land Use
Plan recommends single family development, the density of
the proposed residential use is not significantly above that
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
of single family. This, together with the site being across
the street from multi -family uses, justifies the proposed
use within the single-family classified area.
E. ANALYSIS•
The density of the proposed development is not significantly
different from other development in the area, and is not in
conflict with the Land Use Plan for the area.
If single-family homes were built on the two 50 foot wide
lots, the side yard setback could be 5 feet. This 5 foot
side yard setback from the home to the north is what is
proposed for the development. The side yard along the
Evergreen St. side of the development is proposed to be 7
feet, after dedication of the additional 2.5 feet of right-
of-way.
The development provides the required number of off-street
parking spaces. The regulations require 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit (Sec. 36-502(1)d.), which is 6 spaces; 7 are
provided.
The required dumpster area, buffers, landscaping, and street
and alley improvements are being provided.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD -R.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Dr. James Metrailer, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Peckham, the
project architect, were present. Staff outlined the proposed
development and the applicant and his architect reviewed the
staff comments contained in the discussion outline. The
Committee reviewed these comments with the applicant, and the
applicant responded that all needed changes would be made and all
requirements would be met. The Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff reported that all technical issues had been resolved, and
indicated that, except for neighborhood opposition, the item
would have been recommended for inclusion on the Consent Agenda
for approval. Staff related that objections expressed by
neighbors included: rental units being placed in a predominantly
owner -occupied neighborhood; two-story units being in a
predominantly one-story neighborhood; increased traffic on the
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
streets and in the alley; and, trash pick-up at night or early
morning. Staff, as a response to this latter concern,
recommended that dumpster servicing be limited to the hours of
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays. Staff recommended
approval of the proposed development.
Dr. Jim Metrailer, the owner, reported that he had owned the site
for approximately 10 years and that it is vacant. He related
that, to the east, across Harrison St. is the back side of a
shopping center and a 3 -story, high density, apartment building.
To the southeast, diagonally across Harrison and Evergreen
Streets, is a duplex development. He concluded, then, that the
4-plex townhome development which he proposes, would be a good
transition to the single-family neighborhood to the west.
Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, outlined the proposal.
He said that the architecture is designed to blend with the
single-family character of the neighborhood, with each unit
having a front porch with columns, and construction being of
brick and wood. He said that, although the units are to be
approximately 1250 square foot, two-story homes, the roof line is
to be lowered to reduce the scale of the two-story construction.
He said that all requirements of the City staff had been
addressed.
Ms. Margery Anderson, identifying herself as owning the home
immediately to the north of the proposed development, and as
being the one who would be the most affected by it, spoke in
support of the development. She said that the vacant lot, as it
now exists, grows up in weeds; that there are snakes and beer
cans on the lot; and, that the lot is used as a parking lot for
trucks by one of the neighbors across the alley. She said that
the proposed four-plex, with its columns and porches, would be an
asset to the neighborhood, and that Hillcrest needs new
development.
Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,
spoke in opposition to the development, saying that the existing
zoning does not permit the duplex use, nor does the Land Use Plan
provide for such a development. She said that if the multi-
family use is permitted to cross Harrison St., it could be the
first of many incremental encroachments. She urged the City to
hold to the adopted Land Use Plan.
Ms. Mary Boaz, identifying herself as a resident of the area,
living on Polk St., spoke in opposition to the requested re-
zoning. She said that the use was "commercial", and that
whenever you have rental units, the residents are more transient.
She said that the neighborhood is predominantly owner -occupied
single-family, and that the rental units would not be in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood.
5
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
Ms. Jan Bowman, identifying herself as living on Harrison St. at
the north end of the block from the proposed development, spoke
in opposition to the proposal. She said that the home next to
her°s is a rental unit, and college students live there. She
said that these college students disturb the peace of the
neighborhood and are a nuisance. She said that the proposed
development would attract more college students, and this would
add to the problem. She said that parking would be a problem,
since there is limited parking on-site; there is not off-street
parking provided for two of the four existing homes on Harrision
St., and since Harrison St. has parking allowed only on the west
Side. She said that the apartments across Harrison St. face east
onto a courtyard, and do not affect the neighborhood across
Harrison St. to the west.
Ms. Martha Cross, identifying herself as a resident of the
immediate area, said she opposed the request. She stated that
apartments are a business for Dr. Metrailer, and that the
proposal, then, is for a commercial use of the property. She
said that four units is too many units for the land, and that the
development would increase traffic and trash. She said that
townhouses are not in keeping with the neighborhood.
Ms. Mary Lake identified herself as living directly to the west
of the proposed development, and she spoke in opposition to the
proposed development. She said that all the comings and goings
would be from the alley, which is directly behind her home. She
objected, she said, to the increased noise, disturbance, and
traffic which would result from the apartments. She said that
her carport is on the alley, and that, when work is done in the
alley during the construction of the development, she would not
have access to her carport.
Ms. Beth Lipsmeyer, whose residence is at the northeast corner of
Tyler St. and Evergreen St., spoke in opposition to the
development. She said that the apartments would cause an
increase in traffic, and would adversely affect the character of
the existing single-family neighborhood.
Mr. David Mann, whose residence faces Tyler St., and whose rear -
entry driveway would be opposite the proposed development, spoke
in opposition to the development. He said that the apartment
project would cause an increase in traffic in the alley, through
which he and others have access to their drives and carports, and
having to share the alley with apartment traffic would cause
problems for them. He objected to a dumpster being located at
the northwest corner of the project, across from his property.
He said that the neighbors had been misled by Dr. Metrailer°s use
of the term "townhouse", which, he felt, has the connotation of
owner -occupied homes, versus the term "apartment", which connotes
rental units, which, in turn, mean a high turn -over rate of
residents. He objected to rental units being permitted in the
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
neighborhood, saying that the residents in the neighborhood look
out for one another and want to know their neighbors. The turn-
over associated with rental units, and the character of renters,
does not permit this type of neighborliness to exist. He
questioned the amount of alley which would be available and which
is shown on the site plan, versus the amount of alley which is in
use at the present time, saying that property owners abutting the
alley might have to give up some of the land which they are
currently using. He stated that he and his wife oppose the
development.
Ms. Jean Miller, a resident of "L" St. at the north end of the
block, spoke in opposition to the development. She said that
traffic is heavy on the streets in the area, with traffic heading
towards Kavanaugh Blvd., and that if the alley is made into a
thoroughfare, traffic will cut through the alley en route to
Kavanaugh.
Mr. Pat O'Dwyer, whose residence faces Tyler St., with the rear
of the lot facing the subject alley, spoke in opposition to the
project. He said that 8-12 additional people living on the block
was too many people. He objected to the development of the alley
to provide the rear access to the townhomes or apartments, saying
that it would take land from his lot, and would increase noise
and litter in the alley. He said that he objected to renters
living in the neighborhood.
Ms. Rose Perrymore, who identified herself as a property owner
living in a home which faces Tyler St., and whose rear yard faces
the subject alley, said that she objects to the development. She
said that the other neighbors have expressed her concerns, but
added that that development would not increase property values of
the single-family homes in the area. She said that everyone will
eventually want to sell their home, and having apartments in the
neighborhood will make it harder to sell them, since, she said,
people do not want to live next door to apartments.
Mr. Jerry Sears, identifying himself as owning a home which faces
Tyler St. and whose rear yard abuts the subject alley at the
north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He
said that a 2 -story townhouse does not fit in with the character
of the neighborhood; that the neighborhood does not have 2 -story
building. He said that traffic, especially the traffic entering
the Evergreen and Kavanaugh intersection, backs up onto Harrison
and Evergreen, and that traffic cuts through the other
neighborhood streets trying to avoid the intersection. He said
that improving the alley will prompt drivers to cut through the
alley as they head for alternate routes to avoid the Evergreen -
Kavanaugh intersection. He said that, in the past few years, the
property owners in the block have tried to turn the block and
neighborhood around, to stop the decline and deterioration which
had been occurring; that only one home in the block is now a
7
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
rental unit, and the property owners do not want to see the
number of rental units increased. He complained that rental
units are not kept up on the outside, and renters do not
participate in neighborhood clean-up and fix -up efforts. He said
that all the other blocks in the area have twelve homes per
block, and that their block already has twelve homes in it; that
building four more living units on the block would be too dense.
Dr. Metrailer, responding to the neighbors' concerns, said that
he had grown up in the neighborhood; that his mother had lived in
the neighborhood until she died recently and his children attend
the neighborhood school. He said that he had felt that the
townhome development would contribute to the neighborhood's
stability and value. He had reviewed, he said, the possibility
of moving onto the lots some older homes which would be
renovated, but had concluded that these would not add to the
value of the neighborhood. He said that with proposed rents of
$800.00 per month, he had felt that college students would be
precluded from renting the units. He related that he was
proposing to maintain the exterior of the buildings and the lawns
himself. Dr. Metrailer, responding to specific complaints and
concerns which neighbors had related, said that trucks parked on
his property were one of the neighbor's, not his; and, he said
that he had reviewed the possibility of developing the site with
single-family homes, but that people do not want to live across
the street from apartments, so the townhome development had
seemed to be a good transition from the multi -family across the
street and act as a buffer for the single-family neighborhood.
He reminded the Commission that, when Mr. Sears stated that there
are no two-story buildings in the neighborhood, he was omitting
the information that he had recently gained approval from the
Commission for an apartment unit in his back yard, and that the
apartment unit is a two-story building.
Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the nature of the
improvements to the alley and the location of garbage pick-up.
Dr. Metrailer responded that the grade of the alley would be
adjusted to a provide proper grade transition from Evergreen onto
the alley. He explained that there would be no dumpster as a
garbage container on the site; that individual garbage
containers, the "green monsters", would be used.
Staff interjected that, since the development is a multi -family
development, normally, private dumpster service is required.
Dr. Metrailer said that he had talked with sanitation, and that
the townhouse development would be treated as individual homes,
with "green monsters" being able to be used.
Chairperson Walker confirmed with Dr. Metrailer that, if dumpster
service is required, he would agree to limiting the servicing of
E
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961
the dumpster as suggested by staff: from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM,
Mondays through Fridays, to which Dr. Metrailer assented.
Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the width of the
alley.
Mr. Peckham responded that the plat shows a 20 foot wide alley
easement, and that, to assure no conflict with existing fences or
structures on the west side of the alley, the proposed site plan
shows paving to begin several feet off the rear property line of
the lots to the west, and, shows dedication of several feet of
additional right-of-way off Dr. Metrailer's side of the alley to
provide adequate maneuvering and parking space for vehicles. The
space provided along the west alley easement line should, he
said, provide adequate transition space between the new grade of
the alley and the existing carport grades of the homes to the
west.
Commissioner Ball asked staff if staff had any reservations on
its recommendation for approval of the development.
Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson said that the
addition of four dwelling units to the area, in an area with
multi -family developments existing across the street, and where
homes are built on smaller lots, would, in staff's opinion, not
have a negative effect on the neighborhood.
Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the proximity of
rental units to the proposed project site.
Dr. Metrailer responded that, in addition to the 3 -story multi-
family development directly across Harrision street to the east,
there is a duplex development diagonally across the Harrision-
Evergreen intersection from the site. He said that within a
couple of blocks, there are other rental units.
Chairperson Walker called the question, but, because the vote was
4 ayes, 5 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent, with the request not
getting the requisite 6 votes either for or against the proposal,
the item was deferred until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission
hearing.
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5963
NAME: BRODIE CREEK COMMUNITY -- CONCEPTUAL LONG -FORM PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: West of Bowman Road, with frontage on Bowman Road
between Panther Branch Creek and Olds Lane, extending west to
Spring Valley and north to Kanis Road, with frontage on Kanis
Road between the Cooper Orbit Road intersection and the Asbury
Road intersection
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Ms. Mary Allison Pat McGetrick
ELGOR REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
1320 Brookwood Dr. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72211
663-2053 223-9900
AREA: 695 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1,200± FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: R-2, MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family
MF -18, C-1, and Multi -Family
0-2, & 0-3 Residential, Commercial,
and Office.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of reduced widths for street and
rights-of-way from Master Street Plan standards.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of a "Conceptual" Planned
Residential Development for "Brodie Creek - A Community of Four
Neighborhoods". The concept proposed is a "Traditional
Neighborhood Development" patterned after 18th. and 19th, century
villages which are designed to foster neighborliness and a sense
of community. The PRD site encompasses 695 acres, and is
designed to eventually have four distinct, walkable
neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is to be unique, and to be
defined by a green edge and a village center. Each neighborhood
center is to contain a mixed-use building and a common green and
park. The community is to contain approximately 1,100 home
sites, with potential for 55,000 square feet of commercial space
and up to 160,000 square feet of office/service space. A
significant portion of the site is proposed to be retained as
public open space and private conservation easement areas. The
public land is to contain 2 lakes, a pond, streams, and
recreational facilities. Pocket parks which function as shared
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z_-5963
recreational spaces for neighbors are to be provided. All public
land is to be held in trust by a home owner's association.
Housing is proposed to be mixed by type and size, rather than
segregated. Streets are to be narrow through streets that
connect neighborhoods rather than have culs-de-sac which separate
them. The lots are proposed to be small, with reduced setbacks
to foster contact among neighbors. Design guidelines are to be
established to set the standards for scale and proportion for
homes and non-residential buildings, with architectural
continuity being regulated by an architectural review committee.
The "East Neighborhood" is the first phase of the development.
It is the smallest, with 164 building sites. The focus of this
neighborhood is the semicircular "green" surrounded by houses and
one mixed use building, which is proposed to initially be the
sales office.
The "Community Center" is the largest neighborhood. It is to
contain approximately 400 building sites, 215,000 square feet of
mixed use area (55,000 square feet of retail space and 160,000
square feet of office/service/multi-family area), a church site,
recreational facilities, etc. The "Community Center" is to be
designed around a large park with two radial axes. A mixed use
community center is to be provided at a strategic location
between the two lakes. The street network is to be designed to
provide easy access to the center.
The "West Neighborhood" is proposed to contain approximately 220
residential building sites. The focus of this neighborhood is a
mixed use center, a church site, and a neighborhood park.
The "Estate Neighborhood" is to contain approximately 300
residential sites, with a neighborhood mixed-use center focusing
on an elliptical green. All roads in this hilly estate section
are to pass thorough the small center and filter back to the
center community center.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for the "Conceptual" PRD.
Approval by the Board of Directors is requested for reduced
widths for streets and rights-of-way.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is characterized by rolling topography, with
elevations raging from 360 feet MSL to 570 feet. There are
thick woods, and Brodie Creek and Panther Branch Creek run
across or along the border of the land. There are other
streams and a pond. There are a number of homes located on
the property.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963
The existing zoning of the tract includes, predominantly,
R-2 property, but also some MF -12, MF -18, 0-2, 0-3, and C-1
tracts. The surrounding lands are zoned, primarily, R-2.
STAFF REPORT:
Because there are issues remaining to be resolved, the applicant
has requested a deferral until the May 16, 1995 Commission
hearing. The applicant has not indicated whether the reserved
tracts along Bowman Rd. or Kanis Rd. are to be included or
excluded from the PRD site; has not provided either site plans
for the reserved tracts or dealt with their development in a
phasing plan; and, has not dealt with boundary street
improvements on Bowman Rd. an Kanis Rd. There are issues
remaining regarding the street design; whether the proposed
location of W. 36th. St. is acceptable; whether the proposed
variances will be supported by staff; etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until the May
16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Ms. Mary Allison and Mr. John Allison, representing the
applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were
present. Staff presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. and
Mrs. Allison and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the
discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with the
Committee members and the applicant's representatives the various
concerns of the City Engineering Division. There was discussion
on the proposed location of W. 36th. St.; on the street design
which has been proposed for the integral streets; on the need for
Master Street Plan improvements on the boundary streets; and on
access to abutting properties. There was discussion on the
reserved properties; on whether they would be included in the PRD
and, if so, that they need to be dealt with in the narrative.
The Committee asked the applicant's representatives if the needed
exhibits and the amendments could be prepared by the cut-off time
needed by staff to prepare the agenda, and whether the exhibits
could be prepared which Public Works needs in order to assess
whether the proposed location of W. 36th. St. could be supported.
Mr. McGetrick indicated that the needed information and drawings
could be prepared, but said that if they could not be presented
to staff in sufficient time to meet the deadlines, a deferral
would be requested.
K3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested a deferral of the
hearing of the requested PRD until the May 16, 1995 Commission
meeting, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for
deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5963-A
NAME: BRODIE CREEK COMMUNITY, EAST NEIGHBORHOOD -- AMENDED
LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the west side of Bowman Road, with frontage on
Bowman Road between Panther Branch Creek and Olds Lane, extending
west approximately 1/2 mile.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Ms. Mary Allison Pat McGetrick
ELGOR REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
1320 Brookwood Dr. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72211
663-2053 223-9900
AREA: 75.05 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 164± FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: R-2, 0-2, & MF -18 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family
residential and one
mixed use building
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of a PRD for development of the
first phase of the "Brodie Creek -- A Community of Four
Neighborhoods" conceptual PRD. The "East Neighborhood" is the is
proposed to have 164 building sites. The focus of this
neighborhood is the semicircular "green" surrounded by houses and
one mixed use building, which is proposed to initially be the
sales office. There are two "reserved" tracts along the Bowman
Rd. frontage of the PRD site. The concept proposed is a
"Traditional Neighborhood Development" patterned after 18th. and
19th. century villages which are designed to foster
neighborliness and a sense of community. There are to be pocket
parks which function as shared recreational spaces for neighbors.
All public land is to be held in trust by a home owner's
association. Streets are to be narrow through streets that
connect neighborhoods rather than have culs-de-sac which separate
them. The lots are proposed to be small, with reduced setbacks
to foster contact among neighbors. Design guidelines are to be
established to set the standards for scale and proportion for
homes and the non-residential building, with architectural
continuity being regulated by an architectural review committee.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5963-A
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for the PRD.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is characterized by rolling topography, with
elevations raging from 360 feet MSL to 390 feet. There are
thick woods, and Panther Branch Creek run along the border
of the land.
The existing zoning of the tract includes, predominantly,
R-2 property, but also some MF -18 and 0-2 tracts. The
surrounding lands are zoned, primarily, R-2.
STAFF REPORT:
Because there are issues remaining to be resolved, the applicant
has requested a deferral until the May 16, 1995 Commission
hearing. The applicant has not indicated whether the reserved
tracts along Bowman Rd. are to be included or excluded from the
PRD site; has not provided either site plans for the reserved
tracts or dealt with their development in a phasing plan; and,
has not dealt with boundary street improvements on Bowman Rd.
There are issues remaining regarding the street design; whether
the proposed location of W. 36th. St. is acceptable; whether the
proposed variances will be supported by staff; etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until the May
16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Ms. Mary Allison and Mr. John Allison, representing the
applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were
present. Staff presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. and
Mrs. Allison and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the
discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with the
Committee members and the applicant's representatives the various
concerns of the City Engineering Division. There was discussion
on the proposed location of W. 36th. St.; on the street design
which has been proposed for the integral streets; and, on the
need for Master Street Plan improvements on the boundary street.
There was discussion on the reserved properties; on whether they
would be included in the PRD and, if so, that they need to be
dealt with in the narrative. The Committee asked the applicant's
K
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -5963-A
representatives if the needed exhibits and the amendments could
be prepared by the cut-off time needed by staff to prepare the
agenda, and whether the exhibits could be prepared which Public
Works needs in order to assess whether the proposed location of
W. 36th. St. could be supported. Mr. McGetrick indicated that
the needed information and drawings could be prepared, but said
that if they could not be presented to staff in sufficient time
to meet the deadlines, a deferral would be requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested a deferral of the
hearing of the requested PRD until the May 16, 1995 Commission
meeting, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for
deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
3
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5964
NAME: DONAHUE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the north side of Simpson Street, north of the
Milburn Lane intersection
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ben Kittler, Jr.
Ms. Juanita Donahue BEN KITTLER, JR. LAND SURVEYOR
1010 S. Hughes St. 6133 Dena Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72206
664-0865 888-3960
AREA: 0.86 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 REPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential and
Beauty Salon
PLANNING DISTRICT: 24
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement to
construct a sidewalk along the street frontage of the site is
requested.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a Planned Residential Development to
develop the 0.86 acre site to include the construction of a
4 -unit multi -family building and a beauty salon building. The
multi -family building is proposed to be a single -story facility
with four 1,580 square foot dwelling units, with a total square
footage of 6,320 square feet. The beauty shop building is
proposed to be 1,364 square feet. Parking for 12 vehicles is
proposed for the multi -family units; parking for 6 persons is
proposed for the beauty shop. The applicant proposes that
employees of the beauty shop are to be the residents of the
multi -family units to provide affordable housing for these
employees, and to provide work in close proximity to their
residence and to area child care. No improvements to the street
bordering the site and no sidewalk construction are proposed.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for
approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the
PRD is requested. Approval of a waiver of the requirement
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964
to construct a sidewalk along the Simpson St. frontage of
the site is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant. It has been cleared of most trees.
The site is zoned R-2, with R-2 zoned property on all sides.
There is a church located on the property immediately to the
east, and a single-family residence stands immediately to
the east of the tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments:
1) The driveways are not in conformance with the
Ordinance. Only one driveway is allowed per 300 feet
of street frontage. A concrete apron will be required
within the right-of-way.
2) A sidewalk will be required to be constructed along the
street frontage of the site.
3) A stormwater detention analysis may be required. A
grading permit will be required.
Water Works had no comments on this item.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. provided no comments.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. provided no comments.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. provided no comments.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSU_E_S/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landscape review comments that the required buffer width
south of the proposed parking lot is 7 1/2 feet (The minimum
requirement with allowed transfers is 6 feet.) The
Landscape Ordinance requirement is 6 feet. The plan
submitted provides from zero to 4 feet. A 6 foot high
opaque screen is required along the northern and western
site perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its
face directed outward or be dense evergreen planting. A 3
foot wide building landscape strip between the public
parking areas and the buildings is required. If a dumpster
is to be used, its location should be identified and then be
E
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964
screened on 3 sides with an 8 foot high opaque wood fence or
wall.
Sec. 36-452(1)b. permits incidental commercial and office
uses in a PRD. Beauty shops are conditional or accessory
uses in the three office zoning districts.
Parking for office uses is to be one space for each 400
square feet of floor area; for commercial uses, one for each
300 square feet of gross floor area; and, for multi -family
residential uses, 1.5 spaces per dwelling.
The Planning Division comments that the proposed development
is in the College Station District. The adopted Land Use
Plan recommends single family uses for the area. A Planned
Residential District with primarily a residential character
and "incidental" non-residential uses may be compatible in
the area.
E. ANALYSIS•
The mixture of residential and "office"/beauty shop uses is
appropriate in a PRD, since the non-residential use is
"incidental" to the primary residential use of the property.
The access to the off-street parking areas will need to be
re -designed to provide the single access point to the site.
Simpson St. is a recently completed CDBG-funded street
project. When Simpson St. was constructed, no sidewalks
were provided. There is scattered development in the area,
with a great deal of vacant property.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD, and the Planning Staff
recommends approval of the waiver of the sidewalk
requirement for the Simpson Rd. frontage of the property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Ms. Juanita Donahue, the applicant, and Mr. Ben Kittler, the
project surveyor, were present. Staff outlined the proposed
development and reviewed with Ms. Donahue and Mr. Kittler the
various comments contained in the discussion outline. Ms.
Donahue said that the size of the proposed beauty shop would be
reduced by one-half in order for the beauty shop use to be
secondary, or "incidental" to the residential use of the
property. Mr. Kittler reported that the original plan included
purchasing the church property to the east, and that the site
plan included this area. A revised site plan would be provided,
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964
he said, to eliminate the church site. The Committee confirmed
with the applicant that all staff comments would be addressed,
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff outlined the proposal, indicating that the applicant was
applying for a planned development in order to construct a 4-plex
and a 1300 square foot beauty shop, and that the applicant is
requesting a wavier of the requirement to construct a sidewalk
along the Simpson St. frontage of the site.
Ms. Linda Parham, identifying herself as residing a block and a
half from the proposed development site, spoke in opposition to
the proposed development. She said that the area where the
proposed development is to be located is totally single-family in
character, and that the proposed development would increase
vehicle and pedestrian traffic. She expressed concern that the
development would cause an in crease in drug traffic, relating
that just a few blocks away is an apartment project which has a
substantial drug problem and much violence. She related that her
family had sold the property to Ms. Donahue, and that the sale
had been with the understanding that Ms. Donahue would build a
beauty shop and a duplex.
Mr. Ben Kittler, representing Ms. Donahue, said that Ms. Donahue
is a disabled school teacher, and that she proposed to construct
the 4-plex and beauty shop as a means of providing employment to
local young persons and a nice home for persons who would be
working in the beauty shop. She is, he said, to be the manager
of the beauty shop, and that her daughter, who is a beautician,
would operate the shop and live in one of the units. He said
that the hours of operation would be form 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM,
Tuesdays through Saturdays. He said that the entire site would
be fenced; there would be a security system in the beauty shop;
and, that the site would be monitored by Ms. Donahue's daughter.
Commissioner Willis asked for clarification on the signage
proposed and on the number of off-street parking spaces.
Mr. Kittler replied that whatever signage is permitted in the
office zoning district would be agreeable, and that he would re-
design the site to eliminate one of the curb cuts and provide the
necessary off-street parking.
Staff pointed out that, in lieu of the site plan showing one
single lot containing both the apartments and beauty shop, the
site plan could be amended to show splitting the site into two
lots, one for each of the uses. This, staff explained, would
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10(Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964
permit the two driveways off Simpson St., one for the apartment
use area and one for the beauty shop use.
Commissioner Adcock asked for clarification on the rationale for
the Planning staff's recommendation for approval of the waiver of
the sidewalk requirement.
Staff explained that streets in the area had recently been
constructed with curb and gutter by the City thorough the Block
Grant program, and that a sidewalk had been constructed along
Simpson St. on the south side of the street; that, if the
applicant were required to construct a sidewalk in front of her
property on the north side of Simpson St., the length of sidewalk
would be the only sidewalk on that side of the street and the
sidewalk would not extend beyond the boundary of the applicant's
property.
Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the number of
employees of the beauty shop, to which Mr. Kittler responded that
there would be six. Commissioner McCarthy then observed that
five parking spaces are shown, with six employees being proposed,
to which Mr. Kittler responded that the employees would be living
and parking in the adjoining apartments; that the five parking
spaces would be for clients. Commissioner McCarthy pointed out,
though, that six operators are proposed to be employed, and that
each operator would have one client with home she would be
working and one client waiting.
Chairperson Walker inquired of the Commission members if it was
the desire of the Commission to deal with the incomplete site
plan and permit the applicant and staff to "flesh -out" the
details prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors,
or whether it should be deferred to permit the applicant to
present an amended application to the full Commission. A motion
was made and seconded to defer the item until the May 16, 1995
Commission meeting, and the motion carried with the vote of 9
ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: 5-1054
NAME: HANDLING SYSTEMS & CONVEYORS, INC. -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the East Side of Otter Creek East Blvd., at 10909
Otter Creek East Blvd.
DEVELOPER:
Mark Akers
HANDLING SYSTEMS AND CONVEYORS, INC.
10909 Otter Creek East Blvd.
Mabelvale, AR 72103
455-5898
AREA: 2.29 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Industrial
The applicant proposes the addition of a second building to its
current office site. The proposed building is to have 12,000
square feet "under roof". Half the building is to be enclosed;
the remainder of the roof is to form a canopy over a concrete
slab area. The new building is to be constructed approximately
27 feet behind the existing office building. The internal drive
and parking area is to be extended to serve the new building,
with new parking to be added to provide a total of 16 parking
space, including handicap parking. Landscaping will be upgraded
to meet the City requirements. No new drive access points from
Otter Creek East Blvd. will be added; the existing access points
will continued to be used.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a multi -building site plan
is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing one and one-half story residential
structure on the property which contains approximately 2,330
square feet on its first floor level.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1054
The property is zoned I-2, with I-2 zoned property on all
abutting properties.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works Comments:
1) A grading permit will be required.
2) A stormwater detention analysis will be required.
Water Works has no comments on this item.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and that there
will be no adverse effect if project is for a single owner.
If two owners are involved, a sewer main extension, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot wide
easement will be required along the north property line, and
a 20 foot easement will be required along the east property
line.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The "Site Plan Review Criteria" sheet provided with the
application requires the following information be furnished,
which has not been shown on the site plan: dimensions of
all existing and proposed buildings; dimensions of buildings
from property lines and from each other; the radii of all
drive lanes, curves, or turns; and, dimensions of all
drives. All drives and streets intersecting all boundary
streets across from the site are to be indicated and
dimensioned. The required information is incomplete and
needs to be furnished.
Landscape review has no comments on this item.
Sec. 31-13 requires site plan review for projects involving
construction of 2 or more buildings on a site.
E
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1054
E. ANALYSIS•
Other than the applicant needing to furnish a site plan
which is fully dimensioned, there are no issues to be
resolved. The site is a large tract, and the buildings have
more than adequate separation from each other and from
property lines.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Mr. Joe Stout was present to represent the applicant. Staff
presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. Stout the various
comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee
members discussed the site plan with the applicant, and confirmed
with the applicant that all staff comments would be addressed.
The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and
was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and
2 absent.
3
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
NAME: OTTER CREEK VILLAGE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Otter Creek Parkway and
Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT GROUP MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211
455-5557 223-9900
AREA: 11.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• C-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
The applicant proposes the development of an 11.5 acre tract for
a shopping center. At the present time, approval is requested
for a site plan which has a 29,844 square foot grocery store, a
plaza, and an area for shops which contains a total of 14,400
square feet. Three "reserved" sites are proposed for future
development. Parking for 456 vehicles is proposed. Two access
drives are proposed off Otter Creek Parkway at existing median
cuts, and two access drives are proposed off Stagecoach Dr., the
southern -most drive aligning with the Otter Creek Dr.
intersection.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a site plan for a proposed shopping center
development is requested of the Planning Commission.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and is mostly cleared of trees.
There are scattered trees along the northern and eastern
perimeters of the site, and there are heavily wooded areas
along the west and south boundary of the site.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
The site is zoned C-2, and encompasses approximately two-
thirds of a lager C-2 zoned tract. The remainder of the C-2
zoning tract lies to the west and south. Directly across
Otter Creek Parkway to the north is a C-1 zoned site, with
an MF -18 tract lying immediately west of this C-1 site and
to the northwest of the subject property. Across Stagecoach
Rd. to the east is R-2 zoned land. At the southeast corner
of the tract, across Stagecoach Rd., is a C-3 zoned tract.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments:
1) Driveways of minimum 36 foot in width are recommended
if left turns are desired. The drive that extends from
the planned traffic light (at the Otter Creek Road
intersection) should be dedicated as a commercial
street for access to the adjoining commercial
properties to the south and west.
2) A sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required. A grading
permit will be required. Contact ADPC&E for approval
before work is begun.
3) Sidewalks will be required on both boundary streets,
and on the south boundary street, if that street is
provided.
4) Street plans will be required, and must be submitted to
AHTD for approval. A left turn lane will be required
in the boulevard, and construction of improvements to
one-half of minor arterial standards will be required
for Stagecoach Rd./Highway 5.
5) Stormwater detention must be provided and boundary
survey requirements must be met.
5) "Reserved" Lots 3 and 4 will be required to take access
only from internal drives.
Water Works comments that a water main extension and on-site
fire hydrants will be required.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15' easement
will be required at the entire perimeter of the site.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the site plan without
comment.
E
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not provide comments.
The Fire Department comments that regulation "No
parking/Tow-Away" signage must be provided, and the curbs
must be painted to designate no parking as required.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
A public or private street should be provide along the
southern boundary of the site to provide access to the
abutting tracts to the south and west.
Provision for access to the "reserved" lots must be made
from the internal drives/streets.
Along the main drive from Stagecoach Rd. to the "Plaza",
where cars in the parking areas to the south will back into
the traffic lanes (because of the angle of the drive) the
parking spaces which will allow cars to back into the
traffic lanes will to have to be eliminated. The same
situation occurs at the eastern -most drive off Otter Creek
Parkway at the reverse curve, and these affected spaces will
need to be eliminated.
Dumpster locations must be shown on the site plan.
Landscape review comments that a 5 foot wide landscape strip
will be required by the Landscape Ordinance where vehicular
use areas abut adjacent properties, outparcels, lot, or lot
lease lines. A 3 foot wide landscape strip between public
parking areas and the building is required. (Some
flexibility with this requirement is allowed.) Dumpster
locations should be identified on the plan, and screened on
3 sides with 8 foot high opaque wood fences or walls.
The title of the site plan does not designated the name of
the development.
An analysis of the parking provided versus the parking
required by the Ordinance must be provided.
The requirements for the preliminary plat item (Item 1) must
be addressed.
E. ANALYSIS•
with some minor re -design of the parking area to eliminate
parking spaces which will permit vehicles to back into the
traffic lanes, the site plan can be approved. The concerns
noted in the preliminary plat issue concerning construction
of a street along the southern boundary of the site to
M
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3454-A
provide access to abutting commercial sites and regarding
access easements to provide access to the interior lots and
cross -easement within the site need to be resolved.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
preliminary plat issues and the parking lot design issue
being resolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
presented the proposal to the Subdivision Committee, and Mr.
McGetrick reviewed the discussion outline items. The Committee
reviewed the items, and discussed with Mr. McGetrick the various
concerns. The Public Works staff person reviewed the Public
Works recommendations regarding the southern boundary street
improvements, and Mr. McGetrick responded that he would discuss
these concerns with his client. The matter of the parking spaces
which will permit vehicles to back into traffic lanes was
discussed, and Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would review this
problem. The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff reported that, earlier in the day, the applicant had met
with the Public Works staff and had worked out staff concerns.
Staff recommended approval of the amended site plan with the
concerns noted by staff being addressed. The item was approved
with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent.
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -1513-B
NAME:
LOCATION•
Little Rock Friends Meeting
(Quakers) - Conditional Use Permit
3415 West Markham Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: John Sorenson/Little Rock Friends
meeting; Tina Coffin, Director
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use of
the first floor of this existing,
R-3 zoned residential structure as
a church. The upper floor of the
structure is proposed to be rented
out as an apartment. Other than
remodeling the second floor to
accommodate the apartment, there
will be no structural changes to
the building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property consists of two lots located at the southeast
corner of Valmar and West Markham Streets.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The property is located in an older, predominately single
family neighborhood. Several duplex and multi -family
properties are scattered through the area, including the
property adjacent to the east. The applicant proposes to
utilize the first floor of the structure for this small
church. The second floor will be used as a dwelling. Other
than the proposed parking, there will be no other changes in
the exterior appearance of the structure and only minor
interior remodeling to accommodate the upstairs apartment.
The property is located on a minor arterial street and with
attention to screening the adjacent residential properties,
the small church should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There is an existing single -car driveway and carport on the
site which will be utilized by the resident of the upstairs
apartment. The applicant proposes to construct a five space
parking lot, utilizing an existing driveway off of Valmar
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1513-B
Street. Three additional spaces are shown to be added at a
later date, if needed. The church currently has 12 members
with an attendance varying from 8 to 18 on any given Sunday.
The 5 spaces will accommodate an attendance of 20 with the
additional 3 spaces accommodating a total of 32 persons.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposed parking lot must comply with the City's
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Trees and shrubs are
required within the southern landscape strip. A six foot
tall opaque screen is required along the southern perimeter,
where adjacent to single-family residential property.
5. City Engineer Comments
a. Dedicate additional right-of-way for Markham, 1/2 of 70
feet from centerline required; however, recommend 5
foot of additional dedication due to location of
residence.
b. Repair broken driveway apron.
C. Remove rock wall from dedicated right-of-way. Widen
sidewalk to 5 feet and provide a minimum of 4 feet
around utility pole. Install HC access ramps at
intersection.
d. Provide concrete apron at driveway entrance.
e. Stormwater detention analysis will be required for
paving and parking.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The Little Rock Friends meeting (Quakers) is requesting a
conditional use permit to allow for the use of the first
floor of this existing, R-3 zoned residential structure as a
church. The upper floor of the structure is proposed to be
remodeled and rented as an apartment so that the house will
not stay empty during the week. The Little Rock Friends
meeting is a small church and wants to use the house for its
worship services on Sunday morning. The church has 12 local
members with an attendance from 8 to 18 persons on any given
Sunday.
The applicant desires to maintain the residential character
of the property. Other than remodeling the upstairs of the
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1513-B
structure for the apartment and adding the required parking
spaces, there will be no structural changes on the site.
The church will use the two rooms on the east side of the
downstairs for a worship area, opening the French doors
between the living and dining rooms. Quaker practice
involves the participants sitting in a circle in silent
worship followed by a time of discussion. Two rooms on the
west side of the downstairs will be set aside for Sunday
School use while the front room on that side will be a
library.
The proposed parking lot will be designed in compliance with
the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances with a 6 foot
tall, opaque screen placed along the entire length of the
south property line, where adjacent to single-family
residential property.
Staff feels that the level of intensity of this proposed
church is such that it will have a minimal impact on the
surrounding neighborhood. Staff would recommend that any
approval be limited to this specific use and that the
property revert to residential should the applicant ever
vacate the site.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the
following conditions:
a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances including the installation of a 6 foot tall
opaque screen along the entire length of the south
property line.
C. Any signage is to be "low-key" and placed on the
Markham Street frontage.
d. Any parking lot lighting is to be low-level and
directional, aimed away from adjacent properties.
e. The approval is to be limited to this specific use.
Should the applicant ever vacate the property, it is to
revert to residential.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the -item and outlined
the City Engineer and Landscape Comments noted above. The
01
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1513-B
applicant expounded briefly on the proposed use and explained the
low level of site activity generated by the Quaker Church.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, explained the
Engineering Comments. He stated that the sidewalk along Markham
Street was narrow and unsafe and does not comply with ADA
requirements. He recommended that the sidewalk width be
increased to 5 feet and that a minimum of 4 feet of clearance be
provided around the utility pole located at the intersection.
Mr. Scherer stated that the rock wall along Markham Street would
have to be removed or relocated to provide room for the expanded
sidewalk.
The applicant was also directed to expand the proposed parking
space and driveway depth to 40 feet to meet ordinance
requirements and to eliminate the parking space on the south side
of the house to provide maneuvering area.
The applicant was further advised to provide details on any
proposed signage and parking lot lighting.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Tina Coffin was present representing the application. There was
one objector present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that three letters in support of the application and
two letters opposed had been received (copies of each letter were
provided to the Commissioners).
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, briefly discussed the right-
of-way and sidewalk issues. He informed the Commission that the
existing sidewalk was narrow and dangerous and that it did not
comply with federal ADA regulations. Mr. Carney stated that any
variance or waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional
right-of-way and expand the sidewalk was an issue for the Board
of Directors to decide. Mr. Carney stated that he was bringing
this issue out because the letters from the Hillcrest and Capitol
View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Associations asked that the wall
along Markham Street not be moved.
Bonnie Wesson, of 115 Valmar Street, addressed the Commission in
opposition to the proposal. She questioned the appropriateness
of placing a church at this location. Ms. Wesson stated that
traffic in the area is already dangerous and congested and the
proposed church would only exacerbate the situation. She also
mentioned that there were other neighborhood residents who were
opposed to the church but were unable to attend the Commission
meeting.
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1513-B
Herb Hawn, representing the Capitol View/Stifft Station
Neighborhood Association, spoke in favor of the application. He
stated that the Association members voted 32-2 to approve and
welcome the proposed church to the neighborhood. Mr. Hawn
questioned the requirement to build an expanded sidewalk and to
remove or relocate the rock wall. He was advised that the
Commission could not waive that requirement.
Tina Coffin, representing the Little Rock Friends meeting,
addressed the Commission. She briefly described the Friends'
worship services and stated that the organization was committed
to maintaining the residential character of the home. Ms. Coffin
stated that the property would revert to residential when or if
the Friends church ever vacates the site. She briefly discussed
the proposed site plan and stated that any overflow parking would
be at the commercial parking lots at the corner of Markham and
Johnson Streets.
After a brief discussion, the question was called and a vote
taken. The vote was 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent approving the
application as recommended by staff and including the additional
condition that the ground sign is to be no larger than 4 square
feet in area and 6 feet in height.
9
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5960
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT°
PROPOSAL:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Tabernacle of Refuge Church
Conditional Use Permit
10215 West 36th Street
Linsley Family/Tabernacle of Refuge
Church; Ronald Bailey, Pastor
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the phased
construction of a church and
related facilities on this R-2
zoned, 10± acre site. No
additional ancillary activities
such as a private school or
day-care center are proposed. A
variance is requested to allow for
a building height of 45 feet.
The proposed church site is located on the south side of
West 36th Street, just west of its intersection with Dover
Drive.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The zoning in the immediate vicinity is primarily R-2 and an
area of single family residences extends east of this site.
From this property and extending west to Shackleford Road,
the uses are more varied. The property adjacent to the west
is occupied by a church and beyond that, to the southwest,
is a large mobile home park. Several institutional uses are
located on the north side of west 36th Street including a
large church, the Cerebral Palsy Rehabilitation Center and
the Our Way complex. This site is located on a minor
arterial street and the site plan provides for adequate
separation from adjacent single family property. The
proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposed sanctuary will have a total seating capacity of
400 persons, requiring 100 on-site parking spaces. The
applicant proposes to provide 100 on-site parking spaces,
four of which are designated for handicap accessibility.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5960
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A 6 foot tall opaque screen is required along
the eastern and western perimeters of this site, where
adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The
residentially zoned property adjacent to the west is also
occupied by a church and any screening on this perimeter
would be impractical. Staff recommends a waiver of the
screening requirement on the western perimeter where
adjacent to the other church site.
5. City Enaineer Comments
a. Dedicate right-of-way for 1/2 of 90 foot minor arterial
ROW. A drainage easement for the 36 inch stormwater
drain crossing 36th Street will be required.
Dedication of floodway as easement will be required.
b. Construct 1/2 of a 60 foot minor arterial street.
Provide sidewalk and concrete driveway apron.
C. Stormwater detention and boundary survey requirements
will be required.
d. A sketch grading and drainage plan meeting the
requirements of Section 29-186 is required before
construction. A grading permit is required. A
development permit is required for Flood Hazard Area.
A 25 foot floodway setback adjacent to the floodway is
required.
6. Utility Comments
On site fire protection may be required. Contact Little
Rock Fire Department.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the phased construction of a church and related facilities
on this R-2 zoned, 10± acre site. The first phase of the
project consists of construction of a single building
containing a 400 seat sanctuary and associated uses such as
classrooms and church offices. A 100 space parking lot will
be built with Phase I. The second phase involves the
construction of an addition providing additional classroom
space and a fellowship hall/family life center. No time
frame has been established for the implementation of the
second phase.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5960
No ancillary activities such as a day-care center or private
school are proposed in either phase.
The subject property is 1,320 feet deep, however, much of
the southern portion of the site is located in the
floodplain/floodway and is unusable. The applicant proposes
to develop the portion of the site located closest to West
36th Street. Even so, the building will be located over
200 feet south of the street and well away from any nearby
single-family residential property.
There are several other institutional uses located along
this portion of West 36th Street, including two other
churches, the Cerebral Palsy Rehabilitation Center and the
Our Way complex.
The applicant has submitted a site plan which provides
landscaping and buffering exceeding ordinance requirements.
Staff believes the proposed church is a reasonable use for
this site and supports the application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the
following conditions:
a. Compliance with the Utility and the City Engineer's
Comments
b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
C. Any lighting proposed for the parking lot and driveways
must be low-level and directional, aimed away from
adjacent residential properties.
Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance
to allow a building height of 45 feet. Staff also
recommends that the screening requirement on the western
perimeter be waived since the adjacent property is also
occupied by a church.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant, Ronald Bailey, was present. Staff presented the
item and outlined the Landscaping, Utility and City Engineering
Comments noted above.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, discussed the
required street improvements and floodway/drainage easement
t
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5960
dedications. The applicant was advised to meet with the City
Engineer's staff to further discuss the details of these issues.
The applicant asked about the possibility of deferring the
required street improvements to allow for funds to be raised to
cover the cost of building the street. He was advised to discuss
the options associated with the required street improvements with
the City Engineer's staff.
The applicant was advised to provide details on any proposed
signage and parking lot lighting.
The Committee determined that the requested 10 foot height
variance would not impact adjacent properties due to the distance
that the building is located from any property lines. The
Committee also agreed that the screening requirement on the
western perimeter should be waived since the adjacent property is
also occupied by a church.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant, Ronald Bailey, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues. Staff added
the recommendation that signage be limited to that allowed in
office and institutional zones.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to
the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the Utility and City Engineers comments
b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
C. Any lighting proposed for the parking lot and driveways is
to be low-level and directional aimed away from adjacent
residential properties.
d. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office and
institutional zones.
The Commission also approved the requested height variance of
45 feet and waived the screening requirement on the western
perimeter.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Willis).
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5957
NAME: Stone Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 311 N. Jackson Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Richard Allan Stone
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the use of
an existing accessory building as
an accessory dwelling. The
property is zoned R-3. The
structure was built as an accessory
dwelling in 1954 and used as such
continually until 1989. Since that
time, the accessory dwelling has
not been used and has lost its
nonconforming status.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the east side of N. Jackson
Street, just north of its intersection with "B" Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located in a predominately single family
neighborhood although there is a more varied mix of uses in
the area nearer Markham Street, to the south. Uses within
the immediate vicinity range from single family homes to
duplex, multi -family, office and even some commercial two
blocks to the south. Although it has been vacant for some 5
years, the accessory dwelling was in place for over 30
years. Allowing the rehabilitation and continued use of
this accessory dwelling should not have a negative effect on
the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The single family dwelling and accessory dwelling require
one on-site parking space each. A paved, two -car driveway
is located directly in front of the principal dwelling and a
single car driveway and detached garage are located on the
north side of the property.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957
4. Screening and Buffers
None required for this application.
5. City Engineer Comments
Dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way for N. Jackson
Street to comply with the Master Street Plan. The 20 foot
wide, paved two -car driveway located in front of the house
is not in compliance with the Ordinance Standards.
6. Utility Comments
No comments from the utility companies. The applicant
desires to have separate utilities to each dwelling.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the use of an existing accessory structure as an accessory
dwelling. The structure was built in 1956 as an accessory
dwelling and occupied by the original owner's mother. The
accessory dwelling was in continuous use until 1989 and has
been vacant since that time. Since the building was not
used as an accessory dwelling for a period exceeding one
year, it lost its nonconforming status. The applicant
recently purchased the property and desires to rehabilitate
the accessory dwelling and rent it. As part of the
remodeling process, the applicant will be installing central
heat and air in the accessory dwelling, requiring that
separate utility service be provided to the structure.
There are three parking spaces on the property. The
ordinance requires that the principal dwelling and the
accessory dwelling have one space each.
The structure was used as an accessory dwelling for over 30
years. Staff does not believe the rehabilitation and
continued use of the accessory dwelling will have a negative
impact on the neighborhood.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City Engineer's Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant, Allan Stone, was present. Staff presented the
item and noted the City Engineer's Comment outlined above.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957
Mr. Stone stated he understood the right-of-way dedication
requirement and had no problem complying with that request.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant, Allan Stone, was present. There were no objectors
present although one letter in opposition had been received by
staff and forwarded to the Commission members. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The Commission briefly discussed the question of limiting
occupancy of the accessory dwelling to family members but decided
against making that a condition.
A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by
staff. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent.
3
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-5965
NAME: Ish School Neighborhood Alert
Center - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3024 Pulaski Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock School District/City of
Little Rock, Fighting Back
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
placement of a 28 foot by 62 foot
portable building on this R-3 zoned
site to be used as a Neighborhood
Alert Center.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the west side of the 3000 Block
of Pulaski Street, across from Ish Elementary School.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The surrounding neighborhood is primarily zoned residential
and contains a mixture of single family and two family
residences. Several small pockets of C-3 zoning are
scattered throughout the area. Most of these C-3 properties
are either vacant or occupied by residences. The Alert
Center is proposed to be placed on the Ish Elementary School
property. The very concept of a neighborhood alert center
implies that it be placed in close proximity to a
residential neighborhood. This Alert Center is to be placed
on the property of an established institutional use and,
with attention to property screening and buffering the
parking lot, should be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Treating the proposed 1,736 square foot structure as a
business and professional office generates a requirement of
four on-site parking spaces. An occasional neighborhood
meeting will be held at the site. Additional parking is
available on the school property to accommodate these
meetings. A small parking area is proposed adjacent to the
Alert Center. No details on its design have been submitted.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5965
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A seven and one-half foot landscape buffer is
required between the proposed parking lot and adjacent
residential property to the north. A 6 foot tall opaque
screen is required adjacent to residential property to the
north and west. A three foot wide landscape strip is
required between the parking lot and the building.
5. City Engineer comments
Engineering has concerns relating to proper dedication and
improvements of existing streets. The parking area should
be all weather surface and a concrete apron should be
installed at the point the driveway intersects Pulaski
Street.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The City of Little Rock Fighting Back program is requesting
a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a
28 foot by 62 foot portable building on the R-3 zoned,
Little Rock School District property located at 3024 Pulaski
Street. The building is proposed to be located on a vacant
lot adjacent to the Ish Elementary School.
The building will be installed in full compliance with all
building code requirements and connected to full utility
services. A paved and landscaped parking area will be
constructed to meet all applicable requirements as well.
The intended use for this building will be to serve as a
neighborhood Alert Center which will provide a wide range of
services to area residents. These services will include the
use of this facility for public meetings by neighborhood
associations and other community based groups. The Alert
Center will also house a staff of at least 3 (three) city
staff persons to include a neighborhood facilitator who will
work directly with area residents to promote community
development and provide services and information helpful to
the community. A police officer and code enforcement
officer will be located in the Alert Center as well, both of
whom will directly serve the residents of this area.
Staff believes the proposed use to be a reasonable use for
the property and supports the application.
2
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5965
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the
City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with
the City Engineer's Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MARCH 16, 1995)
Jimmy Pritchett and Rick Colclasure were present representing the
application. Staff presented the item and outlined the Landscape
and City Engineer Comments noted above.
Mr. Colclasure stated that it was originally intended for the
Alert Center to occupy the vacant Ish Elementary School building.
Due to the loss of Chicot Elementary School to a fire, the school
district reopened Ish School. In an effort to place an Alert
Center in the vicinity of the Ish School, Fighting Back decided
to use the proposed portable building on a temporary basis. If
the Ish School building becomes available again, the Alert Center
will move into it and the portable building will be removed.
Mr. Colclasure was directed to provide information on any
proposed signage.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstaining (Willis).
01
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z -5919-A
NAME:
Long Accessory Dwelling Amended -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 10520 Peace Valley Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Frankie and Jean Long
PROPOSAL: On December 13, 1994, the Planning
Commission approved a conditional
use permit to allow the placement
of a 14 foot by 65 foot, single -
wide manufactured home on the rear
portion of this R-2 zoned, 1 acre
tract as an accessory dwelling.
The applicant purchased a pre -
regulation, 1972 model mobile home,
unaware that it did not comply with
ordinance standards. The City's
zoning enforcement staff notified
the applicant to remove the
structure. The applicant now seeks
an amendment to that previous
approval to allow the pre -
regulation mobile home to be used
as an accessory dwelling.
NOTE TO PLANNING COMMISSION:
The applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn. The
pre -regulation mobile home will be removed from the property.
Based on the previous approval, the applicant will place a
manufactured home on the property that will comply with all
Ordinance Standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 4, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
that this item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstaining (Willis).
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-5966
NAME•
LOCATION•
Barrow Road Church of Christ -
Conditional Use Permit
900 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Barrow Road Church of Christ
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the phased
expansion of the existing church
located on this R-2 zoned, 4.58±
acre site. The applicant also
proposes to initiate a day-care
program, utilizing the existing
facility, for children ages 6 weeks
to pre -kindergarten. A height
variance is requested to allow a
steeple 80 feet in height, 10 feet
taller than Ordinance Standards.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The church site is located on the west side of John Barrow
Road, just south of its intersection with I-630.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
Barrow Road Church of Christ is located in area of mixed
zoning and uses ranging from C-3 zoned shopping centers to
R-2 Single Family residential. A vacant C-3 zoned property
is adjacent to the north, and beyond that is I-630. A large
C-3 zoned shopping center is located across Barrow Road to
the east.
The large Baptist Medical Center campus is adjacent to the
west of the church site. A small area of single family
homes is adjacent to the south, "sandwiched" between the
church site, the Baptist Hospital property and the
commercial development which extends to Kanis Road.
Barrow Road Church of Christ has existed at this location
for many years. With attention to properly screening the
adjacent single-family residential properties, the proposed
church expansion should be compatible with the neighborhood.
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5966
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The church sanctuary currently has a seating capacity of
484 persons. As part of the Phase I improvements,
additional pews will be added, increasing the seating
capacity to 602 persons, requiring 150 on-site parking
spaces. The site currently has 148 spaces. The Phase II
expansion of the sanctuary will increase the seating
capacity to 727 persons, requiring 181 parking spaces.
Additional parking will be built with Phase II, giving a
total of 256 on-site parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required.
5. City Engineer Comments
a. Dedicate 15 feet of additional right-of-way for minor
arterial.
b. Increase width of sidewalk to 5 feet at back of curb or
install new sidewalk at new right-of-way line.
C. Stormwater detention and drainage analysis will be
required.
d. A grading permit is required.
e. Install new concrete apron to right-of-way line. A
36 foot driveway is required if left turn lane is to be
marked on driveway.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports sewer service at this
time is provided by a sewer main located off site. Sewer
capacity is not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for details.
Locate existing fire hydrants. Additional on-site fire
hydrant may be needed. Contact Little Rock Fire Department.
7. Analysis
Barrow Road Church of Christ is requesting a conditional use
permit to allow for the phased expansion of the existing
church.
+A
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5966
Phase I of the project consists of the following:
1. Construction of a two-story classroom addition to the
rear of the existing building.
2. Interior remodeling of the existing building including
the addition of 13 pews in the sanctuary which
increases the sanctuary's seating capacity from 484 to
602.
3. Renovation of the facade of the building with a
finished height of 46 feet.
4. Institution of a day care center utilizing the existing
church facilities. The day-care center will be
licensed for approximately 56 students. The hours of
operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
Phase II of the project consists of the following:
1. Construction of a fellowship hall/family life center
addition to the rear of the building
2. Construction of additional parking for 108 vehicles,
giving a total of 256 on-site parking spaces
3. Two additions on the sides of the existing sanctuary
increasing the seating capacity from 602 to 727
Variances are requested to allow a remodeled facade height
of 46 feet and a steeple of 80 feet. The applicant is
requesting that the required sidewalk and driveway
improvements be tied to Phase II, when the new parking lot
is constructed.
Staff feels that the proposed expansion of this existing
church is a reasonable use for this property and supports
the application. Attention must be given to screening the
adjacent residential property to the south of the church
site.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5966
C. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department
Comments
d. Any parking lot lighting is to be low-level and
directional, aimed away from adjacent properties.
Staff recommends approval of the requested height variances
to allow a remodeled facade height of 46 feet and a steeple
height of 80 feet. Staff also recommends that the required
sidewalk and driveway improvements be tied to Phase II of
the project which includes construction of the new parking
lot.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Jack Lazarus was present representing Barrow Road Church of
Christ. Staff presented the item and outlined the proposed
phasing plan. The City Engineer, Utility and Landscape comments
were discussed.
The applicant was directed to provide details of any proposed
parking lot lighting.
After a discussion of the City Engineer's comments, the Committee
felt it was reasonable to tie the required sidewalk and driveway
improvements to Phase II.
The Committee briefly discussed both requested height variances
and felt that there were no issues associated with them.
The applicant was directed to place a 6 foot, opaque wood fence
on the south side of the proposed playground where it is closest
to the adjacent residential property.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Jack Lazarus was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The Commission also approved the height
variances to allow a remodeled facade height of 46 feet and a
4
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.• Z-5966
steeple height of 80 feet. The required sidewalk and driveway
improvements were approved to be tied to Phase II of the project
which includes construction of the new parking lot.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Willis).
5
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: G-23-231
Name:
Location:
Owner/Applicant :
Request:
STAFF REVIEW•
1.
Airport Right -of -Way Abandonment
North of the Little Rock National
Airport
Little Rock Airport Commission
To abandon the following described
street and alley rights-of-way:
10th Street from the East side of
the alley in Block 50 to the East
side of Block 57; Rogers Street
(aka River Street) between 9th and
10th Streets; Loren Street (aka
Lawson Street) between 9th and 10th
Streets; Carson Street between 9th
and 10th Streets and the alleys in
blocks 51 and 56, all in Industrial
Park Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas, and; to abandon any
easements located with the right-
of-way of Carson and Loren Streets
between East 9th Street and East
10th Street.
These abandonments are made
necessary by the proposed expansion
of the Little Rock Airport,
including the extension of Runway
4L/22R.
Public Need for This Right-of-Wav
East 10th Street and Rogers Street form part of the
collector street system providing east/west access around
the northern perimeter of the airport. East 9th Street is
actually used more for this purpose. There will be a
rerouting of the collector system around the airport when
the runway is extended. There is no immediate public need
for these rights-of-way.
2. Master Street Plan
10th Street, from Picron to Rogers, and Rogers Street, from
10th to 9th Streets, are designated as collectors on the
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-231
Master Street Plan. At the time the runway is lengthened,
there will be some rerouting of streets on the northern
perimeter of the airport. The collector will be realigned
at that time.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Rogers, Loren and Carson_ Streets are asphalt paved with all
improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk. 10th
Street is a chip -sealed street with no improvements. The
alleys have been platted but never developed.
5. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of these rights-of-way and the
adjacent property are to be incorporated into an expansion
of the airport.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
All adjacent property is vacant and owned by the City of
Little Rock for the use and benefit of the airport. A small
area of residential housing is located to the west of this
area. East 9th Street seems to serve as the primary
east/west access through this area and around the perimeter
of the airport. At the time the runway expansion takes
place, there will be some rerouting of the streets on the
northern perimeter of the airport. East/west traffic will
be continued and, ultimately, there will be no effect on the
neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood position has been voiced. All adjacent
property is owned by the applicant. All neighborhood
contacts and the nearest neighborhood association were
notified of this action.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
All utility companies, the Public Works Department and the
Fire Department have approved the abandonment. There will
be no effect on public services or utilities. Those
easements needed by the wastewater utility will be retained.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to the City of Little Rock.
E
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-231
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandonment of these rights-of-way will allow for the needed
growth and expansion of the Little Rock Airport.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the area of the following described rights-
of-way being retained as an easement for the Little Rock
Wastewater Utility:
a. 10th Street from the east side of the alley in Block 50
to the east side of Block 57
b. Rogers Street between East 9th and East 10th Streets
C. Alleys in Blocks 51 and 56
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted the Utility Comments and Master Street Plan issue outlined
above. The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 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 recommended for
approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 abstaining (Willis).
3
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: S-1059
NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul-de-
sac, at #7 Sunset Circle
DEVELOPER•
ENGINEER•
H. Bradley Walker Joe White
WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201
666-4242 374-1666
AREA: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES REOUESTED: Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1 -acre
lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which
contains an existing single-family residence and which would have
61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46
acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which
would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain
approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4
acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the
front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The
pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately
240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and
is designed to provide the required access to the rear building
site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning
Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision
Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant
requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve
the proposed lot split.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the
creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot
split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059
the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the
Board of Directors, is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing residence on the property which is
located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a
drive along the south property line for access to a second
building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed
for the second building site is heavily wooded.
The property is zoned R-2, with R-2 being the zoning on all
surrounding properties.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public works comments that the pipestem needs to be a
minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right-
of-way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's
street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage
container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and
mailboxes for both lots must be shown.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The applicant has requested a "lot split". Sec. 31-143 of
the Code provides that "the Planning Commission hereby
delegates to and designates the Planning Director the
authority for approving lot splits, where a single lot...is
being split into two (2) lots. The minimum lot size shall
be governed by the lot size specified by the zoning
ordinance classification of the subject property."
The R-2 zoning district (Sec. 36-254) requires a minimum of
7,000 square feet for single-family lots.
Sec. 31-231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public
street...", and Sec. 36-254 states that, in the R-2 zoning
district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less
than sixty (60) feet...."
A "Pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31-2) as one with a
narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear
yard. Sec. 31-231(8) states that "pipestem lots shall be
prohibited in residential subdivisions".
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for
approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the
requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except
N
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059
for one of the lots being proposed not having the required
minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots
meet the requirement of the R-2 zoning district, since each
lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the
Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require
each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a
public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this
restriction is required for each lot to have the required
frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided.
The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the
Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting
or denying the waiver.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject
to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of
frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right-of-way line,
and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the
driveway from the proposed Lot F1.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995)
Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the
project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final
Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members
reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee
forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff outlined the request, and Vice -Chairperson Willis, noting
the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved
directly to the objectors for their presentations.
Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke
in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the
requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding
residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this
existing development.
Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in
opposition to the requested lot split.
Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in
opposition to the requested lot split.
Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to
the requested lot split.
K3
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059
Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition
to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the
points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues
which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the
Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding
document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which
is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying
that pipestem lots are bad planning.
Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to
the requested lot split.
Vice -Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had
completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the
request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting.
Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in
opposition to the requested lot split.
Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in
opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the
deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and
which restrict lot splits.
Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to
the requested lot split.
Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in
opposition to the requested lot split.
Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to
the requested lot split.
With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion
was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further
consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission
hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote
of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent.
4
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 21 OTHER MATTERS
REQUEST: Reconsideration of a previous Planning Commission
action - withdrawal of rezoning request (R-2 to R-5)
in Pankey (Z-5896)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff briefed the Commission on the issue and said the person who
requested the withdrawal was not authorized by the applicant to
make such a request. Staff said they had received correspondence
from the applicant and Willard Proctor, Jr. asking that the R-5
rezoning be placed back on the Commission's agenda. The Planning
Commission was informed that Mr. Proctor would be representing
and speaking for the applicant.
Staff said that the request had been discussed with Stephen
Giles, City Attorney's Office, and it was determined that Mr.
Proctor's request could be placed on the Commission's agenda as a
reconsideration. The bylaw provision for reconsideration was
reviewed with the Commission and it was pointed out that it would
take an unanimous of all the members present to reconsider the
issue (place the item on the next appropriate agenda).
There was additional discussion and comment were offered by
Mr. Proctor.
The Planning Commission then voted to reconsider the rezoning
request. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent for
reconsideration. (The rezoning item was placed on the
May 16, 1995 agenda.) The Commission also waived any additional
filing fees.
April 4, 1995
ITEM NO.: 22 OTHER MATTERS
NAME:
LOCATION•
REQUEST:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Gator Golf Family Recreation Center
Site Plan (Z-5949)
Sibley Hole Road (between the I-30
frontage road and Baseline Road
Site plan review for a proposed
commercial amusement (outside)
center
(APRIL 4, 1995)
Staff presented the item and reminded the Commission that
approval of a site plan was made a condition of the Planning
Commission recommending approval of a C-4 rezoning for the site.
Staff then recommended approval of the site plan and said it had
been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.
Carman Breeding, a resident on Sibley Hole Road, spoke and
objected to the site plan. Mr. Breeding was concerned with the
lighting and the additional traffic. Mr. Breeding told the
Commission that the street width is substandard and could create
a problem.
Pat McGetrick, engineer for the project, then addressed the
Commission. Mr. McGetrick reviewed the site plan and said the
proposed building would be used for a game room, snack bar,
ticket sales, etc. Mr. McGetrick then agreed to add a 30 foot
undisturbed buffer along the Sibley Hole Road frontage.
Carman Breeding made some additional comments and asked the
Commission to reject the site plan.
A motion was made to approve the site plan. The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
d+
a .
3 �
N
D o
✓1
`�
`
0
cc
O
W
cc
W
t-- (}
0
z
0
U)
v 1
W
H
0
N
✓1
`�
`
\
\
`
♦
\
\
\
\
NOMINEEimlimmillm,
limillimmall
10
mil"Elmll
imilmililima
N
♦
\.
\
�
ENERIMIN
ONE
'lull
ININI
limmulailleMEMENNINMENOME
00
W
Z
Z
¢
¢
—j
�
Z
w
Q
W
CID
>-m
N
=
Q
m
�
W~
W
W<
m�U
W
z
C1
J¢�
cL
z
¢
J
W
U
OzO►V
¢
C
0
W
J
¢
JU=ZUf-
OJ¢
�LU
mU��mo<¢a-�cwn3.
MENNEN
NOMINEE
NOMINEEimlimmillm,
limillimmall
mil"Elmll
imilmililima
ENERIMIN
ONE
'lull
ININI
limmulailleMEMENNINMENOME
H
Cf)
m
Z
W
U)
m
I
r�
W
Z
E
W
el
April 4, 1995
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Date
` 14
Chairman
Se6eetary