HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 10 1995subI.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 10, 1995
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the November 29, 1994
meeting were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Diane Chachere, Chairperson
Suzanne McCarthy
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Ramsay Ball
Bill Putnam
Doyle Daniel
Pam Adcock
Joe Selz
Brad Walker
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
None
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
AGENDA
JANUARY 10, 1995
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
III. Presentation of the Consent Agenda
IV. Presentation of Hearing Items
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Next Month's Meeting Dates:
Filing Date: January 16, 1995
Planning Commission Meeting: February 21, 1995
Subdivision Committee Meeting: February 2, 1995
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 10, 1995
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Mid - America Center -- Amended Short -Form Planned Residential
Development (Z- 4085 -C)
B. Global Learning Center -- Short -Form Plan -ned Office
Development (Z -5874)
C. U -Haul of Arkansas -- Amended Short -Form Planned Commercial
Development (Z- 4074 -A)
D. Gaines St. and W. 24th. St. -- Short -Form Planned
Residential Development (Z- 4135 -A)
E. Markham Plaza Shopping Center -- Amended Short -From Planned
Commercial Development (Z- 4422 -B)
F. Revocation of McCrary -- Short -Form Planned Residential
Development (Z -5108)
G. 2013 South Van Buren -- Special Use Permit (Z -5920)
H. Alltel Cellular Tower, Southedge Drive Site -- Conditional
Use Permit (Z -5906)
I. Sears Accessory Dwelling -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -5909)
II. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. Leatrice Ann Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S -24 -AAA)
III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
2. The Villages of Chenal -- Long -Form Planned Commercial
Development (Z -5936)
IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
3. Mabelvale Business Park -- Amended Site Plan Review
(Z- 3459 -B)
4. Core Source -- Site Plan Review (Z- 5141 -A)
Planning Commission Agenda, Page 2
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
5. Seiter Barber and Beauty Shop -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -5921)
6. New Jerusalem Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -5923)
7. Lewis Street Church of Christ -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z -5931)
8. Word of Outreach Day -Care Center and Staff Housing --
Conditional Use Permit (Z -5933)
9. Pulaski Heights Methodist Church Day -Care Center --
Conditional Use Permit (Z -5935)
10. Elliott Pizza and Sandwich Shop -- Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4384 -8)
VI. RIGHT -OF -WAY ABANDONMENTS:
11. Block 4, A. C. Reads Addition -- Alley Abandonment
(G -23 -228)
12. Lots 3 and 4, Wilkinson's Replat -- Alley and Easement
Abandonment (G -23 -227)
13. Monroe Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G -23 -229)
VII. OTHER MATTERS:
14. Caristianos° Pride Valley Development -- Subdivision
Ordinance Waiver (S -1046)
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
NAME: MID - AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S.
Wolfe and S. Battery Streets
DEVELOPER:
FRED RODGERS
2407 S. Battery
Little Rock, AR
374 -9844
St.
72206
AREA: 1.88 ACRES
ENGINEER•
Samuel L. Davis
S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC.
5301 West 8th. Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
664 -0324
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Day Care and Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 11
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order
to make substantive changes to the originally approved master
site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings
on the site.
The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on
March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors on April 19, 1988,
in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three
principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St.
containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the
corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square
feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery
St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200 square feet. The existing
2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building
was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square
foot building was to be a child care center. Subsequent to that
approval, the residential care use was implemented in the
existing 2- story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.;
however, the two new buildings were not built.
Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to
amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2- story,
6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care.
Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry /drop -off
point for the child care facility, and to provide parking and an
access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the
location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the
request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance
No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990.
Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included
in the PRD site, and the uses are proposed to change. An
additional residential lot which faces Battery St. is to be
included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential
structure. it is to be used for offices for the facility on one
side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the
other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to
continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor,
but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be
implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins
these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is
proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain child care space on
the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on
the second.
The applicant states that a residential care facility is one
which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24 -hour basis, a place
of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live.
This use includes providing a place for daily activities for
residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The
facility, then, will include lounge and living areas, a central
dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities,
laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the
facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed.
The child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 1/2
years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend
to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12,
plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will
include a multi - purpose area for activities, dining, and
sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets for adults and
children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office.
The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire
site is to be fenced for security purposes.
A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to:
1) include additional land area in the PRD site and amend
the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses
approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and
E
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO..: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in
the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the
existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the
existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex
is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the
second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative
offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its
2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first
floor and residential care on the second floor. The second
floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment.
Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop- off /pick-
up drive for the child care facility and parking for
residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain
link fencing for security purposes.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently
designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide
residential lot currently zoned R -4. On the 1.66 acre site
is a single 2- story, 10,640 square foot facility presently
being used for child care on the first floor only. The
second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract
is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The
50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it. All
surrounding property is zoned R -4. There is an elementary
school directly to the west of the site.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan
must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit,
engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater
detention.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between
the two existing buildings in the abandoned right -of -way,
but in which the easements were retained) lies over an
existing 61° sewer main. The sewer main will have to be
relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the
building will not be permitted to occupy the alley easement.
Site Plan review reports that a 6' high opaque wood fence
with its structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed
expanded area from the residential property to the north.
An upgrade in non - conforming landscape area will be required
equal to the amount of the expansion.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed
building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was
constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The
foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed,
will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in
the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new
building alongside an existing structure will be in
violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be
remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as
providing exterior fire separation and protection of both
existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall
construction in several locations; and installation of a
fire sprinkling system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing
power line in the alley. They report that an easement must
be provided; however, since the easement was retained when
the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still
in existence.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan as submitted.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as
submitted.
The Fire Department will require that the 12 foot wide drive
on the north side of the existing daycare building,
extending to the north side of the new addition, be
increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire
equipment.
Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood
fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense
evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed
expanded area and the remodeled residence from the
residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade
in non- conforming landscaping will be required equal to the
amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be
required to comply with the landscaping ordinance.
Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central
Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends
single - family use for this site. Due to the location next
to an elementary school and the visibility problems along
Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff
does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however,
the use is a residential housing situation and child and
adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause
significant adverse effects.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the
requirement is 0.5 spaces /sleeping accommodation. The
applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents.
This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there
are two apartments provided. These require an additional
2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per
employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of
1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150
children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is
required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66;
86 spaces are provided.
The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which
serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles
do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering
space must be provided on -site for vehicles to park, back,
and then to enter Battery St. driving forward.
The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns.
This division reports that the applicant proceeded to
construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story
addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building
with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permit,
and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement.
The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the
utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first,
seek the abandonment of the utility easement, relocating any
needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do
what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the
foundation for the proposed building.
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land
use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective.
The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the
utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs
of relocating the utility lines, as required. He has stated
that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the
applicant: 1) being successful in his application to
abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and
relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned;
and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping,
and other comments noted above.
ki
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the
proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed
with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion
outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue
raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley
where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue
raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition
without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building
Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a
plan without fully realizing what will be required by the
Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc.
Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon
the utility easement in the alley, would do what is necessary to
relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the
Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the
application to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to
abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a
building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he
will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own
expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will
conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the
building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff
recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility
easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes
approving the construction. The item was included on the consent
agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved
with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and
1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
Subsequent to the September 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing,
but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors,
staff realized that the applicant had failed to provide evidence
of all property owners within 200 feet and that the owner had
been notified of the proposed action as required by the
Commission Bylaws. It was confirmed with the applicant that,
indeed, the required supplemental notification had not been
accomplished. Therefore, the previous action by the Commission
was taken without the applicant conforming to the instructions
and Bylaw requirements, and the item must be heard at a public
hearing, after proper notification, again.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had not complied with either
the Commission Bylaw requirements concerning having a licensed
abstractor provide a certified list of property owners within
200 feet of the site, nor the Bylaw requirement that all property
owners within 200 feet be notified of the meeting. Staff
reported that the list of property owners presented to staff was
only a computer print -out from the Pulaski County Tax Assessor's
office of residential property owners within the 2400 -block of S.
Wolfe St. and S. Battery St., and that this list did not include;
as a property owner, the Little Rock School District which owns
the block across S. Battery St. from the Mid - America Center site,
and the list does not include property owners on the south side
of W. Roosevelt Rd. and the north side of W. 24th. St. who are
within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended that the item be
deferred until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing to allow
the applicant to correct the notification deficiencies. The
recommendation for deferral was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that the applicant had met all the requirements
for notification of property owners within 200 feet of the
property, and that there are no remaining unresolved issues.
Staff recommended approval of the PRD, subject to: resolution of
the utility easement and the Building Code issues. Staff
reported, though, that a petition, signed by several neighbors,
and a letter from a neighbor had been delivered to staff,
objecting to the rezoning.
Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, the applicant, was present, but indicated
that he would rather hear the comments of the opponents prior to
his making his presentation.
Mr. A. C. Mitchell, indicating that he was representing some of
the neighbors who were unable to be present at the Commission
meeting, and who had signed the petition which had been delivered
to staff, urged the Commission to oppose the rezoning. He
related that the neighbors are concerned about the increased
vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise, and the presence of
activities associated with the proposed 24 -hour residential care
aspect.
Mr. John Lewellen said that neighbors to the applicant's Center
had called him expressing their opposition to it. He said that
there is strong concern about the increased number of clients who
will be served by the applicant's operation, and that there is
concern that property values will be negatively affected by
7
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 40.85 -C
approval of the added use for the PRD. He said that there will
be an increase in vehicle traffic, and that access to Roosevelt
Rd. will be made more difficult. He stated that the proposed
activity is no more than "just another boarding house ", to serve
the homeless. This will commingle homeless people with children
in the daycare facility, and this, he maintained, could cause
problems.
Mr. Rodgers explained that he currently has a daycare facility
which serves 110 children, and that he wants to add a residential
care facility for older children and young adults. He explained
that the building is a large building, and that only the first
floor is being utilized by the daycare facility; that there is
over 6,000 square feet on the second floor of the building which
is not being used, and could serve the residential care use which
he proposes.
Commissioner Daniel asked Mr. Rodgers for information on the ages
of clients being served and which would be served with the
additional use.
Mr. Rodgers said that he proposed that the upstairs area be used
for residential care of 3 year old children to 17 year old
youths; that the residential care be on an emergency basis, when
referred by other agencies or when homeless young people came to
the facility in need of a place to stay, and until the Social
Service Agency could evaluate the clients and place them in
appropriate care facilities.
Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Rodgers to explain how long clients
would live in the facility.
Mr. Rodgers replied that the State would determine the length of
stay for the child; that the State could determine that the child
should stay in the facility for a year or longer.
Chairperson Chachere asked if the clients are criminals, or if
they are children who are referred by social service agencies who
are being removed from homes by the State.
Mr. Rodgers responded that he does not house criminal; that,
indeed, the State refers clients for temporary housing until they
are evaluated, but the facility could also be used to house the
client on a more permanent basis if the State refers the client
to their facility. He added, though, that, a child could be
accepted for care if they came in off the street.
Commissioner Adcock asked for an explanation of the supervision
which is proposed for the clients.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
Mr. Rodgers said that the State sets the standards for
supervision, and the number of staff persons would be determined
by the State.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rodgers if he would restrict access
by clients to only those referred by the State.
Mr. Rodgers responded that he would not want to do restrict
access; that sometimes children who are on the street need a
place to stay, and the facility needs the flexibility to take
them in on an emergency basis.
Commissioner Walker said that he wanted assurance that the
facility is not a boarding house, but is and remains the type
facility which the applicant proposes. He asked that the
conditions be placed on the approval of the PRD that the State,
County, or some appropriate governmental agency evaluate the
clients within 24 hours of their becoming clients.
Mr. Rodgers concurred with this condition.
Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the aspect of the
application concerning 24 -hour care.
Mr. Rodgers explained that he was seeking approval for the child
care facility to keep children on a 24 -hour basis. He said that
some parents work at night, and the child daycare does not
provide them with the child care they need.
Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Rodgers to confirm that: 1) he
currently has a traditional daycare facility which serves
children from about 3 years of age to 12 or 13 years of age; 2)
he will submit to the State for licensing for a residential care
facility which is planned to serve children ranging in age from
approximately 3 years old to 17 years old; 3) the two uses are
located in the same building, but they are or would be on
separate floors and have different entrances; 4) the children to
be served by the residential care facility are housed on an
emergency and temporary basis pending their evaluation by the
State and placement in foster or other care, as determined by the
State; and 5) any children who come to the facility on their
own, not referred by the State or other agency, would be
evaluated by the State within 24 hours of their arrival at the
Center, and placed according to the requirements of the State.
Mr. Rodgers confirmed this characterization of his application,
as amended.
Mr. Lewellen again expressed concern that many of the clients to
be served would be coming from the criminal justice system, and
that this element is inappropriate to the established residential
neighborhood.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4085 -C
A motion was made and seconded to recommend
amended PRD, and the motion carried with the
0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions.
10
approval of the
vote of 11 ayes,
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -5874
NAME: GLOBAL LEARNING CENTER -- SHORT -FORM POD
LOCATION: 1608 S. Rock Street; 1613 -15 S. Commerce Street; and,
1623 S. Commerce Street
DEVELOPER:
Rev. Bobby Lee Marshall
GLOBAL LEARNING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
1608 S. Rock St.
Little Rock, AR 72206
375 -2430
AREA: 0.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R -4 PROPOSED USES: Establishment of a religious,
charitable, or philanthropic
office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 3
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to utilize three existing residential
structures for the activities undertaken by the Global Learning
Center organization. In the structure at 1608 S. Rock St., the
upper story is used as a residence for Rev. Marshall; the lower
level is used for general offices for the organization, as
assembly and lounge area, counseling offices, and a dining and
kitchen area. In the structure at 1613 -15 S. Commerce St., a
duplex, the north side of the duplex, at 1613 S. Commerce St., is
used as a basic skills development facility for children and
young people; the south side, at 1615 S. Commerce St., is used as
a residence for otherwise homeless men. In the structure at
1623 S. Commerce St., a duplex, the north side is used as a
residence for otherwise homeless women; the south side is used as
a counseling center.
The Global Learning Center seeks to "join forces to help in the
fight (to take) our communities back from gang members, dope
pushers, alcoholics, addicts, and crime." The Center, then, was
organized: 1) to educate high risk youth, adults, and children
in basic education courses; 2) to guide students in enrolling in
computer skills, clerical skills, and basic communications or
language arts courses; 3) to develop violence prevention
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -5874
curriculum for adolescents; 4) to provide counseling and
rehabilitation services for parolees and to provide drug
prevention and intervention services and drug awareness
assistance programs; and, 5) to provide food and shelter for the
homeless. These activities are on -going in or are planned uses
for the three buildings currently used by the organization.
No change in the residential character of the structures and no
signage is proposed. Landscaping improvements are underway and
are proposed to be expanded.
A. PROPOSAL /REOUEST:
Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval
of a POD is requested for the Global Learning Center' uses
of three existing structures (at 1608 S. Rock St., at
1613 -15 S. Commerce St., and at 1623 S. Commerce St.) for
the organization's counseling, school, office, and
residential programs and uses. The structure at 1608 S.
Rock St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence for
Rev. Marshall, located on the 2nd. floor of the home, and,
on the 1st. floor, to continue its on -going uses which
include: administrative offices for the origination and
counseling offices, a lounge and assembly area, and dining
and kitchen facilities. The structure at 1613 -15 S.
Commerce St. is proposed to continue its use as a residence
for homeless men and as a center for teaching young people
in basic developmental and communications skills and in
language arts. The structure at 1623 S. Commerce St. is
proposed to continue its use as a residence for homeless
women and as a counseling center for rehabilitation services
for parolees, for drug prevention and intervention
programming, and drug awareness assistance counseling. No
changes to the exterior of or in the residential character
of the structures are anticipated. The upgrading of
landscaping in the yards is proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed POD site involves three residential structures
at three locations: the 2 -story home at 1608 S. Rock St.
which occupies 3 lots, a duplex at 1613 -15 S. Commerce St.
on a single lot, and a duplex at 1623 S. Commerce St. which,
again, is on a single lot. All three locations are in an R-
4 zoned area. Immediately to the west of the S. Rock St.
property is an area which is zoned R -5. This R -5 zoned
district extends northward from E. 16th. St. and extends
eastward to S. Commerce St. There is a church building, in
the R -4 zoned district, immediately north of the S. Commerce
St. lots. There is a great deal of undeveloped, vacant, or
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874
abandoned property in the immediate area; however, a block
to the east of the S. Commerce St. property, on E. 17th.
St., is the beginning of the area in which the City, with
C.D.B.G. funding, is designing and constructing new homes
for low -to- moderate income persons, and is the area known as
a "Model Block ".
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports no comments.
Water Works reports no objections.
Wastewater reports that sewer service is available, and that
there is no adverse effect to the system.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 6'
high opaque screen is required to screen this site from the
residential properties. (At 1608 Rock, the properties to
the north, west, and south. At 1613 -15 Commerce, the
properties to the south, east, and north. At 1623 Commerce,
the properties to the north and east.) This screen may be a
wood fence with the structural supports facing inward, or be
dense evergreen planting.
Land Use review comments that the project sites are located
within the Central City Planning Districts and are
designated as Single - Family Residential on the land use
plan. The proposal to operate the Global Learning Center on
the three sites is in conflict with the land use plan. An
analysis of the neighborhood reveals that, although the area
has been in a state of decline in recent years, a solid
residential pattern still exists and should be maintained.
Community Development Block Grant funds have been invested
in the area to enhance the residential character of the
neighborhood. Commercial uses would be intrusive and should
be located nearer to Main Street.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
There are no issues which are outstanding, except the land
use issue cited above.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposal is one that encompasses a number of uses on
several sites. The proposed uses include some that are
deemed to be "commercial" in nature, and these are in
conflict with the land use plan. They are viewed by staff
as possibly being intrusive to the residential neighborhood
and to its redevelopment.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the POD.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
A Ms. Carter and Mr. Walker were present to represent the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the application and
reviewed with the Committee members the site plan of the
properties which the applicant is utilizing for the
organization's activities. Staff asked the applicant's
representatives to delineate and clarify the various activities
which are on -going in the three structures. Ms. Carter and
Mr. walker explained that at 1608 Rock St., besides being
Rev. Marshall's, the applicant's, residence, the building serves
as the organization's offices, a group meeting center, and a
feeding center where food is both consumed and distributed. The
structure at 1613 -15 Commerce St. serves as a tutoring and skills
development center and the men's residence. The structure at
1623 Commerce St. serves as a counseling center and women's
residence. The Committee reviewed the comments contained in the
discussion outline, then forwarded the item to the Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
Rev. Bobby Marshall was present to present his application.
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the use category
of "establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic
office" was a category from the Zoning Ordinance which was chosen
as one that best captured all the variety of uses proposed to be
undertaken in the POD, but that the Global Learning Center was
not to be understood to be necessarily a religious use. Staff
pointed out that the word "or" designated that the uses could be
religious, or charitable, or philanthropic uses.
Rev. Marshall indicated that the staff's presentation and
explanation of the request was sufficient, and that he would
rather respond to the comments of objectors.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874
Ms. Rita Spillenger, indicating that she and her husband were in
opposition to the request, said that they opposed any commercial
rezonings in the area. They had made a significant investment in
the neighborhood in buying a home in the area, and were
interested in seeing that the neighborhood was revitalized as a
residential area. They had bought the home knowing that the area
was residential, and expect the area to remain residential.
Ms. Spillenger also complained that Rev. Marshall has been less
than forthcoming in the information he has provided regarding the
nature and scope of the activities pursued by his organization.
Rev. Marshall, she said, had been engaged in the pursuit of his
activities for more than a year without the permission of the
City, and that it was only after the neighbors brought the matter
to the City's attention that the application for the rezoning was
made. She also stated that Rev. Marshall did not have the
permission of the property owners to seek the rezoning.
Ms. Spillenger reported that she had invited Rev. Marshall to her
home to discuss their opposition to the proposed rezoning, and to
discuss their contention that drug abusers were frequenting the
premises. The residents are not adequately supervised, and the
facility has not met any licensing requirements, she said. She
complained that there is trash and there are liquor bottles in
the alley between Rev. Marshall's house and her home that are
there due to the Global Learning Center clientele, and that there
is traffic in the alley till all hours of the night. As far as
the safety of the neighborhood is concerned, she said that her
garage and back yard have been broken into, so she did not see
that Rev. Marshall's organization was improving the safety of the
area. Rev. Marshall, she said, refused to discuss the matter,
and had, she said, called her a racist. At another scheduled
meeting, which Rev. Marshall had set, Rev. Marshall had failed,
she continued, to attend. She stated that, contrary to
Rev. Marshall's contention, she and her family are not racists;
that she supports the activities of organizations such as Global
Learning Center, when they are in an appropriately zoned area,
and when the activities are properly supervised and the
institution is properly licensed.
Ms. Tennie J. Swaford, identifying herself as an area resident,
said that, although she does not object to Rev. Marshall and his
program, she does object to rezoning the neighborhood for
commercial uses.
Ms. Joan Gould, stating that she owns a home and property which
back up to Rev. Marshall's property, said that she objects to the
non - residential uses of the property. She had bought the home
because she wanted to live in a down -town, integrated,
residential neighborhood. She said that she is buying property
from the same persons who own Rev. Marshall's property, and that
these persons had not been informed of the planned rezoning,
5
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874
except for the same notice which was sent to property owners in
the area. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Riley, are not, she said,
supportive of the proposed rezoning, and are, she suggested, not
adequately informed of the goings -on. Two years ago, she said,
the Marshalls had been operating a daycare facility in the house
at 1608 Rock, and, at that time, the Rileys had stopped the
activity, due to it not being permitted within the scope of their
insurance coverage on the property. She complained that, over
the past two years, although the front of the property facing
Rock St. has been improved, the alley between their and
Rev. Marshall's property is littered. Food, from the food
program, is scattered in the alley, which she has, on a number of
occasions, had to clean up. There are numerous vehicles parked
on Rev. Marshall's property which are never moved, but are stored
on the property and are an eyesore. She complained that
Rev. Marshall and his clientele trespass on her property which
she is buying from the Rileys, and that she has had to notify
Rev. Marshall not to take soil or plant flowers on her property.
She said that one instance involving her paying clientele of
Rev. Marshall's for removing a tree which had been blown over,
where Rev. Marshall had said that the persons she had paid had
used the money to buy drugs, caused her to question the adequacy
of the supervision afforded to the clientele, and caused her to
question her security, and the security of the other neighbors.
She said that there are a number of homes in the neighborhood
which are historic, and a rezoning to permit a commercial use
would devalue these homes. She questioned the legitimacy of
Rev. Marshall's program and activities, both from the City's
zoning laws, and from the State licensing regulations. She was
approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that a letter had been received
applicant, dated December 20, 1994, asking tha
rezoning be withdrawn. Staff recommended that
included on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal,
was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays,
0 abstentions.
from the
t the requested POE
the item be
and the withdrawal
1 absent, and
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
NAME: U -HAUL OF ARKANSAS -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: On the north side of Asher Avenue, approximately 600
feet west of University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Mike Rose
U -HAUL OF ARKANSAS
4809 W. 65th. St.
Little Rock, AR 72209
562 -1925
AREA: 3.24 ACRES
ZONING: PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: The existing PCD permits
mini - storage use, along with
an accessory office and
dwelling use. The amended
PCD requests, in addition,
approval of truck and trailer
rental uses.
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
10
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PCD to permit,
in addition to the mini- storage and accessory office and dwelling
uses permitted in the original PCD, the rental of trucks and
trailers from the site. Proposed to be established is a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business to augment the mini - storage
business which is on- going. The original PCD was approved by the
Planning Commission on February 14, 1984; then, by the Board of
Directors on March 7, 1984 in Ordinance No. 14,614. Parking of
the trucks and trailers is planned to be provided at the rear of
the property against the north property line, and "one or two"
units at the front of the facility for display purposes.
A. PROPOSAWREOUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for an amendment to an existing PCD
to permit a use of the site which is in addition to the uses
originally approved for the PCD. Originally, in 1984 when
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
the PCD was approved, the specified uses were mini - storage
and the accessory office and dwelling to serve the mini -
storage facility. The applicant now wishes, in addition to
the on -going mini - storage business, to operate a U -Haul
truck and trailer rental business from the site. A U -Haul
service center would be used to store the rental vehicles;
the subject site is proposed to have on hand only vehicles
which have been reserved and are awaiting being picked up,
or vehicles which have been "dropped -off" by customers and
are awaiting transfer to the service center. Vehicles which
are on the site would be parked along the rear /north
property line, except for "one or two" trucks or trailers
which would be parked at the front of the facility to
identify the site as a U -Haul rental location.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is fully developed with a large mini - storage
facility involving 82,073 square feet of mini - storage space,
plus 3306 square feet of space for the office and manager's
apartment. Along the east and north, concrete drives extend
to the property line. Along the west, the site is developed
to within 10 feet of the property line where there is a 10
foot easement. The "L"- shaped building at the front of the
property is within a foot and a half of the property line.
At the front, along the Asher Ave. frontage of the site,
there is a 30 foot by 40 foot area available for
landscaping, and there is a 40 foot wide drive approach and
drive way. This driveway is used for parking all the way to
the street. There is a 16 foot high retaining wall along
the rear /north property line.
The site is zoned PCD. The properties immediately to the
east and west are zoned R -5. The property at the southwest
corner of the site is zoned C -4. To the north is a
residential neighborhood in an R -3 area. Across Asher Ave.
is C -3 property.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Arkansas Power & Light approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department comments that all driveways around all
buildings must maintain 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment access.
Landscape review comments that the landscaping which was
shown on the original approval must be re- installed.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
Planning review comments that the site is located within the
Boyle Park Planning District, and is designated as
Commercial (C) on the land use plan. The proposal is
consistent with the adopted plan.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
The site plan which was approved for the PCD in 1984 showed
a 20 foot wide curb cut off Asher Ave., widening to a
24 foot wide drive, with 4 head -in parking spaces off this
drive. The area in front of the office - dwelling portion of
the building and the parking spaces was to be landscaped.
The survey provided with the amended PCD application shows a
40 foot curb cut, the landscaping area reduced by the
20 feet added to the width of the curb cut and driveway, and
parking space reduced to permit 3 vehicles to park head -in
off the driveway, plus a garage to serve the manager's
apartment. A freestanding sign was added in the landscape
strip area which was not requested in the original
application or shown on the originally approved site plan.
The parking requirements for warehouse and storage uses are
5 spaces, plus 1 space per 2000 square feet of floor area up
to 50,000 square feet; then, in addition, 1 space per 10,000
square feet over 50,000 square feet. [See Section 36-
502.(4)b.] For the office portion of the facility, the
parking requirements are 1 space for 400 square feet. [See
Section 36- 502.(2)g.] For the residential use, the
requirement is for 1 space per dwelling. [See Section 36-
502.(1)a.] With 82,073 square feet of mini- storage space,
plus 1653 square feet of space for the office, plus the
manager's apartment, the required number of parking spaces
is 33. Parking for 3 vehicles is presently provided, plus
the 1 space available in the garage. There is sufficient
room along the rear /north property line for 9 additional
spaces. The total number of spaces available for parking,
then, is 13.
The number of trucks and trailers proposed to be stored on
the site needs to be designated, as well as the spaces where
they will be parked. If modification of the existing curb
along the rear /north property line is anticipated, then the
site plan must show this. Protection from vehicles of the
retaining wall must be provided for.
E. ANALYSIS:
As stated in the "Existing Conditions" section, "The site is
fully developed." The site does not provide adequate
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
parking. At the office - residential use area, 4 spaces are
provided; 5 are required. Assuming that there is no need
for additional parking to serve the mini - storage use, there
is still no space for the addition of rental vehicles.
The approved PCD site plan showed 4 head -ii
and a 50 foot by 40 foot landscaped area.
has been lost to an addition to the office
landscaped area is reduced to a 30 foot by
freestanding sign exists in the landscaped
not approved for the PCD.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
:a parking spaces
One parking space
area, and the
40 foot area. A
area which was
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the
PCD, but does recommends approval of an amendment to the PCD
to permit the sign which has been installed to remain in its
present location. Staff recommends that a requirement be
imposed that the front landscaping be installed pursuant to
the originally approved site plan, and that parking not be
permitted in the area in front of the front building line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Rod Baldwin, representing U -Haul, was present. Staff
presented the applicant's site plan and explained that the site,
as shown, was developed; that the request was simply a request to
add the rental of trucks and trailers to the listing of approved
uses in the existing PCD. Mr. Baldwin indicated that the trucks
and trailers are proposed to be stored at the rear of the lot
along the north property line, and that only two trucks or
trailers would be displayed at the front property line. The
Committee members reviewed with Mr. Baldwin the comments
contained in the discussion outline. The Committee indicated
that no parking would be allowed within the front building
setback line, and that parking would be restricted to the area at
the rear of the property where 20 feet of clearance for fire
equipment could be maintained. The Committee forwarded the item
to the Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Rod Baldwin and Mike Rose were present representing U -Haul of
Arkansas.
Staff presented the request, and reported that there had been
deviations to the site from the site plan originally approved for
N
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
the PCD: 1) that there was a sign at the front of the property
which was not provided for in the PCD; 2) that in lieu of the
24 foot wide drive shown on the original plan, a 40 foot drive
had been constructed, and that in the area originally shown to be
landscaped, the wider drive encroached, taking approximately
1/2 of the landscaped area shown on the original site plan; and,
3) the landscaping which had been shown on the original site plan
was not present on the site. Staff reported that there was
insufficient room at the front of the facility for parking of
rental vehicles, and that there was minimal space at the rear of
the property which could be used for storage of rental vehicles.
Staff recommended denial of the amended PCD, and recommended that
either the applicant remove the sign and paving, and install
landscaping in the area as shown on the approved PCD site plan,
or seek approval from the Commission for the sign, drive, and
landscaping as they are presently located on the site.
Rod Baldwin, president of U -Haul of Arkansas, addressed the
Commission. He said that the scope of the request was simply to
be able to rent trailers or trucks to persons moving in or out of
the storage facility as a convenience to these customers. He
stated that any stored vehicles would be located at the rear of
the property against the rear retaining wall, and he committed to
keep only a couple of rental vehicles on the site at any one
time. He said that U -Haul has a shuttle service, and any rental
vehicles needed or dropped off at the site would be shuttled to
and from the main storage location on W. 65th. St.
Jack Payne addressed the Commission. He indicated that he had
the business immediately to the west of the U -Haul site. He
stated that the original PCD site plan provided 3 guest parking
spaces in front of the office area, but that the parking is
insufficient for the customers who patronize the U -Haul business.
He said that, especially around the 1st. and 15th. of the month,
when customers are paying their mini - storage rents, that the
U -Haul customers do not have sufficient room to park on the
U -Haul site, and overflow onto his parking area. He also said
that the U -Haul sign is located in the center of the property,
and people returning rental trucks evidently have difficulty
locating the U -Haul drive, because they pass up the U -Haul drive
and turn into his parking area. He complained that U -Haul
customers park on his property and walk next door to pay their
rent or to complete the paper work to rent or return trucks or
trailers. He pointed out that, with the limited parking
available at the front of the U -Haul site, if even one or two
truck are brought to the site, and are parked or wait at the
front of the property, then there will be no customer parking
available. He said that he was definitely opposed to the request
Mr. Baldwin, responding to Mr. Payne's objection, reported that
Mr. Payne operates a competing rental business, renting Ryder
5
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
trucks and trailers. He stated that Mr. Payne, then, has a
vested interest in opposing U -Haul renting trucks and trailers.
Commissioner Walker, addressing Mr. Baldwin, indicated that his
concern with the application is that there is no room for the
additional activity; that U -Haul was not proposing to remove some
of the storage units in order to provide the space for truck and
trailer storage. He said that the U -Haul operation needed to be
able to have sufficient space on the U -Haul site for storage unit
customers and for the rental customers, without overflowing onto
the adjoining neighbor's property. He asked Mr. Baldwin whether
any measures were proposed to provide needed direction to the
U -Haul site for customers.
Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the Asher Ave. frontage of the site
was small, and that, if U -Haul had developed the site originally,
they would have had input into providing a more workable
arrangement for traffic. He said, though, that he had never been
made aware of the problem with overflow onto Mr. Payne's
property. He said that once a storage unit customer has come to
the site to rent a unit, and has signed a contact, that there is
very little need for these customers to park at the office; that
they when they need access to their storage unit, they drive on
back to the rear of the property to their storage unit. He said
that most storage rental customers are on a credit card charge
basis, and do not come to the site to make payments. He said
that, at present, the gate to the storage area is open, but that
a card access gate is planned to be provided. He said that the
only time a truck would be parked at the front, at the office,
would be when a truck was being brought in by a customer and was
being checked in, or when one was being rented.
Staff pointed out the concerns mentioned in the write -up: that no
provision had been made in the original PCD for the sign which
had been installed, and that the landscaping was not in
conformance with the originally approved site plan. Staff also
stated that the Fire Department does not want any parking in any
of the 20 foot wide drives; that the only available parking is at
the rear of the property where there is 30 feet between the rear
of the buildings and the rear retaining wall. Staff also
cautioned that the retaining wall needs to be protected from
damage which might be caused by trucks parallel parking or
backing into the wall.
Kenny Scott, zoning enforcement supervisor, reported that there
is a second ground sign which had been installed and which needs
to be removed, and that the landscaping, as originally shown on
the site plan, needs to be installed and maintained.
Staff explained that, either the applicant needs to seek approval
of the signs, as they are presently situated on the property, or
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
they need to remove these signs. Also, staff explained that,
either the applicant needs to seek approval of the size of the
landscaped area, as it is, or needs to remove a portion of the
driveway and landscape the area as originally approved.
Plantings need to be installed and then maintained in the
landscaped area, whatever that area is determined to be.
Mr. Baldwin responded that U -Haul would amend its request for
approval of the signs, as situated on the site, and for approval
of the site plan, as it was developed. He said that landscaping
in the landscape area in front of the office building would be
installed, then maintained. He said that, since he had not been
aware of the deviations from the original plan until the last
minute, he requested a deferral of further consideration on the
request.
Staff recommended that the deferral be to the October 18, 1994
Subdivision hearing, and that the applicant bring any proposed
changes in the application to the Subdivision Committee for
review of the site plan.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the deferral of the
item until the October 18th. Commission meeting, and the motion
passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 18, 1994)
Staff reported that the applicant had notified staff immediately
prior to the meeting that there was a new manager for U -Haul;
that the manager who had represented U -Haul at the previous
meeting was no longer with U -Haul; that the new manager needed
time to become familiar with the request and to study the options
available; and, that U -Haul requested a deferral of the item
until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing. Staff recommended
that the requested deferral be included in the Consent Agenda,
but reported that the applicant would need to make the request to
the Commission in person; and, that a Bylaws waiver would need to
be approved by the Commission, since the request for deferral had
not been made at least five (5) days prior to the hearing.
Mr. Mike Rose, representing U -Haul, asked the Commission for a
deferral of the item until the January 10, 1995 Commission
meeting. Mr. Jack Payne, the owner of the Ryder rental business
abutting the site to the west, was present, and indicated that,
although he was in opposition to the proposed PCD modification,
he was not opposed to the deferral. A motion was made and
seconded to approve a waiver from the Commission Bylaws which
requires a request for deferral be made at least five (5) days
7
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4074 -A
prior to a Commission meeting, and the motion was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The
item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval of the
deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Putnam).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that the staff recommendation for denial of the
request to add rental of U -Haul trucks to the PCD had not
changed, and recommended that the applicant re- instal landscaping
at the front of the site to comply with the Landscaping
Ordinance.
No one was present to represent the applicant.
Staff reported that there had been several written and telephone
communications between the applicant and various staff persons
concerning the application and the landscaping requirements, with
discussions concerning the upcoming meeting; therefore, staff
felt that the applicant should have know of the date of the
hearing on the deferred item.
The question was called, and a vote to recommend approval of the
Amended PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 11 nays, 0 absent,
and 0 abstentions.
0
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z- 4135 -A
NAME: GAINES STREET AND W. 24TH. STREET -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of S. Gaines St. and W. 24th.
St.
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
GAINES STREET REDEYE
200 W. Capitol Ave.,
Little Rock, AR 72
372 -5659
AREA: 0.24 ACRES
ZONING• R -5
LOPMENT CORP. WILLIAM WIEDOWER
Suite 1650 1012 W. 2nd. St.
Little Rock, AR 72
375 -8252
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: Multi- Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 6
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a PRD in order to develop an existing home
and outbuilding for multi - family residential use. The applicant
proposes to remodel an existing 2 -story residence to create two
apartments, one up stairs and one down, and to remodel the
existing outbuilding, which has served as a garage, as a separate
apartment unit. The applicant states that the organization has
purchased two other homes in the same block, and is remodeling
these homes to provide two apartments in each structure. The
subject property contains the garage structure which is proposed
to be remodeled as an apartment, providing three residential uses
on the property. The applicant states that the primary
residential structure on the site has been used as a multi - family
residence for most of its life, and that the developer proposes
to convert what is now a number of small units into one unit on
each floor.
A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors for the establishment of a PRD is requested.
No variances or waivers are requested.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4135 -A
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently developed. It contains a single
primary residential structure, plus an outbuilding which has
been used for a garage. The garage structure encroaches
approximately 0.6 feet into the alley right -of -way.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) the owner must correct the
encroachment of the garage onto the alley right -of -way; 2)
alley improvements, involving construction of one -half of a
17 foot pavement width, with a proper apron, will be
required; and, 3) the existing sidewalks will be required to
be improved and repaired, and handicap access ramps must be
installed at the intersection.
Water works has no comment on the item.
Wastewater comments that a 6" sewer main is located in the
alley.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment.
Landscape review reports that, with the exception of
allowing some flexibility for traffic visibility, a 6 foot
high opaque screen is required along the entire northern
property line. After parking and vehicular use areas are
defined, some perimeter and building landscaping will be
required.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that the site
plan must be more than a survey of the existing site; it
must deal with the proposal for improving the alley and for
making the repairs to the existing sidewalks; with parking
for residents' vehicles; with landscaping and buffering;
etc.
Provision for abating the problem of the encroachment of the
garage into the alley right -of -way must be made.
K
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4135 -A
The Planning staff comments that the request is in the
Central City Planning District, and the adopted Land Use
Plan recommends "Single - Family" uses. The Planning staff
questions the desirability of having a multi- family use
north of 24th. St. along Gaines.
It is noted that the property is zoned R -5. According to
Section 36 -259, the requirements for R -5 are: for lot areas
of 10,000 square feet to 1 acre, the lot area shall provide
a minimum of 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. The
proposed PRD site is 10,500 square feet, and, with 3
dwellings on the site, the lot area per dwelling unit is
3,500 square feet.
E. ANALYSIS:
The problem with this proposal is that of the encroachment
of the garage building into the alley right -of -way, and the
required setback from the rear property line not being met.
The use does not appear to be in conflict with the existing
zoning, and staff questions the need to proceed with a PRD
application.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
No one representing the applicant was present, and there was no
discussion of the item, except for a brief.description of the
request. The Committee forwarded the request to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff reported that it has been confirmed that the zoning of the
site is R -4, not R -5, as shown on the zoning map included with
the agenda and reflected in the write -up. Three dwelling units
on the site, then, are not permitted by right in the R -4 zoning
district, staff reported, and the applicant has chosen a PRD to
get the approval needed. Staff reported that the City Attorney
has noted that the issue of the encroachment into the alley by
the existing garage building, which is to be remodeled as the
third dwelling unit, must be remedied, and that at least a
portion of the alley needs to be abandoned. An adequate site
plan must be submitted, staff related, which addresses all staff
concerns.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4135 -A
No one was present to represent the applicant. A motion was made
and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing
dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays,
4 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that a revised site plan has been submitted, and,
except for the 8" encroachment into the alley, all issues are
resolved. Staff recommended approval of the PD -R, with the
condition that the encroachment into the alley be remedied,
either by the applicant petitioning for abandonment of a portion
of the alley, or by obtaining a franchise for use of the portion
of the alley. The PD -R was approved with the vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
N
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z- 4422 -B
NAME: MARKHAM PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM
PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the south side of W. Markham St., approximately
300 feet west of Meadowbrook Dr.
DEVELOPER:
Donald Kirk
KIRK PROPERTIES
9821A W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72205
221 -0303
AREA: 2.28 ACRES
ZONING• PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
A request for a rezoning from C -3 and R -2 was heard by the
Planning Commission on April 9, 1985, and a recommendation for
approval was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors established the PCD on May 7, 1985 in Ordinance No.
14,876. The approved site plan required a fence along the entire
length of the west property line, and landscaping along the south
and southeast property lines and at the southeast corner of the
building. Since the PCD was approved the zoning and use of the
property abutting the west property line has changed, and there
is C -3 zoning along the north 200 feet ± of the west property
line. Over the years, the landscaping has deteriorated along the
south property line, and has been removed at the southeast
property line and at the southeast corner of the building.
The Zoning Enforcement staff notified the applicant that the site
is not in conformance with the approved site plan, and the
applicant proposes that, in lieu of reinstalling the fence and
landscaping according to the approved site plan, he would seek
approval: 1) to omit the fence where the site abuts C -3 zoning;
2) to omit the landscaping at the southeast property line and at
the southeast corner of the building; and, 3) to leave the
existing landscaping along the south property line "as is
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4422 -B
The applicant states that owners of property to the west use his
property for access to the rear of their buildings; that the
telephone company would, if the fence were reinstalled, loose
access to their junction box which is immediately west of the
property line; and that access to his property to the fire
hydrant, which is immediately west of the property line, would be
lost.
The applicant states that there are large oak trees and pine
trees along the south property line which have hampered the
growth of the required plantings; that the required plantings
have been installed twice, and that they have died both times.
The applicant states that due to a drainage problem, the
landscape buffer at the southeast property line must be
eliminated, and that trucks turning have encroached into this
area. The area has, consequently, been paved.
The applicant states that, due to trucks turning, the landscape
area at the southeast corner of the rear building, has been
eliminated.
kV
0
C.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for an amendment to the approved
PCD for approval of a revised site plan which eliminates a
portion of the fence located along the west property line
and eliminates certain landscaping requirements which were
required as part of the originally approved site plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is fully developed. The zoning to the west is C -3.
The remainder of the area, to the east, south, and across W.
Markham St. to the north, is R -2.
ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that there are apparently no Public
Works issues to resolve.
Water Works has no objection to the item.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and no adverse
effect is anticipated.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot
easement will be required along the west boundary of the
site, along the property north -south line at the southeast
corner of the tract, and extending northward from this line
between the two buildings out to Markham St.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4422 -B
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways
must be maintained with a minimum width of 201.
Landscape review comments that an 8 foot high wall or wooden
fence must be provided around 3 sides of both dumpsters. At
the time this site was developed the Landscape Ordinance
required a 41 wide landscape strip along the western and
eastern site perimeters. Unless a platted access easement
is provided along the western driveway area, the western
landscape strip will be required by the Landscape Ordinance.
Five trees are required in the landscape islands within the
parking area, and additional evergreen screening shrubs
within the landscape strip along Markham St. are required by
the Landscape Ordinance. City Beautiful Commission approval
would be required to delete the Landscape Ordinance
requirements.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
The area to the west has developed as a commercial use area,
and the fence in the area which abuts the C -3 zoned land is
not required at this time.
There are landscaping issues to be resolved, as cited above.
E. ANALYSIS•
The requirements of the current Landscape Ordinance will
require installation of landscaping in certain areas, as
noted above. The proximity of residential uses to the south
and east make proper buffering important.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deleting the fence requirement
property abuts C -3 land, but recommends denial
request to leave the site landscaping "as is".
recommends that the landscaping be installed as
the Landscape Ordinance.
K
where the
of the
Staff
required by
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 4422 -B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
No one was present to represent the applicant. Other than a
brief review of the proposal by staff, there was no discussion,
and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for
the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff presented the request; however, the applicant nor anyone to
represent him was present. A motion was made and seconded to
defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the
motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and
0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Donald Kirk, the applicant, was present.
Staff outlined the status of the request as being deferred, and
noted that the item was brought to the Planning Commission as a
result of a Zoning Enforcement action. Staff noted that the
landscaping on the site does not comply with the approved site
plan, as approved by the Commission when the PCD was established,
and that the fence along the west property line which was shown
on the original site plan has been removed. Staff recommended
that the fence along the west property line not be required to be
installed, since the abutting properties are zoned C -3, but
recommended that the landscape on the site, especially the buffer
along the south and at the southeast property lines, be
reinstalled.
Mr. Kirk indicated that he would meet with Bob Brown of the
Neighborhoods and Planning staff to get the landscaping
requirements, and that he would comply with the requirements.
Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, indicated
that there would be a requirement to provide the landscaping
buffer along the west property line, as well as to reinstall and
upgrade landscaping within the site.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the
Amended PCD, with the condition that the landscaping be upgraded
as required by Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning
staff, and the motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays,
0 absent, and 0 abstentions.
4
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z -5108
NAME: REVOCATION OF MCCRARY -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 1401 S. Pulaski St.
DEVELOPER:
Carlton McCrary
1401 S. Pulaski St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.16 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: PRD APPROVED USES: Single - Family Residence and
Research and Development
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 7
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
BACKGROUND AND REQUEST:
On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a PRD for
the restoration of an unused firehouse structure. The structure
contained approximately 3,300 square feet on each of its two
floors. The upper level was to be used for the applicant's
residence. On the lower level, approximately 40 percent of the
area in the former fire equipment garage was to be used for
research and development of a "Tag -a -long Stroller ", an invention
being developed by the applicant. On January 3, 1989, in
Ordinance No. 15,618, the Board of Directors approved the PRD.
In June of 1993, a complaint was received that the owner /original
applicant in the PRD was repairing automobiles on the PRD site.
Subsequent to that, Zoning Enforcement officers noted that the
owner, Mr. McCrary, was collecting antique automobiles and
restoring them on the property. Cars with dealer tags have been
noted. The Zoning Enforcement personnel have a copy of an
application for from the Arkansas State Police for a used motor
vehicle dealer license for I. I. Inc. /Tony McCrary Motors,
located at 1401 S. Pulaski. The license and the accompanying
insurance and surety bond are for I. I., Inc., dba Tony McCrary
Motors, 1401 S. Pulaski St. The Arkansas State Police inspection
report states that the "Place of business is used primarily for
the sale of used motor vehicles "; that there is a "sign
identifying the business as a used motor vehicle dealership which
is legible from the street "; that there is a "telephone number
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5108
listed in the name of the business; that the dealer has a
license; etc. This report is dated August 12, 1994.
Mr. McCrary has been given a warning notice by the Zoning
Enforcement Officer and has been notified that the car dealer and
repair activity is not in compliance with his approved PRD. He
has failed to respond to the communications from the
Neighborhoods and Planning staff, except to state that he
contests the assertions by the inspector.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action to
recommend revocation of the PRD to the Board of Directors, and
that the zoning of the property revert to its former C-3 status.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reported
that Mr. McCrary had been notified that the requested revocation
had been placed on the agenda for the November 29, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting, and that the Subdivision Committee meeting
was to be held on November 10. Staff reviewed the information
concerning the apparent violation of the PRD zoning with the
Committee members, and the Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
Staff presented the request from Zoning Enforcement to revoke the
applicant's PRD; however, the applicant nor anyone to represent him
was present. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item
until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried
with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that the Zoning Enforcement Division is pursuing
enforcement of the alleged violation of the terms of the PRD in
Municipal Court, and staff recommended that the item be deferred
to the February 21, 1995 Planning Commission agenda, pending the
outcome of the Court hearing. The deferral was approved with the
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
2
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: G Z -5920
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Charles Swinson
Mrs. D. Binns
2013 So. Van Buren
To grant a Special Use Permit
Day care family home
(6 -10 children)
0.16 acres
Single - Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Single - Family,
zoned
R -3
South
- Single - Family,
zoned
R -3
East
- Single - Family,
zoned
R -3
West
- Single - Family,
zoned
R -3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request for 2013 So. Van Buren is to grant a special use
permit to allow a day care family home. The zoning
ordinance definition of a day care family home is:
Any facility which provides child care in a family
setting within a care giver's family residence in
accordance with provisions of licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas. This use is
intended to fill that level of child care between
unregulated baby- sitting and day care center.
The breakdown of the different levels of child care is as
follows:
baby- sitting - 1 to 5
day care family home - 6 to 10
day care center - 11 or more
Also, Section 36- 54(e) is the development criteria for
special use permits and it lists 5 for a day care family
home. The 5 points are:
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: G Z -5920 (Cont.)
This use may be located only in a single family
home, occupied by the care giver.
Must be operated within licensing procedures
established by the State of Arkansas.
The use is limited to ten (10) children
including the care givers.
The minimum to qualify for special use permit
is six (6) children from households other than
the care givers.
This use must obtain a special use permit in
all districts where day care centers are not
allowed by right.
(Other uses requiring a special use permit are bed and
breakfast hotels and family care facilities.)
2013 So. Van Buren is a typical residential lot, with a
single family residence on it. The applicant has indicated
that she has had as many as 8 children at one time and she
anticipates that eight will be the maximum in the future.
(This issue is before the Planning Commission because of an
enforcement action by the city. It is unclear whether a
complaint was made or a code officer just came across the
use.) Based on comments made by the applicant, she is
licensed by the state to keep up to 10 children. The
caregiver (the applicant) does reside at 2013 So. Van Buren
and the property owner is aware of the request for a special
use permit.
The issues that the city needs to be concerned with include
the safety of the children and potential impact on the
neighborhood. Safety does not appear to be an issue because
there is an adequate drop -off point which does not interfere
with the traffic flow on So. Van Buren, a minor residential
street. Also, the rear yard is used for the play area and
it is fenced. Staff's position is that this type of day
care is compatible with a single family neighborhood and we
support the special use permit. The use should not create
any problems for the surrounding properties.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G Z -5920 (Cont.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for
2013 So. Van Buren.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994)
Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred
because the applicant had not notified all the required
property owners. As part of the Consent Agenda, the item
was deferred to the January 10, 1995 hearing. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on Consent Agenda.
As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to
approve the special use permit for 2013 So. Van Buren. The
vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
Q
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z -5906
NAME:
LOCATION:
Alltel Cellular Tower - Southedge
Drive Site Conditional Use Permit
1100 Southedge Drive
OWNERAAPPLICANT: Alltel Mobile Communications of
Arkansas by Tracy Gill
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 100 foot tall,
monopole cellular tower on this
MF -24 zoned property. Associated
with the tower is an unmanned 28
foot by 17 foot equipment shelter.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the north side of Southedge
Drive, one block north of Rodney Parham Road and directly
west of the Spring Meadows Apartment Complex.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed tower site is in an area of mixed zoning and
uses located along the north side of Rodney Parham Road.
The properties fronting onto Rodney Parham are primarily
zoned C -3 and contain a variety of commercial uses.
Behind these, and separating them from the single - family
residential neighborhood to the north, is an area of
multifamily zoning containing several apartment complexes.
The proposed tower site is shielded from the residential
neighborhood to the north by an apartment complex.
The Treasure Hill neighborhood, to the south, is separated
from the tower site by the commercial development on Rodney
Parham. The proposed 100 foot tower should not have a
negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site will be reached by a 15 foot access easement off of
Southedge Drive. Parking is provided at the tower site for
the service technician who will occasionally visit the site
for maintenance purposes. No other on -site parking is
required.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5906
4. Screening and Buffers
The base of the tower site will be enclosed by an 8 foot
tall, wood privacy fence. Where adjacent to the apartment
complex, the tower site and parking space will be further
screened by planting 5 foot tall, evergreen shrubs.
5. City Engineer Comments
Access to the site must be taken through Lot 10, which is
occupied by the apartment complex. No new driveway will be
allowed onto Southedge Drive at this point.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a sewer main
extension with easements will be required if sewer service
is necessary. The Fire Department requires the driveway to
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The site only has a 15 foot
access easement to Southedge Drive.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole tower on this
MF -24 zoned site. The proposed tower site is shielded
somewhat from the nearest single - family neighborhoods by a
two -story apartment complex and by commercial development
along Rodney Parham Road.
Staff feels that the proposed 100 foot tower is a reasonable
use for this site and is supportive of the request, however
one important issue must be resolved prior to the Planning
Commission acting on this matter.
During the initial review of this application, it became
apparent that the small piece of property on which the tower
lease area is located was illegally subdivided from the
larger property on which the apartment complex is located.
This was later confirmed by the applicant.
In light of this development,
appropriate to defer action on
subdivision issue is resolved.
8. Staff Recommendation
staff feels that it would be
the proposed tower until the
Staff recommends deferral of this item until the property is
properly subdivided.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5906
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
informed the Committee that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting. A
subdivision application will be filed for that same meeting. The
Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting in order to
address the subdivision issue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a
second deferral, this time to the February 21, 1995 commission
meeting. The applicant is continuing work to resolve the
subdivision issue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda
deferral to the February 21, 1995 Planning
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
r
and approved for
Commission meeting.
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: Z -5909
NAME:
LOCATION•
Sears Accessory Dwelling -
Conditional Use Permit
1219 N. Tyler Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Jerry Sears
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the conversion
of the upstairs of an existing,
two -story accessory structure into
an accessory dwelling. The
property is zoned R -2. A variance
is requested to allow an accessory
dwelling greater than 700 square
feet in area. The existing
structure has 780± square feet on
each floor.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the east side of North Tyler
Street, one block south of its intersection with ° °L"° Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The subject property is located in a predominately single -
family residential neighborhood.
The site contains a single- family dwelling and a large, two -
story accessory building. The lower level of the accessory
building contains a two -car garage and the upper level is
currently used as storage.
The proposal to convert the upper story of the existing
accessory building into an accessory dwelling will not
involve any expansion of the structure and will, for all
intents and purposes, not be a noticeable change in the
property.
The proposed accessory dwelling should be compatible with
the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The principal dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling
require one on -site parking space each. There is a two car
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5909
garage beneath the proposed accessory dwelling and a two car
driveway, taking access off of the alley.
4. Screening and Buffers
No additional screening or buffering are required for this
single- family residential property.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant proposes to convert the upper floor of an
existing, two story accessory structure into an accessory
dwelling. The lower floor will continue to be used as a two
car garage. The upper floor contains a total area of 780±
square feet, 80± square feet more than the Ordinance
prescribes as the maximum floor area for an accessory
dwelling.
The proposal involves an e
sufficient on -site parking
Two story construction for
if the lower floor is used
the proposal is reasonable
on adjacent properties.
8. Staff Recommendation
xisting structure and there is
to meet ordinance requirements.
accessory dwellings is permitted
as a garage. Staff feels that
and should have a minimal impact
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and
of the variance to use the existing 780t square feet on the
second floor as an accessory dwelling.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(NOVEMBER 10, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted the requested area variance. The Committee agreed that
there were no outstanding issues since the structure was already
in existence and there was adequate parking. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994)
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5909
The applicant, Jerry Sears, was present. There was opposition
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.
Hunter Stewart addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Sears.
He offered no comments at the time but stated he would redress
any comments made by those in opposition.
Jean Miller, of 5315 "L'° Street, spoke in opposition to the
proposed accessory dwelling. She stated that she was concerned
that this accessory dwelling could set a precedent resulting in
increased traffic and transient activity in the neighborhood.
She presented a petition signed by neighbors opposed to the
accessory dwelling.
Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Sears bought the property in 1990 and
that the upstairs had already been framed out for a dwelling. He
pointed out that there are other non - single family uses in the
area. Mr. Stewart stated that the required parking was being
provided for both the existing home and the proposed accessory
dwelling.
Commissioner Willis asked if Mr. Sears planned to live in one of
the homes.
Mr. Stewart responded that Mr. Sears would occupy the accessory
dwelling and his mother would occupy the principal dwelling.
Mr. Stewart also stated that Mr. Sears had no plans to put
separate meters on the accessory dwelling.
Commissioner Walker asked if the neighbors were opposed to the
second dwelling or concerned about who would occupy it.
Ms. Miller responded that she was concerned that Mr. Sears might
sell the property and that the new owners would rent the
accessory dwelling.
After further discussion, Commissioner Rahman stated that there
were other accessory dwellings in the neighborhood and that they
had apparently created no problems.
Further discussion then followed concerning the occupancy of the
accessory dwelling.
Commissioner Putnam stated that the structure had been in place
for several years and that the proposed use should have a minimal
impact on neighbors.
The question was called and a vote was taken. The vote was
4 ayes, 4 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (McCarthy). The lack
of 6 votes for or against the proposal resulted in the item being
deferred to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5909
A motion was made to expunge the vote. The motion failed by a
vote of 1 aye, 8 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Hunter Stewart was present representing the applicant. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed
the Commission that this item had been deferred from the
November 29, 1994 meeting due to a lack of 6 votes for or against
the item at that meeting.
Mr. Stewart addressed the Commission. He gave a brief history of
Mr. Sears' efforts to remodel the structure as an accessory
dwelling. He stated that the City had issued Mr. Sears building,
plumbing and electrical permits to finish out the structure as an
accessory dwelling and only at the last minute was Mr. Sears
informed that he could not use the structure as he desired. Mr.
Stewart stated that $15,000 had been spent on remodeling the
structure as a dwelling. Mr. Stewart concluded by stating that
the proposed accessory dwelling would not be incompatible with
the neighborhood and that there were several other accessory
dwellings in the area.
Commissioner Adcock asked staff how many neighborhood residents
had signed the petition of opposition which had been presented at
the November 29, 1994 meeting. Staff responded that there were
15 signatures on the petition.
Commissioner Woods asked who would occupy the accessory dwelling.
Mr. Stewart responded that Mr. Sears would occupy the accessory
dwelling and Mr. Sears' mother would occupy the principal
dwelling. Mr. Stewart stated that the accessory dwelling would
not have separate utility meters and that the accessory dwelling
would become a guesthouse in the event Mr. Sears' mother moves.
Commissioner Willis asked if the applicant would agree to the
condition that the accessory dwelling is not to have separate
utility meters. Mr. Stewart responded that the applicant would
agree to that condition.
Commissioner Adcock asked if that condition would be passed on to
subsequent owners of the property. Steve Giles, of the City
Attorney's Office, responded that the condition was attached to
the property, regardless of the ownership.
A vote was then taken on the item with the added condition that
the accessory dwelling is not to have separate utility meters.
The vote was 10 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
4
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5 -24 -AAA
NAME: LEATRICE ANN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Beyond the present end of Beckingham Road, Huntleigh
Dr., and Westport Loop.
DEVELOPER:
A. S. ROSEN AND ASSOCIATES
9101 Rodney Parham
Little Rock, AR 72205
223 -0647
AREA: 22 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS:
ENGINEER:
WHITE- DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
364 -1666
83 FT. NEW STREET: 2,937.5
ZONING: R -2 PROPOSED USES: Single - Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a revised preliminary plat for a 22 -acre
tract which is in an area for which a preliminary plat was
previously approved, known as West Port Subdivision; West Port
Subdivision being in an area which was, prior to that, included
in a preliminary plat known as Hillsboro, Phase IX. The new
subdivision, Leatrice Ann subdivision, proposes to increase the
density of the area from 62 lots to 83, but the street layout is
to stay substantially as proposed and approved in the West Port
Subdivision preliminary plat. (The applicant notes that clearing
and grading for the streets and placing of some of the utilities
were undertaken in the past according to the originally approved
layout, and it is more feasible to work with the layout on which
construction was begun than to propose a revised layout. Lots
which were, in the West Port Subdivision, 90 and 100 feet in
width have, in the Leatrice Ann layout, been decreased to 60 and
65 feet.) The total length of new streets to be constructed in
the plat remains as was originally approved at 2937.5 feet. The
area is zoned R -2, and the applicant proposes that homes in
Leatrice Ann subdivision are to have a minimum floor area of
1,800 square feet for single -story dwellings and 2,000 square
feet for two -story homes. No variances are requested.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for
Leatrice Ann subdivision is requested. No variances are
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. There are
perhaps parts of two lots which are fairly level; however,
the majority of the area is extremely hilly, with grades
predominantly ranging from 12 to 26 percent.
The current zoning of the area is R -2.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that: 1) the grades indicated on the
streets exceed the maximum permitted by Code; 2) Sidewalks
will be required on Westport Loop, but are not shown on the
plat; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29 -186, is required; a grading permit
will be required; 4) street plans, stormwater detention, and
boundary survey requirements will be required; and, 5) the
area designated as a private drive must be widened to 24
feet; provide a minimum 10 foot radii at the private drive
and the street interface.
Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges,
an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area.
Water main extensions will be required. Each lot obtaining
service must have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on the
right -of -way from which it is served, or a private street
must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements at the
boundary of the subdivision and at a number of internal lot
lines.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department approved the preliminary plat without
comment.
E
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -24 -AAA
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Sec. 31 -87 of the Subdivision Regulations require the
application to provide the following information which has
not been noted: the type of the subdivision being proposed;
the name and address of the owner of record, and the source
of title of the ownership; any existing and proposed
covenants and restrictions; the average size of lots and the
minimum lot size; and the source of water supply and the
means of wastewater proposed.
Sec. 31 -89 of the Subdivision Regulation requires the
preliminary plat to provide the following information which
has not been shown: the names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision, with the plat book and
page number or instrument number; the names of owners of
unplatted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision, and the
names of all owners of platted tracts in excess of 2 1/2
acres; the zoning classifications within the plat and of
abutting areas; and the location of proposed PAGIS
monuments.
Sections. 31 -367 through 31 -376 of the Subdivision
Regulations requires that, when areas of a plat have an
average grade of 18% or greater, the Hillside regulations
are applicable. This requires, among other things, larger
lot sizes. An analysis of the subdivision for the
applicability of these standards has not been supplied.
It is noted that eight lots on the north side of Westport
Loop are shown to face a private drive, and that two lots at
the north end of the Huntleigh Ct. cul -de -sac show access
easements for their access to the cul -de -sac. water works
indicates that, for lots to receive water service, each lot
obtaining service must have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage
on the right -of -way from which it is served, or,
alternatively, the Planning Commission may approve a private
street to serve the lots. Sec. 31 -;231 of the Subdivision
Regulations provides that: "Every lot shall abut upon a
public street, except where private streets are explicitly
approved by the Planning Commission." Sec. 31 -207 states:
"Private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission.... The design standards shall conform to public
street standards.... Private streets are permissible only
in the form of cull -de -sac and short loop streets, and only
when ... these streets can be adequately served by all public
service vehicles ....'° The application must include a
request of the Commission that a private street be allowed,
or the plat must be re- designed to provide public streets to
serve all lots. The lots off the north end of the Huntleigh
Ct. cul -de -sac must either be shown as pipestem lots (for
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -24 -AAA
the required frontage on the right -of -way), or the area must
be re- designed so that each lot has the required frontage on
the public street. (In the R -2 zoning district, the minimum
frontage for lots is 60 feet, pursuant to Sec. 36 -254 of the
zoning Regulations.) Sec. 31- 232(8) states that pipestem
lots are prohibited in residential subdivisions; therefore,
either the design for the area must be changed to eliminate
the suggested pipestem lots, or a waiver of the prohibition
on pipestem lots must be sought. Such a waiver must be
approved by the Board of Directors.
Section 31- 231(b) states: "No residential lot shall be more
than three (3) times as deep as it is wide. There are four
lots to the east of the Beckingham Rd. extension which
exceed this limitation. Either the lots must be made wider
so that the ratio is maintained, or, alternatively, the
depth of the lots could be shortened, and the remaining area
to the west shown as a "Tract ", the maintenance of which
would have to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance.
The private drive for access to the rear of eight of the
lots on the north side of Westport Loop is extremely narrow
and steep. Sanitation trucks may not, as the drive is
designed, be able to use the private drive for garbage pick-
up. Public works suggests that the "T" design be changed to
a loop design, and that the radii at intersections be
minimums of 20 feet.
E. ANALYSIS•
An analysis of the area pursuant to the Hillside regulations
has not been provided, therefore, staff is unable to
determine the maximum number of lots permitted in the area,
nor the minimum size of lots which will be necessary to meet
the requirements. From reviewing the contours provided on
the plat, even without the Hillside regulations analysis, it
can be presumed that much of the area will fall under the
Hillside regulations, and that these regulations will
require 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. The plat,
then, proposes too many lots and lots which are too small.
The applicant requests no waivers or variances; yet, the
design will require waivers from the pipestem lot
restriction, or a re- design; a variance from the
requirement that lots be no more than three times as deep as
they are wide, or a re- design; and, a variance from the
Commission to permit a private street to serve a number of
the lots.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -24 -AAA
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the public hearing on this item be
deferred until the required information is provided and a
new plat has been submitted, then reviewed by the various
utilities and departments and the Subdivision Committee.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White - Daters & Associates, was present.
Staff outlined the request and reviewed with Mr. Daters the
comments contained in the discussion outline. The comment
regarding the requirement for an analysis of the plat area for
conformance with the Hillside provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations was discussed. Mr. Daters reported that the area
proposed to be platted had previously been proposed as a
preliminary plat with substantially larger lots; that the
location of the streets and some of the lot lines was set due to
some of the utilities already being in place. Staff indicted
that much of the area will have to conform to the Hillside
regulations, which will require a minimum lot size of at least
10,000 square feet; therefore, at least some of the lots which
are proposed are too small. Mr. Daters responded that he may
delete the area affected by the Hillside regulations from the
current application, and leave the area which is not affected by
these regulations in the current preliminary plat application,
allowing him time to do the required Hillside regulations
analysis. The Public Works staff indicated that it would be
better for garbage truck access to the steep lots if the common
access drive made a loop, instead of a °'T ". The Neighborhoods
and Planning staff related that, if a private street system is
proposed to serve the lots off Westport Loop, then the applicant
must specifically request approval by the Planning Commission for
the private street. It was also noted that the lots must be
served by a private street, meeting the requirements for a
street® and not be a private drive. It was noted that the lots
at the end of the Huntleigh Ct. cul -de -sac could not be served
with private drives; that, if the configuration of the lots were
not changed, then pipestem lots would be required, and that a
waiver of the pipestem lot restriction would have to be requested
and approved. The Subdivision Committee members confirmed with
Mr. Daters that the revised information would be forthcoming, and
that all deficiencies noted in the discussion would be remedied.
The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public
hearing.
5
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -24 -AAA
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White- Daters & Associates, Inc.,
representing the applicant, asked that the item be deferred until
the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1995. He
indicated that, by that time, the applicant would be ready to
proceed, or the item would be withdrawn.
Dr. A. J. Zolten submitted a petition containing the names of
persons who are in opposition to the proposed re- platting of the
site. He spoke in opposition to the proposed re -plat, saying
that the property owners in the Westport Subdivision had bought
their lots with the developer's assurance that the area now being
developed as Leatrice Ann Subdivision would be developed as part
of Westport Subdivision, and would be under the Bill of Assurance
of Westport Subdivision. He supported the applicant's request
for a deferral, and indicated that the neighboring property
owners needed time to meet with the Leatrice Ann developers.
Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, explained that the area
encompassed by the Leatrice Ann Subdivision is not part of an
area covered by an existing Bill of Assurance, and that the Bill
of Assurance for Westport Subdivision did not govern the type
development in the Leatrice Ann area. He explained that, as long
as a proposed subdivision meets the City Subdivision and Zoning
regulations, the Planning Commission cannot deny approval because
of considerations for whether the lot or dwelling sizes may not
be compatible with the other development in the area.
A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the item
until the February 21, 1995 Commission meeting, and the motion
carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and
0 abstentions.
2
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z -5936
NAME: THE VILLAGE AT CHENAL -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: On the west side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 0.75
mile north of the Kanis Road intersection.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Jack McCray Joe White
DELTIC FARM AND TIMER CO., INC. WHITE- DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
#7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201
821 -5555 374 -1666
AREA: 138.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 80 FT. NEW STREET: 20,000
ZONING• C -2 & R -2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES:
None
Mixed uses including
Commercial, Office, and
Residential uses
The developer states that European style villages and
neighborhoods in early American cities fostered a quality of life
which the low- density suburban sprawl prevalent in America today
has failed to sustain, and, as a consequence, America has lost
its sense of community. The design of The Village at Chenal,
maintains the applicant, applies leading -edge concepts in
Community planning aimed at reversing this condition and
reestablishing a village where a real sense of community can
flourish.
The developer proposes a PCD where a mixture of residential,
commercial, office, and civic uses co -exist in a village setting.
The site is a 138 -acre tract, with 80.6 acres planned to be
developed for single- family uses, 14.0 acres for multi - family,
and 43.5 acres for retail, office, and civic. The proposed uses
constitute over 1 million square feet of building areas,
exclusive of the building areas of single - family dwellings.
Development of the PCD is proposed to progress in 2 principal
phases, with development beginning in the area west of the future
outer loop which bisects the site, and involves about 1/4 million
square feet of multi - family, retail - office, and civic building
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
area. Development is scheduled to begin with construction around
the village center with, initially, service and civic uses.
The developer cites ten principles of "The New American Village ":
1) convenience; 2) privacy; 3) security; 4) identity/
individuality; 5) visual pleasure; 6) ecological soundness;
7) affordability; 8) inclusiveness of age; 9) social
enjoyment; and, 10) economic feasibility. There are, states the
developer, ten elements of "The New American Village ": 1) main
street or community focal point; 2) landmarks; 3) walkability;
4) gathering places or civic buildings; 5) linkages between
residential and activity centers; linkages between villages and
larger context; 6) historical and regional references in plan,
layout, and architectures; 7) distinct edge or boundary;
8) narrower streets; 9) new zoning and subdivision standards;
and, 10) integration of land uses.
There are, continues the developer, qualities which are shared by
communities which are successful:
1) The layout must be based on comfortable, feasible
walking distances between housing, shops, schools,
community services, recreation, jobs, etc. Walking
brings people closer to and more in contact with their
physical environment, and, this promotes interest in
and respect for the village.
2) Villages have a community focus (i.e., a village green,
a commons, a mixed use core, a cross - roads, etc.) as a
defining architectural element. The core should
provide basic employment, shopping, and a mass transit
hub.
3) Streets in villages should promote walkability by
offering a variety of multiple routes to destinations,
and by providing wide streets with street trees and
parallel parking to act as a buffer between the
pedestrian and moving traffic. Streets should also be
created with the convenience of users of the private
automobile in mine, and the street network not only
provides multiple and alternate routs for pedestrians,
but for automobiles.
4) Villages should be composed of buildings with a variety
of footprints, heights, and scale, and should contain a
wide range of residential sizes and types which are
affordable by a wide range of age and income groups,
Village are strengthened by economic, social, and age
diversity.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
5) Villages have a mix of uses, with mixed uses occurring
both horizontally, in adjacent buildings, and
vertically, with residences or offices above shops.
Villages contain a well - proportioned balance of jobs to
housing, housing to recreation, housing to retail, and
housing to civic and social uses. Buildings that
contain uses other than residential uses are located
primarily in the community core.
6) Villages make use of a distinct design "vocabulary ";
e.g., they use common materials, colors, and building
design relationships. Variation within the
"vocabulary" gives richness and charter.
7) Maintenance is a priority in village living. Public
and community lands and facilities must be maintained
to preserve the quality and charter of the place.
The physical development of the PCD is in a "conceptual" stage at
this point. The location and design of perimeter streets and the
bisecting outer loop can be fixed. Beyond this, a general scheme
for uses areas and street configuration is proposed. The
developer proposes approval of a "conceptual" PCD at this time,
and then, as use areas are defined and the concept is firmed up,
the developer proposes to submit amended PCD applications for
approval. The developer requests, from the outset, however, an
understanding on the widths of rights -of -way and streets which
will be required for the internal street system, since
maintaining street designs which conform to the concept of "The
New American Village,, is overriding.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a "conceptual" PCD. Approval
by staff and the Commission, and, if necessary, approval by
the Board of Directors is sought for street standards for
internal streets which are in conformance with the design
criteria of "The New American Village ", with narrower
right -of -way and street widths, reduced distances between
access points and intersections, and angles between
intersecting streets which are less than current Ordinance
standards.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The
terrain is hilly. The site is bounded on the east by Chenal
Parkway.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
The existing zoning includes areas which are zoned MF -18,
0-2, and C -2.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the following are major
deficiencies in the application: 1) the submittal plan does
not provide adequate information for review of the plans
conformance to the Master Street Plan; the driveways appear
out of conformity with the Ordinance; 2) there is no
drainage information provided, making it impossible to
review the plans for conformance with the stormwater and
detention regulations; 3) the lack of contours eliminates
the possibility of judging cut and fill requirements; 4) a
sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements
of Sec. 29 -186, is required before construction; a grading
permit is required, and ADPC &E must be contacted for their
approval prior to starting work.
Traffic Engineering comments that: 1) trip generation
volumes must be provided to insure interior streets and
intersections will handle projected traffic volumes; 2)
widths of street sections must be shown; 3) curve data and
tangent distances must be shown, and must be in compliance
with the Master Street Plan; and, 4) the internal street
system should not have parking backing into the traffic
stream.
Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges,
an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area.
Water Main extensions and on -site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required. Capacity contributions will be
required. Capacity Contribution fees will be required for
multi- family construction.
The Fire Department comments that wider turning radii should
be provided at all interior streets. The Fire Department
notes that, with proposed street widths of 201, it will be
next to impossible to get fire equipment into the area. The
Fire Department notes that "No Parking; Tow - Away" signs are
to be placed along all designated streets to prohibit on-
street parking.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
Landscape review notes that the areas set aside for buffers
around the perimeter of the site meet Ordinance
requirements. Areas set aside within the interior of the
site for landscaping appear to meet the Landscape Ordinance
requirements. Screening and many of the buffers within the
site itself, that would normally be required, are absent.
The Planning Division staff comments that the site is in the
Chenal District. The adopted plan recommends community
shopping, neighborhood shopping, multi - family and public/
institutional. The proposal maintains most of these uses
while altering the mix and location. Staff is aware the
applicant is attempting to address desires raised by
planning efforts of Metroplan, and staff wishes to be
supportive of attempts to try new theories; however, all
issues must be carefully and thoroughly reviewed and
considered before approval.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Section 36 -456 of the Zoning Regulations requires the
following information to be furnished, which has not been
submitted to date: a topographic cross section; a schematic
landscaping plan and the proposed treatment of perimeters of
the property; dimensions of structures and the dimensions
between buildings and of building distances from property
lines; contours; a legal description of the area; and a
preliminary plat of the proposed development area. These
item will be furnished as amended PCD site plan are
submitted, and can be deferred until that time. A complete
legal description, however, must be furnished in order to
write the ordinance establishing the PCD.
Sections 31 -171 through 31 -209 establish design standards
for developments which require, among other things,
conformance with the Master Street Plan requirements for
right -of -way widths, street section designs, and sidewalks.
The proposed street layout does not necessarily conform to
these standards, but, instead, attempts to recapture a
village concept where rights -of -way and streets are narrower
and pedestrian traffic is encouraged.
Ordinance No. 16,577 requires that access points to sites
are to be a minimum or 100 feet from the right -of -way of
intersecting streets, and requires common driveway points on
lots which are less than 300 feet of frontage. The proposed
street system does not necessarily conform to these
standards, since design of the PCD site is governed by the
concepts of creating "The New American Village ".
5
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -5936
E. ANALYSIS•
The book Site Planning and Community Design for Great
Neighborhoods, by Frederick D. Jarvis, is only one of many
publication promoting a re- thinking of the design of
communities, neighborhoods, and cities, and proposing new
models for the creation of more livable communities that are
both economically feasible and responsive to growing
environmental concerns. The applicant's concept is
described in Jarvis' book in his section on "Neotraditional
Town and Pedestrian Pockets ", and Jarvis indicates that this
is an example of new models that are being tested in the
early 1990's.
The Planning Division staff has some concerns about
particular elements of the proposal, and believe more
detailed discussions and plans are needed about the
following: 1) the single family use along La Grand Drive;
2) the characteristics, mix and delivery, and the means of
waste disposal for the large retail complex; 3) the "need"
for large footprint commercial- grocery, department store,
etc.; 4) the physical division which the "West Loop" makes
and how this will be addressed; 5) the lack of parking
facilities for the Community Center; 6) the addressing of
the issues of the integration of public transportation; 7)
the issue of the public uses which should be given to the
appropriate public agency or removed from the plan; and, 8)
the integration of pedestrian and vehicular access of the
outlying single family into the development should be
addressed.
The Planning Division staff continues that land use issues
have impacts on the long term developability of the
immediate area as well as surrounding areas. Staff believes
that if the issues raised are properly addressed, than the
proposal could work within the existing adopted city land
use plan.
The proposal is a "conceptual" PCD, and there must be a firm
understanding that, as specific areas are developed, the PCD
will be amended, and subsequent drawings will be reviewed
for conformance with regulations. The current review is for
the "concept" only.
An agreement with the developer for conformance with the
Master Street Plan requirements for boundary streets will be
necessary with the approval of the "conceptual PCD";
however, as amended PCD applications are presented, the
internal street system will be required to comply with
Master Street Plan requirements, or the application will
RI
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
have to seek waivers or variances of these requirements from
the Board of Directors.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the "conceptual" PCD, subject
to the boundary streets conforming to the Master Street Plan
requirements and to the requirements of Ordinance No.
16,577.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Mr. Jack McCray and Mr. Joe White were present. Staff presented
the request, and Mr. McCray and Mr. White reviewed the
application with the Committee members. Mr. McCray made a
presentation on the concept of "The New American Village" and of
the proposed Village at Chenal. The City Engineering staff
expressed concerns regarding the proposed street system, and
insisted that it be understood that, until engineering drawings
showing the design of the various streets, it was withholding
approval of boundary and internal street designs. Mr. White
indicated that it would be necessary to seek approval from the
Board of Directors for the proposed street design, if it is
determined that the proposed design is in conflict with City
standards. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Jack McCray, the Real Estate manager with Deltic Farm and
Timber Co., the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White - Daters &
Associates, Inc., were present.
Mr. McCray indicated that the proposed development is the
commercial component to the Chenal Valley development which has
been under way for several years, and that the approach which has
been chosen for this commercial component is characterized as a
"village" concept. "Gathering" places will be created, he
explained, which will encourage pedestrian traffic and reduce
vehicular traffic. He indicated that the first phase of the
proposed development is to be located on the west side of the
future west loop street, and will involve approximately 140
acres, of which about 75% is to be devoted to single - family
dwelling sites. The remaining 25% is to be developed for retail,
office, and civic uses. He explained that the request is for
approval of a "concept ", specifically, the "village" concept,
with more specific plans and uses to be submitted as development
progresses in specific sites. Approval of the "village" concept
would, he added, necessitate approval of the street "grid' which
is shown on the development plan, and the street and right -of -way
A
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
widths which are narrower than the Master Street Plan now
permits.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County, spoke in support of the application. She said that the
City should give the developer the chance to try the concept to
see if, indeed, it will work.
Bill Henry, the manager for traffic engineering with the Public
Works Department, expressed concern over approval of the street
layout and right -of -way and street widths which the developer
proposed. He said that the layout of the streets does not meet
standard traffic engineering principals, as far as some traffic
safety issues are concerned. The alignments of some of the
intersections do not meet safety standards, he stated. He
suggested that the "concept" of the PCD be approved, but
discouraged the approval of the street layout and the rights -of-
way and street widths which do not meet the Master Street Plan
requirements.
Mr. McCray responded that, in order to proceed with the design
and marketing of the project, the approval of the proposed street
layout and right -of -way and street widths must be established at
the outset.
Mr. Henry expressed concerns regarding the safety, as well as the
accessibility, of the site, with the street widths being less
than standard engineering practices and the Master Street Plan
provide.
Mr. McCray responded that the "Neo- Traditional Village" with its
"pedestrian pockets" necessitates the narrower street system; the
concept of the village is dependent upon these being approved in
order to promote the "pedestrian friendly" environment. The
developer, he stated, does not intend to build a system which is
unsafe or inaccessible; the developer, he states, would
accommodate the concerns of the Fire Department and of Public
Works. In the retail areas, he continued, a system of rear
private access ways would be provided for delivery trucks, so
that delivery trucks will not be double - parked in the streets.
He indicated that the angle of intersecting streets, about which
Public Works has noted a concern previously, had been addressed,
with the angle being adjusted at the intersection. He said that
the public transportation system would have a centralized
"gathering" point for riders, and that busses would not be
traveling along the narrow residential or commercial streets. He
related that the village concept is being implemented in cities
across the country, and that the concept is being implemented
successfully.
Mr. White added that the older part of downtown Little Rock has
many 36 foot wide streets which have parking along both sides of
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
the street; that this concept for street widths is a 70 -80 year
old concept to which city planners wish to return in order to re-
achieve a pedestrian friendly village. The narrower streets
promote slower traffic; the wider streets promote faster traffic,
he said, and the slower traffic is the desired effect.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reminded the
Commission that the developer is seeking approval of the streets
as public streets, not private streets, and that any variance
from the Master Street Plan standards will necessitate Board of
Directors approval.
Jim Lawson, Interim Assistant City Manager, spoke, and urged the
Commission to approve the conceptual PCD. He said that the
concept is being implemented across the country, and where it has
been implemented, it has been successful. He said that the
street system cannot be judged on the basis of what has been done
for the past 10 -15 years, because it is different, but he said,
the differences between the proposed street system and the Master
Street Plan standards can be worked out.
Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, cited a
book written by Frederick D. Jarivs, Site Planning and Community
Desig , and read selections form it dealing with the concept of
the "neo- traditional neighborhood" and "pedestrian pockets". He
indicated that this is the first of a number of such projects
which will be heard by the Commission, and urged the Commission
to approve the PCD.
Commissioner Walker related that the PUD or PD o
have a provision which allows the Commission and
Directors to approve a specific street design as
PD; that the Engineering staff cannot do its job
Street Plan is not amended to accept the streets
proposed in a PUD or PD.
rdinance needs to
Board of
part of a PUD or
if the Master
which are
Mr. White clarified the request: the proposed west loop and the
perimeter collector street are to meet the Master Street Plan
standards; all the streets in the commercial areas of the site
are to be 36 foot streets; the residential streets are to be 24
foot streets, which is provided for in the Master Street Plan for
minor residential streets.
Mr. McCray related that he would request Planning Commission
approval of the concept of the PCD at this meeting, but would ask
that further consideration of the requested variances from the
Master Street Plan standards be deferred until further meetings
with staff could be held to hammer out the staff concerns.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the "Conceptual" PCD,
exclusive of approval of the requested variances for street
rights -of -way and street widths, and with the public hearing on
9
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5936
these variance items being deferred until the applicant and staff
have met to address the City Engineering staff's concerns. The
motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and
0 abstentions.
10
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z- 3459 -B
NAME: MABELVALE BUSINESS PARK -- AMENDED SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Mabelvale Pike and
Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Rick Ashley and J. D. Ashley Joe White
CONSERVATIVE DEVELOPMENT CO. WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2649 Pike Ave. 401 S. VICTORY ST.
North Little Rock, AR 72114 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
758 -5545 374 -1666
AREA: 61.572 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C -3 PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the development, in three phases, of a
61.572 acre site for a shopping center. Phase I construction is
proposed to include a 40,000 square foot building and a 35,000
square foot building, both of which are along the norther limits
of that portion of the property which lies south of the main
east -west internal street. Phase II development includes
construction of a 51,000 square foot building along the east
property line. Phase III development involves construction of
the linear building along the south property line, and represents
246,555 square feet of floor space. It is anticipated that Phase
I construction will begin the first quarter of 1995; Phases II &
III are anticipated to be completed during the next three years.
No variances are proposed.
A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested
of a site plan for the construction of a portion of the
Mabelvale Business Park and Shopping Center.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 3459 -B
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped. It is heavily wooded and contains
a pond which lies along the east property line. The terrain
is fairly level, with the southwest corner of the tract
being only 27 feet lower than the northeast corner, a
distance of over 2,500 feet.
The existing zoning is C -3. There is an extension of the
C -3 zoning district to the east, south, at the northwest
corner of the tract. There is an I -2 district at the
southeast corner of the tract. To the north, between the
site and I -30, is a C -4 tract.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that the following are the primary
deficiencies noted: 1) the AHTD will need to approve the
proposal; 2) street and drainage plans, stormwater
detention, and boundary survey information will be required;
3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the
requirements of Sec. 29 -186, is required; and 4) ADPCaE and
USACE -LRD permits will be required; and 5) internal streets
should be constructed as collector standard, with sidewalks
on both sides.
Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges,
an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in this area. A
water main extension and on -site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with
easements, will be required.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
The Fire Department comments that regulation "No Parking.
Tow - Away" signs should be placed around the perimeter of all
buildings.
Landscape review notes that a 3 foot wide building landscape
strip between the public parking areas and the building is
required.
0
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 3459 -B
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Section 31 -13 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that
"Large -scale developments involving the construction of two
(2) or more buildings, together with the necessary drives
and accessways, which is not subdivide into... lots... shall
be subject to..." Subdivision site plan review. This
development meets the criteria for being subject to site
plan review by the Planning Commission.
Section 36 -502 sets the requirements for off - street parking.
Shopping centers are required to have 1 parking space for
each 225 feet of gross leasable floor area.
Assuming that the shopping center parking requirements are
applicable, the total square footage of the buildings in the
three phases is 372,555 square feet. This would require
1,656 parking spaces. The site plan provided does not show
the number of parking spaces provided; however, measuring
the spaces allocated for parking indicates that 1,167±
spaces have been provided. This deficiency needs to be
addressed by requiring that, as buildings are constructed®
the needed parking be provided. This requirement can be
reviewed when building permits are approved.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are minor deficiencies in the site plan, and the
developer can provide the required information at the time
the building permit is requested.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER. 22, 1994)
Mr. Joe White, with White - Daters & Associates, Inc., was present.
Staff outlined the proposal, and Mr. White presented the request
to the Committee members. The Committee reviewed the comments
with Mr. White from the discussion outline, and, with Mr. White's
assurance that he would provide the needed information, forwarded
the item to the full Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Tim Daters, with White- Daters and Associates, Inc., was
present.
K
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 3459 -B
Staff outlined the request, and indicated that there were some
outstanding issues to be resolved.
Mr. Daters reported that the internal streets would meet the
requirements for commercial streets; that they would be 36 feet
wide and have sidewalks on both sides. He reported that the site
would have adequate parking to meet the parking requirements for
a shopping center; that, he estimated, there are approximately
5 spaces for each 100 square feet of gross square footage of
buildings. He reported that the site would meet the requirements
for landscaping and buffering. He committed the developer to
solving a drainage problem which affects residential properties
to the south of the site, beyond the southwest corner of the
tract: he committed the developer to digging a "tail -out" ditch
prior to beginning construction on the site to keep the
stormwater run -off from flooding the residential lots.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the
subject to making the changes required. The
the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0
4
amended site plan,
motion carried with
abstentions.
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z- 5141 -A
NAME: CORE SOURCE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: At the west end of Corporate Hill Dr. and the east end
of Executive Court
DEVELOPER:
John Flake
FTTWK REALTY
425 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201
376 -8005
AREA: 3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS:
ZONING: C -2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
ENGINEER•
THOMAS ENGINEERING CO.
3810 Lookout Rd.
North Little Rock, AR 72116
753 -4463
1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USES: General Offices
The applicant proposes to develop a 3 -acre lot for general office
use. The proposal is for an initial phase involving construction
of a 2- story, 31,000 square foot building and parking for 172
vehicles. Phase two involves the addition of 10,000 square feet
to the building, and 49 parking spaces. No variances are
proposed.
A. PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission of the proposed site plan
is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant, but is wooded. It has frontage on both
Corporate Hill Dr. and Executive Court.
The existing zoning is 0 -2, with 0 -2 zoned property to the
east and west. Abutting the site to the south and north is
0-3 zoned property.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works cites the following major requirements which
are deficient: 1) a sidewalk will be required on both culs-
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 5141 -A
de -sac frontages; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan,
meeting the requirements of Sec. 29 -186, will be required;
the plan which was submitted does not meet these
requirements; 3) stormwater detention and boundary survey
information will be required; and, 5) the first four
parking spaces on the Executive Court driveway must be
removed.
Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges,
a pro -rata front footage charge of $12 per foot for frontage
on Corporate Hill Dr. and an acreage charge of $150 per acre
applies. On site fire protection may be required.
Wastewater notes that sewer is available from Executive
Court.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department comments that regulation "No Parking.
Tow Away" signs are to be placed throughout the site in fire
lanes.
Landscape review notes that the areas set aside for buffers
and landscaping meet Ordinance requirements.
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Section 36 -126 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the
site plan review process shall apply to all applications for
the 0-2 zoning district. Site Plan review by the Commission
was required because the site is in an 0-2 district.
The site on which the development is proposed is made up of
portions of lots from two subdivisions, Corporate Hill
Subdivision and Ensco Parkhill Addition. A revised Final
Plat of the lot, meeting all requirements of Public Works,
must be provided.
Section 36 -502 requires, for buildings up to 10,000 square
feet, 1 parking space for each 400 square feet for office
uses to be provided. For building areas of 10,000 square
feet to 20,000 square feet, 95% of the basic requirement is
to be provided. For building areas of 20,001 square feet to
30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be
provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 5141 -A
30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be
provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to
40,000 square feet, 85% of the basic requirement is to be
provided. The proposed 30,000 square foot building will be
required to provide 92 spaces; the 10,000 square foot
addition would be required to add 21 spaces. The proposed
site plan provides 172 parking spaces in the phase 1
development, plus another 49 spaces when the 10,000 square
foot addition is constructed.
E. ANALYSIS•
There are only minor deficiencies or changes in the plan
which must be made, and the proposed site plan meets the
requirements for landscaping, parking, etc. The developer
must eliminate those parking spaces at the Executive Court
access point so that cars maneuvering into or out of the
spaces will not conflict with traffic entering the site. A
revised and corrected final plat will be required. There
are some engineering requirements for storm drainage and
grading which must be complied with.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reviewed
the proposed development with the Subdivision Committee members,
and discussed the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline.
The Committee voiced a concern that no one was present to
represent the developer, and discussed whether the item should be
deferred so that the developer could present his application to
the Subdivision Committee. The Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for the public hearing, but expressed the
opinion that applicants should be required to present their
developments to the Subdivision Committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and recommended
approval of the site plan, subject to the required amended final
plat being submitted and filed. The site plan was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
3
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -5921
NAME:
Seiter Barber and Beauty Shop -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 4315 West 29th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Aloys Seiter /Frank Letzig, Jr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the use of this
existing, I -2 zoned building as a
barber /beauty shop. The request is
filed as a "retail use, not
listed."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located on the south side of West 29th
Street, approximately 100 feet east of its intersection with
Peyton Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The property is located in
ranging from single family
light manufacturing facili
zoned I -2 and the property
0-3. A church and an auto
adjacent to this building.
an area of mixed zoning and uses
residences to auto repair and
ties. All adjacent property is
across West 29th Street is zoned
repair business are located
The proposed use of this building as a barber /beauty shop is
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There is an existing, paved parking lot on the property
which satisfies the on -site parking requirement. Access to
this parking lot is taken off of West 29th Street and off of
an alley located south of the site.
4. Screening and Buffers
All parking areas and buildings are existing. There is no
planned expansion of the building or parking area.
No additional screening or buffering is required.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5921
5. City Engineer Comments
Repair damaged sidewalk and driveway apron onto West 29th
Street.
6. Utility Comments
Contact Little Rock Municipal Water Works if additional
water service is required. A reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer will be required prior to any outlets on the
domestic water service for this facility.
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the
use of an existing building on an I -2 zoned property as a
barber /beauty shop. This building has most recently been
used as an auto repair facility.
No expansion of the building or parking lot is necessary.
Some interior remodeling of the building to accommodate the
proposed barber /beauty shop will be done.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this property and
supports the request.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the City Engineer's Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Frank Letzig was present representing the application. Staff
presented the item and outlined the City Engineer and Utility
Comments noted above.
Commissioner Willis asked that more details be provided on the
existing parking lot design on the site plan.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
Frank Letzig was present representing the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that there were no outstanding issues.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -5921
As part of the Consent Agenda, the item was approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -5923
NAME:
LOCATION:
New Jerusalem Baptist Church -
Conditional Use Permit
1619 West 28th Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: New Jerusalem Baptist Church by
Elder I. N. Patton
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 20 foot by 32.4
foot classroom addition onto the
existing church on this R -4 zoned
property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
New Jerusalem Baptist Church is located on the south side of
West 28th Street, one lot east of its intersection with
Marshall Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The surrounding neighborhood is zoned R -4 and R -3 and is
occupied primarily by single family residences with a
scattering of duplex residences. A church is located one
block west of this site and a second church is located two
blocks south -east of this site.
The building at 1619 West 28th Street has been used as a
church for fifteen years. The proposed classroom
construction will not increase the seating capacity of the
worship area which is 40 persons. A small area of new
parking is proposed behind the building which will get a few
vehicles off of the street. This proposed project should
not affect New Jerusalem Church's compatibility with the
neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
A church with a worship area seating capacity of 40 persons
requires 10 on -site parking spaces. For the past fifteen
years the church has had no on -site parking. A small
parking area is being proposed on the rear portion of the
property which will accommodate 5 -6 vehicles. Access to
this new parking lot is off of the adjacent alley. The
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5923
applicant is requesting a deferral of the requirement to
pave the alley and the new parking lot.
4. Screening and Buffers
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
is required. A 6 foot high opaque wood fence with its
structural supports facing inward or dense evergreen
plantings and a 6 foot wide landscape strip are required
south and west of the new parking area. A 3 foot wide
building landscape strip between the public parking area and
building will be required (some flexibility allowed). A
protective border will be necessary to protect plantings
from vehicular traffic.
5. City Engineer Comments
Construct a 4 foot sidewalk along the West 28th Street
frontage. Stormwater detention is required. Public Works
supports the requested deferral of the requirement to
improve the alley until the parking lot is paved; however to
comply with A.D.A. requirements, the handicap parking space
and access from the parking lot to the building must be
paved at this time.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater reports a 6 inch sewer main is
located in the alley. Contact Wastewater Utility before any
alley improvements.
7. Analysis
New Jerusalem Baptist Church is a small, nonconforming
church located in a predominately single family
neighborhood. At some point, approximately 15 years ago,
this 1,400} square foot residential structure was converted
into a church. The church has a seating capacity in its
worship area of 40 persons and is running an average
attendance of 20 persons.
The applicant is now requesting a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 20 foot by 32.4 foot
classroom addition. The worship area, and its seating
capacity, will not be affected.
To this point, the church has had no on -site parking. A
small parking area is proposed at the rear of the building
which will accommodate 5 -6 vehicles. The applicant is
requesting a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking
lot and the alley access.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5923
Staff believes the proposed classroom addition will not
affect the church's continued compatibility with the
neighborhood and is supportive of the request. Staff also
supports a deferral of the paving requirement for the
parking lot and the alley access, however the required
screening between the parking area and the adjacent
residential properties should be installed at this time. In
addition, one handicap parking space is required. This
parking space and access from it to the building should be
paved at this time.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments and
Utility Comments
Staff also recommends approval of a three year deferral of
the requirement to pave the alley and the new parking lot.
The one required handicap parking space and access from it
to the building must be paved at the time the building
addition is constructed. The required screening for the new
parking lot should be installed at this time also.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
A church member, Mr. Hubbard, was present representing the
application. Staff presented the item and outlined the
Landscaping, City Engineer and Utility Comments noted above.
The applicant was advised to meet with Bob Brown, Plans Review
Specialist, to discuss the required landscaping and to meet with
David Scherer, of the Public works Department, to discuss
engineering issues.
Mr. Scherer stated that the stormwater detention requirements
could be deffered until the parking lot is paved. This would
allow the applicant to incorporate all required stormwater
detention into the design of the paved parking lot.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
Q
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5923
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Elder I. N. Patton and Dale Hubbard were present representing the
church. 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 vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
4
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -5931
NAME:
LOCATION•
Lewis Street Church of Christ -
Conditional Use Permit
2716 South Lewis Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Lewis Street Church of Christ by
Robert James
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a 60 foot by 100
foot multi - purpose building on this
existing, R -3 zoned church site.
The building will primarily have an
open floor plan, providing an
indoor basketball court that can
also be used for other church
activities and gatherings.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Lewis Street Church of Christ is located on the west side of
Lewis Street, 1 Block north of Asher Avenue.
2. Comraatibility with Neighborhood
A church has existed at this location for many years. The
church property is located on the fringe of a large, single
family neighborhood. Properties north and west of the
church site are primarily zoned single family residential.
The properties to the east and south, fronting onto Asher
Avenue, are of mixed zoning and contain uses ranging from
offices to retail and light manufacturing. The proposed
mutli - purpose building will not affect the church's
continued compatibility with this neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The existing 540 seat auditorium was constructed in 1961 -62.
At that time, the Little Rock Board of Adjustment approved a
parking variance allowing 24 on -site parking spaces rather
than the 54 required by the Ordinance Standard in effect at
that time. The church plans to place some new on -site
parking around the proposed multi - purpose building. The
church has an agreement from the owner of a large parking
lot across Lewis Street allowing church members to use the
parking lot. This proposal before the Planning Commission
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5931
does not generate the need for additional parking since the
seating capacity of the worship area is not being increased.
A three year deferral of the requirement to pave the parking
lot around the new building is requested.
4. Screening and Buffers
Buffers of 9 1/2 feet in width (6 1/2 feet minimum with
transfer) are required along Lewis Street and along the
western perimeter of the proposed development. The
Landscape Ordinance requires 6 feet in these areas. A
6 foot high opaque wood fence or dense evergreen plantings
are required adjacent to the residential property along the
western section. The Landscape Ordinance requires that 6%
of the interior of the vehicular use areas be landscaped and
a 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public
parking and building be provided (some flexibility with the
building landscape requirement is allowed). Protective
borders to protect plantings from vehicular traffic will be
necessary.
5. City Engineer Comments
The following are required prior to the issuance of a
building permit:
1. Contour information for the site along with sketch
grading and drainage plan.
2. Drainage easements, stormwater detention and sidewalk
3. Dedicate right -of -way on Lewis Street to 25 feet from
centerline.
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
Lewis Street Church of Christ seeks approval of a
conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a
60 foot by 100 foot, multi - purpose building on this R -3
zoned property. The new building is proposed to be
constructed on vacant property located south of the existing
church building. This vacant property has been used as an
unimproved parking area by some of the church members over
the years. As part of this project being proposed by the
church, the property around the multi - purpose building is to
be developed into a proper parking lot which meets City
Standards. The church is asking a three year deferral of
the requirement to pave this parking area around the
multi- purpose building. Based on an agreement with the
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5931
owner of a large parking lot across Lewis Street, the Board
of Adjustment approved a parking variance in 1961. That
agreement has been renewed with the current owners of that
large parking lot, Rush Engineer Rebuilders.
The church is located at the southern fringe of a large
residential neighborhood and is located in an area of mixed
zoning. Staff believes that the proposed multi - purpose
building will not have a negative effect on the adjacent
neighborhood and is supportive of the request.
The addition of this proposed new parking adjacent to the
multi- purpose building will bring the church closer to
compliance with the City's parking requirements. Staff
supports the requested three year deferral of the
requirement to pave this parking area. The required
screening, where adjacent to residential property, should be
installed at this time.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
and compliance with the City Engineer's Comments.
Staff also recommends approval of the requested three year
deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot adjacent
to the multi - purpose building. The required screening,
where adjacent to residential property, should be installed
at this time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
outlined the Landscaping and City Engineer Comments noted above.
After brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were
no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 19 9 5 )
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to
follow procedure in notifying adjacent property owners and
recommended that the item be deferred to allow for proper notice.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
February 21, 1995 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
3
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -5933
NAME: Word of Outreach Day Care Center
and Staff Housing - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 2323 Valmar Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Word of Outreach by James Washington
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
expansion of this existing, R -3
zoned residential structure for a
day care center and a single family
dwelling to be used as staff
housing. A large, two -story
addition is proposed to be
constructed onto the existing
structure. The ground floor is
proposed to be used as a day
care /preschool with an enrollment
of 75 children. The second floor
of the addition will be occupied as
a single family dwelling by a staff
member of Word of Outreach
Ministries. A rear yard setback
variance and parking variance is
requested.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located at the northeast corner of West 24th
Street and Valmar Street, approximately 1 block north of
Asher Avenue.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is located near the southern fringe of a
large, single family residential neighborhood. All adjacent
properties are zoned R -3 and occupied by single family
residences. One block to the south and east, the Word of
Outreach Ministries occupies several properties along the
Asher Avenue corridor. These properties contain uses such
as a church, private school and residential uses. Staff is
concerned about the movement of the institutional use
further into the residential neighborhood north of the
existing Word of Outreach facilities. The proposed use of
this small, residential lot as a large, day care /preschool
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5933
with an enrollment of 75 children is a major intrusion into
the residential neighborhood. Staff does not believe the
proposed use is compatible with the residential neighborhood
and feels that the proposed day care /private school would be
better located elsewhere.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing a day care /preschool with an
enrollment of 75 students and 6 employees. A total of 13
on -site parking spaces are required for this use plus an
adequate drop- off /pickup area. The single family dwelling
requires one space, giving a total of 14 on -site parking
spaces required. The applicant proposes two on -site parking
spaces and a two -car drop -off parallel and adjacent to West
24th Street. Once the required right -of -way is dedicated
and the street improvements constructed, it is questionable
as to whether these spaces will be available. The proposed
parking /drop -off arrangement is totally inadequate for the
proposed use.
4. Screening and Buffers
A 7 foot wide street buffer along Valmar Street and 2 1/2
foot wide street buffer along 24th Street are required. The
Landscape Ordinance requires a 4 foot to 6 foot wide,
on -site landscape strip between the proposed vehicular use
areas and Valmar Street and 24th Street. The proposal
submitted does not provide for landscaping or buffer space
along 24th Street.
5. City Engineer Comments
Traffic Engineer recommends denial due to insufficient drop -
off and parking. Widen 24th Street and provide curb, gutter
and sidewalk as required by the Master Street Plan.
Dedicate 20 foot radius area for 25 foot turning radius at
the corner of West 24th and Valmar Streets. All street
plans are to be prepared by a registered engineer.
Compliance with the City's Stormwater Detention Ordinance is
required.
6. Utility Comments
Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports sewer is available in
the alley. Contact Wastewater Utility for details.
7. Analysis
Word of Outreach Ministries proposes to enlarge this one -
story, 950± square foot residential structure by adding a
two - story, 4,480 square foot addition. Once completed, the
V,
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5933
ground floor of the structure is proposed to be used as day
care center /preschool with an enrollment of 75 children,
ages 5 months to 5 years. The day care /preschool will have
a staff of 6 employees. The upper floor of the new addition
will contain a single family dwelling to be occupied by a
ministry staff member. The property is zoned R -3, requiring
a conditional use permit to allow for this expansion of Word
of Outreach's ministries.
In reviewing this application, several items of concern were
noted which cause staff to question the appropriateness of
this proposed day care center /preschool.
A day care center /preschool of the magnitude proposed by the
applicant would be a significant intrusion into this single
family residential neighborhood. Until this point, Word of
Outreach has focused primarily on development south of 24th
Street. The ministry's activities have, for the most part,
taken place on properties fronting onto Asher Avenue. The
couple of properties north of West 24th Street which are
currently occupied by Word of Outreach Ministries, are used
in a residential fashion. Staff is concerned about this
movement of non - residential activity north of West 24th
Street, into the residential neighborhood. Staff believes
it is appropriate for the applicant to submit a Master Plan,
charting future growth in the area and setting appropriate
boundaries and parameters which take into consideration the
residential integrity of the adjacent neighborhood.
The proposed day care center /preschool will have an
enrollment of 75 children with 6 employees, requiring 13
on -site parking spaces plus an adequate and safe drop -
off /pickup area. The proposed residence requires 1 on -site
parking space, giving a total of 14 on -site parking spaces
plus the drop - off /pickup area. The applicant proposes to
construct 2 parking spaces on the front of the property, at
the corner of Valmar and West 24th Streets. A 2 car drop -
off /pickup area is proposed to be constructed parallel to
West 24th Street. Once the required right -of -way dedication
and street improvements are complete, including the
reconstruction of the radius at the intersection, these
spaces will no longer be usable. Traffic Engineering has
stated that the proposed parking spaces at the intersection
create a sight - distance problem and must be removed from the
plan. This property is not contiguous to other Word of
Outreach properties and any required parking /drop -off spaces
should be provided on the site.
In order to accommodate the proposed enrollment of 75
children, the applicant proposes to add a 4,480 square foot
addition to an existing 950+ square foot structure. The
proposed, two -story addition will have a reduced rear yard
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5933
setback of 5 feet, 11 inches. The ordinance requires a rear
yard setback of 25 feet. The property in question is a
small, 50 foot by 140 foot residential lot. There is no
room on the site for the required parking spaces, resulting
in most individuals having to park off -site, either on other
ministry owned property south of West 24th Street or on the
public streets. Staff feels that the proposed development
is an overbuilding of the lot.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of this application as being
incompatible with the residential neighborhood, an intense
overbuilding of the site and unable to meet Ordinance
Standards for setbacks and parking requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
outlined the parking, Landscaping and City Engineer Comments
noted above.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, explained the
required right -of -way dedication and street improvements and how
those requirements would impact the property.
The Planning Staff voiced concerns about the level of activity
proposed for this site and questioned whether the applicant was
proposing an inappropriately intense development in a residential
neighborhood.
The Committee determined that Word of Outreach should submit a
Master Plan for proposed growth in the area.
After further discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant, James Washington, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Commission that the application had been revised in response to
concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. Copies
of the revised application and site plan were presented to the
Commission.
The application, as revised, included the following provisions:
1. The expanded structure for the day - care /preschool will be
one story only.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5933
2. The structure no longer requires a rear yard setback
variance but does require side yard variances for two
landings and stairways on the north and south side of the
building.
3. Parking has been eliminated from the front of the property
and the drop- off /pickup area has been eliminated from the
24th Street side.
4. Four on -site parking spaces will be provided at the rear of
the property, taking access from the alley.
5. The proposed residential use has been eliminated from the
proposal.
5. The day - care /preschool enrollment has been reduced to
45 children with 4 employees. The applicant stated that the
majority of the employees live on the campus and will walk
to work.
Based on the revision, staff recommended approval, subject to
compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and
compliance with the City Engineer's Comments.
Staff informed the Commission that the revised site plan did not
reflect required right -of -way dedication and Master Street Plan
improvements. The applicant must submit a complete and corrected
site plan incorporating these requirements.
Mr. Washington offered no additional comments.
A motion was made to approve the revised application as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
5
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5935
NAME: Pulaski Heights Methodist Church
Day Care Center - Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 4823 Woodlawn Avenue
OWNER /APPLICANT: Pulaski Heights United Methodist
Church
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow the phased
development of a day care center/
preschool within this existing, R -2
zoned church facility.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Pulaski Heights United Methodist church is located on the
south side of Woodlawn Avenue, at its intersection with
Spruce Street.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church itself has been located in this residential
neighborhood for many years. Recent Planning Commission
actions have allowed for the expansion of the buildings and
parking lots. This proposed use will not require any
physical expansion of the church facility. The proposed day
care /preschool will be located within an existing education
building. The existing playground will be used by the
children and all required parking /drop -off areas are in
place. There are currently activities at the site seven
days a week. Staff believes that allowing the use of an
existing education building for a day care /preschool
operation will not adversely affect the church's continued
compatibility with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The church currently has approximately 175 on -site parking
spaces in addition to an off -site parking lot located across
Woodlawn Avenue. If the church's plans for the day
care /preschool are fully realized, there will be a maximum
of 80 children and approximately 10 employees. This
generates a total requirement of 18 parking spaces plus a
drop- off /pickup area. The site contains more than adequate
parking and drop -off facilities.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5935
4. Screening and Buffers
This proposed use requires no expansion of the building or
the parking lot. The existing playground will be used with
no expansion. The existing parking lot and playground were
designed in compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances. No addition screening or buffers are required.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church requests a
conditional use permit to allow a three - phased development
of a day care center /preschool within an existing education
building on this R -2 zoned church site. The phasing program
is as follows:
a. Beginning in late May 1995, an all day program (7 :30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) for children who have completed
kindergarten through 5th grade. Enrollment would be
approximately 35 children.
b. when school begins in late August 1995, the program
would convert to after school care (2:30 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.) for children in kindergarten through 6th grade.
Care for the entire day (7 :30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) would
be offered when the public schools are dismissed.
Enrollment during the school year would be
approximately 25 students.
C. Depending upon the success of the program, an all day
(7 :30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) preschool /day care might be
added. The maximum enrollment for which the facility
could be licensed is 80 children.
The program will be contained within existing church
facilities. The playground and all required parking /drop-
off areas are already in place.
The church has existed at this location for many years and
there are currently activities at the site seven days a
week. Using part of the existing facilities for a day
care /preschool, although a new facet of the church's
ministry, is not introducing a new, non- residential element
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5935
into the neighborhood. Staff is supportive of the requested
conditional use permit.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Lynn Lindsey, Minister of Christian Education for Pulaski Heights
United Methodist Church, was present. Staff presented the item
and outlined the three -phase implementation plan for the day
care /preschool. The Committee determined that there were no
outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Lynn Lindsey was present representing the application. There
were objectors present. Staff presented the item and outlined
the proposed phasing program for the day -care /preschool.
Ms. Lindsey offered no additional comments at that time.
Mrs. James Campbell, of 610 N. Spruce Street, addressed the
Commission in opposition to the day -care /preschool. She stated
that the proposed use would generate additional vehicle traffic
which would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mrs.
Campbell then read from a statement submitted by the Hillcrest
Resident's Association which opposed the day- care /preschool.
Stacy Pitman, of 105 Colonial Court, addressed the Commission in
support of the application. She stated she was a member of the
church and of the Hillcrest Resident's Association. Ms. Pitman
stated she was unaware of any opposition from the resident's
association.
Chairman Chachere asked what the enrollment of the day -care
center would be.
Ms. Pitman responded that the enrollment in summer -care would be
35 children and the enrollment in after - school care would be 25
children.
Ms. Lindsey explained that the church was most concerned about
obtaining approval for Phases I and II but that Phase III was
also submitted to avoid having to reappear before the Commission
at a later date. She stated that she was willing to withdraw
Phase III if the Commission was opposed to it.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5935
After further discussion, Ms. Pitman again addressed the
Commission. She stated that notices were sent to the neighbors
and a meeting was arranged to explain the proposal; and no
neighborhood opposition came forward. She continued by stating
that the church had been in the neighborhood for over 50 years
and has generated vehicle traffic for all of those years. She
concluded by stating that the proposed use would have no
additional impact on the neighborhood.
Commission Willis asked if it was possible to direct traffic onto
the site in a manner so as to limit the traffic's impact on the
neighborhood. Ms. Pitman responded that it was possible to work
out such an arrangement.
Jean Cockroft, representing the Board of the Hillcrest Resident's
Association, addressed the Commission. She stated that the
association opposed the day -care on the basis of the proposed
enrollment of 80 children in Phase III.
Commissioner Putnam stated he was concerned about 80 children
being outside, on the playground, at one time.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reiterated a statement that
Ms. Lindsey had made earlier. She had pointed out that state
regulations limit the number of children on the playground based
on the square footage of play area available. Based on the size
of the existing playground, no more than 25 children at a time
can utilize it. Mr. Carney stated that the playground could not
be enlarged to accommodate additional children without Commission
approval.
Commissioner Putnam stated that he would like to see additional
buffering in the form of trees and shrubbery to further screen
the playground.
Ms. Lindsey stated that the church would comply with whatever
staff recommended in the form of additional screening.
A motion was made to approve the application with the condition
that additional landscaping materials be placed around the
playground to further buffer it from the neighborhood. The vote
was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstaining (Rahman, Walker).
4
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z- 4384 -B
NAME: Elliott Pizza and Sandwich Shop -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 13420 Otter Creek Parkway, Suite #1
OWNER /APPLICANT: The Circle K Corporation /Gary Elliott
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is
requested to allow an "eating place
without drive -in service" in one
bay of this C -1 zoned, shopping
center. The proposed use is a
pizza and sandwich shop with no
dine -in facilities. The applicant
provides food available for take-
out or delivery only.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The property is located at the northwest corner of Otter
Creek Parkway and Stagecoach Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The applicant is proposing to occupy one, 20 foot by 50 foot
bay within an existing, 10,250 square foot commercial
center. The shopping center property is located within a
large C -1 zoned node at the intersection of Otter Creek
Parkway and Stagecoach Road. A large, C -2 zoned property is
located across the Parkway to the south. An area of multi-
family zoning separates these commercial properties from the
large Otter Creek residential development to the west.
The proposed use of one bay within an existing commercial
center is compatible with the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains an existing, 10,250 square foot commercial
building. If the application is approved, the mixture of
uses and required parking will be as follows:
a. Convenience store; 2,650 square feet, 12 spaces
required.
b. Office; 27,750 square feet, 7 spaces required.
C. General commercial; 2,750 square feet, 9 spaces
required.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4384 -B
d. Beauty shop; 1,000 square feet, 5 spaces required.
e. Proposed take -out restaurant; 1,000 square feet, 10
spaces required. The proposed use mixture requires a
total of 43 on -site parking spaces. There are a total
of 44 spaces on the site plus 4 stacking spaces at the
gas pump islands.
4. Screening and Buffers
No building or parking lot expansion is proposed. This
proposed use of one bay of an existing, commercial center
does not generate the requirement of additional screening or
buffers.
5. City Engineer Comments
No comments
6. Utility Comments
No comments
7. Analysis
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the
use of one, 20 foot by 50 foot bay within an existing, C -1
zoned shopping center as an "eating place without drive -in
service." The proposed use is a pizza and sandwich shop
with no dine -in facilities. All food prepared at this site
will be available for take -out or delivery only.
Although the parking requirement for this use is calculated
at 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area, the same
as a dine -in restaurant, the proposed take -out only sandwich
shop should not generate the same level of parking
requirement.
Staff feels that the proposed restaurant with no dine -in
service is a reasonable use for this property and supports
the application.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application subject the
restaurant not providing dine -in services and being limited
to take -out or delivery only. Should this proposed use
vacate the site, only an approved C -1 use or a similar take-
out restaurant with no dine -in services can occupy the site.
0
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 4384 -B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that
the applicant had filed the application on December 22, 2 1/2
weeks after the filing day, and was asking to be placed on the
January 10, 1995 Planning Commission agenda. The Committee asked
staff if placing the item on the agenda at this late date would
create any problems for staff review. Staff responded that it
was reluctant to accept a late filing, but this issue was simple
and uninvolved and staff felt that a timely review could be
accomplished. The Committee determined that it was appropriate
to place the item on the January 10, 1995 agenda.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the proposed use.
The Committee felt that the proposed use as a take -out only
restaurant was an appropriate use, but felt that any approval
should include the limitation that any subsequent use of this bay
is to be limited to an approved C -1 use or a similar take -out
restaurant with no dine -in services.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant, Gary Elliott, 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
the conditions as outlined in the
was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
K7
Agenda for approval subject to
Staff Recommendation. The vote
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: G -23 -228
Name: Block 4, A. C. Reads Addition Alley
Right -of -Way Abandonment
Location: East of Shall Street, between East
9th and East 10th Streets
Owner /Applicant: Various property owners by
Dave Garner
Reauest: To abandon a 20' alley, East of
Platted Allen Street now known as
Shall Street, South of Block 1 and
North Lot 1, Block 4, East of Lots
1 thru 3 and part Lot 4, Block 4,
and North of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block
4, A. C. Reads Addition to the City
of Little Rock and Part Tract B,
Resubdivision of Eastview Terrace
to the City of Little Rock West of
CRI & P R /R; and to abandon any
easements within the area of the
alley to be abandoned with the
exception of those easements in the
alley right -of -way located South of
Block 1, A. C. Reads Addition.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way
Although platted in 1906, the alley has never been
developed. The adjacent industrial properties have
incorporated the area of the alley into their developments
and there is no public need for the alley right -of -way,
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley
right -of -way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets
There is no need for additional right -of -way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The alley right -of -way has never been developed. The area
of the alley has been incorporated into the parking
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G -23 -228
lot /storage yards of adjacent industrial properties for the
most part. The southern portion of the alley right -of -way
is overgrown with brush and trees.
5. Development Potential
An existing building on the property of Antique Brick
Distributors„ located at 914 Shall Avenue, extends into the
alley right -of -way. Before this applicant can expand and
remodel the building, the alley right -of -way issue must be
resolved. No other development on any of the other
properties is proposed.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The alley has never been developed in the nearly 90 years
since its platting. Abandonment of the alley right -of -way
will have no effect on the neighborhood. The adjacent
properties are primarily industrial or vacant. All of the
abutting properties have access on a public street.
7. Neighborhood Position
All abutting property owners have approved the abandonment.
No other neighborhood position has been voiced.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Little Rock Wastewater Utility has an existing sewer main in
the alley right -of -way running east from Shall Street, south
of Block 1, A. C. Reads Addition. Easement rights will be
retained in this portion of abandoned right -of -way.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to abutting property owners
in Blocks 1 and 4, A. C. Reads Addition.
10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues
The abandonment of this platted but undeveloped alley right -
of -way will return to the private sector a land area that
will be productive for the real estate tax base. Abandoning
the right -of -way will allow for development of the property
and will have no effect on the public welfare and safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the alley right -of -way abandonment, subject to that
portion of the abandoned alley right -of -way located east of Shall
E
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO • G -23 -228
Avenue, south of Block 1, A. C. Reads Addition being retained as
a utility and drainage easement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant, Dave Garner,
item and noted the one area
drainage easement. Mr. Gar
purchased Lots 2, 3 and 4.
building which extends into
this application.
was present. Staff presented the
to be retained as a utility and
aer explained that he had recently
He stated that there is an existing
the alley right -of -way which prompted
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant, Dave Garner, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission
that there were no outstanding issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
P
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: G -23 -227
Name:
Location:
Lots 3 and 4, Wilkinson's Replat,
Alley and Easement Abandonment
Behind 115 Midland Avenue
Owner /Applicant: Greg and Cheryl Campbell
Request: To abandon that portion of the
alley right -of -way located directly
behind 115 Midland Avenue, being a
part of Lots 3 and 4 of Wilkinson's
Replat of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block
6 and Lot 12, Block 7, Midland
Hills Additions and to abandon any
easements located directly beneath
that portion of an accessory
structure which has been
constructed so that it intrudes
into the above described right -of-
way.
STAFF REVIEW•
1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way
Although platted in 1910, this alley right -of -way has never
been developed. There is no public need for this right -of-
way.
2� Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley
right-of-way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Ad-iacent Streets
There is no need for additional right -of -way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
This alley right -of -way has never been developed. A portion
of the right -of -way serves as a driveway to the multi - family
dwellings facing Kavanaugh Blvd. The majority of the alley
has been fenced off by adjacent residential property owners.
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G -23 -227
5. Development Potential
On May 3, 1994, Greg and Cheryl Campbell, of 115 Midland
Avenue, received approval of a conditional use permit
allowing for the construction of an accessory building in
the rear yard of their property. This two story structure
is to contain a garage on the ground floor and an accessory
dwelling on the second floor. Due to an error by the
contractor, the structure was built so that a portion of it
extends across the rear property line and into the alley.
After considering other alternatives including removing the
portion of the structure which crosses the property line and
hiring a house moving company to move the structure, the
Campbells decided to approach the City with a petition to
abandon the alley right -of -way.
The alley right -of -way behind 115 Midland varies in width
from 14.3 feet to 17.3 feet. Once the right -of -way is
abandoned, the Campbells will gain property ranging from
7.15 feet to 8.65 feet in width. The addition of this
property will remedy the situation concerning the placement
of the accessory building which intrudes 5.2 feet into the
alley at one point.
No other development is proposed at this time.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
All abutting properties are zoned residential, either multi-
family or single family. The alley right -of -way has never
been developed and its abandonment will have no effect on
the neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood Position
All abutting property owners have approved the abandonment.
No other neighborhood position has been voiced.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
There will be no physical change in the property since the
alley has never been developed. Easements will be retained
in the area of the abandoned alley other than for that area
directly beneath the Campbell's accessory building.
9. Reversionary Rights
Reversionary rights extend to Greg and Cheryl Campbell,
owners of Parts of Lots 3 and 4, Wilkinson's Replat and
Daniel Orellano, owner of part of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5,
Block 6, Midland Hills Addition.
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G -23 -227
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
As the alley has never been developed and all necessary
easement rights will be retained, abandoning this alley
right -of -way will have no effect on the public welfare and
safety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the alley right -of -way abandonment
subject to the area of the abandoned right -of -way being retained
as a utility and drainage easement with the exception of that
area located directly beneath the portion of the Campbell's
accessory building which intrudes into the alley right -of -way.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicants, Greg and Cheryl Campbell, were present. Staff
presented the item and briefly gave the history of this issue.
The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues
and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff 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 vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: G -23 -229
Name: Monroe Street Right -of -Way
Abandonment
Location: Monroe Street, between West 11th
Street and West 12th Street
Owner /Applicant: Holy Cross Missionary Baptist
Church
Request: To abandon that portion of the
Monroe Street right -of -way located
between West 11th Street and West
12th Street.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way
Review by City Departments and Utility Companies indicates
no public need for this right -of -way.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this public
right -of -way.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
There is no need for additional right -of -way on adjacent
streets.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
This portion of right -of -way contains a chip - sealed street
with no curb, gutter or sidewalk„
5. Development Potential
Holy Cross Missionary Baptist Church occupies the property
on the east side of this block of Monroe Street. One of the
church's parking lots is located on the west side of the
street. Due to a large number of incidents involving church
member's vehicles being broken into and a desire to secure
the church property, Holy Cross Church wants to erect a
fence on the perimeter of its property, including the
parking lot on the west side of Monroe Street.
The church desires to abandon this block of right -of -way
which would better facilitate the securing of its property.
November 29, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G -23 -229
A decorative, iron gate is proposed to be erected at the
12th Street entrance. A second gate will be placed on the
11th Street end.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Monroe Street extends only 2 1/2 blocks north of 11th Street
before terminating at the I -630 right -of -way. Approximately
10 single family homes are located on the east side of this
2 1/2 block extension. The remainder of the property,
including all on the west side, is vacant. Jonesboro Drive,
located one block west of Monroe, serves as the primary
north /south access to West 12th Street. Madison Street, one
block east of Monroe, is available, as are several other
streets, to serve as north /south access. Abandoning this
portion of Monroe Street right -of -way does not appear to
have a negative impact on the neighborhood's traffic
circulation.
7. Neighborhood Position
The City of Little Rock owns one lot abutting this block of
Monroe Street. All other property is owned by the
applicant. No other neighborhood position has been voiced.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The area of the abandoned right -of -way will be retained in
its entirety as a utility and drainage easement. The Fire
Department must be provided access to any gate across the
closed street. There will be no effect on public services
or utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
All reversionary rights extend to Holy Cross Missionary
Baptist Church and the City of Little Rock.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandonment of the right -of -way will allow Holy Cross
Missionary Baptist Church to secure access to its property,
providing safety for its members and security for its
facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment subject to:
1. The area of the abandoned right -of -way being retained in its
entirety as a utility and drainage easement.
2
November 29, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G -23 -229
2. The Fire Department must be provided access to any gate
erected across the closed street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and
noted the Public Services and Utility Comment above.
A question was raised regarding the rebuilding of the
intersections with 11th and 12th Streets. It was pointed out
that the Ordinance as passed by the Board of Directors would
require the entrances on both ends of the abandoned right -of -way
to be offset and /or rebuilt to conform to the standard driveway
design as required by Ordinance No. 12,501.
The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding
issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff 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 vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
January 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: 5 -1046
NAME: CARISTIANOS' PRIDE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT -- SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE WAIVER
LOCATION: On the north side of Pride Valley Road, approximately
1 mile west of Kanis Road, outside the City Limits.
DEVELOPER:
ROLLIN CARISTIANOS
Rector Phillips Morse
800 Prospect Bldg.
1500 N. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72207
AREA: 40 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 7
FT. NEW STREET: 1400
ZONING: R -2 PROPOSED USES: Single - Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of jurisdiction and application of
the Subdivision Regulations for the proposed subdivision.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 40 -acre tract into 7 lots
which range in size from 5.08 acres to 5.90 acres. Access is
proposed to be provided to the three interior lots by way of a 24
foot wide, open ditch roadway in a 50 foot wide right -of -way,
extending 1,400 feet into the acreage, with the road dedicated to
the public. The remaining 4 lots have frontage on Pride Valley
Road.
The applicant initially planned to construct the roadway as a
private drive in an access easement. A buyer of one of the
interior lots, however, placed the condition on the purchase that
the roadway be maintained by the County. The developer, then,
contacted the Pulaski County planning office, received the
specifications for constructing an open ditch residential roadway
meeting County standards, took bids for the work, and began
construction. The County planning office subsequently realized
that the area is within the City's planning area, and contacted
City staff. Staff contacted the developer and informed him that
the subdivision is subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations,
and that the proposed development would have to be approved by
the Planning Commission, with the street having to meet City
Master Street Plan requirements. The City's Master Street Plan
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1046
requirements are more stringent than the County's, and the
developer is faced with either having to construct a more
expensive street than was planned and budgeted, or forego a sale
and revert to the original plan for a private drive in an access
easement.
The County's "Typical Hot Mix Road Section" provides for a 24
foot driving surface, with 2" of hot mix asphalt on a 6" gravel
base and 4 foot gravel shoulders. The road is, according to
County standards, to be in a 50 foot wide right -of -way, with 9
feet along each side of the street for the side ditches. The
City's residential street requirements for a "minor residential
street ", on the other hand, are for a 24 foot street section with
curb and gutter in a minimum 45 foot right -of -way.
Alternatively, the City Engineering office has proposed a
residential street with open side ditches; however, the City's
open ditch roadway is to have 6 foot paved shoulders (as opposed
to gravel shoulders according to the County specification), with
the width of side ditches to vary according to the topography and
drainage requirements, and the right -of -way being a minimum of 60
feet, depending on the side ditch requirements. The developer
maintains that the difference in costs between the County and
City specifications is significant, and that the budget for the
development does not provide for these extra expenses.
A. PROPOSAL /REOUEST:
The developer requests a waiver of the Subdivision
Regulations for the jurisdiction and application of the
City's Subdivision Regulations for the development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area is outside the City Limits, but is within the
City's planning jurisdiction. The area is sparsely
developed with single - family residences, and there is a
mobile home park on the south side of Pride Valley Road,
immediately across from the proposed development. The
topography is rolling, and there are scattered trees in the
area.
The existing zoning is R -2.
C. ENGINEERING /UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that, for the proposed street to be
dedicated to the public, it must meet Master Street Plan
standards, and the Master Street Plan will require a minimum
24 foot wide curb and gutter street section in a minimum 45
foot right -of -way. Alternatively, a proposed change in the
Master Street Plan provides for an open ditch street. The
open ditch section specifies a 24 foot paved driving
9
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -1046
surface, with 6 foot paved shoulders. Additionally, the
section specifies side ditches which are to be a minimum of
6 feet, and this width varies according to the required
depth of the ditch. The minimum right -of -way for the open
ditch roadway is 60 feet, but this width is dependent on the
required width of the ditches. The width of the ditch is a
function of the depth, with the requirement being that the
width of the ditch is to be 6 feet multiplied by the
required depth. (If the ditch must be 1 foot deep, the
width of the ditch would be 6 feet, if the ditch must be 2
feet deep, it must be 12 feet wide.)
D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNICAL /DESIGN:
Section 31 -5(b) of the Subdivision Regulations states that:
"This Chapter shall be applicable to all lands within the
City and its planning jurisdiction...."
Section 31 -5(2) states: "The dedication... of any
street... through any tract of land... shall be considered a
subdivision and subject to this chapter."
A subdivision is defined, in Section 31 -2, as "all divisions
of a tract ... into one (1) or more lots, building sites, or
other division..., and shall include all divisions of land
involving the need for new access (or) a new street;
provided, however, that the following shall not be included
within this definition, nor be subject to the subdivision
rules and regulations...: The division of land into parcels
greater than five (5) acres, provided each newly created lot
or parcel has minimum lot frontage on legal and physical
access."
E. ANALYSIS:
According to the definition of a subdivision, development
would not be subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations
if the proposed lots are 5 acres or greater, and the lots
have the required frontage on "legal and physical access ".
The proposed development has 7 lots with in excess of 5
acres for each lot, and legal and physical access to the
lots was to have been by way of an access easement.
Therefore, if the access remains, as was originally proposed
by the developer, a private drive in an access easement, the
development is not subject to the City's regulations.
In order to dedicate the right -of -way through the tract, the
development falls within the jurisdiction and control of the
City's Subdivision Regulations, and the plat must be
approved by the Planning Commission, with the road
construction being required to meet City standards.
3
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -1046
The options, then, are:
1) Seek Planning Commission approval of the plat and
construct the road to the City's standards; or,
2) Return to the original plan of a private drive in an
access easement, and abandon the effort to dedicate the
right -of -way to the public; or,
3) Seek a waiver from the Board of Directors of the
Ordinance requirement which extends jurisdiction and
application of the Subdivision Regulations to this
development, and permit the dedication of the right -of-
way to the public and the construction of the street to
County standards.
If the latter option is permitted, for the time being, until
the area is annexed to the City, the maintenance of the
street would be the responsibility of the County. Upon
annexation, the City would inherit a street which is not in
conformance with the City's standards. Public Works notes
that, with open ditches, abutting property owners expect the
City to keep them mowed and cleaned, and the Public Works
Department discourages open ditch streets. At the very
least, if an open ditch street is approved, the Bill of
Assurance needs to specify that the abutting property owners
are to maintain the ditch.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Public Works staff recommends denial of the requested
wavier.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Mr. Rollin Caristianos, the developer, was present. He presented
his proposal to the Committee members, and asked that the
requested wavier be added to the Planning Commission agenda of
January 10, 1995. The Committee members instructed staff to add
the item to the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Rollin Caristianos, the applicant, was present.
Staff outlined the proposal, and indicated that the Public Works
Department recommended that the request be denied.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE_ NO.:
Mr. Caristianos explained that the developer had anticipated
constructing a private drive to serve the interior tracts, but
that an offer had been received on a tract which stipulated that
the drive be a public street. He stated that the developers had
gotten bids for upgrading the drive to County road standards, and
were willing to spend that much money. However, to upgrade the
road to a City street standard would require extensive re-
construction of the already existing base material and additional
sub -grade work, wider pavement, curbs and gutters, engineering
work for storm drainage calculations, etc., and, that the costs
of these would not be able to be absorbed in the development. He
indicated that there are at least three (3) other developments
like the one which he is representing within a mile to the west
of the development with similar County standard roads.
Staff pointed out that Public Works had noted in its comments
that, if the requested waiver were approved, that the maintenance
of the road ditches needs to be made the responsibility of the
developer or abutting property owners; that the City does not
want to have the responsibility of maintenance of the road
ditches once the area is annexed.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, explained that, if
the road is to be built to City standard, there would need to be
engineering data furnished to substantiate the size of the under -
road culverts which have been installed, as well as the noted
upgrading of the gravel base and road width. He said that the
City is trying to eliminate open road ditch street sections, and
opposes the approval of one for the applicant's development. He
said that maintenance of the ditches is a problem, and noted that
when the ditch section is beyond the right -of -way width, on
private property, then maintenance is complicated.
The question was called, and the item failed with the vote of
3 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention.
5
0
cc
O
U
W
cc
L!J
O
Z
U)
U)
C�
G
O
_z
z
Z
CL
J
r
0 rl,
S
W
d
D
W
Z
z N J
d r- 'D 0
wF WU)NO�Jz d
J
cc d W W
U CC = m Q J U d W
Jd JU =Z�H�� -i
ME m U cr d< a_ 3: U) 'S
allamommall
s
Islimma
SINIMMIMIN
mosommomon
i
W
Z
z N J
d r- 'D 0
wF WU)NO�Jz d
J
cc d W W
U CC = m Q J U d W
Jd JU =Z�H�� -i
ME m U cr d< a_ 3: U) 'S
s
-0
Pi
H
C!�
00
Z
W
CO
m
d
i
W
d
Z
Ll
W
Q
i
ti
r
a.
10
1
N
W
Z
LU
p-
z d
W
N
U)
Z
N
J
p
J
d
J
Z
w
J
d
Z�
QdW
M
WI
_
-Z-'Y�
o-
m
C,5
W
0
m
c
Z
w-
W
JUJU
=
0::
<
=Z0tZ
.)
<
J�
W
Q
In
=
C)
-
U
d
rr-
d
od
er
-O
O
W
C/5S
d
s
-0
Pi
H
C!�
00
Z
W
CO
m
d
i
W
d
Z
Ll
W
Q
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 4°00 p.m.
Z 7-
/
A�
D
e
hairma S cre