pc_04 30 2009sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 30, 2009
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present there being nine (9) members present.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
“Goose” W. Changose
J. T. Ferstl
Troy Laha
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
William Rector
Billy Rouse
Candice Smith
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: Jerry Meyer
Chauncey Taylor
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
III. Approval of the Minutes of the March 19, 2009 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 30, 2009
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
A. 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.
B. Z-6640-A Bailey Revised Short-form POD, located at 1723
North University Avenue.
C. LU09-24-01 A 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.
C.1. Z-8432 Jones Street Short-form PD-R, located 4001, 4005,
4009, 4011 and 4015 Jones Street.
D. Z-5377-B 16719 Cantrell Road Revised Short-form POD,
located at 16719 Cantrell Road.
E. LA-0025 Stagecoach Road Land Alteration Variance Request,
located at 9010 Stagecoach Road.
F. 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.
G. Z-4807-F Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension,
located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of
the Villages of Wellington Subdivision.
H. Z-4807-G Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension,
located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of
Kirk Road.
Agenda, Page Two
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS/SUBDIVISION:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
1. S-434-N Southwest City Commercial Replat Lots B-R-5A and B-R-
5B, located on the Southeast corner of the I-30 Frontage
Road and Geyer Springs Road.
II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
2. Z-3419-D A Cut Above Revised Short-form PCD, located at 302 North
Shackleford Road.
3. Z-3862-D Parkway Village Revised Long-form PD-R, located at
14300 Chenal Parkway.
4. Z-5882-A Saugey Revised Short-form POD, located at 16715 Cantrell
Road.
5. LU09-04-01 A Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights Hillcrest
Planning District along the north side of C Street just east of
University Avenue from Multi Family to Office.
5.1. Z-8445 C Street Surgery Center Short-form PD-O, located at 5910
C Street.
6. Z-8446 Blue Wave Express Carwash Short-form PD-C, located at
801 East 6th Street.
Agenda, Page Three
III. OTHER ITEMS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
7. S-1495-A Park Circle Preliminary Plat Time Extension, located on the
East side of Western Hills Avenue and West of the Rolling
Hills Golf Course.
8. LA0021-A A Land Alteration Variance request located within the Glenn
Ridge Crossing Development at Glenn Place and Colonel
Glenn Loop.
9. LA0026 A Land Alteration Variance request within the Colonel
Glenn Center Subdivision Lots 17, 18, 22 and 23.
10. LA0027 A Land Alteration Variance request from Section 29-190 for
property located at 6900 Cantrell Road.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: A 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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
STAFF UPDATE:
On June 20, 2000, the City of Little Rock Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.
18,299 for Valley Falls Estates Subdivision, a deferral for a period of five (5) years or
until abutting street improvements are constructed, whichever occurs first of
constructing half street improvements to La Marche Drive as required by the Master
Street Plan along the 1320 linear feet of frontage of their property. On the Master Street
Plan, La Marche Drive is classified as a collector street having a 60 ft right-of-way, 36
feet of pavement from back of curb to back of curb and sidewalk on one (1) side.
Due to the elapsed deferral period and the recent completion of construction of La
Marche Drive to the south property line of Valley Falls Estates Subdivision, another five
(5) year deferral of half street construction was requested. The reason for the request
was due to the fact that Valley Falls Estates does not take access to La Marche Drive;
at this time no other properties will take access; only half of the street would be
constructed; and with the required construction, La Marche Drive would stop about 1000
feet south of Taylor Loop Road.
With these issues being raised a Special Subcommittee of the Planning Commission
was assembled to look further into this application and develop a recommendation. The
Special Subcommittee met on two (2) separate occasions with staff, the applicant, and
a representative of Deltic Timber who owns property to the south. Many issues were
discussed. Reviewing ownership of adjacent properties, it was discovered the applicant
owns property to Taylor Loop Road. Based on this information, the Subcommittee felt it
was much more important to obtain right-of-way to Taylor Loop Road than to construct
half of a street that would have no public traffic and would serve as an emergency fire
entrance to Valley Falls Estates Subdivision in the future when it is further developed to
the east.
After reaching a conceptual agreement with the applicant, the Special Subcommittee
requested staff to appraise the value of the property within a 60 ft right-of-way from the
recently constructed La Marche Drive to Taylor Loop Road for a length of about 2320
linear feet and to work with the applicant and develop a cost estimate for construction of
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
7
the required 1,320 linear feet of half street improvements across the Valley Falls
Estates Subdivision frontage.
The appraisal resulted in a value of $177,421.05 for 93,379.5 square feet of property
from the recently constructed La Marche Drive to Taylor Loop Road. The total square
footage consists of 1320 linear feet of property at a width of 30 feet and 1000 linear feet
of property at a width of 60 feet. The 30 feet wide area considers a preliminary plat
requirement of Valley Falls Estates Subdivision to dedicate half of the right-of-way with
construction of the street or platting of the adjacent lots.
It was decided after analysis of the cost to construct 1320 linear feet of half of La
Marche Drive adjacent to Valley Falls Estates Subdivision; the cost would be
approximately $175,353. Considering a difference of about $2000 and reaching
agreement among the Special Subcommittee members, the applicant, and staff, the
Special Subcommittee believed it was in the best interest of the City of Little Rock,
adjacent property owners, and further development of the street infrastructure in this
area to recommend to the full Planning Commission for approval of the dedication of a
total of a 60 foot right-of-way from the recently constructed La Marche Drive to Taylor
Loop Road in lieu of construction of half of La Marche Drive adjacent to Valley Falls
Estates Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing
to allow staff time to review an agreement submitted by the applicant’s attorney outlining
the terms of the agreement with regard to the right of way dedication and street
construction requirements for the property located along the eastern boundary of Valley
Falls Estates Subdivision and the right of way dedication and street construction
requirements for the property located to the north of Valley Falls Estates Subdivision
owned by Mr. and Ms. Ferguson.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: B 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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.”
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing to the April 30, 2009,
public hearing at the applicant’s request. There has been no change to the application
or the request since the previous staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend denial of
the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had a request of the Commission for deferral of
the item.
Mr. Gary Smith, representative of the applicant, addressed the Commission requesting
a sixty day deferral of the item. He stated there was currently a marketing plan in place
and he felt a deferral for sixty days would allow time to negotiate with several
prospective buyers.
The Commission questioned staff as to the date the item would be deferred. Staff
stated the item would be deferred for two cycles to the July 23, 2009. Staff stated the
deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the
number of deferrals.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-A
8
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the number of 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 to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: C 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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the June 11, 2009 meeting.
Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
At the request of the applicant this item was placed on consent agenda for
deferral to the June 11, 2009 hearing. By a vote of 9 for 0 against the consent
agenda was approved.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: C.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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C.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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated April 14, 2009, requesting a deferral of this
item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 14, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: D 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/SURVEYOR:
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 Medical Office as an
allowable use
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 16,339 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 19,
1993, rezoned the property located at 16719 Cantrell Road from R-2, Single-family
District to POD. The rezoning allowed an existing residential structure to be used as an
office for an accounting firm. The property was occupied by a church, through the
issuance of a conditional use permit, prior to the Board approving the POD zoning for
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
2
the accounting firm. The office user maintain the drives and parking as installed by the
church. General and professional office uses were identified as allowable alternative
uses for the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at 16719 Cantrell Road is currently under contact for sale to
a medical user who plans to locate his practice at this location. The site contains
a 3,100 square foot house which has been converted to an office use. The
applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the structure or the
current parking layout. The face of the existing ground mounted sign will be
replaced to identify the new tenant. Building signage will comply with building
signage allowed in office zones.
A Bill of Assurance for the Subdivision dated August 3, 1966, states no lot shall
be used except for residential purposes. The term of the Bill of Assurance is to
run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming
under them for a period of 25 years from the date of recording, after which time,
said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10
years, unless a written instrument be signed and acknowledged by persons,
firms or corporations owning 50 percent or more of the lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are three (3) former residences located at the southeast corner of Cantrell
Road and South Katillus Road all have been converted to a non-residential use.
The property being considered is the middle structure. East of the proposed
rezoning lot is a beauty salon and west is an office user. South of the site is a
newly developing patio home subdivision, Montagne Court. The subdivision is
enclosed with an eight foot wood fence adjacent to this site. Further east of the
site is a newly developing office park with four (4) office buildings and further east
is a new elementary school currently under construction. To the northwest is the
Ranch Development, containing a mixture of office and commercial uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, the Montagne Court
Property Owners 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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. Public Works comments related to the approval dated January 19, 1993,
required the placement of a sidewalk along the property frontage. This
requirement has not been met. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps
are required along Highway 10 in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little
Rock Code and the Master Street Plan and must be installed with the current
approval request.
3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public
and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are
required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. A Capital Investment
Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in
addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including
any metered connections off the private fire system.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
4
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for
a revised Planned Office Development to allow an additional office use within the
existing structure.
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: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action
Plan.
Landscape:
1. Any new construction on the site must comply with the City’s landscape and
buffer ordinance and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 26, 2009)
Mr. Joe White and Ms. Susan Parke were present representing the applicant.
Staff presented the item stating there were a number of issues related to the site
plan in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff
stated the front and rear parking areas as proposed encroached into the
landscape strips as typically required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Staff also stated the rear parking lot did not comply with the typical standards to
allow 60 feet of depth for a parking lot containing two rows of parking. Staff
stated the indicated back out along the western perimeter encroached into the
25-foot landscape strip required per the Highway 10 DOD but also encroached
into the 9 foot landscape strip required by the landscape ordinance.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated any broken curb, gutter
or sidewalk should be repaired prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
5
Staff also stated measures to control storm water drainage should be
implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property for the increased
impervious surface.
Landscaping comments were noted. Staff stated screening was required along
the southern perimeter. Staff stated if the applicant intended to utilize the fence
currently in place associated with the Montagne Court Subdivision, a waiver of
the screening requirements would need to be approved by the Commission.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant amended the application request and site plan based on
comments raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting held on February 26,
2009. The current request is to utilize the site as it exists today without the
addition of parking within the front yard or rear yard areas. The only modification
to the previously approved POD is to add a medical office use as an allowable
use for the property. The approved uses will maintain general and professional
office uses as allowable uses.
The Future Land Use Plan indicates the area as Transition which allows office as
an appropriate use. The existing building closely conform to the Highway 10
Overlay requirements with the exception of two parking spaces in the front yard
area which intrudes into the 40 foot landscape strip as typically required by the
Overlay. In staff’s opinion this is not a significant intrusion since the parking
spaces exists and there is a large front yard area that is void of physical
improvements. The parking area has been landscaped around the perimeter to
screen the spaces.
The previous approval indicated a sidewalk was to be constructed on the
property frontage along Cantrell Road. To date the sidewalk has not been
installed. As noted in the Public Works comments above the required sidewalk
must be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
business.
The following is a summary of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
requirements and the applicant’s proposal related to each item:
Highway 10 DOD Requirements:
Applicant’s proposal:
Lot size. There shall be a minimum
development tract size of not less than
The area proposed for development is an
existing 0.41 acre lot. The lot was created
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
6
two (2) acres. prior to the adoption of the Highway 10
DOD.
Front yard. All principal and accessory
buildings or structures are required to have
a one-hundred-foot building setback from
the property line abutting Highway 10.
The building exists. The building is set at
55.1 feet from the front property line.
Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less
than forty (40) feet.
The building has been constructed in
excess of the 40-foot rear yard setback.
Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than
thirty (30) feet.
The building exists. The side yard
setbacks are less than the typical 30-foot
minimum.
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.
No modifications to the site are proposed.
All existing trees and shrubs are to remain.
Landscaped areas shall have water
sprinkler systems to maintain plant
materials.
The landscaping exists. No upgrade is
proposed.
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.
No modifications to the site are proposed.
All existing trees and shrubs are to remain.
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.
The site is a developed site. The front
yard landscaped area contains 40-feet
with the exception of an area which has
two existing parking spaces located within
the front yard landscape area.
There is no berm in place. The applicant
is not proposing a modification to the site
plan and is not proposing to add any
additional landscaping or screening within
the front yard area.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
7
Appeals from the staff will be directed to
the planning commission. Within the
landscaped area trees shall be planted or
be existing at least every twenty (20) feet
and have a minimum of two (2) inches in
diameter when measured twelve (12)
inches from the ground at time of planting.
Where a developer demonstrates that this
requirement will constitute an undue
hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of
right-of-way may consist of a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances
only, a half-berm shall be constructed
which is a minimum of three (3) feet in
height with tree plantings as required
herein; provided however, that this
provision may only be applied to a
maximum of twenty (20) percent of the
highway frontage affected in the plans
submitted.
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 landscaping exists and was approved
as a part of the original site plan. The side
and rear yards do not contain a 25-foot
landscape strip.
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
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. The face of an existing monument
sign will be changed. The existing sign is
located within the front landscaped area
and complies with the Overlay or a
maximum of six feet in height and seventy-
two square feet in area.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
8
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.
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.
No new curb cuts are proposed. Access
to the site will be from existing driveway
located along the eastern property line.
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 0.41 acres. The request
is to add an medical office as an allowable
uses to the site.
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.
Not applicable.
Property, due to topography, size, irregular
shapes or other constraints, such as
adjacent structures or features which
The property was previously approved as
POD to allow general and professional
office uses as allowable uses for the
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
9
significantly affect visibility, and thus
cannot be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be reviewed
through the planned unit development
(PUD) section of the zoning ordinance,
with the intent to devise a workable
development plan which is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the overlay
standards.
property. The request is to amend the
previous approval to add a medical office
as an allowable use. There are no
modifications proposed to the exterior of
the structure or the existing parking layout.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels there will be no adverse impact by
allowing the addition of a medical office use as an allowable use for this property.
The site has functioned as an office use for a number of years and does not
appear to have significantly impacted adjoining properties. The area to the south
has developed as a single-family subdivision and the office use does not appear
to have impacted the development of this subdivision. Access to the site will be
maintained as a single drive from Highway 10. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff is supportive of
allowing the addition of a medical office use as an allowable use for the property
provided there are no exterior modifications to the building or current parking
layout.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to add a medical office use as an
allowable use for the site subject to compliance with the comment 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 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
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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5377-B
10
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 29, 2009,
requesting withdrawal of the item without prejudice. Staff stated the request would
require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late withdrawal request.
Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late withdrawal request. The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement
of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal as recommended by staff. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LA-0025
NAME: Betts 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: C3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 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.
B. 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.
C. STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant no longer is applying for a grading permit without construction
being imminent. The applicant desires to obtain a grading permit after the
building permit has been issued which is in accordance with the Land Alteration
Regulations.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0025
2
D. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The subject property is approximately 4.45 acres and zoned C-3, General
Commercial District. The property fronts Stagecoach Road along the west side
and the north property line is approximately 300 feet south of Baseline Road.
The subject property is all undeveloped with most of it being within the regulatory
floodway and floodplain. The property also has a small pond which is
approximately 0.17 acres. The zoning along the north property line varies. From
east to west, the zoning is C-3, General Commercial District to C-2, Shopping
Center District then to R-2, Single-family District. The property to the west is
Stagecoach Village which is zoned PRD. The property to the south is zoned R-2,
Single-family with older existing residential structures.
E. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Provide tree survey and proposed grading plan.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivision, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
3. Measures to control storm water drainage should be implemented to not
cause damage to adjacent property.
4. Per Sec. 29-187 (e) (2), clear cutting or total harvest shall not be allowed.
5. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of harvest activities.
6. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted storm
water.
7. Provide location of vehicle tracking pad constructed per Little Rock Code
Section 29-190 (12).
8. A perimeter buffer strip shall be temporarily maintained around disturbed
areas and shall be 6% of the lot width and depth with a min. width of 25 ft
and a max. width of 40 ft. Orange fencing must be placed at the drip line of
all trees to be kept and on the edge of the perimeter buffer strip.
9. If disturbed area is 1 acre or more, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
10. Alteration of the water course may require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
11. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Sec. 8-283 prior to construction.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0025
3
12. Show the limits of the 100-year floodway and floodplain on existing and
proposed topography maps.
F. LANDSCAPE:
1. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average fifty foot wide (50’) street
buffer along Arkansas Hwy. 5 and in no case less than half.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a fifty foot wide (50’) land use buffer
along the western perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of this area
is to remain undisturbed.
3. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a twenty-one foot (21’) wide land use
buffer along the northern and southern property lines. Seventy percent
(70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed.
4. A grading plan showing the required buffers must be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
G. ANALYSIS:
The request is to obtain a grading permit to grade the site once a building permit
is obtained. The proposed grading plan shows the pond to be filled in, the site
will be somewhat level with a positive slope to the creek, with the existing creek
to be relocated slightly to the south. An undisturbed buffer will remain around the
perimeter of the property. Trees are shown to remain along Stagecoach Road
and in an undisturbed area in the southwest corner of the property. The deepest
fill area appears to be approximately 5 foot deep. Silt fence, rock check dams,
and rock tracking pads will be utilized to control sediment loss and tracking of dirt
in the streets.
The Land Alteration Regulations (Section 29-186 (b)) specifically states no land
alteration shall be permitted until all necessary city approvals of all plans and
permits, except building permit, have been issued and construction is imminent.
The issuance of a building permit for this site will be sufficient proof of imminent
construction.
A variance can be requested to clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase
development where construction is not imminent on all phases of the
development.
H. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to comments found in
paragraph E and F, and the building permit has been issued for one or more lots.
Staff believes the issuance of a building permit is sufficient proof of imminent
construction to allow the site to be graded.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0025
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the owner. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
application subject to comments found in paragraphs E and F and a building permit
being issued for one or more lots. Staff stated they felt the issuance of a building permit
was sufficient proof of imminent construction to allow the site to be graded.
Mr. McGetrick stated the developers desired to grade this site when construction was
imminent on one or more buildings. He stated the developers would file for a multiple
building site plan review on Monday for a development plan of the site. He stated
initially the developers would fill an existing pond and reroute drainage in the area. He
stated the pond was not spring fed. He stated the developers would save a number of
trees on the site. He stated buffer areas had been established on the grading plan. He
stated construction was anticipated to begin in two to three months once all the
approvals had been received.
Ms. Akasha Hull addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her property
was located immediately west of the area proposed for grading. She stated her
concerns were erosion, saving of mature trees, the planting of new trees to provide
visual separation between the commercial and the residential and measures to avoid
dust, noise and pollutants. She requested the pond filling be a first priority.
Mr. John Whitlow addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated he was a board
member of the Stagecoach Village Homeowners Association. He stated the concern of
the Homeowners Association was drainage. He stated the water flows through the
subdivision from the west existing to the east. He stated the property was located within
a floodplain and it was important water not be impeded and be allowed to flow out of the
development.
There was a general discussion of the Commission and Mr. McGetrick of the questions
raised. Mr. McGetrick stated the developer would adhere to all City and State
ordinances related to development of the site. He stated silt fences would be put in
place. He stated burning could take place on the site. He stated if the developers did
burn a permit from the Fire Department would be sought and approved. He stated
screening would be addressed. He stated buffers on the entire perimeter would be
maintained. He stated a large area on the southwest corner would be maintained. He
stated the pines on the northeast corner of the property would remain. Mr. McGetrick
stated cedar trees would be planted on the west side of the development spaced as
typically required per the landscape ordinance to allow for screening. The Commission
questioned if the developer would build the buildings or if the property would be sold to
another developer. Mr. McGetrick stated he was not sure who would develop the
property. He stated the pond was the first priority and would be filled within 30 days of
beginning construction.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
1 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: F 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:
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: G 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:
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
7
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: H 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:
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (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
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
7
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-434-N
NAME: Southwest City Commercial Replat Lots B-R-5A and B-R-5B
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of the I-30 Frontage Road and Geyer
Springs Road
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Teacher’s Retirement Systems
1400 W. 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Cubby Hole USA 2, Ltd.
200 Timberlake Ranch Road
Hallsville, TX 75650
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 6.00 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 – Geyer Springs East
CENSUS TRACT: 41.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The lot has been final platted as a 6.0 acre parcel. The current proposal is to split the
lot allowing Lot B-R-5A to contain 4.87 acres and Lot B-R-5B to contain 1.1226 acres.
The average lot size proposed is 3 acres. The lots are located on dedicated public
streets constructed to Master Street Plan standard therefore, there is no new public
street proposed with the platting. The plat is indicated with cross access and cross
parking easements. The lots are proposed meeting the typical standards of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-434-N
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is fully developed with a mixture of commercial and office uses. In the
immediate area there is a convenience store a number of fast-food restaurants and
hotels. Located on the property proposed for replatting is a fast-food restaurant and
an indoor conditioned mini-warehouse storage facility. The Arkansas State Police
Headquarters is located adjacent to the site to the east.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property owners.
All abutting property owners, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, Cloverdale
Neighborhood Association and Windamere Neighborhood Association were notified of
the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public
right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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: Central Arkansas Water needs to confirm the location of
the waterline crossing this property that appears to be encroaching outside the existing
easement. Additional utility easement dedication may be required. Contact Central
Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #17 – Mabelvale - Downtown and
#17A – Mabelvale - UALR.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-434-N
3
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the plat and stated there were few outstanding issues
in need of addressing related to the plat. Staff requested Mr. White provide the source
of title of the landowners on the plat drawing.
Public works comments were addressed. Staff stated any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk would require replacement prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
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 replat drawing to staff addressing the issues raised
at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided the
source of title of the landowners in the general notes section of the proposed replat. A
general note indicates any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk damaged in the right of way
will be repaired.
The proposal is to allow a replat of an existing 6.0 acre platted lot. The replat will split
the lot allowing Lot B-R-5A to contain 4.87 acres and Lot B-R-5B to contain
1.1226 acres. The lots are located on dedicated public streets constructed to Master
Street Plan standard therefore, there is no new public street proposed with the platting.
The lots are currently served by all utilities and each lot has separate meters for
utilities. The plat is indicated with cross access and cross parking easements.
Staff is supportive of the request. The lots are proposed meeting the typical standards
of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The property is currently zoned C-3, General
Commercial District which has a minimum lot area regulation of 14,000 square feet.
The maximum building height allowed is 35 feet. The required setbacks for the Zoning
District is a 25-foot front setback, no side yard except when abutting residentially
zoned property and a rear yard setback of 25-feet. The plat as proposed more than
meets all the standards established for the Zoning District. To staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the platting as
proposed should have minimal impact on the area.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-434-N
4
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments
and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was 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 placement of
the item on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
NAME: A Cut Above Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 302 North Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Lynda Bowers and Associates
650 Edgewood Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
SURVEYOR:
Arrow Surveying
550 Edgewood Drive, Suite 592B
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 0.42 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: O-3, General Office District uses, Deli/Restaurant and
Beauty Salon
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Office District uses, Deli/Restaurant and
Beauty Salon – Extend the allowable hours of operation
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 10, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to
rezone the site from O-3, General Office District and R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow
the construction of a second building on the site and to utilize C-2, Shopping Center
District uses as allowable uses for the site. The proposal included the development of
28,224 square feet of total land area and involved the construction of a second building
on the site containing 3,444 square feet. Thirty parking spaces were proposed to serve
the development. No new curb cuts were proposed as a result of the development.
The existing curb cuts along Beverly Hills Drive and Shackleford Road would continue
to provide access to the development.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
2
The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for rezoning at their
September 14, 2006, public hearing. The applicant was requesting to rezone the site
from O-3, General Office District to PCD to allow C-2, Shopping Center District uses as
allowable uses on the site. During the public hearing before the Commission the
applicant amended the request to limit the uses to O-3, General Office District uses, a
Deli/Restaurant and a Beauty Salon and to limit the hours of operation to 10:00 am to
8:00 pm daily. The hours of dumpster service were also limited to daylight hours. The
Commission denied this request.
The recommendation of denial was appealed to the Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors approved the amended application request limiting the hours of operation and
the proposed uses of the site on December 5, 2006, with the adoption of Ordinance No.
19,648.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to extend
the allowable hours of operation. The hours requested are from 6:00 am to
10:30 pm Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm Friday and
Saturday. No other modifications to the previous approval are proposed with the
request. The allowable uses for the property will remain as O-3, General Office
District uses, a Deli/Restaurant and a Beauty Salon.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant commercial building along with a paved parking area.
There are commercial businesses located to the east across Shackleford Road
including a grocery store and restaurants. To the west is a single-family
subdivision. There is a veterinarian clinic and daycare center located to the north
of the site and further north of the site is an elementary school. Northeast of the
site is a large church campus.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Beverly Hills Property
Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment.
Center-Point Energy: No comment.
AT & T: No comment.
Central Arkansas Water: No comment.
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 Rodney Parham Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revised Planned Commercial Development to increase the
hours of operation.
The Land Use Plan was studied in 2006 along with the original Planned
Commercial Development. Since this request is limited to a change in hours of
operation, it does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: North Shackleford Road is shown as a Collector on the plan.
The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local
Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
Neighborhood Action Plan: The Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan covers
this location. The Community Redevelopment Goal states the need to “maintain
and reinvigorate existing retail areas to provide active retail for local residents.”
Landscape: No comment on the change in hours of operation.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical
issues associated with the request. Staff stated the applicant was seeking an
amendment to the current hours of operation for the approved PCD. Staff stated
there were no other modifications to the previous approval. There was no further
discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues in need of addressing raised at the
April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The current request is to amend
the hours of operation from the previously approved 10:00 am to 8:00 pm
Sunday through Saturday to 6:00 am to 10:30 pm Sunday through Thursday and
6:00 am to 11:00 pm Friday and Saturday. No change to the allowable uses is
proposed with the request. The allowable uses for the property will remain as
O-3, General Office District uses, a Deli/Restaurant and a Beauty Salon.
Staff is not supportive of the request. The site is shown as Single Family on the
City’s Future Land Use Plan even though the property is zoned non-residentially.
In the 2006 filing the Future Land Use Plan was studied for this property and it
was determined by the Commission to not allow a Plan Amendment and to
maintain the Single Family designation for this property.
The hours of operation were also well debated at the public hearing held on
September 14, 2006. The concerns raised by the residents were that extended
hours for a restaurant would cause congestion and conflicting traffic movements
with the residents trying to go to and return from work. The previous approval
allowed for office uses, a beauty salon and a deli all of which typically are low
volume traffic generators. The 10:00 am opening time and the 8:00 pm closing
time were felt less intrusive to the residents and allowed the residents to leave
the neighborhood prior to the business opening. The building is sitting at the
entrance to a single-family neighborhood. The adjacent non-residential uses on
North Shackleford Road are a daycare center and veterinarian clinic. Both these
uses do not operate with the extended hours proposed by the applicant. Althogh
there are uses in the area which operate under the hours proposed by the
applicant they are across North Shackleford Road and to the south of the
neighborhood which limit the intrusion of noise and lighting onto this
neighborhood. Staff feels the hours as proposed by the applicant from 6:00 am
to 10:30 pm on week nights and 6:00 am to 11:00 pm on weekends intensifies
the commercial aspect of the development and will impact the adjoining single-
family homes.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
Ms. Lynda Bowers was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of
extending the hours of operation.
Ms. Bowers stated the building had never been used as single-family and had always
been a commercial use. She stated the building could not be rented due to the limited
hours on the property. She stated office users did not want the exposure of Shackleford
Road. She stated the property was a commercial property due to its location. She
stated when the original application was filed there were a number of residents present
in opposition. She stated with the current application request she had only received one
phone call in opposition of the request. Ms. Bowers stated when the site was open as a
deli she did not receive any complaints from the neighborhood concerning the use or
noise. She stated the hours of operation were consistent with commercial uses in the
area. She stated the Kroger store located across Shackleford Road was open 24 hours
per day. She stated the animal clinic located to the north was open from 7 am to 7 pm
daily.
The Commission questioned Ms. Bowers if she had a user for the building. She stated
she did not. She stated she had a number of inquiries but did not want to commit to a
user until the hours issue was resolved.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the request. She stated she remember the item before the Commission previously.
She stated there were a number of residents present in opposition of the request. She
stated the concern was the operational hours and the commercial use at the entrance to
the single-family neighborhood. She stated a restaurant open to 10:30 pm on week
nights was to intense of a commercial use to be located adjacent to single-family
homes. Ms. Bell stated she felt it in appropriate to expand the hours of operation. She
reminded the Commission it was not their duty to ensure a return on an investment but
to look at the big picture and what was best for all the parties involved.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and Ms. Bowers as to the
need for the extended hours. Ms. Bowers stated a coffee shop and bakery had inquired
about renting the site. She stated the site was divided into two lease-able areas. She
stated the coffee shop would occupy the smaller area and would not necessarily need
the 11:00 pm closing on weekends. She stated the larger portion would be rented to a
restaurant and the extended hours were necessary to compete with the other
restaurants in the area.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-D
6
A motion was made to approve the request to extend the hours of operation as
requested by the applicant. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and
2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
NAME: Parkway Village Revised Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 14300 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Parkway Village Incorporated
14300 Chenal Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
Development Consultants Inc.
2200 N. Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 83.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Residential – Retirement Community
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Revise the Overall Master Plan to add additional residential
units in the northeastern portion of the site.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The PRD for the Parkway Village retirement community was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 13, 1982, and was established by the Board of Directors by the
adoption of Ordinance No. 14,274 on August 3, 1982. The originally approved site plan
was conceptual for much of the future development area, and, subsequent to the
original approval, there were amendments to the original PRD in order to accommodate
development in the future development area. The development plan envisioned
construction of a wide range of facilities constituting a “comprehensive continuing care
retirement community” for the aged. Design was geared toward promoting maximum
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
2
personal independence and catering to the unique residential and health care needs of
the group. This was indicated by the array of uses proposed which included
single-family lots construction of apartments, food preparation/dining facilities,
laundry/recreational facilities, and nursing home/personal care unit. The project
included visual enhancements including ponds, pedestrian walkways, and buffering.
The approved site plan established buffers along the sites perimeters. A 40 foot land
use buffer, contained within a 110-foot utility right of way, was approved along the
northern boundary. A 55 foot street buffer was approved along Chenal Parkway and a
20 foot street buffer was approved along Loyola Drive. The area to the west was zoned
MF-18, therefore no land use buffer was required. The development was proposed as a
multi-phased development.
A part of the originally approved site plan included a health care center. An application
before the Planning Commission on November 29, 1994, allowed an addition to the
health care center. The addition was proposed in two phases with the addition of 10 to
12 patient rooms in each phase and an increase in floor area of 5,000 square feet in
each phase. The addition to the health care center received final approval on
January 3, 1995, by the Little Rock Board of Directors through the adoption of
Ordinance No. 16,827.
Ordinance No. 16,518 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 2,
1993, allowed a revision to the approved site plan allowing the construction of 48 units
of residential care. The units were proposed as one bedroom containing 440 square
feet each. The site involved approximately 3 acres of the 82.48-acre development.
A temporary construction access road was constructed along the northern boundary of
the site during the initial phases of development. Complaints were received by the
abutting residents, which forced the developers to place a time for removal of the
access road. The time frame for removal of the road and restoring the area to its former
condition was set and agreed to by the abutting property owners, Baptist Medical
System officials and the St. Charles Neighborhood Association. The road was to be
removed by March 1, 1995. In the November 29, 1994, the developers requested an
extension of time for removing of the temporary construction road. The developers
requested to extend the date for removal to January 1, 1996. The application request
was amended at the Public Hearing to remove the time extension request for removal of
the temporary construction road. An agreement was later reached to allow the use of
the road with certain restrictions. The road was to be paved and the hours of use were
limited.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Parkway Village is now planning the development of the northeastern corner of
the property and requesting approval to revise the existing PRD site plan to
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
3
accommodate several new residential structures in this area. The first addition is
the Alzheimer’s residential building. The building is approximately 26,000 square
feet in area. The facility will be licensed for 60 beds but is proposed containing
32 – 42 units. The maximum building height is 20 feet at the ridge and an eve
line around 10 feet from the floor is proposed. The height to the ground may vary
somewhat depending on grading and stem-wall design. Up to 40 parking spaces
will be provided for staff and visitors.
The second addition is to add six duplex units and two freestanding single
occupancy units. These units will be typical of the newer construction in the
western part of the campus. The maximum height to the ridgeline is 16-18 feet
above the floor. Each unit will have an enclosed two-car garage.
The final proposed addition is to add three six story residential buildings along
the southern edge of the undeveloped area. These buildings are proposed to
have four units per floor, 24 units total in each building. The total building height
is estimated to be 84 feet from first floor to roof with a four-foot parapet wall at
the top. There will also be a partially buried basement floor used to provide
sheltered parking for a portion of the parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the buffers as were previously approved.
The previous approval allowed a 40-foot land use buffer along the northern
boundary. The previously approved site plan indicated this area within a 110-foot
utility right of way. The applicant has provided a letter from Beach Abstract
Company indicating there is no easement of record along the northern boundary.
A 55-foot street buffer along Chenal Parkway and a 20 foot street buffer on
Loyola Drive were approved. Plantings have been installed along the northern
perimeter to satisfy the screening requirement.
The property is located within the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a retirement community with the only area left for new
construction located in the northeastern portion of the property. The area
proposed for development is wooded. The area slopes from north to south. The
community contains a mixture of housing types including duplexes, quad-plexes,
apartment buildings, nursing home facilities and support services including dining
facility and administration. The development contains a single gated access
located on Chenal Parkway. North of Parkway Village is the St. Charles
Subdivision and to the east across Loyola Drive is undeveloped MF-12 zoned
property. West of the development is an apartment complex accessed from
Chenal Parkway.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
4
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Parkway Place Property
Owners Association and the St. Charles Community Association were notified of
the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires
approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic
Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more
information.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be
installed along Loyola Drive adjacent to subject property.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than
residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted
and approved prior to the start of construction.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required to be submitted per Section
29-186 (e).
8. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
9. If not already existing, 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.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
5
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 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. Please submit plans for water
facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan
revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service.
Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division
and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not
contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector
check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer shall be required. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. If gates are installed
maintain a 20 foot gate opening. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for
additional information.
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 Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Multi Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a revised Planned Development Residential to add additional residential units
to the previously approved development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial. The primary function
of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
6
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal since
it is a Principal Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown along the Parkway. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. The bike route is located
within the median of Chenal Parkway.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Plan.
Landscape:
1. 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 perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be
given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
2. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip of three feet (3)
to be located between the parking lot and the building.
3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one-half
(7 ½) feet in width. Interior islands must be a minimum of one hundred and
fifty (150) square feet in area to qualify towards the minimum landscape
ordinance requirements.
4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009)
Mr. Robert Brown was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development stating there were outstanding technical issues
associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff requested the
development provide a secondary emergency access for the site. Staff also
questioned if construction traffic would utilize Loyola Drive during construction.
Mr. Brown stated the desire was to utilize Loyola Drive for construction traffic.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
7
Staff requested Mr. Brown provide the number of beds proposed for the
Alzheimer’s building. Mr. Brown stated the facility would be licensed for 60 beds.
Public works comments were discussed. Staff stated no hauling of fill material
on or off the site over City streets was allowed without the issuance of a permit.
Staff also stated prior to construction a grading permit would be required. Staff
stated a sketch grading and drainage plan was required per Section 29-186 of
the City code. Staff stated if streetlights were not currently in place along the
abutting roadways streetlights would be required prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. The proposed retaining walls were discussed. Staff
questioned if the walls would exceed fifteen feet in height. Mr. Brown stated the
walls would not require a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance and would
not exceed the maximum height allowed of fifteen feet.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a fifty-foot land use buffer
was required along the northern perimeter. Staff noted utility easements could
not count in full-filling the buffer ordinance requirement. Staff stated screening
would also be required along the northern property line. Staff stated a fifty-foot
street buffer was required along Loyola Drive. Staff stated an automatic irrigation
system was required to water landscaped areas. Staff stated prior to the
issuance of a building permit a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect
would be required. Staff noted the City Beautiful Commission recommended
preserving any many existing trees as feasible on the site.
Mr. Brown stated the previous approvals allowed for a lesser street buffer along
Loyola Drive and the northern perimeter. He stated although there was a utility
line in place there was no recorded easement for the overhead line. Mr. Brown
requested the development be allowed to maintain the previously approved
buffers. He stated screening was in place along the northern perimeter. He
stated during previous construction evergreen shrubs were placed along the
northern perimeter to provide the required screening.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of
issues raised at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has provided a secondary emergency access and gate on the southeast corner
of the site on Loyola Drive. The applicant has also indicated the number of beds
to be located in the Alzheimer’s residential building.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
8
The development is proposed in three phases with the Alzheimer’s building
constructed in the first phase. The building is a single story building containing
30,000 square feet. The maximum height of the building is 20-feet to the ridge
line above the floor. With the building construction 29 new parking spaces will be
added. The building will be licensed for 60 beds. The initial construction plans
call for the placement of 32 – 42 beds.
During this phase of construction the applicant is requesting permission to utilize
an existing access road located along their northern property line. The access
road is a dirt road constructed under the power lines. The road was used to
construct previous phases of Parkway Village and is used by Entergy periodically
to clear the power line right of way. The use of this road is only for the
construction of the Alzheimer’s building. The construction is anticipated to take
9 to 12 months to complete. There is an existing gate located on Loyola Drive
blocking the road from general access. The gate will be locked daily and not left
open during non-construction working hours.
The hours of construction are as allowed by current City ordinance. The
ordinance states commercial and residential exterior and interior construction
work including erection, excavation, demolition, or repair of any building and its
components shall be allowed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and 1:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Additional interior construction work may be performed
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
provided that all exterior openings are completely covered.
The second phase of the development is anticipated within three to five years.
The second phase of construction consist of the cottages. The site plan
indicates the construction of six duplexes and two single units. Each of the units
will contain garages. The buildings are single story buildings. During this phase
of construction retaining walls will be added with a maximum height of 15 feet. A
wall will be constructed south of the Entergy right of way. Approximately 20 feet
of tress will remain adjacent to the right of way before the retaining wall
construction begins. Retaining walls will also be constructed along Loyola Drive
with a maximum height of 15 feet.
During this phase of construction, construction traffic will not utilize Loyola Drive
but will access the development site through the main entrance to Parkway
Village.
The final phase is the construction of three six story residential buildings each
containing twenty-four units. The buildings are proposed with a maximum height
of 102 feet including a four-foot parapet wall to screen the elevator penthouse
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
9
and mechanical equipment. The buildings will contain four units per floor with
each of the units having a patio/balcony area. The buildings are proposed with a
basement parking area to accommodate twenty-four cars. This area will utilize
the grade and slope of the site as much as possible. With the construction of the
six story residential buildings 69 new surface parking spaces will be added.
During this phase of construction the construction traffic will utilize Loyola Drive.
A temporary access near the six story residential buildings will be made to limit
the impacts of construction traffic to the Parkway Village residents and the
adjoining St. Charles residents.
The Public Works comments indicate stormwater detention requirements.
According to the applicant the lakes along Chenal Parkway were originally
developed to provide detention storage for the entire 87-acre site. Staff has
reviewed this comment and the previous approvals and agrees no additional
stormwater detention is required with the development of the site.
The developers have provided a cross section through the site, which indicates
the proposed grade changes and retaining walls through the central areas of the
northeast corner. The developer does not anticipate any wall height in excess of
15 feet. Staff is agreeable and does not require a sketch grading plan for this
area.
The site plan and the applicant’s revised cover letter indicated a desire to
maintain the buffers as were previously approved. The previous approval
allowed a 40-foot land use buffer along the northern boundary. Indicated on the
site plan is approximately 140 feet of separation provided from the northern
boundary to the northern retaining wall. An undisturbed area of approximately
30 feet will be maintained north of the duplex and single units, between the
retaining wall and the existing security fence. Approximately 90 feet of
undisturbed area will be maintained between the security fence and the
Alzheimer’s residence parking lot. A 20-foot street buffer was approved on
Loyola Drive. The current plan respects the previously approved street buffer
area. Staff is supportive of the buffers as proposed.
Screening was implemented in 2005-2006 with the planting of evergreen shrubs
and vines along the security fence and existing large evergreen shrubs are in
place in the central part of the northern boundary. No additional screening is
proposed. Staff is supportive of the screening as indicated.
The building construction is proposed of similar material to the existing materials
of the later phases of Parkway Village. A combination of brick, wood,
hardi-board and stucco will be used. The six story buildings are proposed
constructed with a residential flair. The buildings will have large spans of glass to
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
10
take advantage of the vistas in the area. The buildings will have four units per
floor and each of the units will have a balcony/patio area. The buildings material
will be similar materials used within the existing development. A large
percentage of the building will be brick with accent features added to break the
massing of the structures.
The property is covered under the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District. The
Overlay has criteria in place regulating Signage and Lighting. The Overlay states
signage will comply with the Little Rock Sign Ordinance except for
ground mounted signs. The maximum size of principal site signs along
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway is one hundred square feet of sign area and a
maximum height of eight feet. Each landowner is permitted to have one sign per
parcel except for parcels fronting on two different streets upon which one per
street frontage may be erected. The signs are to be monument type signs. No
new signage is proposed with the development.
The DOD also regulates lighting and utilities. Parking lot lighting must be
designed and located in such a manner so as to not disturb the scenic
appearance of the corridor. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not
reflect to adjacent parcels. All lighting and other utilities on lots adjacent to
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway must be underground. Notwithstanding the
foregoing limitation, no overhead utilities may be constructed within 100 feet of
the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway right of way. The development as
proposed will comply with the lighting requirements of the Chenal/Financial
Center Parkway Design Overlay District.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is proposing a development plan
for the final 20 acres of this 87-acre site. The addition of residential units is
consistent with the previous phases of development. Staff is supportive of the
goal of Parkway Village which has been to allow residents to live out their
retirement years on a single campus passing from each stage of living to the next
starting with the independent living, to assisted living and then to nursing care.
Staff feels the placement of the Alzheimer’s unit on the site to allow Parkway
Village to offer an additional aspect of elder care. Staff also feels the placement
of the high-rise units will not significantly impact the area. The developers have
indicated a desire to construct the building utilizing materials similar to materials
existing on the campus. The developers have also indicated a desire to maintain
as much existing vegetation as feasible on the site to screen the development
and continue to offer the park like appearance, which has been created within the
development. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated
with the request.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
11
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
Mr. Robert Brown representing the applicant was present. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda staff report.
Mr. Brown stated Parkway Village was moving forward on the design of the first phase.
He stated he understood the concern of the area residents was the height of the
condominium buildings. He stated the buildings had been located in such a manner as
to least impact the area. He stated the buildings would be positioned to take advantage
of existing grades to lessen the visual height of the buildings. He stated the three six
story buildings were located approximately 550 to 600 feet for the adjacent residences.
He stated the duplex structures would be single story buildings as well as the
Alzheimer’s building. He stated the construction materials would be similar to the
existing materials on the site.
Ms. Marsha Cunningham of Parkway Village addressed the Commission. She stated in
1983 Parkway Village bought the property and began developing a community designed
for senior citizens. She stated the application before the Commission addressed the
last 20 acres of the original 87 acre site.
Mr. John Dugan addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was a resident of
St. Michael Place. He stated he shared the concern of the height of the condominium
buildings. He stated he felt with the slope of the property and the buildings being
constructed low on the hill there would be little impact to the adjoining neighbors. He
stated Parkway Village was the best neighbor the neighborhood could have. He stated
they were quiet and kept their property well maintained. He stated Parkway Village was
quick to address concern of neighbors as they arose.
Ms. Judy Houser, Mr. Brett Keathley, Ms. June O’Keefe and Mr. Larry Pinion did not
wish to address the Commission. A number indicated they were opposed to the six
story buildings.
Ms. Susan Page addressed the Commission in opposition of the six story buildings.
She stated she and her family bought in the neighborhood because the neighborhood
was established. She stated she felt the approval of six story buildings in this area
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3862-D
12
would set prescient to allow additional high rise units in the area 5, 10 or 20 years down
the road. She stated she did not want this area to become another Highway 10. She
stated the remainder of the proposal as single story buildings was compatible with a
single-family neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Riley, Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
he lived on St. Michael Place. He stated his opposition was to the six story tower
buildings. He stated the buildings were not compatible with the neighborhood. He
stated the height of the buildings appeared to be 20 feet above the tree tops. He
questioned how the height of the buildings would not be intrusive even if the buildings
were set at 600 feet from the residents.
Mr. Michael Thompson addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the towers
located along Loyola Drive with only 20 feet of buffer would allow the buildings to be
visible from the street. He stated Loyola Drive was the main entrance to the
neighborhood. He stated he felt the high rise buildings to intense for the area.
Ms. Maria Schenetzke addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated she worked in a ten story building on I-630. She stated to allow a high rise
building at the entrance to a neighborhood was to intense. She stated Chenal Parkway
was a commercial street but Loyola Drive was a residential street. She stated a six
story building within a residential area could decrease property values.
Mr. Brown addressed the Commission stating there was not access to Loyola Drive
planned. He stated staff had requested an emergence access gate be installed on
Loyola Drive to allow for access of emergency personnel should the main entrance ever
become blocked. He stated the neighborhood was buffered with existing vegetation.
He stated the condominium building was a different market and Parkway Village desired
to attract this market to the community as well. He stated Parkway Village currently had
500 residents living on the campus. He stated with the new construction this would add
roughly another 100 residents. He stated this resulted in a density of roughly 6 to
7 units per acres. He stated the underlying zoning would allow for a density of 18 units
per acre or 1,566 units.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff including the staff comments noted in the
agenda staff report. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5882-A
NAME: Saugey Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 16715 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Vicki Saugey
16715 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Taylor Surveying
P.O. Box 21415
White Hall, AR 71612
AREA: 0.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residence and a Beauty Salon
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residence and a Beauty Salon – Extend the
rear parking area
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Highway 10 Design Overlay District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated April 14, 2009, requesting a deferral of this
item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. The applicant’s justification for the deferral
request is to allow additional time to review various options with regard to the parking lot
layout. Staff is supportive of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 14, 2009,
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A
2
requesting a deferral of this item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant’s justification for the deferral request was to allow additional time to review
various options with regard to the parking lot layout. Staff stated they were supportive
of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: LU09-04-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – Heights Hillcrest Planning District
Location: the north side of C Street, just east of University Avenue
Request: Multi Family to Office
Source: University Properties
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District from Multi
Family to Office. Office represents services provided directly to consumers as
well as general offices which support more basic economic activities. The
applicant is proposing to remove the two houses on this property in order to build
a medical office.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-3 Single Family District. Two single family
houses and an existing parking lot are located on this property. The property
immediately west of this site is zoned O-3 Office and is occupied by several
different medical offices and their adjoining parking lots. North of this
amendment site is zoned R-3 Single Family District for single family residences,
which are occupied and in good repair. To the northeast is zoned Planned
Residential Development for a group of condominiums. South of the amendment
site is zoned Planned Commercial Development for the Midtown Mall shopping
center. To the southeast of this site is zoned R-5 Urban Residence District, but
the land is developed with three single family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
This area is currently shown as Multi Family on the Plan and has been shown as
this since 1999. It was amended as part of a large package in 1999 from Office
to Multi Family in an effort to keep the Office facing University and not C Street.
The Multi Family extends north and east of this site. The property to the west is
currently shown as Office. The property on the south side of C Street is shown
as Mixed Use and Multi Family.
On May 18, 2004, another change was approved for this area. The property
known as the Midtown Mall at the northeast corner of University and Markham
Street was amended from Office and Multi Family to Community Shopping for
the new shopping center.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-04-01
2
MASTER STREET PLAN:
C Street is shown as a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is
to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by
non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are
considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard
the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
PARKS:
The site is within eight blocks of a park area according the Master Parks Plan.
The War Memorial park complex is located to the southeast of this site.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan. Their Zoning and Land
Use goal states: “Adopt a plan of action to stop the degradation, to reverse its
course, and to recreate a neighborhood that is one again a pleasant place to
work and live. This includes no net loss of residential units by demolition or
conversion to other uses.”
ANALYSIS:
This area has been shown as Multi Family on the Land Use Plan since 1999.
The western portion of this amendment site, which is currently a parking lot, was
amended from Office to Multi Family in 1999. Since that time, this area has seen
new development by way of the Midtown Mall just south of this application area.
The addition of the Midtown Mall to the area has brought much more traffic to
C Street with it being one of the main entrances into the shopping center.
Midtown Mall also changed the scale of the buildings in this vicinity. Where there
used to be single family residences there are now large scale commercial
buildings and a large parking lot. The massing of the buildings in the Midtown
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-04-01
3
Mall are significantly larger than either the medical offices on University or of the
single family residences on C Street. The residences remaining on C Street are
now surrounded on the west with Office uses and the south with Commercial
uses. While some new condos have been built in this area, the majority of
C Street between University and Pierce Street has been changed to office or
commercial use. Medical offices have been in place just west of this application
area for many years. This application reflects an extension of these office uses.
Southeast of this location at the corner of Pierce and C Streets is vacant and
zoned O-3, but it is still shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Multi Family.
There is not much undeveloped land in this vicinity that is shown as Office on the
Plan. University Avenue has had new offices built just north of this site and is
home to many medical offices. This application would bring this trend of medical
offices further east off of University onto C Street. This portion of C Street is in
transition and has a variety of uses. There is a condominium development at the
southwest corner of Lee Avenue and Pierce Street. It is a relatively new
development and appears to be fully occupied. Across University Avenue is a
high rise apartment complex that seems to be in good condition.
This area is also covered by the Midtown Design Overlay District. The purpose
of this DOD is to “create a quality vital atmosphere for businesses (commercial or
office) and residents. Buildings, parking areas, signage, landscaping and street
furnishings should all be designed to complement and encourage pedestrian use
both day and evening.” The ULI Redevelopment Plan for Midtown done in 2006
addresses redevelopment for the Midtown area and states: “Many basic retail
and service needs of the adjacent neighborhoods are underserved or entirely
unmet. Further, institutional users in Midtown – primarily hospitals and higher
education -- need office space and other facilities for the professionals who want
to be located near them.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood association: Hillcrest. Staff has
received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 9 for
0 against the consent agenda was approved.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5.1 FILE NO.: Z-8445
NAME: C Street Surgery Center Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 5910 C Street
DEVELOPER:
University Properties
409 North University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Surgery Center
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Mid-Town Design Overlay District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property is located near the intersection of C Street and University Avenue.
The property currently contains two occupied single-family residences. The
developers are seeking a rezoning of the property to allow the removal of the
homes and the construction of a new 8,780 square foot survey center. The
center will contain four (4) operating rooms and ten (10) prep and recovery
rooms. Two (2) doctors will operate from the facility.
The proposal includes an existing parking lot located immediately west of this
property. The doctors currently own this parking lot and intend to utilize this
parking area as the required parking for the surgery center. The parking lot
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
2
contains 35 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to only include one-half
of the parking lot with the application request resulting in 19 on-site parking
spaces. A parking lot located to the south of the site is proposed to provide
parking for staff. The off-site parking provided is 40 spaces.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are occupied single-family homes located on the two lots proposed for
rezoning. The parking lot area located to the west of the two homes is currently
zoned R-3, Single-family and is also proposed for rezoning as a part of this
PD-O. To the north are single-family homes and to the east are two additional
homes. An area zoned PD-O located north of the parking lot has been
developed as parking to serve the doctors offices to the west. South of the site is
the Mid-towne Shopping Center and southeast are single-family homes and
multi-family housing. West of the site is a parking area serving the medical
offices fronting North University Avenue.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Hillcrest
Residents Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that C Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to C Street
including
5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of curb
should be located 18 feet from the centerline of the street and match the
curb of the property to the west.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
3
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan should be provided per Section
29-186 (e).
7. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be
implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the
increased impervious area.
8. Provide the direction of flow and all stormwater flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property.
9. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
10. The circle drive should be one way. Enter from the east driveway and exit
on the west driveway.
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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and
additional fire hydrant(s) will be required to provide adequate fire protection to
this facility. 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.
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrants maybe required. Contact Little Rock
Fire Department for additional information.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
4
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 Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development
Office to allow the construction of a medical office/surgery center.
A Land Use Plan amendment (LU09-04-01) a change from Multi Family to Office
is a separate item on this agenda.
Master Street Plan: C Street is shown as a Local Street. The primary function of
a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which
are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than
duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design
standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the
site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Plan. Their Zoning and Land Use goal states: “Adopt a plan of action to stop the
degradation, to reverse its course, and to recreate a neighborhood that is once
again a pleasant place to work and live. This includes no net loss of residential
units by demolition or conversion to other uses.”
Landscape:
1. An eleven foot seven inch (11’7”) foot land use buffer is required along the
northern perimeter of the site. A six foot nine inch (6’9”) land use buffer is
required along the sites eastern perimeter. Easements cannot count toward
full-filling this requirement. Seventy percent (70%) of the buffer area is to
remain undisturbed.
2. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one-half
(7 ½) feet in width. Interior islands must be a minimum of one hundred and
fifty (150) square feet in area to qualify towards the minimum landscape
ordinance requirements.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
5
3. Street trees are required per the Mid-town DOD. Street trees shall be a
minimum of three-inch caliper and shall be two (2) feet off the back of curb,
thirty (30) feet on center. The canopy shall be maintained with an eight-foot
clearance. A four-foot planter strip shall be maintained.
4. A street buffer of six feet nine inches (6’9”) is required adjacent to the
proposed building construction site in accordance with the Landscape
Ordinance.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip of three feet (3)
to be located between the parking lot and the building.
6. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
northern and eastern perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around requirement.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were additional
items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the site was
located within the Mid-Town Design Overlay District. Staff requested
development information related to the DOD standards to establish the areas of
compliance with the DOD. Staff noted any variation from the DOD was to be
approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors through the
adoption of the ordinance and the site plan for the development. Staff noted the
parking lot located to the east of the surgery center was to also be included in the
overall review. Staff requested the legal description of the parking lot be added
to the site plan and survey.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated there were drainage
concerns from the existing parking lot and the sheet flow of water onto the
adjacent property owners. Staff requested Mr. White provide the direction of flow
and all storm water flows entering and leaving the property. Staff also requested
Mr. White provide a sketch grading and drainage plan. Staff stated the circle
drive indicated on the site plan be a one-way drive. Staff stated the drive should
enter from the east and exit on the west.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening was required
along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. Staff stated a small
amount of building landscaping would be required. Staff noted street trees would
be required per the Mid-Town DOD.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
6
Staff stated the generator was shown on the north side of the building adjacent to
the single-family zoned and used property. Staff requested limits be placed on
the hours of testing the generator similar to the limits placed on the dumpster
hours of service.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a
number of the issues raised at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The revise plan indicates the east one-half of the parking lot located on the west
side of the proposed surgery center to be included in the proposed rezoning
request. Staff feels the entire parking lot should be included in the rezoning
request. The drive is a two-way drive and it will be difficult to separate patient
and staff parking. The parking lot is zoned R-3, Single-family and was approved
by the Board of Adjustment for construction of the parking lot a number of years
ago. The parking lot was not constructed until three years ago. The rezoning of
the entire parking lot along with this request will bring continuity to the zoning of
this area.
The applicant has provided a sketch grading and drainage plan. The plan
indicates predevelopment and post-development water flows. On the north side
of the property the Q25 Undeveloped is 2.9 cfs and the Q25 Developed is 1.9 cfs.
On C Street the Q25 Undeveloped is 1.2 cfs and the Q25 Developed is 3.0 cfs.
The developer has indicated all roof drains will be routed to C Street. The site
plan indicates the flume located on the western parking lot will be redirected to
allow the water to flow eastward and be swaled in order to disperse the water in
an even manner rather than a single point of discharge.
The drive in front of the building is indicated as a one-way drive as requested by
Public Works staff. The drive width will allow for two lanes to allow passing and
not require automobiles to stack in the driveway.
The revised site plan has not relocated the generator from the north face of the
building. The hours of generator service have been limited to daylight hours and
most likely be on Wednesday at noon. Staff feels the limits of generator service
should be limited to the hours indicated by the applicant.
The development is proposed with construction of a new surgery center
containing 8,870 square feet. The total landscaped area proposed is
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
7
12,225 square feet or 38.2 percent of the site. The paved area proposed is
11,035 square feet or 34.4 percent of the site. Two doctors will operate from the
facility. There are two operating rooms proposed and ten prep and recovery
rooms. The applicant has indicated the east one-half of an existing parking lot
containing 19 parking spaces to serve the surgery center. The hours of operation
are from 7 am to 5 pm daily.
The property being considered for rezoning is located within the Mid-town Design
Overlay District. The ordinance has various development standards related to
building setbacks, heights, construction materials and building appearances.
The façade treatment for new construction requires a minimum of 60 percent of
the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or streets
be glass-windows, entry features or displays. The applicant has indicated
40 percent of the front of the building will be glassed. The intent of the developer
is to construct an office building with a residential flair. According to the
developers to meet this goal it is difficult to provide 60 percent of the façade with
glass features. The primary façade of the building will be oriented parallel to the
street. The building is proposed as a singe story building. No wall projections or
recesses are proposed on the structure along the sides or rear wall. The front of
the building will have a projection extending to a covered canopy to be used for
patient drop-off and pick-up. The sides of the building is proposed 108 liner feet.
The building is not proposed with breaks in the building to visually break the
mass since the structure is so close to the 100-foot standard established by the
ordinance. The roof is proposed with a pitched roof and architectural shingles,
once again to provide a residential character to the structures.
The exterior construction material proposed is a brick façade. Additional
materials include materials as allowed per the Mid-town DOD or wood, stone,
tinted stucco and will be neutral tones. The maximum building height proposed
is 35 feet. The canopy is proposed 12.7 feet from the right of way on C Street.
The eastern side and rear yard setbacks, where abutting single-family zoned and
used property, are 22 feet and 30 feet respectively. The DOD allows for a side
yard setback of four (4) feet and a rear yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet. A
six-foot screening fence is proposed along these two property lines to provide the
required screening in this area.
A sidewalk has been provided along the eastern edge of the existing parking lot.
A sidewalk will be constructed on C Street in the right of way in front of the new
building. A right of way dedication of 30 feet from centerline will be provided to
the City along the frontage proposed for the new surgery center.
A single monument sign is proposed within the front landscaped area of the new
surgery center. The sign is proposed six feet in height and twenty-four square
feet in area.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
8
The development is proposing landscaping for the new construction consistent
with landscaping required per the Mid-town DOD. A landscape strip of 12.9 feet
is proposed on C Street. The applicant is not proposing any modification or
addition of landscaping within the existing parking lot area.
The site contains a number of trees greater than 14 inches in diameter as
measured by the ordinance. The developer desires to save a number of these
trees but anticipates removal of three to four of the trees above 14 inches.
These trees are located within the building footprint and are impossible to save
and still allow the new construction.
Lighting will conform to the lighting standards as established in the Mid-town
DOD.
Below list the requirements of the Mid-Town DOD and the applicant’s proposal
related to each of the items:
Midtown Overlay District
Applicant’s Proposal
A planned zoning district process shall
be required for a new development,
redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of
the structure’s current replacement
value based on its configuration at the
time of the DOD’s adoption, and for
expansion of existing developments
exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s
current square footage at the time of
the DOD’s adoption. Routine repairs,
maintenance and interior alterations to
accommodate existing, expanding or
new tenants within the existing building
envelope shall not require compliance
with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown
Design Overlay District). The proposed
planned zoning development shall be
reviewed to realize a development plan
that is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Midtown Design Overlay
District.
A planned zoning development is
being requested.
For a new development or structure of
over 100,000 square feet (excluding
structured parking), a mix of uses must
Not Applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
9
be provided. This mix may occur either
under the same roof or in adjacent
structures as part of a common
development. In order to be considered
a mix, the new development must
either:
Devote the majority of its leasable
ground floor space to a secondary use
i.e. retail in a multi-story office building;
or
Devote ten percent of the gross
leasable area of a single building to the
secondary use i.e. residential on the
upper levels of a multi-story office, retail
or institutional building; or
Devote fifteen percent of the gross
leasable area to a secondary use in a
separate building constructed and
occupied at the same time as the
primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a
pad adjacent to an office building.
The Midtown Design Overlay District
requires developments in excess of
200,000 square feet to contain a
residential component. The residential
may be in the same structure or a
separate structure, as long as the
separate structure is part of the overall
development and the overall
development is built simultaneously.
For any development constructed in
phases, a portion of the secondary
uses shall be included in the initial
phases.
Not Applicable.
Façade treatment – for new
construction at least 60 percent of the
ground floor level facing internal
pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets shall be glass-windows, entry
features or displays.
The development is indicated with 40%
of the front façade as glass-windows
and entry features.
Variation from the DOD.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
10
The primary façade of a building shall
be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or
private.
Buildings shall maintain a distinction
between upper and lower levels; an
elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment,
which visually divides the structure into
stories.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum
of three feet deep and a minimum of 20
continuous feet not to extend over 20
percent of the façade shall be required.
Arches, display windows, entry areas or
awnings shall exist along at least 60
percent of the façade.
The primary façade of the building is
oriented to the street.
The building is a single story building.
No wall projections are proposed.
Arches, display windows, entry areas
or awnings are not proposed to exist
along at least 60 percent of the façade.
Entryway – Primary entrances shall be
oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel
within a development.
Buildings shall have clearly defined and
visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades,
arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
All sides of buildings that face abutting
public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one
customer entrance.
Elevations - No elevation facing an
arterial or greater street shall be
primarily used as a service entry or
otherwise be treated as the rear of the
structures.
New construction wider than 100 linear
feet shall be visually massed so as to
break the structure visually.
The primary entrance is proposed
fronting C Street.
The front entrance is clearly defined
and a canopy is proposed as a feature
to allow covered drop-off and pick-up
of patients.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The sides of the building exceed this
typical requirement; 108 feet. The
developer is not proposing any breaks
in the building or variation in the
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
11
Rooflines shall be varied with changes
in height every 100 liner feet in building
length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable
roofs, high roofs, shall be used to
conceal flat roofs and roof top
equipment.
roofline. A pitched roof is proposed
with architectural shingles to maintain
a residential character of the building.
Exterior building materials and colors
shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors
used in neighboring developments.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall be of high quality materials; such
as but not limited to: brick, wood, stone,
tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) concreted masonry
units. Façade colors – shall be low
reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone
with trim and accents brighter colors.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall not be smooth-faced concrete
block, tilt-up concrete panels or
prefabricated steel panels.
The development is proposed to
compliment near by developments.
The primary construction materials will
be brick.
The predominate exterior building
materials will not be concrete block,
tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated
steel panels.
Projections (all requirements for a
franchise remain in place). Objects
shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way
except for awnings, signs, and
balconies.
Not applicable.
Awnings shall not project more than five
(5) feet from the building facade and
have a minimum clearance of nine (9)
feet above pedestrian areas and
thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas.
Not applicable.
Balconies over the public right-of-way
shall have a minimum clearance of nine
(9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1)
inch of projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above eight
(8) feet, provided that no such
projection shall exceed a distance of
four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be
Not applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
12
supported with posts extending to the
sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony
brackets shall conform to minimum
clearance standards.
Building height – No building hereafter
erected or structural altered shall
exceed a height of 60 feet, except as
provided below. Structures may have a
greater height as follows, and these
bonuses may be cumulative:
Any structure that is certified by CATA
as provide a portion of the structure for
mass transit is entitled to add 15-feet.
Structures with a mix of uses with the
street-level primarily devoted to retail
uses and at lease 50 percent of these
uses having direct access to the street,
is entitled to add 25 feet to the
structure; alternately a development
with an integrated parking facility
substantially located within the footprint
of the primary structure, is entitled to
add 25 feet to the structure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
structure located north of West
Markham Street and east of University
shall be limited to a height of 35 feet.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The maximum building height
proposed is 35 feet.
Building setbacks from property lines
and street rights of way shall be:
Front yard setbacks may be zero but
will not be more than 20-feet excepting
in those cases where grade changes
make such setbacks impractical.
The canopy has a front setback of 12.7
feet.
Side yard setbacks may be zero except
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the side yard setback shall be
a setback of not less than four (4) feet.
The east side yard is adjacent to
single-family zoned and used property.
The rear yard setback is proposed at
22 feet.
Rear yard setback may be zero, except The rear yard is adjacent to single-
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
13
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the rear yard setback shall
have a setback of not less than 25-feet.
family zoned and used property. The
rear yard setback is proposed at 30
feet.
Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys –
Driveways and internal circulation
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
in width, but not more than 12 feet
excepting that width needed for bike
lanes or special pedestrian
accommodations.
Not applicable.
Intersections of internal drives or
streets will be minimally controlled by
stop signs, and will feature special
crossway paving or treated surfaces.
Not applicable.
Access driveways running parallel with
the street shall not create a four-way
intersection within 125 feet of the
ultimate curb line of the public street.
Not applicable.
No more than one curb cut per block
face shall be permitted. Driveways and
parking lot entrances-exit shall be
combined and where appropriate
located in alleys.
The site plan indicates a circular drive
to serve the surgery center. The drive
will be one way entering from the east
and exiting to the west.
Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways –
All driveways and internal streets shall
have minimum five foot sidewalks on
both sides located away from the back
of curb.
Not applicable.
All sidewalks fronting buildings with
ground floor retail shall be at least 10
feet in width.
Not applicable.
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be
provided through parking lots.
All developments shall include as part
of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent
buildings or developments.
Not applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
14
Alleys – shall not be more than 20-feet
wide unless needed for emergency
access. Where an alley runs along a
property line, it shall be screened from
the adjacent property by a permanent
wall of high quality materials compatible
with neighboring buildings.
Not applicable.
All new utilities for developments within
the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all
utilities onsite or within adjacent public
right of way wherever determined by
the utility agency to be feasible.
All utilizes on the site will be
underground. The existing overhead
utilities will not be placed underground
with this development.
Trash enclosures shall be located in
alleys wherever available or in common
service areas for multiple
developments.
In all areas, service and waste removal
areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and
pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall
comply with Section 36-523.
Not applicable. There is no dumpster
located on this site.
Parking facilities – wherever feasible,
multilevel parking structures shall be
encouraged. Surface parking shall be
limited to the side and rear of
structures, unless grouped in quantities
of 50 spaces or less separated by a
landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required
for the property by Chapter 15 of the
code or a structure from other vehicular
areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface
parking area. Surface parking areas
should be broken up or distributed
around large structures so as to shorten
the distance to other buildings and
public sidewalks. For corner lots,
Not applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
15
parking is allowed along the side street
frontage.
Parking requirements within the District
shall be 50 percent of that required by
Article VII of Chapter 36. The
maximum allowed parking shall be the
minimum standard established in Article
VII of Chapter 36.
Parking provided by an existing
parking lot located to the west.
Shared parking. As an alternative to
subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use
developments may utilize the shared
parking methodologies developed by
the Urban Land Institute and published
in Shared Parking (Second Edition,
2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project
may elect this means of determining the
total parking requirement by submitting
a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified parking or traffic consultant,
a licensed architect, city planner, or
urban planner or civil engineer.
Joe White- White-Daters and
Associates states - The surgery center
is being relocated from the existing
GAPA buildings to this new facility.
This will allow space for two more
physicians. As a civil engineer,
planner and parking demand analyst
the existing parking should be
adequate for the use. The surgeries
will be done in the morning with patient
visits in the afternoon. This will
eliminate the need for additional
parking. The parking on the south side
of C Street is also used for this facility.
Staff parks south of C Street and
patients and physicians park on the
north side of C Street.
On-street parking. On-street parking on
internal streets or circulation routes
shall be allowed and may count
towards the parking requirement. On-
street parking is permitted either
parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent
to, retail or commercial entries. Angled
street (drive) parking shall not be
permitted on streets (drives) that
provide the development majority
access. Such parking may count
towards the overall project parking
requirements. No on-street parking
shall be allowed on University Avenue
or Markham Street.
Not applicable.
No parking shall be allowed in the front
yard setback area.
Not applicable.
Parking garage design – Parking
facilities should be designed consistent
with the overall project design. Where
Not applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
16
possible, other uses, residential or
commercial should be used to wrap or
otherwise block the view of a parking
garage.
Signage – Signage shall comply with
Article X except as follows – No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No
pole mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs are to identify the
development and be limited to 72
square feet in area and 6 feet in height
for developments greater than one
acre. For sites less than one acre
monument signs may be up to twenty-
four square feet in area and six feet in
height and must be located as a part of
the required landscape area of the
parking lot. Signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose
design theme and materials are directly
related to the primary development may
be submitted for approval under the
PZD process if located along University
southerly of Lee. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more
than 400 square feet.
A sign six feet in height and 24 square
feet in area is proposed to serve the
office use. Building signage will
comply with signage allowed in office
zones or a maximum of ten percent of
the façade area.
No street buffer or landscaping is
required along streets classified less
than an arterial. When the structure is
not built to the property line,
landscaping is required in the area
between the building and property line
up to that required in Chapter 15 of the
Code.
Landscaping for the building
construction will comply with the typical
ordinance standards. No new
landscaping is proposed for the
existing parking lot.
Land use buffers shall only be provided
where single-family and duplex use or
zoning is the abutting use. In those
cases where a land use buffer is
required, buffers shall be the same as
those for multi-family uses in Section
36-522(b)(1). In areas where terrain
variation is great or other features result
in the loss of privacy, alternative
designs and massing shall be
considered.
Land use buffers are provided
consistent with the typical ordinance
standards on the northern and eastern
perimeters.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
17
Common use areas and plazas shall be
a minimum of 300 square feet for
30,000 square foot structures. For
each additional 5,000 square feet or
portion thereof, a minimum of an
additional 50 square feet of plaza area
is required.
Not applicable.
Surface parking lots shall meet all
current landscape requirements.
No new parking areas are proposed.
The parking to serve the development
exists.
Street trees shall be a minimum of
3-inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the
back of curb, 30 feet on center. The
canopy shall be maintained with an
8 foot clearance. A four foot planter
strip shall be maintained.
Street trees will be installed as
required.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
maintained by a common authority.
Attempts shall be made to maintain
vegetation, trees, bushes, in
undisturbed conditions to serve the
aesthetic, recreational and ecological
needs of the district. Trees planted in
these areas shall be a minimum of two
inches in caliper and ten feet in height.
Not applicable.
Trees greater than 14 inches in
diameter, measured at 4 ½ feet above
the ground, shall be protected from
removal and damages in future
development of the district. Any
development within 50 feet of such tree
shall be reviewed prior to development
to assure protective measures are
included and in place.
Three to four trees greater than 14” in
diameter will be removed to allow the
building construction.
Lighting shall conform to the design
overlay district standards. The intent is
to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively
illuminating the property in question,
other properties or the night sky. Only
light fixtures, which are categorized as
Lighting will conform to the standards
established in the DOD.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
18
full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights are
permitted but not encouraged.
The ordinance provides for the
following specific standards for lighting
intensity based upon the activities
performed involved. Values are
presented in allowable foot candles (fc)
maintained (measured horizontally) at
grade and are to be averaged
throughout the site to avoid hot spots,
i.e. areas of extreme light intensity
relative to the remainder of the site:
Pedestrian areas/sidewalks
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc
Street lighting
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Parking area
Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc
Playgrounds
Maximum 5.0 fc
Sports grounds
Maximum 20.2 fc
Site perimeter
Maximum 0.5 fc
Lighting will conform to the standards
established in the DOD where
applicable.
Gas station canopies shall be
illuminated at a maximum luminance of
thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall
be flush mounted or have the canopy
edge below the lowest light-emitting
point on the fixtures. All existing gas
station canopies that exceed this
standard shall be made compliant
within seven (7) years of the date of
adoption of this article.
Not applicable.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
19
Up lighting may be used to illuminate a
building, landscaping element or
architectural feature, provided the
lighting design has a maximum
luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured
in a vertical plane. Down lighting is
preferred.
Lighting will conform to the standards
established in the DOD.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for
staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan
shall contain the following information:
An area lighting plan, drawn to scale,
indicating all structures, parking lots,
building entrances, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that
may interfere with lighting, and adjacent
land uses that may be adversely
impacted by the lighting. The plan shall
contain a layout of all proposed fixtures
by location, orientation, aiming
direction, mounting height and type.
The submission shall include, in
addition to proposed area lighting, all
other exterior lighting, e.g.,
architectural, building entrance,
landscape, flagpole, sign, etc.
A ten-foot by ten-foot luminance grid
(point-by-point) of maintained foot-
candles overlaid on the site plan plotted
out to 0.0 foot-candles, which
demonstrates compliance with light
intensity standards.
Lighting will conform to the standards
established in the DOD.
Property, if for any reason, that cannot
be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a
PZD.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
20
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is located adjacent to office uses to
the west and the Mid-town Shopping Center to the south. Southeast of this site,
at the intersection of C and Pierce Streets, is an area currently zoned O-3,
General Office District. Staff feels the office use allows for a stepping down of
intensity. The building is proposed constructed residential in character to allow a
transition from the office and commercial uses located along North University
Avenue to the single-family uses located east of this site. The building has been
placed to allow an increased buffer along the eastern perimeter to offer
protection to the single-family homes. The developers are not proposing the
addition of any new parking to serve the surgery center but are planning to utilize
an existing parking lot.
Although the site plan indicates the development inconsistent with the
development criteria established in the Mid-Town Design Overlay District, the site
is complying with a number of typical standards established. The primary
variations are to allow less than 60% of the front of the building to be glassed and
to remove trees in excess of 14-inches in diameter. Although staff feels these
are important considerations, staff does not feel these variations will significantly
impact the area if developed as proposed.
The developer have indicated a commitment to reduce the water run-off on the
properties located to the north by developing the site in such a manner that all
drainage from the proposed building and circular driveway are directed to
C Street. The developers have also agreed the flume at the north end of the
existing parking lot will be re-directed to the east and into a vegetated swale
running east-west along the north side of the proposed building. At the time of
development the developer will supply a new culvert to replace the existing
damaged culvert located along C Street. The City will install the culvert with City
work forces and equipment. When construction is ready to begin, the developer
will request the City clean the existing ditches along C Street and Pierce Street.
Staff feels the drainage as proposed will lessen the impact of the existing water
run-off on the properties located to the north.
The only issue remaining is the applicant’s request to only include the east
one-half of an existing parking lot located west of the proposed surgery center in
the rezoning request. Staff feels the entire parking lot should be included in the
rezoning request. As noted above the rezoning of the parking area through this
PD-O request will recognize the existing use and allow continuity in the zoning
pattern. To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding technical issues
associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and as noted in
paragraph H of the above agenda staff report.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8445
21
Staff recommends the entire parking lot and not just the east one-half of the
parking lot be included in the rezoning request.
Staff recommends the hours of service for the generator be limited to noon on
Wednesdays as proposed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 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, F and as
noted in paragraph H of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation the
entire parking lot and not just the east one-half of the parking lot be included in the
rezoning request. Staff presented a recommendation the hours of service for the
generator be limited to noon on Wednesdays as proposed by the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8446
NAME: Blue Wave Express Carwash Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 801 East 6th Street
DEVELOPER:
Carpenter Outdoor Advertising
600 Interstate 30
Little Rock, AR 72201
SURVEYOR:
Blaylock Threet Engineering
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
Barry Williams
Crafton Tull Sparks
10825 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211-3554
AREA: 0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use District
ALLOWED USES: Various Uses – All indoor activities
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Automotive Detail Carwash
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Presidential Park Design Overlay District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None Requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the property located at 801 East 6th
Street to allow Blue Wave Express Carwash to locate on the property. Blue
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
2
Wave Express Carwash is a drive-through carwash facility and detail shop. The
property is currently zoned UU, Urban Use District which does not allow outdoor
activities to occur on the site thus necessitating the rezoning request to PD-C.
The existing 1,100 square foot structure will remain with minimal improvements.
The overall redevelopment of the building will require fresh paint and building
signage in accordance with the City’s sign ordinance. To provide the services
desired the applicant will improve the sanitary sewer to accommodate outdoor
drains in accordance with State Health Code and City wastewater regulations.
The site has ingress/egress across East 6th and East 7th Streets and the I-30
Frontage Road. The owner desires to maintain all existing curb cuts and
landscaping in its current condition. The owner is also requesting to maintain two
(2) existing pole mounted signs; one at the northwest corner of the property and
the second on East 7th Street. The face will be changed to identify the new
tenant.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lot is entirely paved and contains an existing commercial building. There are
two drives accessing East 6th Street and the I-30 Frontage Road. There is one
drive accessing East 7th Street. The site contains two sign structures; one
located over the entrance drive from East 7th Street and the second at the
intersection of East 6th Street and the I-30 Frontage Road. There are a number
of uses in the area including a convenience store, two hotels, office uses,
industrial and warehousing activities.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
property owner. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Hanger Hill
Neighborhood Association and the McArthur Park Property Owners Association
were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A 15 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
East 6th Street and the I-30 Service Road.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
East 7th Street and the I-30 Service Road.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
3
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed. 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.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants maybe required. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-30 Planning District. The Land
Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has applied
for a rezoning from UU, Urban Use District to Planned Commercial Development
to allow an automotive detail business to locate on the property.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: East 6th Street is a Collector. The primary function of a
Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
4
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 East of I-30 Plan, but the
plan does not address this specific issue.
Landscape:
1. Street buffers are required on all abutting streets. A minimum landscape strip
of six feet nine inches (6’9”) is required along East 6th and East 7th Streets
and the I-30 Frontage Road.
2. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip of three feet (3)
to be located between the parking lot and the building.
3. Street trees and street furniture are required per the Presidential Park DOD
(Section 36-414).
4. An upgrade in landscaping equal to the percentage of building expansion cost
is required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 9, 2009)
Mr. Barry Williams of Crafton Tull Sparks was present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were additional
items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the site was
located within the Presidential Park Design Overlay District. Staff stated the
Overlay also referred a number of development criteria to the underlying zoning
district, which was UU, Urban Use District.
Staff requested Mr. Williams provided the development plan related to the
Overlay and the UU zoning District. Staff noted the site was a developed site
and some of the items would not apply. Staff stated since the site did involve
new construction the landscaping and street tree requirement would apply.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the existing drives could
remain. Staff also stated the only dedications required were radial dedications at
the intersections of the abutting streets. Staff noted any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk that was damaged in the right of way would require replacement prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated building landscaping
would be required. Staff stated any variation from the building landscaping
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
5
requirement would require approved by City Beautiful Commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the
issues raised at the April 9, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised
site plan indicates radial dedications per City standards. The revised site plan
addresses the placement of street trees. The revised plan also addresses the
landscaping comments noted above. The applicant has also provided staff with
a summary of the development compared to the Presidential Park Design
Overlay District requirements and the UU, Urban Use Zoning District
requirements.
The purpose of the Presidential Park Overlay District is to create a quality vital
atmosphere for businesses, commercial or office and residential. Buildings,
parking areas, signage, landscaping and street furnishings designed to
complement and encourage pedestrian use both day and evening. Proper
planning is necessary to avoid visual clutter. The regulations apply to new
development, redevelopment of existing buildings the cost of which exceeds fifty
(50) percent of the buildings' current replacement value or expansion of existing
development. The design guidelines are implemented when a permit is
requested for exterior improvements to a building or in the public right-of-way.
Routine repairs, maintenance and interior alterations do not require compliance
with the Overlay.
With the redevelopment of this site a street tree and bench will be located on
East 6th Street. The applicant is requesting to place the tree out of the City right
of way because of an existing traffic light switching box that is located on East 6th
Street in the location most suitable for the tree. Staff is supportive of this
request. In staff’s opinion the request meets the spirit of the Overlay. The trees
planted will be of the species identified in the ordinance. The street furniture will
also comply with the furniture requirements identified in the ordinance.
The building was originally constructed as a service station but was most recently
been used as an office use. Building elevations provided by the applicant
indicate a new façade will be placed on the building allowing for additional glass
fronting 6th Street and the I-30 Frontage Road. No changes to the existing height
of the building are proposed.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
6
The Presidential Park Design Overlay District typically requires building to be set
at a zero setback. This building was constructed prior to the adoption of the
Design Overlay District. The modifications proposed is the addition of three
canopies; along East 6th Street, to the side of the building along the I-30 Frontage
Road and to the rear of the building along East 7th Street. The canopies are
proposed in three phases with the canopy on East 6th Street constructed in the
first phase.
The Presidential Park DOD addressing parking stating no surface parking is
allowed on East 6th Street for 1,150 feet. At the time of development of this site
the entire area was paved. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to
the paved areas with the current application request.
The site plan indicates two existing sign structures to remain. Both sign faces
will change to advertise the name of the new business. Although the UU Zoning
District typically discourages ground-mounted signs, these signs existed prior to
the adoption of the UU Zoning District and are grandfathered. Building signage
is also proposed. Building signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed
in the UU, Urban Use District and the Presidential Park Design Overlay District.
The applicant has indicated a combination of awning, window and neon
illumination signage will be utilized.
The site plan was also reviewed for compliance with the underlying UU, Urban
Use Zoning District. The developers have indicated lighting and screening will
comply with the standards established in Section 36-342.1 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances. Building materials proposed for the canopies will be
standard materials and will not be corrugated or ribbed materials.
Presently there is little to no landscaping located on the site. The site plan
indicates the placement of landscape islands along each of the abutting streets
and along the eastern perimeter of the site. The site plan indicates street trees
will be placed per the typical ordinance standards and the landscape islands will
comply with the Landscape Ordinance requirements. A small amount of building
landscaping is proposed along with the redevelopment of the site.
The plan indicates a radial dedication of 20 feet at the intersection of West 7th
Street and the I-30 Frontage Road. The plan indicates a 15-foot radial dedication
at the intersection of West 6th Street and the I-30 Frontage Road.
The days and hours of operation are from 6:30 am to 9:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and from noon to 9 pm on Sunday. No dumpster is proposed for the
site.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
7
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the developers have done a good
job at meeting the spirit of the Presidential Park Design Overlay requirements.
The site plan indicates the placement of landscaped areas along the abutting
streets and the placement of street furniture as within the right of way as typically
required per the DOD. The following list the requirements of the Presidential
Park DOD and the UU Zoning District requirements as related to the applicant’s
proposal.
Presidential Park Design Overlay
Requirements:
Applicant’s proposal:
Sidewalks and landscape - All landscape
requirements of the base zone shall be
enforced, related to location, plant size
and spacing. Along Bond, 3rd, 6th, 9th,
and College Streets, all the standards
delineated below apply in urban use-zoned
areas the street trees below apply. Any
property owner, due to the spacing
requirements, not required to provide a
"street tree" or "street furniture" shall pay
an in-lieu fee based on the percentage of
frontage along the street divided by the
cost of providing the required street trees
and furniture in the ordinance. See
schedule for base costs.
A landscape upgrade will be provided on
the site based on the percentage of
building construction cost.
1) Street trees. Street trees should be:
• Shademaster honey locust
(Gleditsia triancathos inermis
"shademaster");
• Red sunset maple (Acer rubrum
"red sunset");
• Summard [Shumard] oak (Quercus
shumardii).
(2) Street furniture. Benches and
receptacles shall be at a spacing of
one hundred (100) feet with none
closer than fifty (50) feet to the
intersection.
¾Street furniture shall be:
A street tree will be placed on the
applicant’s property on East 6th Street.
A street bench will be placed within the
right of way on East 6th Street.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
8
• Bench. DuMor Bench 51 or
approved equivalent;
• Receptacle. DuMor Receptacle 152
or approved equivalent.
Vehicular use and service areas - In
order to conserve our natural resources
and minimize flooding and pollution due to
large amounts of impermeable surfaces,
vehicular use areas may be surfaced with
porous materials. Vehicle use areas that
are made of porous materials must be low
use, specifically may not be loading areas,
primary parking areas, driveways, etc. The
Plans Development Administrator must
approve any alternative surface treatment,
to that described in section 36-508 at the
time of building permit review.
The paved areas exist. No modifications
to the paved areas are proposed with the
development.
Service and loading areas shall not be
located along 3rd Street from Interstate 30
east for one thousand one hundred fifty
(1,150) feet, 6th Street, Bond Street or
College/College Street extension. Delivery
vehicles (such as beer, soft drink, etc.
trucks) may make deliveries on these
streets.
Not applicable.
Permitted uses.
(a) All uses in the base zone
classification.
(b) Outdoor, on-premises, seating
areas for dining in UU areas.
The request includes outdoor activities
therefore the request is for a rezoning to
PD-C.
Height regulations - No building hereafter
erected or structurally altered shall exceed
thirty-five (35) feet in the area east of John
Street.
Any development in the area between
John and McLean Streets erected or
structurally altered shall not exceed the
All new construction will comply with the
height requirement.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
9
base height of forty-five (45) feet; except
that the height may be increased as
follows: Developments which provide a
minimum 40 percent of the gross floor
area for residential uses are entitled to add
thirty (30) feet. If at least fifty (50) percent
of the street-level office and retail space
has direct access to the street, an
additional fifteen (15) feet may be added to
the structure. Building height in this section
is cumulative not to exceed ninety (90)
feet.
Setbacks - Setback shall be that of the
base zoning except:
(a) Bond Street, 8th Street, 9th
Street, and McLean Street south of
7th Street where all structures shall
be set back fifteen (15) feet from the
street right-of-way.
(b) John Street, where all structures
shall be setback twenty (20) feet from
the street right-of-way.
The new construction will not be set at
Zero but will be align with the existing
building located on the site.
Parking - No surface parking is allowed
along 3rd Street from I-30 east one
thousand, one hundred fifty (1,150) feet,
6th Street, Bond Street and
College/College Street Extension. Parking
structures along these streets must either
have nonvehicular uses on the first
(ground) level or a false facade along the
street so as to appear to be a non-
vehicular use area.
All paving exist. No changes are proposed
to the existing paved areas.
Signage - General sign regulations as per
the base zoning classification except for
the first two (2) floors where the following
is required:
(a) Awning valances are appropriate
locations for signage, sign area not to
The two pole signs are grandfathered. All
other signage will comply with the typical
ordinance standards.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8446
10
exceed six (6) square feet of valance.
(b) Neon illumination is permitted if
channelized.
(c) Letters shall not exceed 30 inches
in height.
(d) Window signs shall not cover more
than twenty-five percent of each glass
panel.
Exceptions - Property that cannot be
developed, for any reason, without
violating the standards of this article shall
be reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent of
the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a PZD
rezoning request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends the eastern most drive on East 6th Street be limited to exit only
traffic.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 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 the eastern most drive
on East 6th Street be limited to exit only traffic.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-1495-A
NAME: Park Circle Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located East of Western Hills Avenue and south and West of the Western
Hills Golf Course
DEVELOPER:
CL Clifton
608 Nan Circle
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 7.07 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 2,500 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow Lot 23 to develop with a
reduced lot depth.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed for the July 7, 2005, Planning Commission public hearing to
allow the creation of 12 single-family lots from a 3.22-acre tract. The lots were
proposed with an average lot size of 60-feet by 120-feet or 7,200 square feet and 600
linear feet of new street was to be constructed to serve the new lots. Staff raised
concerns related to access for the proposed development and the Commission deferred
the request to their November 10, 2005, public hearing. At the November 10, 2005,
public hearing the applicant withdrew the proposed plat request.
On July 7, 2007, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat to
allow the creation of 23 lots from a 7.07-acre tract. The proposed plat area was
expanded to the north to include a portion of property previously owned by the Western
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
2
Hills Country Club. An average lot size of 60-feet by 120-feet or 7,200 square feet was
proposed with an overall density of 4.24 units per acre, consistent with single-family
development. One variance was approved to allow a reduced lot depth of Lot 23.
Based on the configuration of the lot the developer was unable to provide the typical
100 foot minimum lot depth required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Access to the proposed subdivision was through Brookside Park, a previously platted
subdivision. The applicant indicated Lee Summit Drive and Skygo Drive would be
constructed and Lot 1, Block 3 of the Brookside Park Subdivision would be dedicated to
the City as a 50-foot right of way to allow access to the new lots. The subdivision has
not developed. The applicant is seeking approval of a one-year time extension as
allowed per Section 31-94(e).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant submitted a request dated March 9, 2009, requesting a one (1)
year time extension of the previously approved preliminary plat. Per Section
31-94(e) a preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be
effective and binding upon the Commission for two (2) years from the date of
approval or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the
final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning
staff. Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth
herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of the chapter shall be null
and void, and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property
for preliminary approval subject to all zoning restrictions and the chapter.
The planning commission may extend the original approval, for a period not to
exceed one (1) additional year, when it can be demonstrated that there are no
changes in the plat design or neighborhood that warrant a complete review.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located to the east of Brookside Park Addition, a recognized
“paper” plat which was platted a number of years ago, and lots sold, but the
streets and infrastructure were never constructed. The Little Rock Board of
Directors approved an Improvement District for the Brookside Park Addition to
allow funding for water, sewer and street construction.
C. ANALYSIS:
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated
additional time is necessary to complete infrastructure for the development due
to the current economic climate. In staff’s opinion there are no changes in the
plat design or neighborhood that warrant a complete review.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
3
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a one (1) year time
extension of the approved preliminary plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a
one (1) year time extension of the approved preliminary plat.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LA-0021-A
NAME: Glenn Ridge Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive
APPLICANT: Steve Hockersmith/Glenn Ridge Crossings II
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Robert D. Holloway, The Holloway Firm
AREA: Approximately 17 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Regulations
to clear and grade multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not
imminent on all phases of the development
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to fill and
grade Lot 6 and 7 (12.5 acres) and portion of Lot 14 (4.5 acres) following the
issuance of a building permit for Lot 5 (3.0 acres) for construction of a parking
area for Playtime Pizza.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The advanced filling and grading area is located southwest of Colonel Glenn
Road and Interstate 430 and east of the existing Colonel Glenn Loop and
Playtime Pizza. Road construction plans are already approved for the
completion of Colonel Glenn Loop back to itself north of Colonel Glenn Plaza
Drive. Undeveloped R-2, Single-family zoned property is located on the south
side of the area to be advanced graded and the parking area on Lot 5. The R-2,
Single-family property is separated by an OS, Open Space zoned strip. To the
west is developed R-2, Single-family zoned property where J.A. Fair High School
is located. To the northwest is an undeveloped area zoned C-3, General
Commercial District. To the north across Colonel Glenn Loop is the Rave
Theatre and other commercial developments zoned C-3, General Commercial
District and C-4, Open Display District. To the east of the property between
Colonel Glenn Loop and Interstate 430 is the Jaguar automobile dealership and
an undeveloped lot zoned C-3, General Commercial District and C-4, Open
Display District. Also to the east is the Playtime Pizza development.
Approximately 3.0 acres of the 12.5 acres of Lots 6 and 7 are wooded. Lots 14
and 5 are also wooded.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0021-A
2
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Certified mail notices were sent by the applicant to neighboring properties as per
ordinance requirements. As of this writing, staff has not received any inquiries
for additional information pertaining to this application.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Lot 14 is not shown on grading plan. Revise plan to show Lot 14.
2. Delineate areas of advanced grading. Areas should be referred to as
Advanced Grading Area 1 and Advanced Grading Area 2.
3. 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. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
5. Proposed slopes are not allowed to exceed 3:1 (3 horizontal to 1 vertical).
6. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of filling and clearing activities.
7. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater.
8. Revise the overall grading plan to show the area of existing trees.
E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. A grading plan showing the required buffers must be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average fifty foot wide (50’) street
buffer around the site’s perimeter and in no case less than half.
3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0021-A
3
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (April 7, 2009)
Mark Redder of The Holloway Firm was present representing the applicant. Staff
stated a variance was already approved by the Planning Commission to grade
portions of Lots 3, 5, 7, and 14 with a building permit being issued for Lot 6.
Staff provided the comments as written above in the Landscape comments and
the Public Works comments. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
G. ANALYSIS:
The applicant was previously granted a variance to the Land Alteration
Regulations by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2008, to fill and grade
Lots 3 (4 acres), 7 (2.4 acres), 14 (7 acres), and a portion of Lot 5 (2 acres) with
construction imminent and the grading permit issued on Lot 6 (10.3 acres). At
the time of variance approval, a proposed commercial development on Lot 6 was
expected to occur. The Planning Commission approved with construction on Lot
6, an additional 17.6 acres of property was approved to be graded without
imminent construction. The fill material from the lots without imminent
construction would have been used for construction of the Colonel Glenn Loop
and to fill Lot 6. The proposed development on Lot 6 did not occur though.
The applicant now is requesting to conduct land alteration activities on Lots 6, 7
(12.5 acres), and a portion of Lot 14 (3.5 acres) with the issuance of a grading
permit for construction of a parking area on Lot 5 (3 acres). The applicant is
requesting with construction imminent on a 3-acre parking area for Playtime
Pizza on Lot 5 to grade an additional 16 acres of property without imminent
construction. The street plans for completion of Colonel Glenn Loop have been
approved by staff. The fill material is no longer needed for construction of
Colonel Glenn Loop.
About 3 acres of Lots 6 & 7 and all of Lots 14 and 5 are covered with trees. The
large area shaded in gray on Lot 6 is a deep ravine needed to be filled for future
development to occur.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The previous approved application allowed 17.5 acres to be speculative cleared
and graded for construction of a commercial development on Lot 6. Fill material
from the 17.5 acres was needed for filling Lot 6 (10.3 acres) and construction of
the new street. Now, the applicant desires to speculatively clear and grade
16 acres with development of a parking area on only 3 acres of Lot 5 which
requires no fill from the 16 acres requested to be advanced graded. It appears
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0021-A
4
the purpose for grading on Lots 14 and 15 is to fill Lots 6 and lot 7 which do not
have imminent construction.
Staff believes this request is in clear contradiction of the purposes of the Land
Alteration Regulations as found in Section 29-168 which are to: 1.) Prohibit the
indiscriminate clearing of property; 2.) Prevent excessive grading, clearing, filling,
cutting or similar activities; 3.) Preserve natural vegetation which enhances the
quality of life on the community; and 4.) Preserve the contours of the natural
landscape and land forms.
The Land Alteration Regulations defines imminent construction as the installation
of a foundation or erection of a structure without reasonable delay following land
alteration activities. Staff does not believe the construction of a 3 acre parking
area can be considered imminent construction as defined by City code.
With this being the case, staff recommends the denial of the variance request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the request. There was one registered
objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Holloway stated he felt the development had satisfied the requirement of imminent
construction with the development of the area. He stated the developer had
constructed Playtime Pizza and the Jaguar Automobile dealership and these
developments met the requirement of the land alteration ordinance in reverse order. He
stated the site contained a large hold which needed to be filled with excess material
located in the area. He stated the developers were proposing the construction of a
parking lot to serve Playtime Pizza as imminent requirement of the ordinance. He
stated the developers presently had a grading permit to grade a large area to the north
of the proposed parking lot. He stated the development which was approved for this
area did not materialize therefore the grading permit could not be issued. He requested
the Commission grant permission to grade an area north of Playtime Pizza, the area to
the west of Playtime Pizza and an area east of Playtime Pizza with the current variance
request. He stated there was not a great number of trees on these lots. He stated it
was important to grade the lots before the construction of the new street to eliminate the
need to cross the street with cuts and fills. He stated the site was currently a liability to
the owner and the City. He stated once the site was graded the cut areas would be
grassed to add to the appearance.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0021-A
5
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated a
large group of citizens worked to develop the Land Alteration Ordinance to eliminate
speculative grading as proposed by the applicant. She stated the developers were
proposing the construction of a parking lot to be allowed clearing of a larger area. She
stated it appeared the parking lot could be developed with little to no excess material.
She stated it sounded as if the developer had a hole in the ground he wanted to fill
cheaply. She stated the request was not what those working to get the ordinance
adopted envisioned as allowable variance requests.
Mr. Holloway stated the site would be grassed to eliminate any erosion after the
completion of the grading. He stated he felt the developers had complete the
requirements of imminent construction just in reverse order.
The Commission question why the grading could not be done on a lot by lot basis.
Mr. Holloway stated to allow cuts and fills to balance on the site the grading must be
done in one phase. Mr. Holloway stated the completion of the road hinged on the
allowance of grading the site. He stated there were parties interested in developing the
property. The Commission questioned if the developer had persons interested in
developing the property why not do the grading with the building permit.
Chairman Yates informed Mr. Holloway the Commission was down to eight members
present. He stated it was customary for the Commission to allow an applicant the
option of deferral of an item to a later meeting when there were eight or fewer
Commissioners present. Mr. Holloway stated he desired a vote on the item.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed by the applicant. The motion failed
by a vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: LA-0026
NAME: Colonel Glenn Center Lots 17, 18, 22 & 23
Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: SW corner of Remington Rd. & Talley Rd.
APPLICANT: Remington Road LLC
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Pat McGetrick
AREA: Approximately 6 Acres
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase
development where construction is not imminent on all phases of the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to
advance clear and grade property with construction not being imminent on all
phases or lots of the development. The approximately 6 acre property (“the
property”) is located in the Colonel Glenn Center at the southwest corner of
Remington Road and Talley Road The applicant is proposing to grade the entire
site to allow for the development of four separate lots.
The applicant does not intend to grade the property until a building permit has
been issued on one or possibly two of the four lots shown on the plans. The
Land Alteration Regulations specifically state the variances that can be
requested from the regulations. The regulations state a variance for advanced
grading can only be requested in a multi-lot or multiphase development where
construction is not imminent on all phases of the development. This language
applies and has been consistently administered as part of other applications that
construction must be imminent on at least one of the lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 6.15 acre property is zoned O-2Office and Institutional with an OS, Open
Space zoned strip along the southern property line. The property fronts the west
and north side of Talley Road and fronts the south side of Remington Road. The
property to the north is zoned O-3, General Office District and is currently
undeveloped. The property to the south is zoned R-2, Single-family with a
couple of residential structures on large lots. The property to the east is zoned
I-1, Light Industrial District with a single resident on a large lot. The referenced
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0026
2
property is approximately three fourths wooded with no structures located within
it. The property has sidewalk along the north and east property lines.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. 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 subdivision, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted
and approved prior to the start of construction.
2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Detention will be
required to be installed for all lots being graded.
3. 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.
4. Per the Land Alteration Regulations, excavated slopes cannot exceed a
3:1 (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) slope. Lots 18 and 22 exceed this allowance.
Provide a revised grading and drainage plan.
5. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of grading activities.
6. Erosion controls must be installed and maintained to reduce discharge of
polluted stormwater.
D. LANDSCAPE:
1. A grading plan showing the required buffers must be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
2. The site has an OS, Open Space zoned strip located along the southern
perimeter (along the northern boundary of Talley Road). No access or
clearing is allowed within this OS, Open Space zoned strip. Protective
fencing must be put in place and field verified by staff prior to the issuance of
a grading permit
E. ANALYSIS:
The request is to clear and grade approximately 6.15 acres located at the
Colonel Glenn Center. The property will be graded for four separate lots to be
constructed on. A grading permit will not be issued until a building permit has
been issued for one or more of the lots. The OS, Open Space zoned strip along
the southern property line will not be allowed access or clearing, and a protective
fencing must be put in place and field verified by staff prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0026
3
The Land Alteration Regulations (Section 29-186 (b)) specifically states no land
alteration shall be permitted until all necessary city approvals of all plans and
permits, except building permit, have been issued and construction is imminent.
The issuance of a building permit for this site will be sufficient proof of imminent
construction.
F. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the comments found in
paragraphs C and D. Staff believes the issuance of a building permit is sufficient
proof of imminent construction to allow the entire site to be graded.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 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 the
comments found in paragraphs C and D of the agenda staff report. Staff stated they felt
the issuance of a building permit was sufficient proof of imminent construction to allow
the entire site to be graded.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
April 30, 2009
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: LA-0027
NAME: Valley Heights Land Alteration Retaining Wall Variance Request
LOCATION: 6900 Cantrell Road
APPLICANT: Valley Heights Apartments II Limited Partnership
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: David Henry
CURRENT ZONING: R5
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: An appeal request of the corrective action of a
Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2009 requiring removal of the wall or some less
minor modifications to comply with the Land Alteration Regulations. A variance request
to exceed the maximum retaining wall height, maximum slope, and install alternative
landscaping as found in Sec. 29-190 of the Land Alteration Regulations.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting an appeal of the corrective action of a Notice of
Violation dated March 3, 2009 requiring removal of the wall or some less minor
modifications to comply with the Land Alteration Regulations. The applicant is
also requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to exceed the
maximum retaining wall height, maximum slope, and install alternative
landscaping as found in Sec. 29-190. The retaining wall is located on the
southwest corner of Valley Heights Apartments at 6900 Cantrell Road. The
retaining wall was installed during the construction of a new 3 story apartment
building. The certificate of occupancy is being held until the issue is resolved to
the City’s satisfaction.
The retaining wall is out of compliance with the Land Alteration Regulations in the
following way:
1. The wall is a total of 33 feet tall. The maximum allowable height of the entire
terraced wall is 30 feet with 1 to 2 terraces. Each wall cannot exceed 15 feet
in height;
2. The horizontal terrace bench of the wall is about 4.0 feet wide. The minimum
allowable width of the horizontal terrace bench is 10 feet for two (2) 15 foot
retaining walls;
3. Trees are not planted on the horizontal terrace bench of the wall. The Land
Alteration Regulations require 2 rows of evergreen trees to be planted 5 feet
between the rows and each tree staggered 15 feet apart.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The subject property is located on the north side of Cantrell Road just west of N.
Hughes Street. The subject property is zoned R5. R2 zoned properties are
located to the north. C3 zoned properties are located to the west. One of those
properties is the Blackmon Chiropractic Clinic. To the south is Cantrell Road.
Further to the south across Cantrell Road are C3 zoned properties such as Stein
Mart, restaurants, and others. To the east are condominiums and apartments
zoned R5. The retaining wall is only visible from within the property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Certified mail notices were sent by the applicant to neighboring properties as per
ordinance requirements. As of this writing, staff has received various
communications from Dr. Chris Blackmon, an adjacent property owner, stating
concerns pertaining to the stability of the retaining wall. A phone call was also
received from Gary Simmons of the Kingwood Neighborhood Association
requesting a general explanation of the violations and other pertinent information.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Retaining wall design plans prepared by a registered professional engineer
have been provided to staff for review. Provide a letter prepared by a
registered professional engineer certifying the retaining wall as constructed,
not as designed, meets or exceeds necessary safety and stability factors for
walls of this type.
2. The design drawings submitted to civil for review does not appear to match
what was constructed at the site. Submit in written and electronic form an as-
built plan showing:
a. the top and toe of the wall;
b. edge of excavation;
c. edge of clearing;
d. corresponding stationing as shown on the design plans; and
e. the dimensions of the highest course of the geogrid mats for all walls in
the southwest portion of the property.
E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. The site is more than 2 acres in size; therefore, any/all landscape plans
should be stamped by a Registered Landscape Architect from the State of
Arkansas.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027
3
2. Any/all newly planted landscaping must have an automatic irrigation system
installed.
3. Due to the abnormality of the size and structure of the wall landscaping
should included evergreen vegetation growing up the retaining walls, growing
down the retaining walls, and include trees and/or large shrubs on the
benches of the walls; within the limits of the structural capacity. (to be
determined by your landscape architect).
4. Any/all disturbed areas about the wall or below the wall are to be re-
established with vegetation to discourage run-off and/or erosion of the
area(s).
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (April 8, 2009)
Bruce Tidwell of Friday, Eldredge, and Clark and John Johnson of Henry
Construction were present representing the applicant. Staff stated the comments
as written above. Mr. Tidwell asked questions pertaining to the specifics of the
certification and the as-built drawing. Jeff Yates told the applicant’s
representatives to meet with staff and work thru the comments. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
G. ANALYSIS:
About half of the approximately 733 linear feet of retaining wall is out of
compliance with the Land Alteration Regulation in at least two of the items listed
below. The retaining wall is only visible from within the property. At the closest
point, the newly constructed apartment building is located 6 inches from the
retaining wall. Issues have been raised about the stability of the retaining walls.
It is believed the anchoring geogrid mats were not installed at the lengths
specified in the design plans.
The retaining walls are out of compliance with the Land Alteration Regulations in
the following ways:
1. The walls are a total of 33 feet tall. The maximum allowable height of the
entire terraced wall is 30 feet with 1 to 2 terraces. Each wall cannot exceed
15 feet in height;
2. The horizontal terrace bench of the wall is about 4.0 feet wide. The minimum
allowable width of the horizontal terrace bench is 10 feet for two (2) 15 foot
retaining wall;
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027
4
3. Trees are not planted on the horizontal terrace bench of the wall. The Land
Alteration Regulations require 2 rows of evergreen trees to be planted 5 feet
between the rows and each tree staggered 15 feet apart.
The certificate of occupancy is being held until the noncompliance issues are
resolved to the City’s satisfaction.
During staff’s building permit review process, the retaining walls shown on the
grading and drainage plan was reviewed and found to be in conformance with
the Land Alteration Regulations. However, the structural design drawings were
not submitted to staff as required by code.
At some point, the wall design was then modified from the original configuration,
however, plans were not submitted to staff for review. Further along in the
construction process, the design plans were again revised and again not
submitted to staff for review. In summary, a total of three (3) design plans were
prepared for the walls and only the original set of plans were submitted to staff
for review prior to construction.
Staff has received an as-built drawing of the wall prepared by a licensed
surveyor. The wall shows to be constructed about 2.5 feet shorter than shown
on the design plans. The lower wall is about 14.5 feet tall with a horizontal
terrace of about 4 feet wide. The upper wall above the horizontal terrace is about
18.67 ft tall for a length of about 35 feet. The width requirement of the horizontal
terrace is required for aesthetic purposes to provide a flat area for planting
evergreen trees. It is not for structural purposes. The as-built drawing also
showed the anchoring geogrid mats are shorter than shown on the design plans.
Based on the as-built drawing and visual inspection, the registered engineer who
designed the wall submitted to staff a certification of the stability of the wall. He
stated, “The overall upper wall stability meets or exceeds the factors of safety
used in the original design.” He also stated, “The wall should continue to perform
in accordance with the standards or practice adequately over the long term.”
With the certification letter, the engineer also provided engineering analysis
assuming the existing conditions of the wall. The analysis shows the strengths of
the wall are twice the required factor of safety design strengths for sliding and
overturning. The wall also exceeds 10 times the required factor of safety design
strength for bearing capacity. The engineer observed visually the retaining wall
and did not observe an wall face movement which he says would be indicative of
improper geogrid placement.
The retaining wall is only visible from within the property. At the time of writing,
staff has not received a landscape plan but has met with a registered landscape
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027
5
architect and agreed on the landscaping to be provided. Staff will receive the
landscape plan prior to the hearing for confirmation of the provided landscaping.
Currently, the owner of the neighboring property to the southwest (Blackmon
Chiropractic Clinic) and the applicant are in litigation pertaining to the retaining
wall because during construction of the wall, it has been alleged that excavation
occurred on the neighboring property and portions of the wall’s anchoring geogrid
mats are installed on Dr. Blackmon’s property. The trespassing on the
neighboring property is a civil matter which the City is not a party to. As a result
of the lawsuit, if the anchoring geogrid mats are required to be removed the wall
will have to be modified or maybe rebuilt.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has spent considerable time reviewing this application. Staff has several
concerns about this variance. The original building permit plans provided to the
City for approval were modified two (2) separate time after the building permit
was issued and those changes were never resubmitted to staff for review. The
original building permit plans complied with the Land Alteration Regulations. The
two (2) revised plans did not.
Staff is concerned that the engineers and contractor designed and built this wall
not in conformance with the approved building permit plans. It was known the
wall was not in conformance with Land Alteration Regulations but still did not
modify the plans to comply with the regulations; did not bring the noncompliance
issue to the attention of staff; and proceeded to finish the wall and construct the
apartment building just inches away.
Staff has concerns that the as-built drawing does not comply with any of the
three (3) plans prepared by the engineer.
Staff is concerned about the lack of documentation by the contractor during the
construction process for such a huge liability like a large retaining wall built so
close to an apartment building. The documentation of construction of retaining
wall is an industry standard.
Staff is concerned about the lack of planning by the engineer and the contractor
in designing and building a wall with an apparent encroachment onto the
adjacent property.
Staff has concerns about the stability of the wall. While the engineer has
provided an as-built certification that the wall stability exceeds all factors of
safety, his opinion could only be formed by looking at portions of the wall system.
In the engineers words, it would be impossible to look at the entire system
without removal of the wall. If the wall slides, overturns or collapses, human
safety and property damage are at risk.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
April 30, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0027
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 30, 2009, requesting
deferral of the item to the May 28, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral
request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.