Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 03 2009sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present there being ten (10) members present. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock “Goose” W. Changose J. T. Ferstl Troy Laha Jerry Meyer Obray Nunnley, Jr. William Rector Billy Rouse Chauncey Taylor Jeff Yates Members Absent: Candice Smith City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the July 23, 2009 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 OLD BUSINESS: Item Number: File Number: Title: A. Z-5882-A Saugey Revised Short-form POD, located at 16715 Cantrell Road. B. Z-5617-A Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension, located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center. C. Z-4807-F Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension, located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision. D. Z-4807-G Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension, located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road. E. Z-7119-A USA Drug - the Ranch - Short-form PD-C, located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive. F. S-46-JJ Lot 134R Overlook Park Addition Replat, located at 27 Overlook Circle. G. S-1633 Covenant Keepers Charter School Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 8300 Geyer Springs Road. H. Z-6323-M Lot 7 the Village at Rahling Road Revised Short-form PCD, located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway. I. Z-8470 Ramirez Short-form PCD, located at 3723 West 98th Street. J. Z-8471 Young Short-form PD-R, located at 712 Ash Street. K. LA0027 A Land Alteration Variance request from Section 29-190 for property located at 6900 Cantrell Road Agenda, Page Two NEW BUSINESS: I. PRELIMINARY PLATS/SUBDIVISION: Item Number: File Number: Title: 1. S-1636 Heights Addition Preliminary Plat, located East of South Ridge Drive, just South of the Walton Heights Subdivision and North of Trinity Assembly of God Church. II. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Item Number: File Number: Title: 2. S-1635 Big Red Convenience Store Subdivision Site Plan Review, located on the Northeast corner of Pratt Road and Arch Street Pike. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: Item Number: File Number: Title: 3. Z-4343-W Lot 1 Tract A The Ranch Subdivision Revised Short-form PCD, located at 16900 Cantrell Road. 4. Z-4470-F Lot 3R Chenal Commercial Park Revised Short-form PCD, located in the 15500 Block of Chenal Parkway. 5. Z-4807-L Chenal Valley Tract 98A Parcel A Long-form PCD, located on the Southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road. 6. LU09-19-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment at the Southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road from High Density Residential to Office. Agenda, Page Three III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title: 6.1. Z-4807-M Chenal Valley Tract 98A Parcels B and C Long-form POD, located on the Southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road. 7. Z-5698-E Rezoning from C-3 with conditions to C-3, located at the Southeast corner of Bowman and Hermitage Roads. 8. Z-6476-B Coulson Oil Company Revised Short-form PCD, located at 19500 Cantrell Road. 9. Z-6532-E The Enclave at Chenal Heights Long-form PD-R, located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Valley Drive. 10. LU09-09-02 A Land Use Plan amendment at 3517 West 25th Street from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. 10.1. Z-8486 3517 West 25th Street Short-form POD, located at 3517 West 25th Street. 11. Z-8487 Diversions Short-form PCD and Alley Abandonment, located at 2611 Kavanaugh Boulevard. 12. Z-8488 Forest Valley Short-form PD-R, located South of Forest Lane and East of South Katillus Road. 13. Z-8489 The Gardens of Valley Falls Short-form PD-R, located on the Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and LaMarche Drive. 14. Z-8490 Johnson Short-form PD-C, located at 4314 Asher Avenue. Agenda, Page Four IV. OTHER ITEMS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title: 15. G-25-202 3rd Street name change to River Market Avenue, That portion of 3rd Street located from Main Street to the terminus located one block East of World Ave. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-5882-A NAME: Saugey Revised Short-form POD LOCATION: Located at 16715 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Vicki Saugey 16715 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72212 SURVEYOR: Taylor Surveying P.O. Box 21415 White Hall, AR 71612 AREA: 0.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Single-family residence and a Beauty Salon OVERLAY DISTRICT: Highway 10 Design Overlay District PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residence and a Beauty Salon – Extend the rear parking area VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,783 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors and November 23, 1994, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to POD. The approval allowed the owner to enclose the garage of her existing residence for use as a beauty salon. The owner was to continue to live in the residence. The approval included three operators including the owner. A single sign was proposed within the front yard area. Seven new parking spaces were proposed within the rear yard area. Dense plantings were provided as a land use buffer between the new parking and the abutting property to the east and south. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site located at 16715 Cantrell Road is under enforcement for violation of the approved POD site plan. Without receiving site plan approval, the owner paved additional area within the rear yard area removing the previously provided buffer and landscaped area. The site currently contains eighteen (18) parking spaces. The landscape strip along the western perimeter is zero. The landscape strip along the eastern perimeter is four feet and along the southern perimeter is five feet. The owner is proposing to remove paving along the eastern and western perimeters to allow for a nine (9) foot landscape strip. The paving along the rear property line will be removed to allow an eleven (11) foot landscape strip. With the removal of the paved areas, twelve (12) parking spaces will be provided. The property is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing brick residence with a paved parking area in the rear yard area. The property to the west is vacant and is zoned POD for use as a general and professional office use. The property to the east is a newly developed office park with four office buildings. The property to the south is a newly developed single-family subdivision, Montagne Court. Property to the north is zoned R-2, Single-family and is occupied by a number of single-family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, the Montagne Court Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 3 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Office Development to allow an asphalt paved area located in the rear of the structure to remain. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Plan. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 4 Landscape: 1. This development is located within the Arkansas Highway 10 Overlay District; therefore, must comply with the standards put forth in the Overlay in addition to the landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A minimal amount of building landscaping is required between the parking lot and the structure. 3. The buffer ordinance requires a ten foot seven inch (10’7”) wide land use buffer along the southern perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned property. Easements cannot count toward full-filling this requirement. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. 4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8% of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width. Interior islands must be a minimum of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area to qualify towards the minimum landscape ordinance requirements. 5. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires an automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas and a landscape plan stamped by a Registered Landscape Architect. 6. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern, perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 7. Per the Landscape Ordinance a minimum landscape strip of 9 feet is required along the southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. The City Beautiful Commission must approve any variation from this requirement. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009) Ms. Ruth Presley and Ms. Vicki Saugey were present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review. Staff stated Ms. Saugey had expanded the rear yard parking area in violation of the currently approved POD site plan. Staff stated the request was to amend the approved site plan to allow the parking to remain as currently exists. Staff stated the site was located within the Highway 10 DOD. Staff stated the parking as expanded was not in compliance with the Highway 10 DOD. Staff stated the rear yard landscape strip was just over five (5) feet and not the 25 foot typically required. Staff also stated the previously installed screening had been removed with the additional paving. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 5 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a sidewalk was required along Cantrell Road for the entire length of the property frontage. Ms. Presley questioned staff as to the need for the sidewalk when there were no sidewalks in the area. Commissioner Rector stated with the rezoning request the Boundary Street and Master Street Plan ordinances were applied which resulted in the requirement for sidewalk construction. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated with the addition of the paving in the rear yard the site did not meet the landscaping requirements of the Highway 10 DOD nor the zoning and buffer ordinances. Staff stated in addition to the comments indicated an additional comment concerning the minimum landscape strip should be added. Staff stated a minimum landscape strip of nine (9) feet was required along the south, east and western perimeters. Staff stated any variation from this minimum requirement would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates the landscape strip as required by Landscape Ordinance or a minimum strip of nine (9) feet adjacent to the new paved areas along the eastern and western perimeters. The landscape strip along the southern perimeter is indicated at eleven (11) feet. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing wood fence located along the property line with Montagne Court as the required screening. This site was originally constructed as a single-family home. A number of years ago the Board of Directors approved an ordinance rezoning the property to allow the use of the property as a residence and beauty salon. Seven (7) parking spaces were approved to serve the salon which housed three (3) operators. The applicant receives a number of shipments per week via UPS or FedEx. During deliveries, the trucks park on the shoulder of Cantrell Road or pull into the drive, blocking the driveway, makes the delivery and back out onto Cantrell Road. This creates an unsafe situation for the customers and for the delivery vehicles. With the new design, the delivery vehicles are able to circle into the site thus eliminating the need to back out into Cantrell Road. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 6 Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site is not provided the typically required twenty-five (25) foot landscape strip along the side and rear perimeters, staff feels the landscaping provided is adequate. Based on the size constraints of this property, less than one-half acre, staff feels the applicant has provided a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standard. There are no changes proposed to the previously approved signage plan, the days and hours of operation or the uses allowed on the site. The approval allows three operators including the owner and the site must be maintained as the owner’s residence. Highway 10 DOD Requirements: Applicant’s proposal: Lot size. There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2) acres. The lot exists containing 0.41 acres and was established prior to the adoption of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Front yard. All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a one-hundred-foot building setback from the property line abutting Highway 10. The building exists and was constructed prior to the adoption of the Highway 10 DOD. The building is set at 38-feet from the front property line. Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less than forty (40) feet. The building has been constructed with a rear yard setback in excess of the 40-foot rear yard setback requirement. Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than thirty (30) feet. The side yard setbacks exist less than the 30-foot typical standard established by the Highway 10 DOD. (17 feet east and 4.5 feet west) Landscaping treatment. Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on-site trees and shrubbery into the landscaping scheme and the plans shall indicate such incorporation. The proposed landscaping located along the eastern and western perimeters adjacent to the new paved area is nine feet (9’). The proposed landscape strip along the southern perimeter is eleven feet (11) feet. Landscaped areas shall have water sprinkler systems to maintain plant materials. The development exists and does not currently have a sprinkler system as typically required to maintain plant materials. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 7 Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used on all cuts and fills. All improvements are in place. Tree species to be planted within this corridor should be consistent with other species present. Any new tree planted will be consistent with species present in the area. The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way. The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or combined man-made/organic features as berms, brick walls and dense plantings such that vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from an elevation of forty-two (42) inches above the elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative screening methods and designs must be approved by the plans review specialist. Appeals from the staff will be directed to the planning commission. Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every twenty (20) feet and have a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter when measured twelve (12) inches from the ground at time of planting. Where a developer demonstrates that this requirement will constitute an undue hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way may consist of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances only, a half-berm shall be constructed which is a minimum of three (3) feet in height with tree plantings as required herein; provided however, that this provision may only be applied to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the highway frontage affected in the plans submitted. The site is developed. The front yard is indicated with a 38 foot landscape area. There is no parking located within the front yard area. Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. The side and rear yards do not contain a landscape strip averaging a minimum of 25-feet from the property line. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 8 Where such yards abut a street right-of- way, a fifteen-foot landscaped strip shall be required adjacent to land zoned office and residential. A seven-foot landscaped strip shall be required when adjacent to lands zoned commercial. Signage. Signage shall comply with the provisions of Article X of Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as follows: Commercial development signage. Signage identifying the commercial development shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and one hundred (100) square feet in area. All signs that are ground- mounted shall be of a monument type design. These signs may be installed in the landscaped area of the front and side yards. Commercial building signage. Each separate commercial building will be allowed a single monument ground- mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the commercial development. The sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. Building signage will comply with signage allowed in Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. An existing sign approximately 10 feet in height and 100 square feet in area exist on the site. No electronic signage is proposed. Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut closer to an intersection than one hundred (100) feet. The development will utilize the existing drive located along the eastern perimeter of the property. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance preserved in this corridor. Lighting should be directed to the parking areas and not reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods. Lighting shall comply with the DOD standards. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods. No new lighting is proposed. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 9 Building sites. The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows: One (1) building every two (2) acres. The site contains 0.41 acres. The lot area and building were developed prior to the adoption of the Highway 10 DOD. Commercial developments and multiple building sites. In the case of a commercial development or other development involving multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the above described regulations shall apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Developments of this type shall be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process which illustrates compliance with this article. There is a single building on a single building site. Property, due to topography, size, irregular shapes or other constraints, such as adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility, and thus cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. The request is to revise a previously approved POD to allow a parking lot with a landscape strip of nine (9) feet along the eastern and western perimeters and eleven (11) feet along the southern perimeter. The parking as constructed does not allow the 25-foot landscape strip as typically required per the Highway 10 DOD. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 14, 2009, September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 10 requesting a deferral of this item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant’s justification for the deferral request was to allow additional time to review various options with regard to the parking lot layout. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a request dated May 27, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 27, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has requested this item be deferred one additional time to allow the applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options concerning the site plan and the various options for redevelopment of the site. The applicant also failed to mail the required notification of the date and time for the public hearing. Based on the applicant’s request for additional time and the lack of notification, staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested the item be deferred one additional time to allow the applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options concerning the site plan and the various options for redevelopment of the site. Staff September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A 11 stated the applicant also had not provided notification as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff stated based on the applicant’s request for additional time and the lack of notification, staff recommended the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5617-A NAME: Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension LOCATION: Located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 30.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-2 – 85% Commercial Uses, O-2 – 15% Office Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Two-Year Time Extension PROPOSED USE: C-2 - 85% Commercial Uses, O-2 – 15% Office Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,558 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006, approved a rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan and establish uses for the property. The approval was to secure the PCD zoning and as the final plan for the site was secured, a revision to the approved PCD would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established criteria: September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 2 BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION - The 30.8 acre site shall be developed as follows: 1. Eighty five (85) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for commercial purposes as set forth in the ordinance. 2. Fifteen (15) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for office purposes as set forth in the ordinance. 3. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. 4. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to twelve thousand (12,000) square feet per acre. 5. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be three hundred and fourteen thousand five hundred (314,500) square feet of which the maximum area for restaurant use shall be limited to sixty five thousand (65,000) square feet. 6. The minimum office area shall be fifteen (15) percent of the development which at the time of the ordinance is estimated to be fifty five thousand (55,000) square feet. LIMITATION ON TYPES OF USES 1. Commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the C-2 Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 2. Office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2 Office classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may include multiple buildings on a single site. 4. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as otherwise subject to the limitations set forth in the ordinance. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 3 2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision Committee and the Department of Planning and Development. 3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Forty-five (45) feet for commercial buildings. 4. Fifty (50) feet for office buildings. 5. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and shielded downward and onto the site. 6. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels. 7. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets. 8. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements. 9. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - PRIOR TO ANY FINAL PLAN APPROVAL 1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is sought. 2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these amendments shall be deemed a part of the ordinance and the developer shall comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested. 3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study required that projected levels of service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall below acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to mitigate the impact of this development on that area. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 4 4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. 5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such relocation. 6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance the City shall only require improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose. SIGNAGE GUIDELINES 1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side. 2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application 4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING AND EXCAVATION GUIDELINES 1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 5 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section 36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on creating a final development plan for this approval and installing the infrastructure identified in the adopted ordinance. The developers have indicated the final plan approval cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning Development. According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates. The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to build the improvements. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 6 The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A portion of the site contains the former golf driving range with the remainder of the site vacant. The site has received dirt from the approved developments along Kirk Road. There is vacant C-3 zoned property located to the north of the site abutting the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. Across Chenal Parkway is vacant C-3 zoned property and a convenience store. Kirk Road adjacent to this site has not been constructed. East of the site is the Kroger Shopping Center which has a number of out parcels currently vacant. The Commission recently approved a site plan review to allow for the construction of a new Kroger Store adjacent to the existing store. There are single-family homes located to the northwest and west of the site along Kanis Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final development plan should be granted. Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final development plan for the approved PCD zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the approved PCD. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension. Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item. The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks. He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 9 allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the owner. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the three related items (Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension Z-5617-A, located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension Z-4807-F, located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension, located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road Z-4807-G) with a recommendation of approval of a one year time extension. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He provided the Commission with a copy of the street improvement plans and provided the Commission with a status report for the construction of the streets in the area. He stated since the June 9th meeting the right of way was in place, the utilities had been moved and paving was near completion along the northern portion of the roadway. He stated the improvements were indicated in three phases. He stated the first phase street improvements were to be completed by November 1st. He stated this included all paving from Chenal Parkway to the church property. He stated improvements to Wellington Hills Road were complete. He stated the second phase of improvements were located south of Chenal Parkway on Kirk Road. He stated these improvements were to be completed with the Kroger development. He stated one-half of the street was currently under construction and the west one-half would begin soon. He stated utilities had to be relocated before construction could take place on the west one-half. He stated the final phase was the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. He stated the improvements to Kirk Road had to be complete prior to beginning the final September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 10 phase improvements. He stated for a short period of time vehicles would be detoured off the parkway and onto Kirk Road to allow the intersection to be lowered. Mr. Lance Hines addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had drug their feet on completing the roads creating an undue hardship on the residents of the Villages of Wellington. He stated the streets were to be complete prior to Fellowship opening to limit the traffic on the residential streets in the area. He questioned why the streets were not open. He stated the paving had been completed on the north portion for more than a week and the developers were not opening the streets. He stated opening the street to the north would relieve pressure on the Villages of Wellington neighborhood. There was a general discussion of the Commission and Mr. Hathaway concerning time frames and completion dates. Mr. Hathaway started the improvements to Kirk Road would be complete by November 1st and all three phases would be complete by the one year expiration date. The Commission discussed an option of allowing a one year deferral with an automatic additional year deferral if the developer met the obligation of completing the street by the one year expiration date. The Commission questioned staff as to the thoughts on allowing the one year automatic renewal. Staff stated they felt the final development plan for the projects should be submitted within the year to ensure zoning for the site in the future. The Commission questioned staff as to their reasoning for this request. Staff stated with the submission of the final development plan the zonings would be enacted. A motion was made to grant a one year time extension and a conditional additional one year time extension beyond June 27, 2010 if all improvements for Phase I were in place by November 1st and Phases II and III were completed by June 21, 2010. Commissioner Adcock questioned if acts of God were being considered. Commissioner Rector stated the approval did not allow for acts of God. It was a get the improvements done by this date regardless. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes 1 recusal and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-4807-F NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension LOCATION: Located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 10.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: O-2 and C-2 - Mix of 70% Office and 30% Commercial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: POD – Two-Year Time Extension PROPOSED USE: O-2 and C-2 - Mix of 70% Office and 30% Commercial Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,560 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006, approved a rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to POD (Planned Office Development) to establish a conceptual plan and define uses for the property. The approval was to secure the POD zoning and as the final plan for the site was secured, a revision to the approved POD would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established criteria: September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 2 BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION - 1. The 10.08 acre site will be developed with office and commercial uses with an approximate balance of 70% office and 30% commercial measured on a proportional basis of building area for the entire property. 2. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to thirty thousand (30,000) square feet per acre of commercial uses. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of which the maximum area for restaurant use shall be limited to sixteen thousand (16,000) square feet. 3. If the property is developed exclusively for office uses the maximum area would be two hundred (200,000) square feet or if developed for mixed use the maximum would be one hundred and forty thousand (140,000) square feet based upon the densities set forth. 4. For commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the C-2 Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 5. For office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2 Office classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 6. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may include multiple buildings on a single site. 7. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as otherwise subject to the limitations set forth. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES - 1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this POD application. 2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision Committee and the Department of Planning and Development. 3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Eighty (80) feet 4. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and shielded downward and onto the site. 5. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 3 6. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets. 7. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements and shall provide a minimum of twenty five (25) feet of buffer along boundary streets. 8. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to any final plan approval - 1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is sought. 2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these amendments shall be deemed a part of this ordinance and the developer shall comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested. 3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study required by this subsection that projected levels of service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall below acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to mitigate the impact of this development on that area. 4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. 5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such relocation. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 4 6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance the City shall only require improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose. SIGNAGE GUIDELINES - 1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side. 2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application. 4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES - 1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved POD. Per Section 36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 5 The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an effort to refine and further improve the design. The developers have indicated permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning Development. According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates. The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to build the improvements. The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant gently sloping site; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. Kirk Road and Wellington Hills Drive are currently under construction. The roundabout for the intersecting roads has not been completed. The area to the west is developing as office and commercial uses abutting Chenal Parkway and the area to the east is the Villages of Wellington subdivision. North of the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 6 site is the Fellowship Bible Church campus and further north is Carrington Park Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18 zoned tract, which has developed as a multi-family development. South of the site is a PD-C zoned property developed as Riverside Acura automobile dealership. Small-scale office development is occurring along Kirk Road on the east side and on the west side is an automobile repair shop and a convenience store. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final development plan should be granted. Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 7 STAFF UPDATE: The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final development plan for the approved PCD zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the approved POD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension. Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item. The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 8 were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks. He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved POD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 9 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the owner. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the three related items (Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension Z-5617-A, located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension Z-4807-F, located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension, located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road Z-4807-G) with a recommendation of approval of a one year time extension. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He provided the Commission with a copy of the street improvement plans and provided the Commission with a status report for the construction of the streets in the area. He stated since the June 9th meeting the right of way was in place, the utilities had been moved and paving was near completion along the northern portion of the roadway. He stated the improvements were indicated in three phases. He stated the first phase street improvements were to be completed by November 1st. He stated this included all paving from Chenal Parkway to the church property. He stated improvements to Wellington Hills Road were complete. He stated the second phase of improvements were located south of Chenal Parkway on Kirk Road. He stated these improvements were to be completed with the Kroger development. He stated one-half of the street was currently under construction and the west one-half would begin soon. He stated utilities had to be relocated before construction could take place on the west one-half. He stated the final phase was the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. He stated the improvements to Kirk Road had to be complete prior to beginning the final phase improvements. He stated for a short period of time vehicles would be detoured off the parkway and onto Kirk Road to allow the intersection to be lowered. Mr. Lance Hines addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had drug their feet on completing the roads creating an undue hardship on the residents of the Villages of Wellington. He stated the streets were to be complete prior to Fellowship opening to limit the traffic on the residential streets in the area. He questioned why the streets were not open. He stated the paving had been completed on the north portion for more than a week and the developers were not opening the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 10 streets. He stated opening the street to the north would relieve pressure on the Villages of Wellington neighborhood. There was a general discussion of the Commission and Mr. Hathaway concerning time frames and completion dates. Mr. Hathaway started the improvements to Kirk Road would be complete by November 1st and all three phases would be complete by the one year expiration date. The Commission discussed an option of allowing a one year deferral with an automatic additional year deferral if the developer met the obligation of completing the street by the one year expiration date. The Commission questioned staff as to the thoughts on allowing the one year automatic renewal. Staff stated they felt the final development plan for the projects should be submitted within the year to ensure zoning for the site in the future. The Commission questioned staff as to their reasoning for this request. Staff stated with the submission of the final development plan the zonings would be enacted. A motion was made to grant a one year time extension and a conditional additional one year time extension beyond June 27, 2010 if all improvements for Phase I were in place by November 1st and Phases II and III were completed by June 21, 2010. Commissioner Adcock questioned if acts of God were being considered. Commissioner Rector stated the approval did not allow for acts of God. It was a get the improvements done by this date regardless. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes 1 recusal and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-4807-G NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension LOCATION: Located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 30.28 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-2 and O-2 - Mix of 70% Commercial and 30% Office Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Two-Year Time Extension PROPOSED USE: C-2 and O-2 - Mix of 70% Commercial and 30% Office Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,561 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006, rezoned this site from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and O-2, Office and Institutional to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan and establish uses for the property. The approval was to secure the PCD zoning and as the final plan for the site was secured, a revision to the approved PCD would be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established criteria: BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION - The 30.28 acre site set forth in Section 1 above shall be developed as follows: September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 2 1. Seventy (70) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for commercial purposes. 2. Thirty (30) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for office purposes. 3. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. 4. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet per acre of commercial uses. 5. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be two hundred and twelve thousand (212,000) square feet of which the maximum area for restaurant use shall be limited to forty two thousand (42,000) square feet. 6. If the property is developed exclusively for office uses the maximum area would be six hundred and six thousand (606,000) square feet or if developed for mixed use the maximum would be one hundred and eighty two thousand (182,000) square feet based upon the densities set. Limitation on types of uses - 1. For commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the C-2 Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 2. For office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2 Office classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available. 3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may include multiple buildings on a single site. 4. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as otherwise subject to the limitations set forth in this ordinance. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES - 1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application. 2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision Committee and the Department of Planning and Development. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 3 3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Forty-five (45) feet for commercial buildings and Fifty (50) feet for office buildings. 4. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and shielded downward and onto the site. 5. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels. 6. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets 7. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements. 8. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little Rock ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - Prior to any final plan approval - 1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is sought. 2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these amendments shall be deemed a part of this ordinance and the developer shall comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested. 3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study projected levels of service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall below acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to mitigate the impact of this development on that area. 4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 4 5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such relocation. 6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of the ordinance the City shall only require improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose. SIGNAGE GUIDELINES - 1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side. 2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application. 4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES - 1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 5 36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an effort to refine and further improve the design. The developers have indicated permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning Development. According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates. The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to build the improvements. The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 6 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Street improvements are underway for Kirk Road to the north and Wellington Hills Road to the east. The proposed roundabout located at the intersection of these streets has not been completed. The development site is vacant and gently sloping; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. On the east side along Kirk Road is a dental office and an automobile dealership. On the west side is a convenience store, an auto repair shop and office buildings located in the office park currently accessed from Chenal Parkway. To the east of this area is the Villages of Wellington Subdivision. North of the site is the Fellowship Bible Church campus and further north is Carrington Park Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18 zoned tract, which has developed with a multi-family development. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final development plan should be granted. Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 7 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final development plan for the approved PCD zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension. Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 8 The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks. He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and vote on the item. The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 9 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the previously approved PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the owner. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the three related items (Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension Z-5617-A, located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension Z-4807-F, located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension, located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road Z-4807-G) with a recommendation of approval of a one year time extension. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He provided the Commission with a copy of the street improvement plans and provided the Commission with a status report for the construction of the streets in the area. He stated since the June 9th meeting the right of way was in place, the utilities had been moved and paving was near completion along the northern portion of the roadway. He stated the improvements were indicated in three phases. He stated the first phase street improvements were to be completed by November 1st. He stated this included all paving from Chenal Parkway to the church property. He stated improvements to Wellington Hills Road were complete. He stated the second phase of improvements were located south of Chenal Parkway on Kirk Road. He stated these improvements were to be completed with the Kroger development. He stated one-half of the street was currently under construction and the west one-half would begin soon. He stated utilities had to be relocated before construction could take place on the west one-half. He stated the final phase was the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. He stated the improvements to Kirk Road had to be complete prior to beginning the final phase improvements. He stated for a short period of time vehicles would be detoured off the parkway and onto Kirk Road to allow the intersection to be lowered. Mr. Lance Hines addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had drug their feet on completing the roads creating an undue hardship on the residents of the Villages of Wellington. He stated the streets were to be complete prior to Fellowship opening to limit the traffic on the residential streets in the area. He questioned why the streets were not open. He stated the paving had been completed on the north portion for more than a week and the developers were not opening the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 10 streets. He stated opening the street to the north would relieve pressure on the Villages of Wellington neighborhood. There was a general discussion of the Commission and Mr. Hathaway concerning time frames and completion dates. Mr. Hathaway started the improvements to Kirk Road would be complete by November 1st and all three phases would be complete by the one year expiration date. The Commission discussed an option of allowing a one year deferral with an automatic additional year deferral if the developer met the obligation of completing the street by the one year expiration date. The Commission questioned staff as to the thoughts on allowing the one year automatic renewal. Staff stated they felt the final development plan for the projects should be submitted within the year to ensure zoning for the site in the future. The Commission questioned staff as to their reasoning for this request. Staff stated with the submission of the final development plan the zonings would be enacted. A motion was made to grant a one year time extension and a conditional additional one year time extension beyond June 27, 2010 if all improvements for Phase I were in place by November 1st and Phases II and III were completed by June 21, 2010. Commissioner Adcock questioned if acts of God were being considered. Commissioner Rector stated the approval did not allow for acts of God. It was a get the improvements done by this date regardless. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes 1 recusal and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7119-A NAME: USA Drug - the Ranch - Short-form PD-C LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive DEVELOPER: USA Drug 2100 Brookhaven Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 SURVEYOR: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-O ALLOWED USES: Bank PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Drug Store – C-2 uses as alternative uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,635 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 2002, rezoned the site from C-2, Shopping Center District to PD-O. The site contained 1.67-acres and was approved to allow the construction of a bank. A common access easement and drive shown on the northern and eastern boundaries of the lot allowed access to the site. The access easements were proposed as right-turn movement only from and onto Cantrell Road. A deceleration lane and acceleration taper was proposed on Cantrell Road. A variance from the minimum driveway spacing criteria was approved with the request for Ranch Drive. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The property located at the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive is proposed for rezoning from PD-O to PD-C to allow construction of a new USA Drug Store. The lot is an existing platted lot containing 1.67 acres. The site is proposed developed with a building containing 14,974 square feet and 64 parking spaces. The hours of operation are proposed from 6 am to 11 pm daily. The request includes the allowance of C-2, Shopping Center District uses as allowable alternative uses for the property subject to the parking matching the proposed use. The site is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The site exists with less than the typically two-acre minimum lot size development standard established by the Overlay. The site plan also indicates the building constructed with less than the 40 foot typical rear building setback also established by the Overlay. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and cleared. Other uses in the area include two large office buildings, Leisure Arts to the north and AT & T to the west; a Texaco Quick Shop to the east; and single-family residential south of Cantrell Road. South of the site at the intersection with Drew Drive a formerly single-family structure has been converted to a veterinary clinic. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Chevaux Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Sidewalks are required to be installed adjacent to Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 3 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for the private improvements located in the right-of-way. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: A ten-foot overhead or a thirty-foot under ground easement is required along Ranch Drive and Cantrell Road. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 4 CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems, which do not contain additives such as antifreeze, shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer shall be required. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development-Commercial to allow construction of a pharmacy. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Ranch Road is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets, which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes, are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 5 Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The landscape ordinance requires a nine-foot (9’) wide landscape strip along the northern property line. The City Beautiful Commission must approve a variance for any lesser amount prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one-half feet (7 ½’) in width and 150 square feet in area. These interior islands are to evenly distributed throughout the site. 4. A small amount of building landscaping will be required in conjunction with this request. 5. This site is located along Arkansas Highway 10; therefore, related to development standards of the Overlay the following are required: a. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 21, 2009) Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating the lot was an existing platted lot and the final plat for the lot was executed in 2002. Staff stated the property was located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff requested the site plan include the total sign height and sign area allowed per the Overlay. Staff also questioned if electronic signage would be used within the development. Staff stated a minimum rear yard landscape strip of nine feet was required along September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 6 the northern perimeter. Staff also stated the Overlay required the placement of a forty foot landscape strip along Cantrell Road. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the future development of the site. Staff also stated streetlights were required to be installed prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new construction. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a minimum landscape strip of nine feet was required along the common access drive to the north. Staff stated a small amount of building landscaping was required. Staff stated the site would require the placement of an automatic irrigation system and a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect would be required at the time of development. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a few of the issues raised at the May 28, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates a minimum landscape strip of fifteen (15) feet along the northern perimeter, where adjacent to the access easement, and the placement of a forty (40) foot landscape strip along Cantrell Road. The plan indicates a single ground mounted monument sign will be located within the front yard landscape area. The sign is proposed with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of seventy-two (72) square feet. Electronic signage is proposed incorporated into the ground-mounted sign. Building signage will comply with the typical standards allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten (10) percent of the façade area abutting a public right of way. The development is proposed on an existing 1.67-acre lot. The lot was final platted in February 2002. Access easements and drives have been constructed on the property’s eastern and northern perimeters. Public streets abut the western and southern perimeters not allowing for additional land area to be secured to increase the lot size. The site plan indicates the construction of a 14,974 square foot building and 62 parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require the placement of 49 parking spaces to serve the retail use. The applicant is requesting alternative uses as allowed in the C-2, Shopping Center Zoning District subject to the use September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 7 matching the available parking on the site per Section 36-502 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The site plan indicates a building area of 20.6 percent and paved area of 42.6 percent. A minimum of 36.8 percent of the site will be landscaped. The landscaping provided is more than adequate to address Section 36-460 (h)(7) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum of ten (10) percent of the gross planned commercial mixed use district, planned commercial district (PDC) or planned office district (POD) area to be designated as landscaped open space not to be used for streets or parking. The development is indicated with a front yard-building setback of one hundred (100) plus feet and a side yard setback of fifty-five (55) feet along the eastern perimeter and eighty (80) plus feet along the western perimeter. The rear yard building setback is located fifteen (15) feet from the property line adjacent to a common access easement. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District states a minimum rear yard setback of forty (40) feet is typically required. The Overlay further states for commercial developments and multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the regulations apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Commercial developments and multiple building sites are to be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process to illustrate compliance with the ordinance. The site is located within the Ranch Subdivision which has developed over the years with a unified development plan through previous zoning of the property. Staff feels the site plan is indicated complying with the spirit of the Overlay ordinance. Staff feels with the placement of the rear yard setback the minimum landscape strip can be achieved and the building location allows for visual separation between the structure and the adjacent access easement. Landscaping and landscaping treatment will comply with the typical standards of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. A water sprinkler system will be provided to water landscaped areas and maintain planted materials. Trees to be planted will be consistent with species in the area. A tree will be planted as required by the Overlay or will be planted a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart and be a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter from the ground at the time of planting. The site plan includes a note concerning parking lot lighting stating parking lot lighting will be designed and located in such a manner so as to not disturb the scenic appearance of the roadway and preserve the corridor. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods. The following list the Highway 10 Design Overlay standards and the applicant’s proposal related to each item: September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 8 Highway 10 DOD Requirements: Applicant’s proposal: Lot size. There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2) acres. The lot exists containing 1.67 acres. The final plat for the lot was executed on February 20, 2002. Front yard. All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a one-hundred-foot building setback from the property line abutting Highway 10. The building is proposed with a front yard setback of 100-feet. Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less than forty (40) feet. The building is proposed within a commercial development with the rear of the building abutting an access easement. The rear yard of the building is proposed with a fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback. Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than thirty (30) feet. The side yard setbacks are proposed in excess of the typically thirty (30) foot requirement. Landscaping treatment. Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on-site trees and shrubbery into the landscaping scheme and the plans shall indicate such incorporation. There are no existing trees or shrubs located on the site. Landscaped areas shall have water sprinkler systems to maintain plant materials. The development will provide a water sprinkler system to maintain plant materials. Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used on all cuts and fills. The site will not require any cuts or fills. Tree species to be planted within this corridor should be consistent with other species present. Tree species to be planted will be consistent with other species present. The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way. The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or combined man-made/organic features as berms, brick walls and dense The site will maintain a forty (40) foot landscape area exclusive of the right of way. The screening of the parking area will be consistent with screening requirements of the Overlay. A berm, wall or dense plantings will be provided within September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 9 plantings such that vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from an elevation of forty-two (42) inches above the elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative screening methods and designs must be approved by the plans review specialist. Appeals from the staff will be directed to the planning commission. Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every twenty (20) feet and have a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter when measured twelve (12) inches from the ground at time of planting. Where a developer demonstrates that this requirement will constitute an undue hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way may consist of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances only, a half-berm shall be constructed which is a minimum of three (3) feet in height with tree plantings as required herein; provided however, that this provision may only be applied to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the highway frontage affected in the plans submitted. the front yard landscape area. Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. Where such yards abut a street right-of- way, a fifteen-foot landscaped strip shall be required adjacent to land zoned office and residential. A seven-foot landscaped strip shall be required when adjacent to lands zoned commercial. The rear yard shall have a minimum landscape strip adjacent to the access easement of nine (9) feet, consistent with landscaping strips provided in similar type situations. Along the western perimeter, where adjacent to a street right of way, a minimum fifteen (15) foot landscape strip will be provided due to the office zoning located across the right of way of Ranch Drive. Signage. Signage shall comply with the provisions of Article X of Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as follows: Building signage will comply with signage allowed in Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 10 Commercial development signage. Signage identifying the commercial development shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and one hundred (100) square feet in area. All signs that are ground- mounted shall be of a monument type design. These signs may be installed in the landscaped area of the front and side yards. Commercial building signage. Each separate commercial building will be allowed a single monument ground- mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the commercial development. The sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. The development is proposed with a single ground mounted monument style sign located within the front yard landscape area. The sign will be a maximum of six feet in height and a maximum sign area of seventy-two square feet. The development will utilize electronic signage. Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut closer to an intersection than one hundred (100) feet. The development will utilize an existing curb cut from Cantrell Road. This curb cut is a service and access easement serving additional lots within this commercial development. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance preserved in this corridor. Lighting should be directed to the parking areas and not reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods. Lighting shall comply with the DOD standards. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods. Building sites. The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows: One (1) building every two (2) acres. The site contains 1.67 acres. There is one building proposed on this tract. Commercial developments and multiple building sites. In the case of a commercial development or other development involving multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the above described regulations shall apply to the A single building is proposed on this site. The Ranch Development has been developing with commercial and office uses through a unified development plan established by the previous zoning. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 11 development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Developments of this type shall be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process which illustrates compliance with this article. Property, due to topography, size, irregular shapes or other constraints, such as adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility, and thus cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. The request is to rezone the property from PD-O to PD-C to allow the construction of a new USA Drug Store. The development is proposed as a PD-C due to the existing lot size. Staff is generally supportive of the request. The development of the site is indicated as meeting the spirit and intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff feels the developers have done an adequate job in addressing the items regulated within the Overlay. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff is not however supportive of allowing the development to utilize electronic signage. Although there have been a number of electronic signs approved along the Corridor, staff does not feel the placement of electronic signage on the Corridor preserves the scenic beauty as intended in the Highway 10 DOD. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested on June 4, 2009, the item be deferred to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 12 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to the application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to not support the applicant’s request to allow electronic signage for this development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating on July 20, 2009, the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for a waiver of the By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to the application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to not support the applicant’s request to allow electronic signage for this development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated August 25, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the Commission’s By-laws typically allowed for two (2) deferrals without a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws to September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A 13 allow for an additional deferral. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the number of deferrals previously approved. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the By-law waiver regarding the number of previously approved deferrals. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-46-JJ NAME: Lot 134R Overlook Park Addition Replat LOCATION: Located at 27 Overlook Circle DEVELOPER: Jerry and Stephanie Atchley 27 Overlook Circle Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: Laha Engineers, Inc. 6602 Baseline Road, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72209 ARCHTECT: HOMS, Inc. 409 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 AREA: 1.73 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is seeking approval of a lot split for this 1.73-acre (75,420 square foot) lot located in the Overlook Park Subdivision. The first lot will contain the existing residence and drive access from Overlook Circle. This lot will have 38,420 square feet of land from the original 75,420 square feet. The second lot will have the remaining 37,000 square feet of the original lot. The drive access is proposed from Overlook Drive along the north property line. This area is currently platted with a 10 foot no vehicle access along Overlook Drive. The applicant is requesting the removal of the restrictive access easement to allow a September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ 2 25-foot single drive within the area. The remainder of the restrictive access easement will remain in place. The applicant has provided the Bill of Assurance for Lots 134 and 135 of the Overlook Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, which states vehicular access to any lot from Overlook Drive, shall be prohibited. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Overlook Circle is a two lane street with curb and gutter. There is no sidewalk in place along the property frontage. The area proposed for the second lot is adjacent to Overlook Drive. There are no sidewalks on this portion of Overlook Drive. The area does have curb and gutter in place. This area of the lot slopes upward from Overlook Drive quite significantly. There are single-family homes located in the immediate area to the south, west and east. The Arkansas River, the Lock and Dam and the Big Dam Bridge are located to the north of the property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners. All abutting property owners and the Overlook Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Due to the steep running slope of Overlook Drive, the proposed driveway would create unsafe driving conditions. No other driveway accesses the downhill traffic flow lane on Overlook Drive in this area. Compared to being on the north side of Overlook Drive, the downhill traffic flow of the street creates high speeds, excessive vehicle breaking for turn movements, and steep transition from the street to the driveway. 2. A 10 foot wide no vehicle access easement is located along Overlook Drive in this area. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ 3 Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009) Mr. Troy Laha and Mr. Andrew McCaley were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed plat stating there was a concern with the placement of a drive on Overlook Drive. Staff stated there were no drives located on the south side of Overlook Drive. Staff stated the traffic flow was downhill which typically increased speeds of motorist and could created safety issues. Staff requested Mr. Laha provide distances for the drive and provide a drawing of the driveway design to staff to review to determine if their concerns could be addressed. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the issues and concerns raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided a sketch of the proposed driveway as requested by staff. Staff is agreeable to allowing access and the removal of the 10-foot restrictive access easement along Overlook Drive provided the drive is constructed with the first 20 feet from the curb having a centerline grade of near 0 percent and the remainder to the right-of-way line not exceeding 14 percent. The driveway will be September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ 4 constructed with a 20 foot curb radius. Trees within the right-of-way may be required to be removed by applicant if sight distance is not sufficient. The applicant must contact Public Works prior to the removal of any trees in the public right-of-way. The request is to allow a lot split for this 1.73-acre (75,420 square foot) lot located in the Overlook Park Subdivision. The first lot will contain the existing residence and drive access from Overlook Circle. The lot will contain 38,420 square feet. The second lot will have the remaining 37,000 square feet of the original lot with the drive access from Overlook Drive along the north property line. This area is currently platted with a 10 foot no vehicle access along Overlook Drive. The applicant is requesting the removal of the restrictive access easement to allow a 25-foot single drive within the area. The remainder of the restrictive access easement will remain in place. The applicant has provided the Bill of Assurance for Lots 134 and 135 of the Overlook Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, which states vehicular access to any lot from Overlook Drive, shall be prohibited. Section 4 of the Bill of Assurance states no lot shall be subdivided without the written consent of the Allotter and the Little Rock Planning Commission. Section 27 of the Bill of Assurance states any and all of the covenants, provisions or restrictions set forth in the Bill of Assurance may be amended, modified, extended, changed or canceled in whole or in part by a written instrument signed and acknowledged by the owner or owners of over 50 percent in area of the land in this addition, including lands adjacent to any platted parts of this addition, owned by the Allotter, and included in the overall preliminary plat of the addition filed with the Little Rock Planning Commission; provided, any such amendment shall be subject to approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission and Arkansas Power and Light Company Although there are issues with the Bill of Assurance concerning the proposed replatting of the property the City typically does not get involved in Bill of Assurance issues. The replat as proposed allows lot areas sufficient to meet the typical standards of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. Public Works staff has indicated they are supportive of allow a drive to access the second lot from Overlook Drive. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of allowing access and the removal of the 10-foot restrictive access easement along Overlook Drive provided the drive is September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ 5 constructed with the first 20 feet from the curb having a centerline grade of near 0 percent and the remainder to the right-of-way line not exceeding 14 percent. The driveway must be constructed with a 20 foot curb radius. Trees within the right-of-way may require removal by applicant if sight distance is not sufficient. The applicant must contact Public Works prior to the removal of any trees in the public right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide proper notification to the abutting property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Troy Laha). STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to support the request subject to the comments and conditions noted above. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating there were issues related to the Bill of Assurance which had been raised and staff needed additional time to review the issues raised. Staff requested the item be deferred to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: S-1633 NAME: Covenant Keepers Charter School Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 8300 Geyer Springs Road DEVELOPER: Covenant Keepers Charter School 8300 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.367 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 - Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.03 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant failed to provide proper notification to property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide proper notification to property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1633 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Billy Rouse). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant requested on August 24, 2009, this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a requested on August 24, 2009, requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-6323-M NAME: Lot 7 the Village at Rahling Road Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Deltic Timber Corporation #7 Chenal Club Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-2, Shopping Center District Uses PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: C-2, Shopping Center District Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,542 which established The Village at Rahling Road Long-form PCD. The PCD established a 14-lot development with C-2, Shopping Center District uses being permitted. The initial action approved a site plan for Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots would be brought to the Commission and Board of Directors for a revision to the PCD on an individual lot basis as a particular development was proposed. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project contains approximately 1.7 acres and is located near the southeast corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway. The developer is proposing to construct a small strip center utilizing C-2, Shopping Center District uses as allowable uses. The site plan includes the placement of an outdoor deck for dining. The building is proposed containing 16,140 square feet and the deck is proposed containing 1,760 square feet. 77 parking spaces are indicated on the site plan. The hours of operation are proposed from 6:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per week. Signage is proposed to meet the City of Little Rock ordinances and the Architectural Design Elements of the Village at Rahling Road Subdivision. The maximum building height proposed is 35-feet. The applicant is proposing a new drive from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway. The drive is proposed with 36-feet of pavement and is proposed to connect Chenal Parkway at an existing traffic signal serving the Promenade at Chenal Shopping Center. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place. The property was cleared and graded with initial development of the conceptual PCD for the Village at Rahling Road. Access to the lot proposed for development is via Rahling Circle, off of Rahling Road. Smaller office buildings are located adjacent to the site proposed for development situated around Rahling Circle. There is a larger building located near Rahling Road constructed as a multiuse building through the original approval of the PCD. The Promenade at Chenal, a new shopping mall, has recently been constructed across Chenal Parkway. Rahling Circle has been constructed as a private drive. There are sidewalks in place along the property frontage. Chenal Parkway is constructed as a four-lane median divided roadway. There are no sidewalks in place along the frontage of this property on the parkway. There is a traffic light located at Chenal Parkway and the proposed new drive extending from Rahling Circle. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bascom Place Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 3 Association, the Margeaux Property Owners Association and the Witry Court Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed south driveway should be removed. In the subdivision, every two (2) lots share one (1) driveway. This particular lot has 2 driveways proposed. The existing driveways spacing in the subdivision is 240 feet and 120 feet. The proposed south driveway is only 55 feet from the closest driveway to the south. 2. In accordance with Section 31-210 (h)(12), access driveways running parallel to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 75 feet of the curb line of the street. When Lot 6 develops, a four-way intersection will be created similar to the other lots in the subdivision. 3. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Chenal Parkway to the existing sidewalk in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along both sides of the driveway in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 6. A left turn in from Chenal Parkway cannot be allowed into the proposed driveway. A left turn out of the driveway cannot be allowed onto Chenal Parkway. Contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineering, for additional information at 379-1818. 7. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. Provide the proposed centerline grades periodically of the access easement drive. 11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 4 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 13. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 14. The access easement should have a width of 60 feet and the drive constructed with the minimum width of 31 feet from back of curb to back of curb. The maximum allowed centerline grade is twelve (12) percent. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 5 Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. Rahling Road is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Rahling Circle is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non- residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is planned along Chenal Parkway. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. Before a landscape permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. 2. An irrigation system is required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 3. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. 5. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 6 interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 6. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 7. Street buffers are required in all instances. The street buffer along Rahling Circle and Chenal Parkway must average 23.22 feet in width and in no case less than one-half or 11.6 feet. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the development. Staff presented the item stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the basic infrastructure was in place with the development of the Villages at Rahling Road. Staff stated the site plan indicated the placement of the proposed dumpster within the front yard setback along Rahling Circle. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide a detailed sketch of the proposed dumpster screening mechanism. Staff questioned if the building proposed would have two fronts. Staff stated the Village at Rahling Road development plan indicated buildings were to be constructed with a 13-foot setback from the curb and a minimum of fifty percent of the buildings were to front the loop drive. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated in the existing development the developments shared drives and the drives were placed approximately 120 and 240 feet apart. Staff stated the drive indicated was 55 feet from the closest driveway to the south. Staff stated drives running parallel to the street could not create a four-way intersection within 75-feet of the curb line of the street. Staff stated the driveway extending from Chenal Parkway to Rahling Road would not be allowed left turns out or left turn in from southbound Chenal Parkway. Mr. Daters stated Mr. Ernie Peters had prepared a traffic assessment for the intersection and would meet with Traffic Engineering to address their concerns. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the development would require the submission of a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 7 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan has relocated the dumpster away from the front building setback and has removed the driveway located on Rahling Circle. The development is proposed with the front facing Rahling Circle with parking located within the front yard area. According to the development plan provided to staff with the filing of the original conceptual PCD all buildings are to be constructed within 13 feet of the back of curb of the loop street and at least 50% of the buildings are to face the loop street. The development is proposed as a strip center containing 16,140 square feet of building area and 1,760 square feet of covered deck area. The proposed uses of the building are C-2, Shopping Center District uses. The parking indicated on the plan is 78 spaces. Based on the typical parking required for a mixed use development a total of 79 spaces would typically be required. The development has been constructed with parallel spaces on the street and a centralized parking area to serve the users. Staff feels with the available parking the parking indicated is adequate to serve the proposed use and will not impact the remainder of the development. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 2:00 pm seven days per week. All signage is to comply with the Chenal Architectural Design Elements for the Village at Rahling Road and City ordinance. The site plan indicates a maximum ground mounted sign height of six feet and a total sign area not to exceed forty square feet. Building signage will not exceed signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. The building is proposed with a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet. All site lighting will be low level and directed downward and into the site and away from adjacent properties. The developers have indicated the placement of a 60-foot driveway and utility easement extending from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway. The easement is proposed to be recorded in conjunction with the final platting of Lot 7 referencing the drive as shared. The drive is proposed to connect on Chenal Parkway at an existing traffic light serving the Promenade at Chenal Shopping Center. Lot 7 is indicated with two access points on the shared drive. The drive has not been redesigned as requested by Public Works staff to eliminate the potential future traffic conflicting traffic movements. Staff also has concerns with the drive proposed extending from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway. The developers have indicated a traffic analysis has been completed but the information has not September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M 8 been provided to the City’s Traffic Engineering Department. Staff feels there are too many outstanding issues for the item to move forward as proposed. Staff feels the issues concerning the placement of parking within the front yard area and the driveway locations and configurations should be addressed prior to staff providing a positive recommendation. Based on the development as currently presented staff cannot support the development. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating on July 17, 2009, the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has not been any additional information provided concerning this request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend denial of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated August 28, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: Z-8470 NAME: Ramirez Short-form PCD LOCATION: 3723 West 98th Street DEVELOPER: Jose Able Ramirez 3723 West 98th Street Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Hope Engineering 322 North Market Street Benton, AR 72015 AREA: 2.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and Non-conforming Commercial Automotive Repair ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Automotive Repair PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Manufactured Homes, Automotive Body Repair VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property located at 3723 West 98th Street to recognize existing uses. The property has a non-conforming status to allow the uses as exist today. The property currently contains eight (8) mobile homes fronting 98th Street, a pre-existing commercial building and a storage building. The commercial building sits on the property facing Hilaro Springs Road and is operating as an automotive body repair shop. The building is 30-feet by 57-feet containing 1,710 square feet. The storage building is located along the southern perimeter of the site and is approximately 50-feet by 30-feet and will be used to store building materials from the owner’s job sites. A 15-feet September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 2 by 30-feet addition was recently added to the storage building resulting in an additional 450 square feet of space. The owner did not secure permits to allow the addition. The site is currently under enforcement for the addition. The automotive body repair shop will operate from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Saturday. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains eight (8) mobile homes, an auto body repair shop and a new building constructed along the southern property line constructed with overhead garage doors. There are a number of vehicles located outside the auto body repair shop in various states of disrepair. There is a gated entrance and a screening fence located along Hilaro Springs Road adjacent to the auto repair activity. West of the site are a number of manufactured homes. North of the site are site built single-family homes. East, across Hilaro Springs Road, are single-family homes and an undeveloped wooded area. Hilaro Springs Road is a two lane road with no sidewalk and open ditches for drainage. West 98th Street is a substandard chip-seal roadway with no sidewalk and open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Hilaro Springs Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that West 98th Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Hilaro Springs Road and West 98th Street. 4. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Hilaro September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 3 Springs Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 29.5 feet from centerline. 5. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to W. 98th Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 15.5 feet from centerline. 6. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct improvements to the Hilaro Springs Rd and West 98th Street intersection with the planned development. West 98th Street should be realigned to connect with Hilaro Springs Road at a 90 degree angle. 7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 8. If the building on the south property line is new, the stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 10. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 11. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for the private improvements located in the right-of-way. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 4 hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to recognize an existing mobile home and commercial development. Since the request is to recognize an existing condition and does not propose to add or change use, no change to the Land Use Plan is proposed. Master Street Plan: Hilaro Springs is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Hilaro Springs since it is a Minor Arterial. West 98th Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes planned for the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood and Housing Revitalization Goal states: “Preserve residential quality of neighborhood--no daycares, cottage industries, etc.” Landscape: 1. All vehicular use areas will require landscaping at the time a building permit is issued to rehabilitate the site if the rehabilitation on the property exceeding fifty (50) percent of the current replacement cost. At such time fifty (50) September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 5 percent of the existing vehicular use area must be brought into compliance with the landscape ordinance requirements and must continue to full compliance on a graduated scale based upon the percentage of rehabilitation cost. Any new paved area and/or vehicular use areas are required to comply with the typical landscape ordinance requirements. 2. Commercial uses must provide buffers where abutting any use or zoning except office, commercial or industrial. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide a land use buffer(s) as follows: Side property lines at six (6) percent of the average width of the lot on both sides; Rear property lines at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot; The minimum dimension is nine (9) feet in all instances; The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet in all instances. 3. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide street buffers as follows: All street property lines at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot; The minimum dimension must be one-half (1/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were a few outstanding technical issues in need of addressing prior to the item being forwarded to the full Commission for final action. Staff questioned the length of time the auto repair business had been operating from the site. Mr. Ramirez stated he purchased the property a year ago and the business was in operation at that time. Staff questioned the improvements completed to the existing building. Mr. Ramirez stated he had increased the southern building with a very small addition approximately 25 feet wide and the length of the building. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street improvements to Hilaro Springs Road and West 98th Street were required with the approval of the rezoning request. Staff stated it was possible for the City to grant a hardship if the cost of street construction exceeded the cost of the improvements. Staff stated a cost estimate prepared by an engineer for the street construction was required to allow the City to determine if the hardship was applicable. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all new vehicular use areas would require landscaping in compliance with Chapter 15 or the City’s landscape ordinance. Staff also stated land use and street buffers were required with any redevelopment of the site. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 6 Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has provided staff with additional information addressing concerns raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The additional information includes an engineering analysis outlining the street construction cost as requested by staff to determine if a financial hardship exist regarding the required street improvements. Section 30-284 regarding financial hardship states projects other than subdivisions may require off-street improvements that constitute a substantial portion of total project cost. The public works department may determine that a project involves a financial hardship and require an in-lieu cash contribution not to exceed fifteen (15) percent of the estimated total development cost. The engineers estimate indicates the boundary street improvements are in excess of $179,500.000. The allowance of the fifteen percent cash contribution based on the engineers estimate is $26,968.50. The site is currently zoned R-2, Single-family and was developed prior to the City annexing the site. The site has a history of residential and non-residential uses and was allowed a non-conforming status as it existed at the time of annexation. Section 36-151 outlines the purpose of nonconformities and exceptions to allow nonconformities. The ordinance states the section is to establish regulations and limitations for exceptions to the continued existence of uses, lots and structures which were established prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance which do not conform to the provisions of Chapter 36. Such nonconformities may continue, but the provisions of the division are designed to curtail enlargement or expansion of such nonconformities and to encourage their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of the zoning districts and the regulations by Chapter 36. The ordinance states any nonconforming use, structure or lot which legally existed prior to the adoption of this section of the zoning ordinance or any use, structure or lot which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of Chapter 36 may continue to be utilized in the same fashion as existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Any conforming use, structure or lot legally existing under the provisions shall not be rendered nonconforming by action of the city, county, or state of Arkansas in the acquisition of property for street or drainage right-of-way. The ordinance also states if an application is made for rezoning, the applicant must submit a planned development unless agreeing to satisfy building setbacks September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 7 and needed right-of-way to current City ordinance and the Master Street Plan standards. The ordinance states a nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded, enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or land area other than that occupied by such nonconforming use on the effective date of the ordinance, or any amendment which causes such use to become nonconforming and any nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered; provided, however, that no such enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall either create an additional nonconformity or increase the degree of the existing nonconformity of all or any part of such structure. The site is not proposed with signage but staff would recommend if signage is proposed and allowed signage be limited to signage allowed in office and institutional zones. Staff feels the allowance of a ground sign six (6) feet in height and sixty-four (64) square feet in area for the commercial aspect of the development is sufficient to identify the uses. There is to be no signage on West 98th Street on the portion of the site occupied by the manufactured homes. The request is to recognize the existing uses on the site and allow the building expansion made to the southern building to remain. The property currently contains eight (8) mobile homes fronting West 98th Street, a pre-existing commercial building and a storage building used by the owner as storage for materials related to his contracting business. There are no changes proposed to the manufactured homes. The applicant requests in the future upgrades to the manufactured homes be allowed. The storage building is located along the southern perimeter of the site and is approximately 50-feet by 30-feet and will be used to store building materials from the owner’s job sites. A 15-feet by 30-feet addition was recently added to the storage building resulting in an additional 450 square feet of space. The owner did not secure permits to allow the addition. The site is currently under enforcement for the addition. The commercial building sits facing Hilaro Springs Road and is operating as an automotive body repair shop. The building is 30-feet by 57-feet containing 1,710 square feet. The automotive body repair shop will operate from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Saturday. Staff is supportive of allowing the site to continue to operate with the hours of operation indicated above and limiting the approved uses to those identified in this write-up. Staff supports the expansion of the storage building as currently constructed and the allowance of the issuance of the final certificate of September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 8 occupancy for the building subject to the applicant receiving all necessary permits from the City and payment of all filing fees associated with the building permit to the City. Based on the construction cost estimates staff is supportive of allowing the payment of an in-lieu contribution of fifteen (15) percent for the required street development cost. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined is paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. 2. There is to be no storage of inoperable or wrecked vehicles on the site. 3. There is to be no outside storage of vehicle parts, materials or equipment. 4. All uses must take place within the enclosed building. 5. A six foot opaque screen must be installed along the western perimeter of the entire site, where adjacent to residentially zoned or used property Staff recommends payment of an in-lieu contribution for the required street construction at a rate of fifteen percent of the total development cost. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to respond to comment raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating they had concerns with portions of the application request and requested the item be deferred to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470 9 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: Z-8471 NAME: Young Short-form PD-R LOCATION: 712 Ash Street DEVELOPER: Carol Young 712 Ash Street Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR: Brooks Surveying, Inc. 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District ALLOWED USES: High-density residential uses at a density of thirty-six units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Rear Yard Garage - Variation from the Hillcrest Design Overlay District to allow an increased percentage of rear yard lot coverage VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the establishment of a PD-R to allow the extension of a garage roof to cover a two-car parking pad located in the rear of the existing home. The pad measures 21.8 feet by 23 feet. The applicant intends to demolish the existing garage located off the alley at 712 Ash Street and construct a new two (2) door, side-entry garage, using the same footprint, 20’2” x 21’8”. The structure will be constructed with a five foot setback from the alley. The entire roof will result in approximately 950 square feet of covered space. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471 2 The new structure will be constructed with a raised roof pitch, using three tab singles and the sheath of the garage will be with horizontal siding, much more in keeping with the residence on the property. The request is for a variation from Section 36-434.14(C). According to the Hillcrest Design Overlay within the rear-lot twenty-five foot setback from the rear property line accessory building coverage shall be no more than forty (40) percent of the area in that section. The new garage structure is proposed containing approximately 950 square feet. Without the approval of a variation, the Overlay would allow a structure containing approximately 500 square feet. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The home is located mid-block on Ash Street with a walk extending to the house from Ash Street. This area of Hillcrest contains a number of single-family, duplex and multi-family structures. The alley located behind the residences is a functioning alley with a number of the residences on Ash and Beachwood Streets parking off the alley. The rear yard currently contains a garage structure and a two car parking pad. The property to the north also contains an accessory structure located off the alley as does a property further north and one to the south. Across the alley is a property zoned PD-R which was approved to allow the construction of a garage apartment. South of these properties are the non-residential uses located along Kavanaugh Boulevard. At the end of the alley is a restaurant and an auto repair shop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471 3 Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. CATA Bus Route #1 – Pulaski Heights Route is located to the south of the site along Kavanaugh Boulevard. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential High Density for this property. The request does not change the use of the property, no change to the Land Use Plan is proposed. Master Street Plan: Ash Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is planned along Kavanaugh Boulevard. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan. Their Housing Goal states: “Pursue establishing an overlay district that protects the eclectic architectural character of the Hillcrest Neighborhood without imposing unreasonable restrictions on property owners' rights to remodel of otherwise alter their property.” This PDR application is a direct result of the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Landscape: No comment. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were no outstanding technical issues in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. The Commissioners encouraged the applicant to contact the Hillcrest Residents Association and inform the association of her request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting in need of addressing with a revision to the site plan. The request is a rezoning and the establishment of a PD-R to allow the extension of a garage roof to cover a two-car parking pad located in the rear of this existing home. The site plan indicates the existing garage located off the alley will be demolished and the new construction involves a new two (2) door, side-entry garage, using the same footprint, 20’2” x 21’8” and extending the roof of the new garage over an existing two car parking pad located with a five foot setback from the alley. The existing garage is constructed of sheet plywood and a flat roof. The new structure will be constructed with a raised roof pitch, using three tab singles and the sheath of the garage will be with horizontal siding, much more in keeping with the residence on the property. The site is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District which addresses a number of issues including rear yard lot coverage. Section 36-434.14(C) states within the rear-lot twenty-five foot setback from the rear property line accessory building coverage shall be no more than forty (40) percent of the area in that section. The structure is located approximately five (5) feet from the alley. As currently constructed the structure contains approximately 500 square feet and the two car parking pad located to the south of the garage is uncovered. The new structure is proposed containing approximately 942 square feet and allows replacement of the existing garage and covering the two car parking pad. Based on the structure as proposed the area of rear yard coverage is 69 percent. As stated the Hillcrest Design Overlay District allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 40 percent. If for any reason the DOD cannot be adhered to the applicant must seek a rezoning to a planned zoning district with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the structure is proposed in excess of the typical overlay standard the southern portion of the structure will remain open September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471 5 allowing for the visual effect of breaking the massing. There are similar situations located in the area with garages and garage apartments located off the alleys. Staff does not feel the garage as proposed will impact the site or the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated July 15, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the September 3, 3009, public hearing to allow additional time to meet with the Hillcrest Residents Association. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up. Staff has received a letter of support from the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. Staff continues to support the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: LA-0027 NAME: Valley Heights Land Alteration Retaining Wall Variance Request LOCATION: 6900 Cantrell Road APPLICANT: Valley Heights Apartments II Limited Partnership APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: David Henry CURRENT ZONING: R5 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: An appeal request of the corrective action of a Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2009 requiring removal of the wall or some less minor modifications to comply with the Land Alteration Regulations. A variance request to exceed the maximum retaining wall height, maximum slope, and install alternative landscaping as found in Sec. 29-190 of the Land Alteration Regulations. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the corrective action of a Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2009 requiring removal of the wall or some less minor modifications to comply with the Land Alteration Regulations. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to exceed the maximum retaining wall height, maximum slope, and install alternative landscaping as found in Sec. 29-190. The retaining wall is located on the southwest corner of Valley Heights Apartments at 6900 Cantrell Road. The retaining wall was installed during the construction of a new 3 story apartment building. The certificate of occupancy is being held until the issue is resolved to the City’s satisfaction. The retaining wall is out of compliance with the Land Alteration Regulations in the following way: 1. The wall is a total of 33 feet tall. The maximum allowable height of the entire terraced wall is 30 feet with 1 to 2 terraces. Each wall cannot exceed 15 feet in height; 2. The horizontal terrace bench of the wall is about 4.0 feet wide. The minimum allowable width of the horizontal terrace bench is 10 feet for two (2) 15 foot retaining walls; 3. Trees are not planted on the horizontal terrace bench of the wall. The Land Alteration Regulations require 2 rows of evergreen trees to be planted 5 feet between the rows and each tree staggered 15 feet apart. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject property is located on the north side of Cantrell Road just west of N. Hughes Street. The subject property is zoned R5. R2 zoned properties are located to the north. C3 zoned properties are located to the west. One of those properties is the Blackmon Chiropractic Clinic. To the south is Cantrell Road. Further to the south across Cantrell Road are C3 zoned properties such as Stein Mart, restaurants, and others. To the east are condominiums and apartments zoned R5. The retaining wall is only visible from within the property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Certified mail notices were sent by the applicant to neighboring properties as per ordinance requirements. As of this writing, staff has received various communications from Dr. Chris Blackmon, an adjacent property owner, stating concerns pertaining to the stability of the retaining wall. A phone call was also received from Gary Simmons of the Kingwood Neighborhood Association requesting a general explanation of the violations and other pertinent information. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Retaining wall design plans prepared by a registered professional engineer have been provided to staff for review. Provide a letter prepared by a registered professional engineer certifying the retaining wall as constructed, not as designed, meets or exceeds necessary safety and stability factors for walls of this type. 2. The design drawings submitted to civil for review does not appear to match what was constructed at the site. Submit in written and electronic form an as-built plan showing: a. the top and toe of the wall; b. edge of excavation; c. edge of clearing; d. corresponding stationing as shown on the design plans; and e. the dimensions of the highest course of the geogrid mats for all walls in the southwest portion of the property. E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. The site is more than 2 acres in size; therefore, any/all landscape plans should be stamped by a Registered Landscape Architect from the State of Arkansas. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 3 2. Any/all newly planted landscaping must have an automatic irrigation system installed. 3. Due to the abnormality of the size and structure of the wall landscaping should included evergreen vegetation growing up the retaining walls, growing down the retaining walls, and include trees and/or large shrubs on the benches of the walls; within the limits of the structural capacity. (to be determined by your landscape architect). 4. Any/all disturbed areas about the wall or below the wall are to be re-established with vegetation to discourage run-off and/or erosion of the area(s). F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (April 8, 2009) Bruce Tidwell of Friday, Eldredge, and Clark and John Johnson of Henry Construction were present representing the applicant. Staff stated the comments as written above. Mr. Tidwell asked questions pertaining to the specifics of the certification and the as-built drawing. Jeff Yates told the applicant’s representatives to meet with staff and work thru the comments. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. G. ANALYSIS: About half of the approximately 733 linear feet of retaining wall is out of compliance with the Land Alteration Regulation in at least two of the items listed below. The retaining wall is only visible from within the property. At the closest point, the newly constructed apartment building is located 6 inches from the retaining wall. Issues have been raised about the stability of the retaining walls. It is believed the anchoring geogrid mats were not installed at the lengths specified in the design plans. The retaining walls are out of compliance with the Land Alteration Regulations in the following ways: 1. The walls are a total of 33 feet tall. The maximum allowable height of the entire terraced wall is 30 feet with 1 to 2 terraces. Each wall cannot exceed 15 feet in height; 2. The horizontal terrace bench of the wall is about 4.0 feet wide. The minimum allowable width of the horizontal terrace bench is 10 feet for two (2) 15 foot retaining wall; September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 4 3. Trees are not planted on the horizontal terrace bench of the wall. The Land Alteration Regulations require 2 rows of evergreen trees to be planted 5 feet between the rows and each tree staggered 15 feet apart. The certificate of occupancy is being held until the noncompliance issues are resolved to the City’s satisfaction. During staff’s building permit review process, the retaining walls shown on the grading and drainage plan was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the Land Alteration Regulations. However, the structural design drawings were not submitted to staff as required by code. At some point, the wall design was then modified from the original configuration, however, plans were not submitted to staff for review. Further along in the construction process, the design plans were again revised and again not submitted to staff for review. In summary, a total of three (3) design plans were prepared for the walls and only the original set of plans were submitted to staff for review prior to construction. Staff has received an as-built drawing of the wall prepared by a licensed surveyor. The wall shows to be constructed about 2.5 feet shorter than shown on the design plans. The lower wall is about 14.5 feet tall with a horizontal terrace of about 4 feet wide. The upper wall above the horizontal terrace is about 18.67 ft tall for a length of about 35 feet. The width requirement of the horizontal terrace is required for aesthetic purposes to provide a flat area for planting evergreen trees. It is not for structural purposes. The as-built drawing also showed the anchoring geogrid mats are shorter than shown on the design plans. Based on the as-built drawing and visual inspection, the registered engineer who designed the wall submitted to staff a certification of the stability of the wall. He stated, “The overall upper wall stability meets or exceeds the factors of safety used in the original design.” He also stated, “The wall should continue to perform in accordance with the standards or practice adequately over the long term.” With the certification letter, the engineer also provided engineering analysis assuming the existing conditions of the wall. The analysis shows the strengths of the wall are twice the required factor of safety design strengths for sliding and overturning. The wall also exceeds 10 times the required factor of safety design strength for bearing capacity. The engineer observed visually the retaining wall and did not observe any wall face movement which he says would be indicative of improper geogrid placement. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 5 The retaining wall is only visible from within the property. At the time of writing, staff has not received a landscape plan but has met with a registered landscape architect and agreed on the landscaping to be provided. Staff will receive the landscape plan prior to the hearing for confirmation of the provided landscaping. Currently, the owner of the neighboring property to the southwest (Blackmon Chiropractic Clinic) and the applicant are in litigation pertaining to the retaining wall because during construction of the wall, it has been alleged that excavation occurred on the neighboring property and portions of the wall’s anchoring geogrid mats are installed on Dr. Blackmon’s property. The trespassing on the neighboring property is a civil matter which the City is not a party to. As a result of the lawsuit, if the anchoring geogrid mats are required to be removed the wall will have to be modified or maybe rebuilt. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has spent considerable time reviewing this application. Staff has several concerns about this variance. The original building permit plans provided to the City for approval were modified two (2) separate time after the building permit was issued and those changes were never resubmitted to staff for review. The original building permit plans complied with the Land Alteration Regulations. The two (2) revised plans did not. Staff is concerned that the engineers and contractor designed and built this wall not in conformance with the approved building permit plans. It was known the wall was not in conformance with Land Alteration Regulations but still did not modify the plans to comply with the regulations; did not bring the noncompliance issue to the attention of staff; and proceeded to finish the wall and construct the apartment building just inches away. Staff has concerns that the as-built drawing does not comply with any of the three (3) plans prepared by the engineer. Staff is concerned about the lack of documentation by the contractor during the construction process for such a huge liability like a large retaining wall built so close to an apartment building. The documentation of construction of retaining wall is an industry standard. Staff is concerned about the lack of planning by the engineer and the contractor in designing and building a wall with an apparent encroachment onto the adjacent property. Staff has concerns about the stability of the wall. While the engineer has provided an as-built certification that the wall stability exceeds all factors of safety, his opinion could only be formed by looking at portions of the wall system. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 6 In the engineer’s words, it would be impossible to look at the entire system without removal of the wall. If the wall slides, overturns or collapses, human safety and property damage are at risk. Staff recommends denial of the variance request. I. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 30, 2009, requesting deferral of the item to the May 28, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 28, 2009) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on May 13, 2009 requesting the item be deferred to the June 25, 2009 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 25, 2009 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 25, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the August 6, 2009 agenda to allow additional time to study the wall issue. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to August 6, 2009 by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 7 J. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 28, 2009) Since the original agenda date of this item on April 30, 2009, litigation pertaining to the retaining wall between Valley Heights Apartments and Blackmon Chiropractic Clinic has been resolved. The property where the geogrid mats encroached upon the Blackmon property has been acquired by Valley Heights Apartments and is no longer subject to the potential to be removed. A letter dated July 6, 2009 from James D. Rankin III, Attorney for the Blackmons, was received by staff stating all disputes have been resolved with Valley Heights Apartments and the Blackmons are withdrawing all previous objections to the Valley Heights Apartments’ retaining wall. The letter continued and stated the Blackmons are now in support of the Planning Commission granting the requested variance and the certificate of occupancy. No other telephone calls or letters have been received objecting to the variance request for the retaining wall. Staff currently has contracted with Terracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists to conduct a technical review of the file documents pertaining to stability of the retaining wall. This review will examine the stability calculations, assumptions, tension strengths, design plans, as-built plans, density test results, pictures, and field reconnaissance of the viewable parts of the wall. At time of writing, the final report of the technical review has not been completed for review by staff. The results of the report will be presented to the Planning Commission along with a staff recommendation prior to the hearing date. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 6, 2009) Staff requested deferral of this item to the September 3, 2009 meeting to allow additional time for a geotechnical study to be performed on the soils located behind the retaining wall. A review of all design plans, calculations, density tests, and photographs pertaining to the construction of the retaining wall have been conducted which raised several questions pertaining to the parameters used in the design calculations. The deferral was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: (AUGUST 27, 2009) Staff has requested the services of Terracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists for evaluation of the stability of the retaining wall system. At the time of writing, staff has continued to meet with the John Johnston of Henry Construction Management, Inc. and September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027 8 Sam Miller, P.E. the design engineer of the retaining wall. Additional information including soil parameters and reports of site the conditions has been provided to staff for review. At the time of the meeting, staff will continue to meet and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission pertaining to the approval of the variances for wall height and distance between the walls. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating a third party engineering review had been performed on the design of the existing retaining Wall No. 5. Staff stated based on the provided documents, the retaining wall foundation, reinforced backfill, and retained soil zones were excavated in shale bedrock with the shale bedrock exposed in the excavation to an elevation at least equal to the height of the wall. Staff stated data also indicated the angle of internal friction of the AHTD Class 7 aggregate base used as backfill exceeded the angle used in the wall design. Staff stated from this information along with the analysis of other soil and wall parameters, safety factors for the existing Wall No. 5 of at least 1.5 were met as required by the NCMA design guidelines and the International Commercial Building Code when considering internal stability based on the analysis performed by the design engineer of record. Staff stated with this being the case, they recommended approval of the variance request to exceed the maximum retaining wall height, maximum slope (terrace width), and installation of alternative landscaping as found in Section 29-190 of the Land Alteration Regulations. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1636 NAME: Heights Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located East of South Ridge Drive, just South of the Walton Heights Subdivision and North of Trinity Assembly of God Church DEVELOPER: Kenneth Shollmier 6000 Scott Hamilton Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: The Holloway Firm, Inc. Attn. Robert Holloway 200 Cassey Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 AREA: 16.43 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 30 + 1 Tract FT. NEW STREET: 1,276.63 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Section 31-202(a) – A variance to allow a street to terminate within fifty (50) feet of the property line. 2. Section 31-207(a) – A variance to allow the development of lots utilizing private streets. 3. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the area with the installation of the streets and basic infrastructure of the subdivision. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to allow the development of 16.43 acres with 30 single-family lots and one Tract to be held as a conservation easement with a nature trail. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 2 The request includes variances from the Subdivision Ordinance and a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the development area prior to final platting and the issuance of a building permit. The variances from the Subdivision Ordinance include development of lots with a private street and the allowance of ending the street within fifty feet (50’) of the property line. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded and appears to contain a significant slope from north to south. The site abuts the Walton Heights Subdivision to the north and to the south an area zoned Open Space. The site is adjacent to a City of Little Rock Fire Station, vacant property, an office building, a church and single-family homes located on large lots all in excess of five (5) acres accessed from River Mountain Road. Pleasant Ridge Towne Center is located across Cantrell Road from the site. The Center has developed with a number of retail and restaurant uses. Within the general area are a number of apartments, commercial and office uses all located to southeast and southwest of the site, across Cantrell Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from area property owners. All abutting property owners and the Walton Heights Candlewood Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. The applicant is requesting a variance to advance grade the lots with construction of the street. Provide the reasoning for the advanced grading variance request. 3. Per City code, private streets should be built to public street standards. Provide the profile of the proposed street showing centerline grade, sight distance, and horizontal radius of the centerline meets the Master Street Plan standard. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 3 4. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section 31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets. A minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street width of at least 27 feet from back of curb to back of back of curb is also required. Since the street is proposed to be 27 feet wide, parking will not be restricted within the subdivision. 5. The typical street detail of curb on only one side of the street does not conform to City standards. Provide the reason for proposed street detail and the proposed downstream and upstream side of the detail? A variance must be requested for the proposed street detail. 6. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the increased impervious area. 7. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the intersection complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 10. If gates are proposed to be installed at the entrance, turn around must be provided for a SU-30 vehicle attempting to enter the development. A stacking distance of 30 feet from the pavement of South Ridge Drive must also be provided. 11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 12. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 13. Streetlights are required by Little Rock code of ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 14. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. Ridge Drive is repetitive and very similar to an existing street names. 15. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 16. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 4 17. A note on the preliminary and final plats must indicate the streets and drainage as private within the subdivision. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project. Gravity sewer service required. Force main not acceptable for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Please submit plans for water facilities to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revision may be required after additional require. Contact Central Arkansas Waster regarding procedures for installation of water facilities. Approval of plans by Central Arkansas Water, the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required prior to final platting. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Section D107.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code states developments of one and two family dwellings where the number of dwellings units exceeds 30 must provide a separate and approved fire apparatus access road and must meet the minimum specifications for construction including a minimum pavement width of 26-feet where a fire hydrant is located on the fire apparatus road. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The site is located near CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. Parks and Recreation: The developer may want to consider donating Tract-A Conservancy Dedication to City in a Park Conservancy and Land Trust and zone it PR. One can expect a deduction in taxes with this donation. I recommend they discuss this with a knowledgeable attorney and if donation is desired contact Kellie Wilhite at 603-9900 to make arrangements. If developer concurs with this September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 5 proposal, then we would take responsibility for maintenance of trail and land as part of parks system under PR zoning. Parks and Recreation would also appreciate participating in locating the trail in Tract-A in order to enhance its function and enjoyment as well as coordinating it with future extension towards Arkansas River Trail. We have been visiting with neighborhood association to improve trail opportunities for the entire area from Conner Park to Arkansas River Trail. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Mark Redder of the Holloway Firm and Mr. Kenneth Shollmier were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed plat stating there were additional items in need of addressing prior to the plat being forwarded to the Commission for final action. Staff stated there were a number of variances proposed with the plat request. Mr. Redder stated the variances associated with setbacks would be eliminated. He stated the setbacks would comply with the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request included a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the future lots prior to the issuance of building permits for the new homes. Staff requested Mr. Redder provide a written justification for the request. Mr. Redder stated he would but in summary the request was necessary due to the grades of the property. Staff also stated the entry drives, if gated, would require a turn around for an SU-30 vehicle. Staff stated the site was proposed with thirty-three lots and according to the International Fire Code, developments with thirty lots or more require the placement of a separate fire apparatus access road. Staff suggested Mr. Redder contact the Fire Department for additional information and options. Staff noted the comment received from the Parks Department suggesting Mr. Shollmier and Mr. Redder contact Ms. Wilhite for additional information. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 6 There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plat indicates building setbacks consistent with the R-2, Single-family zoning district. Tract A contains 8.355 acres and is indicated as a Conservancy Dedication. The applicant has indicated negotiations will continue with the City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department and the National Conservancy to determine the entity the open space area will be dedicated to. The developer has reduced the number of lots to 30 to comply with the 2006 International Fire Code thus not requiring a secondary fire access road. The plat indicates the construction of a single cul-de-sac street extending from South Ridge Drive to the east for 1,276.63 feet. The street is proposed as a private street with 25 feet of pavement. The development is not proposed as a gated development. The development is proposed on 16.438 acres with 8.355 acres set aside for common useable open space. The development is proposed with 30 lots and one tract resulting in a density of 1.82. The average lot size proposed is 0.220 acres. The request includes variances from the Subdivision Ordinance and a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading within the lot areas prior to final platting and the issuance of a building permit. The applicant has indicated the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance is necessary to allow the site to balance. The applicant has indicated the new street will be constructed on a ridge and the advanced grading will allow a place to store the dirt during the construction process. The variances from the Subdivision Ordinance include development of lots with private streets and the allowance of ending a street within fifty feet of the property line. The Subdivision Ordinance states private streets for residential development shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved by the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards as specified in Chapter 31. Private streets are permissible only in the form of cul-de-sac and short loop streets and only when it has been determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public service vehicles. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 7 The Subdivision Ordinance also states where a street does not extend to the boundary of a subdivision, and its continuation is not necessary for access to adjoining property, its terminus shall not be closer than fifty (50) feet to such boundary. The applicant has indicated the cul-de-sac street located within ten feet of the property line. The preliminary plat indicates the placement of a retaining wall along the southern portion of the cul-de-sac at the east end. The height of the wall must comply with the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance. The design plans for the retaining wall must be submitted to staff and certified by a professional engineer prior to construction and as built plans must be provided to staff and certified by a professional engineer prior to final platting. Staff is supportive of the request. The development is a single-family subdivision with a density of 1.82 units per acre, well within the density allowed per the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Due to the terrain of the site, staff is supportive of the variance request to allow advanced grading of the lots with the placement of the infrastructure for the subdivision. Staff feels the applicant has done a good job in addressing concerns raised related to the development of the property for this residential subdivision. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow advanced grading of the individual lots with the placement of the basic infrastructure. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of the subdivision utilizing private streets and the variance request to allow the street to terminate within fifty (50) feet of the property line. The design plans for the retaining wall must be submitted to staff and certified by a professional engineer prior to construction and as built plans must be provided to staff and certified by a professional engineer prior to final platting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Mark Redder were present representing the request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat and the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 8 associated variances and the requested variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading on the site. Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the applicant. He stated the development was a special development. He stated the developer wanted to take advantage of the commercial in the area. He stated the lots were smaller lots and larger homes. He stated the developer wanted to be a good neighbor to adjoining property owner by leaving a large buffer between the existing homes and the new homes. He stated the entrance to the subdivision was located as far north as possible and the sight distance meet the requirements of the City. He stated the development would not be gated but the street would be constructed as a private street. Mr. Steve Reed, President of the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the City code only allowed for 30 homes to be placed on a cul-de-sac. He stated Walton Heights was the longest cul-de-sac with 465 homes presently located in the area. He stated he was aware the second access was removed by the City at the request of the neighborhood a number of years ago. He stated the subdivision was 15.5 times the maximum number of homes allowed on a cul-de-sac per the code. He stated the dramatic sloping sharp curve in Southridge Drive where the developer wanted to place access was the most dangerous traffic area in the neighborhood. He stated there had been a number accidents in this location over the years. He stated vehicles missed the sharp turn and also vehicles coming up the hill cut the curve entering the opposite travel lane. He stated residents had expressed skepticism regarding the location of the access and its compliance with AASHTO standards. Mr. Reed stated it was no secret the intersection of Southridge and Cantrell Road was one of the most traveled and congested intersections in the City. He stated because of the four traffic lights on Cantrell Road within such a short distance, it was not uncommon for morning traffic to be stopped and the intersection full of east bound traffic when Southridge finally was allowed it’s very brief green time it was impossible to enter the intersection. Mr. Reed stated the neighborhood felt based on the four concerns raised was a basis for the Commission to deny the request. He stated the development was purely a financial issue for the developer but to the 465 families within almost 1000 vehicles 1000 voters and 2000 residents this was a matter of safety consideration for the residents as well as the numerous visitors, school buses and delivery vehicles in the neighborhood. He requested the Commission enforce the City’s existing codes and require the developer access Cantrell Road in a different location. He stated the neighborhood understood the current access was the cheapest solution for the developer, but they felt the safety of all the thousands of residents and visitors was immeasurable more important. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 9 Mr. Reed also stated the retention ponds were indicated on the site plan with very little information. He questioned if the retention ponds would pollute the adjacent park areas. Mr. Steve Jennings addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he was opposed to the development and the addition traffic. He stated the access point created concern. He stated currently it was difficult to leave the subdivision in the morning and with the additional homes the traffic would only increase. Mr. Jim Pearsell addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home backed up to the area proposed for development. He stated presently his view was of trees and soon his view would be of roof tops. He stated the lots as proposed were out of character for the neighborhood. He stated he did not like the idea of the subdivision in this location. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated the concern was with traffic both on Southridge and Cantrell Road. He stated with the abandonment of the secondary access to the neighborhood there was a large volume of traffic existing the neighborhood at one exit. He stated there were discussions at the neighborhood meeting concerning how traffic could be relieved at the intersection of the subdivision and Cantrell Road. He stated the neighborhood wanted to send a message to the City who could then request from Metroplan who could then request of AHTD a study to review the problem area and suggest solutions to the congestion. Mr. Holloway addressed the Commission stating the access was located as far away from the curve as could be located. He stated the curve was signed 10 mph and the remainder of Southridge was signed 30 mph. He stated screening would be placed along the rear of lots along Southridge. He stated the green space proposed was 500 feet in the widest point. He stated by right the developer could develop the area left as a conservation easement but he did not desire to develop the site at the maximum density. He state the developer did not want to commit to joining the Walton Heights Property Owners Association but to leave this choice to the future homeowners. Mr. Mark Redder addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He stated almost one-half of the acreage was being dedicated to green space. He stated the speeds on Southridge needed to be addressed some other way other than not allowing access to the new subdivision. He stated there was no other access to this property other than Southridge. He stated the neighborhood could have a second access but elected to create the current situation of one way in and out of the subdivision. There was a general discussion of the Commission and why the Master Street Plan was amended to remove the second connection from the area. Staff stated a developer had applied to the City to develop some multi-family zoned property and construct the western access to Candlewood. Staff stated the neighborhood was not in support of allowing those people access to their neighborhood and the meet the wishes of the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636 10 residents the City removed the connection from the Master Street Plan and abandoned right of way to no longer physically allow the connection. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development, the speeds on Southridge, traffic congestion on Cantrell Road, and the sight distance of the entrance to the subdivision. Staff stated the sight distance provided was minimal but traffic engineering had reviewed the request and approved the location of the street. The Commission questioned the minimum lot size and the average lot size proposed within the subdivision. Mr. Redder stated the average lot size was one quarter of an acre or 9,000 square feet. The Commission questioned the sales projects for the development. Mr. Redder stated he was not sure but felt the lots would sell in a short period of time. A motion was made to approve the request as presented by staff including all staff comments and conditions. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1635 NAME: Big Red Convenience Store Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Pratt Road and Arch Street Pike DEVELOPER: Summerwood Partners, LLC 22461 I-30 Bryant, AR 72022 ENGINEER: Hurricane Valley Inc. Attn. Charles Best 1506 Prickett Road Bryant, AR 72022 ARCHITECT: Andrew Hicks Architect P.O. Box 25971 Little Rock, AR 72221 AREA: 4.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: Area Not Zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 28 – Arch Street South CENSUS TRACT: 40.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five (5) year deferral of the required street improvements to Pratt Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Subdivision Site Plan Review to allow the development of approximately 4 acres with a fuel center, convenience store and fast food. The site will contain three buildings: The main structure that houses the C-store and restaurant, a single bay automatic car wash and a fuel canopy with a maximum of six (6) fuel dispensers with up to twelve (12) fueling locations. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 2 The site plan indicates the placement of a driveway on Arch Street Pike as well as Pratt Road. The signage proposed is consistent with signage typically allowed in commercial zones of the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances for ground mounted signage. Building signage will not exceed ten (10) percent of the façade area. The request includes a deferral of the required street improvements to Pratt Road. The specific deferral request is for a period of five (5) years or until abutting development occurs, whichever occurs first. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is grass covered with a few trees located around the perimeter of the site. The site is relatively flat with a slight slope downward from west to east. Arch Street Pike is a State Highway constructed with curb and gutter. No sidewalk is located on Arch Street Pike along the property frontage. Pratt Road does not have curb, gutter or sidewalk in place along the property frontage. This area is developed with a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses. There is a mobile home park located to the east of the site which is to be removed if the site is developed as proposed. To the west of the site are single-family homes. North of the site is a used car sales business and a convenience store. To the southwest is a Splash Carwash and on the northern edge of this property is a two bay self-serve carwash which will also be removed if the site is developed as proposed. Across Pratt Road is a tire center and a strip center containing commercial and office uses. Across Arch Street Pike there are a number of businesses in converted residential structures including a boat repair shop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Arch Street Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Pratt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 3 dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. Where a principal arterial intersects a collector street, and additional 10 feet of right-of-way, measured from the centerline of the right-of-way shall be dedicated for a right turn lane. The additional right-of-way shall normally be 250 feet in length measured from the intersecting right-of-way. At such intersections, the intersecting right-of-way line shall normally have a radius of 75 to 100 feet. 3. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Arch Street Pike including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 29.5 feet from the existing centerline and the back of the sidewalk placed at the right-of-way line. 4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Pratt Road including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 18 feet from centerline. A right turn lane should be provided with a 11 foot lane width, 150 feet of stacking room, and a taper to the west side of the driveway. 5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan should be provided per Section 29-186 (e). The 15 inch diameter pipe under Pratt Road does not appear to be adequately sized for the developed condition. Provide expected run on and run off volumes during the developed conditions. 7. Per Section 29-102 an evaluation should be conducted on the basis of existing downstream development and any analysis of stormwater runoff with and without the proposed development. If the proposed development will cause of increase downstream flooding conditions, provisions to minimize such flooding conditions should be included in the design of the storm management improvements. Such provisions may include downstream improvements and/or detention of stormwater runoff and its regulated discharge to the downstream storm drainage system. 8. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 9. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. 10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 4 Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 12. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code of ordinances. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 13. Driveway widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveways must not exceed 36 feet. 14. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 15. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 16. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: The site is located outside the service boundary of the City of Little Rock Wastewater Utility. Provide certification approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed wastewater treatment system. Entergy: Easements are required. Contact Entergy for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZ a successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Arch Street Volunteer Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s). Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 5 Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer shall be required. Fire Department: Additional fire hydrant(s) are required. Contact the Arch Street Volunteer Fire Department, Tom Eckelkamp at 888-4162, for additional information. County Planning: (1.) Show name and address of the owner; (2.) Show source of title; (3.) Show surveyor’s seal; (4.) Provide vicinity map; (5.) Show water courses entering and leaving the property; (6.) Show names of abutting owners and subdivisions; (7.) Provide proof of water and sewer service; (8.) Provide proof of fire service; (9.) Provide drainage plans; (10.) Provide a 40’ building setback on Arch Street, Pratt Road, east behind the proposed store and on the north property line; (11.) Re-plat the property to eliminate the platted lot lines; (12.) Provide a $33.00 review fee; (13.) Dedicate and construct Pratt Road as a Class V urban collector (1/2 60’ R.O.W.) and Arch Street Pike as a Class III urban principal arterial (1/2 120’ R.O.W.). CATA: The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape ordinance requirements. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 6 2. Before a building permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. 3. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. The strip must be a minimum of six (6) percent of the average depth and/or six (6) percent of the average width of the property. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide and in no case exceed fifty (50) feet. 4. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 5. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 6. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 7. Landscape areas may be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the building or elsewhere on the site at the discretion of the responsible party. However, landscape areas must be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas must be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Andrew Hicks and Mr. Charlie Best were present representing the developer. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were a number of technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff requested the total square footage of the proposed uses be provided on the site plan. Staff also requested the total sign area proposed for building and ground signage. Staff stated the site was located outside the City limits and would not be allowed access to the City sewer September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 7 system. Staff requested an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed wastewater treatment system was required. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedication and street improvements were required on Arch Street Pike and Pratt Road. Mr. Best questioned if a deferral would be supported. Staff stated they would review a request for a deferral with the Director of Public Works and get back with the applicant. Staff questioned the plans for detention. Mr. Best stated he was aware stormwater would be a concern but had not as of yet determined the detention requirements. Staff noted the comment from the area volunteer fire department stating additional hydrants were required. Staff suggested Mr. Hicks contact the Chief to determine the number of hydrants required. Staff noted landscape comments. Staff stated perimeter strips were required where adjacent to paved areas. Staff stated interior landscape islands were required at eight percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve or more parking spaces. Staff stated a small amount of building landscaping was required. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates the total square footage of the proposed uses, the proposed signage plan and a note indicating approval from the Arkansas Department of Health will be secured prior to development of the property. The applicant has also met with Public Works staff concerning the timing of the required street improvements to the abutting streets. There are two parcels of property associated with the request. The applicant has indicated a lot recombination will be filed with staff at the time of development of the convenience store. The applicant is proposing to complete the required street improvements to Arch Street Pike abutting the lot proposed for development. The area abutting the lot proposed for future development will not be improved with the current application request. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required street September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 8 improvements to Pratt Road for a period of five (5) years or until adjacent development occurs, whichever occurs first. The site is located outside the City limits of Little Rock and within the area of the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction where the City exercises Subdivision control only. The request is a Subdivision Site Plan Review to allow the placement of multiple structures on this single parcel of property. The development is proposed as a convenience store with gas pumps including a restaurant and an automatic carwash. The convenience store is proposed containing a total of 4,958 square feet. The carwash is proposed containing 800 square feet. The maximum building height proposed for the convenience store is twenty-four (24) feet, the carwash building sixteen (16) feet and the fuel canopy twenty-four (24) feet. The total square footage of the restaurant is 2,171 square feet and the convenience store is 2,779 square feet. Of the total square footage proposed for the convenience store a total of 543 square feet of storage is proposed. The typical parking required for a convenience store is four (4) spaces plus one (1) space for each three hundred square feet of gross floor area exclusive of the storage area. The parking typically required for this use would be eleven (11) parking spaces. The restaurant would require the placement of twenty (21) parking spaces or one (1) parking space per every one hundred square feet of gross floor area. The site is proposed with thirty-six (36) parking spaces. Signage is proposed on the fuel canopy on the north, south and west facades. The signage is proposed no more than six (6) percent of the total canopy façade area. Building signage is proposed on the front façade, both ends and the rear of the structure. The total sign area is proposed with a maximum of five (5) percent of the façade area. The zoning ordinance typically requires the placement of signage on building facades with direct street frontage. A single ground mounted sign thirty-six (36) feet in height and one hundred sixty (160) square feet in area is proposed. As stated within this area of the Planning Jurisdiction the City does not exercise zoning. The site plan indicates the placement of landscape on the site per the Landscape Ordinance. The perimeter strips are indicated in excess of the nine (9) foot minimum typically required. Staff is supportive of the site plan and the proposed development of the site with a convenience store including a restaurant, gas pumps and automatic carwash. The developers have indicated approval from the Arkansas Department of Health will be secured for the proposed wastewater treatment system prior to beginning construction. Staff feels the requested street deferrals are appropriate and will September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 9 not negatively impact the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the required street improvements to Pratt Road for a period of five (5) years or until abutting development occurs, which ever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Andrew Hicks was present representing the owner. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested site plan review and the request for a five-year deferral of the street improvements to Pratt Road. Mr. Andrew Hicks addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the request was a co-branded convenience store. He stated the restaurant was a McDonalds. He stated there would be three structures on the site, the convenience store, fuel canopy and a single bay automatic carwash. He stated the restaurant would employee 35 to 40 persons. He stated the development would sit on four acres and because there was no sewer the development would be required to provide a wastewater treatment system on site. He stated the carwash would use a reclaimed water system so there would be little run off. He stated for the small amount of the water not reclaimed there would be a drip system for absorption into the soil. Mr. Andrew Francis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he represented the Coon Properties LLC. He stated his clients had three concerns, drainage, the subdivision and the proposed septic system. He stated the development would drain onto his client’s property and without engineered drawings he was not sure the impacts of this development would not create an undue hardship on his clients property. He stated he did not feel the Commission should approve a request for a septic system without approval from the Health Department first. He stated without Health Department approval the Commission was taking a chance of approving something that was not developable. Mr. Francis stated the request was a subdivision and not a site plan review. He stated the developers were taking parts of three lots without knowing how the remainder of the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 10 lots laid. He stated there was potential for an illegal subdivision. He stated without the developer providing the City with deeds to verify the subdivision it was unclear. He provided sections of the Subdivision Ordinance which outlined how a lot split was allowed. He requested the commission defer the request until all information was available for review. He also outlined from the Subdivision Ordinance the purpose and intent of variances. Mr. Francis stated the request for a street deferral was a variance and the Commission could deny the request based on the variance being requested. Ms. Angela Cotton addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was general manager of Lone’s Store #3 located at 14301 Arch Street Pike. She stated there were a number of convenience stores located in the area. She stated four of the stores had gas pumps. She stated there was a need for jobs in the area but not at the cost of other jobs. She stated the area was not growing to allow five convenience stores to operate in the area. Ms. Jodi Brewer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her mother in-law lived next door to the development and the developers had not spoken to her to give her information concerning the development. She stated there were persons all over her property and no explanation as to why they were on her property. She stated her mother in-law was elderly and widowed and persons on her property concerned her. Ms. Brewer stated the drive located on Pratt Road was located adjacent to her mother in-laws drive. She stated this was a concern because of the crest of the hill and traffic in the area. She stated the road had deep ditches on both sides. She stated the area proposed for the drive was located next to a school bus stop. She stated there were three stores in the immediate area and a large convenience store at Dixon Road. She stated the area was a residential area and not the place for a business. Mr. Andrew Hicks addressed the Commission. He stated the developers were purchasing property from two property owners. He stated the lots had existed for a number of years. He stated the developers were closing on the property soon and the title company had reviewed the site and was ready to issue a title policy on the property in the current configuration. Commissioner Rector questioned staff as to the comment of an illegal subdivision. Staff stated they felt comfortable the subdivision had been in the current configuration for a number of years. Staff stated subdivisions created prior to 1978 were allowed as non-conforming subdivision. Staff stated without deeds they could not determine 100 percent the subdivision was in existence prior to 1978. Ms. Brewer stated her husbands family purchased their home in 1968 and there had not been any changes to lot lines or lot configurations since that time. The Commission determined the subdivision was most likely not an illegal subdivision. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1635 11 There was a general discussion between Mr. Hicks and the Commission concerning the street improvements to Arch Street Pike. Mr. Hicks stated the developers were willing to complete the street improvements to Arch Street Pike at the time of development and remove the deferral request. The Commission questioned if sidewalks would be put in place. Mr. Hicks stated the improvements included drainage improvements and sidewalk placement. The Commission questioned the location of drives in relation to the property lines. Mr. Hicks stated the drive on Arch Street Pike was located approximately 300 feet from the intersection with Pratt Road. The Commission questioned the wastewater treatment system. Mr. Andy Davis of New Water Systems addressed the Commission on the testing of the soils to determine absorption rates. He stated test pits were dug and the Health Department was on site during the testing to determine perk rates. He stated in addition to Health Department approval, approval from the Department of Environmental Quality would also be required. He stated the system was designed that all the water would be treated as if surface discharge were occurring and then filtered through the leach fields. The Commission questioned if Public Works had reviewed the drainage and felt the drainage as proposed was adequate. Staff stated they were comfortable with the preliminary drainage plans. Staff stated they would review the plans prior to construction to ensure compliance with the comments and conditions placed on the application. A motion was made to approve the request as presented by staff and modified by the applicant to remove the request for street deferral from the application request requiring the developer to construct all required street improvements to the site. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-4343-W NAME: Lot 1 Tract A The Ranch Subdivision Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 16900 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Brooke N. Malmstrom 114 Trelon Way Little Rock, AR 72223 SURVEYOR: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 1.36 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Convenience store with gas pumps, carwash, air and water station PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Convenience store with gas pumps, carwash, air and water station – add a 6’ x 12’ trailer to seasonally sell shaved ice VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,005 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 1991, rezoned the property from C-2, Shopping Center District to PCD and established the Convenience Store-Ranch Short-form PCD. The approval allowed the construction of a convenience store with gas pumps and an automatic carwash. The store was approved with 2,200 square feet of retail space. There were four (4) free standing gas pumps also approved. The canopy over the gas pumps was approved with a lesser setback than typically required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The canopy was located 75 feet from Cantrell Road (the DOD typically requires a 100 foot building setback). The front yard landscape strip along Cantrell Road was approved at eleven September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-W 2 and one-half (11 ½) feet as opposed to the typical forty (40) foot front yard landscape strip. Two (2) driveways were approved to serve the site. A driveway on Cantrell Road was approved 116.37 feet from the intersection of North Katillus Road and a driveway was approved on North Katillus Road 259.46 feet from the intersection with Cantrell Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved PCD for the Ranch Shell Station, Lot 1 Tract A, The Ranch Subdivision located at 16900 Cantrell Road. The rezoning is proposed to allow the placement of a shaved ice business, “U Need A Shave” to operate on the site during the months of March through September. The hours of operation are from 4 pm to 8 pm during the school year and during the summer season, noon to 9 pm, Monday through Saturday. The business is proposed annually as permitted by the owner of the property. The shaved ice business will be placed in a six (6) foot by nine (9) foot trailer on the property. The site includes two (2) picnic tables near the trailer. The request also includes the allowance of a four (4) foot by two (2) foot banner type sign located on the lawn in front of the trailer. The sign will be displayed during operating hours only. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is developed with a convenience store, gas pumps and carwash located on the rear of the property. The shaved ice trailer is located on the site near Highway 10 on the western perimeter of the property. The development has driveway access from Cantrell Road and North Katillus Road. West of the property adjacent to Highway 10 is a vacant site. Northwest of this site is developed with retail, restaurants and office uses. East of the site, across North Katillus Road, is property containing a number of homes on a single tract. South of the site are residential and office uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Chevaux Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-W 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route # 25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Commercial Development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Katillus Road is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-W 4 Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: Any dead, diseased or missing landscaping must be replaced. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Ms. Brooke Malmstrom and Mr. Rick Malmstorm were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff requested information concerning the proposed signage. Staff also requested the site plan be revised to show the location of the outdoor seating located on the site. Staff stated there were no Public Works issues. Staff stated any dead, diseased or missing landscaping was required to be replaced. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan locating the outdoor seating and indicated the outdoor seating would not exceed the existing two (2) tables. The applicant has also provided a sketch of the banner proposed for the site. The sign is proposed as a two (2) foot by four (4) foot banner which will only be displayed during the operational hours of the business. The hours of operation are March through September from 4 pm to 8 pm during the school year and during the summer season, noon to 9 pm, Monday through Saturday. The sign is proposed within the landscape area along Cantrell Road. The request is a revision to an existing PCD to allow a shaved ice business to be placed within a six (6) foot by nine (9) foot trailer on the property. The business is proposed annually as permitted by the owner of the property with the above hours of operation. The site is developed with a convenience store, gas pumps and an automatic carwash. The site contains air and water as a service to the customers along Cantrell Road. The site was developed a number of years ago with development standards less than the typical Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements for the front yard landscape strip, front yard building setback and a driveway spacing less than the typical standard established by the Overlay. Although the shaved ice trailer is located nearer Highway 10 than the typical one hundred September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-W 5 (100) foot building setback staff is not considering the trailer a structure. The trailer is temporary and will only be located on the site during the summer season. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the placement of the trailer on the site for this limited period of time should not significantly impact the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating there were issues related to the Bill of Assurance which had been raised and staff needed additional time to review the issues raised. Staff requested the item be deferred to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-4470-F NAME: Lot 3R Chenal Commercial Park Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located in the 15500 Block of Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: United States Beef Corporation 4923 East 49th Street Tulsa, OK 74135 ENGINEER: Development Consultants, Inc. Attn. Robert Brown 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 0.81 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Uses and the allowance of a restaurant with drive-through service PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant with drive-through service VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed revision to a preliminary plat for the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision to add approximately 1.74 acres to Lot 3 and a request to rezone Lot 3 from O-3, General Office District to PD-C to allow an auto dealership. The applicant proposed two (2) buildings for the site. A 15,000 square foot office/showroom/service building and 2,500 square foot auto detail building. The applicant noted the buildings would not exceed 28-feet in height. The Planning Commission placed several conditions on the recommendation of approval, which the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 2 applicant agreed to comply with should the Board of Directors approve the request. The conditions were no vehicular display within the first 20-feet of the property on the street sides, the service entry doors were to be located on a side of the building other than the Chenal Parkway side, no test drives were to be taken through the Wellington Village neighborhood, there was to be no body shop located at the site and the proposed hours of operation were to be from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday – Saturday (no Sunday hours). Ordinance No. 18,187 approved by the Board of Directors on January 4, 2000, approved the rezoning for the site to allow Parker Cadillac to construct a Saturn car dealership with the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. On September 12, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for the approved PCD. That approval has expired. Ordinance No. 19,799 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 6, 2007, approved a PCD request to allow a replat of Lot 3 to create two lots and approved a site plan for the construction of a retail store on one of the lots. The store design was proposed as a typical Walgreen’s prototype, which contained approximately 14,820 square feet. A drive-up window for a pharmacy was approved. The site plan provided for a total of 60 parking spaces, four (4) of which would be designated for handicap use only. Access to the site was approved from Wellington Hills Road with a 36-foot driveway opposite and existing driveway across Wellington Hills Road at Pinnacle Ford. Another driveway onto Chenal Parkway was approved as a shared access with this lot. The uses approved were those listed in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and a restaurant with drive-through service. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a revision to the previously approved PCD for Lot 3R of the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision. The proposed use for the site is a restaurant with a drive-through service window, as allowed under the previous PCD approval. Access is proposed through an existing common drive and access easements, shared with Walgreen’s at the southeast corner. No new curb cuts are proposed. The building is proposed containing 3,055 square feet with an additional 363 square feet of outdoor dining. The site plan indicates the placement of 33 parking spaces. A single monument sign eight feet in height and 100 square feet in area is proposed along the Chenal Parkway frontage. Building signage is proposed consistent with signage typically allowed in commercial zones. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is relatively flat and is heavily wooded. The drive extending from Chenal Parkway was installed with the recent development of Walgreen’s on Lot 3 of the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision. The property to the west was recently approved as a PD-C for Christian Brother Automotive. Property to the north is vacant and wooded. South of the site is Chenal Parkway, a median divided roadway, with commercial and office uses located on the south right of way line. Other uses in the area include new car automobile dealerships to the east and west, a church to the west and a grocery to the southwest. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Parkway Place Property Owners Association, the Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 4 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A short water main extension may be needed to provide water service to this property. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). The facilities on site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of a Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer shall be required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a revised Planned Commercial Development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 5 Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is planned along Chenal Parkway. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Commercial Development Goal states: “Aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts (PZDs) to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality developments.” Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. 3. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide street buffers at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot with a minimum dimension of one-half (1/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet. 4. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 5. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 6. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 7. Landscape areas may be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the building or elsewhere on the site at the discretion of the responsible party. However, landscape areas must be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 6 loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas must be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating the use was approved with the approval of the Walgreen’s PCD. Staff stated the approval did not include the placement of a building envelope or parking. Mr. Brown questioned the comment concerning the screening requirements for the order board. Staff stated the ordinance required all order boards to be screened or be approved a variances. Mr. Brown stated there were a number of boards around town which were not screened and questioned if all had variances. Staff suggested Mr. Brown provide in a response letter justification for not providing the screening. Staff also questioned signage and building signage and requested Mr. Brown provide notes on the site plan concerning the proposed placement and total square footages or percentage of the façade area for building signage. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan for Christian Brothers was approved with a cross access. Staff stated the plan presented for the current request did not include the placement of a cross access drive. Mr. Brown stated the plat approved for the Walgreen’s and this lot did include provisions for cross access through the bill of assurance and restrictive covenants. Mr. Brown stated the covenants did not provide for cross access to the property to the west. He stated the developers of the restaurant did not wish to provide the connection and run the risk of potential conflicting traffic movements. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the comments provided were informational because the site plan as presented appeared to be in compliance with the zoning buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: Mr. Brown submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Brown has submitted a letter requesting to not screen the order board as typically required by Section September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 7 36-298. Mr. Brown states the screening is not necessary based on the lack of conflicting uses and the proximity to residential uses in the area. The revised plan provides the total square footage of the proposed signage and a note stating the signage will comply with the DOD for this corridor. The request also includes the allowance of an electronic reader board as a part of the total sign area. The development is proposed as a restaurant with a drive-through window service. The building is proposed with 3,055 square feet and an outdoor dining area is proposed containing 363 square feet. The parking typically required for a restaurant containing 3,418 square feet is 34 parking spaces. The site plan indicates the placement of 33 on-site parking spaces. Although the site plan is indicated with one parking space less than the typical ordinance requirements staff does not feel the lack of one parking space will significantly impact the development. Staff is supportive of the parking as proposed. The property is covered under the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design Overlay District. The Overlay has criteria in place regulating Signage and Lighting. The Overlay states signage will comply with the Little Rock Sign Ordinance except for ground mounted signs. The maximum size of principal site signs along Chenal/Financial Center Parkway is one hundred square feet of sign area and a maximum height of eight feet. Each landowner is permitted to have one sign per parcel except for parcels fronting on two different streets upon which one per street frontage may be erected. The signs are to be monument type signs. The signage proposed is consistent with signage allowed per the DOD. Building signage is proposed on the front of the building along Chenal Parkway limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total façade area. The DOD also regulates lighting and utilities. Parking lot lighting must be designed and located in such a manner so as to not disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect to adjacent parcels. All lighting and other utilities on lots adjacent to Chenal/Financial Center Parkway must be underground. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation, no overhead utilities may be constructed within 100 feet of the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway right of way. The development as proposed will comply with the lighting requirements of the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design Overlay District. The site is proposed with hours from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm daily. The hours of dumpster service are limited to daylight hours only. The building is proposed as a single story building. The landscaping as proposed is in compliance with the typical standards of the landscape and buffer ordinances. Staff is supportive of the request. The proposed use of the property was approved with the original PCD. The development is indicated with landscaping, September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4470-F 8 setback and building heights as typically allowed in commercial zones. The site plan is indicated in compliance with the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway DOD with regard to signage and lighting. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the development as proposed will not significantly impact the abutting properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comment and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the request to not screen the menu order board as typically required per Section 36-298. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the request to not screen the menu order board as typically required per Section 36-298. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-4807-L NAME: Chenal Valley Tract 98A Parcel A Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road DEVELOPER: Deltic Timber Corporation 7 Chenal Club Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 8.005 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: MF-18 – Multi-family 18 units per acre ALLOWED USES: Multi-family 18 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-2, Shopping Center District and O-3, General Office District uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of areas beyond the developed area with the issuance of a building permit for the first building. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the development of this 8.005 acre tract with a mix of office and retail uses. The allowable uses proposed are C-2, Shopping Center District uses and O-3, General Office District uses. Four buildings are proposed. Building A is proposed containing 15,500 square feet. Building B is proposed containing 13,600 square feet. Building C is proposed containing 10,000 square feet and Building D is proposed containing 9,100 square feet. The site plan indicates the placement of 302 parking spaces to be shared with a cross parking agreement. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 2 The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance. The request is to allow grading of areas beyond the development area with the issuance of a building permit for the first building. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded. Rahling Road adjacent to the site has been constructed extending from LaGrande Drive to Kanis Road but is barricaded and has not been accepted by the City as a public street. North of the site is the Promenade at Chenal Shopping Center. West of the site is vacant office and commercially zoned property. South and East is property proposed for development as a separate item on this agenda (Z-4807-M). C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Bascom Place Property Owners Association, the Witry Court Neighborhood Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is an advanced grading variance being requested? If so, provide the reasoning for the request. 3. Safe pedestrian access is suggest to be provided to the Promenade Shopping area. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 3 7. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 8. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of one (1) foot above the base flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 9. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. 10. Due to the site being adjacent to Rock Creek and the large amount of impervious area, Low Impact Development concepts are suggested to be installed throughout the development for stormwater management. 11. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. 12. The proposed alteration of the floodway will require flood map revisions. Obtain a conditional letter of map revision approval from Public Works and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 13. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 14. Per Section 29-189(d), groups of trees and individual trees that are not to be removed or are located within required undisturbed buffer areas shall be protected during construction by protective fencing and shall not be used for material storage or for any other purpose. 15. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater. 16. A perimeter buffer strip shall be temporarily maintained around disturbed areas and shall be six percent (6%) of the lot width and depth with a minimum width of 25 feet and a maximum width of 40 feet. 17. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 18. Per Section 36-341, floodways shall be kept free of structural involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking and other impediments to the free flow of floodwater. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: Entergy requires the placement of a ten (10) foot utility easement along the property perimeter. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 4 Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of a Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure backflow preventer is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution systems. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: Parks and Recreation recommends dedication of fifty foot (50’) trail easement along south boundary of development. This will allow for extension of Rock Creek Trail to Wildwood Performing Arts Center. The developer may want to consider donating fifty foot (50’) trail easement to City in a Park Conservancy and Land Trust and zone it PR. One can expect a deduction in taxes with this donation. I recommend they discuss this with a knowledgeable attorney and if donation is desired contact Kellie Wilhite at 603- 9900 to make arrangements. If developer concurs with this proposal, then we would take responsibility for maintenance of trail and land as part of parks system. We are striving to utilize Central Arkansas Water raw water easement to reach westerly destinations. We are happy to discuss this further. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 5 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a Planned Commercial Development with a mix of commercial and office uses. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Rahling Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Rahling Road since it is a Principal Arterial. LaGrande Drive is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Before a building permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. 3. Where development require screening by abutting land use of a more restrictive nature at least eighty (80) percent of the view of the vehicular use area and parked vehicles must be screened so as to not be visible when viewed from the adjacent property. A wooden fence may satisfy sixty-five (65) percent of the requirement and evergreen trees may be used to satisfy the balance. 4. Land use buffers must be provided when abutting property zoned or used by a lesser intensity of use. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide a land use buffer(s) as follows: Side property lines at six (6) percent of the average width of the lot on both sides; Rear property lines at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot; The minimum dimension is nine (9) feet in all instances; The maximum dimension required is September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 6 fifty (50) feet in all instances. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be undisturbed. The right-of-way of any utility easement shall not be used in computing the depth or area of land use buffer. 5. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. 6. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide street buffers at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot with a minimum dimension of one-half (1/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet. 7. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be three hundred (300) square feet in area for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or more parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 8. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 9. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 10. Landscape areas may be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the building or elsewhere on the site at the discretion of the responsible party. However, landscape areas must be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas must be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff stated there were two applications on the current agenda which were to be developed by two September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 7 separate parties but were located adjacent to each other. Staff stated the property located on Parcel A would be developed utilizing C-2, Shopping Center District uses and O-3, General Office District uses as a mixed use development. Staff stated the property located on Parcels B and C would be developed as a Medical Village. Staff stated there were a number of questions outstanding associated with the request. Staff stated they had met previously with the developer and outlined their concerns. Mr. Daters stated he and the developers were working to address staff concerns raised previously and as provided in the current Subdivision Committee write-up. Staff stated the requests included a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the sites. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide a written justification addressing the variance request. Staff noted portions of the development were located within the floodway. Staff stated approval from the US Corp of Engineers was required to allow work within the floodway. Staff stated during the previous meeting with the developers it was suggested the developments utilize Low Impact Development concepts for dealing with stormwater management. Staff stated the developers indicated a willingness to review these practices to limit the amount of surface runoff. Staff stated according to the Buffer Ordinance requirements utility easements could not count in calculating the depth of a buffer. Mr. Daters stated the development would request a variance from this requirement. He stated the developers would work with Entergy and provide plantings under the utility lines which would allow some height but would not interfere with the electrical lines. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised cover letter indicates the days and hours of operation, hours of dumpster service, the proposed use mix of the buildings and the phasing plan. The building pads and parking areas on Tract A will be graded during the initial phase of construction. The common drive on the eastern property line will also be constructed during the initial construction. Grass cover will be established over the entire tract and the street buffers will be landscaped. Buildings A through D may be constructed individually or in groups. All parking and drives adjacent to and leading to buildings under construction will be paved during construction of the adjacent building. The construction of parking adjacent to buildings not under construction will be deferred until the adjacent building is September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 8 constructed. Sufficient parking will be provided at all times to comply with Little Rock Ordinance, based on use. The developers have indicated a willingness to review low impact development techniques for developing the site with regard to stormwater detention and placement of bio-swales within the interior landscape islands. Buildings A through D may be used for activities which may require overnight stay. The use mix proposed for Buildings A through D is a maximum of seventy percent (70%) commercial as per the C-2, Shopping Center Zoning District with a minimum of thirty percent (30%) office uses as per the O-3, General Office Zoning District. The developer has indicated a building may be 100% commercial or office uses as long as the use mix is maintained within the development area. Buildings A through D will typically be retail uses consistent and complementary to the “Health Village” concept. The activity fields are located along Rahling Road as shown on the site plan. The activity fields may require adjustment at the time of development to minimize grading and to protect selected specimen trees. The fields will not be lighted. The fields will be used during daylight hours and may be used on weekdays and weekends. The use of the fields will be regulated by the Owners/Tenants of the adjacent buildings and will be maintained by the Property Owner/Tenant. The development plan minimizes impacts on Rock Creek. A 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers for the work in the floodway will be secured. The developer has proposed a mitigation plan that includes operational features to improve water quality during and after construction. Upon approval, the developer will provide the City with a copy of the mitigation plan. With the development the floodway will be relocated. Prior to construction the developer will provide the City with a “No Rise” certificate and engineering analysis to support the certificate. After completion of construction of the fills required to raise portions of the project above the 100 year flood elevation the developer will prepare and submit to the City of Little Rock and FEMA and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) based on actual conditions. The proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 2:00 am daily. The dumpsters will typically be serviced between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. If service on weekends is necessary the hours will be limited to 11:00 am and 5:00 pm. Buildings C and D will share the dumpster located at Building B. Convenient and safe pedestrian routes will be provided within the development and to adjacent commercial and office developments. The developers have indicated pedestrian access is a key component of the “Health Village” concept and will be provided and maintained during all phases of development. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-L 9 Perimeter fencing will not be utilized to restrict access, but may be used for architectural or safety purposes. All signage will comply with the Chenal Valley Commercial Development Guidelines. Monument signage will be used adjacent to the street right-of-way. Signs on LaGrande Drive will have a maximum height of eight (8) feet and a maximum area of one-hundred (100) square feet. Building signage will comply with the Chenal Valley Guidelines and Little Rock Ordinance. Staff is supportive of the request. The development is proposed as a mixed use development with uses proposed to support the adjacent proposed medical village. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues in need of addressing. Staff feels the development as proposed should not significantly impact the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the site with the issuance of a building permit for one of the buildings proposed within the development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the site with the issuance of a building permit for one of the buildings proposed within the development. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU09-19-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – Chenal Planning District Location: The southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road Request: High Density Residential to Mixed Use Source: Tim Daters, White-Daters and Associates, Inc. PROPOSAL / REQUEST: A Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from High Density Residential to Mixed Use. Mixed Use represents a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses with a required Planned Zoning Development if the development is entirely office or commercial or the use is a mixture of the three. The applicant is requesting a Planned Office Development for this site to allow for a health care village. Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was reviewed within a year. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant and undeveloped. It is currently zoned MF-18. The property is approximately 20 acres ± in size. South of this site is zoned R-2 Single Family with an existing single family residence. East of the amendment site is zoned Plannded Development Office for medical offices. North of this site is zoned MF-18 and is also undeveloped. Further north is zoned C-2 for the Promenade Shopping Center. West of the amendment site is zoned C-2 Commercial and is undeveloped. Further west is also zoned R-2 and is occupied by the Champagnolle POA park and subdivision. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: The amendment site is currently shown as Residential High Density. It is bounded on the west and southwestern sides by Park/Open Space that represents the floodway. North of this site is shown as Mixed Office Commercial. East of this is shown as Office and southeast along Kanis Road is shown as Commercial. Beyond the PK/OS to the west is shown as Community Shopping. March 20, 2007, Ordinance 19722 amended several different sites in this vicinity. This was a City initiated amendment initiated due to concerns about a recent Land Use Plan Amendment on Kanis near Chenal Parkway. The changes were along Kanis Road from Multi Family to Single Family, Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial, Public Institutional to Suburban Office, and Multi Family to Commercial. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-19-02 2 June 27, 2006 a change was made from Office, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial approximately one mile to the northeast of this amendment located east of Kirk Road and north of Chenal Parkway. The changes resulted from a Planned Commercial Development reclassification to allow for future development. August 15, 2006, Ordinance 19582 amended the eastern intersection of LaGrande and Rahling Roads from Multi Family to Mixed Office Commercial to allow for future development. June 17, 2003, changes from Office, Multifamily, and Single Family to Multifamily and Low Density Residential located northeast of Chenal Parkway around Rahling Road. These changes were made to reflect new zoning in the area for future development. MASTER STREET PLAN: Rahling Road is a Principal Arterial in this area. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Rahling since it is a Principal Arterial. La Grande Drive is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. BICYCLE PLAN: A Class I bike route is shown along Rahling Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. PARKS: According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is located within eight blocks of a park or open space. The Champagnolle neighborhood park is located just west of this area. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-19-02 3 CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: This area of Little Rock has seen major growth in the last ten years. New subdivisions have been built to the northwest and northeast of this amendment site along with large-lot subdivisions to the southwest outside the city limits. Multi Family developments have occurred in the area resulting in new apartments and condominiums. The current land use plan shows this 20 acre area as Residential High Density. The amendment area is located along the alignment of the Rahling Road extension and the intersection of La Grande Drive. Immediately east of this site, along the south side of La Grande Drive, has been developing as an office park. The area immediately north of this amendment site is included in the proposed Planned Office Development and is currently shown as Mixed Office Commercial. This amendment would extend that trend south from La Grande Drive and west to Rahling Road. A change from Residential High Density to Mixed Use would require a Planned Zoning District if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of residential, office and commercial. A Planned Office Development application is a separate item on this agenda. The Mixed Use category would also still allow for residential development of this site in the future. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Witry Court, Bascom Place and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 9 for and 0 against the consent agenda was approved. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-4807-M NAME: Chenal Valley Tract 98A Parcels B and C Long-form POD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of LaGrande Drive and Rahling Road DEVELOPER: St. Vincent Health System 6101 St. Vincent Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 36.76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: MF-18, MF-24, O-2 and PD-O ALLOWED USES: Multi-family at 18 and 24 units per acre and Office uses PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Medical Village VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of areas beyond the developed area with the issuance of a building permit for the first building. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: St. Vincent Health System envisions a health care master development designed with a similar philosophy, architectural, and planning style to today’s “lifestyle centers”. The health village would be composed of ambulatory/outpatient health care services, physicians offices, retail (with emphasis on healthy retailers), with the potential to add specialty focused, boutique inpatient services over a longer horizon, as the community grows and changes over time. Placement of the health village in Chenal Valley will meet the undersupplied ambulatory health care demand in west Little Rock, and surrounding communities. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 2 The health village estimated structural dimensions will encompass approximately 164,370 square feet, in aggregate, plus an estimated 150,000 square feet planned for inpatient services. The tallest structure within the health village will not exceed 75-feet. A key design element of the health village is that the services, while separate, are easily integrated with each other. Therefore, one would only need to walk across a green space to access another service/entity. Each entity will have individual “store-fronts” locations, with shared support space behind those areas to reduce duplication of services. The building materials and design will be in compliance with the Chenal Valley design guidelines for commercial structures. Green design elements and material will be used where and when possible both in building construction and the parking lot development. The development is proposed in a number of phases with Phase I beginning in the first quarter of 2010. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded. Rahling Road adjacent to the site has been constructed extending from LaGrande Drive to Kanis Road but is barricaded and has not been accepted by the City as a public street. North of the site is the Promenade at Chenal Shopping Center. East of the site is an office building and vacant O-2, Office and Institutional zoned property. Along the southern boundary are properties fronting Kanis Road. The zoning and use of the property is mixed. There are two vacant C-3, General Commercial District zoned sites, a site zoned AF with a CUP to allow a pet resort, an expired PCD which was approved for a strip center and mini-warehouse, an auto repair shop and an Entergy substation. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Bascom Place Property Owners Association, the Witry Court Neighborhood Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 3 2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. An advanced grading variance is being requested. Show areas proposed to be advanced graded. Provide the reasoning for the advanced grading requested. 3. Provide projected traffic volumes at full development. 4. Safe pedestrian access should be provided to the Promenade Shopping area. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 6. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 9. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of one (1) foot above the base flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 10. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. 11. Per Section 36-341, floodways shall be kept free of structural involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking and other impediments to the free flow of floodwater. 12. Due to the site being adjacent to Rock Creek and the large amount of impervious area, Low Impact Development concepts are suggested to be installed throughout the development for storm water management. 13. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. 14. The proposed alteration of the floodway will require flood map revisions. Obtain a conditional letter of map revision approval from Public Works and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 15. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 4 16. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 17. Per Section 29-189(d), groups of trees and individual trees that are not to be removed or are located within required undisturbed buffer areas shall be protected during construction by protective fencing and shall not be used for material storage or for any other purpose. 18. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater. 19. A perimeter buffer strip shall be temporarily maintained around disturbed areas and shall be six percent (6%) of the lot width and depth with a minimum width of 25 feet and a maximum width of 40 feet. 20. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: Entergy requires the placement of a ten (10) foot utility easement along the common lot lines of the development and around the sites perimeter. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of a Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure backflow preventer is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution systems. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 5 Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: Parks and Recreation recommends dedication of fifty foot (50’) trail easement along south boundary of development. This will allow for extension of Rock Creek Trail to Wildwood Performing Arts Center. The developer may want to consider donating fifty foot (50’) trail easement to City in a Park Conservancy and Land Trust and zone it PR. One can expect a deduction in taxes with this donation. I recommend they discuss this with a knowledgeable attorney and if donation is desired contact Kellie Wilhite at 603-9900 to make arrangements. If developer concurs with this proposal, then we would take responsibility for maintenance of trail and land as part of parks system. We are striving to utilize Central Arkansas Water raw water easement to reach westerly destinations. We are happy to discuss this further. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a Planned Office Development. A Land Use Plan amendment from Residential High Density to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (LU09-19-02). Master Street Plan: Rahling Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Rahling Road since it is a Principal Arterial. LaGrande Drive is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 6 Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Before a building permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. 3. Where development require screening by abutting land use of a more restrictive nature at least eighty (80) percent of the view of the vehicular use area and parked vehicles must be screened so as to not be visible when viewed from the adjacent property. A wooden fence may satisfy sixty-five (65) percent of the requirement and evergreen trees may be used to satisfy the balance. 4. Land use buffers must be provided when abutting property zoned or used by a lesser intensity of use. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide a land use buffer(s) as follows: Side property lines at six (6) percent of the average width of the lot on both sides; Rear property lines at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot; The minimum dimension is nine (9) feet in all instances; The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet in all instances. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be undisturbed. The right-of-way of any utility easement shall not be used in computing the depth or area of land use buffer. 5. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. 6. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide street buffers at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot with a minimum dimension of one-half (1/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet. 7. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be three hundred (300) square feet in area for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or more parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 7 with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 8. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 9. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 10. Landscape areas may be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the building or elsewhere on the site at the discretion of the responsible party. However, landscape areas must be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas must be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff stated there were two applications on the current agenda which were to be developed by two separate parties but were located adjacent to each other. Staff stated the property located on Parcel A would be developed utilizing C-2, Shopping Center District uses and O-3, General Office District uses as a mixed use development. Staff stated the property located on Parcels B and C would be developed as a Medical Village. Staff stated there were a number of questions outstanding associated with the request. Staff stated they had met previously with the developer and outlined their concerns. Mr. Daters stated he and the developers were working to address staff concerns raised previously and as provided in the current Subdivision Committee write-up. Staff stated the requests included a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the sites. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide a written justification addressing the variance request. Staff noted portions of the development were located within the floodway. Staff stated approval from the US Corp of Engineers was required to allow work within the floodway. Staff stated during the previous meeting with the developers it was suggested the developments utilize Low Impact Development concepts for dealing with stormwater management. Staff stated the developers indicated a willingness to review these practices to limit the amount of surface runoff. Staff stated September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 8 according to the Buffer Ordinance requirements utility easements could not count in calculating the depth of a buffer. Mr. Daters stated the development would request a variance from this requirement. He stated the developers would work with Entergy and provide plantings under the utility lines which would allow some height but would not interfere with the electrical lines. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised cover letter provides a description of the activities to take place on the site, the phasing plan, signage plan, hours of operation and outlines pedestrian connectivity through the site and to the adjacent shopping center. The inpatient facility, Building K will be constructed as part of the last phase of the project. The anticipated capacity is 40 to 50 beds. The surgery center, Building H, will have four (4) operating suites and is proposed as a later phase. Patients will not be held overnight in the ambulatory surgery building. The sports medicine facility, Building F will be the first building constructed. Two physicians will operate clinics in the facility. Clinic space may be provided for several physicians who use the facility on a rotating basis during the day or on a weekly basis. The bulk of the space within the building will be for athletic activities related to physical rehabilitation and improvement. The typical hours of operation for the clinic and office uses will be 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday through Friday, with some facilities open on the weekend. The urgent care facility and inpatient facility will operate 24 hours per day. The activity fields are located along Rahling Road as shown on the site plan. The activity fields may require adjustment at the time of development to minimize grading and to protect selected specimen trees. The fields will not be lighted. The fields will be used during daylight hours and may be used on weekdays and weekends. The use of the fields will be regulated by the Owners/Tenants of the adjacent buildings and will be maintained by the Property Owner/Tenant. The phasing plan is proposed with building pads and parking areas on Tracts B & C and graded is proposed during the initial construction. The common drives connecting to LaGrande Drive and around the central courtyard area will be constructed during the initial construction phase also. Grass cover will be established over the entire tract and the street buffers which have been disturbed will be landscaped. The buildings on Parcel B will be constructed prior to the buildings on Parcel C. The anticipated construction sequence is Building F, E, H September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 9 then G. Improvements on Parcel C will begin with either Building I or J. Building K is the last structure planned. The drive to Chenal Parkway will be constructed as part of the improvements on Parcel C and may be constructed earlier if warranted and permitted by the City. All parking and drives adjacent to and leading to buildings under construction will be paved during construction of the adjacent building. The construction of parking adjacent to buildings not under construction may be deferred until the adjacent building is constructed. Sufficient parking will be provided at all times to comply with Little Rock Ordinance, based on use. The developers have indicated a willingness to review low impact development techniques for developing the site with regard to stormwater detention and placement of bio-swales within the interior landscape islands. Convenient and safe pedestrian routes will be provided within the development and to adjacent commercial and office developments. The developers have indicated pedestrian access is a key component of the “Health Village” concept and will be provided and maintained during all phases of development. The developer has indicated should the City of Little Rock wish to construct a trail across the southern portion of the site, the developer will grant a suitable easement to the City at the time of development. The exact location and nature of the trail would be subject the developer’s review and approval. Traffic volumes at full development will be consistent with those projected by Peters & Associates in their previous traffic study dated May 30, 2006. A copy of this study has been provided to the City. The applicant is continuing to work with Traffic Engineering to verify the post development traffic volumes and determine the need for an additional drive on Rahling Road. Perimeter fencing will not be utilized to restrict access, but may be used for architectural or safety purposes. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to count the utility easement as the required buffer along the southern perimeter. According to the applicant the areas along the southern and western portions of the site have been dedicated to land use and stream buffers along Rock Creek. Landscape plantings along the southern property line will be carefully chosen and placed to comply with the intent of the Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Trees and shrubs to be planted within the overhead electrical easement area will be chosen to provide screening while complying with ENTERGY’s vegetation management policies. Trees will be selected so that when mature they provide screening, but do not reach heights which will require “tree topping”. The Developer has placed a high priority on providing adequate screening since the majority of the property to the south will in all likelihood be redeveloped with non-residential uses. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 10 All signage will comply with the Chenal Valley Commercial Development Guidelines and the Chenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District requirements. Monument signage will be used adjacent to the street right-of- way. Signs on LaGrande Drive will have a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of sixty-four (64) square feet. Building signage will comply with the Chenal Valley Guidelines and Little Rock Ordinance. Additional informational and directional signage will be constructed off-site as permitted by the City to provide assistance during emergency situations. The development plan minimizes impacts on Rock Creek. A 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers for the work in the floodway will be secured. The developer has proposed a mitigation plan that includes operational features to improve water quality during and after construction. Upon approval, the developer will provide the City with a copy of the mitigation plan. With the development the floodway will be relocated. Prior to construction the developer will provide the City with a “No Rise” certificate and engineering analysis to support the certificate. After completion of construction of the fills required to raise portions of the project above the 100 year flood elevation the developer will prepare and submit to the City of Little Rock and FEMA and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) based on actual conditions. Staff is supportive of the request. The development is proposed as a multi-phased development for a medical village. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues in need of addressing. Staff feels the development as proposed should not significantly impact the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the site with the issuance of a building permit for one of the buildings proposed within the development. Staff recommends approval of the buffer variance as proposed by the applicant. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-M 11 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the site with the issuance of a building permit for one of the buildings proposed within the development. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the buffer variance request as proposed by the applicant. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5698-E Owner: West Group, LLC Applicant: White-Daters Location: Southeast corner of Bowman Road and Hermitage Road Area: 5.94± Acres Request: Rezone from C-3 General Commercial District with conditions to C-3 General Commercial District Purpose: Broaden the available uses that can occupy lease spaces within the existing buildings. Existing Use: Shopping Center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Garden Ridge retail store and two restaurants; zoned PCD South – Multi building – multi tenant retail, restaurant and office warehouse development; zoned PCD East – Mini-warehouse and office development; zoned POD West – Multiple Commercial uses including Sam’s Club Warehouse, Walmart and Hank’s Furniture; all zoned C-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Repair or replace any curb, gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is located on a CATA Bus Route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing. There is no neighborhood association in the immediate vicinity. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5698-E 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-3 with conditions to C-3 General Commercial. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Bowman Road is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Bowman Road since it is a Minor Arterial. Hermitage Road is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Walnut Valley Birchwood Neighborhood Action Plan. The Community Redevelopment Goal states: “Maintain and reinvigorate existing retail areas to provide active retail for local residents. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: West Group, LLC, owner of the shopping center property located at the southeast corner of Bowman Road and Hermitage Road is requesting to rezone the property from “C-3” General Commercial District with conditions to “C-3” General Commercial District. This developed property contains two commercial buildings and paved parking for 309 vehicles. Both buildings are one-story in height and are constructed of brick, block and some stucco. The larger of the two buildings contains an area of 53,564 square feet. The second building contains 7.057 square feet. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5698-E 3 In 1993, a PCD was approved for the site which allowed for development of a “retail business center”. That project was not developed. In 1995, the PCD was revoked and the property was zoned to C-3. In conjunction with the C-3 zoning, the applicant offered to eliminate several possible uses for the property. The list of eliminated uses is as follows: (a) butcher shop (b) cabinet and woodwork shop (c) church (d) college dormitory (e) college fraternity or sorority (f) college, university or seminary (g) convent or monastery (h) feed store (i) group care homes (j) hand craft ceramic sculpture or similar art work (k) job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting (l) library, art gallery, museum or similar public use (m) lodge or fraternal organization (n) mortuary or funeral home (o) multi-family dwellings (as per the R-5 District) (p) parking, commercial lot or garage (q) pawnshop (r) plant sale temporary/open display (s) recycling facility, automated (t) school (commercial, trade or craft) (u) school (public or denominational) (v) second hand store (used furniture or rummage shop) (w) taxidermist In 1997, a multiple building site plan was approved for the site, resulting in the current development. The applicant is now requesting that the zoning be changed to “C-3” without the condition limiting occupancy of the buildings. With a broader range of possible tenants, the applicant hopes to fill currently vacant lease space. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5698-E 4 Staff is supportive of the request. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for the site. The C-3 request complies with the Plan. At the time the property was originally zoned to C-3, there was still residentially zoned property in the area, including directly adjacent to the south and across Bowman to the west. The property to the south has subsequently been zoned PCD and is developed as a multiple use commercial center. The properties across Bowman, south to Kanis, have been zoned to C-3. A large, furniture store has recently been constructed on a portion of those C-3 zoned properties. This property is located in the commercial node that radiates out from the Bowman Road/Chenal Parkway intersection. The proposed C-3 zoning is appropriate for the site. The limitation of uses seems superfluous in light of the subsequent commercial zoning that has occurred in the area around the site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6476-B NAME: Coulson Oil Company Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 19500 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: New Vista LLC 1434 Pike Avenue North Little Rock, AR 72114 ENGINEER: Development Consultants, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 1.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Convenience store with gas pumps, carwash and express lube PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Convenience store with gas pumps, carwash, express lube, showroom and warehouse and general and professional office uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 2, 1998, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 17,740 rezoning the property from C-2, Shopping Center District to PCD. The approved PCD allowed a convenience store with gas pumps, an automated carwash and a self-serve carwash, with a branch bank and two (2) fast food restaurants within the convenience store building. The Board of Directors also approved a deferral of the street improvements to Cantrell Road as part of the development plan. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-B 2 Ordinance No. 18,162 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 20, 1999, allowed a revision to the approved PCD to replace the three-bay self-serve carwash, which was to be located within the northern portion of the property with a two-bay express lube facility. The express lube facility would be a one-story structure with approximately 1,196 square feet of space. There were no other changes proposed or approved from the previous site plan. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a revision to the previously approved PCD to allow Tornado Shelter Systems to place a showroom within the former express lube building. The request also includes the right to use the former Lube Center building for a general or professional office, a showroom and a warehouse (interior display and storage only). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has developed with a convenience store, gas pumps, automated carwash and express lube. The express lube is not longer operating from the site and recently a display and showroom for Tornado Shelters Systems was placed within the building. Chenal Parkway is constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the site. Cantrell Road does not currently have curb and gutter in place. There is a property located across Chenal Parkway zoned PCD which was recently approved for development of a Walgreen’s. East of the site is property zoned C-3, General Commercial District with a CUP to allow a mini-warehouse development. To the west is property zoned PCD which was recently approved for a four (4) lot development containing restaurant uses. Other uses in the area include a large retailer, vacant commercially zoned property and an Entergy substation. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two (2) informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Duqesne Place Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-B 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. Per Ordinance No. 19,883, boundary street improvements to Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 were deferred on December 4, 2007 for 5 years, until adjacent development occurs, until traffic counts reach 12,000 ADT, or Lot 9 develops which ever occurs first. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a revised Planned Commercial Development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Chenal Parkway is a Minor Arterial. A Minor September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-B 4 Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Minor Arterial. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown along Cantrell Road. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a five foot (5’) shoulder or six foot (6’) marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: Any dead, diseased or missing landscaping must be replaced. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating the applicant had requested zoning verification for the site and was provided a certification letter stating the site was zoned C-3, General Commercial District. Staff stated the owner then leased the property to a person displaying storm shelters within the former oil and lube building. Staff stated it was later determined the property was zoned PCD and would require a revision to the PCD to allow the use to continue. Staff stated the developers were requesting the storm shelter display use as well as a number of additional C-3, General Commercial District uses. Staff stated based on the parking available on the site they had concerns with a number of the uses proposed. Staff also questioned where the current occupant stored his equipment. The applicant stated the leasee’s manufacturing company was located outside the City limits and all his equipment was stored at the manufacturing location. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street improvements were required as noted in Ordinance No. 19,883. Staff stated a deferral was approved in December of 2007 for a period of five years or until abutting development occurred or until the development of Lot 9 Northwest Territory Addition. Staff stated the improvements would come due in 2012. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any dead, diseased or missing landscaping located on the site was to be replaced. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-B 5 There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised request to staff based on comments received at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates the allowable uses of the property limited to general or professional office, a showroom and a warehouse (interior display and storage only) and maintaining the allowance of an express lube facility as an allowable use. The applicant is also requesting to allow Tornado Shelter Systems to place a showroom within the former express lube building. There are no other modifications proposed to the previously approved development plan, uses or hours of operation for the site. Staff is supportive of the request. The former lube building was constructed with approximately 1,200 square feet which if used as an office use would typically require the placement of three (3) parking spaces. The site contains two (2) parking spaces adjacent to the building and additional parking is available on the site nearer the convenience store. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the utilization of the former lube building as proposed will not significantly impact the development. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6532-E NAME: The Enclave at Chenal Heights Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Valley Drive DEVELOPER: Boomer Consumer, LLC P.O. Box 242146 Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Thomas Engineering Company 3810 Lookout Road North Little Rock, AR 72116 AREA: 14.12 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 68 FT. NEW STREET: 2,060 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-R ALLOWED USES: Retirement village PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R PROPOSED USE: Attached and detached single-family VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the future lots with the placement of the basic infrastructure within the proposed subdivision. The applicant submitted a request dated August 20, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated August 20, 2009, requesting a deferral of the item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-E 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: LU09-09-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – I-630 Planning District Location: 3517 West 25th Street Request: Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density Source: Larry D. Smith PROPOSAL / REQUEST: The applicant has requested this item be deferred until October 15, 2009. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to the October 13, 2009 hearing. By a vote of 9 for and 0 against the consent agenda was approved. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 10.1 FILE NO.: Z-8486 NAME: 3517 West 25th Street Short-form POD LOCATION: Located at 3517 West 25th Street DEVELOPER: Larry Smith 3517 West 25th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 SURVEYOR: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.366 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: 8 Units of Multi-family housing and an office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant failed to provide a response to comments raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide a response to comments raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of the item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8486 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-8487 NAME: Diversions Short-form PCD and Alley Abandonment LOCATION: Located at 2611 Kavanaugh Boulevard DEVELOPER: EO Corder, Inc. Attn. Eddie Corder 2611 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.0826 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses, Allowance of rooftop dining – Reduced Parking per the Hillcrest Design Overlay District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The request is a rezoning from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD and the abandonment of an alley right of way located at 2611 Kavanaugh Boulevard. The building is located in the Hillcrest neighborhood and is located midway between Walnut and Ash Streets. The building is one-story with a brick exterior and large front windows. The building was originally built in 1926, was rebuilt after a fire in the 1950’s and has been remodeled several times. The building is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District. The building is finished with two (2) suites. Salon Corde currently occupies approximately one-half September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 2 the building and the other suite is lease space, most recently leased to Lemon – a crepe and coffee company. A restaurant tenant is interested in leasing the space and having outdoor seating. The outdoor seating is proposed as rooftop dining with seating for up to 49 persons. All entrances and exits will have emergency exit signs. There will be handicap access to the roof provided by the alley. The existing chain link fence on the roof will be replaced with a wood privacy fence to assist as a sound barrier and increase curb appeal. The rooftop will be an atmosphere that will provide open breeze and a view that overlooks historic Kavanaugh Boulevard. There will be two outdoor speakers to provide ambient sound of water and wind. There will not be live music or a dance club like scene. There will be two pergola shaded areas with fans. Seating will be provided by four outdoor sectional couches and six patio sets that will not include umbrellas. Plants will provide greenery along with exotic flowers, vegetables and herbs. A water feature will be front and center. In general, the rooftop seating will be an extension of the restaurant downstairs that will serve lunch and dinner. Regular access will be via internal stairs from the Kavanaugh Boulevard entrance. Handicap access will be provided via a walkway from the rear of the building. The hours of operation are from 10:00 am to 10:00 pm Sunday and 10:00 am to midnight Monday through Saturday. All lighting on the rooftop will be directed downward or will be tabletop candles. Garbage collection is proposed off-site via sharing of a dumpster across Kavanaugh Boulevard. If an on-site dumpster is required the request is to place the dumpster within the alley, just north of the barricade. The hours of dumpster service will be limited to daylight hours. Deliveries will be limited to Kavanaugh Boulevard or the portion of the alley at the same grade as the restaurant. The outdoor seating creates a parking requirement that is greater than the property can meet as there is no owned parking. The building occupies ninety five percent of the parcel. The requested PCD zoning is intended to allow the addition of the rooftop dining with lesser parking than typically required for a restaurant use per the DOD. The application for right of way abandonment is separate from the PZD application but the two are connected by the desire to provide handicapped parking spaces in a portion of the alley to serve the rooftop dining. The alley is blocked and barricaded. At Kavanaugh Boulevard the alley is the same grade as the street. Approximately thirty feet south of Kavanaugh Boulevard the alley is closed by a rock wall approximately fifteen feet tall. A few feet south of the wall is a guardrail type barricade to prevent vehicles from driving north over the wall. The request for abandonment is the full width of the alley (20 feet) for September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 3 approximately ninety-feet. The applicant is requesting the alley abandonment be considered even if the PZD application is denied. According to the applicant at this point the alley is not open to vehicular or pedestrian use, alternative use of the alley for other allowed uses seems to be reasonable as the alley no longer provides public access from Kavanaugh Boulevard. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The building is located on Kavanaugh Boulevard adjacent to an unimproved alley which is barricaded a few feet from Kavanaugh Boulevard. The building proposed for rezoning houses a salon and restaurant. Adjacent to the alley to the West is the Dog House, a pet grooming business, and drycleaners. North of the building is a parking lot with a curb cut from Kavanaugh Boulevard and Walnut Street. Uses in the area are residential and commercial uses. Residential uses include single-family and multi-family. The building is located within the Hillcrest Shopping District. Allsopp Park is located to the Northeast. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from area residents and property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Hillcrest Residents were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Drainage easements should be maintained in the alley to convey stormwater from adjacent property. 2. The portion of the alley, where access to the roof is desired, should be repaved. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 4 Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #1 – the Pulaski Heights Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Kavanaugh Boulevard is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Ash Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class III is shown along Kavanaugh Boulevard. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan. While the plan does not specifically address this issue, it does state a need for “more mixed-use opportunities should be provided within the commercial areas, including parts of Kavanaugh, Markham Street, and Stifft Station. Mixed-use means more opportunities for residential over commercial in existing commercial areas.” Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) The applicants were present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating there were a number of questions related to the proposed PCD request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff questioned the handicap access and the location of restroom facilities for handicap persons. Staff also questioned parking and the location of September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 5 the handicap parking areas. The applicant stated details for restroom facilities had not been completely addressed but the owners were reviewing options. The developers stated the request for the PCD was to not require parking. He stated negotiations were taking place with the offices located north of the Ice House to allow parking within this area. Staff requested letters from the various utility companies stating their position of the abandonment request and the letter was to include their desire for the retention of easements. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the alley should be retained as a drainage easement to convey stormwater from the adjacent property. Staff also stated the portion of the alley where access to the roof was desired should be repaved. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the comments raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised cover letter states a chemical ADA compliant portable toilet will be placed on the roof top to serve the ADA requirements for restroom facilities. The site plan indicates the placement of paving within the abandoned alley and the placement of a handicap space within this area. The applicant has indicated an agreement with the adjoining property owner will be reached to provide sufficient area for the required space. The applicant is working to secure letters from the various utility companies regarding the alley abandonment. Public Works has indicated the entirety of the alley must be retained as a drainage easement. The floor area for the salon and restaurant is 1,600 square feet each. The proposed roof top dining is 1,300 square feet. The site is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District which allows for a reduction of the required parking by fifty (50) percent. A salon outside the DOD would typically be required eight (8) parking spaces and with the fifty percent reduction four (4) spaces would be required. The restaurant and the roof top dining area would typically be required 29 parking spaces. With the fifty percent (50%) reduction, fourteen (14) spaces are required. The DOD also allows for street parking to count towards the parking requirement. The DOD states where September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 6 on-street parking is allowed it shall be credited toward the parking requirements at a rate of one (1) space per ten (10) linear feet of street frontage. Parking spaces within a common parking facility may be counted toward the parking requirements of any development. The total number of parking spaces within the common parking facility shall not be less than the sum of requirements for the various individual uses utilizing the facility. There are no common parking facilities associated with this property. The site contains 38 feet of street frontage allowing for three (3) parking spaces. The proposal also allows the placement of one (1) handicap parking space within the abandoned alley. The plan as presented provides four (4) parking spaces. The development would typically be required the placement of eighteen (18) parking spaces. Permitted signage per the Hillcrest Design Overlay District is limited to signage permitted in Institutional and Office Zones or on the street level, the maximum area of signage may be doubled if at least fifty (50) percent of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the street. The highest point on any commercial sign attached to the building shall not exceed the corresponding building's height. Freestanding commercial signs may not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, neon-lit signs greater than thirty (30) square feet are prohibited and off-premises signs are prohibited. The applicant is requesting to maintain the existing signage located on the site. All future signage will comply with the Hillcrest DOD. As stated, the request includes an abandonment of an existing alley located along the western perimeter of the property. The abandonment includes a 20-foot alley for the length of the applicant’s property. The portion of the alley located adjacent to Kavanaugh Boulevard has been constructed. There is an eight foot rock wall located 35-feet from the property line which disconnects the alley. The upper portion of the alley has not been paved and is barricaded with a guardrail approximately 55 feet from Kavanaugh Boulevard. The Public Works Department has requested the entirety of the alley be retained as a drainage easement. The building was originally constructed as a two-story building. The building was previously damaged by fire and the second story was not reconstructed. The center stair accessing the second floor remains and is proposed to access the roof top dining. The site plan indicates handicap access will be provided from the abandoned alley as well as a handicap parking space. Wood decking will be placed on the existing roof. A portion of the deck will be covered. A new wood fence will be added along the western façade to screen the deck from the adjoining properties. A forty-two inch knee rail will be added to the front parapet on Kavanaugh Boulevard. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 7 Staff has concerns with allowing the rezoning request to add the additional activity to the roof of this existing building. Staff’s concerns are primarily noise, the late hours, insufficient parking and the placement of the portable toilet on the roof to meet the ADA requirements. Staff feels there is a strong potential of a negative impact on the adjoining residential uses. The evening activities are currently located along Kavanaugh Boulevard and by placing the handicap access and handicap parking within the abandoned alley this will add an activity to the rear of the building that is currently not in place. The site as exists today does not provide the typical parking required per the Hillcrest Design Overlay District and with the addition of the roof top dining this compounds the lack of parking available for the use. The applicant has requested use of the outdoor dining area until midnight six nights per week. Although the applicant is proposing the placement of a screening fence and a sound barrier to aid in blocking noise from the rooftop diners staff feels the noise will still travel and impact the adjoining homes. Staff also has concerns with the placement of a portable toilet on the rooftop to meet ADA requirements. Staff feels although facilities are being provided for handicap persons by the placement of the portable toilet on the roof, staff does not feel the portable toilet is adequate. Although staff is not supportive of the rezoning request staff is supportive of the requested alley abandonment. According to Public Works staff, the entirety of the alley is to be retained as an easement. Staff supports the alley abandonment request as long as the easement rights are retained. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested PCD application request. Staff recommends approval of the alley abandonment request subject to the entirety of the abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated August 31, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to the October 15, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the deferral was necessary to meet with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association at their September 14th meeting. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8487 8 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the By-law waiver request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion of approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-8488 NAME: Forest Valley Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located South of Forest Lane and East of South Katillus Road DEVELOPER: Taypac, LLC 100 Buckland Place Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 4.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 24 FT. NEW STREET: 625 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the future lots with the placement of the basic infrastructure within the development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project contains 4.8 acres and is located on Forest Lane between South Katillus Road on the west and Taylor Loop Road on the east. The project falls immediately south of Montagne Court and is currently zoned R-2, Single-family. The developer is proposing to create a residential community with fifty foot wide lots with an average lot size of 7,000 square feet. The development is proposed with twenty-four residential lots and a density consistent with single-family development per the City’s Future Land Use Plan or five units per acre. The developer will construct the project in a single phase. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 2 The style of homes is proposed as traditional and soft Craftsman. The homes will range from single story homes containing 2,000 square feet to 2,400 square foot two story homes. The price range expected is from $250,000 to $275,000. Each home will have four sided brick veneers with hardiplank siding accenting some second story elevations. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the first phase. The advanced grading will allow the developer to make the site balance and prevent hauling material in and out of the site with the construction of each home. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a gravel road extending from Forest Lane to the south. The site is heavily wooded with a slight elevation change falling to the south. The area to the north is developed as a single-family Subdivision, Montagne Court. A public elementary school is currently under construction to the northeast. West of the site are single-family homes located on large lots or acreage. East of the site is a church fronting on Taylor Loop Road. Widening of Forest Lane is currently taking place as a part of the required street improvements for the new public school. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Montagne Court Property Owners Association, the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Forest Lane with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 26 feet from the existing back of curb on the north side of Forest Lane. 2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to Forest Valley Lane with the planned development. Per the Master Street Plan, parking is September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 3 restricted to one side of the street on 24 foot wide streets. Show on the current plan and later on the final plat and in the bill of assurance the location of the street parking areas. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. The applicant is requesting a variance to advance grade the lots with construction of the streets. Provide the reason for the advance grading request. 5. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 6. Provide a trash collection easement on the final plat for Lots 12 and 13. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code of Ordinances. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 11. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e). Per Section 29-102 an evaluation should be conducted on the basis of existing downstream development and any analysis of stormwater runoff with and without the proposed development. If the proposed development will cause or increase downstream flooding conditions, provisions to minimize such flooding conditions should be included in the design of the storm management improvements. Such provisions may include downstream improvements and/or detention of stormwater runoff and its regulated discharge to the downstream storm drainage system. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project. Reimbursement fees required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 4 Utility for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Please submit plans for water facilities to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the City of Little Rock Fire Department is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The site is located near CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a Planned Development Residential. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: South Katillus Road and Forest Lane are both shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 5 Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the PD-R request stating there were a few outstanding technical issues in need of addressing. Staff questioned if accessory structures and interior fencing would be allowed. Staff suggested a note on the site plan be included stating these items would be allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district. Staff also stated a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of the site should be held in common and private open space. Mr. White stated the lots would contain the private open space but no common open space was proposed within the development. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request included a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire site with the placement of the streets and infrastructure. Staff requested Mr. White provide a written justification for the request. Mr. White stated in summary the request was necessary to balance the site and to bring the building pads up to a grade with the initial clearing and limit the need for fill on an individual lot basis. Staff stated the stormwater detention ordinance would apply to the development. Staff also stated streetlights were required at the time of final platting. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Accessory structures will be allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district if the design matches the materials and architecture elements as the main structure. Swimming pools will also be allowed as typically allowed in the R-2, Single-family zoning district. Fencing will be allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure of the subdivision. According to the response letter provided from the Subdivision Committee comments, the applicant has indicated the advanced grading is September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 6 necessary to prevent hauling materials in and out with the construction of each home. The project contains 4.8 acres and is proposed with twenty-four (24) single-family lots. The lots are proposed as fifty (50) foot wide lots with an average lot size of 7,000 square feet. The developer will construct the project in a single phase. The maximum buildable area proposed is 3,500 square feet. The plat indicates the placement of a fifteen foot front yard setback, five foot side yard setbacks and a twenty-five foot rear yard setback. The homes will range from single story homes containing 2,000 square feet to 2,400 square foot two story homes. The price range expected is from $250,000 to $275,000. Each home will have four sided brick veneers with hardiplank siding accenting some second story elevations. The style of homes is proposed as traditional and soft Craftsman. A single subdivision identification sign is proposed. The sign is indicated consistent with signage allowed per the zoning ordinance or a maximum of six feet in height and thirty-two square feet in area. The site plan indicates parking will be restricted to the east side of the street only. A note will be included on the Final Plat for the subdivision and the limited parking will be addressed in the bill of assurance for the subdivision at the time of final platting. Staff is supportive of the request and the requested variance for the advanced grading. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The site is proposed with single-family homes at a density allowed per the City’s Future Land Use Plan. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure for the subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the developer had agreed to place fencing up prior to beginning construction of the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8488 7 subdivision and the construction of the homes to keep construction traffic off the private driveway located south of the development. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure for the subdivision. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8489 NAME: The Gardens of Valley Falls Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and LaMarche Drive DEVELOPER: HBH Builders, Inc. 68 Montagne Court Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 13.565 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 64 FT. NEW STREET: 2,450 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Attached and Detached VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the future lots with the placement of the basic infrastructure within the development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The property contains 13.56 acres and is located near the southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road West where the future connection will be made with LaMarche Drive. The property is currently zoned R-2, single-family and is proposed for a rezoning to PD-R. The developer wishes to create a residential community of attached and detached single-family homes. The outer ring of the neighborhood will consist of fifty foot wide lots developed with Single Family Court Homes. The inner core will consist of thirty-two foot wide attached townhouses that have access to a common eighteen foot private drive on the rear. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 2 The developer has indicated a right of way 60 feet from the eastern property line will be dedicated to the City for construction of the LaMarche Drive extension. The developer wishes to construct the full width of pavement for the north 677 feet of the 1,000 feet of frontage in-lieu of constructing one-half street improvements for the entire frontage. The developer is proposing the development in one phase; however final platting of the lots will occur in various phases depending on the real estate market. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the first phase. The advanced grading will allow the developer to make the site balance and prevent hauling material in and out of the site with the construction of each home. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located along the northern boundary of Valley Falls Estates and south of the Maumelle Assembly of God Church. The property has an intersecting corner with Taylor Loop Road. The site is wooded with a drive from Taylor Loop Road accessing an existing home. The property is bordered on the east by single-family homes located on acreage and accessed from Carter Lane. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Montagne Court Property Owners Association, the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to the streets within the subdivision with the planned development. Due to the width of the street being 24 feet parking is restricted to one side of the street. Show on the plat now and later on the final plat and within the bill of assurance the location of allowed parking areas. 2. Show the phase lines on the plan. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 3 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Advanced grading variance is being requested for the entire development with construction of Phase 1. Show Phase 1 on the plan. Provide reason for the advanced grading variance request. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 7. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to LaMarche Drive including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. Improvements should be made to the intersection of LaMarche Drive and Taylor Loop Road. Approximately 265 feet of additional half street improvements are required to be installed. 8. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 9. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 10. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 11. Provide a garbage pickup easement for Lot 39 and Lot 35. 12. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 13. The median on Garden Valley Loop should be shortened by 20 feet towards the west away from LaMarche Drive due to sight distance conflicts. 14. No residential waste collection service will be provided in the private alley unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. Garbage collection will occur on one side of the alley. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 4 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project. Reimbursement fees required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater for details. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Please submit plans for water facilities to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities. Approval of plans by Central Arkansas Water, the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Section D107.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code states developments of one and two family dwellings where the number of dwellings units exceeds 30 must provide a separate and approved fire apparatus access road and must meet the minimum specifications for construction including a minimum pavement width of 26-feet where a fire hydrant is located on the fire apparatus road. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The site is located near CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a Planned Development Residential. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 5 Master Street Plan: Taylor Loop Road and La Marche Drive are both shown as Collectors. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of- way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were a number of outstanding technical issues in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff questioned if accessory structures and interior fencing would be allowed. Staff suggested a note be included on the site plan stating fencing and accessory structures would be allowed per the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. Staff also stated a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of the site should be held in common and private open space. Mr. White stated the lots would contain the private open space but no common open space was proposed within the development. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request included a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire site with the placement of the streets and infrastructure. Staff requested Mr. White provide a written justification for the request. Mr. White stated in summary the request was necessary to balance the site and to bring the building pads up to a grade with the initial clearing and limit the need for fill on an individual lot basis. Staff stated additional street construction was required to meet the half street ordinance requirements. Staff stated approximately 265 feet of additional half street improvements was required since the property owner owned both sides of the street along the southern boundary. Staff also requested the intersection of Taylor Loop Road and LaMarche Drive be constructed as a round-about. Mr. White stated this was not feasible. He stated the developer did not own or control the entirety of the property necessary to construct the round-about. Mr. White stated he would meet with staff to address this item prior to the Commission meeting. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 6 There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant provided a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates no storage buildings will be allowed but swimming pools will be allowed within the development. Fencing will be allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district. The revised plan indicates the placement of an emergency access entrance in the northern portion of the subdivision between Lots 39 and 40. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure of the subdivision. According to the response letter provided from the Subdivision Committee comments, the applicant has indicated the advanced grading is necessary to prevent hauling materials in and out with the construction of each home. The development is proposed with attached and detached one or two story single-family homes. The attached homes are proposed containing 1,400 to 1,600 square feet and the detached homes will range from 1,500 to 2,100 square feet. The design of the homes will be traditional and soft craftsman homes. The homes are proposed with brick facades and pre-cast concrete accenting architectural elements. The maximum building height will not exceed the maximum building height allowed in the R-2, Single-family zoning district. A single subdivision identification sign is proposed. The sign is indicated consistent with signage allowed per the zoning ordinance or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and thirty-two (32) square feet in area. The site plan indicates parking will be restricted to one side of the street. Parking will not be allowed on the eighteen foot (18’) private driveway in the rear of the attached homes. A note will be included on the Final Plat for the subdivision and the limited parking will be addressed in the bill of assurance for the subdivision at the time of final platting. The outer ring of the neighborhood will consist of fifty (50) foot wide lots developed with Single Family Court Homes. There are forty-four (44) residential lots proposed in this area. The inner core will consist of thirty-two (32) foot wide attached townhouses that have access to a common eighteen (18) foot private drive on the rear. There are twenty (20) homes proposed in this area. The September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 7 developer is proposing the development in one phase; however final platting of the lots will occur in various phases depending on the market and demand. The detached homes are proposed with a twenty (20) foot front building line with a twenty-foot (20) rear yard setback and five (5) foot side yard setbacks. The attached homes are proposed with fifteen (15) foot setbacks adjacent to the streets, three (3) foot setbacks along the common lot lines and the rear yard is indicated with a thirty (30) foot access and utility easement with the building setback located fifteen (15) feet from the property line. The developer has indicated a right of way 60 feet from the eastern property line will be dedicated to the City for construction of the LaMarche Drive extension. The full width of pavement for the north 677 feet will be constructed in-lieu of constructing one-half street improvements for the 1,330 feet of frontage. The developer has indicated rough grading will be provided within the area not constructed along the southern portion of the site. The intersection of Taylor Loop Road and LaMarche Drive extension will be designed to allow LaMarche Drive to intersect with a stop sign and Taylor Loop Road to continue to be the through movement. The developer has provided a cost estimate for the typically required one-half street construction and the proposed partial full street and intersection construction costs. The construction cost for the proposed improvements are greater than the typically required half street improvement costs. Staff is supportive of the request and the requested variance for the advanced grading. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The site is proposed with single-family homes at a density allowed per the City’s Future Land Use Plan. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff supports the request to do the partial, full-street and intersection improvements as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure for the subdivision. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8489 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire development with the installation of the basic infrastructure for the subdivision. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8490 NAME: Johnson Short-form PD-C LOCATION: Located at 4314 Asher Avenue DEVELOPER: Tracy Johnson C/o Stephen Giles, PA 425 West Capitol, Suite 3200 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.335 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-4, Open Display District ALLOWED USES: Commercial – Open Display PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Bar/grill, lounge or tavern VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from the current C-4, Open Display Zoning District to PD-C to allow the site to be redeveloped with a bar/grill, lounge or tavern. The site is currently vacant and is proposed with the construction of a two (2) story 4,500 square foot building. The site plan indicates the placement of 31 on-site parking spaces and indicates agreements to allow additional off site parking spaces. The hours of operation are from 9:00 pm to 2:00 am Thursday through Saturday. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant parcel located on the north side of Asher Avenue. This area contains a number of uses including auto repair, auto towing, bars, churches, a gas station, a funeral home, a hair salon, a mortgage company office and auto financing. This area of Asher Avenue also contains a number of vacant buildings and large paved areas. Further north of the site are single-family homes. This area of Asher Avenue does not have curb and gutter in place. There is an existing sidewalk which is in various states of disrepair. The alley located to the north of the site is a very narrow alley and is signed as one-way. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Curran Conway Neighborhood Association, the Goodwill Neighborhood Association, the Love Neighborhood Association, the Midway Neighborhood Association and the South of Asher Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with alternative design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. Show the centerline of the right-of-way on the site plan. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps and in compliance with ADA requirements are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. The existing sidewalk is in disrepair and maintenance is required. 3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lot must have a single driveway access centered on the property. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 3 6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 7. An alley dedication should be made to 10 feet from centerline. The alley should be overlaid with asphalt prior to certificate of occupancy adjacent to the property. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to the project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning for a Planned Development Commercial. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Asher Avenue is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Asher since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Oak Forest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Economic Development Goal states: “Promote September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 4 Asher Avenue and West 12th Street as viable commercial and service oriented locations/corridors.” Landscape: 1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Before a building permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. 3. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. 4. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or enlarged must provide street buffers at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot with a minimum dimension of one-half (1/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required is fifty (50) feet. 5. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use areas. 6. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. 7. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 8. Landscape areas may be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the building or elsewhere on the site at the discretion of the responsible party. However, landscape areas must be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas must be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 5 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 13, 2009) Mr. Stephen Giles, Tracy Johnson and Stephen Yelenich were present representing the applicant. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were a number of outstanding technical issues in need of addressing prior to the item being forwarded to the Commission for final action. Staff stated the site plan as presented was not a workable site plan. Staff stated a better option would be to bring the building to the street and provide parking in the rear yard area. Staff also stated if the building was located at the property line the landscaping street buffer would not be required except adjacent to paved areas which could be reduced to six feet nine inches (6’9”). Staff questioned the proposed signage plan. Staff also stated the parking requirement was one space for every one hundred gross square feet of building space. Mr. Johnson stated parking agreements had been reached with adjoining property owners. Staff requested copies of the parking agreements for the file. The Committee questioned the use of the property. Mr. Johnson stated the use of the property would be a bar and grill. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedications on Asher Avenue and the alley were required. Staff stated sidewalks were required along Asher Avenue. Staff stated all broken curb, gutter and sidewalk would require repair prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Landscaping comments were noted. Staff stated any questions related to the landscape comments could be addressed at the time the revised site plan was submitted to staff for review. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of issues raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan has “pulled” the building to the front property line and provided parking within the rear yard area. The parking is indicated with access from the alley located north of the site. Additional dedication and paving will be provided along the alley. The signage plan has not been provided to staff. The building is proposed as a two-story building containing 4,500 square feet. The site plan is indicates the placement of 31 on-site parking spaces. The use of September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 6 the site as a bar and grill would typically require the placement of one parking space per one hundred square feet of gross floor area requiring 45 parking spaces. The site plan is indicated with 31 on-site parking spaces. Of the parking indicated, three spaces will be lost due to landscaping (one space) or required backing and turn around (two spaces) resulting in 28 on-site parking spaces. The developer has indicated agreements with nearby property owners to allow off-site parking but as of this writing, these agreements have not been provided to staff. Section 36-507, Location of off-street parking states all parking spaces provided pursuant to Chapter 36 shall be on the same lot with the building or within three hundred feet thereof. The distance to any parking area as herein required shall be measured between the nearest point of the off-street parking facility and the nearest point of the building said parking area or facility is to serve. Off-site parking shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the total number of spaces required by Chapter 36. All off site parking shall be noted on the zoning map so as to assure maintenance of the requirement. The applicant is proposing to place seventeen (17) or thirty-eight percent (38%) of the required parking spaces off-site. The detached parking facilities or satellite parking lots shall be zoned to allow the principal use the parking is intended to serve. The applicant has not provided staff with the location of the off-site parking areas to verify the zoning. The landscaping indicated on the site plan is not adequate to provide the required street buffer. Also the site plan as presented does not provide the minimum six foot nine inch (6’9”) landscape strip along the eastern and western perimeters of the site. The landscape strip located within the proposed parking area is not adequate to meet the minimum width requirement to count towards the required interior landscaping requirements. Staff has concerns with the site plan as proposed. The site plan does not provide the required landscape strip along the property lines, the required interior landscaping or adequate street buffers. Staff also has concerns with the parking plan as presented. Staff has concerns with the placement of thirty-eight (38) percent of the required parking off-site and, not knowing the location of the off- site parking, staff cannot verify if the property is zoned appropriately. Based on the number of unresolved issues related to the site plan, staff cannot support the application as filed. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Steve Giles and Mr. Tracy Johnson were present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a revised site plan and additional information to staff addressing the issues raised by staff in the agenda write-up. Staff stated the revised plan indicated the construction of a 4,000 square foot two story building and 27 on-site parking spaces. Staff stated the applicant had provided an agreement with an adjoining property owner located across the alley to allow the use of 16 parking spaces. Staff stated with the on-site parking and the leased parking the applicant had at their disposal 43 parking spaces. Staff stated the ordinance typically required 40 parking spaces to serve the proposed use. Staff stated Section 36-507, location of off-street parking stated all parking spaces provided pursuant to the zoning ordinance were to be on the same lot with the building or within three hundred feet of the building. Staff stated the distance to any parking area was measured between the nearest point of the off-street parking facility and the nearest point of the building the parking area or facility was to serve. Staff stated off- site parking was not to exceed twenty-five percent of the total number of spaces required by the zoning ordinance. Staff stated the detached parking facilities or satellite parking lots were to be zoned to allow the principal use the parking intended to serve. Staff stated the property proposed for off site parking was zoned C-3, General Commercial District. Staff stated the property was located within the 300-foot typical required parking distance. Staff stated the off-site parking resulted in 37 percent of the parking being located off site which was more than typically allowed per the zoning ordinance but staff was supportive of the parking as proposed since the parking was located immediately adjacent to the site across the alley. Staff stated the site plan indicated the placement of a dumpster located adjacent to the two parking spaces located off the alley. Staff stated the hours of operation for the business were from 9:00 pm to 2:00 am Thursday through Sunday. Staff stated the dumpster would be serviced during non-business hours. Staff stated the site plan as presently presented allowed for the minimum landscape strips per the Landscape Ordinance and the perimeter landscape strip was six feet seven-five inches. Staff stated the interior landscaping was indicated at the eight percent minimum. Staff stated building landscaping would be provided at the time of construction of the new building. Staff stated based on the revised site plan they were now supportive of the request. Staff stated they felt the applicant had done an adequate job in addressing their concerns related to the site plan and issues previously raised. Staff stated they did not feel the placement of the use on the site and the use of the adjacent parking area would significantly impact the area. Staff stated the site was located within an area of the City, which had historically been commercial and industrial uses. Staff stated a study of the September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 8 Asher Avenue Corridor suggested the open display C-4 and Industrial uses be limited to the south side of Asher Avenue and the C-3 indoor retail activities be located on the north side of Asher Avenue. Staff stated the proposed use of the property fit with the plan for the area. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the site plan had been revised to address staff’s concerns. He stated the development was an in-fill development and the plan was a tight fit but was a workable plan. He requested the Commission allow the opposition to speak and he would then address any issues raised. Ms. Clarice Littleton Coleman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was the owner of the property next door. She stated Mr. Johnson had leased her property for the past three years and had an agreement with Mr. Johnson to purchase the property. She stated Mr. Johnson backed out on the agreement after he received his liquor license to operate a club at the proposed new location. She stated the area did not need another club. She stated there were four clubs within one-half a mile of the site. She stated placing two clubs side by side would create problems and would create congestion and traffic issues. The Commission questioned Ms. Coleman as to the location of her parking. She stated she had agreements with adjoining property owners in the area to allow her customers to park after hours. The Commission questioned the number of parking spaces available. She stated approximately 300 spaces were available for her use. Mr. Charles Webb addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he was co-owner of CC’s the club next door. He stated his concern was the clientele served. He stated his customer base was an older crowd and Mr. Johnson catered to the younger patrons. He stated with two clubs located side by side there would be parking concerns. He stated it would be difficult to keep Mr. Johnson’s customers from parking in his parking lots. Ms. Coleman continued to address the Commission. She stated there were a number of property owners opposed to placing the club in the area. She stated staff presented a recommendation of denial so the other owners did not feel the need to be present. She stated she would get the opposition to come to the Board of Directors meeting when the item was heard. She stated parking and traffic in the area were her two main concerns. Mr. Giles stated he appreciated Mr. Coleman’s concerns but felt the site plan was a workable site plan. He stated the site plan had staff’s support. He stated the parking his client was leasing was not parking mentioned by Ms. Coleman as her parking. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490 9 There was a discussion of the Commission concerning land use and economic issues. Commissioner Rector stated the job of the Commission was not to determine if a development made good economic sense but to determine if a land use was appropriate for a site or area. A motion was made to approve the request as presented by staff based on the revised site plan submitted providing the additional landscaping and the parking agreements provided and to include all staff comments noted in the agenda write-up. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent. September 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: G-25-202 Name: East 3rd Street Name Change to River Market Avenue Location: That portion of East 3rd Street from Main Street to the terminus one block east of World Avenue Petitioner: Downtown Little Rock Partnership Request: Rename that portion of East 3rd Street located from Main Street east to its terminus one block east of World Avenue to “River Market Avenue”. Abutting Uses and Ownerships: This area contains a variety of uses including parking lots, a park, the Clinton Presidential Library, Heifer International, offices, retail, condominiums and a newspaper printing plant. Several of the properties take addresses from intersecting streets. From Main Street east to Cumberland, the uses include several surface parking lots a City parking deck, a retail clothing store (Mr. Cool’s) and the Historic Arkansas Museum. Of these uses, only the museum has a 3rd Street address. The museum supports the name change. From Cumberland east to Scott, the uses include the 300 Third Tower containing residential uses and commercial tenants, the Capitol Commerce Center office building and parking deck, a surface parking lot, The Rock Street Lofts, the River Market Tower containing residential uses and commercial lease space, and the Tuf-Nut Lofts. Of these uses, the 300 Third Building, Tuf-Nut Lofts and the vacant commercial space in the River Market Tower have a 3rd Street address. The owners of the River Market Tower and Tuf-Nut Lofts and the owner and POA representative of the 300 Third Building have signed the petition in support of the name change. From Cumberland Street east to I-30, the uses include a surface parking lot, Interstate right- of-way and Acxiom. Acxiom has a 3rd Street address and has signed the petition in support of the name change. From I-30 East to the terminus at Heifer International, the uses include Interstate right-of-way, the Clinton Presidential Center and Park and printing and warehouse facilities of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. None of these uses appear to have a 3rd Street address. Heifer International and the Clinton School of Public Service have signed the petition in support of the name change. Neighborhood Effect: The name change will affect the addresses of some businesses and residents as noted above. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-202 2 Neighborhood Position: Based on the signatures on the petition provided to staff it appears the majority of property owners and resident representatives in the area support the name change. Effect on Public Services: No opposition has been voiced by any of the reviewing agencies including Public Works, Utilities and Emergency Service providers. Up to 10 street name signs will need to be changed. Staff Analysis: The Downtown Little Rock Partnership has submitted a proposal to rename this portion of East 3rd Street to River Market Avenue. The name is intended to mark the recent growth in the River Market District and will help cue visitors that the District encompasses a larger area than just the properties along Clinton Avenue. The River Market District’s boundaries are considered by most to be Main Street to the west, the Arkansas River to the north, World Avenue to the east and Capitol Avenue on the south. East Third Street is more of the center of the neighborhood that people refer to as the River Market District. The Partnership envisions the street name change as the first step in an effort to better brand the River Market District and to facilitate potential synergies between development in the River Market District and the area extending to the south. Staff is supportive of the proposed name change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposal to rename that portion of East 3rd Street located from Main Street east to its terminus one block east of World Avenue to River Market Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) The applicants were present. There were several persons present both in support and in opposition. Several e-mails of support and opposition and a petition of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-202 3 Sharon Priest, of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership, spoke in support of the application. She referenced the growth in the River Market District and the area in general. She stated the elements of the District such as streetscaping and light banners had been replicated in the area, including along East 3rd Street. She noted the new Hampton Inn Hotel at 3rd and Commerce answered the telephone “Hampton Inn River Market.” Ms. Priest stated downtown had to be more than just one street and the proposed street name change would encourage further expansion of the successes of the River Market District. Kelly Bass spoke in support. He stated he had worked at Acxiom for several years and the reason Acxiom chose this area for its headquarters was because it was in the River Market District. He stated renaming the street would jumpstart the momentum of expanding the District beyond just one street. Luke Gordy, of 300 East Third Street, spoke in support. He identified himself as President of the 300 Third Property Owners Association and stated his group unanimously supported the name change. He stated the residents of 300 Third lived downtown to experience the urban lifestyle and he felt this proposal would enhance that experience. Jimmy Moses stated he had been involved in development of the River Market area for over 20 years, even before there was a River Market District. He stated the street name change proposal was a recognition of the successes in creating a new neighborhood. Mr. Moses stated the developers of the River Market District never envisioned the District being bounded by a specific number of blocks or streets. He stated his firm had worked to add new businesses and residents to the area. Marybeth Ringgold, owner of Copper Grill at 300 Third, spoke in support. She stated she was part of a group of business owners and residents along East 3rd Street who had been meeting to discuss various issues related to the continued success of the River Market District, including expanding the public perception of the area. She said the proposed name change was one item that came out of those discussions. Ms. Ringgold stated she had always felt her location to be part of the River Market District. Skip Rutherford, Dean of the Clinton School of Public Service. Spoke in support of the proposal. He stated the River Market was more than the businesses that front onto President Clinton Avenue. He stated the School wanted 3rd Street renamed River Market Avenue. Mr. Rutherford stated the name was a brand that worked well and expanding the concept of the District would encourage new development and services in the area. Louise Terzia, representing the Historic Arkansas Museum, stated the Museum’s governing council had voted to support the street name change. She stated the museum had been at its location since the 1940’s and its properties represented the oldest neighborhood in the City. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-202 4 Ms. Terzia stated the museum had seen the area change from an old warehouse district to what it is today. She said she felt a larger, thriving River Market District would be perceived as safer and more inviting which would encourage more visitors to the area. Rett Tucker spoke in support. He stated his company had developed properties on both President Clinton Avenue and East 3rd Street. Mr. Tucker stated the proposal was all about economic expansion. He asked the Commission to support the name change. Larry Jacimore, owner of property at 620 President Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition. He cited the possibility of confusion that might be caused by the name change. He stated he and others had put time and money into developing the River Market District and they felt disenfranchised to have “our brand” taken away. Frank Porbeck stated his family had owned property at Commerce Street and President Clinton Avenue since the 1940’s. He stated he and eleven other property owners had contributed $200,00.00 in 1996 for streetscaping in the new district. Mr. Porbeck stated City ordinance specifically defined the boundaries of the District and established design overlay standards for properties within the district. He referenced the petition signed by 39 businesses in the River Market District who were opposed to the proposed name change. He stated they supported development of the 3rd Street area but objected to the River Market “brand” being shifted over and out of the district. Nita Westbrook, owner of a business in Ottenheimer Hall, spoke in opposition. She stated it would shift the focus of visitors looking for the River Market to a street named River Market which would lead to confusion for the visitors and loss of business for those businesses on Clinton Avenue. Commissioner Nunnley asked Sharon Priest, Marybeth Ringgold and Jimmy Moses to comment on the comments they had heard from the opposition. Ms. Priest stated there was no legal description of the River Market area but there was a legal description of the specific area covered by the Design Overlay. Ms. Ringgold stated the street name change would not diminish the River Market “brand”, but it would expand it. Mr. Moses stated, when the River Market “brand” was created, it was not intended to have specific boundaries. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Ms. Priest stated the Downtown organization was looking at ways to more clearly define and advertise the District, including signage, lighting, gateways and art. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Director of Planning Tony Bozynski stated there were no plans to expand the area covered by the River Market Design Overlay District. September 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-202 5 In response to questions from Commissioner Changose, Ms. Priest stated the River Market district was considered to be bounded by the Arkansas River, Capitol Avenue. Main Street and the Heifer property. She stated there had not been consideration given to renaming one of the north/south streets such as Commerce Street. Chairman Taylor commented that it seemed a stretch to rename 3rd Street River Market Avenue. Vice-chair Yates asked what other names had been considered. Ms. Priest responded that she was not sure any other names had been considered. Commissioner Laha commented that he was normally opposed to street name changes but he supported this one. Commissioner Ferstl commented that no one in Ottenheimer Hall actually had a River Market address; that all their addresses were on President Clinton Avenue. Vice-chair Yates asked Mr. Porbeck if he had an alternative name to offer. Mr. Porbeck responded that he did not as he only became aware of the proposal a week earlier. Mr. Porbeck presented an advertising map that showed the boundary of the River Market District to stop at 2nd Street. He reiterated his opposition and suggested renaming Commerce Street. Commissioner Rouse asked Mr. Porbeck if he only considered President Clinton Avenue to be the River Market district. Mr. Porbeck responded that he did not but he saw the proposed name change as a move to shift the focus of the district from Clinton Avenue to the south. Commissioner Nunnley asked how anything would change for the negative since Clinton Avenue was lined with hotels, entertainment venues and restaurants. Mr. Porbeck responded that the name change would confuse tourists and could lead to Clinton Avenue being relegated to a side street. Commissioner Changose commented that he felt if the district got better, everyone would benefit. He stated he did agree that it would be better to rename an intersecting street. Ms. Priest stated her organization was putting together a map to advertise all of the activities available along Clinton Avenue. She stated the free map would be available in hotels and restaurants. A motion was made to approve the proposed street name change. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent.