Loading...
pc_01 24 2013sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 24, 2013 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: Tom Brock Alan Bubbus William Changose Janet Dillon J. T. Ferstl Rebecca Finney Keith Fountain Obray Nunnley, Jr. Amy Pierce Bill Rector Members Absent: Open Position City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 13, 2012 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JANUARY 24, 2013 OLD BUSINESS: Item Number: File Number: Title: A. S-1687 4625 Geyer Springs Cut-off Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 4625 Geyer Springs Cut-off. B. Z-5787-C Whole Foods Revised Short-form PCD, located on the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road. C. S-867-RRRRRRR Chenal Valley South Preliminary Plat, located north of Denny Road just west of Gordon Road. D. Z-3689-K LISA Academy Zoning Site Plan Review, located at 21 & 23 Corporate Hill. E. Z-1716-F Pleasant Ridge North Short-form PD-C, located at 11300 Cantrell Road. F. Z-8717-A Williams Short-form PD-R, located at 401 Steven Drive. G. Z-8814 Green Design Construction Company Short-form PD-R, located on the northwest corner of 18th Street and Wilson Road. NEW BUSINESS: I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: Item Number: File Number: Title: 1. Z-3371-TT I-430 Shoppers Mall Long-form PCD and Preliminary Plat, located at 11900 Colonel Glenn Road. 2. Z-4343-CC Leisure Arts Facility Revised Long-form POD, PCD Revocation and Preliminary Plat, located at 5701 Ranch Drive. Agenda, Page Two I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title: 3. Z-7645-A Chipotle Mexican Grill Short-form PCD, located at 100 South University Avenue. 4. Z-8833 Baker Long-form PCD, located in the 7000 Block of Highway 300. 5. Z-8834 Mapco Express Short-form PCD and Alley Abandonment for a North/South Alley, the South ½ of Block 141 Original City, located North of 3rd Street between State and Izard Streets. 6. Z-8835 Magnolia Hill Long-form PD-C, located at 5110 Stagecoach Road. II. OTHER ITEMS: Item Number: File Number: Title: 7. Z-2725-D 8624 I-30 Long-form PID Revocation, located at 8624 I-30. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1687 NAME: 4625 Geyer Springs Cut-off Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 4625 Geyer Springs Cut-off DEVELOPER: Gabriel Villegas 4625 Beyer Springs Cut-off Little Rock, AR 72206 SURVEYOR: Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 2.28 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: Area not zoned – Subdivision review only PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 – Geyer Springs East CENSUS TRACT: 40.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is requesting a subdivision site plan review to allow for five (5) residential units and a number of accessory buildings to be located on the property. The property is currently two (2) tracts, under a single ownership, with three (3) units on Tract 1 and two (2) units on Tract 2. The survey indicates there is a single story frame house, three (3) manufactured homes and a travel trailer which is being used as a guest house, on the two (2) tracts. There is an individual septic system on each of the tracts serving the five (5) units. According to the applicant all the units are connected to these septic systems. The property is located within the City’s planning jurisdiction in which the subdivision ordinance only is enforced. Section 31-13 provides the criteria for review of sites containing multiple buildings. The ordinance requires January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 2 developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in an area of the County in which the City exercises subdivision jurisdiction but does not exercise zoning jurisdiction. The area is predominately residential. The property contains a number of residential structures and a number of outbuildings. There appears to be three mobile homes, a site built home and a travel trailer being used as housing. Hilaro Springs Road and Geyer Springs Cut-off are both two lane roads with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in this area. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls and two (2) letters of opposition from area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Geyer Springs Cutoff is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline is required. 2. Hilaro Springs Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline is required. 3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Geyer Springs Cut-off and Hilaro Springs Road. 4. At the time of site re-development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Geyer Springs Cut-Off including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 5. At the time of site re-development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Hilaro Springs Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide approval from the Arkansas Department of Health providing approval of the exiting septic systems. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 3 Entergy: The area is outside Entergy’s service area. Contact First Electric Coop concerning electrical needs. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in additional to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zoned 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 required that upon installation of the RPZA, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Outside the service boundary. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department stating their knowledge of the project. Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain a minimum access of at least 20-feet. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: 1. Provide proof from the Arkansas Department of Health the existing septic systems as adequate to serve the units. 2. Dedicate right of way on Hilaro Springs Road and Mabelvale Cut-off per the Master Street Plan. 3. Obtain a letter from the area volunteer fire department stating their knowledge to the project and their ability to serve the development. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment on this residential application. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 11, 2012) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item to the Committee members stating they would work with the applicant prior to the public hearing to address their concerns. 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 few outstanding technical issues in need of addressing raised at the July 11, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is continuing to work with the Arkansas Department of Health to secure approval of the existing septic systems located on the property. The applicant is seeking approval per Section 31-13 of the Little Rock Code. The ordinance sets forth procedures for processing multiple building site plans and to establish the standards for the development of site. The Subdivision Site Plan review is a development review process that provides for case by case consideration of project particulars including the provision of parking and landscaping in accordance with the appropriate ordinances, siting of buildings, and the relationship with adjoining properties. The property is located outside the City limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The property is located within the area of the County the City exercises Subdivision controls but does not exercise zoning. The property is currently two (2) tracts, under a single ownership, with three (3) units on Tract 1 and two (2) units on Tract 2. The survey indicates there is a single story frame house, three (3) manufactured homes and a travel trailer which is being used as a guest house, on the two (2) tracts. There are individual septic system on each of the tracts serving the five (5) units Staff is unsure when the homes were placed on the property thus necessitating the site plan review. It appears from aerial photos on the City’s GIS System one (1) or two (2) units and the travel trailer have been added since 2009. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 5 Although the City does not have zoning jurisdiction in this area the homes have been placed to comply with typical setbacks of the single-family zoning district. There is ample parking on-site to support the units. Staff is somewhat supportive of the application request but is not supportive of allowing the travel trailer to serve as a residence. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The site plan as presented appears to comply with the typical standards established by the Subdivision Ordinance for site plan review requests. 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 prior to the Commission approving the request the applicant provide approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the existing septic systems. Staff is not supportive of allowing the travel trailer to be used as a residence. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 2, 2012) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant failed to respond to comments raised at the July 11, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the September 13, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item of the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had been unable to obtain septic certification from the Arkansas Department of Health. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of this item to the October 25, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 6 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant is continuing to work with the Arkansas Department of Health/County Sanitarian to secure proper clearance and certification for the existing septic systems located on the property. As previously noted staff recommends approval of the septic system serving the homes be secured prior to the Commission acting on the request. The applicant will continue to secure approval prior to the Commission public hearing. Should approval not be received the item will be deferred to the December 13, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 25, 2012) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not obtained proper clearance and certification for the existing septic systems located on the property. Staff stated the applicant would continue to secure approval. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the December 13, 2012, 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 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant is continuing to work with the Arkansas Department of Health/County Sanitarian to secure proper clearance and certification for the existing septic systems located on the property. As previously noted staff recommends approval of the septic system serving the homes be secured prior to the Commission acting on the request. The applicant will continue to secure approval prior to the Commission public hearing. Should approval not be received the item will be deferred to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with approval of the septic system from the Arkansas Department of Health. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1687 7 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has contacted the applicant concerning the approval letter from the Arkansas Department of Health for the septic systems to serve the four (4) units to be located on the site. At the time of this writing the applicant has not provided staff with the approval letter. A recommendation will be provided to the Commission at the public hearing concerning the resolution of this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had secured all approvals necessary to complete the site plan review process. Staff stated the applicant had reduced the number of units to four based on the Health Department approval. Staff stated the request was a Subdivision Site Plan Review request to allow multiple buildings/residential uses on a single parcel. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. 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. 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5787-C NAME: Whole Foods Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: Whole Foods c/o Charlie Oates Oates Commercial Property 5865 Ridgeway Parkway Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Book or stationary store, clothing store, drug store or pharmacy, furniture store, hobby shop, lawn and garden center (enclosed), office, office equipment and sales, and retail uses not listed (enclosed) within the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Add grocery as an allowable use VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The PCD was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,612, on March 15, 1994. This followed the Planning Commission recommendation of approval on February 8, 1994. The approval allowed a two-lot commercial subdivision located on 7.749 acres. The proposed uses for the PCD were Best Buy with 44,844 square feet within the proposed building and “Toys-R-Us” with 30,625 square feet. The Best Buy lot January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 2 was to contain 4.286 acres and the “Toys-R-Us” lot to contain 3.366 acres. Parking for 362 vehicles was shown on the site plan. At the time of approval, the intended user was “Toys-R-Us”, but convertibility to the following uses was approved: book or stationary store, clothing store, drug store or pharmacy, furniture store, hobby shop, lawn and garden center (enclosed), office, office equipment and sales, and retail uses not listed (enclosed) within the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. The building setback from the north property line was to be 50 feet, with a planted buffer between the building and the north property line. A privacy fence was to be erected as a land use buffer between the PCD site and the residential use to the north. The north 24 feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area, and it was to be enclosed within the façade of the building, with the restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The main façade of the building, then, was set at 75 feet off the north property line. The approved PCD restricted the hours of loading and operation of the compactor to daylight hours, and required that the building colors on the north façade be “neutral tones”. The approved building “footprint” was 146.83 feet wide, plus the 25 foot loading dock/compactor area, by 210.85 feet deep. There were, among other site work requirements, requirements for limiting construction activities on Sunday. The negotiations between the developer and “Toys-R-Us” broke down and “Toys-R-Us” elected to locate in a different area of West Little Rock. When “Toys-R-Us” failed to take the lease space for the Lot 1 area, a privacy fence was required to be erected along the north limits of the proposed building line. (Building walls, where no openings were provided, were allowed as a required land use buffer fence, and, since the wall was not in place, the required buffering was not in place. The temporary privacy fence at the wall location served as a substitute for the wall. On December 12, 1995, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the building footprint for the Lot 1 building and to allow the occupant of the building to serve refreshments to customers as an accessory use to the primary retail user. Instead of a single tenant space, two (2) tenant spaces were proposed. The building setback along the northern property line was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. On April 26, 1996, the Assistant City Manager approved a request to increase the building area for the proposed north building (Lot 1) located north of Best Buy. The approval allowed the construction of a 150 foot (north to south) by 212 foot building (east to west), with a 22 foot wide loading dock. The occupant of the building was Linen’s-N-Things. On June 4, 1996, the Assistant City Manager approved a revision to the site plan to allow the placement of a free standing canopy on the front of the building. The canopy was not to be enclosed heated and cooled space. The purpose was to serve as shelter January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 3 for customers. The construction was a roof structure with four support poles and not an addition to the building space. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is now proposing to amend the approved PCD for the Lot 1 of the Appletree Subdivision, Linen’s-N-Things. The request is to add a food store as an allowable use maintaining the previously approved uses. As a separate item on this agenda the applicant was requesting to amend the Master Street Plan to allow a median break with a left turn lane into the Best Buy driveway along Chenal Parkway. The median cut would allow for left turns only into the development. The applicant has since withdrawn this request. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area has developed with commercial uses including restaurants, big box retail, small retail users and a tire store. Best Buy occupies the building located to the south of the building proposed for rezoning. There is a church currently occupying the space proposed for the grocery. North of the site is a residential subdivision, the Birchwood Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar Height/Point West/Timber Ridge Property Owners Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association 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. Current traffic volumes on Chenal Parkway between Bowman Road and Autumn Road exceed 35,000 trips per day. 3. Adequate left turn access is provided at the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 4 4. The addition of a left turn lane as proposed creates a very hazardous access due to traffic having to turn left across three (3) lanes of traffic. There are insufficient gaps in traffic to safely make a left turn maneuver across three (3) lanes of traffic. Other locations on Chenal Parkway have been converted to left turn protected by arrow only due to high accident numbers, such as Markham Street and Chenal Parkway. 5. The proposed left turn lane is too close to the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway and its proximity will result in blocking of the eastbound through traffic lanes resulting in added congestion and an increase in rear end collisions in this area. 6. Median cuts are prohibited by the design requirements, which are adopted by Ordinances #14,210 and #15,239. 7. Chenal Parkway Design requires a minimum of 600 feet between median openings to provide adequate left turn storage for vehicles. There is less than 500 feet between Bowman Road and the proposed median cut. 8. The intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway extends 465 feet to the east, thus leaving no room for adequate left turn storage for the proposed access. Left turning vehicles will block eastbound Chenal Parkway traffic on a corridor that is already over capacity. E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 11, 2012) Mr. John Reese and Mr. Joe White were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the previous approval established minimum building setbacks, required buffering and limits on the hours of delivery and dumpster/compactor service. Staff questioned if these items would continue to apply to the new user. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated as a separate item on the agenda there was a request to amend the Master Street Plan to allow a median break on Chenal Parkway at the Best Buy entrance drive. Staff stated this was not desirable due to the proximity of the intersection of Bowman Road and the limited amount of stack that could be provided on Chenal Parkway at this location. Mr. White stated there were other median breaks along Chenal Parkway. Staff stated there were fewer vehicles traveling the Parkway at these other locations and the impact on traffic flow was much less. Staff stated there was a protected left turn at the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway which would allow entry into the site. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 5 There was a general discussion concerning the driveway from the site onto Bowman Road. Mr. White stated this driveway would be improved with the redevelopment of the site. Staff noted the existing screening fence and landscaping was to be in good condition and any dead, diseased or missing landscaping was to be replaced. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. F. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request raised at the July 11, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant submitted a request dated July 19, 2012, requesting withdrawal of the Master Street Plan amendment (Item #17 File No. MSP-12-04). The applicant is requesting to amend the listing of previously approved uses to include a food store as an allowable use. Currently there are no revisions proposed to the existing building but the applicant has indicated additional space may be desired in the future. According to the applicant the existing 50-foot buffer along the northern portion of the site would be maintained. The additional square footage would be accomplished by enclosing the 22-foot by 60-foot area along the northwestern portion of the building and/or enclosing a portion of the loading dock area. There are 148 parking spaces on this lot. Per the Zoning Ordinance parking for a food store, supermarket or convenience type grocery store is four (4) spaces plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, exclusive of the storage area. The building contains 32,460 square feet with a potential expansion area totaling 5,060 square feet for a total gross floor area of 37,520 square feet. Based on the typical minimum parking requirements a total of 125 parking spaces would be required including areas proposed for storage. There are three existing shared ground sign locations on the two lots. There is a monument sign located at the entrance drive to Best Buy on Chenal Parkway and one on Bowman Road at the entrance drive. The sign is a monument sign which appears to comply with the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District or eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. There is a pole sign located on Bowman Road. The sign appears to be comparable to signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area. Building signage for this lot is limited to the front façade of the building. The signage appears to comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten (10) percent of the front façade area. The applicant January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 6 has indicated there will not be a change in the existing signage locations or areas. Only the sign faces will be changed to advertise the new tenant. Staff is supportive of the request to add a food store to the allowable uses for this site. Staff does not feel the addition of the food store as an allowable use will significantly impact the area. The applicant has stated all previously imposed conditions continue to apply to the site. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to add a food store as an allowable use subject to compliance with the following comments: 1. Compliance with the comments in paragraph D of the above write-up. 2. Compliance with all previously imposed conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 2, 2012) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair informed the applicant when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present the Commission’s policy was to allow the applicant the option of deferral to a later hearing date. Mr. White stated he desired to defer the item to the September 13, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has stated they are continuing to work with the Birchwood Neighborhood Association concerning proposed modifications to the existing building and additions to the site plan. Staff recommends deferral of this item to the October 25, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had stated they are continuing to work with the Birchwood Neighborhood Association concerning proposed January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 7 modifications to the existing building and additions to the site plan. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the October 25, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff meet with the owner, the owners representative and members representing the Neighborhood Association concerning this request on October 15, 2012. Based on information provided to staff at this meeting staff requests this item be deferred to the December 13, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 25, 2012) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating they had met with the owner, the owner’s representative and members representing the Neighborhood Association concerning this request on October 15, 2012. Staff stated based on information provided to staff at this meeting they were requesting this item be deferred to the December 13, 2012, 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 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff amending the application request. The following bullets outline the amendments as requested by the applicant: • The approval is limited to Whole Foods and not transferable to any other grocery user. • The developer is requesting a traffic signal be placed on Bowman Road at the shopping center entrance to allow traffic to more ease in accessing/exiting the site. According to the developer with a very popular grocery store and as many visits as Whole Foods believes will be coming to the intersection they believe this is extremely important in allowing Whole Foods to be successful at this location. The developer plans to enlarge the entrance to the site on Bowman Road making January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 8 a right and left hand turn out of the center and one turn into the center. This is not an issue for the Planning Commission to consider. The placement of traffic signals are items specifically addressed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and based on determinations of warrants. The City’s Traffic Engineer will determine if/and when warrants are met. • Expand the existing dock area by 20-feet to the north and replace the existing wood fence with a concrete block wall (see drawing). The wall will be 10-feet high and approximately 120-feet long. At the end of the block wall the developer will construct a new 8-foot wood fence that will extend to the commercial area in the front of the site and then turn and run north approximately 50-feet until the fence connects to the commercial area on Bowman Road (see site plan). • Plant Leland Cyprus or similar evergreen screening plants starting at the rear of the dock area placed 15-feet on center and placed 8-feet from the concrete block wall and continuing as shown on the site plan in front of the new 8-foot solid wooden fence to allow additional screening along the northern border with the neighborhood. • As the dock area is increased the developer will add storm drainage grates in the concrete and direct all of the rain water that will fall on the dock area which will be routed either to the front of the development into the existing storm drainage culverts or to the back of the property (to the east as it presently drains) and away from the Birchwood Neighborhood. • Move the existing electrical transformer forward by approximately 100-feet to the green area at the front of the site nearer to the commercial development on Bowman Road, (see site plan). • Move the present 8-yard dumpster from its present location to inside the dock area and in front of the compactor that Whole Foods plans to use at this location. This should eliminate any more problems with the dumpster at that location since it will be kept cleaner and it will more than likely be smaller than the present 8- yard dumpster. • Whole Foods has agreed to not empty the dumpster or run the compactor except during the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm daily. The dumpster will be picked up three (3) times per week with the same hours as above and Whole Foods has agreed to only run the compactor no more than three (3) times per day. The decibels for the compactor are between 60 to 75 decibels and the run time is less than one (1) minute each time it compacts trash. (A lawn mower has a decibels noise level of 105 decibels). The developer feels the noise level will be minimal since it will be behind a concrete block wall and the closest homes are more than 100 feet away. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 9 The revised plan includes extending the northern façade of the building, adjacent to the existing truck dock, 20-feet by the length of the building. The wall will be constructed as a 10-foot tall masonry wall. As noted by the applicant Leyland Cypress or similar evergreen trees/shrubs will be placed on the northern side of the wall to visually break the massing of the wall and provide additional screening to the development. The purpose of the expansion is to relocate the existing dumpster, which is within the front parking area, to this screened enclosure and placed along side a proposed trash compactor proposed by the new tenant. Within the expansion area an additional 920 square feet of warehouse space will be gained. The applicant is also proposing an area of outdoor dining along the front of the building. The applicant has indicated there will be eight (8) to ten (10) tables with approximately twenty-five (25) chairs. There will be outdoor music within the patio area. The speakers will be located to direct sound into the outdoor dining area. Staff is supportive of the placement of the area for outdoor dining. The previous approval provided a 40-foot planted buffer and slope transition area. The building setback was approved at 50-feet. Within the setback/planted buffer an 8-foot wood fence was to be installed at the top of the slope which was located 30-feet from the north property line. The buffer was not proposed to be an undisturbed buffer. Grading was allowed within almost the entire northern buffer area. Within the 40-foot area trees and shrubs were replanted. The mix included hollies, hardwoods and pines both trees and saplings. Within the 20-foot area proposed to be removed by the expansion the vegetation was removed, as was 95 percent of the entire northern buffer, and was replanted. Within this 20-foot expansion area one (1) Northern Red Oak, five (5) Savannah Hollies and four (4) Loblolly Pines were to be installed. To meet the minimum ordinance requirement a 28-foot land use buffer was required. As noted in the Background Section of the write-up the north 24-feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area. Within the minute record of the February 8, 1994, Public Hearing the locating dock area was to be enclosed within the façade of the building and to be located under-roof. It was noted by the applicant during the public hearing the roofline would be continuous from the building edge to the northern wall of the loading dock. The height of the loading dock wall was to be the same height as the building wall height. There was a restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The approved PCD restricted the hours of loading and operation of the compactor to daylight hours, and required that the building colors on the north façade be “neutral tones”. There were, among other site work requirements, requirements for limiting construction activities on Sunday. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 10 The stormwater drainage was to be collected and/or distributed to the east stored within a newly constructed detention pond located behind the building. The applicant has indicated within the newly expanded area stormwater will be collected and piped to the detention area located along the eastern side of the building. The applicant is requesting to not cover the loading dock area. This item was not constructed with the original development and staff can not find if and when this condition was removed as a requirement. According to the applicant leaving the area uncovered will allow for the development to contain rainwater and pipe the water to the east and into the stormwater detention pond. After reviewing the Bill of Assurance and Covenants on the property there is an existing covenant which prohibits grocery and/or food stores for this site. Although there are covenants in place to prohibit the grocery store the covenants are a private contract between the property owners. Staff is not supportive of allowing the expansion of the northern wall as proposed. Staff feels the buffer was put in place with the original approval to protect the homes located to the north. Staff does not feel conditions have changed and the neighborhood protection should be maintained. Staff is however supportive of allowing the revision to the PCD to add a grocery store as an allowable use to the property. As noted in the previous write-up staff does support a small expansion and allowing the area behind the loading dock to be enclosed and “squaring up” the building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) Mr. John Reese was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial to the applicant’s request to expand the store/loading dock area by moving the northern wall 20-feet to the north. Staff stated they were in support of all other aspects of the development. Mr. John Reese addressed the Commission. He stated Whole Foods was looking to relocate from their current Rodney Parham Road site to this new site. He stated this new site would allow additional square footage and would allow for better visibility. He stated the current store had 9,500 trips per day and the new location was expected to generate 12,500 trips per day. He stated he and his engineer had met with the neighborhood and they had made a number of request in which the development was meeting. He stated the neighborhood had requested the six foot wood fence be removed and replaced with a masonry fence, which the development was doing. He stated the neighborhood had also requested the wood fence be replaced and constructed to eliminate foot traffic through the neighborhood. Mr. Reese stated the January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 11 point of contention between staff was moving of the northern face of the building by 20-feet to allow the loading dock area to be expanded. He stated the wall would be 10-feet high and would replace and existing 6-foot fence. He stated the need for expanding the dock area was to allow the trash compactor and the dumpster to be located within the loading dock area. He stated the proposed user was a grocery store which required a compactor to operate their business. He stated the neighborhood had requested the dock area be limited to a 33-foot expansion area to resemble Fresh Market’s dock area. He stated his user could not function with a 33-foot dock area and needed to 40-feet to allow for loading of the compactor from inside the store, relocating the trash dumpster within the dock area and allow for trucks adequate maneuvering area. Mr. Bill Ruck addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was three doors to the east of the development. He stated he agreed with staff and had concerns of the expansion would have negative impact on the adjacent homes. He stated he wanted Whole Foods to locate on site. He stated he felt there was a development plan which would allow for the trash compactor inside the building as well as maintain the buffer area. Ms. Joann Keith, Vice-President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had met with Mr. Reese and had offered suggestions but were not in agreement with his proposal. She stated the neighborhood was in support of Whole Foods but not in support of allowing an expansion. She stated the area was a quiet residential neighborhood. She stated in 1996 the Commission did not feel an expansion would be a benefit to the neighborhood and nothing had changed. She stated the reason there were not a number of residents in attendance in opposition was the residents depended on the officers of the neighborhood association to come down to City Hall and address their concerns. She stated she had visited both Whole Foods and Fresh Market and Fresh Market’s operation was much better than Whole Foods. She stated the compactor at Fresh Market did not smell and there was no trash strewn about. She stated this was not the case at the Whole Foods location on Rodney Parham Road. She requested the Commission continue to impose all previously imposed conditions such as limiting the hours of service and no idling of vehicles on the site. Ms. Tracey Kersey, President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood was in full support of Whole Foods locating in the neighborhood but not of allowing the building expansion or allowing the outdoor dining area. She stated the neighborhood had concerns with drainage as well not only from the proposed expansion but the existing drainage problems from the site. She stated water from this developed currently January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 12 drained into the backyards of the homes located on Birchwood Drive causing severe flooding problems. She stated the developer did not fully comply with the original approval such as covering the loading dock area and planting and/or maintaining the trees and shrubs within the buffer area. She stated expanding the northern wall into the neighborhood would have a significant impact on the existing homes and would potentially add to the already problematic drainage concerns of the area. Mr. Havis Jack stated his home was located north of the site. He stated he was concerned with the potential impacts of the expansion but he did not have anything additional to add. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated buffers and landscaping were long hard fought battles in the 1980’s and 1990’s. She stated they had stood the test of time and were an enhancement to the neighborhoods. She stated she did not want to see the buffer intruded into since it was a fought battle and appeared to have served its purpose which was to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Reese stated drainage would not be a problem with the new construction. Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Engineers stated the drains would be connected and routed to the existing detention pond located behind Best Buy. Mr. White stated he did not feel there was a drainage problem on the site. Mr. Reese stated he had requested Whole Foods limit their loading dock to 33-feet and they stated they could not function with less than 40-feet. He stated their business was not like Fresh Market and they needed the additional area to load their compactor and maneuver the truck within the dock area. He stated he felt the placement of Whole Foods at this location was a win/win for the City. He stated no one would be able to tell the difference in a 30-foot buffer and a 50-foot buffer. He stated all who looked at the area felt the existing wood fence was the property line. He stated he also owned the shopping center on Bowman Road which had a retaining wall 20-feet tall. He stated the height of the wall, which was two times as tall as this wall, had not impacted the adjacent homes. There was a general discussion by the Commission as to the existing drainage in the area, the proposed expansion and the need for the 50-foot buffer. Staff stated the site included a 50-foot building setback, a 10-foot transition area and a replanted 40-foot landscape buffer. Staff stated there was an elevation change from the existing wood fence and the floor level of the existing loading dock. Staff stated standing adjacent to the face of the building you were looking over the wood fence and into the back yard of the adjacent homes. Staff stated the site needed to be raised within the expansion area 10 to 15-feet to match the existing floor elevation which would visually increase the height of the wall. Staff stated they felt all drainage problems could be addressed through proper maintenance. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 13 There was a question by the Commission as to the difference in the expansion area proposed by the neighborhood and the developer. The Commission also questioned what area would be maintained as a buffer if the 40-foot expansion was allowed. Mr. White stated this was the first time he had seen the sketch provided by Mr. Ruck. He stated a deferral was necessary to review the sketch to see if it could meet the needs of the proposed tenant. Mr. Reese requested a deferral of the item to allow his engineer and the neighborhood to meet to discuss options for allowing the improvements to the building required to meet the needs of Whole Foods and meet the desires of the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request as filed by the applicant to allow a building/loading dock expansion along the northern face of the building extending the building 20-feet to the north from its current northern face. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. John Reese was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had met with staff and the neighborhood association and based on the meeting the site plan had been revised. Staff stated the new plan moved the loading dock building expansion forward (to the west). Staff stated the applicant had also requested to add additional alternative uses but had since removed the additional uses from his request. Staff stated the request to add a food store was the only use being proposed. Staff stated the applicant was requesting to place an area of outdoor dining in the front of the building and to not enclose the loading dock area as was required with the original approval. Staff stated they continued to recommend denial of the request. Mr. Reese addressed the Commission stating he had met with the neighborhood association and staff to redesign the site plan to better fit and have the least impact on the neighborhood. He stated the dock was shorten from 125 feet to 100 feet and moved forward 35-feet to lessen the impact on the residence to the north. He stated the neighborhood had requested the north wall be painted a neutral color and he had agreed. He stated the neighborhood had requested evergreens be planted to further screen the wall and he was agreeable to this as well. He stated the reuse of the building as a food store would add value to the homes in the neighborhood. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 14 Ms. Tracey Kersey President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had met with Mr. Reese and did request he provide enhancements to protect the residence if the rezoning was approved. She stated this did not mean the neighborhood was in favor of the building expansion to the north. She stated the neighborhood did not understand why the additional area was necessary since other sites functioned with a compactor and truck within a truck dock the same width as the existing dock. She stated the neighborhood was opposed to the allowance of the outdoor dining and outdoor music. She stated previously the Commission had denied a request to allow an outdoor refreshment area for this site. She stated there had also been a request denied to allow the building to be expanded to the north. She stated the neighborhood did not want the grocery store because of the increase in traffic that would come with the grocery. She requested the Commission vote no on the expansion and on the outdoor dining. Ms. JoAnn Keith addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had two questions, one was does Whole Foods really need the additional space and the answer was no and the second was could they move in the space as/is and the answer was yes. She stated the Birchwood Neighborhood was a unique neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood had only one exit out of the neighborhood and that was at Autumn Road. She stated the other three exits did not have traffic signals and the residents were unable to get into traffic. She stated the 50-foot buffer was put in place to protect the neighborhood when the site was developed because the previous Commission saw this coming. She requested the Commission vote no on the request. Mr. Havis Jack addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home would be directly impacted if the approval was granted. He stated he had lived thru the development of the site from the beginning. He requested the Commission vote no on the encroachment. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the battle for the buffer was hard fought in the early 90’s and was put in place to protect the neighborhood. She requested the Commission not allow any more intrusion into the neighborhood and to maintain the buffer put in place. Mr. Reese addressed the Commission stating it was unfortunate the City had grown around the neighborhood as it had. He stated the neighborhood was in a tough situation. He stated he did not feel the building expansion would hurt property values in the neighborhood. He stated different grocery stores had different requirements for loading docks and compactors. He stated the 35-feet was the distance Whole Foods was telling him they needed to operate. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 15 There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the building expansion, the commitments made to the neighborhood and the height of the wall. Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates stated there would be a four to five foot foundation wall with a 12-foot masonry wall on-top. He stated this would be a part of the building and serve as the northern face of the loading dock. The Commission questioned drainage both existing and proposed. Mr. White stated the existing drainage was in a grate within the loading dock and was piped around the building to the detention pond. He stated the new area would also be captured and piped to the rear. He stated the previous concern of the downspouts on the north face of the building had been corrected. He stated the downspouts had become disconnected and Mr. Reese had repaired this problem. The Commission questioned the location of the existing wood fence and the distance of the expansion to the fence. Mr. White stated there would be seven feet between the expanded wall and the wood fence. He stated very little grading would take place within that seven feet. He stated within the thirty feet located north of the fence there would be no grading. The Commission questioned Mr. Reese if he was willing to limit the time for outdoor music to 9:00 pm. He stated he was willing to limit the hours of use of the outdoor patio and the music to 9:00 pm. The Commission questioned Ms. Kersey and Ms. Keith if the modification to the hours of outdoor activity addressed their concerns. Ms. Keith stated the neighborhood was not in support of allowing any outdoor activity. Ms. Kersey stated the neighborhood had done an unofficial test and after rush hour you could hear music from this parking lot on Alamo. She stated the noise would impact the nearby homeowners. The Commission generally stated they felt a number of the neighborhood’s concerns were the required landscaping was not installed with the initial application which limited the mature buffer. The Commission questioned if the concern was a lack of faith in the developer or if they were truly concerned with the impact of the building expansion. Commissioner Changose stated he felt the neighborhood did not have a track record with this developer to look back on and say he has come through for us. Commissioner Pierce questioned Mr. Bill Ruck on his thoughts of the development. He stated he was in the minority of the neighborhood because he wanted a Whole Foods at this location but he was concerned with property values if the building was allowed to expand. He stated he felt the existing loading dock could accommodate the compactor and all activities desired by Whole Foods. He stated with a narrow access and an expansion to the eastern portion of the building the compactor could be accommodated. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5787-C 16 He stated his primary concern was for the property located immediately to the north and the impact the building expansion would have on his property value. He stated he was opposed to the building expansion to the north. A motion was made to approve the request as amended, limiting the hours of outdoor music and use of the patio, to 9:00 pm. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, 1 abstention and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR NAME: Chenal Valley South Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located North of Denny Road just West of Gordon Road and North of Wildwood Park 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: 16.73 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 2,000 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.13 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Denny Road or until improvements are completed adjacent to this site. 2. A variance from Section 31-202 which requires streets not extending to the boundary of a subdivision, and its continuation is not necessary for access to adjoining property, the terminus is to be no closer than 50-feet to the property line. 3. A variance from the Master Street Plan to allow the street design and street grades in excess of the typical maximum slope for streets and intersections. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 16.73 acre tract of property located on the north side of Denny Road adjacent to Wildwood Park. The applicant is requesting to create 19 single-family residential lots from the area. The area abutting Denny Road will be placed within a tract. The lots range in size from 0.3097 acres to 0.9859 acres. The subdivision includes three (3) new streets. The request includes a deferral of the required street construction to Denny Road for a period of five (5) years or until adjacent development occurs. There is also a variance from Section 31-202 to allow the terminus of C Street nearer the property line than the 50-feet defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. The request includes a variance from the Master Street Plan to allow the street design and street grades in excess of the maximum slope typically allowed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is heavily wooded sloping upward from Denny Road to the north. Wildwood Performing Arts development is located to the south and uses the Denny Road frontage of this property for parking. North of the site is an approved preliminary plat for the Wildwood Subdivision. Development of the phase abutting the proposed plat area has not occurred. East of the site with access from Gordon Road is a single- family subdivision, Chenal Valley Phase 35, or referred to as Sezanne. Denny Road is a two lane County Road with open ditches for drainage. Within this area little development has occurred. There is an approved PD-R residential subdivision to the south approved in October 2010 for a development containing lots sizes averaging 6,500 square feet. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a letter of concern from the property owner to the north. All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not a registered neighborhood association located in the area. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Denny 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. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Denny Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to the proposed street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 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. 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. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 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. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 for additional information. 10. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. 11. Turnarounds must be provided at termination of Street "A" and Street and “C” Street. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 4 12. Existing cross drains under Denny Road should be evaluated for capacity of the proposed development. 13. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater. 14. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 15. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plans for the proposed streets. The maximum slope on residential streets is fifteen percent (15%). The maximum slope at intersections is five percent (5%). E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Gravity sewer not available in this area at this time. The development will be required a pump station and sewer main extension be installed to obtain sewer service. Sewer development for this area requires approval from Little Rock Wastewater. For additional information and details contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility. Entergy: A 10-foot utility easement is required along each of the proposed streets. Contact Entergy for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge is applicable to all connections off the waterlines along Denny Road. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this property. 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 the 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. 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. 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 January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 5 regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain a minimum access of at least 20-feet. 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: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 22, 2012) Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the owner. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the no right of vehicular access should be increased to 10-feet and questioned if there would be any fences located within the required setback. Staff also questioned if Wildwood would continue to use the paved area along Denny Road for over-flow parking for events. Staff questioned if the development would be completed in phases. Mr. Daters stated the development would be constructed in a single phase. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the maximum slope for a residential street was 15-percent with a maximum intersection slope of 5-percent. Staff also stated a grading permit would be required with the development of the proposed subdivision. Staff stated the stormwater detention ordinance would apply to the development of the subdivision. Staff questioned the desire for constructing Street C and connecting with the previously approved Wildwood Subdivision. Mr. Daters stated the desire was to allow connectivity from Deltic’s Subdivision to the north as well as allow connectivity of the Wildwood Subdivision to the south. He stated limited conversations had occurred between the two property owners. He stated additional dialogue would occur to see if the January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 6 connectivity was desirable to the adjacent property owner and if not the plan would be revised in some fashion to limit the impact on the abutting preliminary platted area but allow future access should both parties agree. Staff noted the comments from the other reporting departments and agencies. 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 a number of issues raised at the November 15, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. Based on the revised plan Public Works has the following additional comments: 1. Deferral of boundary street improvements on residential subdivisions is no longer accepted. 2. Since Street A accesses the large residentially zoned property to the north, it cannot be considered a minor residential street. Therefore, Street A should be constructed as a residential street with sidewalk on one (1) side. 3. The turnaround on Street C must be constructed to a length of at least 80 feet for maneuvering for City and emergency vehicles. 4. Street C shows to exceed a sixteen percent (16%) running slope and eighteen percent (18%) in locations. 5. The Street C and Street B intersection slope exceeds five percent (5%). The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for a 16.73 acre tract of property allowing the creation of 19 single-family residential lots and one (1) tract from the area. The area abutting Denny Road currently being used as parking for the Wildwood Center for Performing Arts will be placed within the tract and continue to serve as over-flow parking for Wildwood. The single-family lots range in size from 0.3097 acres to 0.9859 acres. The average lots are proposed 115-feet by 300-feet and 140-feet by 200-feet. The setbacks are proposed to meet typical setbacks per the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. The subdivision includes three (3) new streets. The request includes a deferral of the required street construction to Denny Road for a period of five (5) years or until adjacent development occurs. Staff is not supportive of the deferral request. Staff feels the street construction to Denny Road should take place with the final platting of the subdivision. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 7 The plat indicates Street A to access a large area of residentially zoned property to the north. With the placement of the street to serve future development Street A cannot be considered a minor residential street and must be constructed as a residential street which requires the placement of 26-feet of pavement and a sidewalk on one (1) side. As noted the street design does not comply with the typical standards of the Master Street Plan. Street C shows to exceed a sixteen percent (16%) running slope and eighteen percent (18%) in locations and the Street C and Street B intersection slope exceeds five percent (5%). Staff is not supportive of the street design as proposed. The turnaround on Street C has not been shown at a length of at least 80 feet to allow maneuvering of City and emergency vehicles. The turnaround must be constructed to allow for the required maneuvering. There is also a variance from Section 31-202 to allow the terminus of C Street nearer the property line than the 50-feet defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is supportive of this variance request. Staff does not support the application as submitted with regard to the street design and deferral of boundary street improvements to Denny Road. Staff feels the street design and construction should be in compliance with development criteria of the various ordinances. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) Mr. Tim Daters and 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 30, 2012, requesting deferral of the item to the October 25, 2012, 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 on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 8 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not responded to comments raised at the August 22, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting and the applicant has indicated they are continuing to develop a plan which will limit the impact on the adjacent property owner. Staff recommends deferral of this item to the December 13, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 25, 2012) Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not responded to comments raised at the August 22, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting and the applicant had indicated they were continuing to develop a plan which would limit the impact on the adjacent property owner. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of this item to the December 13, 2012, 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 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was present. There was one registered objector present. The Chair stated there were seven Commissioners present to hear the item. The Chair stated when there were eight or fewer Commissioners the Commission’s policy was to allow the applicant the option of deferral to a later hearing date. The Chair questioned the applicant if he desired to move forward with the item or if he desired to defer the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates stated he desired to defer the item. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff eliminating the final variance from the proposed subdivision by relocating the terminus of Street C to January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-RRRRRRR 9 50-feet from the northern property line. The revised plat also removes the connection of former Street B to the property located to the north and indicates the area as Tract D which will be held by the property owners association and be used as open space. As noted in the previous staff update the applicant has eliminated the deferral request for street construction to Denny Road and has indicated the design of the interior streets to comply with design standards and street grades per the City’s Master Street Plan. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. It appears the preliminary plat as proposed fully complies with the minimum standards of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 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: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff removing the proposed streets to the north and eliminating any variances for the subdivision from the Subdivision Ordinance and the Master Street Plan. Staff stated the plat as currently proposed appeared to fully comply with the minimum standards of the various City ordinances. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the plat 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-3689-K NAME: LISA Academy Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 21 & 23 Corporate Hill DEVELOPER: LISA Academy 21 Corporate Hill Drive Little Rock, AR SURVEYOR: Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 2.30 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 – Rodney Parham CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a Zoning Site Plan review request to allow the placement of a modular building on the site located to the east to serve as additional classroom space for LISA Academy. At the time of approval the anticipated school enrollment for the 2006 – 2007 school year was 375 students. With the approval staff presented a recommendation the modular building be removed by July 19, 2009, to coincide with the required removal of portable classrooms per Section 36-203(g). The portable classroom building was not removed. Section 36-203(g) was subsequently amended to allow portable classroom buildings through July 19, 2014. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 2 On January 27, 2011, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a Zoning Site Plan Review for this site to allow LISA Academy to expand with construction of a new building located on a lot immediately west of the existing school campus. The school was proposed to house 20 classrooms, a computer lab and a science lab. The building was proposed containing 36,215 square feet. The maximum building height approved was 40-feet. The existing school would remain. The portable classroom building located on the current school campus site would be removed. The school had 473 students in Grades 6 – 12. The school indicated there would be a maximum enrollment of 600 students. There are 41-faculty members serving the school. With the addition of students a maximum of 46-faculty persons were proposed. The school indicated their hours of operation were from 7:50 am to 3:00 pm daily. An existing access easement located on the adjacent lot to the west would serve as ingress and egress to the new building. The pick-up and drop-off would occur in the rear of the building for the high school students. Pick-up and drop-off for the middle school students would take place on the front of the site. On March 10, 2011, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a request to allow an increase the height for the previously approved building. The approval allowed the building height to be increased from 45-feet to 70-feet in height. The building was proposed with three levels above a finished basement. The building has been constructed and is being used by LISA Academy. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The Zoning Site Plan Review approved on January 27, 2011, allowed the use of the site as a school with a maximum enrollment of 600 students. The maximum number of students was based on a traffic study prepared by Peters and Associates outlining traffic flows and drop-off and pick-up schedules and locations to minimize the impact of the school traffic on the abutting City streets. On April 9, 1012, the Arkansas State Board of Education allowed an increase in the cap of students from 600 to 800. Starting with the fall schedule the school increased the number of students from 600 to 800 without seeking approval from the Commission for a revision to the previously approved application. The request before the Commission is a review of the revised traffic study and analysis to determine the impact of the additional students on the area. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is developed with two (2) buildings housing LISA Academy. This area is an office park development. South of the site is floodway Rock Creek. The Corporate Hill Subdivision has developed with office users with the buildings developed with shared access easements and shared parking lots. Most of the buildings in the area appear to be occupied but a few are vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area residents and businesses. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Treasure Hill Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide traffic study to staff for review. E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 15, 2012) The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating the review was to add additional students to the allowed enrollment of the school. Staff stated the previous approval limited the number of students to 600 students. Staff stated the current request was to allow 800 students. Staff stated the review was based on a traffic study which was being prepared by their traffic engineer. Staff stated the City’s Traffic Engineer would review the findings and provide an analysis and recommendation. Representatives from the school stated modifications from the study were being implemented. Ms. Luanne Baroni stated with the implementation of the suggestions by the traffic engineer traffic was flowing at a better pace and there was little to no stacking onto the abutting City streets. Staff stated they would make a site visit to review the progress of the changes. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 4 F. ANALYSIS/TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: LISA Academy has contacted with Peters and Associates Engineers to prepare an updated traffic study for the school. The original traffic study was dated January 10, 2011, and was prepared based on a proposed expansion in the enrollment of the school. The school expected an increase in the number of students from 473 to 600 students. The site plan included an additional point of access via Executive Court for entering site traffic and drives for on-site queuing of vehicles during AM drop-off and PM pick-up periods. Once the 2011 school expansion was completed, vehicle traffic operations associated with the increase in enrollment was found to be adequate. Since that time the student enrollment has been increased to 800 students. The updated traffic study report includes the existing and proposed re-distributed traffic operational analysis accommodating traffic occurring in relation to the expanded student enrollment. There has been no change to the school buildings, driveways, parking or school access points. The current enrollment is 790 students in grades 6 thru 12. Entering school-generated vehicles currently access the site via Executive Court and via Corporate Hill Drive. All exiting school-generated vehicles currently egress the site via Corporate Hill Drive. The original traffic study for LISA Academy was based on a maximum enrollment of 600 students. However, the enrollment was authorized by the Arkansas State Board of Education to be increased to a maximum of 800 students. Current enrollment is approximately 790 students in grades 6 thru 12. This increase in enrollment has created traffic operational issues during the school PM peak hour. On-site observations by Peters and Associates indicate there did not appear to be any adjustment in traffic operations based on the new enrollment. The primary focus of the updated traffic report was to assess existing traffic operations and make recommendations to adequately serve access to the site to minimize queuing on the adjacent streets that currently serve the site; Corporate Hill Drive and Executive Court. The Fall 2012 semester enrollment is 219 students in 6th grade and 186 students in 7th grade for a total middle school enrollment of 405 students. The high school enrollment is 385 students with 147 students in 8th grade and 238 students in 9th thru 12th grades. 6th and 7th grades are located in the middle school building and grades 8 thru 12th are located in the high school building. All entering school generated vehicles access the site via Executive Court and via Corporate Hill Drive. All exiting school generated vehicles egress the site via Corporate Hill Drive. Before the recommended operational adjustments were implemented January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 5 vehicles picking-up 7th and 8th grades were requested to access the site via Corporate Hill Drive. All others were requested to access the site via Executive Court. Wednesday school dismissal PM peak hour is the worst-case condition because it is the only day of the week that there are no after school programs. Therefore, this is the day of the week that was observed as a part of the study. Vehicle traffic counts were made during the school dismissal PM peak hour. School dismissal PM peak hour is from 2:45 to 3:45 PM with the majority of traffic occurring between 2:45 and 3:15 PM. The existing school dismissal PM peak hour site-generated traffic counts at LISA Academy before the recommended operational adjustment were made entering and exiting traffic volumes were the Executive Court access 141 entering and the Corporate Hill Drive access 187 entering and 348 exiting. Because of the traffic operational issues associated with the vehicles queuing on Corporate Hill Drive, evaluations of school access during the school dismissal PM peak hour were made and recommendations were discussed with representatives from the City of Little Rock Traffic Engineering Division. The following are recommended operational adjustments resulting from the study: • It is recommended that student pick-up during school dismissal PM peak hour be via Executive Court for the middle school and via Corporate Hill for the high school. Exception to this pattern could be permitted for special needs pick-up and drop-off and for teachers and staff accessing existing parking areas, which could access via Corporate Hill Drive or Executive Court. • It is recommended that all departing vehicles continue to utilize Corporate Hill Drive. • It is recommended that the middle school dismissal time be changed to a minimum of four minutes earlier on Wednesday during the school dismissal PM peak hours. This would allow 19 minutes between middle school and high school dismissal times thereby allowing enough time for the majority of the middle school vehicles to exit the area before the majority of the vehicles associated with the high school finish arriving. With the 19 minute separation in dismissal times, the approximate 1,700 linear feet of vehicle storage within the school access drive connection from Executive Court is able to accommodate almost all of the vehicles during the school dismissal PM peak hours. Furthermore, the queued vehicles on Corporate Hill Drive were observed to be reduced January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 6 from approximately 2,200 linear feet to an acceptable distance of 1,800 linear feet or less during the worst-case Wednesday dismissal PM peak hours without interfering with the intersection operation at West Markham Street and Corporate Hill Drive. • To assure safe and orderly pick-up and discharge of students within the site, it is recommended that operations facilitators continue to work the pick-up and drop-off areas to direct and assist parents with student movements to/from vehicles to/from designated school access doors and to assist with orderly boarding and departure of vehicles. After adjustments were made the school dismissal PM peak hour site-generated entering and exiting traffic volumes are the Executive Court access entering 156 and the Corporate Hill Drive access entering 147 and exiting 328. PM peak hour for the Executive Court access was 2:35 – 3:35 PM with the majority of traffic occurring between 2:35 and 3:10 PM. PM peak hour for the Corporate Hill Drive access was 2:45 – 3:45 PM with the majority of traffic occurring between 3:00 and 3:25 PM. The implemented operational adjustments during the school dismissal PM peak hour have been implemented by LISA Academy. Vehicle counts and queuing observations associated with LISA Academy during the school PM peak hour were made Wednesday, November 7, 2012, after the implemented operational adjustments were made. It was observed that the queuing along Corporate Hill Drive was reduced to an acceptable distance without effecting traffic on West Markham Street. It was also observed that vehicles queued for only a short time (five minutes) beyond the cul-de-sac on Executive Court. Traffic operations were also observed on a non-Wednesday weekday and it was observed that vehicles did not queue beyond the cul-de-sac on Executive Court nor beyond the curve to the northeast of the campus on Corporate Hill Drive. Staff made a site visit on Wednesday November 28, 2012, to view the modifications and the flow of traffic on and around the site. On Executive Court there were 14 vehicles stacked beyond the applicant’s property. On Corporate Hill Drive there were cars stacked on both sides of the street limiting the travel lane to one. Staff does not feel the modifications implemented are satisfactory. The applicant’s traffic engineer has indicated they will continue to work with LISA Academy and provide additional modifications to the traffic and stacking to limit the impact on the abutting City streets. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the current application request. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-K 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of deferral. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated December 12, 2012, requesting deferral of the item to the January 24, 2013, 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 approval of the By-law waiver request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant and their traffic engineer have been working on solutions to the traffic concerns in the area. There is not been adequate time for staff to observe the changes implemented by the applicant. Staff recommends deferral of this item to the March 7, 2013, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant and their traffic engineer had been working on solutions to the traffic concerns in the area. Staff stated there had not been adequate time for staff to observe the changes implemented by the applicant. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of this item to the March 7, 2013, 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-1716-F NAME: Pleasant Ridge North Short-form PD-C LOCATION: Located at 11300 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Central Crossings Investments, LLC 209 Deauville Place Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 2.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: POD Expired ALLOWED USES: Office/Bank PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Hotel VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated November 21, 2012, requesting deferral of this item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated November 21, 2012, requesting deferral of the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1716-F 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a written request on January 8, 2013, requesting withdrawal of this item. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a written request on January 8, 2013, requesting withdrawal of this item. 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-8717-A NAME: Williams Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 401 Steven Drive DEVELOPER: Ethylene Williams 53 King Park Drive Little Rock, AR 72227 SURVEYOR: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Two-family VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2011, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to allow the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R, Planned Development Residential, to allow the conversion of this existing single-family structure into a two-family unit. The structure is two-story with the lower level being a walk-out basement. The applicant proposed to allow one unit upstairs utilizing the existing carport and parking pad. A new drive was proposed on Brooks Lane to allow parking for the lower level. The request included the allowance of separate meters to serve the two units. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8717-A 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The Little Rock Planning Commission’s By-laws allow a denied application to be re-filed after one year from the date of denial. The year has passed and the applicant is now requesting the Commission recommend approval of the same application as denied on November 17, 2011. The applicant is seeking approval for the rezoning of the property from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the conversion of the home into two-family. The structure is a two-story structure with the lower level being a walk-out basement. The applicant is proposing to allow one unit within the upstairs area and the second unit on the lower level. A revision to the site plan from the original application has been made. The former site plan indicated the parking pad for the second unit off Brooks Drive. The applicant is now proposing the parking pad for the second unit on Steven Drive. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The home is located on a large corner lot located at the end of Steven Drive. Steven Drive dead-ends into a wooded area. This area is virtually all single- family with the exception of the commercial/office area located several blocks to the south along West Markham Street. North of the site are State offices including the Game and Fish, the State Plant Board and the State Crime Lab which are accessed from Natural Resource Drive. Along West Markham Street on Ellis Drive, which is the entrance to this subdivision, there is a church, and a condominium development. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and the Treasure Hill 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. Contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional information. Entergy: No structure can be built within 10-feet of the energized conductor. Contact Entergy for additional information. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8717-A 3 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meters. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The property is located about ¼-mile from CATA Route #5, the West Markham Route, which is located south of the site along West Markham Street. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. Residential Low Density is for single-family homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PDR (Planned District Residential) to allow for conversion of the existing structure from a single-family house to a duplex. Master Street Plan: Stephens Drive and Brooks Lane are both Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8717-A 4 zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. 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 shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: No comment on this two (2) family development. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 15, 2012) Ms. Williams was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the Planning Commission had denied a request to allow the conversion of the structure into a two-family dwelling in November of 2011. Staff stated the Commission’s By-laws allowed a property owner to refile an application one-year after a denial request. Staff noted the plan was different than the previous plan in that the parking pad for the lower unit was now located along Steven Drive. 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: There were no outstanding issues raised at the November 15, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The request is a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R, Planned Development Residential, to allow the conversion of an existing single-family structure into a two-family residence. The structure is a two-story structure with the lower level being a walk-out basement. The applicant is proposing to remodel the home for one unit upstairs utilizing the existing carport and parking pad. The second unit will be in the lower level. A new 20-foot drive is proposed from Steven Drive to allow parking for the lower level. The request includes the allowance of separate meters to serve the two units. The applicant has indicated there will be very few exterior modifications to the structure and the site. A four (4) foot fence will be placed along the western edge of the home near the front corner extending to the north property line to separate the yard areas for the two (2) units. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8717-A 5 As with the original application staff continues to not support the request. The area is predominately single-family with the multi-family and non-residential uses located along West Markham Street. Although to the north of this site is an office complex, the neighborhood has a large wooded screening buffer between the homes and the office use and the office complex is not accessed through this neighborhood. The Bill of Assurance for the Santa Fe Park Addition is still valid and includes the following statement: All lots shall be used for residential property only, with exception of Lot 110 which may be used for a retail business establishment or service activities. There appears to be no distinction regarding the type of residential. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair stated there were seven Commissioners present to hear the item. The Chair stated when there were eight or fewer Commissioners the Commission’s policy was to allow the applicant the option of deferral to a later hearing date. The Chair questioned the applicant if she desired to move forward with the item or if she desired to defer the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. Ms. Williams stated she desired to defer the item. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change to this application request. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Ms. Williams was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Ms. Williams addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. She stated the home was constructed by the developer of Ellis Acres as his home. She stated the January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8717-A 6 home was a large home and instead of going out, he built up. She stated the home was constructed as a house on-top of a house. She stated she desired to relocate the proposed parking pad from Steven Drive to Brooks Lane. She stated the parking pad on Brooks would have less of an impact on the homes in the area since the driveway for the home across the street on Steven was near the proposed parking pad. She stated moving the parking pad to the rear of the structure would allow the resident of the lower unit to enter their front door. Ms. Williams stated Ellis Acres was at the end of Markham in the 1960’s when originally developed. She stated the development was very compact with a total of seven streets. She stated four of the streets did not have an outlet. She stated no street was longer than six blocks. She stated when she came before the Commission in 2011 the neighbor made a big production about water and run-off. She stated the day after the meeting she visited with staff who performed a water run-off analysis and determine there was no run-off from her site to the neighboring property. She stated the area was a pleasant quiet neighborhood which was changing. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood was an older neighborhood which was in the influx of change. She stated it was important to protect neighborhoods which were in this state of change. She stated to add a duplex to the home would change the neighborhood considerably. Ms. Williams stated there were no other homes in the neighborhood which were suitable for conversion to duplex housing. She stated this home was developed larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. She stated the home was constructed as a home on-top of a home. She stated with the closing of one door there could be two homes. She stated the upper unit contained 1261 square feet and the lower near 900 square feet. Commissioner Nunnley questioned Ms. Williams as to the reason for the conversion of the home to a duplex unit. She stated the home was larger than she typically liked to handle. She stated she owned 16 properties all smaller homes mainly two bedroom with a single bath. She stated her comfort zoned was 1200 square feet. She stated her primary occupants were persons leaving an apartment but not ready for homeownership. Commissioner Nunnley questioned what she would do with the home if it was not approved. Ms. Williams stated she would rent the home as single-family. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item including all staff recommendations and comments except for that of denial. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-8814 NAME: Green Design Construction Company Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the northwest corner of 18th Street and Wilson Road DEVELOPER: Green Design and Construction Company 237 HWY 286E Conway, AR 72032 ENGINEER: West Land Surveying 420 A HWY 287 Vilonia, AR AREA: 0.97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 zoning lots FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: 3 buildings of duplex housing VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The request is a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the redevelopment of six (6) platted lots with three (3) buildings of duplex housing. The applicant is proposing upon approval of the PD-R zoning to replat the lots into three (3) lots allowing each building to be located on a single lot. Each unit is proposed with 1,640 square feet of heated and cooled space and a two (2) car garage. Driveways will be constructed from Wilson Road. The units will be constructed with brick exteriors. The units will have pitched roofs with architectural shingles. Within the rear yards there will be a six (6) foot wooden fence. A dividing fence will be placed to allow each unit privacy within their rear yard. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8814 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area is primarily residential with the majority of the homes being single-family. Within the past 15-years a number of new homes have been constructed within this area containing approximately twenty (20) blocks mainly to the south, southeast and southwest. To the north is an area zoned O-3, General Office District along Aldersgate, Wilson, Nichols and Junior Deputy Roads which is developing with office uses, a number of which are medical related uses. At the intersection of Kanis Road and Junior Deputy Road is a City of Little Rock Police Substation. Wilson Road is a substandard street with minimal paving in front of the property. There is no sidewalk in place and the area is served with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and the John Barrow Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Wilson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. A dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline will be required. 2. 18th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. A dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline will be required. 3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Wilson Road and 18th Street. 4. Show proposed driveway locations and parking areas. The maximum driveway width is 20 feet. 5. The existing pavement width on Wilson Road is 18.5 feet. Pavement should be provided to widen Wilson Road to a minimum 20 feet for the length of the property to comply with the International Fire Code. 6. The existing pavement width on West 18th Street is 17 feet. Pavement should be provided to widen West 18th Street to a minimum 20 feet for the length of the property to comply with the International Fire Code. 7. If rear access is desired, a 10 foot right-of-way dedication is required to be provided. A driveway should be constructed per Public Works detail. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8814 3 8. The residential property to the north is downstream of the development. Improvements should be made to elevate any potential damage from stormwater drainage. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional information. Entergy: A 20-foot overhead or 10-foot underground easement is required by Entergy along Wilson Road and 18th Street. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meters. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The property is located about ¼-mile from CATA Route #3, the Baptist Medical Center Route, which is located to the north of the site running along Kanis Road. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8814 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. Residential Low Density is for single-family homes at densities no greater than six (6) dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PDR (Planned District Residential) to allow for the construction of three (3) duplexes on three (3) tracts, currently platted as six (6) residential lots. Master Street Plan: Wilson and 18th Streets are both Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. 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 shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: No comment on this two (2) family development. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 15, 2012) Mr. Samuel Green was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the development was proposed with three (3) buildings of duplex units on six (6) existing platted lots. Staff stated upon approval the lots would be replatted into three (3) lots allowing a building on each of the new lots. Staff questioned the construction materials, the driveway locations and if the development would be constructed in phases. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated there was a home located to the north of the site which the developer would need to be mindful of in construction to not flood the neighboring property. Staff stated additional paving would be required along the property frontage to allow a minimum pavement width of 20-feet. Staff stated additional right of way was required on the abutting streets and a radial dedication of 20-feet was required at the intersection of 18th Street and Wilson Road. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8814 5 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing the issues raised at the November 15, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the redevelopment of six (6) platted lots with three (3) buildings of duplex housing. The applicant is proposing upon approval of the PD-R zoning to replat the lots into three (3) lots allowing the each building to be located on a single lot. The buildings are proposed as single story. The buildings will be constructed with brick exteriors. The buildings are proposed with asphalt-shingles with a hip roof profile. The building envelope is approximately 4,000 square feet. Each unit is proposed with 1,640 square feet of heated and cooled space and a two (2) car garage. Driveways will be constructed from Wilson Road. The development is proposed with a six (6) foot wood fence within the rear yards. A dividing fence will be placed for each unit to allow each to have a private rear yard. The site plan indicates the buildings placed with a 25-foot front and rear yard setback. The side yard setbacks are indicated at eight (8) feet. The setbacks as proposed comply with the typical standards of the R-2, Single-family zoning district. Staff is supportive of the request. The development is proposed with six (6) units located on six (6) existing platted lots. Within this general area in the past few years a number of new single-family homes have been constructed. The applicant is proposing construction materials similar to the new homes which have been constructed. Although the development is proposed as duplex units the overall density does not exceed what is currently allowed. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site as proposed is appropriate. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8814 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) 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 November 15, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT NAME: I-430 Shoppers Mall Long-form PCD and Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located at 11900 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: Todd Hart, Baptist Health 904 Autumn Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates Mr. Tim Daters 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 16.58 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-2, Shopping Center District and C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: Retail PROPOSED ZONING: PCD and C-2, Shopping Center District PROPOSED USE: Automobile Sales and Service and Automobile Collision Repair Lot 1R, Lot 2 automobile storage and future C-2 Shopping Center District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Reduced street buffer along the western property line adjacent to South Bowman Road and the street buffer along Colonel Glenn Road. 2. A variance from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to allow the existing driveway on the east property line to remain. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to allow the creation of two (2) lots from this 16.5 acre parcel and a rezoning from C-2, Shopping Center District and C-3, General Commercial District to PCD, Planned Commercial Development. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 2 Lot 1R is proposed for uses including automotive sales, service and a collision repair facility. Excess inventory will be stored on Lot 2. No sales will take place from Lot 2. The applicant is requesting variances to allow the street buffer along South Bowman Road, south of the southern driveway, to be less than the 17-foot minimum as typically required. The street buffer along Colonel Glenn Road is also indicated less than the 50-foot typical minimum required. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the minimum driveway spacing requirement to allow the existing driveway on Colonel Glenn Road, adjacent to the eastern property line, to remain. On Lot 1R the existing 120,000 square foot building will be removed and two (2) new buildings will be constructed on the property. One (1) building will be approximately 47,000 square feet used as the sales and service facility. The second building will contain approximately 41,000 square feet. The collision center will occupy 31,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet will be used for automobile sales. The dealership will sell both new and used automobiles. Automobile service will also be provided for customers. The hours of operation are Monday through Saturday from 7:30 am to 8:00 pm. The collision center will operate during the same hours. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains Baptist School of Nursing with a large area paved for parking. East of the site is a large area of C-2 zoned property. There are a number of approved site plans for portions of this area including a convenience store with gas pumps, a strip retail center and three outparcels for restaurants. There is an automobile dealerships under construction located on the east side of Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive. Three C.U.P.’s for automobile sales businesses have recently been approved in this area. West of the site is developed with an office/warehouse complex and northwest is a manufactured home park. South of the site are a number of automobile dealerships, a branch bank, a convenience store with gas pumps and undeveloped, tree covered C-3, General Commercial District zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Bowman 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 adjacent to Lot 2. 2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Bowman Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The eastern most driveway on Colonel Glenn Road is required to be relocated 150 feet from the property line and 300 feet from other driveways or streets intersections. 5. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 6. No vehicle loading or unloading is allowed to occur on City streets. Provide the revised WB-50 vehicle travel path thru the site. 7. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to Lot 1R. No sewer service available for Lot 2. Sewer main extension required with easements for Lot 2. 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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. 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 January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 4 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-2 (Shopping Center District) and C-3 (General Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for future construction of an auto dealership and body shop on the site. Master Street Plan: Colonel Glenn Road is a Principal Arterial and Bowman Road is a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 5 urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on both Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads. 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 II Bike Lanes are shown along both Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average fifty foot (50’) wide street buffer along Colonel Glenn Road and in no case to be less than half. 3. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average thirty-four foot (34’) wide street buffer along Bowman Road and in no case to be less than half. 4. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety. 5. Additional islands are needed to separate vehicular traffic and help with onsite vehicular circulation. 6. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. 7. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 300 square feet in area. Proposed plan does not currently reflect this minimum. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 8. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 9. 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. 10. 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: (January 3, 2013) Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating the existing January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 6 Baptist School of Nursing would be removed and replaced with an automobile sales dealership and a collision repair center. Staff stated there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide details concerning the collision repair aspect of the business including screening of damaged vehicles. Staff also requested Mr. Daters provide the proposed signage plan for building signage. Staff requested the proposed truck route and off-loading plan be provided. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of way 45-feet from center line would be required adjacent to Lot 2. Staff also stated street improvements to Bowman Road would be required with the proposed redevelopment of Lot 2. Staff stated no off-loading of vehicles would be allowed within the public right of way. Staff stated damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from the construction was to be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated since the site was being redeveloped all landscaping and buffering was to be brought into compliance with the various City ordinances. Staff stated a 50-foot street buffer was required along Colonel Glenn Road and a 34-foot wide street buffer was required along Bowman Road. Staff stated additional landscape islands were required to assist with vehicular circulation on-site. Staff also stated a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas was to be landscaped with landscape islands a minimum of 300 square feet in area and be evenly distributed throughout the site. 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 and cover letter to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided details concerning the collision repair aspect of the business and provided details of the screening of damaged vehicles. The applicant has also provided the proposed signage plan for building signage and provided the proposed truck route and off-loading plan for the site. The request includes a preliminary plat and rezoning of this site containing 15.58 acres. The approval will allow the creation of two (2) lots. The properties are currently zoned C-2, Shopping Center District and C-3, General Commercial District. The request is to zone the property PCD, Planned Commercial January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 7 Development. Lot 1R is proposed for uses including automotive sales, service and a collision repair facility. Excess inventory will be stored on Lot 2. No sales will take place from Lot 2. There are approximately 400 parking spaces located on Lot 2. Future redevelopment plans for Lot 2 will be reviewed by the Commission and Board of Directors when a specific user and site plan has been identified. Lot 1R is proposed with two (2) buildings. One (1) building will be approximately 47,000 square feet used for new car sales and will also include an auto service center. The second building will contain approximately 41,000 square feet of which 31,000 square feet will be used for the collision center and 10,000 square feet for automobile sales of used cars. Lot 1R contains 688 parking/display spaces. The maximum building height noted on the site plan is 40-feet. A note also states all mechanical equipment will be screened, whether roof or ground mounted, from view from the adjacent streets. The hours of operation are Monday through Saturday from 7:30 am to 8:00 pm. The collision center will operate during the same hours. The exterior of the building will likely be metal and glass with stone, brick or stucco accents. The building will contain a showroom floor, office spaces and service center. All types of auto service will be performed including paint and body work. The applicant notes the area for storage of damaged vehicles will be screened with a six foot screening fence or wall. Gates will be installed to secure the storage area. Signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones. There are three (3) ground sign locations identified on the site plan. Building signage will be placed on the facades abutting the public streets and will be limited to a maximum of ten (10) percent of the façade area. The applicant is requesting the street buffer along South Bowman Road, south of the southern driveway, be less than the 17-foot minimum as typically required. Based on typical ordinance requirements the street buffer along South Bowman Road is to be 34-feet and in no case less than one-half. The street buffer drops to 16-feet in one area. The street buffer along Colonel Glenn Road is indicated at 40-feet. The ordinance would typically require this buffer to maintain a 50-foot average. The Colonel Glenn street buffer does not meet the 50-foot average requirement. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the minimum driveway spacing requirement to allow the existing driveway on Colonel Glenn Road, adjacent to the eastern property line, to remain. The driveway as proposed does not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Per the ordinance the eastern most driveway on Colonel Glenn Road is required January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-TT 8 to be located 150 feet from the property line and 300 feet from other driveways or streets intersections. The applicant is requesting the drive to remain. The applicant has indicated the driveway will be gated to eliminate customer entrance and will be used solely for vehicle delivery. The plan currently reflects the drive as an entrance drive from Colonel Glenn Road. Staff feels the drive should be used for egress from the site to limit potential backups on Colonel Glenn Road while waiting for the gate to be opened. Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with an automobile sales and service facility. Although there are variances associated with the request staff does not feel they will significantly impact the development or the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the development as proposed is appropriate. 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 reduced street buffer along the western property line adjacent to South Bowman Road and along Colonel Glenn Road. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to allow the existing driveway on the east property line to remain. Staff recommends the driveway serve as egress only for truck traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. 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 reduced street buffer along the western property line adjacent to South Bowman Road and along Colonel Glenn Road. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to allow the existing driveway on the east property line to remain. Staff recommends the driveway serve as egress only for truck traffic. 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC NAME: Leisure Arts Facility Revised Long-form POD, PCD Revocation and Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located at 5701 Ranch Drive DEVELOPER: Jim Irwin Irwin Partners 1701 Centerview Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates Mr. Tim Daters 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 26.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Office/Office Warehouse PROPOSED ZONING: POD and O-2, Office and Institutional District PROPOSED USE: School, General Office and Office and Institutional Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow a 40-foot vertical cut along the rear of the development. BACKGROUND: On November 2, 1993, this property was rezoned from O-2, Office and Institutional District to PCD (Ordinance No. 16,520). The rezoning was approved to allow the construction of an additional office building (six stories) and an approximately 126,000 square foot expansion to the existing shipping/warehouse facility. At the time of approval the site contained a four (4) story office building and an 89,500 square foot shipping/warehouse building. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 2 The development did not occur within the time frame specified within the PZD Section of the Zoning Ordinance therefore the approval expired. Ordinance No. 17,694 adopted on March 17, 1998, revoked the expired PCD zoning and reestablished the PCD zoning to allow for development of the site with the same site plan as approved in November 1993. As with the original approval the approved PCD zoning site plan allowed the construction of a six (6) story office building and a 126,000 square foot addition to the existing shipping/warehouse building. The development was approved in phases with Phase I containing a 65,000 square foot addition to the shipping/warehouse building. Phase II included the six (6) story office building and an additional 61,000 square foot addition to the shipping/warehouse building. The approval would allow for a total shipping/warehouse facility containing 215,500 square feet. It appears only a portion of the Phase II additional shipping/warehouse square footage was constructed for a total of 175,000 square feet. The office building was not constructed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat, a revision to the previously approved allowable uses for the approved PCD and a revocation of a portion of the PCD zoning. The development is proposed with three (3) lots. The lots are proposed with Lot 1 containing 14.6 acres and the existing 175,000 square foot office/warehouse building and parking. Along the western portion of this area additional new parking is proposed. Parking will also be added in the eastern portion of the site. Lot 2 is proposed containing 8.5 acres and an existing 70,000 square foot office building and associated parking. The applicant has indicated with the revision the zoning classification for Lots 1 and 2 will be POD. Lot 3 is proposed containing 3.6 acres and is currently undeveloped. This lot will be zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District. The plan indicates cross access and parking for the drives and parking located along Ranch Drive. Baptist Health School of Nursing is proposing to use the two (2) existing buildings for administrative offices and an educational facility. The 70,000 square foot office building is anticipated for administrative offices. The 175,000 square foot distribution center will be retrofitted to become the educational facility. The hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. In the future evening classes will be added with a dismissal time of 9:00 pm. Potentially Saturday morning classes will also be added in the future. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow a 40-foot vertical cut along the rear of the development. The cut will contain benches with a ten (10) foot vertical cut and a ten (10) foot bench on each level. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Ranch Subdivision is being developed with a mixture of uses including a private school, multi-story office buildings, restaurant uses and smaller office users. The buildings and portions of the paved area are in place. The area proposed for the parking lot expansion to the west is grass covered with a scattering of trees abutting Ranch Drive and a significant number of trees within the rear area of the lot. There is a significant cut along the northern portion of the site from the previous development abutting the single-family subdivision located on Cobblestone Way. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the Aberdeen Court POA, the Chevaux Court POA, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that North Katillus Road for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to North Katillus Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 18 feet from centerline and match the existing curb line on the south. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 6. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 4 7. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 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. 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. 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 5 CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25, the Pinnacle Mountain Express Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office (O) for this property. Office allows services provided directly to consumers as well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from PCD (Planned Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) and C-2 (Shopping Center District) to allow for the added use of a school on the office parcel and creating a third parcel zoned O-2 for future development. Master Street Plan: Ranch Drive is a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There is a Class III Bike Route shown along Ranch Drive. Bike Routes require no additional right-of-way or pavement markings, but only a sign to identify and direct the route. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A fifty foot (50) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed development from the residential property on northern/northwestern perimeters of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed. 3. 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 northern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 6 and 300 square feet in area. Proposed plan does not currently reflect this minimum. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. All previously approved landscaping, fencing, striping, dumpster enclosures, etc. must be in good condition or replaced in conjunction with this application. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 3, 2013) Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the underlying zoning of proposed Lot 3 was O-2, Office and Institutional District. Staff also requested the applicant provide the legal description for the area proposed to remain zoned PCD and the area proposed for revocation. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide details of the proposed signage plan including ground and building signage. Staff questioned the days and hours of operation for the proposed school. Staff stated the plan indicated new paved areas for the proposed school and questioned the need for the number of parking spaces proposed. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated North Katillus Road for the frontage of the property was to meet commercial street standards per the Master Street Plan. Staff requested right of way dedication and street construction to comply with the Boundary Street Ordinance and the Master Street Plan. Staff stated all driveways were to be concrete aprons per City code. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide the location for the proposed stormwater detention facilities. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated within the areas proposed for new paving a minimum land use buffer of 50-feet was required. Staff stated seventy percent of the land use buffer was to remain undisturbed. Staff stated all previously approved landscaping, fencing, striping, dumpster enclosures, etc. was to be in good condition or replaced in conjunction with the request. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 7 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 cover letter and site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided the proposed signage plan including ground and building signage. The applicant has also provided the days and hours of operation for the proposed school and their justification for the parking as proposed. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat, a revision to the previously approved allowable uses for the approved PCD and a revocation of a portion of the PCD zoning. The development is proposed with three (3) lots. Lots 1 and 2 will be zoned POD and Lot 3 will revert to the underlying O-2, Office and Institutional Zoning District. At the time of development of Lot 3 a zoning site plan review application request will be filed for review by the Planning Commission. All boundary street ordinance requirements for improvements to Katillus Road will be completed in conjunction with the development of Lot 3. Lot 1 is proposed containing 14.6 acres with an existing 175,000 square foot office/warehouse building and 805 parking spaces. Along the western portion of Lot 3 additional new paved parking is proposed. Parking will also be added in the eastern portion of the site by extending the existing parking. According to the applicant the parking spaces indicated are needed to serve the students and faculty. At the existing campus there are well over 800 parking spaces. There were 685 parking spaces, prior to the recent parking expansion (400+ parking spaces were added), and students were forced to park off site and be shuttled to the school. Lot 2 is proposed containing 8.5 acres and the existing 70,000 square foot office building and associated parking. The building footprint on Lot 2 is 31,960 square feet with total lot coverage of 8.6 percent. The plan indicates cross access and parking for the drives and parking located along Ranch Drive. Lot 3 is proposed containing 3.6 acres and is currently undeveloped. Baptist Health School of Nursing is proposing to use the two (2) existing buildings for administrative offices and an educational facility. The 70,000 square foot office building is anticipated for administrative offices for the school or will be leased or sold to a different office user. The use for Lot 2 will be limited to general office uses. The 175,000 square foot distribution center will be retrofitted January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 8 to become the educational facility. Alternate uses for the building on Lot 1 are general office. The hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. In the future evening classes and Saturday classes may be added. The evening classes will end by 9:00 pm and the Saturday classes will be limited to mornings. The plan includes ground signage consistent with signage allowed in office zones. Each of the individual lots will be developed with an independent sign with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square feet. The building signage on Lots 1 and 2 will be limited to a maximum of five (5) percent of the front façade located on Ranch Drive. Screening and buffering will be placed along the northern perimeter of the site. Dense evergreen screening will be installed along the boundary adjacent to the residentially zoned property. A 30-foot undisturbed buffer is indicated on the plan. This buffer will only be disturbed as necessary to install the plantings. The plantings will consist of hollies planted at 10-foot centers. All screening and landscaped areas will be irrigated. The applicant has indicated the parking lot light poles located within the newly proposed paved areas will be limited to a maximum pole height of 20-feet. All lighting will be directed downward and into the site. Underground stormwater detention facilities combined with parking lot detention will be constructed under and on the new parking areas on the west end of Lot 1. The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow a 40-foot vertical cut along the rear of the development. The cut will contain benches with a ten (10) foot vertical cut and a ten (10) foot bench on each level. The Land Alteration Ordinance allows a maximum of thirty (30) vertical feet of fill or excavation (such as three (3) ten-foot vertical terraces or two (2) fifteen-foot vertical terraces). Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved Planned Development to remove a portion of the area previously approved in the PCD and to amend the zoning to a POD. The uses of the property are uses which are typically allowed in the Office Zoning Districts. The uses for Lot 1 are a school and general office. The uses for Lot 2 are general office. With the exception of portions of additional paved areas located on Lot 1 the site will remain relatively unchanged. The building on Lot 1 is currently a warehouse building with dock doors located on the rear wall. This portion of the building will be reworked to visually enhance this portion and the views from the adjacent single-family subdivision. In addition the applicant has indicated a dense evergreen screen will be installed along the northern boundary January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-CC 9 of this property to protect the views of the homes and vacant lots located to the north. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the reuse of the existing buildings with office uses and/or a school is appropriate. 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 a 40-foot vertical cut along the rear of the development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. 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 a 40-foot vertical cut along the rear of 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-7645-A NAME: Chipotle Mexican Grill Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 100 South University Avenue DEVELOPER: Chipotle Mexican Grill 1401 Wynkopp, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 ENGINEER: Peters and Associates Engineers 5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 205 Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.24 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Retail PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing a rezoning from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD, Planned Commercial District, to allow the redevelopment of this site with a Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant. The property is located within the Mid-town Design Overlay which requires any redevelopment of a property located within the District boundaries to be reviewed through the Planned Development process. The present use, the Baker Building, an office building of approximately 100,000 square feet, will be demolished and a new 2,262 square foot restaurant will be constructed. This new project will require extensive site work to create a design that will be pedestrian friendly, ADA accessible, and still have visibility of January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 2 the building from the intersection. A dedication of right of way will be provided along both West Markham Street and University Avenue. The proposed building will be 2,262 square feet with a 430 square foot patio. The building will be clad in dark brown brick with charcoal storefront with an integral charcoal canopy. The primary façade will be oriented to the main drive into the site off of University and will face south. The service entry is oriented toward the parking areas rather than a street and the patio is placed facing University Avenue. The restaurant user anticipates most of the daily customers during the lunch hour. There is no drive-through proposed for the building and most of the customers will sit and eat their food on the premises. The site plan includes 61 parking spaces. The adjacent McDonald’s legally has the rights to nine (9) spaces and twelve (12) shared spaces. Because both are food uses, both will have “lunch rushes” at the same times. The site plan provides parking for 40 automobiles for Chipotle’s use. The site plan does not include the landscape strip between the two properties as typically required by City ordinance. The buffer area was eliminated with the approval of the site plan for McDonald’s. The area was recorded as an easement and is legally McDonald’s to develop. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located at the intersection of University Avenue and West Markham Street on the southwest corner. There is a four story office building located on the property proposed for redevelopment. South of the site is a newly constructed McDonald’s Restaurant and further south is the developing “Park Avenue” mixed use development containing multi-family, retail and restaurant uses. West of the site is a multi-story residential tower and north of the site is Park Plaza Shopping mall. To the east of the site is St. Vincent’s Hospital and northeast is a restaurant and the Mid-towne Shopping Center. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the Hillcrest Residents Association and the Briarwood Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. The Mid-town Redevelopment District #1 Advisory Board reviewed the request at their December 7, 2012, meeting. The group voted to recommend the project. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. University Avenue is a principal arterial street and Markham Street is a minor arterial street per the Master Street Plan. A sufficient amount of right- of-way should be dedicated to install the required improvements. The new right-of-way line should be located at the back of the new sidewalk. 2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the University/Markham intersection including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. The driveway apron off University Avenue should be designed and constructed to limit the flow of stormwater into the site from University Avenue. 4. Per the City of Little Rock Land Alteration Regulations Chapter 29-190, the maximum allowed running slope is 3:1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 are required to be constructed with retaining walls. 5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6. The intersection improvement plans have been revised and emailed to Peters and Associates. The revision shows an increase in the right turn median and relocation of the pedestrian crossing. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 9. 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). 10. 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. 11. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 12. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 4 13. Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project. Study should address trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also should take into account existing and projected traffic growth. 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. 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. 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. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 5 County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #21, the University Avenue site. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use (MX) for this property. This category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-3 (General Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for the construction of a restaurant. The site is within the Midtown Design Overlay District. Master Street Plan: University Avenue is a Principal Arterial and Markham Street is a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. 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 both University Avenue and Markham Street. 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 shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Site plan must comply with the Mid-town Design Overlay requirements. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety. It appears to be deficient along the western property line. A variance from the City Beautiful Commission will be required for any variation from this minimal amount prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 6 5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 square feet in area. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 6. An automatic irrigation system will be required if the site is an acre or more in size. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 3, 2013) Mr. Ernie Peters of Peters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the development was located within the Mid-town Design Overlay District which had specific development criteria. Staff questioned the proposed construction materials, the percentage of glass and the proposed signage plan. Staff also stated the parking as indicated on the site plan exceeded the parking typically allowed within the Overlay District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the driveway apron off University Avenue should be designed and constructed to limit the flow of stormwater into the site from University Avenue. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to any construction activities on the site. Staff requested Mr. Peters provide a traffic impact study for the proposed project. Staff stated the study should address trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also should take into consideration existing and projected traffic growth. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the landscape ordinance required a perimeter landscape strip of nine (9) feet around the sites entirety. Staff stated it appeared the western perimeter did not comply with this minimum standard. Staff stated a small amount of building landscaping would be required. Staff stated eight percent (8%) of the on-site paving was to be landscaped with interior landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in area and be evenly distributed throughout the site. 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 and cover letter to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 7 meeting. The applicant has provided details concerning the proposed construction materials, the percentage of glass and the proposed signage plan. The applicant has also provided staff with a Traffic Study which is summarized below within this report. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the western most landscape strip to be less than the nine (9) foot minimum strip typically required by the City’s Landscape Ordinance. As noted the site is located within the Mid-towne Design Overlay District. The following table outlines specific development criteria per the Overlay and the applicant’s compliance with the typical standards. Midtown Overlay District Applicant’s Proposal A planned zoning district process shall be required for a new development, redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s current replacement value based on its configuration at the time of the DOD’s adoption, and for expansion of existing developments exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s current square footage at the time of the DOD’s adoption. Routine repairs, maintenance and interior alterations to accommodate existing, expanding or new tenants within the existing building envelope shall not require compliance with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown Design Overlay District). The proposed planned zoning development shall be reviewed to realize a development plan that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Midtown Design Overlay District. The site is a redevelopment therefore, a PZD application is being requested. For a new development or structure of over 100,000 square feet (excluding structured parking), a mix of uses must be provided. This mix may occur either under the same roof or in adjacent Not applicable. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 8 structures as part of a common development. In order to be considered a mix, the new development must either: Devote the majority of its leasable ground floor space to a secondary use i.e. retail in a multi-story office building; or Devote ten percent of the gross leasable area of a single building to the secondary use i.e. residential on the upper levels of a multi-story office, retail or institutional building; or Devote fifteen percent of the gross leasable area to a secondary use in a separate building constructed and occupied at the same time as the primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a pad adjacent to an office building. The Midtown Design Overlay District requires developments in excess of 200,000 square feet to contain a residential component. The residential may be in the same structure or a separate structure, as long as the separate structure is part of the overall development and the overall development is built simultaneously. For any development constructed in phases, a portion of the secondary uses shall be included in the initial phases. Not applicable. Façade treatment – for new construction at least 60 percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or streets shall be glass-windows, entry features or displays. The West Markham Street façade does not contain the 60 percent glass- windows, entry features of displays. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 9 The primary façade of a building shall be oriented parallel with the street, or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel whether public or private. Buildings shall maintain a distinction between upper and lower levels; an elevation greater than 18 feet in height shall contain an architectural treatment, which visually divides the structure into stories. Wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of 20 continuous feet not to extend over 20 percent of the façade shall be required. Arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least 60 percent of the façade. The primary façade of the building is oriented parallel with University Avenue and the store entrance is located along the southern façade. Not applicable. The building will not contain recesses. According to the applicant the building is 58-feet long and does not lend itself to meeting the requirement. Entryway – Primary entrances shall be oriented to the street or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel within a development. Buildings shall have clearly defined and visible customer entrances featuring elements such as overhangs, arcades, arches, canopies, peaked roof forms, display windows. All sides of buildings that face abutting public or private rights of way, except alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. Elevations - No elevation facing an arterial or greater street shall be primarily used as a service entry or otherwise be treated as the rear of the structures. The primary entrance is oriented to the access drive located on South University Avenue. The front of the building and customer entrance is clearly defined. The West Markham Street façade does not contain a customer entrance. The West Markham Street side is the rear of the building. The area is constructed with no windows or openings. The service/dumpsters are not located within this area. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 10 New construction wider than 100 linear feet shall be visually massed so as to break the structure visually. Rooflines shall be varied with changes in height every 100 linear feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, high roofs, shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment. Not applicable. Not applicable. Exterior building materials and colors shall be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in neighboring developments. Predominant exterior building materials shall be of high quality materials; such as but not limited to: brick, wood, store, tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) concreted masonry units. Façade colors – shall be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone with trim and accents brighter colors. Predominant exterior building materials shall not be smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels. The exterior materials are indicated as brown brick with charcoal accents. The development is proposed with brick. Not applicable. Projections (all requirements for a franchise remain in place). Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right of way except for awnings, signs, and balconies. Not applicable. Awnings shall not project more than five (5) feet from the building facade and have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet above pedestrian areas and thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas. In order to cover the walkways the canopy is slightly deeper than five (5) feet. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 11 Balconies over the public right-of-way shall have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1) inch of projection is permitted for each additional inch of clearance above eight (8) feet, provided that no such projection shall exceed a distance of four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be supported with posts extending to the sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony brackets shall conform to minimum clearance standards. Not applicable. Building height – No building hereafter erected or structural altered shall exceed a height of 60 feet, except as provided below. Structures may have a greater height as follows, and these bonuses may be cumulative: Any structure that is certified by CATA as provide a portion of the structure for mass transit is entitled to add 15-feet. Structures with a mix of uses with the street-level primarily devoted to retail uses and at least 50 percent of these uses having direct access to the street, is entitled to add 25 feet to the structure; alternately a development with an integrated parking facility substantially located within the footprint of the primary structure, is entitled to add 25 feet to the structure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any structure located north of West Markham Street and east of University shall be limited to a height of 35 feet. The building is proposed as a single story building 19’-4” high. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 12 Building setbacks from property lines and street rights of way shall be: Front yard setbacks may be zero but will not be more than 20-feet excepting in those cases where grade changes make such setbacks impractical. The front building setback (South University Avenue) is less than 20-feet. Side yard setbacks may be zero except where adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. In this case the side yard setback shall be a setback of not less than four (4) feet. Not applicable. Rear yard setback may be zero, except where adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. In this case the rear yard setback shall have a setback of not less than 25-feet. Not applicable. Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys – Driveways and internal circulation streets must have lanes at least ten feet in width, but not more than 12 feet excepting that width needed for bike lanes or special pedestrian accommodations. The site plan complies with this requirement. Intersections of internal drives or streets will be minimally controlled by stop signs, and will feature special crossway paving or treated surfaces. Not applicable. Access driveways running parallel with the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 125 feet of the ultimate curb line of the public street. Not applicable. No more than one curb cut per block face shall be permitted. Driveways and parking lot entrances-exit shall be combined and where appropriate located in alleys. The driveways comply. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 13 Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways – All driveways and internal streets shall have minimum five foot sidewalks on both sides located away from the back of curb. The north/south sidewalk within the western portion of the development is indicated as four (4) feet. All sidewalks fronting buildings with ground floor retail shall be at least 10 feet in width. Not applicable. Protected pedestrian walkways shall be provided through parking lots. All developments shall include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to adjacent buildings or developments. Pedestrian accesses and walkways have been provided on the site plan. Alleys – shall not be more than 20-feet wide unless needed for emergency access. Where an alley runs along a property line, it shall be screened from the adjacent property by a permanent wall of high quality materials compatible with neighboring buildings. Not applicable. All new utilities for developments within the District shall be buried. All new developments shall underground all utilities onsite or within adjacent public right of way wherever determined by the utility agency to be feasible. Will comply. The existing overhead power line along the west property line is in an existing utility easement and will remain undisturbed. Trash enclosures shall be located in alleys wherever available or in common service areas for multiple developments. Will comply. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 14 In all areas, service and waste removal areas shall be screened and located away from public outdoor spaces and pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall comply with Section 36-523. Parking facilities – wherever feasible, multilevel parking structures shall be encouraged. Surface parking shall be limited to the side and rear of structures, unless grouped in quantities of 50 spaces or less separated by a landscaping strip no less than the perimeter landscape strip as required for the property by Chapter 15 of the code or a structure from other vehicular areas and having no more than one vehicular connection to another surface parking area. Surface parking areas should be broken up or distributed around large structures so as to shorten the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks. For corner lots, parking is allowed along the side street frontage. Not applicable. Parking requirements within the District shall be 50 percent of that required by Article VII of Chapter 36. The maximum allowed parking shall be the minimum standard established in Article VII of Chapter 36. The parking indicated exceeds the typical ordinance standards. Shared parking. As an alternative to subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use developments may utilize the shared parking methodologies developed by the Urban Land Institute and published in Shared Parking (Second Edition, 2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project may elect this means of determining the total parking requirement by submitting a parking demand analysis prepared by a qualified parking or traffic consultant, The adjacent restaurant and this restaurant share a number of parking spaces. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 15 a licensed architect, city planner, or urban planner or civil engineer. On-street parking. On-street parking on internal streets or circulation routes shall be allowed and may count towards the parking requirement. On- street parking is permitted either parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent to, retail or commercial entries. Angled street (drive) parking shall not be permitted on streets (drives) that provide the development majority access. Such parking may count towards the overall project parking requirements. No on-street parking shall be allowed on University Avenue or Markham Street. Not applicable. No parking shall be allowed in the front yard setback area. The plan as presented complies with this standard. Parking garage design – Parking facilities should be designed consistent with the overall project design. Where possible, other uses, residential or commercial should be used to wrap or otherwise block the view of a parking garage. Not applicable. Signage – Signage shall comply with Article X except as follows – No off-site advertising signs are permitted. No pole mounted signs are permitted. Monument signs are to identify the development and be limited to 72 square feet in area and 6 feet in height for developments greater than one acre. Signage integrated into free-standing vertical structures whose design theme and materials are directly related to the primary development may be submitted for approval under the PZD process if located along University The signage plan for ground signage complies with this standard. Building signage on the southern elevation is located without public street frontage. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 16 southerly of Lee. No single elevation or face of such a structure shall be more than 400 square feet. No street buffer or landscaping is required along streets classified less than an arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line, landscaping is required in the area between the building and property line up to that required in Chapter 15 of the Code. A minimum landscape strip of nine (9) feet will be provided along West Markham Street and South University Avenue to comply with the City’s Landscape Ordinance. Land use buffers shall only be provided where single-family and duplex use or zoning is the abutting use. In those cases where a land use buffer is required, buffers shall be the same as those for multi-family uses in Section 36-522(b) (1). In areas where terrain variation is great or other features result in the loss of privacy, alternative designs and massing shall be considered. Not applicable. Common use areas and plazas shall be a minimum of 300 square feet for 30,000 square foot structures. For each additional 5,000 square feet or portion thereof, a minimum of an additional 50 square feet of plaza area is required. Not applicable. Surface parking lots shall meet all current landscape requirements. The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. Street trees shall be a minimum of 3- inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the back of curb, 30 feet on center. The canopy shall be maintained with an 8 foot clearance. A four foot planter strip shall be maintained. The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 17 Common use areas and plazas shall be maintained by a common authority. Attempts shall be made to maintain vegetation, trees, bushes, in undisturbed conditions to serve the aesthetic, recreational and ecological needs of the district. Trees planted in these areas shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper and ten feet in height. Not applicable. Trees greater than 14 inches in diameter, measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground, shall be protected from removal and damages in future development of the district. Any development within 50 feet of such tree shall be reviewed prior to development to assure protective measures are included and in place. Not applicable. Lighting shall conform to the design overlay district standards. The intent is to prevent light from commercial developments from excessively illuminating the property in question, other properties or the night sky. Only light fixtures which are categorized as full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted. The use of fully shielded floodlights are permitted but not encouraged. The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. The ordinance provides for the following specific standards for lighting intensity based upon the activities performed involved. Values are presented in allowable foot candles (fc) maintained (measured horizontally) at grade and are to be averaged throughout the site to avoid hot spots, i.e. areas of extreme light intensity relative to the remainder of the site: Pedestrian areas/sidewalks Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 18 Building entries Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc Street lighting Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc Parking area Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc Playgrounds Maximum 5.0 fc Sports grounds Maximum 20.2 fc Site perimeter Maximum 0.5 fc Gas station canopies shall be illuminated at a maximum luminance of thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall be flush mounted or have the canopy edge below the lowest light-emitting point on the fixtures. All existing gas station canopies that exceed this standard shall be made compliant within seven (7) years of the date of adoption of this article. The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. Up lighting may be used to illuminate a building, landscaping element or architectural feature, provided the lighting design has a maximum luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured in a vertical plane. Down lighting is preferred. The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. A lighting plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall contain the following information: The plan as presented will comply with this minimum standard. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 19 An area lighting plan, drawn to scale, indicating all structures, parking lots, building entrances, vehicular and pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that may interfere with lighting, and adjacent land uses that may be adversely impacted by the lighting. The plan shall contain a layout of all proposed fixtures by location, orientation, aiming direction, mounting height and type. The submission shall include, in addition to proposed area lighting, all other exterior lighting, e.g., architectural, building entrance, landscape, flagpole, sign, etc. A ten-foot by ten-foot luminance grid (point-by-point) of maintained foot- candles overlaid on the site plan plotted out to 0.0 foot-candles, which demonstrates compliance with light intensity standards. Property, if for any reason, that cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned zoning district (PZD) 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 site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD as required by the Overlay. There are two (2) significant variations from the DOD; the parking and the western landscape strip. The site plan as presented by the applicant indicates the placement of 40 parking spaces to serve Chipotle and 12 spared parking spaces with McDonald’s. For a restaurant development of this square footage, including the patio area, a total of twenty-six (26) parking spaces would typically be required per the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the Overlay the maximum parking allowed is fifty percent (50%) of that required by the Zoning Ordinance or January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 20 in this case a maximum of thirteen (13) spaces. According to the applicant parking is critical to the success of the site. Because of the use of the building and most of the customer traffic is expected during the lunch hour, the parking has been reviewed carefully and comparisons have been made with this user’s other location within the City. According to the applicant this use does not have a drive-through window which means most customers will remain on-site to eat their food. The applicant states it is expected the adjacent McDonald’s restaurant and the Chipotle will both have lunch rushes at the same time. According to the applicant it is reasonable to assume all parking will be shared between the two (2) businesses. The western landscape strip does not meet the nine (9) foot minimum required by the City’s Landscape Ordinance. According to the applicant this buffer cannot be maintained on the west property line and provide a useful number of parking stalls to support the development of a restaurant. Within this area McDonald’s eliminated the landscape strip as a part of the approved plan for the redevelopment of their site. The applicant has indicated even though these spaces are located within their ownership the parking stalls are legally McDonald’s and no modifications can be made without their approval. The request is to maintain the landscape strip along the western perimeter as approved for the McDonald’s site. The following is the Traffic Analysis prepared by Peters and Associates dated January 7, 2013. Staff has not included all the graphs and tables within the Traffic Study. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic impact study for a proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant to be located on the south side of West Markham Street and on the west side of University Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas. The proposed restaurant will replace the existing approximate 50,000 square feet Baker Office Building. Access to the proposed site is via two existing access drives that currently serve the existing office building and a recently opened restaurant (McDonald’s). The existing north access drive (North Access Drive) intersects West Markham Street approximately 280 feet west of University Avenue. The east existing access drive (East Access Drive) intersects University Avenue approximately 150 feet south of West Markham Street and serves right- in/right-out vehicle movements only. The east access drive is proposed to be improved as a part of this development. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 21 Existing AM, noon and PM vehicle turning movement count data were gathered for the following intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site before the McDonald’s restaurant opened: • West Markham Street and University Avenue • West Markham Street and North Access Drive • University Avenue and East Access Drive. West Markham Street, at the North Access Drive (just west of University Avenue), was recently widened from a four-lane roadway to a five-lane roadway as a part of the recently constructed McDonald’s project. Projected traffic volumes for the recently completed McDonald’s restaurant development were calculated. These projected McDonald’s restaurant volumes were added to the existing AM, noon and PM peak hours traffic volumes (includes the Baker Building generated traffic), which resulted in projected traffic volumes with the existing Baker Building and the recently constructed McDonald’s restaurant. Projected traffic volumes for the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant development were calculated. These projected Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant site-generated volumes were added to the existing noon and PM peak hours traffic volumes (less the Baker Building generated traffic), which resulted in total projected traffic volumes with development of the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant to replace the Baker Building. Findings of this study are summarized as follows: • The difference in net new vehicle trips with removal of the existing Baker Building and the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is approximately 85 fewer net vehicle trips (combined in and out) estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour (the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is not open during this time), approximately 39 net additional vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the noon peak hour and approximately 14 fewer net new vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. • Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for projected traffic conditions for the noon and PM peak hours for the study intersections. All vehicle movements for the these projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS “D” or better for the noon and PM peak hours except for the following: January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 22 o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement on University Avenue at West Markham Street during the PM peak hour (LOS “E”). The overall intersection operation operates at an acceptable LOS “D” during the PM peak hour. o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement from North Access Drive at West Markham Street during the noon and PM peak hours (LOS “F”). These conditions relate to on-site delay for left-turn egress vehicles competing with the much higher volume on West Markham Street this condition is expected to occur for only a short time during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing in this lane is only approximately 51 feet during the noon peak hour and 31 feet during the PM peak hour. • It is expected that no intersection vehicle queues will exceed the available vehicle storage except for the dual northbound left-turn lanes. Available storage is approximately 200 feet per lane and the calculated 95th percentile queue length is expected to be 209 feet during the PM peak hour (only 138 feet during the noon peak hour). • Projected average control delay (seconds per vehicle) and intersection capacity utilization are found to be acceptable for all of the study intersections. This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken to: • Ascertain projected traffic operating conditions at the intersection of University Avenue and West Markham Street and site access drives intersections. • Determine projected traffic volumes entering and exiting the proposed development at the adjacent study intersection of University Avenue and West Markham Street and the access drive intersections proposed to serve the site along University Avenue and along West Markham Street. • Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from existing traffic in combination with site-generated traffic associated with the development of the new Chipotle Mexican Grill and removal of the existing Baker Building. • Evaluate proposed access to the site and make recommendations for mitigative improvements which may be necessary and appropriate to ensure minimum impact and acceptable traffic operations. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 23 In the following sections of this report there are presented traffic data, study methods and findings of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic engineering study is technical in nature. Certain data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis are referenced in the report. The location of the site is within the City of Little Rock in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The site is located in the southwest quadrant of West Markham Street and University Avenue. The site shares access with a recently constructed McDonald’s restaurant located immediately to the south. Access to the proposed restaurant site is via two existing access drives that currently serve an existing five-story office building (to be replaced by the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant development) and a recently constructed McDonald’s restaurant. The existing north access drive (North Access Drive) intersects West Markham Street approximately 280 feet west of University Avenue and is a fully-directional access drive. The east existing access drive (East Access Drive) intersects University Avenue approximately 150 feet south of West Markham Street and serves right-in/right-out vehicle movements only. As a part of this development, the East Access Drive is proposed to be improved. The site development plan calls for the construction of a Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant, plus associated parking and landscaping. The square footage of the new restaurant is approximately 2,262 square feet. The site plan shows the planned building location and the approximate location of the access drives, parking and other planned facilities. The existing approximate 50,000 square-foot Baker Building will be removed with the new development as proposed. Existing AM, noon and PM vehicle turning movement count data were gathered for the following intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site before the McDonald’s Restaurant was opened: • West Markham Street and University Avenue • West Markham Street and North Access Drive • University Avenue and East Access Drive. The AM, noon and PM peak hour turning movement count data at these intersections are summarized in detail within the Traffic Study. The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (8th Edition), 2008, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 6 by Microtrans), were researched in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed land use of this Chipotle January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 24 Mexican Grill restaurant development. These are typically reliable sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. Using the selected trip generation rates, calculations were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the development as proposed. Applying the appropriate trip-generation rates to the land uses for this development makes these calculations. Results of these calculation are summarized on Table 1, “Trip-Generation Summary of Differences of Existing Baker Building Use and Proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill Use.” Baker Building generated traffic volumes are derived from actual counts made by this consultant during the peak hours. The difference in net new vehicle trips of the existing Baker Building and the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is approximately 85 fewer net vehicle trips (combined in and out) estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour (the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is not open during this time), approximately 39 net additional vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the noon peak hour and approximately 14 fewer net new vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant traffic will contribute to the adjacent street traffic conditions during the on-street noon and PM peak traffic hours. Accordingly, the noon and PM peak traffic periods of the adjacent streets are the traffic operating conditions which have warranted primary traffic analysis as a part of this study. Since the proposed restaurant will not be open in the AM peak hour, this condition was not included in the analysis of this report. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 25 Once projected traffic was estimated for the site as planned, directional distributions were made to reflect the percent of anticipated left and right-turns at the study intersections. Generally, the "capacity" of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vehicles. It is a rate as opposed to a quantity, measured in terms of vehicles per hour. More specifically, street capacity refers to the maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Traffic operational analysis for the study intersections were evaluated based on the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The operating conditions at an intersection are graded by the “level of service” experienced by drivers. Level of service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic operating conditions and is rated from “A” to “F”. LOS “A” represents the most desirable condition with free flow movement of traffic with minimal delays. LOS “F” generally indicates severely congested conditions with excessive delays to motorists. Intermediate grades of B, C, D, and E reflect incremental increases in the average delay per stopped vehicle. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The table below shows the upper limit of delay associated with each level of service for signalized and un-signalized intersections. Intersection Level of Service Delay Thresholds Level of Service (LOS) Signalized Un-Signalized A < 10 Seconds < 10 Seconds B < 20 Seconds < 15 Seconds C < 35 Seconds < 25 Seconds D < 55 Seconds < 35 Seconds E < 80 Seconds < 50 Seconds F 80 Seconds 50 Seconds The LOS rating deemed acceptable varies by community, facility type and traffic control device. LOS “D” is the desirable goal for movements at un-signalized intersections that must yield to other movements; however, a LOS “E” or “F” is often accepted for low to moderate traffic volumes where the installation of a traffic signal is not warranted by the conditions at the intersection or the location is deemed undesirable for signalization for other reasons. Other reasons may include the close proximity of an existing traffic signal or the presence of a convenient alternative route. For signalized intersections, level of service and average delay relate to all vehicles using the intersection. LOS “D” is the typical January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 26 desirable standard for signalized intersections. All study intersections were evaluated using the Synchro analysis software package based on Highway Capacity Manual methods. This computer program has been proven to be reliable when used to analyze capacity and levels of traffic service under various operating conditions. Detailed results for all capacity calculations are included in the Appendix. The adjacent street weekday noon and PM peak traffic periods were used for these calculations. Factors included in the analysis are as follows: • Existing traffic volumes. • Directional distribution of projected traffic volumes. • Existing intersection geometry (including elements such as turn lanes, curb radii, etc.). • Existing background traffic volumes (less the existing Baker Building) and projected site-generated volumes (associated with the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant) for projected traffic conditions. • Existing traffic control. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Level of Service Analysis Results Projected Traffic Conditions Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for projected traffic conditions for the noon and PM peak hours for the following intersections: • West Markham Street and University Avenue • West Markham Street and North Access Drive • University Avenue and East Access Drive. Traffic volumes used for these projected traffic conditions are shown on Figure 8, “Projected Traffic Volumes – AM and PM Peak Hours,” and Figure 8A, “Projected Traffic Volumes - Noon Peak Hour.” The operating conditions projected to exist at the study intersections are summarized in Table 2, “Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions.” January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 27 As indicated in Table 2, all vehicle movements for the projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS “D” or better for the noon and PM peak hours except for the following: o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement on University Avenue at West Markham Street during the PM peak hour (LOS “E”). The overall intersection operation operates at an acceptable LOS “D” during the PM peak hour. o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement from North Access Drive at West Markham Street during the noon and PM peak hours (LOS “F”). These conditions relate to on-site delay for left-turn egress vehicles competing with the much higher volume on West Markham Street this condition is expected to occur for only a short-time during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing in this lane is only approximately 51 feet during the noon peak hour and 31 feet during the PM peak hour. The calculated 95th percentile vehicle queue lengths for these projected traffic conditions do not exceed the existing and/or proposed available storage lane lengths during the noon and PM peak hours at the study intersections except for the dual northbound left-turn lanes. Available storage is approximately 200 feet per lane and the calculated 95th percentile queue length is expected to be 209 feet during the PM peak hour (only 138 feet during the noon peak hour). The 95th percentile queue lengths are depicted in the detailed capacity and LOS analysis included in the Appendix of this report. Additionally, projected average control delay (seconds per vehicle) and intersection capacity utilization are found to be acceptable for all of the study intersections. Findings of this study are summarized as follows: • The difference in net new vehicle trips with removal of the existing Baker Building and the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is approximately 85 fewer net vehicle trips (combined in and out) estimated January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 28 during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour (the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is not open during this time), approximately 39 net additional vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the noon peak hour and approximately 14 fewer net new vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. • Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for projected traffic conditions for the noon and PM peak hours for the study intersections. All vehicle movements for the these projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS “D” or better for the noon and PM peak hours except for the following: o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement on University Avenue at West Markham Street during the PM peak hour (LOS “E”). The overall intersection operation operates at an acceptable LOS “D” during the PM peak hour. o The northbound left-turn vehicle movement from North Access Drive at West Markham Street during the noon and PM peak hours (LOS “F”). These conditions relate to on-site delay for left turn egress vehicles competing with the much higher volume on West Markham Street this condition is expected to occur for only a short- time during the PM peak hour. Vehicle queuing in this lane is only approximately 51 feet during the noon peak hour and 31 feet during the PM peak hour. • It is expected that no intersection vehicle queues will exceed the available vehicle storage except for the dual northbound left-turn lanes. Available storage is approximately 200 feet per lane and the calculated 95th percentile queue length is expected to be 209 feet during the PM peak hour (only 138 feet during the noon peak hour). • Projected average control delay (seconds per vehicle) and intersection capacity utilization are found to be acceptable for all of the study intersections. Staff has reviewed the provided traffic study and feels that traffic will not be further impacted by the removal of the 50,000 square foot office building and the replaced by a 2,262 square foot sit-down restaurant. The restaurant is not proposed to be constructed with a drive through pick-up window. The restaurant is not open during the peak AM hour. The difference in net new vehicle trips of the existing Baker Building and the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is approximately 85 fewer net vehicle trips (combined in and out) estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour (the proposed Chipotle Mexican Grill January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 29 restaurant is not open during this time), approximately 39 net additional vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the noon peak hour and approximately 14 fewer net new vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. The capacity and LOS analysis was performed for the projected traffic conditions for the noon and PM peak hours for the West Markham Street and University Avenue, the West Markham Street and North Access Drive and the University Avenue and East Access Drive. All vehicle movements for the projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS “D” or better for the noon and PM peak hours except for the northbound left-turn vehicle movement on University Avenue at West Markham Street during the PM peak hour which is at LOS “E”. The northbound left-turn vehicle movement from North Access Drive at West Markham Street during the noon and PM peak hours is at LOS “F”. Vehicle queuing in this lane is only approximately 51 feet during the noon peak hour and 31 feet during the PM peak hour. The projected traffic conditions do not exceed the existing and/or proposed available storage lane lengths during the noon and PM peak hours at the study intersections except for the dual northbound left-turn lanes. Available storage is approximately 200 feet per lane and the calculated 95th percentile queue length is expected to be 209 feet during the PM peak hour (only 138 feet during the noon peak hour). Although there are variations from the typical standards of the Mid-town DOD, staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the developers have done a good job in meeting the intent of the Overlay District. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site with a restaurant is appropriate. 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: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present representing the request. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7645-A 30 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-8833 NAME: Baker Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located in the 7000 Block of Highway 300 DEVELOPER: Darrell Baker c/o McGetrick Engineering 11419 Stagecoach Road, Suite 2100 Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: McGetrick Engineering 11419 Stagecoach Road, Suite 2100 Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Recreational vehicle storage, Single-family and Beauty salon VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A waiver of the Boundary Street Ordinance requirement for improvements to HWY 300. 2. A variance from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to allow the driveway to be located nearer the property line than the typically required 150-feet. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The request is a rezoning of 5.1 acres contained in two (2) tracts from R-2, Single-family to PCD. Currently one tract has an existing residential house and a small beauty salon. These two uses are proposed to remain as a part of the PCD. The second tract has a block building that has been used for bus January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 2 maintenance. This building will be removed. Redevelopment of the site consists of six (6) covered parking areas for recreational vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc. There will also be 60 uncovered parking spaces for this same type of vehicles. The site will be fenced with a controlled access entry gate. The request includes a waiver of the boundary street ordinance requirements for street improvements abutting the site to Highway 300. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roughly the south one-half of the property is located within the City limits and the northern one-half is located outside the City limits. On the area located within the City limits there is a single-family home and a beauty salon. Within the area outside the City limits there is a non-residential building which was formerly used as a commercial business/truck repair. The immediate area is primarily residential uses with homes located on large tracts. There are non-residential uses and zoning located north of the site at the intersection of East Pinnacle Road (C-1, Neighborhood Commercial) and West Pinnacle Road (PCD) on the north side. There is undeveloped O-3, General Office District zoned property to the south of this site. Further south is undeveloped C-3, General Commercial District zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the Aberdeen Court POA, the Duqesne Place POA and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Highway 300 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. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Highway 300 including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of curb should be located 29.5 feet from the centerline. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 3 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 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. 7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 8. 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 (Greg Simmons) for more information. 9. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The proposed driveway must be located at least 150 feet from the property line. 10. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 11. Retaining walls designed to exceed 15 feet in height are required to seek a variance for construction. Provide proposed wall elevations. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Portion of the site is outside the Service Boundary and no sewer available. Portion of site inside Service Area would be served by Northwest Territory Pump Station. No connections allowed to this system at this time due to easement problems on original system installed by Developer of area. 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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this property. 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. 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) January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 4 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. 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. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. Residential Low Density allows for single family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 5 Family) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for the development of a boat/RV storage facility along with the existing beauty shop and house. Master Street Plan: State Highway 300 is a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. 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 State Highway 300. This street may require dedication of right-of- way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along State Highway 300. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A twenty-eight foot (28’) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed development from the residential property on the northern perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed. 3. A twenty foot (20’) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed development from the residential property on the eastern perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed. 4. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average twenty foot (20’) wide street buffer along Hwy. 300 and is no case to be less than half. Currently, this site plan isn’t meeting this minimal ordinance requirement. 5. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide landscape strip around the sites entirety; including the adjoining property; unless, it is to be re-platted as one parcel. 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 northern and eastern perimeters, next to the residentially zoned property. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 7. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 8. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 6 9. 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: (January 3, 2013) Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick Engineering was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating the site was located both inside and outside the City limits of the City of Little Rock. Staff questioned paving materials for the proposed parking areas. Staff also questioned if the development would have a controlled access gate. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request included a waiver of the required street construction to Highway 300. Staff stated they were not supportive of the waiver request. Staff stated all driveways were to be constructed as concrete aprons. Staff stated the stormwater detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site and requested Mr. McGetrick provide the location for the proposed stormwater detention facilities. Staff stated retaining walls exceeding 15-feet in height would require a variance for construction. Mr. McGetrick stated the walls would be less than the maximum height allowed by ordinance. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a 28-foot wide land use buffer was required on the northern perimeter of the site. Staff stated a 20-foot land use buffer was required along the eastern perimeter. Staff stated the required street buffer along Highway 300 was 20-feet. Staff stated the current plan did not appear to comply with the minimum street buffer requirement. Staff stated screening was required adjacent to the residentially zoned property along the northern, eastern and southern perimeters. 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 cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the proposed construction materials and the paving for the parking areas. The applicant is requested a variance for the driveway to be located nearer the property line (125-feet) than the 150-feet typically required per the Subdivision Ordinance and the Master Street Plan. The January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 7 revised plan indicates landscape strips to meet the buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. The proposal is to allow the rezoning of this 5.1 acres contained in two (2) tracts from R-2, Single-family to Planned Commercial Development (PCD). The southern-most tract contains a residential house and a small beauty salon. The applicant proposes these two items to remain as a part of the PCD. The residential structure will remain as residential. The second tract will be redeveloped with six (6) covered parking areas for recreational vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc. There will also be 60 uncovered parking spaces for this same type of vehicles. This area will be paved with a hard surface material. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm seven (7) days per week. The development will be secured with a six foot fence around the perimeter of the site. A controlled access gate will remain closed at all times and customers will be provided access codes to access the site. All leasing for the site will be from the mini-warehouse development located just to the southeast of this site also owned by the applicant. The applicant has indicated screening will be provided as required by City ordinance. Either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings will be installed along the perimeters, next to the residentially zoned property, as required. The land use buffers and street buffers have been indicated to comply with the minimum standards of the buffer and landscape ordinances. The development is proposed with individual signs for the beauty salon and the storage area. The sign for the salon will be a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. The sign for the storage area will be a maximum of ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. Building signage will be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the façade area on facades with public street frontage. The request includes a waiver of the Boundary Street Ordinance requirements for street improvements abutting the site to Highway 300. Highway 300 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. The development is required to construct ½ street improvements to include a five (5) foot sidewalk and widening of the roadway to 29.5-feet from the existing centerline. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 8 Staff is not supportive of the proposed rezoning of the site to allow the use of the property for storage of recreational vehicles etc. Staff does not feel this site is appropriate for the storage activities. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. The area is developed primarily as residential with single-family homes located on large tracts. The area to the south is shown as Office and Multi-family on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. In addition, staff is not supportive of this waiver of the required Boundary Street Improvements. As with new development within the City and the Extraterritorial Planning jurisdiction staff feels the developer should install the improvements to meet ordinance requirements. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. Darrell Baker was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Baker addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated his office was located 1000 yards from this site on Chenal Parkway. He stated all leasing would take place from his existing mini-storage location. He stated the only persons accessing the site would be the persons who had items stored on-site. He stated he felt this was a great opportunity for this site. He stated the single-family residence located on-site would remain and would serve as the eyes and ears for the storage area. He stated there would be limited visibility of the stored items from the roadway due to building placement and screening fences. He stated he was willing to widen the street but did not want to widen the street in the initial phase. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the road widening and the mechanism for deferral or payment in-lieu for the required widening. Staff stated they could not take payment in-lieu for the roadway located outside the City limits. Staff stated in addition the length of the frontage did not allow for payment in-lieu. The Commission questioned staff as to the City’s position concerning deferral request. Staff stated they were reviewing alternatives for developing and constructing street improvements but the City had not changed its policy on deferral request ad a deferral was still currently an option. Mr. Baker stated he desired to amend his application request to allow for a deferral of the required street improvements. Staff stated typically deferrals were granted for five (5) years or until abutting development occurred. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8833 9 The Commission questioned staff as to their opposition for the request. Staff stated the commercial areas were located along Cantrell Road/Highway 10 stepping down to office adjacent to this site. Staff stated they felt this area should redevelop as office or low density residential. A motion was made to approve the rezoning request as amended including all staff recommendations and comments except that of denial. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. A motion was made to approve the deferral request for the boundary street ordinance requirements for a period of five years or until abutting development occurred. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8834 NAME: Mapco Express Short-form PCD and Alley Abandonment for a North/South Alley, the South ½ of Block 141 Original City LOCATION: Located North of 3rd Street between State and Izard Streets DEVELOPER: NTI Investments LLC 7102 Commerce Way Brentwood, TN 37027 ENGINEER: Barge, Waggoner, Sumner and Cannon, Inc. Jay Fulmer, PE 211 Commerce Street, Suite 600 Nashville, TN 37201 SURVEYOR: Global Surveying 6511 Heilman Court North Little Rock, AR 72118 AREA: 1.224 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use District ALLOWED USES: Various uses including residential, office, retail and industrial PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Convenience store with gas pumps VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is seeking a rezoning of this site from UU, Urban Use District to PCD to allow the redevelopment of this site with a convenience store with gas pumps. In addition the applicant is requesting a right of way abandonment for a January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 2 north/south alley located within the proposed development area. The project will include a 4,780 square foot convenience mart and a canopy covering over eight (8) fueling islands. In addition, there will be an outdoor patio, approximately 600 square feet, for outdoor dining, as the convenience mart includes a restaurant as well as other food sales. The proposed alley abandonment includes the south half of a 20-foot alley located in Block 141, Original City of Little Rock. The abandonment is 20-feet by 168.91-feet and contains 3,389 square feet. Easements will be retained within the abandonment area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is one-half block located north of 3rd Street, between Izard and Chester Streets. The site is currently paved with a landscaped strip located within the western portion of the site. Within this area there is a large trunk diameter tree. The perimeters contain a number of street trees. There are a number of uses located in this area including office, residential and commercial uses. North of the site is an financial advisor’s office located within a converted single-family home. Further north is a vacant commercial building located on the corner of West 2nd and Chester Streets. There are other office uses located north of the site along West 2nd Street and south of the site along West 3rd Street. Along the northwestern boundary is a vacant building previously used as an engineering office. East of the site are office uses including a three story office building which was recently used as a testing center. West of the site are residential uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and the Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. 3rd Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of State Street and West 3rd Street. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 3 3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of W 3rd Street and Izard Street. 4. With the alley abandonment request, access is shown to be removed by a retaining wall, curb, and gutter on the south end of the alley. Access should be provided. 5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. The width of the sidewalk should be increased to six (6) feet adjacent to West 3rd Street. 7. Handicap ramps located at the Izard Street/3rd Street and the State Street/3rd Street intersections should be constructed as Type 2 ramps per Public Works detail PW-50. 8. Due to obstruction of site distance caused by vehicles making left turns with 3 lane driveways, all driveway widths should be reduced to 2 lanes and a maximum 27 feet. 9. Easements should be provided for all utilities located within the proposed alley abandonment. 10. 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). 11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 12. 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. 13. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 14. Remove all old curb cuts not used. 15. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 16. Per City intersection sight distance requirements, the sign located at State Street/3rd Street intersection is within the 50 foot sight distance triangle and should be removed north out of the triangle. 17. Per City intersection sight distance requirements, the closest trees to be located near the State Street/3rd Street intersection and near the Izard Street/3rd Street intersection and within the 50 foot sight distance triangle should be relocated to the back of the sidewalk. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 4 18. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for the private improvements located in the right-of-way. These improvements include street trees, irrigation systems, and any other private improvements. 19. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Easement must be retained on alley abandonment. Existing sewer main in alley right of way. 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: Central Arkansas Water retains easement rights within the alley as shown on the site plan for abandonment. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. 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. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 5 to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #1, the Pulaski Heights Route and #8, the Rodney Parham Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Downtown Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban (MXU) for this property. The Mixed Use Urban category provides for a mix of residential, office and commercial uses not only in the same block but also within the same structure. This category is intended for older "urban" areas to allow dissimilar uses to exist, which support each other to create a vital area. Development should reinforce the urban fabric cresting a 24-hour activity area. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from UU (Urban Use District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for development of a convenience store with gas pumps on this site. Master Street Plan: 3rd Street is Principal Arterial, State Street is a Collector and Izard Street is a Local Street on the Master Street Plans. A Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on 3rd Street. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. 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 II Bike Lane is shown along 3rd Street. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 6 Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. This site is located within the Urban Use (UU) area; therefore, street trees are required. 3. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide street buffer along the southern perimeter of the site. This site is located within the designated mature area of the City; therefore, this amount can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6’-9”). Currently, this proposal does not meet this minimal ordinance requirement. 4. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average eighteen foot (18’) wide street buffer along the eastern and western perimeters of the site and is in no case to be less than half. The site plan appears to be meeting this minimal ordinance requirement. 5. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety. This proposal does not meet this minimal ordinance requirement; therefore, a variance must be obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. This amount can also be reduced to six foot nine inches (6’-9”). 6. It appears a few of the non-handicap spaces are drawn larger in width than needed. Some of these can be reduced to nine foot (9’) in width allowing for additional green space along the street. 7. The dumpster enclosure area appears to be deep; can it be brought closer to the driveway; reducing the amount of impermeable coverage. 8. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 square feet in area. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 9. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. 10. Is the Pecan tree shown to be saved in conjunction with this project? If so, credit can be given towards meeting the landscape ordinance. 11. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 12. 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 7 13. 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: (January 3, 2013) Mr. Jay Fulmer was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating the property was located within the UU, Urban Use Zoning District which allowed various types of uses as long as the uses were located indoors. Staff stated the proposed convenience store did not meet the indoor aspect of the criteria and based on the number of variations from the development criteria the applicant was seeking to rezone the property to PCD. Staff requested Mr. Fulmer provide details for the development as related to the typical standards of the UU, Urban Use Zoning District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right of way and radial dedications were required along the abutting streets to comply with the City’s Master Street Plan. Staff stated access to the alley was to be maintained from the north since the entire block of the alley was not being abandoned. Staff stated due to obstruction of site distance caused by vehicles making left turns with three (3) lane driveways, the driveway width on West 3rd Street was to be reduced to two (2) lanes and a maximum of 27-feet in width. Staff stated all old curb cuts not being used were to be removed. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety was to be a minimum of six feet nine inches (6’9”). Staff stated the street buffer required along the eastern and western perimeters was to be a minimum of 18-feet and in no case less than one-half. Staff stated a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved areas was to be landscaped with interior landscape islands. Staff stated prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan, stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect would be 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. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 8 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee meeting. The site contains 1.224 acres and is currently a commercial parking lot. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from UU, Urban Use District to Planned Commercial Development, PCD to allow the redevelopment of this site with a convenience store with restaurant and petroleum sales. The development includes a variance from the buffer and landscape ordinances to allow the landscape strip along West 3rd Street to be reduced to three (3) feet, east of the proposed driveway and to four feet six inches (4’6”) along a portion of the northern perimeter. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety. This amount can be reduced to six feet nine inches (6’-9”) because the site is located within the Designated Mature Area of the City. The applicant is seeking a variance request from the City Beautiful Commission for the proposed reduction in the landscape strip as relates to the Landscape Ordinance requirements. The UU, Urban Use Zoning District has specific development criteria related to street trees and sidewalk placement. The applicant has worked with the City’s Traffic Engineer concerning the placement of the proposed street trees to limit visual impacts of the trees on the motoring public. Staff feels the tree locations on the plan best maintain sight distances for this area. The following outlines the specific UU, Urban Use District criteria and the applicant’s proposal: a. Lighting – any lighting is to be placed so as to reflect away from adjacent residential structures. Fixtures adjacent to roadways shall be of a design that minimizes glare to the motoring public. No excessive or unusual noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it constitutes a nuisance, which substantially exceeds that general level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses adjacent to or immediately surrounding the site. The applicant has indicated all lighting will be installed to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties. A photometric plan can be provided to show the proposed lighting levels of less than a foot-candle at the property line. No excessive or unusual noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it constitutes a nuisance, which substantially exceeds that general level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses adjacent to or immediately surrounding the site. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 9 b. All ground mounted mechanical systems and trash receptacles and pickup shall be oriented away from a primary street side of the property and screened from the public right of way. Ground mounted mechanical systems and trash receptacles shall be placed adjacent to alleys if alleys are available. The trash receptacles will be located along Izard Street. The receptacles will be screened per the typical ordinance requirements. The mechanical equipment will be screened as to not be visible from the abutting streets. c. No new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible or take direct access from a primary street. Not applicable. d. Façade materials may be any standard material, except corrugated or ribbed materials. The materials proposed will be consistent with the typical DOD standards. e. All vehicular use areas are to be landscaped in compliance with Chapter 15, the City Landscape Ordinance. The plan includes a variance from this requirement. The applicant has applied with the City Beautiful Commission’s February meeting date to seek the required variance. The plan falls below the minimum required landscape strip along a portion of the northern and southern perimeters. f. Street trees a minimum of three inch caliper are required. The trees are to be located a minimum of two feet off the back of a curb and be placed 30 feet on center and no closer than 30 feet to a street intersection with a water source provided. The tree canopy is to be maintained at least 8 feet above the sidewalk. The development will comply with this standard. g. Sidewalks are to be a minimum of five foot concrete walk, excluding the first two feet from the curb. Sidewalks are to provide a minimum seven foot horizontal clearance at a height of four feet from the ground. The development will comply with this standard. h. Buildings must be oriented to the street. The primary entrance of the building shall be at street level on the street at the sidewalk. Entrances shall be designed so that the door will not swing beyond the property line. The façade along Izard Street does not meet this requirement, no customer entrance. i. The ground-level (street fronting) floor of nonresidential structures shall have a minimum surface area of sixty (60) percent transparent or window display. The 3rd Street and Izard Street sides do not meet this requirement. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 10 j. Projections (all requirements for a franchise remain in place). i. Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right-of-way except for awnings, balconies and signs as specified in Section 36-553. Not applicable. ii. Awnings shall not project more than five (5) feet from the building facade and have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above the sidewalk. Not applicable. iii. Balconies over the public right-of-way shall have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet above the sidewalk. The maximum projection shall be four (4) feet. Not applicable. k. Parking requirements. No off-street parking shall be required. l. Parking lots. Surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting street. Parking is located within the front of the building. m. [Screening.] An opaque screening wall no less than three (3) feet in height shall be placed on the exterior perimeter of the first floor of the street frontage of all parking structures not otherwise required to have active uses or building facade construction as noted in subsection a. above. The screening wall shall extend above the finished floor of the first floor of the parking structure so as to screen vehicles in the parking structure. Not applicable. n. Signs – signage is allowed as in office and institutional zones or a maximum of six feet in height and 64 square feet in area. The signage plan will comply with the typical standards of the UU Zoning District. o. Permitted uses. Unless otherwise indicated, uses permitted shall include all those allowed in the residential districts, office districts and commercial districts as "permitted uses" in this chapter. All uses must be inside or enclosed except areas of outdoor dining. Outdoor aspect of the development/fueling center. p. Area regulations. Front yard. No setback is required except as noted below. (In no case may a structure be built in the right-of-way.) i. Along Capitol Avenue, west of Broadway Street and east of Scott Street, the front building line shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Along Chester Street from I-630 to La Harpe Boulevard, the front building line shall be ten (10) feet. Not applicable. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 11 ii. In no case is the storage or parking of vehicles allowed in the front setback. Not applicable. iii. Rear yard. No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. In this case the rear yard shall have a setback of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. Not applicable. iv. Side yard. No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. In this case the side yards shall have a setback of not less than four (4) feet. Not applicable. Staff is not supportive of the requested rezoning. Staff does not feel this is an appropriate location for this type use. Staff feels the redevelopment of this ½ block as proposed will significantly impact redevelopment of other properties within this area. Primarily new construction and renovations within this area have been limited to office type uses. Immediately to the west of this site are residential units and ½ block to the south are also residential units. Staff feels the 24-hour activity of a convenience store will adversely impact the quality of lives of the residents within these units. Although the UU, Urban Use Zoning District allows for a variety of uses staff does not feel this site is best suited for this use. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Vice Chair Fountain stated the applicant had requested a deferral of this item to the March 7, 2013, public hearing. He stated the deferral request was not made within the typical time frame established by the Commission’s By-laws with regard to deferral request. He requested the applicant come forward. Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission on the deferral request. He stated his client was unaware of the magnitude of opposition to the request. He stated once the objections were noted to his client the request for deferral was made. He stated a number of the comment letters were sent to staff over the weekend and the first of this January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 12 week. He stated based on the receipt of the comments and the City offices being closed on Monday for the observation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day the deferral request was made on Tuesday, the first date available to make the request. Mr. David Wood addressed the Commission in opposition of the deferral request. He stated the opposition had spent a great deal of time preparing for the meeting. He stated the notices were mailed within the time frame required by the Commission’s By-laws but were mailed from Tennessee. He stated the property owners in the area had gone to a great effort to get the opposition to come out for this meeting. He requested the Commission deny the request for deferral. Ms. Evin Cassinelli addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the property owners had spent a great deal of time and rearranged schedules to be present at the meeting. She stated there were a number of property owners which would have a conflict with the March 7, 2013, hearing date. She stated she did not think the application would change enough to gain support. She stated she would like to Commission to hear the request at this meeting. Mr. Pat James addressed the Commission in opposition of the deferral request. He stated the opposition was present and ready to move forward. Mr. Brent Baber addressed the Commission in opposition of the deferral request. He stated the five day rule was put in place to establish fairness for the citizens. He stated he understood there was a way for the Commission to waive the five day rule under circumstances which warranted the deferral. Staff stated fairness was also to apply to the applicant as well as the citizens. Staff stated the reason for the public review process was to give due process. Staff stated they had told a number of interested persons the applicant was requesting a deferral and based on this comment there may have been some who wanted to address the Commission who did not come down. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning their practice on allowing deferrals. Commissioner Nunnley questioned if those present could address the Commission. The Deputy City Attorney stated this was not a good idea since at the March meeting there could be a new Commissioner who would not have had the benefit of all the citizen input. Mr. Spivey addressed the Commission stating he fully appreciated the opposition to the deferral request but he and his client were unaware of the number of persons opposed to the request since a number of the letters were received over the weekend and the past few days. He stated his desire was to work with the citizens and minimize their concerns. He stated he desired for this client to be treated fairly as well as the citizenry of Little Rock. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8834 13 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for a waiver of the By-laws and the deferral of the item to the March 7, 2013, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, 1 recusal (Chairman Bill Rector) and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8835 NAME: Magnolia Hill Long-form PD-C LOCATION: Located at 5110 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: WG “Buddy” Ellis 5110 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: Laha Engineers, Inc. 6602 Baseline Road, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 14.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Single-family and Add special events as an allowable use VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: Magnolia Hill is located at 5110 Stagecoach Road in southwest Little Rock. The property is registered on the National Historic Register under the Dr. Morgan Smith estate that was built in 1918. Dr. Smith is considered the founding Dean of UAMS. The zoning request is to rezone from R-2, Single-family to PC-C, Planned Development Commercial, a portion of the property to be used for outdoor venues, with the primary purpose of weddings. The outdoor wedding season begins in March and ends early December. The planned venue area will January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 2 encompass approximately 15 acres of the applicant’s total ownership. The wedding ceremonies are held lake side on the property’s private lake. No new construction will be added as a result of the rezoning request. Most events will be held on Saturday or Sunday afternoon between the hours of 2 pm and 10 pm. The weddings will be held on the grounds outside. In case of inclement weather there is a small enclosed area in the barn that may be set up with tables and chairs. The property has three (3) complete restrooms for guest use. All food will be catered by a local caterer. Entertainment will be provided by a local DJ. The DJ is approximately 700 feet away from any residence. All music will end by 10 pm. No permanent signage will be added. Only signage for the National Historic Register as approved by the Arkansas Department of Heritage is proposed. Parking is proposed within the open pasture. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located on Stagecoach Road near the Tall Timber and Pecan Lake subdivisions. The request includes the rezoning of only a portion of the applicant’s ownership, the area which will be used for the events. Across Stagecoach Road to the east is a nursing home and to the south of the site is a church. As noted the Tall Timber Subdivision is located along the northern boundary of the applicant’s property and to the east is the Pecan Lake Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the Pecan Lake Property Owners Association, the Tall Timber Property Owners Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Stagecoach 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. Right-of-way should only be dedicated to the existing rock retaining wall. Property can be dedicated beyond the fence. 2. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for the private improvements located in the right-of-way. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 3 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. 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. Due to the nature of the 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 requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful test of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) 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. Fire Department: Maintain access of at least twenty (20) feet; fire hydrants per Code. Contact Fire Marshall Tony Rhodes at 607-3560 with any questions. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. Residential Low Density allows for single family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for the additional permitted use of an events center on this site (with the single family house to remain). Master Street Plan: Stagecoach Road is a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Stagecoach Road. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along Stagecoach Road. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Any new paved areas may require landscaping per the City’s Landscape ordinance. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 3, 2013) Mr. and Mrs. Buddy Ellis were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating the applicant was seeking a rezoning of the site to allow the use of a portion of the property for outdoor venues and events. Staff stated the cover letter indicated the primary events held were weddings. Staff questioned the ending hours for the events and the activities taking place such as fireworks. Mr. Ellis stated the events ended at 10:00 pm. He stated the fireworks display was limited to four (4) minutes. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedication outside the area of the rock wall was required to a 55-foot total width. Staff stated a franchise agreement from Public Works was required for the private improvements located within the right of way. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 5 Staff noted if any paved areas were placed on the site additional landscaping would be required to comply with the City’s 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: There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing raised at the January 3, 2013, Subdivision Committee meeting. The rezoning request is from R-2, Single-family to PC-C, Planned Development Commercial, for a portion of the applicant’s ownership to be used for outdoor venues, with the primary use being weddings. According to the applicant the outdoor wedding season begins in March and ends early December. The area used for the outdoor venues is approximately 15 acres of the applicant’s total ownership. The wedding ceremonies are held lake side on the property’s private lake. Activities take place outdoors but in case of inclement weather there is a small enclosed area within a barn located on the property which can be used. The property has three (3) complete restrooms for guest use. There is no new construction proposed with the rezoning request. Parking is proposed within the open pasture. According to the applicant most events are held on Saturday or Sunday afternoon between 2:00 pm and 10:00 pm. As an event package offered by the applicant some weddings end with a small fireworks display. The applicant has indicated the maximum length of the fireworks display is four (4) minutes. The applicant secures all licenses and permits required to offer this service. All food will be catered by a local caterer. Entertainment will be provided by a local DJ. The DJ is approximately 700 feet away from any residence. All music will end by 10 pm. No permanent signage will be added. The property is located on the National Historic Register. Only signage as approved by the Arkansas Department of Heritage is proposed. On the day of an event a small sign will be placed at the driveway to notify guest of the location. All signage will be placed and removed on the day of the event. The applicant has not requested the approval be non-transferable to future owners of the property. Staff recommends if approved the use of the site for outdoor venues be limited to the ownership of WG “Buddy” and Alda Ellis. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 6 Ordinance No. 20,617 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 7, 2012, allowed a revision to the Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances and now allows the planned development process to review a request which were previously reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The ordinance states: Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 36-451(e) to read as follows: (e) Except for those land uses specified in subsection 36-104(a), a land use that would otherwise need a conditional use permit shall not require a conditional use permit if the use is a part of a planned development or planned unit development application and process. The development standards and review standards for event centers as identified within the Conditional Use Permit Division or the Zoning Ordinance states the Commission must review the separation of the facilities to limit the impact on the neighborhood. The ordinance states an event center shall not be located within 750 feet of the following: a church, a sexually-oriented business as defined by Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances, a public or private elementary, secondary or post-secondary school, a daycare center or any facility that operates programs for children or youth, any single-family or multi-family residential use, except a hotel or motel or residential use that is within a unified development that contains both the event center and the residential use. The measurement is to be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest portion of a building or structure proposed for occupancy as an event center to the nearest property line of any of the above uses. The Commission is to review each of the requests on an individual basis to determine the impact on the adjoining properties with consideration given to the stated criteria. As noted in the Existing Conditions Section of this report there are single-family homes to the north (Tall Timber Subdivision) and northeast (Pecan Lake Subdivision) which are located within 750 feet of the property and within 750-feet of the area proposed with the outdoor venues. There is a nursing home located across Stagecoach Road to the east and a church located to the south, all within the 750-foot spacing. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the property is located nearer residential uses than 750-feet the applicant’s ownership is much larger than the 15+ acres proposed for rezoning. According to the applicant the fireworks display is limited to a maximum of four (4) minutes and all guest are off the property by 10 pm. Staff feels by limiting the approval of the current ownership this will lessen any future potential impacts. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 7 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends the approval not be transferable and is limited to the ownership of WG “Buddy” and Alda Ellis. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation the approval not be transferable and be limited to the ownership of WG “Buddy” and Alda Ellis. Mr. Grant Murray addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated he was a member of the staff and a student of the Missionary Baptist Church and Seminary. He stated his was one of a number of families who lived on site. He stated the seminary also had a dorm for students to live on the property. He stated Mr. Ellis notified the church on the days the fireworks events would occur and he and the other families would go down the hill to watch the display. He stated Mr. Ellis was a good neighbor and felt the use of the property for weddings and special events did not adversely impact the area. Mr. Tom Hunrichs addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated he worked for the Holiday Inn, Airport and had done business with the Ellis for a number of years. He stated on many occasions out of town guest would stay and the Holiday Inn, Airport when visiting our City of events held at the Ellis’s. He stated as a service to the guest the hotel would provide a shuttle service to the events at the Ellis home. He stated the business and activities taking place on Stagecoach Road were far reaching and provided an economic benefit not only to the central portion of the City but to College Station as well. Mr. Ellis addressed the Commission stating the property was a 30+ acre property with only 15+ acres being used for the weddings and fund raisers. He stated there was a private lake on the property where most of the activities took place. He stated there would be no changes to the site. He stated the site was listed on the National Historic Register. He stated there had been a great deal of concern over the fireworks display. He stated not every wedding ended with fireworks. He stated the fireworks were usually displayed between 7:30 and 9:00 pm. He stated the maximum length of the display was four (4) minutes. He stated he was licensed by the State of Arkansas and before every January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 8 event he secured a permit from the Little Rock Fire Department, the Little Rock Police Department and the State Fire Marshall. He stated the Commission had been provided a number of letters in support of the request. He stated he had talked with a number of his neighbors that were directly impacted and all had indicated support. Ms. Denise White addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located in Pecan Lake on Pecan Lake Road. She stated the first time she heard the fireworks she thought there was a gang war taking place. She stated she later determined the noise to be fireworks. She stated in September she was inside her home and heard voices which turned out to be a band playing on the Ellis property. She stated the owner could not control the volume of music. She stated her concern with the fireworks was the potential for an accident. She stated with the commercial activities taking place on the Ellis property there was the potential for decreasing property values within the area. Mr. Henry Gilmore addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he had lived in Pecan Lake since 1987. He stated this area of the City was growing and seeing a lot of change. He questioned how the community benefited from the Ellis business. He stated he was concerned with the fireworks display. He questioned if the site was a historical site then why the owners would want to change the site and create a commercial business. He stated the fireworks were also an environmental concern. He stated the pollutions from the discharge of the fireworks were released into the air and could potentially harm the fish. Ms. Pat Gee addressed the Commission as VP of the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress. She stated the membership had voted to not support the proposed rezoning based on comments provided at their meeting from Ms. White. She stated Mr. Ellis was not in attendance. She stated the vote was not unanimous. Mr. Ellis stated he was unaware of the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ellis stated he had met with the Pecan Lake Neighborhood Association and was made aware of Ms. White’s concerns on Saturday. He stated he could control the volume of sound from the musical acts or DJ’s and in the future the music would not be heard off-site. He stated the way the business was handled all guest were off the site by 10:00 pm. He stated he would notify anyone interested on the dates that a firework display would be performed as a part of a wedding or the business had a web site which a notice could be posted. There was a general discussion by the Commissioners and Mr. Ellis as to the activities taking place on the site. The Commission questioned the number of weddings which had been held since he started hosting the events. Mr. Ellis stated near 80 weddings with twenty-five (25) percent having fireworks associated with the event. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8835 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 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. January 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-2725-D NAME: 8624 I-30 Long-form PID Revocation LOCATION: Located at 8624 I-30 DEVELOPER: Talon Property Management Inc. 8505 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Crafton Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 3.718 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PID ALLOWED USES: I-2, Light Industrial and a School PROPOSED ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 20,381 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 18, 2011, rezoned 3.71 acres located at 8624 I-30 from I-2, Light Industrial to PID. The approval allowed the addition of a charter school as an allowable use for this site while maintaining the I-2, Light Industrial District uses. On November 29, 2012, the applicant contacted staff requesting the previously approved PID zoning and the restoration of the previously held I-2, Light Industrial zoning district. The applicant states the PID zoning was approved for a school and the site plan submitted and approved was based on the schools occupancy of the site. The applicant states the request for the school was made by the former owners of the site. He states the school project has been abandoned and maintaining the PID zoning will severely limit the future redevelopment potential for this industrial property. January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-D 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: Per Section 36-458(a) Cause for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked and all building permits or certificates of occupancy be voided under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant has not submitted a final development plan to staff. Where a staged development plan is approved the Board of Directors may revoke the entire preliminary plan or may revoke only that stage on which a final plan has not been submitted and approved. (2) Construction has not commenced within the time allowed. (3) The applicant has not adhered to the development schedule as stated in the approved preliminary plan. In addition, to the revocation for cause, Section 36-454(e) final development plan states the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Request for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one extension of not more than two years. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. Per the ordinance requirement of the procedure for revocation, staff has contacted the applicant indicating the default of approval and setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PID zoning classification. According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation which shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for disposition as in the original approval. The applicant is agreeable to the revocation of the PID zoning and the restoration of the previously held I-2, Light Industrial zoning classification. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a one-story vacant commercial building located within the east half of the property. The building was previously used as a bowling facility. There is paved parking on the east and west sides of the building, with a paved driveway on the building’s south side. A service drive is located along the north side of the building. Access drives are located along I-30 and Young Road. There is a billboard at the southeast corner of the property and a vacant lot. There is a mixture of uses in this general area. Mixed light industrial uses are located on the I-2, Light Industrial District zoned property to the north (across Young Road) and west. Vacant I-2, Light Industrial District zoned property is January 24, 2013 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-D 3 located to the east. An apartment complex and undeveloped property are located across I-30 to the south. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 3, 2013) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the request was a revocation of the previously approved PID zoning. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PID zoning classification be revoked and the previously held I-2, Light Industrial zoning be restored. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation the previous approval be voided since the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff presented a recommendation the current PID zoning classification be revoked and the previously held I-2, Light Industrial zoning be restored. 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, 0 absent and 1 open position. I LLI M E C) :F �U` 'tP 114 P� �S 01 LU i LU �II�R�C �����e0°oo �II�Ne�� seem ounce-IIII . logo I Olson B1.101POPE-1-1 MNO :� a 5 04 1 1111111 M119-11-1-1110111 1 �Y ouilisirNm IYllii�lll ���enn millions mossiollwoon IN m■ E C) :F �U` 'tP 114 P� �S 01 LU i LU �II�R�C �II�Ne�� . MNO :� oms �Y ���enn millions IN E C) :F �U` 'tP 114 P� �S 01 LU i LU January 24, 2[13 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Vnairman