pc_03 19 2009sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 19, 2009
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present there being ten (10) members present.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Troy Laha
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
William Rector
Chauncey Taylor
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
“Goose” W. Changose
Billy Rouse
Candice Smith
Members Absent: J. T. Ferstl
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2009 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
MARCH 19, 2009
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
A. S-1622 Skyhawk Circle Preliminary Plat, located at 4500 Skyhawk
Circle.
B. S-502-J
John Barrow Addition Replat Lots 10R – 13R, Block 71 and
Right of Way Abandonment for Zion Street, located on the
Northeast Corner of West 38th and Zion Streets.
C. S-1494-A Blankenship’s Addition Replat Lots 10R – 12R, Block 2,
located on the Southeast corner of Leander Drive and
Vogler Street.
D. S-1280-M Valley Falls Estates Collector Street Deferral, located on the
East side of Valley Falls Estates abutting Lots 13A – 13D
and Lots 14 - 18.
E. Z-2725-B McGee Short-form PID, located at 8624 I-30.
F. Z-6640-A Bailey Revised Short-form POD, located at 1723 North
University Avenue.
G. MSP2008 Master Street Plan Update Adoption of Master Street Plan
for Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction
NEW BUSINESS:
I. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
1. S-1630 Baseline Chicot Shopping Center Ice Hut Subdivision Site
Plan Review, located at 7501 Baseline Road.
Agenda, Page Two
II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
2. Z-3810-F Snider Commercial Park Revised Short-form PCD, located
on the Southwest corner of Maryland Avenue and Cedar
Street.
3. Z-5377-B 16719 Cantrell Road Revised Short-form POD, located at
16719 Cantrell Road.
4. Z-6650-A First Class 50-Cent Carwash Short-form PD-C, 325 East
Roosevelt Road.
5. Z-8433 Pfeifer Long-form POD, located on the Northwest corner of
Cantrell Road and LaMarche Drive/Taylor Loop Road West.
6. LU09-24-01 Land Use Plan Amendment in the Sweet Home/College
Station Planning District from Single Family to Residential
Medium Density at the Southeast corner of Frazier Pike
and Jones Street.
6.1. Z-8432 Jones Street Short-form PD-R, located 4001, 4005, 4009,
4011 and 4015 Jones Street.
III. OTHER ITEMS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
7. LA-0024 Chicot Road Land Alteration Variance Request, located
approximately 1.5 miles South of Baseline Road on the
East side of Chicot Road.
8. LA-0025 Stagecoach Road Land Alteration Variance Request,
located at 9010 Stagecoach Road.
9. Z-4343-T The Ranch - Saddle Creek Commercial Phase 2 Short-form
PCD Time Extension, located on the Northeast corner of
Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive.
Agenda, Page Three
III. OTHER ITEMS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
10. Z-5617-A Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time
Extension, located South of Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center.
11. Z-4807-F Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension,
located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the
Villages of Wellington Subdivision.
12. Z-4807-G Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension,
located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk
Road.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1622
NAME: Skyhawk Circle Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 4500 Skyhawk Circle
DEVELOPER:
Rebekah Price
4500 Skyhawk Circle
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 6.78 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C – Current request to revoke the zoning and restore
R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow the creation of lots utilizing
private streets, Section 31-231.
The applicant requested on October 13, 2008, this item be deferred to the
December 18, 2008, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request on October 15, 2008,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 13, 2008, public hearing. Staff stated
they were supportive of the deferral request.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1622
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant contacted staff on December 3, 2008, requesting a deferral of this item to
the February 5, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2008)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had
contacted them on December 3, 2008, requesting a deferral of the item to the
February 5, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 3 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff concerning this request since the previous public
hearing. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had not contacted them concerning the request
since the previous public hearing. Staff presented a recommendation the item be
deferred to the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1622
3
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no contact with the applicant since the previous public hearing. Since
the item has been deferred previously three times staff recommends the item be
withdrawn, without prejudice, and re-filed once the applicant has all the issues resolved
related to the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating there had been no contact with the applicant since the
previous public hearing. Staff stated since the item had been deferred previously three
times they recommended the item be withdrawn, without prejudice, and re-filed once the
applicant had all the issues resolved related to the plat.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
disposition of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-502-J
NAME: John Barrow Addition Replat Lots 10R – 13R, Block 71 and Right of Way
Abandonment for Zion Street
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast Corner of West 38th and Zion Streets
DEVELOPER:
James McDaniel
P.O. Box 250
Sweet Home, AR 72164
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.517 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant requested on December 2, 2008, this item be deferred to the February 5,
2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2008)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had
contacted them on December 2, 2008, requesting a deferral of the item to the
February 5, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 3 open positions.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-502-J
2
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff concerning this request since the previous public
hearing. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had not contacted them concerning the request
since the previous public hearing. Staff presented a recommendation the item be
deferred to the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no contact with the applicant since the previous public hearing. Since
the item has been deferred previously two times staff recommends the item be
withdrawn, without prejudice, and re-filed once the applicant has all the issues resolved
related to the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating there had been no contact with the applicant since the
previous public hearing. Staff stated since the item had been deferred previously two
times they recommended the item be withdrawn, without prejudice, and re-filed once the
applicant had all the issues resolved related to the plat.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
disposition of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1494-A
NAME: Blankenship’s Addition Replat Lots 10R – 12R
LOCATION: located on the Southeast corner of Leander Drive and Vogler Street
DEVELOPER:
EMW Construction, Inc.
c/o Ed Wright
P.O. Box 241741
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.51 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to allow a reduced lot
width for the proposed lots.
2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-256, to allow a reduced front
building line of 15-feet adjacent to a residential street.
3. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to allow lots with a
reduced lot area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking a replat of three existing residential lots. The lots are
currently east/west lots fronting Vogler Street which was recently abandoned as
a public right of way by the City of Little Rock Board of Directors through the
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
2
adoption of Ordinance No. 19,745. The developer is seeking to replat the lots to
front Leander Drive. Leander Drive formerly West 16th Street has been
constructed but is not located within the originally dedicated right of way. The
plat indicates the existing 40-foot right of way for Leander Drive and dedication of
right of way for the area currently asphalted and serving as the street.
The applicant is seeking variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of the lots. The plat indicates a 15-foot front building line for the
lots. The ordinance typically requires the placement of a 25-foot front building
line for lots abutting a residentially classified street. The lots are indicated with a
50.22 lot width. The ordinance typically requires lots zoned R-2, Single-family to
have a minimum lot width at the building line of 60-feet. The lots area average
6,515 square feet. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of
7,000 square feet for R-2, Single-family zoned lots.
The request includes a deferral of the required street construction until the
construction of a new home on the second lot. The applicant is also requesting
the City require the sidewalk placement along the north side of the street. Due to
the existing street layout and rights of way the property owner to the north will
inherit excess right of way which could be abandoned by the northern property
owner to allow benefit.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is relatively flat with a number of nice sized trees. The area is
predominately single-family with the exception of a multi-family development
located to the northwest. In addition to the multi-family development there is a
vacant 6+-acre tract of MF-18 zoned property at the northwest boundary of this
property. The area was platted a number of years ago with 50-foot by 150-foot
lots with the streets and alleys laid out in a grid pattern. Many of the streets and
alleys have not developed. The area property owners appear to have bought
and constructed their homes on several lots. Leander Drive is a narrow
substandard street with open ditches for drainage. Vogler Street was never
constructed and has been abandoned by the City as a public right of way.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. All abutting property owners and the Leander Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Leander would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a local street.
Right-of-way should be dedicated to 25 feet from the centerline of the existing
paved street.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Leander Drive
including 5-foot sidewalks at the property line with the planned development.
The new back of curb should be located13 feet from the paved centerline.
3. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
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. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
6. Does the applicant desire to take access from the alley? If so, right-of-way
should be dedicated to 10 feet from the centerline of the alley right-of-way.
The alley must be paved with asphalt for vehicle access.
7. Backing vehicles out into Leander Drive from Lots 10R and 11R is not
recommended. It is much safer for vehicles to exit the lots front first.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
4
public fire hydrant, installed at the expense of the developer, will be required in
order to provide service to this property.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 15, 2009)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating
there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff
requested the applicant provide the source of title of the landowner on the
proposed plat drawing.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Leander Drive was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a local street. Staff stated dedication of
right of way 25-feet from the centerline of the existing paving was required. Staff
stated street construction to Master Street Plan standards including curb, gutter
and sidewalk would be required prior to the issuance of a final plat. Staff stated
streetlights were required per Section 31-403. Staff stated the streetlights were
to be installed prior to the issuance of a final plat.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the required improvements and the
lot development cost. Mr. Wright stated based on the location of the lots and
housing construction cost he felt the street improvements would cause the lot
development cost to be prohibitive. Staff stated they would work with Mr. Wright
to provide him an estimate of cost for the improvements. Staff stated the waiver
of street construction was an item only the Board of Directors could approve.
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.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
5
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and revised plat addressing issues
raised at the January 15, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The developer
has met with staff to discuss the required improvements to Leander Drive. The
revised plat indicates the source of title of the landowner as requested by staff.
The developer is seeking a replat of three lots currently platted as lots fronting an
abandoned right of way for Vogler Street to face Leander Drive. The plat as
proposed requires variances from the Subdivision Ordinance. The plat indicates
a 15-foot front building line for the lots as opposed to the 25-foot front building
line typically required for lots abutting a residentially classified street. A variance
to allow a reduced lot width is also required. The lots are indicated with a 50.22-
foot lot width as opposed to the 60-foot lot width required for lots zoned R-2,
Single-family. The lots are proposed with a lot area less than the typical 7,000
square foot minimum lot area. The average lot area is 6,515 square feet.
The developer has indicated dedication of right of way and street construction will
be completed per the Master Street Plan standards with the exception of the
sidewalk placement. Leander Street is classified as a residential street which
only requires the placement of a sidewalk along one side of the street. The
developer is requesting the City require the placement of the walk along the north
side of the street. The justification for this request is Leander Street was not
constructed in the dedicated right of way and was shifted to the south reducing
the lot depth of the applicant’s property. The applicant is proposing a dedication
of right of way based on the current centerline of Leander Drive per the City’s
Master Street Plan.
The request includes a deferral of the required street improvements until
construction of a new home on the second lot. Staff recommends the final
platting of the lots occur on an individual lot basis and the entire length of the
required street improvements be installed with the final platting of the second lot.
Staff is supportive of the lots as proposed and the associated variances. The
property currently exists as three (3) lots and the replatting will allow three (3)
lots. The area was previously platted as a paper plat laid out in 50-foot by 150-
foot lots with 40 foot street right of ways and 12 foot alleys identified. The area
has most recently been redeveloping with new home construction on these 50-
foot lots. Staff does not feel the allowance of the plat with the variances
identified will significantly impact the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
6
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 Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to allow a reduced lot width for the proposed lots.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 31-256, to allow a reduced front building line of 15-feet
adjacent to a residential street.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to allow lots with a reduced lot area.
Staff recommends the lots be final platted on an individual lot basis with the
entire length of the required street improvements being installed with the final
platting of the second lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had contacted them on January 22, 2009, requesting a deferral of
the item to the March 19, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to allow a reduced
lot width for the proposed lots, the variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance,
Section 31-256, to allow a reduced front building line of 15-feet adjacent to a residential
street and the variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-232(a), to
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1494-A
7
allow lots with a reduced lot area. Staff presented a recommendation the lots be final
platted on an individual lot basis with the entire length of the required street
improvements being installed with the final platting of the second lot.
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 and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO: S-1280-M
NAME: Valley Falls Estates Collector Street Deferral
LOCATION: East side of Valley Falls Estates abutting Lots 13A – 13D and
Lots 14 - 18
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rick Ferguson
APPLICANT’S
REPRESENTATIVE: White-Daters & Associates, Inc.
PROPOSAL: A five (5) year deferral of construction of one-half of a Collector
Street on the east side of Valley Falls Estates Subdivision
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
On June 20, 2000, Ordinance No. 18,299 was approved by the Board of
Directors for a deferral of construction of one half of the proposed collector street
adjacent to the east property line of Valley Falls Estates Subdivision as shown on
the Master Street Plan. The ordinance specifically deferred construction for a
period of 5 years or until abutting street improvements are constructed,
whichever occurs first. The ordinance defined the one-half improvements to
consist of 12 ft. of pavement and an 8 ft. shoulder measured from centerline of
the proposed right-of-way with sidewalk and open ditch.
With this application, the applicant is requesting an additional 5-year deferral of
the one half street improvements for the collector street on the eastside of Valley
Falls Estates Subdivision. The subject collector street will tie into LaMarche
Drive at the south property line as shown on the Master Street Plan to eventually
connect into Taylor Loop Road.
The applicant’s reasoning for requesting an additional deferral is due to right-of-
way and financing are not in place to make the connection to Taylor Loop Road.
The applicant also states this section of street would be unusable until right-of-
way and funds are available for the remaining portion of the street to Taylor Loop
Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Four (4) properties are located to the east of the subject property and zoned R-2.
These properties today take access from Carter Lane. Two (2) of the properties
have residences built on the western half of the properties and two (2) of the
properties have residences built on the eastern half of the properties closer to
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
2
Carter Lane. The future right-of-way for LaMarche Drive will consist of the
western 35 ft. of the four (4) properties.
Four (4) properties are located adjacent to the north of the subject property and
zoned R-2. One (1) of the properties is owned by the applicant. Four (4)
properties exist where the future right-of-way of LaMarche Drive will be located
north of Valley Falls Estates to Taylor Loop Road. Two (2) of the four (4)
properties are owned by the applicant.
To the west are several larger properties each about 3 acres or larger zoned R-2
which should not be affected by this application.
To the south is a Chenal Valley subdivision zoned R-2. As part of this
subdivision, Deltic is currently constructing LaMarche Drive to the south property
line of Valley Falls Estates.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received comments from Deltic Timber Corp.
opposing the approval of the 5-year deferral.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Ordinance #15,594, approved on December 8, 1988 set the original design
for LaMarche Drive. Ordinance #18,562 approved by the Board of Directors
on September 18, 2001 amended the Master Street Plan to connect Taylor
Loop Road at Lucky Lane to La Marche Drive. Ordinance #15,594 required
the future street to have a 70 ft. right-of-way; 2 - 12 ft travel lanes; and 2 - 8 ft.
paved shoulders with open ditches. Ordinance #18,299 adopted on June 20,
2000 deferred the one half street construction to LaMarche Drive for 5 years
or until abutting street improvements are constructed, whichever occurs first.
The ordinance continues and states the specific deferral is for one half street
widening to 12 ft. of pavement and 8 ft. of shoulder from centerline, with
sidewalk per Ordinance #15,594.
2. Has the right-of-way for the future street been dedicated to the City of Little
Rock?
3. Staff recommends the deferral of the future street adjacent to Valley Falls
Estates for 5 year or until adjacent development occurs. The future street
should be constructed to collector street standards as shown on the Master
Street Plan.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
3
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 20, 2008)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. The item was explained to the commissioners and no questions were
asked of Mr. White.
F. ANALYSIS:
The original deferral Ordinance # 18,299 was approved in 2000 for dedication of
right-of-way and the construction of the one half street improvements along the
east property line of Valley Falls Estates. The improvements were deferred for 5
years or until abutting street improvements are constructed, whichever occurs
first. Per Ordinance # 15,594, the one half street improvements are to be 12 ft.
of pavement with 8 ft. paved shoulders from centerline, with sidewalk. The
required right-of-way dedication is for one half of a 70 ft. right-of-way.
The deferred street improvements will connect into LaMarche Drive which is
currently being constructed to the south property line of Valley Falls Estates
Subdivision. Per the Master Street Plan, LaMarche Drive is a collector street
which will eventually connect into Taylor Loop Road near Lucky Lane just south
of the new Little Rock Public School currently under construction.
The original deferral ordinance does not contain the conditions which are placed
in the current deferral ordinances for residential subdivisions. Besides the time
periods for construction being 5 years or until adjacent street development, the
current deferral ordinances are also conditioned on the platting of a particular
phase of lots in the subdivision. Usually the phase is not the last phase planned
for development. Unlike commercial subdivisions, where the developer usually
owns lots or buildings in the subdivision, in residential subdivisions the developer
has less responsibility or ownership when the lots are sold and homes
constructed.
The improvements will consist of constructing one half of LaMarche Drive from
the south property line to the north property line of Valley Falls Estates
Subdivision. This one half street will be constructed for approximately 1300 ft.
and end at a pond and wooded area. From the north property line of Valley Falls
Estates an additional 1000 ft. of street is still needed to be constructed to connect
into Taylor Loop Road. The approved preliminary plat for Valley Falls Estates
shows no vehicle access to be taken from LaMarche Drive. The plat does show
an emergency only access. This access will not be accessible by emergency
vehicles until the completion of construction of Valley Creek View and Vista
Ridge Court in Valley Falls Estates. With this being the case, staff believes this
additional 1300 ft. of half street improvements does nothing to improve the safety
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
4
and access to Valley Falls Estates, adjacent properties, and the subdivisions to
the south.
The four (4) properties to the east of Valley Falls Estates are zoned R2. Two (2)
of the properties have dedicated right-of-way for the LaMarche Drive and two (2)
properties have not. At this time, none of these properties have an obligation to
construct one half street improvements to the eastern half of LaMarche Drive.
With this being the case, staff believes at least 20 ft. of asphalt pavement should
be constructed adjacent to Valley Falls Estates as required by
Ordinance #15,594 which was referenced in the Valley Falls Estates deferral
ordinance. This 20 ft. of pavement will allow for two-way traffic if the connection
is made to Taylor Loop Road in the future and allow access for emergency
vehicles to Valley Falls Estates when the interior streets referenced above are
completed. These improvements can be made by shifting the centerline of the
street to the west away from the centerline of the proposed 70 ft. right-of-way.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for an additional deferral of the one
half street improvements to LaMarche Drive adjacent to Valley Falls Estates
Subdivision. Staff believes the deferral should be approved with the following
conditions. The conditions are: 35 ft. of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the
entire length of the property within 30 days of the adoption of the deferral
ordinance; the deferral is for 5 years, or until future platting of any lot east of the
existing platted lots, or until abutting street construction occurs to the north or
east adjacent to Valley Falls Estates, whichever occurs first. Specifically, the one
half street improvements will consist of constructing curb and gutter, 20 ft. of
asphalt pavement, stormwater drainage improvements, streetlights, and sidewalk
at the property line. With this construction the centerline of the street can be
shifted to allow for these improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Chairman Taylor
stated when there were eight (8) or fewer Commissioners present the practice of the
Commission had been to allow the applicant the option of deferral of an item to a
subsequent meeting. He questioned if the applicant desired a deferral of the item to the
February 5, 2009, public hearing. Mr. Joe White stated his desire was to defer the item
to the February 5, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item for deferral to the February 5, 2009, public hearing. The motion carried by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 3 open positions.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
5
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to support the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant’s representatives were present. There were no registered objectors
present. Commissioner Yates stated as allowed by the Commission’s By-laws he was
requesting the item be deferred to the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
A motion was made to approve the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Chairman Taylor stated he was appointing a committee to review possible alternative
solutions to the item. Chairman Taylor appointed Commissioners Laha, Rector and
Yates to the committee. Chairman Taylor stated the committee would report their
findings to the Commission at the March 19, 2009, public hearing.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Special Committee of the Planning Commission has met twice to consider
alternatives and options with regard to the deferral request including the owner
dedicating the full width of the right of way along the eastern boundary of Valley Falls
Estates and through property owned by the applicant to the north to make the
connection to the western leg of Taylor Loop Road. The Special Committee has
instructed staff to hire an appraiser to determine fair market value of the right of way.
Staff and the owner’s representative are to also compute a cost estimate for the street
construction currently required of the developer. The Special Committee recommends
this item be deferred to the April 30, 2009, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the Special Committee of the Planning Commission had met
twice to consider alternatives and options with regard to the deferral request including
the owner dedicating the full width of the right of way along the eastern boundary of
Valley Falls Estates and through property owned by the applicant to the north to make
the connection to the western leg of Taylor Loop Road. Staff stated the applicant had
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
6
provided a letter agreeing in principle to such an alternative, contingent on an
acceptable final agreement. Staff stated on that basis the Special Committee had
instructed staff to hire an appraiser to determine fair market value of the right of way.
Staff stated they and the owner’s representative were to also compute a cost estimate
for the street construction currently required of the developer. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
NAME: McGee Short-form PID
LOCATION: Located at 8624 I-30
DEVELOPER:
Newman McGee
901 Towne Oak Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger Engineering
1218 West 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 3.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial District
ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: I-2, Light Industrial District Uses and a specified list of
additional uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application for rezoning of this site from I-2, Light Industrial District to C-3, General
Commercial District was withdrawn by the Planning Commission at their November 13,
2008, public hearing.
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
For the past thirty years one of the major activities of the Professor Bowl has been to
provide social activities for youth and adults. Social dance is a popular activity for
groups such as school celebrations or reunions, holiday groups and parties, birthday
parties, family reunions, company business and church meetings. Dancing and music
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
2
have always been and will be held to social acceptable standards and predicated on the
principles of socially approved human behavior. Dance for youth groups is always
under the guidance of counselors or teachers with adult supervision. Dancing by adult
groups is strictly social with no suggestive sexual display. Dancing for entertainment or
audiences or to illicit responses from audiences will be prohibited. No nudity or sexual
explicit gestures will be allowed. Accompanying music is associated with the social
atmosphere and the dance activity. Music will be ninety percent recorded. However,
some groups may request to bring in live music from the local area or even from their
group membership. A recoding studio is planned for local amateur talent to learn about
and record personal material and for party activities.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the site from I-2, Light Industrial District to
PID to allow the site to be used for future development with a specific list of uses
and the allowance of the underlying I-2, Light Industrial District uses. The uses
identified by the applicant as potential uses include Inside eating place with bar,
Auctions and fundraisers for charity, Studio, broadcast/recording, Recorded/live
music/dance, Activities, group meeting, birthday parties. There are no
modifications proposed to the parking area. Only cosmetic repairs will be
completed to the exterior of the building.
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 single-family
residential structure at the northwest corner of the tract.
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. A vacant single-family structure is located on the I-2,
Light Industrial District zoned property 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 received several phone calls requesting additional
information. Letters and calls have also been received expressing opposition to
the request from area property owners. Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress has called staff stating opposition to the request. All property owners
located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
3
within 300 feet of the site, the Wakefield Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Young Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A
dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. No private
improvements can be located within the right of way.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Young Road
including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of
curb will be located 18 feet from centerline of the existing right-of-way. The
back of the new sidewalk will be located at the property line.
3. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must not
exceed 36 feet. The east and west driveways should be constructed with
concrete aprons. The driveway in the center of the property should be
removed.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
6. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
4
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Industrial for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning from I-2 Light Industrial to Planned Industrial Development.
A Land Use Plan amendment is not required.
Master Street Plan: This application has frontage on Interstate 30 and on Young
Road. Young Road is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a Collector
Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. 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 III bike route is shown along Young Road. A Class III
bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or
right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: The Geyer Springs/Wakefield Neighborhood Plan
covers this area. The Zoning and Future Land Use goal states: “Encourage
developers to use the Planned Zoning Development (PZD) form of zoning rather
than straight zoning to ensure appropriate businesses are brought into the
neighborhood.”
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
2. If the rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost of
the building, then the parking lot and associated landscaping must be in full
compliancy with both the buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance.
3. All the landscaping, fencing, and dumpster enclosures should be in good
condition or replaced in conjunction with this application.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 20, 2008)
Mr. McGee was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the request stating there were additional items necessary to complete the
review process. Staff requested Mr. McGee clearly define the proposed use
identified as Recorded/Live music/Dance. Staff stated based on the square
footage of the building and the number of parking spaces located on the site the
plan appeared to be 30 spaces short of the typical ordinance requirements for
the uses identified. Staff also questioned the days and hours of operation,
dumpster locations and hours of service and requested Mr. McGee provide a
signage plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Young Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Staff stated a
dedication of right of way 30 feet from centerline was required. Staff also stated
one-half street improvements were required to Young Road with the new
sidewalk being located at the back of curb. Staff stated the driveways did not
meet the current ordinance standard. Staff stated the east and west drives
should be constructed with concrete aprons limited to 36 feet in width. Staff
stated the center drive should be removed.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated if the rehabilitation cost
exceeded fifty percent of the replacement cost of the building, then the parking
lot and associated landscaping were required to be in full compliance with the
City’s landscape and buffer ordinances. Staff stated all fencing, existing
landscaping and dumpster screening should be in good condition or replaced in
conjunction with any modifications to the building or parking areas.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact these agencies for additional
information. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing a number of the
issues raised at the November 20, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting. Since
the applicant does not have a final user for the building, he has identified a
number of potential future uses for the site in addition to the current I-2, Light
Industrial District zoning district uses. The request is to also allow a restaurant
with bar service and active recreational game activities including amusement
machines, pool and foosball tables. Also identified as a potential use of the
building is to host events such as civic club meetings, birthday parties, family
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
6
reunions, banquets, youth groups, business and church events and/or charitable
auctions/fund raising. These events potentially will include music either as
recorded music or by a live presentation. The events also may include dance by
the participants. A studio, broadcast and recording has also been requested.
The hours of operation proposed are from Noon to 1:00 am daily. A dumpster for
the site will be located on the southeast corner of the building with a privacy
fence enclosure as required by Section 36-523. No limits on the hours of
dumpster service have been provided.
The existing sign will be renovated to serve the site. The total height and area of
the sign has not been identified. Staff recommends any future signage be limited
to the total height and area of signage allowed in industrial zones or a maximum
height of 30 feet and a maximum sign area of 72 square feet. An antique fire
truck is located in front of the building. The fire truck will be utilized in the
signage design. Some neon or lighted signage may be designed in association
with the fire truck. No larger display or electronic board is planned. Staff
recommends all building signage comply with Section 36-554 or a maximum of
ten percent of the façade with street frontage. The existing billboard is proposed
to remain.
The building contains 33,775 gross square feet and there are 307 parking spaces
on the site. Based on the uses proposed, the parking typically required would be
one space per 100 gross square feet of floor area, resulting in the need for
337 parking spaces.
There are no exterior modifications proposed to the parking lot area, landscaping
or expansion to the existing building. Only modifications to the interior of the
structure and cosmetic repairs will be completed to the exterior of the building.
As indicated in the landscaping comments, if the rehabilitation costs exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the replacement cost of the building, then the parking lot and
associated landscaping must be brought into full compliance with both the buffer
ordinance and the landscape ordinance.
Staff has concerns with the request and a number of the uses identified as
potential uses for the site. The requested restaurant use and the recording
studio are allowable uses under the site’s current zoning of I-2, Light Industrial
District. Staff considers a number of the potential uses identified by the applicant
as inside commercial amusement since this definition most closely defines the
use and activities proposed. Amusement, commercial, inside is defined as an
amusement enterprise wholly enclosed in a building, including, but not limited to
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
7
a bowling alley, billiard parlor, or a facility intended for dancing whether or not a
fee is charged for admission. These type activities are typically allowed in
commercial zones. There are also concerns about the scope of some of the
proposed uses. Allowing some uses could open the door to functions that more
closely resemble a private club, bar or lounge.
As stated in the analysis section of the rezoning request withdrawn from
consideration by the Commission at their November 13, 2008, public hearing
staff does not feel this site is appropriate for these type of commercial uses. The
property is located in an area of industrially zoned and used property. The
industrial zoning in the area encompasses approximately 150 acres and is
developing with industrial park uses. Staff feels the site can easily be developed
for an industrial use to compliment the activities taking place in the area without a
change in the zoning classification.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2008)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had
contacted them on December 12, 2008, requesting a deferral of the item to the
February 5, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 3 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant contacted staff on January 23, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item to
the March 19, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had contacted them on January 23, 2009, requesting a deferral of
the item to the March 19, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2725-B
8
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated March 2, 2009, requesting withdrawal of this
item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 2, 2009,
requesting withdrawal of the item without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of
the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
disposition of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
NAME: Bailey Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1723 North University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Mary Jane Bailey
2112 County Club Lane
Little Rock, AR 72207
SURVEYOR:
Ollen Dee Wilson
P.O. Box 604
North Little Rock, AR 72115
AREA: 0.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Bailey Real Estate and Insurance Office, Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office, Single-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,014, adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 18, 1999,
rezoned this site from R-2, Single-family to POD for the applicant’s use of the single-
family residential structure as a real estate office and insurance office and single-family
as an alternative use. The office use of the property could not be transferred to a future
office user without approval of an ordinance revising the POD. The hours of operation
were approved from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday, with some weekend
activity.
The Board of Directors also approved a deferral of the right of way dedication for
Cantrell Road and University Avenue and the required street improvements until the
property was redeveloped. The specifics of the deferral were for right of way dedication
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
2
on Cantrell Road and University Avenue beyond dedication to 30 feet on Cantrell Road
and 27 feet on University Avenue. The deferral included a deferral of the improvements
of the corner radius and a 5 foot sidewalk on University Avenue. (Ordinance No. 18,015
adopted May 18, 1999)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting a revision to the POD to allow the site to be
marketed to general and professional office users. The applicant is requesting
single-family as an allowable alternative use for the property. There are no
exterior changes proposed for the site. The site contains three (3) parking
spaces accessed from the alley. The structure is a single story frame residential
structure containing 1,294 square feet. The hours of operation are proposed as
were previously approved.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a 1,294 square foot structure currently occupied by Bailey Real
Estate Company. Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing 20 foot
alley which is located along the east property line. Three parking spaces have
been constructed within the rear yard area and a screening fence has been
located along the southern property line. There are single-family residences
located immediately south of the site, across the alley to the east and across
University Avenue to the west and northwest. Office and commercial uses are
located across Cantrell Road to the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the
Heights Neighborhood Association, the Forest Park Neighborhood Association
and the Normandy Shannon Property Owners Association were notified of the
Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Future dedication of right-of-way will be 65 feet from centerline due
to the arterial-arterial intersection when the property re-develops. No
dedication is required with this application.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No comment.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #21 – the University Avenue
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for Revised Short-form POD. The request does not
change the structures and maintains the office use with the possibility of
returning to single-family use, no Land Use Plan amendment is required.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road and University Avenue are both Principal
Arterials. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic
and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and
pedestrians on both of these streets since they are Principal Arterials. These
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Heights Neighborhood
Plan. The Zoning Goal states: “Require all non-residential development to
submit a PZD for zoning changes. We do not support any zoning changes that
are in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. Any change must be consistent
with the character of the neighborhood.”
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
4
Landscape: No comment on the proposed change in the allowable use of the
property.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 9, 2008)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the request was
to change the proposed use of the property. Staff stated the original application
allowed Ms. Bailey to operate her real estate office from the site as well as an
insurance office. Staff stated the approval was not a transferable use. Staff
stated the request was now to offer the site for sale to general and professional
office users. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the October 9, 2008, Subdivision Committee
meeting in need of addressing. The applicant is proposing a revision to the
previously approved Planned Office Development, POD, to allow the use of this
site as a general and professional office use. The previous approval limited the
office zoning to the applicant’s occupancy and did not allow for the office use to
transfer to future users. The cover letter indicates potential users are real estate,
insurance, investment firm, law office, etc. The hours of operation are proposed
as previously approved from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday with
some weekend activity.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed change to allow a general and
professional office user without knowing the specifics of the future user. The
original approval was limited to Bailey Real Estate and Insurance. The hours of
operation were restricted and the number of employees was also restricted. Real
estate and insurance office uses typically do not generate a great deal of
customer traffic which lessen the need for parking. This may not be the case of a
future office user. Single-family was approved as an alternative use for the
property.
Staff was not supportive of the original application and staff is not supportive of
the current request. The reason for staff’s non-support are similar to concerns
raised with the initial application. Staff has concerns with the limited number of
parking spaces. The site contains three parking spaces and the request includes
the allowance of three employees. If all employees are on-site there is no place
for customers to park without blocking the alley or driveway, which was a
concern with the original application. Also as previously stated staff feels the
residential boundary lines have been established over the years in this area and
should be maintained. There have been requests to allow the conversion of
homes and structures to office and commercial uses along the south side of
Cantrell Road in this area over the past few years. Staff has consistently not
supported these request or inquiries. Staff feels an office use in this area is not
appropriate and is not compatible with the adjacent single-family homes.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
5
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2008)
Ms. Mary Jane Bailey was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Ms. Bailey addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated she
was going to try to address staff’s primary objections. She stated the site was different
than the remaining homes on the south side of Cantrell Road such that the home faced
University Avenue and did not face an adjoining home. She stated the home was
cut-off from the remainder of the neighborhood by the median on University Avenue.
She stated the site had three parking spaces, which served the needs of the office use.
She stated the UPS and Postman used the parking lot area to serve the homes fronting
on University Avenue since there was no front access to the homes on University
Avenue. She stated the future uses of the site would be limited by the zoning. She
stated the hours of operation, the number of employees and the use of the building
would be a condition of the approval. Ms. Bailey provided the Commission with letters
of support for the request indicating the office use had not impacted the adjoining
residential homes.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was
representing the League of Women Voters on the issue and the League felt the site
should not be allowed to become office. She stated the site was a viable site as a
residential use. She stated the homes in the area were different than the Heights area
in that the homes were affordable. She stated if the property was opened up for more
intense use this would most definitely impact the future uses of the adjoining homes and
the possibility of these homes also becoming a non-residential use.
Ms. Bailey stated the limits would be a part of the approval. She stated the hours of
operation would not change, the site would be limited to three employees and the uses
anticipated were quiet office uses.
The Commission questioned Ms. Bailey as to potential tenants. She stated she had
received calls from an attorney, a CPA and a counselor. The Commission questioned if
Ms. Bailey would consider withdrawing the item until she had a buyer. Ms. Bailey stated
this was not acceptable. She stated without the zoning she would not be able to sell the
site. The Commission questioned if she was willing to defer the item and come back to
the Commission when she had a potential buyer for the property. She stated this was
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
6
acceptable. The Commission questioned if the application were denied would she be
limited to the one year rule for filing a new application. Staff stated they felt if she had a
user then a new application could be filed within one year of the denial because the
application would be substantially different.
There was a general discussion as to when the item would come back to the
Commission. Commissioner Adcock requested a deferral of the item to the February 5,
2009, public hearing. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 5, 2009,
public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open
position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has contacted staff requesting a deferral of this item to the March 19,
2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had contacted them requesting a deferral of the item to the March
19, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff continues to not support the request to allow this structure to become a general
and professional office use. As stated in the previous write-up staff feels the residential
and non-residential boundary lines have been drawn in this area with the non-residential
uses being located north of Cantrell Road and the residential uses being located south
of Cantrell Road. Although there have been a number of requests filed to rezone
property on the south side of Cantrell Road, staff has continuously not supported
allowing the non-residential uses to expand to this area. The units to the south and east
of this site are residential as well as the units to the west and northwest across
University Avenue. The units appear to be occupied and even though they are located
at an arterial/arterial intersection it does not appear to have affected the livability of
these units. Staff feels an office use in this area is not appropriate and is not compatible
with the adjacent single-family homes.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had contacted staff on March 16, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated the additional time would allow her to work with staff on possible
future uses for the site and/or allow additional time to secure a potential user for the
site. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-
laws due to the request not being made a minimum of five working days prior to the
public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the By-laws
with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item as presented by
staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: MSP2008
Name: Master Street Plan
Source: Staff
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The City of Little Rock has the authority to adopt a Master Street Plan to set
guidelines for growth and function of the city’s street and highway pattern. The
current version of the Master Street Plan was adopted August 2, 2004 by
Ordinance 19,152. Since that time, there have been several small amendments
to the document. The Master Street Plan document as a whole needs to be
updated periodically to ensure the plan is current and up-to-date. The proposed
amendment is this type of update. Staff was asked in the fall of 2007 to review a
few issues in the Master Street Plan. Upon review, staff discovered several
omissions and typos that needed correcting. Over the winter of 2007-2008,
several meetings between Planning staff and Public Works staff were held to
address these issues. A new draft emerged from these meeting with several
changes to the current version. This new draft was posted on the City of Little
Rock’s website in the spring of 2008 and a letter with a list of proposed changes
and a link to the online draft was sent to approximately 50 people on the city’s
contact list.
Staff presented the new draft to the Plans Committee in June 2008. The Plans
Committee has no issues with this draft. A public meeting was held on August
14, 2008 at the Metroplan conference room to discuss these changes. Over 50
people were invited, but there were only about six attendees. Staff has received
calls from citizens regarding this new draft, but there was no opposition to the
amendment. These calls were mostly just clarification type questions.
Most of the changes presented in this new draft are “clean-up” type changes.
These changes are needed to ensure this document is consistent with previous
changes over the years and to ensure there are no omissions from previous
amendments. Following is a list of changes being considered. The first group of
changes are formatting issues.
1. Current Situation: existing graphics
Proposed Changes: modifying graphics for typical turn lane configurations.
Removed duplicate drawings.
2. Current Situation: chart footnote currently says: "All minimum design standards
comply with the 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design Manual, Fourth
Edition."
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP2008
2
Proposed Changes: Changed to state: "All Minimum design standards comply
with the latest version of the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design Manual."
3. Current Situation: organizational issues
Proposed Changes: rearrange order of book. Move glossary to end and bring
Authority to Section 1. Rearrange the design standards for each road
classification to group all like elements together. Added "from" and "to" on special
design standard listings.
4. Current Situation: The current Master Street Plan version does not include a
map for the bike routes.
Proposed Changes: Added another section to include bike route maps.
The second group of changes deals with errors in the existing document based
on research of all previous ordinances.
1. Current Situation: no definitions listed in glossary for these items
Proposed Changes: Added definitions for Collector, Commercial Street, Local
Street, Minor Arterial, and Principal Arterial.
2. Current Situation: no info on Minor Residential Street
Proposed Changes: add a page for Minor Residential streets with a new graphic
3. Current Situation: Rahling Road was listed as a Principal Arterial on the
special design standards
Proposed Changes: According to Ord. 17183 this section (from Taylor Loop to
Chenal Parkway) is a Minor. Move to correct section.
4. Current Situation: Under Principal Arterial special design standards, Chicot
Road is listed with reduced right of way from I-30 Interchange to
Taliferro/Hillsboro.
Proposed Changes: In 2001, we showed Chicot Road with reduced design
standards from Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff. In 2004, we listed it with reduced
standards from I- 30 to Taliferro/Hillsboro. We still show on the actual map that it
is only from Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff. This change would bring the reduced
standards back to Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff only as was originally approved
by Ordinance 15964 on 11/20/90.
5. Current Situation: Under Minor Arterials with special design standards, Scott
Hamilton Road was shown with reduced right of ways from 65th street to
Baseline Road. Staff believes this stems back to Ordinance 17021 from
11/21/95. This Ordinance modified Scott Hamilton Road as a Minor Arterial. It
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP2008
3
had been classified as a Minor from the I-30 interchange to Baseline Road. This
ordinance changed it to read “ from 65th Street to Baseline Road.” It did not say
anything about reduced design standards.
Proposed Changes: Remove Scott Hamilton Road from alternative design
standards listing.
6. Current Situation: West 36th is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced design
standards for two separate sections. Staff feels this should be changed to only be
listed once.
Proposed Changes: remove West 36th street from under “Right of Way 70 feet
with a four-lane section, five lanes at major intersections with additional right of
way.”
7. Current Situation: Fawn Tree was accidentally left on the map as Collector.
Ordinance 17525 reduced it to a Local Street.
Proposed Changes: show Fawn Tree as Local Street on new map.
8. Current Situation: Taylor Loop Road is shown as a Collector on the MSP.
Proposed Changes: On Sept 18, 2001, Ordinance 18562 amended the MSP at
Taylor Loop. This ordinance changed four things:
"SECTION 1. That the Minor Arterial for an extension of Chenal Valley
Drive from Taylor Loop at Lucky lane to Chenal Parkway at the northern
intersection of Chenal Valley Drive be removed from the plan.
SECTION 2. That the Collector from the previous named Minor Arterial
eastward to connect with Rahling Road north of the Pebble Beach
intersection be removed from the Plan.
SECTION 3. That the La Marche Collector be realigned to intersect
Taylor Loop Road at Lucky Lane on the Plan. Curb cuts will be limited to
intersecting streets only. SECTION 4. That Taylor Loop Road from Lucky
Lane north to Cantrell Road be reclassified from a Minor Arterial to a
Collector. The design standard shall be a four-lane section with turn
lanes as appropriate with an 80' right of way.
This would require an addition of Taylor Loop Road on the Collectors with special
design standards page. Staff recommends keeping Taylor Loop Road as a
Collector with typical Collector design standards.
9. Current Situation: chart on page 2 of Section 3
Proposed Changes: Removed the row for “Minimum sight distance at crest of
vertical curve.” Rearranged and added a footnote for Minor Residential streets
requiring a parking restriction on one side of a street if only 24’ of pavement.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP2008
4
10. Current Situation: list of Collectors with special conditions
Proposed Changes: College Street added as per Ordinance 18838. Changed
“Unnamed Collector” to Sienna Lakes from Chicopee Trail to Crystal Valley
(ORD 19109).
11. Current Situation: University Avenue was shown as a Principal Arterial with
special design standards on the map, but it was not listed separately.
Proposed Changes: University Avenue from Lee to Markham listed as a Principal
Arterial with special design standards (“100’ with typical lane cross sections”) as
per the 2001 Master Street Plan listing. This listing was accidentally omitted in a
later version.
12. Current Situation: On the map section, River Mountain Road as still shown as
a Minor Arterial.
Proposed Changes: According to Ordinance 17891, River Mountain Road should
be shown as a Local Street. This has been corrected on the new map.
13. Current Situation: Goodson Road was shown as a Local Street on the
existing map section.
Proposed Changes: The new maps will show Goodson Road as a Collector as
per Ordinance 17303.
While the majority of these changes are very minor, there are three issues being
addressed that are more significant. The first of these changes addresses the
fact that Collectors are only required to have sidewalks on one side now. This
amendment would require all Commercial Streets to have sidewalks on both
sides. The Public Works Department has already been requesting Commercial
Streets to build sidewalks on both sides of the street and staff would like to see
this incorporated into the actual Master Street Plan to ensure consistency
between all developments. Residential Collectors would still only be required to
have a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Another more significant change addresses parking on Minor Residential Streets.
These streets currently allow a minimum pavement width of 24'. This amendment
would change the requirement to a minimum pavement width of 26' with no
parking restriction or a minimum of 24' with a parking restriction for one side. This
change is to make sure that these narrow roads are safe for parking and moving
traffic efficiently.
The last change was included to address traffic calming measures. Currently the
Master Street Plan does not address this topic at all, and this amendment would
insert a paragraph to include traffic calming requirements. This is found on page
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP2008
5
7 of the new draft. This amendment is an effort to design streets that move traffic
efficiently without having to retrofit these streets after the fact.
A few more substantial changes had been included, but these have been
removed from the package. Also, Staff understands from conversations through
the process that there are other changes some wish to see in the Master Street
Plan document. Staff also believes there might be some additional more
significant changes that should be considered for inclusion in the Master Street
Plan, but believes it would be better to hold these issues for a more thorough
discussion of each possible addition. The changes proposed now are intended
to make the document easier to use and to eliminate conflicts that were
discovered. Staff will develop a list of more significant possible changes for
consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors at a later date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
Commissioner Rector moved that the item be deferred to allow for additional
conversations on the proposal. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against the item was
deferred to the March 19, 2009 hearing.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff continues to work with interested parties and asks that the item be deferred
to the April 2, 2009 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
At the request of staff the item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to
the April 2, 2009 hearing. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against, and 2 absent the consent
agenda was approved.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1630
NAME: Baseline Chicot Shopping Center Ice Hut Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 7501 Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:
Clint Davis
5111 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 4.74 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow signage without street frontage.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking a subdivision site plan review to allow the placement of an Ice
Hut on the property. An Ice Hut is a prefabricated “portable” building for the purpose
of providing customers with chopped ice at a competitive price utilizing a vending
machine concept. The machine is 84 square feet (6’w x 12’l x 9’h). The machine will
be placed on the existing asphalt paving and anchored according to local codes. The
applicant will lease a 20-foot by 6-foot area from the property owners.
The request includes a variance to allow signage without street frontage. The
machine has signage located on the north and south sides including the name and a
logo. On the front of the machine there is a small logo with instructions on machine
operations.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1630
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a strip center with a number of uses including a grocery store. To
the east of the site is a lumber store and to the west an auto parts store and a
convenience store with gas pumps. North of the site is a mixture of commercial uses
including restaurants. South of the site is vacant residentially 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, Southwest Little Rock United
for Progress, the Cloverdale Neighborhood Association and the Chicot 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 the property.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. Due to the nature of this facility,
installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior
to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation
of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified
Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test
results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation
and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you
would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Contact
Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Setting
an additional meter in close proximity to the proposed building may not be possible.
Fire Department: No comment.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1630
3
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #17 – the Mabelvale Downtown and
17A – the Mabelvale UALR Routes.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: The City Beautiful Commission and the City of Little Rock encourage the
addition of trees to this site in conjunction with this application.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 26, 2009)
Mr. Clint Davis was present. Staff presented the item stating the request was a
subdivision site plan review to allow the placement of a free standing ice house/ice
machine on the property located at 7501 Baseline Road. Staff stated the machine
would be located in the northwest portion of the site. Staff questioned signage for the
proposed machine including locations, heights and areas. Staff noted comments from
the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them
individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant provided staff with an updated cover letter outlining the signage for the
ice machine. The machine comes with standard decals and the signage is located on
the north and south sides along with the front side of the machine. The machine
contains a door on one side. The signage located on the door side covers
approximately 40 percent of the total façade. The signage on the side without the door
covers approximately 70 percent of the façade.
Staff is supportive of the request. The request includes a Subdivision Site Plan
Review to allow the placement of a second structure on this site in the form of an Ice
Hut/Ice Machine. The machine has been set with setbacks sufficient to meet the
typical standards of the current zoning district. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel the placement of
the machine as proposed will have a significant impact on the site or the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments
and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1630
4
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow signage without public
street frontage for the proposed Ice Hut.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow signage
without public street frontage for the proposed Ice Hut.
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 and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-3810-F
NAME: Snider Commercial Park Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Maryland Avenue and Cedar Street
DEVELOPER:
The Twentieth Century Club
c/o Gary Dean, Williams and Dean Architects
#18 Corporate Hill Drive, Suite 205
Little Rock, AR 72116
ENGINEER:
McClelland Consulting Engineers
900 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
ARCHITECTS:
Gary Dean
Williams and Dean Architects
#18 Corporate Hill Drive, Suite 205
Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 1.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development – Parking Lot
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Residential Medical Treatment
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The University of Arkansas will retain ownership of the property leasing the ground to
this private entity. The private entity will construct the new center on the site. Since the
State will maintain ownership of the property the City has no jurisdiction for review or
approval. Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3810-F
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the University of Arkansas would retain ownership of the property leasing the
ground to the private entity. Staff stated the private entity would construct the new
center on the site. Staff stated since the State would maintain ownership of the property
the City had no jurisdiction for review or approval. Staff presented a recommendation of
withdrawn of the item from consideration.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
disposition of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
NAME: 16719 Cantrell Road Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 16719 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Richard Organ
c/o Susan Parke
Coldwell Banker Commercial, Hathaway Group
2100 Riverdale, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-O
ALLOWED USES: General and Professional Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office – Add Dental Clinic as an allowable
use
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated March 2, 2009, requesting withdrawal of this
item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had contacted them on March 18, 2009,
requesting a deferral of this item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing in-lieu of
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
2
withdrawal of the item. Staff stated the applicant had indicated a different medical user
was interested in the property and was requesting a deferral of the item to allow the
user time to determine if the site and the existing parking was adequate to serve their
needs. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s
By-laws since the deferral request was not received a minimum of five working days
prior to the hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for a
waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The Chair entertained a motion for
deferral of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6650-A
NAME: First Class 50-Cent Carwash Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 325 East Roosevelt Road
DEVELOPER:
Damak, LLC
P.O. Box 166
College Station, AR 72053
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying Inc.
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.22 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
ALLOWED USES: Neighborhood Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Recognize an existing carwash
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The carwash facility located at 325 East Roosevelt Road is currently zoned C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial. Since the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District does not allow carwash facilities; the owner is requesting to rezone the
site to PD-C to recognize the existing carwash. The facility is a four bay carwash
business and has been in operation for 30 plus years. The request does not
include any alternative uses for future redevelopment of the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing functioning four (4) bay carwash. Located in the
area is a large amount of vacant and what appears to be abandoned property.
North of the site is the old VA Complex and east of the site, across Rock Street is
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6650-A
2
a block of vacant property. West of the site is a boarded building appearing to
have been used as a non-residential use in the past. South of the site are single-
family homes. East Roosevelt Road is a four lane road with curb, gutter and
sidewalks but a large amount of the curb and sidewalks are broken and in
disrepair. South Rock Street has been constructed with curb, gutter and
sidewalk which are also in disrepair. To the southwest the Housing Authority has
a new multi-family project currently under way.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Community Outreach Neighborhood Association, all owners of
property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of
the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Roosevelt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial
with special design standards. Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from
centerline will be required. The centerline of the right-of-way is not shown on
survey; therefore staff is unable to determine the existing right-of-way. The
centerline of the right-of-way should be provided on a revised survey.
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
Rock Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. The centerline of the right-of-way is not shown on survey;
therefore staff is unable to determine the existing right-of-way. The centerline
of the right-of-way should be provided on a revised survey.
3. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
26th Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. The centerline of the right-of-way is not shown on survey;
therefore staff is unable to determine the existing right-of-way. The centerline
of the right-of-way should be provided on a revised survey.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Roosevelt Road and Rock Street.
5. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Rock Street and 26th Street.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6650-A
3
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
sidewalk along Rock Street creates a hazard and should be replaced and an
access ramp installed at the intersection of Rock Street and 26th Street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No comment.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The
applicant has applied for a Short Form Planned Development Commercial to
recognize and existing carwash.
Because the application is only recognizing a long time existing use with
commercial zoning in place, this request does not require a change to the Land
Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Roosevelt Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function
of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Roosevelt
Road since it is a Principal Arterial. This road may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in this area.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6650-A
4
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Downtown Neighborhood
Action Plan. Their economic development goal states: “Increase cooperation
between zoning officials and developers to renovate existing properties.”
Landscape:
1. Any redevelopment of the site will require the site to come into compliance
with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinances.
2. Both the City Beautiful Commission and the City of Little Rock encourage and
appreciate the removal of any unnecessary asphalt for the addition of both
green space and newly planted trees.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 26, 2009)
Mr. Dexter Doyne was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was a rezoning from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to PD-C to recognize an
existing carwash. Staff stated there were no alternative uses proposed for the
site. Staff requested Mr. Doyne provide staff with a signage plan of both existing
and proposed signage for the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the survey provided did
not include the existing rights of way for the abutting streets. Staff requested
Mr. Doyne provide staff with a survey which included the rights of way. Staff also
stated sidewalks located along the abutting streets should be repaired and
appropriate handicap ramps should be constructed at the intersections of
abutting streets. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication was required at the
intersection of Roosevelt Road and Rock Street and Rock Street and 26th Street.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any redevelopment of the
site would require the site to come into compliance with the City’s landscape and
buffer ordinances. Staff also stated the City Beautiful Commission encouraged
the removal of any unnecessary asphalt for the addition of green space and the
planting of trees.
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 survey to staff indicating the existing right of
way for the abutting streets. The right of way for Roosevelt Road is 70 feet, for
Rock Street 50 feet and 26th Street 50 feet. The applicant has indicated a 20-foot
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6650-A
5
radial dedication will be provided to the City at the time of approval of the PD-C
zoning.
The developer has indicated signage will comply with signage allowed in
commercial zones. A single pole sign not to exceed 36 feet in height and
160 square feet in area has been indicated on the site plan. Building signage will
comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten percent
of the façade area abutting a public right of way. In this case the developer is
allowed building signage on the north, east and south sides of the building since
all three abut a public street.
The rezoning request is to recognize an existing carwash currently zoned C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial. C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District does not
define a carwash as an allowable use. The PD-C zoning is proposed to
recognize the existing carwash and no alternative uses for future redevelopment
are indicated. Staff is supportive of the request. The carwash has operated from
this site for 30 plus years with what appears to be little incident. Staff feels
limiting the approval to recognize the existing carwash will limit any potential
negative impacts for future redevelopment.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site to PD-C to
recognize the existing carwash subject to compliance with the comments and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8433
NAME: Pfeifer Long-form POD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and LaMarche
Drive/Taylor Loop Road West
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Development Company
16623 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 18.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 550 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Office District Uses with the allowance of the 10%
Accessory Uses identified in the O-3, General Office Zoning District in selected
buildings
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
A preliminary plat application was filed for this site to be heard by the Little Rock
Planning Commission at their February 5, 2009, public hearing. The applicant withdrew
the plat request prior to the Commission hearing the item.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The developer is proposing to subdivide the property into four (4) office lots. The
three lots fronting Cantrell Road are approximately two (2) acres and meet the
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
2
Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to lot size and setbacks. Lot 4 at
the rear is planned for a large office user. Uses for the development include O-3,
General Office District uses. Lots 3 and 4 include O-3, General Office District
uses and the allowance of ten percent of the floor area as an accessory use as
identified under the O-3, General Office Zoning District.
The developer has met with the traffic engineers and worked through the
driveway spacing and location criteria per the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District. Due to the development of the school on the south side of Cantrell Road
and the fact that no access will be taken by the school directly from Cantrell
Road, the traffic engineers suggested the driveway locations as indicated on the
plan. These locations do not meet the typical spacing requirement per the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District of 300 feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a pasture with a few trees located along the western perimeter near
Cantrell Road. East of the site is a single-family home located on acreage and
west of the site are a number of residences including site built and manufactured
homes. At the southwest corner of Cantrell and Taylor Loop Roads a new
elementary school is currently under construction. Abutting the new school to the
west is a single-family subdivision, Montagne Court and a newly developing
office parking with four (4) office buildings. To the west of the site is the Ranch
Development, an area developing as an office and commercial node.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of
property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of
the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that LaMarche Drive must be constructed to meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate right-of-way of 60 feet following construction. At
principal arterial/collector street (commercial street) intersections, an
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
3
additional 10 feet of right-of-way, measured from the centerline of the right-
of-way shall be dedicated for a right turn lane. This additional right-of-way
shall normally be 250 feet in length measured from the intersecting right-of-
way.
3. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to LaMarche Drive
including 5-foot sidewalks on each side with the planned development. The
right turn lane should be constructed with 150 feet of stack and a 75-foot
taper.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan along
Cantrell Road and on both sides of the western access easement.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Staff needs to
meet with the engineer to discuss the proposed storm water detention plan.
6. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed
along Cantrell Road in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock
Code and the Master Street Plan.
7. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
8. 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. A variance to the
Land Alteration Regulation will be required to be obtained if grading of all
lots is desired when construction is imminent on one of the lots.
9. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
10. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of
at least one (1) foot above the base flood elevation is required to be shown
on plat and grading plans.
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.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
4
13. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
14. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section
31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets. A minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required.
15. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way and/or access easement is
required at the proposed intersections.
16. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
17. 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).
18. The 2-way traffic on the west side of Lot 3 at eastern driveway off Cantrell
Road creates a traffic conflict. The traffic flow on Lot 3 should be
redesigned.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension with easements is required to serve Lots 1,
2 and 3. 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 Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. 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. A water main extension will be required to
serve portions of this development. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or
fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may
be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans
by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
5
Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems, which do not contain additives
such as antifreeze, shall be isolated with a double detector check valve
assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
shall be required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for
a Long Form Planned Office Development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of
a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road
since it is a Principal Arterial. Cantrell Road may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in this area.
Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area
covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements.
2. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires a twenty-five (25’) foot
wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety.
3. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a thirty-nine (39’) foot wide land use
buffer along the eastern and western property lines. Seventy percent (70%)
of this area must remain undisturbed.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
6
4. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a fifty-foot (50’) wide land use buffer
along the northern property line. Seventy percent (70%) of this area must
remain undisturbed. Easements cannot count towards meeting this minimal
amount.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine-foot wide (9’) landscape
strip between each of the lots. Approval from the City Beautiful Commission
must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit to allow a lesser
landscape strip.
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, eastern, and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards
fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth
that satisfies this year-around requirement.
7. This sites combined parking numbers exceed one hundred and fifty spaces;
therefore, the interior islands need to be a minimum of three hundred
square feet (300) in area to receive credit towards the minimal landscape
ordinance requirements.
8. This site must have one half (1/2) of the total on site newly planted trees to
be a minimum of three inches (3”) in diameter.
9. For buildings greater than forty feet (40’) in height, at least one-third (1/3) of
the trees to be planted in the building landscaping area should be of a
species with a mature height of greater than thirty feet (30’).
10. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
11. 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.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 26, 2009)
Mr. Joe White was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were a few outstanding technical issues associated with the
request. Staff stated they had met with Mr. White and Mr. Pfeifer prior to the
Committee meeting and outlined a number of their concerns. Staff stated the
buildings located on Lot 1 did not comply with the typical building setback
required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff requested Mr. White
provide the typical 30-foot building setback. Staff also stated Lot 1 was indicated
with the potential of a commercial development. Staff stated the plan as
proposed included a variance from the Highway 10 Design Overlay District to
allow a reduced driveway spacing.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
7
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the boundary street
ordinance would require dedications and street construction per the Master
Street Plan for the abutting streets. Staff also stated the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the development of the site. Staff stated streetlights
were required per City ordinances. Staff stated all plans for work in the right of
way were to be approved by the Highway Department prior to beginning
construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff stated the front yard landscape
strip and side yard landscape strips were indicated in compliance with the typical
standards of the Overlay. Staff stated the buffer ordinance would require the
placement of a 50-foot landscape strip along the rear of Lot 4. Staff noted
easements could not count in computing the depth of the landscape strip.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the February 26, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The building
setbacks have been indicated to comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District standards. The revised site plan has indicated a land use buffer of
50-feet along the northern perimeter of Lot 4. Notes on the site plan indicate
compliance with the Public Works comments.
The development is proposed with four (4) lots for future development of an
office park. Lots 1 – 3 all front on Highway 10 and are indicated in excess of the
two-acre minimum lot size required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The buildings are indicated with a building setback in excess of 100 feet and the
proposed front yard landscape area is proposed at a minimum width of 40 feet
and the site plan notes the placement of a 42-inch landscape berm in this area.
The building located along the western perimeter has a 30-foot building setback
and a 25-foot landscape strip. The landscaped area along the LaMarche Drive
Extension will include a minimum landscape strip of 15-feet.
The building on Lot 1 is indicated as a two-story office building containing
33,600 square feet and 80 parking spaces. The building on Lot 2 is indicated as
a single story drive in facility such as a bank with 3,550 square feet of building
space and 69 parking spaces. Lot 3 will include a two-story office building
containing 10,550 square feet and 110 parking spaces and Lot 4 is proposed
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
8
with a five-story office building and 993 parking spaces. The maximum building
height for Lots 1 – 3 is 35 feet and the maximum building height for Lot 4 is
85 feet. A note on the site plan indicates all site lighting will be low-level and
directed downward and into the site away from the adjacent residential property.
The uses proposed for Lots 1 and 2 are the allowed uses listed in the O-3 zoning
district without the allowance of any accessory uses. The uses proposed for Lots
3 and 4 are the allowable uses listed in the O-3 zoning district and the allowance
of ten percent of the gross floor area as an accessory use as identified in the O-3
zoning district. The days and hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday
from 7 am to 10 pm and Friday and Saturday from 7 am to 12 pm.
The plan indicates a new commercial street to be constructed in two phases.
The initial construction is proposed to align with the intersection improvement to
the south which is currently underway as a part of the street improvements for
the new West Little Rock Elementary School. The initial construction for this
application will be a pavement width of 48 feet at the intersection of Cantrell
Road reducing to 36-feet of pavement for approximate length of 190 feet. The
remainder of the street will be completed with the final platting of Lot 4. This
construction is approximately 550 feet in length from the Cantrell Road
intersection. The street will be constructed in a 60-foot right of way with 36 feet
of pavement. Accesses to the new street include separate drives to serve Lots 3
4. The driveway is indicated with adequate spacing to meet the typical ordinance
standard.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The site is indicated as Transition on
the City’s Future Land Use Plan which allows for Single Family, Multi Family and
Office Development. The development is proposed as office with lot
development standards consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
with the exception of the driveway spacing criteria. Staff does not feel the
variation from the typical Overlay standard to allow the reduction in the driveway
spacing will significantly impact the development or the area. The site to the
south is developing as an elementary school and will not take access from
Cantrell Road thus reducing conflicting movements. To staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The following
chart identified the typical standards of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
and the applicant’s proposal for the development.
Highway 10 DOD Requirements:
Applicant’s proposal:
Lot size. There shall be a minimum
development tract size of not less than two
(2) acres.
The three lots fronting Cantrell Road are
indicated in excess of the two-acre typical
minimum lot size established by the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
9
Front yard. All principal and accessory
buildings or structures are required to have
a one-hundred-foot building setback from
the property line abutting Highway 10.
The building line is indicated in excess of
100-feet.
Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less
than forty (40) feet.
The buildings proposed are indicated in
excess of the 40-foot rear yard setback.
Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than
thirty (30) feet.
The side yard is setback proposed for the
development is indicated with a minimum
of 30-feet.
Landscaping treatment. Landscaped
areas shall attempt to incorporate existing
on-site trees and shrubbery into the
landscaping scheme and the plans shall
indicate such incorporation.
Attempts will be made to incorporate
existing on-site trees and shrubbery into
the landscape scheme and plans at the
time of development.
Landscaped areas shall have water
sprinkler systems to maintain plant
materials.
All landscaped areas will have sprinkler
systems installed.
Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used
on all cuts and fills.
All erosion controls of the City will be
followed.
Tree species to be planted within this
corridor should be consistent with other
species present.
Tree species planted will be consistent
with other species located in the area.
The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall
consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of
landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way.
The landscaped area shall contain organic
and/or combined man-made/organic
features as berms, brick walls and dense
plantings such that vehicular use areas are
screened when viewed from an elevation
of forty-two (42) inches above the
elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative
screening methods and designs must be
approved by the plans review specialist.
Appeals from the staff will be directed to
the planning commission. Within the
landscaped area trees shall be planted or
be existing at least every twenty (20) feet
and have a minimum of two (2) inches in
diameter when measured twelve (12)
inches from the ground at time of planting.
The front yard is indicated with a minimum
landscape area of 40-feet exclusive of the
right of way.
The landscaped area will contain a 42”
berm, to screen the vehicular use areas
per the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
10
Where a developer demonstrates that this
requirement will constitute an undue
hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of
right-of-way may consist of a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances
only, a half-berm shall be constructed
which is a minimum of three (3) feet in
height with tree plantings as required
herein; provided however, that this
provision may only be applied to a
maximum of twenty (20) percent of the
highway frontage affected in the plans
submitted.
Rear and side yards shall have a
landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet from the property line.
Where such yards abut a street right-of-
way, a fifteen-foot landscaped strip shall
be required adjacent to land zoned office
and residential. A seven-foot landscaped
strip shall be required when adjacent to
lands zoned commercial.
The side and rear yards shall have a
landscape strip averaging a minimum of
25-feet from the property line.
Signage. Signage shall comply with the
provisions of Article X of Chapter 36 of the
Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as
follows:
Commercial development signage.
Signage identifying the commercial
development shall not exceed ten (10) feet
in height and one hundred (100) square
feet in area. All signs that are ground-
mounted shall be of a monument type
design. These signs may be installed in
the landscaped area of the front and side
yards.
Commercial building signage. Each
separate commercial building will be
allowed a single monument ground-
mounted sign located on the building site
or in the landscaped front yard of the
commercial development. The sign shall
be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and
seventy-two (72) square feet in area.
Building signage will comply with signage
allowed in Chapter 36 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances.
A commercial development sign will not be
utilized. Each of the individual lots will
place a ground mounted monument style
sign within the front landscaped area to
comply with the Overlay or a maximum of
six feet in height and seventy-two square
feet in area.
Lots 1 – 4 will place a single ground
mounted monument style sign with in the
front yard landscaped area with a
maximum height of six feet and a
maximum sign area of seventy-two square
feet.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
11
Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per
three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut
closer to an intersection than one hundred
(100) feet.
The development proposes the placement
of two drives along Cantrell Road on the
common lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 and 2
and 3. The drive located on the lot line of
Lots 1 and 2 is 195-feet from the drive
located on the lot line of Lots 2 and 3 and
the drive located on the lot line of Lots 2
and 3 is 245-feet from the intersection of
LaMarche Drive. (This typical spacing is
required at 100 feet.)
Variation from the Overlay Standard
Drive located on the lot lines of Lots 1
and 2.
Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be
designed and located in such manner so
as not to disturb the scenic appearance
preserved in this corridor. Lighting should
be directed to the parking areas and not
reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods.
Lighting shall comply with the DOD
standards. Lighting will be directed to the
parking areas and not reflect into the
adjacent neighborhoods.
Building sites. The maximum number of
buildings per commercial development
shall be measured both by minimum tract
size and minimum frontage as follows:
One (1) building every two (2) acres.
The site contains 18.3 acres and is
proposed with four (4) lots and a single
building on each of the lots.
Commercial developments and multiple
building sites. In the case of a commercial
development or other development
involving multiple building sites, whether
on one (1) or more platted lots, the above
described regulations shall apply to the
development as an entire tract rather than
to each platted lot. Developments of this
type shall be reviewed by the City through
a site plan review process which illustrates
compliance with this article
Property, due to topography, size, irregular
shapes or other constraints, such as
adjacent structures or features which
significantly affect visibility, and thus
cannot be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be reviewed
through the planned unit development
(PUD) section of the zoning ordinance,
The request is to rezone the site from R-2,
Single-family to POD to allow the creation
of four lots with driveway spacing along
Cantrell Road which is less than the 300-
foot typical standard.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8433
12
with the intent to devise a workable
development plan which is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the overlay
standards.
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: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU09-24-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Sweet Home/College Station
Planning District
Location: The southeast corner of Jones Street and Frazier Pike
Request: Single Family to Residential Medium Density
Source: V. Dexter Doyne
The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the April 30, 2009
agenda. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
At the request of the applicant the item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral to the April 30, 2009 hearing. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against, and 2 absent
the consent agenda was approved.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-8432
NAME: Jones Street Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located 4001, 4005, 4009, 4011 and 4015 Jones Street
DEVELOPER:
D & A Doyne Family Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 166
College Station, AR 72053
SURVEYOR:
Ben Kittler, Jr.
701 North Reynolds Road
Bryant, AR 72022
AREA: 0.95 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: AF, Agriculture and Forestry
ALLOWED USES: Agriculture, Forestry and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: 5 Buildings of Duplex housing (10 units total)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant requested on March 4, 2009, a deferral of this item to the April 30, 2009,
public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 4, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8432
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: LA-0024
NAME: Chicot Road Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: 11103 Chicot Road
APPLICANT: Genaro Rosales
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Homero Rosales
AREA: Approximately 10 acres
CURRENT ZONING: R2
APPEALS/VARIANCES REQUESTED: A request for appeal of Notice of Violation #
0393 issued by staff for cutting more than 7 trees on the property in a 12 month period
without a grading permit and a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest
additional trees.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is appealing Notice of Violation #0393 issued for cutting more than
7 trees on the property in a 12 month period without a grading permit. The
Notice of Violation requires trees to be replanted in conformance with
Sec. 29-196, Land Restoration Requirements. The applicant is also requesting a
variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest additional trees on the
approximately 10 acres property located at 11103 Chicot Road. The applicant
desires to remove the trees so he can fence the entire perimeter of the property
and keep a few each of horses, cows, and goats. Along with the animals, the
applicant plans to have a large garden.
Staff is unable to determine the number of trees as defined by code that have
been removed. Staff is certain more than 7 trees have been removed. A tree is
defined as being 6 inches or greater in diameter measured at chest high.
Anything smaller than 6 inches in diameter is not considered a tree. About
5 acres of trees have already been removed. The applicant is requesting to
remove 2.4 acres of trees from the remaining 5 acres of trees left on the eastern
portion of the 10 acre property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This approximately 10 acre property is tract land zoned R2 located at
11103 Chicot Road across from Chicot Elementary School. Approximately
5 acres of the property has already been cleared. The uncleared 5 acres contain
thick underbrush and trees. Underbrush is considered any tree smaller than
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
2
6 inches in diameter measured at chest high. Trees are defined as being
6 inches or greater in diameter measured at chest high. The property is
approximately 330 ft wide and 1340 ft long.
Undeveloped R2 zoned property of about 150 ft in width with trees is located on
the north side of the property. Behind the undeveloped property are residential
houses fronting Stevenson Drive. A single unoccupied home is located on the
northwest corner of the property. To the west of Chicot Road and across Chicot
Road is Chicot Elementary School. To the south are residential houses fronting
Shady Grove Road. To the southeast is and undeveloped R2 zoned property
with trees. To the east are residential houses fronting King Arthurs Drive.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
At time of writing, staff has not been provided proof of certified notices being
mailed to adjacent property owners as per ordinance requirements. At time of
writing, staff has received several phone calls inquiring about the application.
Some calls voiced opposition to cutting the trees. The majority of the calls
pertained to the applicant’s desire to have livestock on the property. Staff
explained livestock was allowed on R2 zoned property with conditions.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. What is meant in your cover letter by "clear most of the trees on the
property"? Provide a number of trees on site and the number to be cleared or
acreage of trees existing and acreage of trees to be removed. Only trees
defined as trees by the ordinance should be counted.
2. What is meant in your cover letter "large trees or trees of significant size are
intended to be left"? The terms "large" and "significant size" should be
specifically defined.
3. The Land Alteration Regulations define a tree as being 6 inches or greater in
diameter measured at breast high. Anything smaller than 6 inches is
considered underbrush, not a tree, and can be cleared without a grading
permit.
4. The Land Alteration Regulations allow 7 trees to be cleared per 12 month
period without a grading permit required to be obtained by the property owner
prior to the start of clearing activities.
5. Tree tops and debris generated from the harvest activity must be removed at
the conclusion of harvest to reduce the potential fire hazard. Contact the
Little Rock Fire Department for conditions and additional requirements.
6. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required
prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
3
drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction. An erosion control plan will be required to be submitted prior to
issuance of grading permit.
7. At time of the site visit, the orange Land Alteration Variance sign was
removed. A new sign must be obtained from Public Works staff and installed
immediately.
8. Submit a drawing to scale of the property showing: areas to be cleared and
not cleared; location of trees to remain; and fence lines in relation to the
property lines.
E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. No comments
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (February 26, 2009)
Genaro Rosales, brother and authorized agent of the applicant, along with
Mr. Mike Jones were present representing the applicant. Staff stated the
comments as written above. The application was explained in detail by the
Mr. Jones and staff. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
G. ANALYSIS:
Notice of Violation #0393 (“NOV”) was issued for cutting more than 7 trees
without a grading permit off the 10 acre property that fronts Chicot Road. The
property roughly measures 1340 ft in length east to west by 330 ft in width north
to south. The Notice required the area where trees were removed to be restored
per Sec. 29-196. The corrective action consists of replanting one (1) tree for
every seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of the area of violation, as
determined by the city official, with an average linear spacing of not less than
thirty (30) feet with at least two-inch caliper nursery or farm grown trees of the
same species as those cleared, harvested, removed or damaged.
The applicant is appealing the Notice of Violation and requesting a variance to
clear additional trees on the property. At the time of the issuance of the NOV,
approximately 5 acres of trees on the west end of the property by Chicot Road
had been cleared. A tree is defined as having a diameter of 6 inches or greater
measured at breast high. Anything less than 6 inches in diameter is considered
underbrush and not a tree. Staff was unable to determine the # of trees already
cleared from the 5 acres area. Prior to clearing the property a large amount of
underbrush was present. This thick underbrush still remains on the eastern
5 acres.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
4
The applicant is requesting to clear trees on about 2.4 acres of the eastern
5 acres. It is extremely difficult to count and locate each tree with the thick
underbrush. After clearing, the applicant plans to have a large garden and to
keep a few each of horses, cows and goats. Since the property is zoned R2, per
City code horses, cows, and goats are allowed on the property. The applicant
will be required though to comply with Sec. 6-43, which states cows, horses,
goats and other hoofed animals in a pen or lot and not allowed within three
hundred (300) feet of any residence other than the residence of the livestock
owner or business establishment. The property is adjacent to residences on the
north, south, and east. This condition will require the fenced area for livestock to
be about 1 to 2 acres in size.
With this application, the applicant is requesting not to restore the site per the
NOV and the issuance of a grading permit to cut additional trees. The trees
requesting to be cleared from the property are not marketable.
If the appeal is not approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant will be
required to restore the site per Sec. 29-196 of the Little Rock code. If the
variance to cut additional trees is not approved by the Planning Commission, the
applicant will not be allowed to cut any trees six (6) inches or greater in diameter
measured at breast high. The applicant can though continue to remove
underbrush less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at breast high. In
12 months from the date of NOV, seven (7) additional trees six (6) inches or
greater in diameter measured at breast high can be cut without a grading permit.
Twelve (12) months after that, seven (7) trees more trees can be cut without a
grading permit and so on as the years pass.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the appeal and variance request subject to
compliance with the Public Works comments found in paragraphs D of the
write-up due to the fact the property is zoned residential with a use allowed under
by that zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Land
Alteration Ordinance for the Notice of Violation. Staff stated the request before the
Commission concerned tree clearing and not whether this site was appropriate for
livestock or whether the barbwire fence which had been installed around the perimeter
was acceptable fencing material. Staff stated there were ordinances which regulated
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
5
livestock and where livestock could be kept in the City. Staff stated the fencing question
was to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment later this month as in interpretation
question of staff’s denial.
Mr. Mike Jones, the owner’s representative, addressed the Commission stating his
client had not clear-cut the site but only cleared selected trees from the property. He
stated the tree cutting had occurred on the west one-half of the property along Chicot
Road. He stated he was not sure the number of trees over six inches that had been
removed from the site. He stated his client wanted to clear additional trees from the
property. He stated along the east one-half there were areas identified on the site plan
number 1 - 21 indicating the areas and acreage to be cleared. He stated the total area
to be cleared was approximately two and one-half acres of the remaining five acres. He
stated the owner would continue cutting trees which were less than six inches in caliper
and clearing the underbrush as allowed under the current ordinance. He stated the
desire was to leave all the defined trees around the perimeter of the site but the
underbrush and lesser caliper trees would be removed.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the applicant if he proposed to replace the trees cut
in violation of the ordinance on the front one-half of the site. Mr. Jones stated the
request was for approval of the appeal of the Notice of Violation which would not require
the replanting of trees in this area.
Commissioner Rector questioned if there were any trees on the front of the property.
Mr. Jones stated there were a number of trees on the front one-half of the property.
Mr. Jones stated the owner bought the property in 2005 and a portion of this area was
cleared at the time. He stated his client had only removed few trees as defined by the
City ordinance from this area. He stated his client had not removed any trees as
defined by the City from the back or eastern half of the property.
Commissioner Rector questioned Mr. Jones as to the number of trees cleared.
Mr. Jones stated he was not sure how many trees were removed. Commissioner
Rector questioned staff as to the number of trees removed. Staff stated the latest aerial
photograph they had was 2002. Staff stated based on this photo there had been a
number of trees removed. Staff stated they could not provide the number of trees
removed or the time frame the trees were removed.
Commissioner Smith questioned the number of tress, the species of trees and the time
frame for clearing. Mr. Jones stated there was no accounting of the number of trees
removed or an accounting of the species of trees removed. He stated the cutting
started in January. He stated his client was not aware he could not cut the trees on this
property. He stated once his client was made aware of the City ordinances he stopped
clearing the trees as defined by the City. He stated cutting of trees less than six inches
in caliper continued as well as clearing of the underbrush.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
6
The Commission questioned staff as to the status of the site. Staff stated there were a
number of piles of trees on the site. Staff stated the piles were fresh piles cut in the last
few months. Staff stated to satisfy the Notice of Violation the ordinance stated trees
were to be replaced at one tree per 750 square feet of area. Staff stated the trees were
to be 2-inch caliper and were to be nursery purchased or farm raised trees. Staff stated
based on their calculation 130 trees were needed to satisfy the ordinance.
Staff stated the Commission was considering two issues; one the Notice of Violation
and the second whether to allow additional clearing. Staff requested the Commission
take two votes when the time came to vote.
Ms. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters addressed the Commission in opposition
of the request. She stated the League had been a long time supporter of the Land
Alteration Ordinance and the variance process. She stated the reason for the passage
of the ordinance was people would go out and clear-cut sites and the City had no
recourse. She stated the current ordinance was designed to prohibit clear cutting and
allowed the City a means of punishment when someone violated the ordinance. She
stated she was opposed to the requested appeal of the Notice of Violation and felt the
owner should be required to replant trees on the site. She stated she was also opposed
to the second request to allow additional cutting of trees on the eastern one-half of the
property.
Mr. Roger Chesney addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home was
on Shady Grove Road immediately south of the property. He stated his concern was
the use of the property, the fencing and the clearing of the property. He stated there
were a large number of trees removed from the site and placed in piles for burning. He
stated the fire department was called out because on an occasion when burning was
taking place the fire got out of control and almost burned two homes.
Mr. Arthur Gaines addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was not sure
of the exact dates but he called the City to report the tree clearing. He stated his call
was returned on a Monday morning and staff stated there would be no more trees
removed and it was not thirty minutes later the chainsaws were going again. He stated
his home was located on King Arthur Court to the east of the property. He stated there
had been a number of trees removed from the eastern one-half of the property. He
stated these actions were changing the flavor of the neighborhood.
Mr. Donny Green addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was
President of the Yorkwood Neighborhood Association and the Association was opposed
to the request. He stated he understood the Commission was not charged with
deciding if the site was suitable for livestock or if the fencing was appropriate but the
neighborhood was opposed to allowing livestock on the property as well as the barbwire
fence. He stated since the trees had been removed from the site the noise on King
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
7
Arthur Drive had increased. He stated he as also concerned with potential erosion
problems that could result from the removal of the trees.
Mr. Jack Lytle addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated the fence post used
to place the barbwire fence around the perimeter were trees removed from the site. He
stated the posts were various lengths and sizes depending on the tree sizes removed.
He stated the fence height was such that it could catch a child in a critical area. He
stated the species of trees in the area were primarily oaks and pines with a few gum
trees.
The Commission questioned staff of proper fencing materials. Staff stated the City did
not allow barbed wire fencing except for in industrial areas. Staff stated the applicant
was requesting an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine if
the barbed wire fence was appropriate. Staff stated the City did not have ordinances
which regulated fencing materials such as treated lumber or metal post. Staff stated the
City did regulate the height of the fence. Staff provided the Commission with a graphic,
which represented the area where a horse or cow could be kept that meet all the criteria
of Section 6-43 of the Little Rock Code.
Ms. Phyllis Mosley addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she had lived
in the area for 20 plus years. She stated the removal of the trees had increased the
noise level in her neighborhood.
Ms. Alice Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
she lived behind the site on Kings Arthur Drive. She stated there were a number of
huge beautiful trees that had been removed from the property. She stated there were a
number of trees which had been removed from the eastern portion of the site as well as
the western portion of the site. She stated it was sad how her neighbors had murdered
the property.
Mr. Wilbert Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he
had lived in the area for 15 plus years. He stated the cutting of the entire property was
occurring. He stated the cutting was taking place at night and the burning taking place
in the daytime. He stated trees had been removed from the entire ten acres not just the
western five acres. He stated the clearing began in December or January and had
continued.
The Commission questioned if the lot had been cleared before. Mr. Smith stated the
west one-half had been cleared before but not the east one-half.
Mr. Jones stated the owner had a burn permit which was good for one year. He stated
Mr. Rosales was unaware permits were required for tree clearing and burning but once
he was made aware he needed a permit he received permits from the appropriate
agencies. He stated Mr. Rosales stopped cutting trees as defined by the City once it
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
8
was brought to his attention this was not legal. He stated the discussion should not be
focused on the barbwire fence since a different Board would review this request on the
30th of March. He stated he was unsure how cutting of trees would cause erosion since
there were a number of drainage ditches in the area to help facilitate water flow.
The Commission questioned Mr. Jones how he prepared the tree survey. He stated he
went out to the site and walked the site trying to ensure trees were not counted twice
and all trees were identified. He stated there would be a large number of trees to remain
on the site if the clearing was allowed. He stated there were a few trees 12 inches in
caliper to be removed.
Commissioner Meyer stated on a number of occasions neighborhoods had come down
and requested the area stay the same. He stated the entire site could be cleared and
40 homes constructed on the site. Commissioner Meyer questioned staff as to any
buffer requirements. Staff stated the property owner was required to leave a temporary
buffer but no permanent buffer was required.
There was a general discussion of the Commissioners of the requirements for a grading
plan. The Commission stated in the past the applicants had submitted harvesting plan
for review and approval. The Commission questioned what would be required of the
applicant if the request to clear the back portion of the property was approved. Staff
stated the applicant would submit a plan indicating the trees to be saved and the trees
to be removed. Staff stated the Public Works Department was charged with ensuring
compliance with the plan. The Commission questioned staff as to why they were
supportive of the request. Staff stated the Commission had approved similar
percentages of trees to be removed in the past. Staff stated the areas were to be
maintained as a grass area.
Commissioner Rector questioned the perimeter fencing. He stated to Mr. Jones the
barbwire fence indicated intent to him. He stated the only reason for barbwire fencing
was to contain livestock. He stated based on the graphic presented by staff there was
only a small area the livestock would be allowed on the site. Commissioner Rector
stated he felt a commitment for removal of the perimeter fencing showed good faith on
the owner’s part. Mr. Jones stated the barbwire fencing would be removed around the
perimeter of the site.
Commissioner Rector questioned if the owner was willing to replant trees in the area
previously cleared. Mr. Jones stated that was not the desire.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the number of trees to
be replanted the species of trees and the location of the trees. Staff stated there was
flexibility in the restoration plan. Staff stated if the applicant and staff could not agree on
the restoration plan then it could be appealed to the Commission for review.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0024
9
A motion was made to approve the request for the Notice of Violation as presented by
the applicant. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstain
(Commissioner Adcock).
A motion was made to allow the clearing of additional acreage as requested by the
applicant. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LA-0025
NAME: Stagecoach Road Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: 9010 Stagecoach, west side of Stagecoach Road and South of Baseline
APPLICANT: Craig Betts
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Pat McGetrick
AREA: Approximately 4 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration
Regulations to clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where
construction is not imminent on all phases of the development.
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda
because construction is not imminent on a phase or a lot on the subject property
as required by Little Rock Code Sec. 29-187(e)(1) which states variances may be
granted, to the extent that the change will not be contrary to the purposes set
forth in section 29-168: To clear and grade a multi-lot or multiphase
development where construction is not imminent on all phases of the
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant had contacted them on March 12, 2009, requesting a deferral of this item
to the April 30, 2009, public hearing in-lieu of withdrawal. Staff stated according to the
applicant they would take the six weeks to secure a project to comply with the
provisions of the Land Alteration Ordinance. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-4343-T
NAME: The Ranch - Saddle Creek Commercial Phase 2 Short-form
PCD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive
DEVELOPER:
Ranch Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 56350
Little Rock, AR 72215
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 4.07 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-3, General Commercial District Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Two-Year Time Extension
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,550 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 18, 2006,
rezoned this property from C-3, General Commercial District and OS, Open Space to
PCD. The PCD approved the development of three lots within the Saddle Creek Center
located at the Northeast corner of Ranch Boulevard and Cantrell Road. The approval
included a 4.07 acre tract known as Tract B of the Ranch Subdivision and allowed the
creation of three (3) commercial lots. Proposed Lot 7, Tract B contained 1.31 acres
and was proposed for a branch bank facility. Lot 8 contained 1.2 acres and was
proposed for a restaurant facility with a drive-thru capability and Lot 9 contained
1.56 acres and was proposed for a 12,500 square foot office building.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-T
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section
36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the
Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two
years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less
than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a
timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the
ordinance.
The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an
effort to refine and further improve the design. According to the applicant, based
on the current economic climate, it is difficult to secure businesses wishing to
expand current operations and franchises. The developers have indicated they
are currently working with a client desiring to locate on one of the parcels but
permitting cannot be achieved within the three years as required by the minimum
ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a
two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning
Development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located on the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch
Boulevard. The area has been developing over the years as an office and
commercial node. Immediately north of the site is a strip retail center containing
a dry cleaners drop off, a restaurant and a number of office users. There is a
new veterinary clinic located to the northeast of the site fronting Ranch Drive. To
the east and northeast are large office buildings. To the west of the site is vacant
property recently reviewed and approved as a PCD and site plan review for a
commercial development containing multiple lots.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Chevaux Court Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch
Neighborhood Association, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all
owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified
of the public hearing.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-T
3
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the
proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved
comments and conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for a two-year
time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously
approved comments and conditions.
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 and 2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
NAME: Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long-form PCD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the existing
Kroger Shopping Center
DEVELOPER:
Whisenhunt Investment
35 Windsor Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 30.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-2 – 85% Commercial Uses, O-2 – 15% Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Two-Year Time Extension
PROPOSED USE: C-2 - 85% Commercial Uses, O-2 – 15% Office Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,558 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006,
approved a rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to PCD (Planned
Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan and establish uses for the
property. The approval was to secure the PCD zoning and as the final plan for the site
was secured, a revision to the approved PCD would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established
criteria:
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
2
BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION -
The 30.8 acre site shall be developed as follows:
1. Eighty five (85) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for
commercial purposes as set forth in the ordinance.
2. Fifteen (15) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for office
purposes as set forth in the ordinance.
3. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of
the final development plan.
4. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to twelve thousand
(12,000) square feet per acre.
5. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be three
hundred and fourteen thousand five hundred (314,500) square feet of which the
maximum area for restaurant use shall be limited to sixty five thousand (65,000)
square feet.
6. The minimum office area shall be fifteen (15) percent of the development which
at the time of the ordinance is estimated to be fifty five thousand (55,000) square
feet.
LIMITATION ON TYPES OF USES
1. Commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the C-2
Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval with
accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available.
2. Office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2 Office
classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory and
conditional uses for this classification also available.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may
include multiple buildings on a single site.
4. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as
otherwise subject to the limitations set forth in the ordinance.
BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of
Directors as an amendment to this PCD application.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
3
2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision
Committee and the Department of Planning and Development.
3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Forty-five (45) feet for commercial
buildings.
4. Fifty (50) feet for office buildings.
5. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and
shielded downward and onto the site.
6. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with
masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels.
7. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and
system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary
streets.
8. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
9. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - PRIOR TO ANY FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be
based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated
May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates
Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the
traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is
sought.
2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these
amendments shall be deemed a part of the ordinance and the developer shall
comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan
in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested.
3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study required that projected levels of
service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall
below acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval
then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such
additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to
mitigate the impact of this development on that area.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
4
4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works
and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that
will be required.
5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility
improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of
any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such
relocation.
6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage
and utility improvements will be provided by the developer.
7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance the City shall only require
improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this
development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of
development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose.
SIGNAGE GUIDELINES
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in
height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side.
2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings
and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission
and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD
application
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
GRADING AND EXCAVATION GUIDELINES
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be
done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right
of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of
development.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
5
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section
36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the
Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two
years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less
than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a
timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the
ordinance.
The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on creating a final
development plan for this approval and installing the infrastructure identified in
the adopted ordinance. The developers have indicated the final plan approval
cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance
standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year
time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning Development.
According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design
modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street
construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed
and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has
recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for
the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as
well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along
with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers
anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by
the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should
be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a
timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is
progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates.
The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by
staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The
developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in
order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments
required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the
adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to
build the improvements.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
6
The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete
the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by
the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a
mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is
requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not
acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A portion of the site contains the former golf driving range with the remainder of
the site vacant. The site has received dirt from the approved developments
along Kirk Road. There is vacant C-3 zoned property located to the north of the
site abutting the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. Across Chenal
Parkway is vacant C-3 zoned property and a convenience store. Kirk Road
adjacent to this site has not been constructed. East of the site is the Kroger
Shopping Center which has a number of out parcels currently vacant. The
Commission recently approved a site plan review to allow for the construction of
a new Kroger Store adjacent to the existing store. There are single-family homes
located to the northwest and west of the site along Kanis Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the Coalition
of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located within 200 feet
of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the
proposed development were notified of the public hearing.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a
one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the
City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required
improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final
development plan should be granted.
Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed
development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and
conditions.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the Villages of
Wellington Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Whisenhunt Investment
35 Windsor Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 10.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: O-2 and C-2 - Mix of 70% Office and 30% Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: POD – Two-Year Time Extension
PROPOSED USE: O-2 and C-2 - Mix of 70% Office and 30% Commercial Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,560 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006,
approved a rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to POD (Planned
Office Development) to establish a conceptual plan and define uses for the property.
The approval was to secure the POD zoning and as the final plan for the site was
secured, a revision to the approved POD would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established
criteria:
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
2
BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION -
1. The 10.08 acre site will be developed with office and commercial uses with an
approximate balance of 70% office and 30% commercial measured on a
proportional basis of building area for the entire property.
2. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of
the final development plan. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be
limited to thirty thousand (30,000) square feet per acre of commercial uses.
Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet of which the maximum area for restaurant use
shall be limited to sixteen thousand (16,000) square feet.
3. If the property is developed exclusively for office uses the maximum area would
be two hundred (200,000) square feet or if developed for mixed use the
maximum would be one hundred and forty thousand (140,000) square feet based
upon the densities set forth.
4. For commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the
C-2 Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval
with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available.
5. For office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2
Office classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory
and conditional uses for this classification also available.
6. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may
include multiple buildings on a single site.
7. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as
otherwise subject to the limitations set forth.
BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES -
1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of
Directors as an amendment to this POD application.
2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision
Committee and the Department of Planning and Development.
3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Eighty (80) feet
4. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and
shielded downward and onto the site.
5. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with
masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
3
6. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and
system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary
streets.
7. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements and shall provide a minimum of twenty five (25)
feet of buffer along boundary streets.
8. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS –
Prior to any final plan approval -
1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be
based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated
May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates
Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the
traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is
sought.
2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these
amendments shall be deemed a part of this ordinance and the developer shall
comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan
in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested.
3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study required by this subsection that
projected levels of service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed
development will likely fall below acceptable levels of service as that term is
defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the time of the application
for final plan approval then as a condition of such approval the developer shall
agree to make such additional boundary street improvements as the City deems
to be necessary to mitigate the impact of this development on that area.
4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works
and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that
will be required.
5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility
improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of
any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such
relocation.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
4
6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage
and utility improvements will be provided by the developer.
7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance the City shall only require
improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this
development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of
development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose.
SIGNAGE GUIDELINES -
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in
height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side.
2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings
and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission
and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD
application.
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES -
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be
done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right
of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of
development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the previously approved POD. Per Section
36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the
Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two
years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less
than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a
timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the
ordinance.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
5
The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an
effort to refine and further improve the design. The developers have indicated
permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum
ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a
two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning
Development.
According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design
modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street
construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed
and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has
recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for
the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as
well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along
with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers
anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by
the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should
be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a
timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is
progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates.
The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by
staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The
developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in
order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments
required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the
adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to
build the improvements.
The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete
the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by
the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a
mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is
requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not
acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant gently sloping site; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy
Farm. Kirk Road and Wellington Hills Drive are currently under construction.
The roundabout for the intersecting roads has not been completed. The area to
the west is developing as office and commercial uses abutting Chenal Parkway
and the area to the east is the Villages of Wellington subdivision. North of the
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
6
site is the Fellowship Bible Church campus and further north is Carrington Park
Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18
zoned tract, which has developed as a multi-family development. South of the
site is a PD-C zoned property developed as Riverside Acura automobile
dealership. Small-scale office development is occurring along Kirk Road on the
east side and on the west side is an automobile repair shop and a convenience
store.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the
Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a
one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the
City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required
improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final
development plan should be granted.
Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed
development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and
conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
March 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road
DEVELOPER:
Whisenhunt Investment
35 Windsor Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 30.28 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-2 and O-2 - Mix of 70% Commercial and 30% Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Two-Year Time Extension
PROPOSED USE: C-2 and O-2 - Mix of 70% Commercial and 30% Office Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,561 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006,
rezoned this site from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and O-2, Office and Institutional
to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan and establish
uses for the property. The approval was to secure the PCD zoning and as the final plan
for the site was secured, a revision to the approved PCD would be submitted for review
by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the
following established criteria:
BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION -
The 30.28 acre site set forth in Section 1 above shall be developed as follows:
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
2
1. Seventy (70) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for
commercial purposes.
2. Thirty (30) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for office
purposes.
3. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of
the final development plan.
4. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet per acre of commercial uses.
5. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be two
hundred and twelve thousand (212,000) square feet of which the maximum area
for restaurant use shall be limited to forty two thousand (42,000) square feet.
6. If the property is developed exclusively for office uses the maximum area would
be six hundred and six thousand (606,000) square feet or if developed for mixed
use the maximum would be one hundred and eighty two thousand (182,000)
square feet based upon the densities set.
Limitation on types of uses -
1. For commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the
C-2 Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval
with accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available.
2. For office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2
Office classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory
and conditional uses for this classification also available.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may
include multiple buildings on a single site.
4. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as
otherwise subject to the limitations set forth in this ordinance.
BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES -
1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of
Directors as an amendment to this PCD application.
2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision
Committee and the Department of Planning and Development.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
3
3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Forty-five (45) feet for commercial
buildings and Fifty (50) feet for office buildings.
4. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and
shielded downward and onto the site.
5. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with
masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels.
6. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and
system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary
streets
7. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
8. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS -
Prior to any final plan approval -
1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be
based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated
May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates
Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the
traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is
sought.
2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these
amendments shall be deemed a part of this ordinance and the developer shall
comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan
in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested.
3. If it is determined from the updated traffic study projected levels of service at any
intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall below
acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval
then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such
additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to
mitigate the impact of this development on that area.
4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works
and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that
will be required.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
4
5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility
improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of
any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such
relocation.
6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage
and utility improvements will be provided by the developer.
7. Notwithstanding any other provision of the ordinance the City shall only require
improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this
development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of
development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose.
SIGNAGE GUIDELINES -
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in
height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side.
2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings
and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission
and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD
application.
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES -
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be
done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right
of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of
development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
5
36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the
Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two
years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less
than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a
timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the
ordinance.
The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an
effort to refine and further improve the design. The developers have indicated
permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum
ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a
two-year time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning
Development.
According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design
modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street
construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed
and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has
recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for
the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as
well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along
with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers
anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundabout by
the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should
be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a
timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is
progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates.
The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by
staff and the plans have been revised based on staff’s comments. The
developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in
order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments
required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the
adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let to
build the improvements.
The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete
the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by
the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a
mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is
requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not
acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court.
March 19, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
6
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Street improvements are underway for Kirk Road to the north and Wellington
Hills Road to the east. The proposed roundabout located at the intersection of
these streets has not been completed. The development site is vacant and
gently sloping; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. On the east side
along Kirk Road is a dental office and an automobile dealership. On the west
side is a convenience store, an auto repair shop and office buildings located in
the office park currently accessed from Chenal Parkway. To the east of this
area is the Villages of Wellington Subdivision. North of the site is the Fellowship
Bible Church campus and further north is Carrington Park Apartments (zoned
MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18 zoned tract, which
has developed with a multi-family development.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
property owner. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the
Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a
one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the
City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required
improvements to determine if additional time for the submission of the final
development plan should be granted.
Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed
development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and
conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.