pc_07 23 2009sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JULY 23, 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
Troy Laha
Jerry Meyer
William Rector
Billy Rouse
Candice Smith
Chauncey Taylor
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: J. T. Ferstl
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the June11, 2009 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JULY 23, 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-5882-A Saugey Revised Short-form POD, located at 16715
Cantrell Road.
C. Z-6640-A Bailey Revised Short-form POD, located at 1723 North
University Avenue.
D. 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.
E. Z-4807-F Shackleford Farms Long-form POD Time Extension,
located North of Wellington Hills Road and West of the
Villages of Wellington Subdivision.
F. Z-4807-G Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD Time Extension,
located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk
Road.
G. Z-2332-C USA Drug - West Markham and Cedar Streets - Short-
form PD-C, located on the Southeast corner of West
Markham and Cedar Streets.
H. Z-5397-A Promiseland Church Long-form PID, located at 3700
West 65th Street.
I. Z-5442-D James Mitchell School Revised Short-form PCD, located
at 2410 South Battery Street.
Agenda, Page Two
OLD BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
J. Z-7119-A USA Drug - the Ranch - Short-form PD-C, located on the
Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive.
K. Z-8115-A Paul Page Dwellings, LLC Short-form PD-R and PD-R
Revocation for 1422 Townhomes Short-form PD-R,
located on the Northwest corner of East 15th and Rock
Streets.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS/SUBDIVISION:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
1. S-46-JJ Lot 134R Overlook Park Addition Replat, located at
27 Overlook Circle.
2. S-1433-B Foreman Lake Garden Addition Preliminary Plat, located on
the Southwest corner of Leatrice Drive and Alberta Drive.
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
3. S-1632 Pinnacle Ridge at Chenal Subdivision Site Plan Review,
located on the Northeast corner of Chenonceau Boulevard
and Bayonne Drive.
4. S-1633 Covenant Keepers Charter School Subdivision Site Plan
Review, located at 8300 Geyer Springs Road
Agenda, Page Three
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
5. Z-4343-V Parkland Heights Revised Long-form PD-R, located at the
North end of Chenonceau Boulevard.
6. Z-4790-B 9823 Hilaro Springs Road Revised Short-form PD-I, located
at 9823 Hilaro Springs Road.
7. Z-6323-M Lot 7 the Village at Rahling Road Revised Short-form PCD,
located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and
Chenal Parkway.
8. Z-7835-A BCI Short-form PD-O, located at 6500 Mabelvale Pike.
9. Z-7964-A Kanis Creek Lot 10 Revised Short-form PD-R, located at
20 Kanis Creek Place.
10. Z-8470 Ramirez Short-form PCD, located at 3723 West 98th Street.
11. Z-8471 Young Short-form PD-R, located at 712 Ash Street.
12. Z-8472 Mid-Town at Fair Park Long-form PCD and Right of Way
Abandonment for portions of Fillmore Street, Maryland
Avenue, Taylor Street and alleys located within Blocks 3, 4
5 and 6 Perry Heights Addition, located on the Southwest
corner of I-630 and Fair Park Boulevard.
July 23, 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
July 23, 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.
July 23, 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
July 23, 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.
July 23, 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
July 23, 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
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
7
construction of 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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Special Committee, staff and the applicant have met and determined additional
appraisals are necessary to fully review the cost of acquisition of the land and to
determine the total cost of street construction of the roadway segment adjacent to the
applicant’s property. Staff has contacted the appraiser concerning this additional work.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
8
The appraiser is in the process of preparing a cost and a scope of work to complete the
task. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the July 23, 2009, public hearing to
allow the contract to be executed with the appraiser and to allow time for the appraiser
to complete the scope of work. After completion of the scope of work the Special
Committee, staff and the applicant will meet to review the final numbers and possibly
reach an agreement for the future street construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the Special Committee, staff and the applicant had met and
determined additional appraisals were necessary to fully review the cost of acquisition
of the land and to determine the total cost of street construction of the roadway segment
adjacent to the applicant’s property. Staff stated they had contacted an appraiser
concerning the additional work. Staff stated the appraiser was in the process of
preparing a cost and a scope of work to complete the task. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the July 23, 2009, public hearing to allow the
contract to be executed with the appraiser and to allow time for the appraiser to
complete the scope of work. Staff stated after completion of the scope of work the
Special Committee, staff and the applicant would meet to review the final numbers and
possibly reach an agreement for the future street construction.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
As previously stated a Subcommittee was appointed by the Planning Commission to
work with staff and the applicant to reach an outcome acceptable to all parties. The
Subcommittee believed the construction of half of a street adjacent to Valley Falls
Estates would not serve a purpose since it would extend to the north property line of
Valley Falls Estates and then end. The street would not be used and would not improve
access because it did not connect into Taylor Loop Road and neither Valley Falls
Estates nor the properties to the east take access. It is believed this portion of street
would be used for dumping and other undesirable activities.
The Subcommittee believed it was important to take steps to assure LaMarche Drive is
continued to Taylor Loop Road to allow a secondary access to the residential
subdivisions along LaMarche Drive. The Subcommittee desired to avoid the possibility
of the discontinuance of LaMarche Drive to Taylor Loop Road similar to Evergreen
Drive to Reservoir Road west of Mississippi Avenue.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
9
During the process, it was learned the applicant owns properties north of Valley Falls
Estates to Taylor Loop Road in addition to Valley Falls Estates. Considering this
ownership, the Subcommittee examined moving the entire 60 feet right-of-way for the
future street west of the Valley Falls Estates east property line and continuing it north to
Taylor Loop Road. To expand on this idea, staff was asked to appraise the value of
properties within the area 60 feet west of the Valley Falls Estates east property line and
continuing north to Taylor Loop Road referred to as the west 60 feet. This did not
include the 30 feet of right-of-way adjacent to Valley Falls Estates east property that the
applicant is required to dedicate as a condition of the preliminary platting of the
subdivision. Staff was also asked to appraise the value of properties within an area 30
feet east of the Valley Falls Estates east property line and continuing north to Taylor
Loop Road referred to as the east 30 feet. The total distance from the existing
LaMarche Drive to Taylor Loop Road is approximately 2300 ft.
The appraised value of the west 60 feet properties except for the 30 ft right-of-way
adjacent to Valley Falls Estates that is required to be dedicated was $177,000. The
appraised value of the east 30 feet properties was $252,000. The construction of the
western half of LaMarche Drive in its current alignment as required by Ordinance
#18,299 was estimated by the applicant’s engineer to cost $155,000.
The west 60 feet area would be the location of the right-of-way of the future LaMarche
Drive from the existing constructed LaMarche Drive to Taylor Loop Road. The east 30
feet area consists of existing single family zoned properties which are not believed to be
redeveloped or rezoned anytime in the future. These properties today take access from
Carter Lane. With this in mind, the east 30 feet area would probably be required to be
purchased by the City of Little Rock before LaMarche Drive could be constructed to
Taylor Loop Road. This would include purchasing the properties along with three (3)
residential structures and encroaching onto other existing residential structures.
Following are the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the current alignment
of the LaMarche Drive right-of-way and advantages and disadvantages of moving the
right-of-way 60 feet to the west as prepared by the Planning Commission
Subcommittee:
Completion of LaMarche Drive from its current northern terminus to Taylor Loop
Road.
Current situation:
Valley Falls Estates (VFE) developer is obligated to construct the west ½ of
LaMarche Drive from its current north terminus to the north line of the VFE
development.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
10
• Advantages to City: ½ of road constructed at no cost to City
• Advantages to developer: None (VFE will not access LaMarche Drive)
• Advantages to neighbors: None
• Disadvantages to City:
o Only ½ of road built and it would lead to a dead end
o Typical City experience is that this dead end ½ street will attract
undesirable activity (loitering, loud noises) causing complaints from
neighbors.
o Constructed ½ street will likely not be maintained and will deteriorate
awaiting construction of the rest of LaMarche Drive between current
north terminus and Taylor Loop.
o It is unlikely that the ROW for east ½ will be dedicated any time in the
foreseeable future since the property adjacent on the east is likely to
continue to be used as large tract single-family.
o ROW for LaMarche Drive north of Valley Falls Estates is also not
currently dedicated. The west ½ may be dedicated in the reasonably
near term future as it is on property owned by the VFE developer who
is holding it for future development. The east ½ of this portion is as
unlikely to be developed as the large tract single-family land to the
south.
o ROW for east ½ for the entire length will have to be condemned
o The condemnation process will likely be drawn out and expensive both
in terms of money (for acquisition and legal costs) and staff resources
• Disadvantages to Developer:
o Same problems as other neighbors cited above
o Cost of construction
• Disadvantages to neighbors:
o Suffer condemnation of part of their property against their will
o Costs to prosecute legal action
o Street constructed closer to houses
o Certain improvements (guesthouse, pool, etc) will be destroyed
o Property devalued as a result of all of above
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
11
Proposal crafted by the Committee and developer:
• Valley Falls Developer would dedicate the entire ROW (both halves) for
LaMarche Drive between its present northern terminus and Taylor Loop
Road. City will construct LaMarche Drive as resources become available.
• If Developer elects to develop his property between VFE and Taylor Loop
prior to construction of LaMarche Drive by City, Developer will still be
obligated for the cost of developing ½ of LaMarche Drive north of VFE.
• Advantages to City:
o City would be in control of the entire ROW needed to construct
LaMarche Drive to connect it from its current north terminus and Taylor
Loop Road.
o ROW would be obtained at no cost to the City
o There would be no need to acquire property for the east ½ of the
ROW, thus avoiding a likely messy and expensive condemnation
process
o City will not be forced to police a likely loitering spot
o Street improvements will not be constructed until the total project can
be accomplished and maintained
• Advantages to Developer:
o No construction expense unless developer elects to develop the northern
tract prior to the construction of LaMarche Drive by the City
o No loitering spot behind VFE
• Advantages to neighbors:
o No condemnation of part of their property
o No destruction of guesthouses, pools, etc
o No loitering behind their houses
The Subcommittee believes the applicant dedicating 60 feet of right-of-way from
the existing LaMarche Drive to Taylor Loop Road in exchange for not being
required to construct one half of LaMarche Drive adjacent to Valley Falls Estates
would be advantageous to all interested parties. The Subcommittee believes
when funds are available, LaMarche Drive can be constructed by the City. The
Subcommittee also believes if development occurs on properties adjacent to the
60 feet right-of-way except the platting of future lots within the existing Valley
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
12
Falls Estates Subdivision prior to the City constructing LaMarche Drive, those
developments or property owners will be required to construct one half of
LaMarche Drive adjacent to their property as required by the Boundary Street
Ordinance.
Staff and the Planning Commission Subcommittee recommends the applicant,
Mr. Rick Ferguson and/or Valley Falls Estates Subdivision to dedicate a 60 foot
wide right-of-way to the City from the existing LaMarche Drive to Taylor Loop
Road and the City will no longer require one half of LaMarche Drive on the east
property line of Valley Falls Estates to be constructed by Mr. Ferguson and/or
Valley Falls Estates Subdivision as required by the City approval of the Valley
Falls Estates Subdivision preliminary plat. Staff and the Subcommittee also
recommends if development occurs on properties adjacent to the 60 foot right-of-
way except the platting of future lots within the existing Valley Falls Estates
Subdivision prior to the City constructing LaMarche Drive, those developments or
property owners will be required to construct one half of LaMarche Drive adjacent
to their property as required by the Boundary Street Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Mr. Hal Kemp, Attorney of Law, were present
representing the owner. There were no registered objectors present. Staff introduced
the item. Chairman Taylor then called upon Vice-Chairman Jeff Yates to provide a
Subcommittee Report and the Special Committee’s recommendation for the LaMarche
Drive Extension. Vice-Chairman Yates stated the Committee was appointed by
Chairman Taylor to review alternatives for building the Boundary Street Ordinance
requirement along the eastern boundary of the Valley Falls Estates Subdivision and
provide a recommendation to the full Commission. He stated Valley Falls Estates had
applied for a five year deferral of the Master Street Plan Improvements required under
the Boundary Street Ordinance that applied to a 2000 approval of the preliminary plat
for Valley Falls Estates. He stated the street construction would not result in a full width
street or a connection to Taylor Loop Road. He stated the right of way necessary for a
full width street would have to come from residences that face Carter Lane.
Vice-Chairman Yates stated ordinary application of the Boundary Street Ordinance
would likely result in a half street being built half-way to Taylor Loop Road and no
additional street construction for some time. He stated it would also result in the high
probability that the City would have to condemn thirty feet of property from homes along
Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road. He stated in the right of way needed from this area
were two houses, one pool house and several other home improvements.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
13
Vice-Chairman Yates stated the Special Committee had a series of meetings with
Public Works, Planning and Development, the owner and his representatives. He
stated during the review process it was determined the applicant was the owner of
property located to the north of the current Valley Falls Estates Subdivision which would
allow the extension of LaMarche Drive from the current terminus to Taylor Loop Road.
Vice-Chairman Yates stated at the request of the Special Committee and concurrent
with the meetings, staff obtained appraisals of values for property consisting of the full
right of way coming from the property owned by the Applicant and of property necessary
from adjoining Carter Lane property owners to the east necessary under ordinary
application of the Boundary Street Ordinance. Vice-Chairman Yates stated the
appraisal amounts were $177,000 for right of way from the applicant and $252,000 for
right of way from Cater Lane property owners.
Vice-Chairman Yates stated the negotiated solution proposed by the Special Committee
was that the applicant would dedicated a sixty foot right of way the full length of the
applicant’s south ownership and the full length of the north ownership resulting in the
right of way provided to the City would be the full width necessary to construct
LaMarche Drive to a collector street standard from the current terminus to Taylor Loop
Road.
Vice-Chairman Yates stated as part of the negotiated solution, the current subdivision
would be exempt from half-street improvements required under the Boundary Street
Ordinance. He stated all other properties bordering LaMarche Drive would continue to
be subject to the Boundary Street Ordinance requirements for street construction but
not right of way dedication.
Vice-Chairman Yates stated the solution proposed by the Special Committee provided
the following:
• Guarantees the right of way necessary for LaMarche Drive
• Saves the City from condemnation and eminent domain proceedings for homes
on Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road
• Increased the likelihood that LaMarche Drive would be constructed to full width
and avoided the possibility of another situation like the west terminus of
Evergreen Drive
• Created much increased likelihood that LaMarche Drive would be built in the
near future instead of distant future or not at all and
• Saved the City the cost of purchasing the Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road
properties and the additional cost of eminent domain law suits likely resulting
from the Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road acquisitions
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
14
Vice-Chairman Yates stated the Special Committee recommended the negotiated
solution because it was good for the City, good for the citizens of the City, good for the
residents of Carter Land and agreeable to the applicant.
Commissioner Rector read into the record five agreed upon points between the Special
Committee and the property owner. The points are as follows:
1. Ferguson and VFE, Inc. (the property owner) agree to donate 60 feet of
right of way for the LaMarche Drive Extension across the VFE Tract and
across the North Tract.
2. The City forever releases VFE, Inc. from the requirement to construct
half street improvements on the VFE Tract.
3. The City, at its expense and at its sole discretion, agrees to build the
LaMarche Drive Extension from Taylor Loop through the North Tract and
the VFE Tract to its intersection with LaMarche Drive as presently
constructed, subject to Items 4 and 5 below.
4. With regard to the North Tract, Mr. Ferguson agrees that if he or
his successor in title to the North Tract seeks to develop the North Tract
before the City has actually built the LaMarche Extension through the
North Tract, then the Developer of the North Tract shall, at its sole
expense, build that portion of the half street improvements on the North
Tract not then constructed and thereby relieve the City from so doing. It is
recognized by all parties that the Developer may seek to negotiate to build
some portion of the full street improvements rather than entire ½ street.
5. Assuming that a final plat of Valley Falls Estates submitted to the City
complies with all of the City requirements other than the construction of
the LaMarche Extension, the City agrees to approve such final plat, even
though the LaMarche Extension improvements may not have been
constructed by the City at the time of such final plat approval.
Commissioner Rector questioned staff as to their position on the request. Staff stated
they felt the agreement was a workable agreement and they were in support of the
Special Committee’s recommendation.
Chairman Taylor called Mr. Kemp to the podium to provide any additional information.
Mr. Kemp stated his client endorsed the agreement. He stated he felt the Special
Committee had provided an innovative approach and he commended the Special
Committee and the Commission and felt this solution should be used in the future to
reach resolution to conflict.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1280-M
15
Mr. John Burnett addressed the Commission in support. He stated he owned property
on Carter Lane and he and the other property owners were in full support of the Special
Committee’s recommendation.
Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission. He stated he represented the Chenal Valley
Multi-purpose Special Improvement District #14. He stated the goal of the District was
for LaMarche Drive to be extended northward to connect with Taylor Loop Road. He
stated prior to the Improvement District constructing their last section of LaMarche Drive
to the current terminus he had contacted Public Works staff to determine what triggers
were in place for extending LaMarche Drive further northward. Mr. Spivey stated he felt
the Special Committee’s recommendation and the developer’s willingness to work with
the City was the kind of cooperation needed to find solutions which were fair and
equitable. He thanked the Special Committee for their work and stated this was how
things should to work between the City and developers.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the Special Committee’s recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: B 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,
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated May 27, 2009, requesting a deferral of this
item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 27, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has requested this item be deferred one additional time to allow the
applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options concerning the site plan and
the various options for redevelopment of the site. The applicant also failed to mail the
required notification of the date and time for the public hearing. Based on the
applicant’s request for additional time and the lack of notification, staff recommends this
item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested the item be deferred one
additional time to allow the applicant, her attorney and staff to meet to discuss options
concerning the site plan and the various options for redevelopment of the site. Staff
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5882-A
3
stated the applicant also had not provided notification as required by the Commission’s
By-laws. Staff stated based on the applicant’s request for additional time and the lack
of notification, staff recommended the item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public
hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: C 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
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.”
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (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
STAFF UPDATE:
Mr. Gary Smith of Flake and Kelly Commercial contacted staff stating there were
interested parties concerning leasing the property. Staff requested Mr. Smith provide
staff something in writing outlining the proposed uses and lease agreements. The
applicant has not provided staff with the written information.
Staff continues to not support the request. The original approval allowed for Ms. Bailey
to operate her business from the site and she made a commitment to the neighborhood,
the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors that when she no longer utilized
the site for her business the site would return to a residential use. Staff feels this is a
viable corner for residential. There are a number of homes located on Cantrell Road in
this area, which do not appear to have been impacted by the traffic on this adjacent
arterial street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated July 20, 2009,
requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration 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. The chair entertained a motion for a waiver
of the 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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: D 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:
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up.
Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the
approved PCD.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension.
Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners
representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item.
The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to
allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He
stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there
were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for
an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option
this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to
discuss and vote on the item.
Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a
number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to
see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow
these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue
regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks.
He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous
Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the
previously approved PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner
Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the
applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an
item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two
Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently
eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to
pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A
9
allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and
vote on the item.
The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at
the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: E 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:
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (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
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
7
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up.
Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the
approved POD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension.
Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners
representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item.
The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to
allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He
stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F
8
were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for
an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option
this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to
discuss and vote on the item.
Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a
number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to
see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow
these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue
regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks.
He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous
Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the
previously approved POD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner
Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the
applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an
item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two
Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently
eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to
pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would
allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and
vote on the item.
The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at
the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: F 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:
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
7
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant’s
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in-lieu of the applicant’s request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the June 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer’s ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up.
Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the
approved PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension.
Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners
representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G
8
The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to
allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He
stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there
were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for
an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option
this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to
discuss and vote on the item.
Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a
number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to
see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow
these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue
regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks.
He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous
Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the
previously approved PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner
Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the
applicant to the podium stating the Commission’s practice was to allow a deferral of an
item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two
Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently
eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to
pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would
allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and
vote on the item.
The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at
the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-2332-C
NAME: USA Drug - West Markham and Cedar Streets - Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of West Markham and Cedar Streets
DEVELOPER:
USA Drug
2100 Brookwood Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.63 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Drug Store - Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Drug Store
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant requested, on May 26, 2009, this item be deferred to the July 23, 2009
public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 26, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2332-C
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The current owners, Springfield Holdings, LLC, have requested this item be withdrawn
from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The owner was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the current owners, Springfield Holdings, LLC, had requested
the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
NAME: Promiseland Church Long-form PID
LOCATION: Located at 3700 West 65th Street
DEVELOPER:
Promiseland Community Development Corporation
8923 Sunset Lane
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
Marlar Engineering
5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
ARCHITECT:
Terry Burruss Architects
614 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 10.004 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial
ALLOWED USES: Indoor Industrial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: I-2 Uses and a Church
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a request to allow a reduced side yard
setback to allow construction of a loading dock for this site at their January 28, 1991,
public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at 3700 West 65th Street contains a large industrial building
with multiple tenants. The facility contains 155,000 square feet. The Community
Development Corporation is leasing 21,263 square feet of the larger building to
operate a child development center (daycare, after school care and summer
camp) and house the CDC offices. The CDC intends to sub-lease the
multi-purpose room to Promiseland Church as a temporary use. The church will
meet in the Multi-purpose room primarily on Wednesdays fromr 7:00 to 9:00 pm
and Sunday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. The temporary use by the church is to
allow the church time to find a permanent location. The remaining
133,737 square feet will remain leased to the current tenants.
The Community Development Corporation will also lease the Multi-purpose
Room for other activities such as reunions and receptions to generate additional
revenue.
The site is presently zoned I-2, Light Industrial District which does not allow a
church as an allowable use. The rezoning to PID would maintain the existing I-2,
Light Industrial Uses while adding a church as an allowable use.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a large industrial building with multiple tenants. A portion of the
building is leased to a heating and air-conditioning distributor. The area is
primarily industrial uses. The Rice Depot is located to the south, across West
65th Street and to the west across Scott Hamilton are a fueling center and a
commercial business. East of the site is Penske Truck Rental. West 65th Street
is constructed as a four-lane street with a center turn lane at major intersections.
There is a traffic signal located at the intersection of Scott Hamilton and West
65th Street.
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 of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock
United for Progress and the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association were
notified of the public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. West 65th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. The
centerline of West 65th Street is not provided. Applicability to this code cannot
be verified.
2. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
West 65th Street and Scott Hamilton Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #16 – the 65th Street Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street East Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Industrial for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning for a long form Planned Industrial Development to add a
church as an allowable use for the site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: West 65th Street is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial
provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is
to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Scott Hamilton Road
is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
4
connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Entrances and exits should be limited
to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on these streets. 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 Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Plan, but it does not address this issue.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. All existing landscaping and fencing should be in good condition or
replaced/repaired in conjunction with this application.
3. Any newly paved surfaces areas must be landscaped per City code.
4. If the rehabilitation costs exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost
of the building then the landscaping on the site must be brought into
compliancy accordingly.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 21, 2009)
Mr. Terry Burruss was present representing the request. Staff presented a
summary of the request stating there were few outstanding technical issues
associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting
on the request. Staff requested Mr. Burruss provide the total square footage
proposed for each of the uses. Staff also requested Mr. Burruss provide the
anticipated seating capacity of the church.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
was required on West 65th Street and Scott Hamilton Drive and a right of way
dedication of 45-feet from centerline was required on West 65th Street per the
Master Street Plan.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all existing landscaping
and fencing was required to be in good condition or replaced/repaired in
conjunction with the current request. Staff stated any new paved areas were
required to be landscaped per City code. Staff also stated if the rehabilitation
cost exceeded fifty percent of the replacement cost of the building then the
landscaping on the site was to be brought into compliance accordingly.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
5
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 to staff addressing the issues
raised at the May 21, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The proposal is to
rezone the site from I-2, Light Industrial District to PID to add a church as an
allowable use for the property.
The total square footage for each of the uses of the building is as follows:
a. Community Development Corporation – 21,263 sf (office space, child
development center, daycare, after school care, summer camp and
church)
b. Office/Warehouse – 37,500 sf
c. Office/Warehouse 81,040 sf (Carrier)
d. Office/Warehouse – 27,000 sf
The total seating capacity of the church is 400. There are currently
250 members. The church services will be from 7:00 to 9:00 pm and Sunday
from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.
Parking for a church is based on one (1) parking spaces per ever four seats in
new principal assembly areas or additions to currently existing structures. Based
on the proposed membership 100 parking spaces would be required to serve the
church use. The site contains ample parking to support the proposed use.
The request includes the allowance of the CDC’s Multi-purpose room for other
activities such as reunions and receptions to generate additional revenue. Staff
is not supportive of the “event center” aspect of the request. The applicant has
not provided staff with details of the proposed uses, the hours of operation or the
activities taking place related to the event center. Based on the lack of
information staff can not support the request.
The building and parking exist. There is no increase in building size or increase
in parking area. The rehabilitation cost is anticipated to range from six to eight
percent of the current sites building value.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
6
Staff is not supportive of the request as filed. Staff feels the rezoning to add a
church as an allowable use for the site is acceptable. Staff does not however
support the allowance of rezoning the site to allow other event center type
activities without the applicant providing details on the these activities including
proposed hours of operation and the activities that will be taking place being
better defined.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating there were legal issues which had arisen and in need of
addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff requested the item be
deferred to the July 23, 2009, public hearing.
Commissioner Yates called Pastor Antoine Scruggs to the podium to inform the Pastor
as to the need for the deferral. Staff stated there was a City ordinance which did not
allow the sale of light wine and beer near a church. Staff stated there was not a clause
in the ordinance which allowed grandfathering. Staff stated there was an existing
convenience store located within the specified distance of the proposed church location.
Staff stated there were a number of legal issues which had been raised for
consideration and needed addressing prior to the Commission moving forward. Pastor
Scruggs requested staff keep him informed as to the progress of the 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 to the July 25, 2009, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has reviewed the distance between the location of the unmanned fuel center which
previously was the location of a convenience store and the proposed church. The
distance between these two uses exceeds the distance noted in Chapter 4 of the City
Code. Section 4-93 states it shall be unlawful to sell beer or light wines within three
hundred (300) feet of any church in the residential section of the City. The residential
section of the City is defined as any part that is outside of the fire zone. The business
section of the City is that part of the City within the fire zone. The distance is measured
from the nearest point of the church or school to the nearest point of the building or
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5397-A
7
place where beer or light wine is sold. The property is not located within the defined fire
zone of the City.
To staff’s knowledge there are no additional outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff recommends approval of the request as noted in the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
they had reviewed the distance between the location of the unmanned fuel center,
which was previously the location of a convenience store, and the proposed church.
Staff stated the distance between the two uses exceeded the distance noted in
Chapter 4 of the City Code Section 4-93 which states “it shall be unlawful to sell beer
or light wines within three hundred (300) feet of any church in the residential section of
the City. The residential section of the City is defined as any part that is outside of the
fire zone. The business section of the City is that part of the City within the fire zone.
The distance is measured from the nearest point of the church or school to the nearest
point of the building or place where beer or light wine is sold.” Staff stated the property
was not located within the defined fire zone of the City.
Staff stated to their knowledge there are no additional outstanding issues associated
with the request. Staff stated the applicant had provided them with a letter outlining the
proposed activities to take place at the “events center” and committing no alcoholic
beverages would be served, sold, or brought into the property. Staff stated the uses
included functions related to existing ministries programs, as well as outside functions.
Staff stated these outside functions included seminars, training sessions, and
mini-conventions. Staff stated the space may also be utilized for weddings and
funerals. Staff stated all events must end by 10:00 pm. Staff stated a church board
member was to be present at all activities that were not church sponsored or church
related activities.
Staff stated the letter of commitment provided by the applicant that defined the uses to
occur at the “events center” addresses staff previously raised concerns. Staff stated
they were now supportive of the request subject to compliance with the comment 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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
NAME: James Mitchell School Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 2410 South Battery Street
DEVELOPER:
Mitchell Elementary LLC
Dr. George T. Blevins, Jr.
1704 West 19th Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
SURVEYOR:
Global Surveying Consultants, Inc.
217 West 2nd Street, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72201
ARCHITECT:
Kwendeche, AIA
2124 Rice Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 2.502 + acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development – Residential, Office, Commercial, Public
Quasi Public Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Charter School – Gymnasium Wellness Center – Office Warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The overall property located at 2410 S. Battery Street is divided into three basic areas:
1) the Main Building – the original structure built in 1908 with approximately
35,000 square feet including an attached addition, called the Annex; 2) a one story
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
2
classroom addition with approximately 3,800 square feet; and 3) a single detached
classroom building, built in 1970s with approximately 1,000 square feet all totaling
approximately 39,800 square feet. The property was zoned R-4, Two-family District
with a Conditional Use Permit to allow a school.
Ordinance No. 20,004 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2008,
established the James Mitchell School Short-form PCD. The approval established uses
for the site requiring a number of the uses to be reviewed through a revision to the PCD
prior to the use locating on the site. The uses which were allowed without a public
review were the public-quasi public type uses such as the pre-K-12 educational/day
care – supplemental educational services, Saturday academy, summer program,
pre-K program and/or day care, meeting space for the Wright Avenue Neighborhood
Association. The approval also allowed the owner to operate warehouse space for
storage of merchandise for his internet distribution business. There was to be no
walk-in customer traffic because the business involved internet sales only.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The proposed development activities include a charter school in the main
33,000 square foot building of the former Mitchell Elementary School. The
charter school is proposed with 550 students grades 6, 7 and 8 with 48 staff
members utilizing 21 classrooms in the main 33,000 square foot building,
5 classrooms in the two existing outer buildings and 4 classrooms in the new
gymnasium building. The normal hours of operation of the charter school are
from 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. There will also be special programs
from time to time such as open house, recitals or other school functions, which
may be scheduled during the evening or weekend hours.
The charter school will require a kitchen and cafeteria, which are both present in
the basement of the annex. The school will also add a new gymnasium to
function as the primary physical education (PE) venue in lieu of an outdoor
playground. The new gymnasium is proposed for construction in the southwest
segment of the property.
The developers are requesting a variance for stacking spaces as shown on the
Traffic Study. The developers request that the charter school be allowed to use
the area directly in front of the school on 24th Street as a stacking space, as there
are no houses fronting on this street within this block. There is precedent for this
use in that during the time the property functioned as a public school, 24th Street
served as the stacking space for buses and pickup and drop-off.
The charter school will have few if any buses dropping off and picking up
students. This will avoid the traffic backups, caused during the time this property
was a public school, which were due to the large size of the buses and their long
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
3
waiting periods. Additional stacking spaces are proposed, one way streets, and
drop off zones are also indicated on the traffic study.
During the renovation of the historic main structure and annex, it is the intention
of the developer to create an energy conscious, green facility meeting the criteria
for the USGBC LEED certification.
In recognition of the charter school’s need to include physical education in the
curriculum, during Phase 2, the developer will build a two story building,
approximately 35,000 square feet on the southwest segment of the current site to
accommodate the basic physical education needs of the middle school level
charter school facility. The charter school’s gym will include indoor and rooftop
activity space, including an indoor regulation sized basketball court, multi-use
with expanding bleachers for school assemblies; aerobics; paddle ball; volley
ball; and community functions, locker and shower facilities; administrative office
space; and a green roof or eco-roof for energy consciousness advantages as
well as an external laboratory for academic projects. During off hours, the
gymnasium facility may also be used as meeting/event rental space. The new
gymnasium facility will be linked by a covered walkway to the main school
building.
Within the new building, during Phase 3 there will be a dedicated area created for
use as a Wellness Center, a unique venue to serve the residents of the Wright
Avenue Neighborhood and nearby communities, offering basic stationary
exercise machines; free weights; and a juice bar. The Wellness Center and the
Charter School Gym will have separate, accessible toilet facilities. The Wellness
Center will have a central reception/check-in counter.
Due to the sloping site, the main level of the gym will be built above parking
spaces accessible from the west entry at Summit Avenue. On that level, an
elevator lobby; receptionist, and other support facilities will occur to
accommodate visitor parking in the paved parking area as well as walk up
visitors from the surrounding neighborhood. Public and service access to the
new facility will be from Summit Avenue on the west and during Phase 2 a new
vehicular drive will be created from the existing loading dock area on the Battery
Street side to an existing parking area. The new facility will be pedestrian
friendly, offering walk-up access points around the perimeter of the building.
The overall site will accommodate 86 off-street parking spaces. The developers
are negotiating with Gospel Temple Baptist Church which lies on the northeast
corner of Roosevelt Road and Battery Street, for the use of their 48 space
parking lot as additional off-street parking.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
4
The new facility will embody a similar architectural character to compliment the
original school building, including the use of patterned brick veneer, precast
concrete accents, and a large accentuated window openings. The developer
intends to create an energy conscious, green facility following the criteria for
USGBC LEED certification. Given the need to serve as a dual purpose facility for
the charter school as well as the overall community, the Gym and Wellness
Center will be operated on a full time basis, seven days per week from 6 am to
9 pm Monday through Friday, 7 am to 6 pm Saturday and noon – 6 pm on
Sunday. The Wellness Center will have a maximum of three full time paid staff
persons on duty at any time.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a former elementary school campus. The area is predominately
residential with a scattering of commercial and office uses located along
Roosevelt Road. To the east is a property zoned PCD which was approved for a
daycare facility. To the west along Roosevelt Road is a property zoned C-3,
General Commercial District which is presently vacant.
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, the Downtown Neighborhood
Association, the MLK Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center, the Southend
Coalition, the South End Neighborhood Association and the Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersections of
Roosevelt Road/South Summit Avenue; South Summit Avenue/West 24th
Street; West 24th Street/South Battery Street; and South Battery
Street/Roosevelt Road.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Much of the sidewalk is in need of
repair due to cracking, shifting, or removal.
3. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
South Battery Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of the
pavement.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
5
4. Obtain permits for improvements (Roosevelt Road) within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD, District VI.
5. Develop plans for pick-up and drop-off and a traffic study showing pick-up
and drop-off of students, which includes the projected number of students at
capacity. Contact Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 379-1816 if you have
any questions or desire additional information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Due to the nature of this
facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must
be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires
that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be
completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and
approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection
Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross
Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention
requirements for this project. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire
protection or metered water service is required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has
applied for revised Short-form Planned Commercial Development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
6
Master Street Plan: Roosevelt Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
Roosevelt Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Battery 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 shown in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area
covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average fifteen foot (15’) wide street
buffer along South Battery Street and along South Summit Avenue and at no
point to be less than half.
3. The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot (9’) wide landscape strip
around the sites entirety. The site is located within the Designated Mature
Area of the City, which allows the landscape strip to be reduced to six feet
nine inches (6’9”). Per City ordinance staff can reduce this requirement by
twenty-five percent (25%) or 6.75’. A variance for any lesser amount must be
obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one-half
feet (7 ½’) in width and 150 square feet in area.
5. A small amount of building landscaping will be required in conjunction of this
request.
6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
7. 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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
7
8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 21, 2009)
Kwendeche was present representing the request. Staff presented the item
stating the request was to allow a Charter School, construction of a gymnasium
and the addition of a media outlet on the site. Staff stated there were a number
of issues in need of addressing related to the site plan and the proposed use of
the public streets for stacking and drop-off. Staff suggested the applicant contact
Bill Henry of Traffic Engineering to assist in the development of a traffic analysis
study for the site.
Staff questioned the activities to take place on the site. The applicant stated the
use of the property would be for a charter school and the owners
office/warehouse business. The applicant stated in a later phase a wellness
center or fitness center would be added as a use to the gymnasium. The
applicant stated the wellness center would be offered to the area residents
through a membership charged to allow use of the equipment. He stated the
center activities would be separate from the charter school.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated radial dedications were
required at the intersections of the abutting streets. Staff stated dedications of
right of way were required for all abutting streets per the Master Street Plan.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated street buffers were
required along the perimeters of the site. Staff stated a small amount of building
landscaping would be required with the redevelopment of the site. Staff stated
an automatic irrigation system would be required to water any new landscaped
areas. Staff also stated any new paved areas would require landscaping per the
Landscape Ordinance.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site drawing to staff
addressing the issues raised at the May 21, 2009, Subdivision Committee
meeting. Public Works staff has worked with the applicant to prepare a traffic
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
8
analysis which staff feels is a workable solution to stacking, pick-up and drop-off
for the charter school. This will be accomplished by converting South Summit
Avenue and West 24th Street to one-way streets with South Summit Avenue
flowing north from Roosevelt Road and West 24th Street flowing east from South
Summit Avenue. South Battery Street will be widened to allow stacking, drop-off
and pick-up for special needs students, staff and visitors. All day street parking
will be allowed on South Summit Avenue and West 24th Street.
The site is proposed as a charter school serving grades 6 – 8. The parking
requirement for a school is based on teacher population, students and
administrators. The ordinance typically requires grades 1—8 to provide
1.0 space per classroom plus 1.0 space for each teacher, employee and
administrator on the largest shift. The school is proposed with 21 classrooms
and 48 staff members. The parking typically required for a school of this size is
69 parking spaces. The site plan indicates 86 on-site parking spaces.
In addition to the charter school, the developers are requesting to utilize the site
for the owners office/warehouse (internet sales only) use. The use has
two employees who access the site periodically to fill orders for shipment by
FedEx or UPS. The area of the office/warehouse is 1,000 square feet. Based on
the typical parking required for an office development two parking spaces would
typically be required.
The applicant is also proposing to use the gymnasium as a wellness center or
health studio or spa as defined by the City of Little Rock’s ordinances. The
parking typically required for this type use is based on the minimum parking
requirements for a commercial use or one space per 300 square feet of gross
square feet space. The wellness center is proposed within the gymnasium
serving the charter school. The floor area proposed for the wellness center has
not been provided to staff therefore staff cannot make a determination if the
parking proposed is adequate to serve this use in addition to the other
two additional uses.
The site plan has not indicated signage. Staff recommends signage be limited to
signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four
square feet in area. Building signage should also be limited to a maximum of ten
percent of the façade area abutting a public street.
The development is proposed in multiple phases with the charter school in the
first phase and construction of the new gymnasium in the second phase. The
addition of the wellness center is proposed in the third phase. Phase II is
proposed to begin construction in the near future due to school’s need to provide
physical educational opportunities for the students.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
9
Staff feels the school as proposed and the traffic impact study prepared for the
site will allow the use of the property in a manner, which will not significantly
impact the neighborhood. The site has functioned as a school for a number of
years with minimal impact on the neighborhood. A school was a use identified as
an allowable use in the original PCD. Staff has concerns with the proposed
wellness center (a commercial physical fitness center) being a part of the
approval. Staff feels the wellness center should not be a part of the current
approval for the school and should be reviewed at the time to owner intends to
add the use to the site. According to the applicant’s cover letter the wellness
center is not proposed until Phase III. Staff’s concerns are related to traffic flows
within and around the site for the school activity and how the addition of the
commercial activity will affect these flows. Staff feels at the time the wellness
center is more of a reality the use should be reviewed for appropriateness and to
determine if the site can handle the additional traffic for the commercial use.
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 wellness center not be a part of the current approval and
be reviewed at the time the owner desires to place the use on the property to
determine if the use is appropriate and if the site can handle the addition of the
commercial use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 27, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
additional time was necessary to address concerns raised at the May 21, 2009,
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5442-D
10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had amended the request to comply with the
staff write-up in the agenda by removing the wellness center from the current
application request. Staff stated the applicant had indicated at the time the use was
proposed the owner would bring the wellness center aspect of the development back
through the review process to determine at that time if the use was appropriate and if
the site could handle the additional traffic generated from the commercial use. Staff
stated they were now supportive of the request. Staff presented a recommendation of
approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as
outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
NAME: USA Drug - the Ranch - Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive
DEVELOPER:
USA Drug
2100 Brookhaven Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
SURVEYOR:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-O
ALLOWED USES: Bank
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Drug Store – C-2 uses as alternative uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,635 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5,
2002, rezoned the site from C-2, Shopping Center District to PD-O. The site contained
1.67-acres and was approved to allow the construction of a bank. A common access
easement and drive shown on the northern and eastern boundaries of the lot allowed
access to the site. The access easements were proposed as right-turn movement only
from and onto Cantrell Road. A deceleration lane and acceleration taper was proposed
on Cantrell Road. A variance from the minimum driveway spacing criteria was
approved with the request for Ranch Drive.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Drive is
proposed for rezoning from PD-O to PD-C to allow construction of a new USA
Drug Store. The lot is an existing platted lot containing 1.67 acres. The site is
proposed developed with a building containing 14,974 square feet and
64 parking spaces. The hours of operation are proposed from 6 am to 11 pm
daily. The request includes the allowance of C-2, Shopping Center District uses
as allowable alternative uses for the property subject to the parking matching the
proposed use.
The site is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The site exists
with less than the typically two-acre minimum lot size development standard
established by the Overlay. The site plan also indicates the building constructed
with less than the 40 foot typical rear building setback also established by the
Overlay.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and cleared. Other uses in the area include two large office
buildings, Leisure Arts to the north and AT & T to the west; a Texaco Quick Shop
to the east; and single-family residential south of Cantrell Road. South of the site
at the intersection with Drew Drive a formerly single-family structure has been
converted to a veterinary clinic.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Coalition of West Little Rock
Neighborhoods, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Chevaux
Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and
the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
Sidewalks are required to be installed adjacent to Cantrell Road and Ranch
Drive.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
3
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
10. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: A ten-foot overhead or a thirty-foot under ground easement is required
along Ranch Drive and Cantrell Road.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of this facility,
installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed
prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by
a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
4
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within
ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection
Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention
requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate
this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will
be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire
protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be
required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans
by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems, which do not contain additives
such as antifreeze, shall be isolated with a double detector check valve
assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
shall be required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied
for a Planned Development-Commercial to allow construction of a pharmacy.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of
a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road
since it is a Principal Arterial. Ranch Road is a Local Street. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local
Streets, which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive
zoning than duplexes, are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets
have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances
and exits to the site.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
5
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action
Plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The landscape ordinance requires a nine-foot (9’) wide landscape strip along
the northern property line. The City Beautiful Commission must approve a
variance for any lesser amount prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one-half
feet (7 ½’) in width and 150 square feet in area. These interior islands are to
evenly distributed throughout the site.
4. A small amount of building landscaping will be required in conjunction with
this request.
5. This site is located along Arkansas Highway 10; therefore, related to
development standards of the Overlay the following are required:
a. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be
required.
b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide
an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered
Landscape Architect.
6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 21, 2009)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented the item stating the lot was an existing platted lot and
the final plat for the lot was executed in 2002. Staff stated the property was
located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff requested the site
plan include the total sign height and sign area allowed per the Overlay. Staff
also questioned if electronic signage would be used within the development.
Staff stated a minimum rear yard landscape strip of nine feet was required along
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
6
the northern perimeter. Staff also stated the Overlay required the placement of a
forty foot landscape strip along Cantrell Road.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance would apply to the future development of the site. Staff also stated
streetlights were required to be installed prior to the issuance of the final
certificate of occupancy for the new construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a minimum landscape
strip of nine feet was required along the common access drive to the north. Staff
stated a small amount of building landscaping was required. Staff stated the site
would require the placement of an automatic irrigation system and a landscape
plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect would be required
at the time of development.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a few of the issues
raised at the May 28, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan
indicates a minimum landscape strip of fifteen (15) feet along the northern
perimeter, where adjacent to the access easement, and the placement of a
forty (40) foot landscape strip along Cantrell Road. The plan indicates a single
ground mounted monument sign will be located within the front yard landscape
area. The sign is proposed with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a
maximum sign area of seventy-two (72) square feet. Electronic signage is
proposed incorporated into the ground-mounted sign. Building signage will
comply with the typical standards allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of
ten (10) percent of the façade area abutting a public right of way.
The development is proposed on an existing 1.67-acre lot. The lot was final
platted in February 2002. Access easements and drives have been constructed
on the property’s eastern and northern perimeters. Public streets abut the
western and southern perimeters not allowing for additional land area to be
secured to increase the lot size.
The site plan indicates the construction of a 14,974 square foot building and
62 parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require the placement of
49 parking spaces to serve the retail use. The applicant is requesting alternative
uses as allowed in the C-2, Shopping Center Zoning District subject to the use
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
7
matching the available parking on the site per Section 36-502 of the City’s Zoning
Ordinance.
The site plan indicates a building area of 20.6 percent and paved area of
42.6 percent. A minimum of 36.8 percent of the site will be landscaped. The
landscaping provided is more than adequate to address Section 36-460 (h)(7) of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum of ten (10) percent of the
gross planned commercial mixed use district, planned commercial district (PDC)
or planned office district (POD) area to be designated as landscaped open space
not to be used for streets or parking.
The development is indicated with a front yard-building setback of one hundred
(100) plus feet and a side yard setback of fifty-five (55) feet along the eastern
perimeter and eighty (80) plus feet along the western perimeter. The rear yard
building setback is located fifteen (15) feet from the property line adjacent to a
common access easement. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District states a
minimum rear yard setback of forty (40) feet is typically required. The Overlay
further states for commercial developments and multiple building sites, whether
on one (1) or more platted lots, the regulations apply to the development as an
entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Commercial developments and
multiple building sites are to be reviewed by the City through a site plan review
process to illustrate compliance with the ordinance. The site is located within the
Ranch Subdivision which has developed over the years with a unified
development plan through previous zoning of the property. Staff feels the site
plan is indicated complying with the spirit of the Overlay ordinance. Staff feels
with the placement of the rear yard setback the minimum landscape strip can be
achieved and the building location allows for visual separation between the
structure and the adjacent access easement.
Landscaping and landscaping treatment will comply with the typical standards of
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. A water sprinkler system will be
provided to water landscaped areas and maintain planted materials. Trees to be
planted will be consistent with species in the area. A tree will be planted as
required by the Overlay or will be planted a minimum of twenty (20) feet apart
and be a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter from the ground at the time of
planting.
The site plan includes a note concerning parking lot lighting stating parking lot
lighting will be designed and located in such a manner so as to not disturb the
scenic appearance of the roadway and preserve the corridor. Lighting will be
directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods.
The following list the Highway 10 Design Overlay standards and the applicant’s
proposal related to each item:
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
8
Highway 10 DOD Requirements:
Applicant’s proposal:
Lot size. There shall be a minimum
development tract size of not less than two
(2) acres.
The lot exists containing 1.67 acres. The
final plat for the lot was executed on
February 20, 2002.
Front yard. All principal and accessory
buildings or structures are required to have
a one-hundred-foot building setback from
the property line abutting Highway 10.
The building is proposed with a front yard
setback of 100-feet.
Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less
than forty (40) feet.
The building is proposed within a
commercial development with the rear of
the building abutting an access easement.
The rear yard of the building is proposed
with a fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback.
Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than
thirty (30) feet.
The side yard setbacks are proposed in
excess of the typically thirty (30) foot
requirement.
Landscaping treatment. Landscaped
areas shall attempt to incorporate existing
on-site trees and shrubbery into the
landscaping scheme and the plans shall
indicate such incorporation.
There are no existing trees or shrubs
located on the site.
Landscaped areas shall have water
sprinkler systems to maintain plant
materials.
The development will provide a water
sprinkler system to maintain plant
materials.
Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used
on all cuts and fills.
The site will not require any cuts or fills.
Tree species to be planted within this
corridor should be consistent with other
species present.
Tree species to be planted will be
consistent with other species present.
The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall
consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of
landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way.
The landscaped area shall contain organic
and/or combined man-made/organic
features as berms, brick walls and dense
The site will maintain a forty (40) foot
landscape area exclusive of the right of
way. The screening of the parking area
will be consistent with screening
requirements of the Overlay. A berm, wall
or dense plantings will be provided within
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
9
plantings such that vehicular use areas are
screened when viewed from an elevation
of forty-two (42) inches above the
elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative
screening methods and designs must be
approved by the plans review specialist.
Appeals from the staff will be directed to
the planning commission. Within the
landscaped area trees shall be planted or
be existing at least every twenty (20) feet
and have a minimum of two (2) inches in
diameter when measured twelve (12)
inches from the ground at time of planting.
Where a developer demonstrates that this
requirement will constitute an undue
hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of
right-of-way may consist of a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances
only, a half-berm shall be constructed
which is a minimum of three (3) feet in
height with tree plantings as required
herein; provided however, that this
provision may only be applied to a
maximum of twenty (20) percent of the
highway frontage affected in the plans
submitted.
the front yard landscape area.
Rear and side yards shall have a
landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet from the property line.
Where such yards abut a street right-of-
way, a fifteen-foot landscaped strip shall
be required adjacent to land zoned office
and residential. A seven-foot landscaped
strip shall be required when adjacent to
lands zoned commercial.
The rear yard shall have a minimum
landscape strip adjacent to the access
easement of nine (9) feet, consistent with
landscaping strips provided in similar type
situations. Along the western perimeter,
where adjacent to a street right of way, a
minimum fifteen (15) foot landscape strip
will be provided due to the office zoning
located across the right of way of Ranch
Drive.
Signage. Signage shall comply with the
provisions of Article X of Chapter 36 of the
Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as
follows:
Building signage will comply with signage
allowed in Chapter 36 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
10
Commercial development signage.
Signage identifying the commercial
development shall not exceed ten (10) feet
in height and one hundred (100) square
feet in area. All signs that are ground-
mounted shall be of a monument type
design. These signs may be installed in
the landscaped area of the front and side
yards.
Commercial building signage. Each
separate commercial building will be
allowed a single monument ground-
mounted sign located on the building site
or in the landscaped front yard of the
commercial development. The sign shall
be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and
seventy-two (72) square feet in area.
The development is proposed with a single
ground mounted monument style sign
located within the front yard landscape
area. The sign will be a maximum of six
feet in height and a maximum sign area of
seventy-two square feet.
The development will utilize electronic
signage.
Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per
three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut
closer to an intersection than one hundred
(100) feet.
The development will utilize an existing
curb cut from Cantrell Road. This curb cut
is a service and access easement serving
additional lots within this commercial
development.
Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be
designed and located in such manner so
as not to disturb the scenic appearance
preserved in this corridor. Lighting should
be directed to the parking areas and not
reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods.
Lighting shall comply with the DOD
standards. Lighting will be directed to the
parking areas and not reflect into the
adjacent neighborhoods.
Building sites. The maximum number of
buildings per commercial development
shall be measured both by minimum tract
size and minimum frontage as follows:
One (1) building every two (2) acres.
The site contains 1.67 acres. There is one
building proposed on this tract.
Commercial developments and multiple
building sites. In the case of a commercial
development or other development
involving multiple building sites, whether
on one (1) or more platted lots, the above
described regulations shall apply to the
A single building is proposed on this site.
The Ranch Development has been
developing with commercial and office
uses through a unified development plan
established by the previous zoning.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
11
development as an entire tract rather than
to each platted lot. Developments of this
type shall be reviewed by the City through
a site plan review process which illustrates
compliance with this article.
Property, due to topography, size, irregular
shapes or other constraints, such as
adjacent structures or features which
significantly affect visibility, and thus
cannot be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be reviewed
through the planned unit development
(PUD) section of the zoning ordinance,
with the intent to devise a workable
development plan which is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the overlay
standards.
The request is to rezone the property from
PD-O to PD-C to allow the construction of
a new USA Drug Store. The development
is proposed as a PD-C due to the existing
lot size.
Staff is generally supportive of the request. The development of the site is
indicated as meeting the spirit and intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District. Staff feels the developers have done an adequate job in addressing the
items regulated within the Overlay. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing.
Staff is not however supportive of allowing the development to utilize electronic
signage. Although there have been a number of electronic signs approved along
the Corridor, staff does not feel the placement of electronic signage on the
Corridor preserves the scenic beauty as intended in the Highway 10 DOD.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on June 4, 2009, the item be
deferred to the July 23, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7119-A
12
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to the application request since the previous staff write-up.
Staff continues to not support the applicant’s request to allow electronic signage for this
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating on July 20, 2009, the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request
would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral
request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for a waiver
of the By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item
on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff. The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
NAME: Paul Page Dwellings, LLC Short-form PD-R and PD-R Revocation for
1422 Townhomes Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of East 15th and Rock Streets
DEVELOPER:
Page Paul Dwellings, Inc.
5228 R Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Crafton Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.51 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Townhouse development – five units
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,649 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October
26, 2006 rezoned the property from R-4 to PD-R. The approval allowed the
construction of five two story adjoining town homes containing 1,300 square feet
of living space, a detached garages, interior courtyard and space for outdoor
living. The concept of “Intown Living” included a 25-foot front yard setback on
Rock Street, 18-foot setback on 15th Street, 33-foot setback to the rear alley
entrance and a 10-foot setback that included green space to the north property
line. The building materials reflected the revival of mid-20th century and a new
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
2
optimism of the future of MacArthur Park Historic District (i.e. (apartments at
418-422 15th Street). Inside the town homes continued to stress the user-friendly
green technologies like; CFL lighting, low-volatile paints, European shower
heads, self-programmable thermostats, IKEA kitchens and scored concrete
floors. Outside green space included green fences for privacy at the rear of the
garages, a permeable parking pad (gravel), plantings along the west edge of the
rear alley, which would be the entrance and exit. Street trees within the City
right-of-way were proposed along the roadways with the aid of Tree Streets.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing the revocation of the previously approved
PD-R and the creation of a new PD-R for Lot 7, Block 49 of the Original
City of Little Rock Subdivision. The lot exists as a 50-foot by 140-foot lot.
The developer is proposing to split the lot to allow the creation of two (2)
single-family residential lots to allow two new units to be constructed on
the property. The lots are proposed as 70-foot by 50 foot lots. The new
homes will front East 15th Street. The western most lot is proposed with a
driveway from East 15th Street and the eastern most lot will take driveway
access from the alley.
The site is located within the MacArthur Park Historic District and the
applicant is seeking design approval of the Historic District Commission.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently vacant. The area is predominately residential with a
scattering of single-family and multi-family units. The site is located in the
MacArthur Park Historic District. Two blocks west of the site is Main
Street with a number of office and commercial businesses. A number of
the homes in the area were damaged or destroyed by a tornado a few
years ago.
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, the MacArthur
Park Property Owners Association, the Pettaway Park Neighborhood
Association and the Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of
the public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in
effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water
meter.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this
property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development
Residential.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Rock Street and East 15th Street are shown as Local
Streets. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential
zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as
“Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
4
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 Downtown
Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Housing Goal states: “Redevelop 153
vacant lots and re-occupy 512 vacant houses and 325 vacant
apartments.” This application would build two new residences on a
currently empty lot.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there
were no technical issues in need of addressing based on the current site
plan. Staff stated the request was to allow the creation of two single-
family lots from an existing single-family lot located on the corners of East
15th and Rock Streets. Staff stated if approved the request would include
a revocation of a previously approved PD-R for a larger area which
included the lot proposed for development. There was no further
discussion of the item. The committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues in need of addressing raised at the July 2, 2009,
Subdivision Committee meeting. The request includes a revocation of a
previously approved PD-R and the creation of a new PD-R for the corner
lot located on the northwest corner of East 15th and Rock Streets.
The PD-R proposed for approval is Lot 7 Block 49 of the Original City of
Little Rock Subdivision. The lot is a 50-foot by 140-foot vacant lot. The
developer is proposing to split the lot to allow the creation of
two (2) residential lots to allow two new single-family homes to be
constructed on the new lots. The lots are proposed as 70-foot by 50-foot
lots fronting East 15th Street. The western most lot is proposed with a
driveway from East 15th Street and the eastern most lot will have a
driveway from the alley.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
5
The home on Lot 1 is indicated with a 15-foot front yard setback and a
15-foot rear yard setback. The home is proposed with a 15-foot setback
from the alley and a 7 foot side yard setback along the western perimeter.
Lot 2 is proposed with a 15-foot front yard setback and a 15-foot side yard
setback on Rock Street. A 27-foot side yard setback is proposed on the
east and a 7-foot rear yard setback is proposed.
Staff is supportive of the request. Similar lot configurations and lot areas
were recently approved across the street from the proposed development.
Three lots were created from a 70-foot by 140-foot lot and three new
homes have recently been constructed on these lots. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request.
Staff feels the creation of two new single-family lots in the area will add
benefit to the area.
The applicant must receive final approval and a Certificate of
Appropriateness concerning the design and construction from the
MacArthur Park Historic District Commission prior to the replat being
approved by the City.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning of Lot 7 Block 49
Original City of Little Rock to PD-R to allow a lot split to allow the creation
of two single-family lots from this single lot with setbacks as established
on the site plan subject to compliance with the comment and conditions as
outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
The applicant must receive final approval and a Certificate of
Appropriateness concerning the design and construction from the
MacArthur Park Historic District Commission prior to the final plat being
approved by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed
revocation of the PD-R for 1422 Townhomes Short-form PD-R and the rezoning
of Lot 7 Block 49 Original City of Little Rock to PD-R to allow a lot split and allow
the creation of two single-family lots from this single lot with setbacks as
established on the site plan subject to compliance with the comment and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8115-A
6
stated the applicant must receive final approval and a Certificate of
Appropriateness concerning the design and construction from the MacArthur
Park Historic District Commission prior to the final plat being approved by the
City.
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-46-JJ
NAME: Lot 134R Overlook Park Addition Replat
LOCATION: Located at 27 Overlook Circle
DEVELOPER:
Jerry and Stephanie Atchley
27 Overlook Circle
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Laha Engineers, Inc.
6602 Baseline Road, Suite E
Little Rock, AR 72209
ARCHTECT:
HOMS, Inc.
409 Main Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
AREA: 1.73 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking approval of a lot split for this 1.73-acre (75,420 square
foot) lot located in the Overlook Park Subdivision. The first lot will contain the
existing residence and drive access from Overlook Circle. This lot will have
38,420 square feet of land from the original 75,420 square feet. The second lot
will have the remaining 37,000 square feet of the original lot. The drive access is
proposed from Overlook Drive along the north property line. This area is
currently platted with a 10 foot no vehicle access along Overlook Drive. The
applicant is requesting the removal of the restrictive access easement to allow a
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ
2
25-foot single drive within the area. The remainder of the restrictive access
easement will remain in place.
The applicant has provided the Bill of Assurance for Lots 134 and 135 of the
Overlook Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, which states vehicular access to
any lot from Overlook Drive, shall be prohibited.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Overlook Circle is a two lane street with curb and gutter. There is no sidewalk in
place along the property frontage. The area proposed for the second lot is
adjacent to Overlook Drive. There are no sidewalks on this portion of Overlook
Drive. The area does have curb and gutter in place. This area of the lot slopes
upward from Overlook Drive quite significantly.
There are single-family homes located in the immediate area to the south, west
and east. The Arkansas River, the Lock and Dam and the Big Dam Bridge are
located to the north of the property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property
owners. All abutting property owners and the Overlook Property Owners
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the steep running slope of Overlook Drive, the proposed driveway
would create unsafe driving conditions. No other driveway accesses the
downhill traffic flow lane on Overlook Drive in this area. Compared to being on
the north side of Overlook Drive, the downhill traffic flow of the street creates
high speeds, excessive vehicle breaking for turn movements, and steep
transition from the street to the driveway.
2. A 10 foot wide no vehicle access easement is located along Overlook Drive in
this area.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ
3
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Troy Laha and Mr. Andrew McCaley were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the proposed plat stating there was a concern
with the placement of a drive on Overlook Drive. Staff stated there were no
drives located on the south side of Overlook Drive. Staff stated the traffic flow
was downhill which typically increased speeds of motorist and could created
safety issues. Staff requested Mr. Laha provide distances for the drive and
provide a drawing of the driveway design to staff to review to determine if their
concerns could be addressed.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the issues and
concerns raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided a sketch of the proposed driveway as requested by staff.
Staff is agreeable to allowing access and the removal of the 10-foot restrictive
access easement along Overlook Drive provided the drive is constructed with the
first 20 feet from the curb having a centerline grade of near 0 percent and the
remainder to the right-of-way line not exceeding 14 percent. The driveway will be
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ
4
constructed with a 20 foot curb radius. Trees within the right-of-way may be
required to be removed by applicant if sight distance is not sufficient. The
applicant must contact Public Works prior to the removal of any trees in the
public right-of-way.
The request is to allow a lot split for this 1.73-acre (75,420 square foot) lot
located in the Overlook Park Subdivision. The first lot will contain the existing
residence and drive access from Overlook Circle. The lot will contain
38,420 square feet. The second lot will have the remaining 37,000 square feet of
the original lot with the drive access from Overlook Drive along the north property
line. This area is currently platted with a 10 foot no vehicle access along
Overlook Drive. The applicant is requesting the removal of the restrictive access
easement to allow a 25-foot single drive within the area. The remainder of the
restrictive access easement will remain in place.
The applicant has provided the Bill of Assurance for Lots 134 and 135 of the
Overlook Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, which states vehicular access to
any lot from Overlook Drive, shall be prohibited. Section 4 of the Bill of
Assurance states no lot shall be subdivided without the written consent of the
Allotter and the Little Rock Planning Commission. Section 27 of the Bill of
Assurance states any and all of the covenants, provisions or restrictions set forth
in the Bill of Assurance may be amended, modified, extended, changed or
canceled in whole or in part by a written instrument signed and acknowledged by
the owner or owners of over 50 percent in area of the land in this addition,
including lands adjacent to any platted parts of this addition, owned by the
Allotter, and included in the overall preliminary plat of the addition filed with the
Little Rock Planning Commission; provided, any such amendment shall be
subject to approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission and Arkansas Power
and Light Company
Although there are issues with the Bill of Assurance concerning the proposed
replatting of the property the City typically does not get involved in Bill of
Assurance issues. The replat as proposed allows lot areas sufficient to meet the
typical standards of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. Public Works staff has
indicated they are supportive of allow a drive to access the second lot from
Overlook Drive. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding
technical issues associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of allowing access and the removal of the 10-foot
restrictive access easement along Overlook Drive provided the drive is
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-JJ
5
constructed with the first 20 feet from the curb having a centerline grade of near
0 percent and the remainder to the right-of-way line not exceeding 14 percent.
The driveway must be constructed with a 20 foot curb radius. Trees within the
right-of-way may require removal by applicant if sight distance is not sufficient.
The applicant must contact Public Works prior to the removal of any trees in the
public right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide proper notification to the
abutting property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner
Troy Laha).
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1433-B
NAME: Foreman Lake Garden Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Leatrice Drive and Alberta Drive
DEVELOPER:
Dr. William Humphrey
11215 Herritage Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of lots utilizing
private streets (Section 31-207).
2. A variance to allow an in-lieu contribution for stormwater detention.
BACKGROUND:
On June 3, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for
this site. The property contained 1.4 acres located at the southwest corner of Leatrice
Drive and Alberta Drive. The approval allowed the owner to develop two lots on the
property. The request included a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of the lots with a private street. A driveway would be constructed along
the rear of the lots for access to Lot 2. The lots averaged 80-feet by 160-feet or
12,800 square feet. A forty-foot front platted building line was indicated adjacent to the
private street.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1433-B
2
Per Section 31-94(e) a preliminary plat approved by the Little Rock 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 ordinance 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 subdivision ordinance. The approved
preliminary plat has expired and the owners are now proposing to reestablish the
previously approved plat.
On March 1, 2007, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved the reestablishment
of the preliminary plat. The approval allowed the 1.40 acres to be subdivided into two
(2) lots and a tract for future development. As in the original request the approval
allowed a variance to allow the lots to develop with access from an existing private
street. A private drive was proposed along the rear of Lot 1 to serve both lots limiting
access from East Shore Drive. A final plat was not executed for the subdivision and the
preliminary plat approval has expired.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is again proposing to reestablish the previously approved
preliminary plat. The site contains 1.4 acres and is proposed with the
development of two lots for single-family homes and a tract. As with the previous
submissions the request includes a variance to allow the lots to develop with
access from an existing private street. A single drive will be constructed along
the rear of Lot 1 from East Shore Drive for driveway access to both lots. Tract A
is included in the plat area and will be used for as a drainage easement.
The developer is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the stormwater detention
requirement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a number of trees and a great deal of undergrowth. The
site contains an outcropping of large rocks. Along the northern boundary is a
creek/drainage ditch flowing along the western side of East Shore Drive feeding
Foreman Lake. There are a number of single-family homes located around
Foreman Lake both accessed from East Shore Drive and Foreman Drive. The
area is predominately single-family. There is a park, Reservoir Park, located to
the northwest of the site. East Shore Drive is a narrow private street ending in a
hammer head south of this site.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1433-B
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property
owners. All abutting property owners and the Foreman Lake Preservation
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. East Shore Drive is a private access easement that is not maintained by the
City. The new plat should label the proposed driveway easement as a private
access easement.
2. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims
for operations on private property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and
private fire hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide service to this property.
Contact Central Arkansas Water for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1433-B
4
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the request stating the plat was approved of a previously expired
preliminary plat. Staff stated there were no changes proposed from the previous
approval. Staff noted the comments raised were similar comments to the
previously approved preliminary plat. Staff noted comments from the other
reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them
individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the
item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting
in need of addressing with a revised preliminary plat. The request is to allow the
creation of two single-family lots served by a private access and utility easement.
The property contains 1.4 acres and is located at the southwest corner of
Leatrice Drive and Alberta Drive. The applicant has indicated the lots will
average 80-feet by 160-feet or 12,800 square feet. A forty-foot front platted
building line has been included adjacent to the private street.
The request includes a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of the lots with private streets. East Shore Drive is an existing
45-foot access and utility easement. The applicant has indicated a thirty-foot
driveway easement across the rear of Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. The drive will be
located in this area to eliminate the need for a driveway along East Shore Drive.
The request includes a variance from the City’s Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
The developer is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required stormwater
detention. Staff is supportive of the request. The developers have indicated
Tract A as green space which will serve as a portion of the required stormwater
detention and the site is located adjacent to Foreman Lake which should handle
the additional runoff from the post developed lots.
A number of the neighbors have raised concerns related to the flows of water
from this site at the time of development. When the developers submit detailed
grading and drainage plan for the development of the lots staff will review the
plans to ensure any flows from the site do not impact the adjacent property by
flowing additional water to the north, into the existing creek on the east side of
the bridge and will ensure the developers make every effort feasible to route the
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1433-B
5
water to East Shore Drive west of the site utilizing an existing drainage culvert
and increasing the size of the culvert if necessary to carry the existing and
additional run-off from the post developed lots.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The requested lot size and
development of lots on private streets is consistent with development in the area.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the lots to develop
with private streets.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an in-lieu
contribution for the stormwater detention requirement
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 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 conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to
allow the lots to develop with private streets. Staff also presented a recommendation of
approval of the variance request to allow an in-lieu contribution for the stormwater
detention requirement.
Mr. Joe White of White Daters stated a representative of the Foreman Lake
Preservation Association had contacted him concerning the request. He stated there
were two commitments the Preservation Association were requesting from the
landowner. He stated the Association was requesting the landowner place the two new
lots within the Improvement District and to dedicate the proposed open space tract to
the Improvement District and not to the City. Mr. White stated the landowner was
agreeable to these two conditions and would for the conditions in the final plat and the
Bill of Assurance.
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1632
NAME: Pinnacle Ridge at Chenal Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Chenonceau Boulevard and
Bayonne Drive
DEVELOPER:
Realty Systems, Inc.
6895 7th Road
Bartlett, TN 38135
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 21.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: MF-12, Multi-family 12 units per acre
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property contains 21.5 acres and is located on the northeast corner of
Chenonceau Boulevard and Bayonne Drive. The property is currently zoned
MF-12 or multi-family at an allowed density of 12 units per acre. The
development is proposed with 13 buildings containing 256 units or a density of
11.9 units per acre.
The site plan indicates 160 one bedroom one bath units and 96 two bedroom two
bath units. The site plan indicates the placement of 82 garage units, 48 storage
rooms, a clubhouse, maintenance garage and covered mail kiosk. There are
391 parking spaces proposed, including the garage units. A six (6) foot
ornamental fence is proposed along Chenonceau Boulevard. The development
is proposed as a gated community. Two (2) drives are proposed from
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
2
Chenonceau Boulevard. The first drive is a full service drive providing access to
the clubhouse and gated entrance to the development. The second drive is
proposed as an exit only drive located near the eastern perimeter of the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded, with varying degrees
of slope. The Aberdeen Court single family subdivision is located to the west,
with the Bayonne neighborhood to the south across Chenonceau Boulevard.
Single-family residences on larger lots are located to the north, with various
nonresidential uses and zoning along Highway 10. Undeveloped O-2, Office and
Institutional District and C-3, General Commercial District zoned property is
located across Chenonceau Boulevard to the northeast. To the north is
undeveloped O-3, General Office District zoned property. West of the site is a
zoned OS, Open Space located adjacent to the Aberdeen Subdivision. There is
a private recreational facility located to the west.
Chenonceau Boulevard is a four lane roadway with turn lanes located at major
intersections. The street has been constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
There are street trees in place along the property frontage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the
area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, the
Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, the Aberdeen Court Property
Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the
Chevaux Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood
Association and the Margeaux Property Owners Association were notified of the
public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed
along Chenonceau Boulevard in accordance with Section 31-175 of the
Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
2. The west driveway should align with Bayonne Drive or moved to the east of
Bayonne Drive.
3. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the east driveway complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
3
4. Driveway locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The east driveway is required
to be located 150 feet from the property line.
5. Exit only signs should be installed at the east driveway.
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
7. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is construction
proposed to be phased? If so, is advanced grading of future phases being
requested?
8. 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).
9. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
10. 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.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Capacity calculation required for
this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Please
submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas
Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities
and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
4
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. Contact Central
Arkansas Water for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. A minimum gate opening width
of 20-feet must be maintained. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for
additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. CATA Bus
Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route is located along Cantrell Road to the
north.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Before a landscape permit will be issued a landscape plan must be submitted
to the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape
plan be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect.
2. An irrigation system will be required for developments of one (1) acre or
larger.
3. Where development require screening by abutting land use of a more
restrictive nature at least eighty (80) percent of the view of the vehicular use
area and parked vehicles must be screened so as to not be visible when
viewed from the adjacent property. A wooden fence may satisfy sixty-five (65)
percent of the requirement and evergreen trees may be used to satisfy the
balance. Screening will be required along the northern and western
perimeters.
4. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the
minimum size of an interior landscape area must be a minimum of three
hundred (300) square feet in area. Interior planting island width must be not
less than seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit. Flexibility
is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however, interior
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
5
landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular use
areas.
5. Trees must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of
one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces.
6. Land Use Buffers are required along the northern and western perimeters.
The minimum land use buffer allowed within these areas is 50-feet. The site
plan indicates a minimum buffer of 56-feet along the northern perimeter.
Along the eastern perimeter the site plan indicates a 100-foot undisturbed
buffer adjacent to a 200 foot OS zoned strip.
7. A street buffer of 50-feet is required along Chenonceau Boulevard and in no
case less than one-half or 25-feet.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the request stating there were additional items in need of addressing
prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff requested Mr. Daters
provide a detail of the proposed trash compactor screening. Staff also stated the
maximum building height allowed in the MF-12 Zoning District was 55-feet. Staff
stated the parking indicated was adequate to serve the development. Staff
stated the development would require two fire access roads regardless if the
buildings were sprinkled to meet the State Fire code.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the drive as indicated did
not meet the typical driveway spacing criteria of the Master Street Plan. Staff
requested the applicant provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer
certifying the sight distance at the east driveway indicating if the drive complied
with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. Staff stated if the eastern drive was
maintained as access the drive should be signed as exit only.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be
required along the northern perimeter. Staff stated interior landscape islands
were to be a minimum of three hundred square feet in area. Staff stated a
minimum of eight percent of the interior paved areas were to be landscaped.
Staff provided the applicant with the required tree plantings and number of trees
required within the planting areas. Staff stated a land use buffer was required
along the north perimeter to be a minimum of fifty feet. Staff stated the required
street buffer along Chenonceau Boulevard was also 50-feet.
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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The drives have been
realigned and relocated to conform to the Boundary Street Ordinance and Master
Street Plan requirements. The structure located near the southwest portion of
the pool has been moved to the east to allow for a 25-foot setback as typically
required by the ordinance. The site plan indicates landscaping per the typical
ordinance standards of Chapters 15 and 36.
The development is proposed as a single phase development with grading of the
site taking place as the site develops. The site plan indicates a maximum
building height of 55-feet as allowed in the MF-12 zoning district. The fencing
located along the perimeters of the site is indicated as a 6-foot tall ornamental
fence and a 6-foot chain link fence is located along the northern perimeter. The
development is proposed as a gated community. The gates are indicated as
required by the Fire Department with a minimum gate opening of 20-feet. The
site indicates two (2) access points as required by State Fire code. The eastern
most drive is indicated as an exit only drive and will be signed as such to notify
residents.
The site plan indicates the placement of 256 apartment units on this
21.5 acre tract. The property is zoned MF-12 which allows multi-family housing
at 12 units per acre. The density proposed is 11.907 units per acre.
The site plan indicates the placement of 391 parking spaces. Of the 391 spaces
82 are proposed as garage parking. Based on the typical parking requirements
for multi-family zoning a total of 384 parking spaces is required. The parking is
adequate to serve the development. 48 storage rooms are indicated on the ends
of the garage parking structures as an amenity to the residents.
The site plan indicates the placement of a clubhouse, pool and playground area.
The development will also contain a concrete walkway to connect the units to the
clubhouse/pool and office facilities. The construction materials are proposed as
a combination of stone, brick, EFIS and Hardyboard siding.
The development will contain 160 one bedroom, one bath units and 96 two
bedroom, two bath units. The leasable square footage of the units range from
625 square feet to 1,037 square feet. The clubhouse is proposed containing
2,447 square feet and two maintenance garages are proposed each containing
256 square feet. A single covered mail kiosk is indicated containing 200 square
feet. The total square footage of the garages and storage rooms is
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1632
7
24,064 square feet. This totals 240,964 square feet of building coverage or
25 percent site coverage.
The site plan indicates the placement of a single trash compactor located near
Chenonceau Boulevard. The applicant has indicated the compactor will be
screened per typical ordinance standards with a minimum screening wall two feet
above the finished level of the compactor. The compactor screening will be
constructed of similar materials used elsewhere in the development.
Signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed in multi-family zones. A
single ground mounted sign with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum
sign area of twenty-four square feet is proposed to be located within the
landscape area near the western entrance to the development.
The request is a Subdivision Site Plan Review for the placement of multiple
buildings (13 apartment buildings, 1 clubhouse, 13 garage/storage rooms) on this
site. Based on staff’s review and a statement by the applicant no waivers or
variances are being requested. The development will be constructed in a single
phase. The building setbacks are indicated at a minimum of 25-feet as required
by the zoning district. The street buffer areas and land use buffer areas are
indicated in excess of the typically ordinance standard. The drives has been
relocated to comply with the typical driveway spacing criteria of the Boundary
Street Ordinance and the Master Street Plan. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The development is
proposed as a multi-family development at a density to 11.9 units per acre as
allowed in the MF-12 zoning district.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the conditions 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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1633
NAME: Covenant Keepers Charter School Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 8300 Geyer Springs Road
DEVELOPER:
Covenant Keepers Charter School
8300 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
Crafton, Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.367 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 - Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to provide proper notification to property owners as required by the
Commission’s By-laws. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 3,
2009, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide proper notification to
property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1633
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner
Billy Rouse).
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
NAME: Parkland Heights Revised Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at the North end of Chenonceau Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
ARD Real Estate LLC - Dr. Shabbir Dharamsey
7200 South Hazel Street
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 18.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 104 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Townhouse/Condominiums Development – 7 Units
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: To revise the structure type proposed for the eastern portion
of the site.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 29, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a site plan
for the development of a 260-unit apartment complex just south of this site. The
development included eleven buildings and a clubhouse/office building. The
development was never constructed. Also approved by the Board of Directors was an
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 16,814 dated December 20, 1994) to amend the Master
Street Plan and to allow a waiver of the Subdivision requirements with regard to double
frontage lots (S-285-S). The Master Street Plan amendment included the deferral of the
requirement to provide Master Street Plan improvements on Patrick Country Road. The
deferral was approved to allow the developer to construct the Master Street Plan
required widening when one of the following occurred: 1) any additional development
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
2
(exclusive of the apartment development on Tract G) which abuts or takes access to
Patrick Country Road at the southwest corner of the Ranch, Tract G;
2) any development within the Ranch along Patrick Country Road south of said creek;
3) development of over 50% of the office tract in The Ranch at the northeast corner of
Patrick Country Road and Highway 10; 4) extension of any street from the Ranch to
Patrick Country Road.
On May 1, 2003, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a site plan review for
the proposed construction of 260 apartment units on 15.1 acres located immediately
south of the proposed site. The site was proposed as a limited access with the
placement of gates along Chenonceau Boulevard. The applicant was granted a deferral
of boundary street improvements to Patrick Country Road based on the previous
commitment. Since no access from the apartments was being proposed the deferral
approved in 1994 was extended to the proposed development.
On January 20, 2005, the developer requested to revise the agreement for the Master
Street Plan requirement to allow the development of Tract E-2 and allow the
construction of an access drive onto Patrick Country Road along the north side of Tract
E-2 without constructing the entire roadway. Tract E-2 is located on the Northeast
corner of Cantrell Road and Patrick Country Road. The developer proposed to
construct the required improvements adjacent to Tract E-2 as a part of the proposed
final platting or approximately 250-feet from Cantrell Road.
The developer indicated various development scenarios for the property in the area that
would result in a change in status of Patrick Country Road, north of the Baptist Church
property located to the west of Tract E. The developer requested additional time for
adjacent development to occur which would further dictate the need for the proposed
roadway. The Commission allowed an additional two year deferral of the required street
improvements to Patrick Country Road to allow the applicant additional time to seek a
Master Street Plan amendment. To date a Master Street Plan amendment has not
been filed.
Ordinance No. 19,502 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on March 21, 2006,
established Parkland Heights Long-form PD-R. The development was proposed with
84 two story townhomes ranging from 2,024 square feet to 2,220 square feet and
18 one and a half story condominiums ranging from 2,460 to 3,130 square feet.
Amenities included a 2,500 square foot clubhouse, pool, putting green, playground
half-court basketball, and walking and biking path. The project was to be constructed in
two phases with the first phase to include the site improvements, grading, roads, and
infrastructure, (18) condominiums, (34) townhouse and the complete amenities
package. The second phase consisted of the completion of the remaining
50 townhomes. Landscaping and buffering was approved as reflected on the current
site plan.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
3
A two-year deferral of the improvements to Patrick Country Road was approved
allowing one additional year to complete the improvements.
Ordinance No. 19,632 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 21,
2006, allowed a revision to the previously approved PD-R. The approval allowed the
creation of lot lines along the common walls of the previously proposed units. There
were no other changes proposed for the development
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request is an amendment to the previously approved PD-R to allow the
construction of seven (7) two-story units previously shown for development of
three (3) one and one-half story units. The lots are being proposed as
Townhouse lots as defined in Section 31-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
lots have been indicated in excess of the typically minimum lot width, depth and
lot area. According to Section 31-233 lots should have a minimum lot width of
22-feet, a minimum lot depth of 80-feet and a minimum lot area of 2,000 square
feet. Building lines are to conform to building locations as shown on the
generalized site plan. The average lot size proposed is 31-feet by 124-feet or
3,844 square feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Phase I of the development is currently under construction. The developers have
constructed three of the patio home buildings and five of the townhouse
buildings. The private streets are in place to serve the Phase I portion of the
development. The area proposed for development with the current application
request was previously graded. There is little ground cover on this portion of the
development. There is a single-family subdivision located to the east of the site
with Buckland Road terminating at the western property line of this development.
An emergency access has been provided through this development to Buckland
Drive. South of the site is an apartment complex accessed from Chenonceau
Boulevard. North of the site is undeveloped R-2, Single-family zoned property.
South of the site is vacant O-1, Quiet Office District and C-3, General
Commercial District zoned property. South of the site are office uses and a
private school.
Chenonceau Boulevard terminates at the development. Chenonceau Boulevard
is constructed as a two lane street constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
Patrick Country Road located along the western boundary of the entire
development and is an unimproved narrow roadway with open ditches for
drainage.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
4
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property
owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Coalition of West Little Rock
Neighborhoods, the Chevaux Property Owners Association and the Johnson
Ranch Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Capacity calculation required for
this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. An additional 2-inch service lines will
need to be installed by the developer. Contact Central Arkansas Water for
additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. CATA Bus
Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route is located along Cantrell Road to the
south.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revised Planned Development Residential.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
5
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Chenonceau Boulevard is a Local Street. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local
Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning
than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a
design standard the same as a Collector.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes planned for the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock
Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the applicant. Staff presented the item
stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in
need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting
in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The request is to allow an
amendment to the previously approved PD-R to allow the construction of
seven (7) two-story units each contained on a lot which was identified on the
originally approved site plan for three (3) one and one-half story units each
contained on a lot. The lots as currently proposed are Townhouse lots as
defined in Section 31-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The lots are indicated in
excess of the typically minimum lot width, depth and lot area for Townhouse
developments. According to Section 31-233 lots should have a minimum lot
width of 22-feet, a minimum lot depth of 80-feet and a minimum lot area of
2,000 square feet. Five (5) of the lots are indicated with a lot width of 30-feet and
two (2) of the lots are indicated with a lot width of 35-feet. The lot depth ranges
from 106-feet to 124-feet. The building lines conform to building locations as
shown on the generalized site plan as required by Section 31-233.
Staff is supportive of the request. The developers are proposing the placement
of seven (7) units on the site constructed as a four-plex and a triplex. The units
are proposed of similar construction materials and style as the units located to
the north of the proposed development area. To staff’s knowledge there are no
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-V
6
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The street deferral
request to Patrick Country Road is still valid. The improvements will be required
as noted in Paragraphs I of the Background section of this report. Staff feels the
construction of the new townhomes as proposed should not significantly impact
the development or the adjacent property.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the conditions 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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
NAME: 9823 Hilaro Springs Road Revised Short-form PD-I
LOCATION: 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
DEVELOPER:
Colwal Roth LLC
131 Hickory Creek Circle
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Ed Lofton Surveying
15415 Oak Crest
Little Rock, AR 72206
AREA: 8.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-I
ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial - Concert Staging Company
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-I
PROPOSED USE: Warehouse/Distribution
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A request for a deferral of the required street
improvements to Hilaro Springs Road.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 17,804 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 1,
1998, rezoned the property from R-2, Single-family to PD-I to recognize a
nonconforming I-2, Light Industrial District use. The property was annexed into the City
of Little Rock on April 29, 1985 and had a light industrial use on it for a number of years.
Concert Staging Services, Inc. a full service staging and production service company
specializing in festivals, corporate sponsored tours and conventions, sporting and
special events had occupied the property for eight (8) years. The request was
submitted to allow an expansion of the facility. The site contained a 7,500 square foot
building of which 2,500 square feet was office space and the remaining 5,000 square
feet was a maintenance area. The applicant proposed to construct an 11,250 square
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
2
foot building along the north property line. The proposed building would contain
11,000 square feet of warehouse and maintenance area and 250 square feet of shop
office space. The new building was to be used for fabrication of new equipment and the
maintenance of existing equipment. The existing 5,000 square feet of maintenance
area would become warehouse space.
The approval allowed a variance from the required floodway setback. The ordinance
typically requires a 25-foot setback from the floodway. The site plan indicated a seven
(7) foot setback from the floodway.
Ordinance No. 17,812 also adopted by the Board of Directors on September 1, 1998,
approved a deferral required for the street improvements to Hilaro Springs Road for a
period of five (5) years. The specific deferral was for pavement widening to 29.5 feet
from centerline with sidewalk.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The proposed new building was not constructed. The current request is to allow
a revision to the previously approved PD-I to allow a warehouse distribution use
to locate on the site utilizing the existing building. The applicant owns a clothing
company and is proposing the use of the existing building to allow repackaging of
clothing for shipment to vendors. There is no customer traffic to the site. The
use of the building is seasonal. There are six to eight employees of the business
and typical hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through
Friday.
The request includes a five (5) year deferral request for the required street
improvements to Hilaro Springs Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing building which previously housed the Concert
Staging Services Offices and maintenance facility. Near the northern perimeter
of the site there is also a travel trailer. There are two (2) detention ponds on the
site and the Little Fourche Creek runs through the south portion of the property.
The properties to the north, east and west are all zoned R-2, Single-family and
are vacant and mostly wooded. The property to the south of the site contains a
single-family residences located outside the City limits and is not zoned.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
3
United for Progress and the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association were
notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Hilaro Springs Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Hilaro Springs Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. Per Section
30-281(8), the boundary street improvements shall include one hundred
(100) percent bridge or box culvert construction on arterial streets for the
initial fifteen (15) feet of span length. Therefore, the applicant is responsible
for construction of one-half the north 15 feet of the span length of the bridge.
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. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide
access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. Show the
floodway and floodplain boundary lines on the survey.
6. A substantial area of the site lies within the regulated floodway and floodplain
of Little Fourche Creek. No future construction of any structures,
improvements to the interior of the structures over 50% of the market value of
the structure, parking areas, or placement of fill materials are allowed within
the floodway. Provide the market value of the structure prior to its
replacement prepared by a licensed appraiser. Provide a cost estimate
prepared by a licensed contractor of the structural improvements.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to
evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire
hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be
installed at the Developer's expense.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Park/Open Space for this property because it
is located in the floodway. This is an existing development and the zoning
request is to only make the use legal. The applicant has applied for a revised
Planned Development Industrial.
Since the request is an existing condition and all that is requested is to recognize
the use with no change in use, a change to the Land Use Plan is not proposed.
Master Street Plan: Hilaro Springs Road is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial
provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is
to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits
should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Hilaro
Springs since it is a Minor Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes planned for the immediate vicinity.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
5
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Neighborhood and Housing Revitalization Goal
states: “Preserve residential quality of neighborhood--no daycares, cottage
industries, etc.”
Landscape:
1. All vehicular use areas will require landscaping at the time a building permit is
issued to rehabilitate the site if the rehabilitation on the property exceeding
fifty (50) percent of the current replacement cost. At such time fifty (50)
percent of the existing vehicular use area must be brought into compliance
with the landscape ordinance requirements and continue to full compliance on
a graduated scale based upon the percentage of rehabilitation cost. Any
new paved area and/or vehicular use areas are required to comply with the
typical landscape ordinance requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Ed Lofton was present representing the owner. Staff stated the previous
approval did not allow for alternative uses. Staff stated the current owner was
requesting a rezoning to allow the site to be used as an warehouse/distribution
business. Staff stated there was no customer traffic accessing the site. Staff
stated the business was also seasonal.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street improvements and
construction of the first 15-feet of the bridge was required with the approval of the
rezoning request. Staff stated 29.5 feet of pavement from centerline of the
existing road was required. Staff stated since the bridge could not be improved
in segments an in-lieu contribution would be required for the cost of construction.
Staff stated the development could qualify for a hardship based on the cost of
improvements verses the cost of rehabilitation of the existing structure. Staff
requested Mr. Lofton provide them with a cost estimate of the required street
improvements including the required bridge improvements and a cost estimate
for the building renovation. Mr. Lofton stated the request included a five-year
deferral of the required street improvements to the abutting street. Staff stated
no additional work could be performed in the floodway.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any additional
improvements to the site would require an upgrade to the sites existing
landscaping. Staff stated the upgrade would be based on a percentage of the
rehabilitation cost of the building and parking areas.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
6
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has located
the bridge structure on the site plan. The applicant is seeking a five (5) year
deferral of the required street improvements to Hilaro Springs Road. Staff is
supportive of the deferral request. Staff recommends the deferral be allowed for
a period of five (5) years or until abutting development occurs, whichever occurs
first. Mr. Lofton is continuing to work on the cost estimate for the street
construction and the cost estimate for rehabilitation of the buildings. Should the
cost estimate indicate the owner is entitled to a hardship per the Boundary Street
Ordinance staff will work with the owner to determine the contribution amount.
The request is a revision to a previously approved PD-I to add a
warehouse/distribution use as an allowable use for the property. The owner of
the property has a clothing company and is proposing the use of the existing
building to allow repackaging of clothing for shipment to vendors. There is no
customer traffic to the site. The use of the building is seasonal. There are six (6)
to eight (8) employees of the business and typical hours of operation are from
7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
The site plan does not indicate the placement of signage. Staff recommends if
signage is allowed signage is limited to signage allowed in office zones or a
six foot high sixty four square feet in area ground mounted sign. Building
signage should also be limited to signage allowed in office zones or a maximum
of ten (10) percent of the façade area with public street frontage.
The site plan does not indicated individual parking stalls but the site is
predominately paved. The building contains 10,730 square feet, which would
typically require the placement of ten (10) parking spaces. Staff feels the paved
areas on the site contains adequate area to provide the parking required for the
use.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is seeking reuse of an existing
industrial building to allow a warehouse/distribution use from the property. The
use is limited in the number of employees and the days and hours of operation.
According to the owner there is little to no customer traffic accessing the site.
Staff feels the use as proposed will not significantly impact the area.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4790-B
7
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the Boundary Street Ordinance deferral request
for street construction for a period of five (5) years or until abutting development
occurs, whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 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 conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the Boundary Street
Ordinance deferral request for street construction for a period of five (5) years or until
abutting development occurred, whichever occurred first.
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
NAME: Lot 7 the Village at Rahling Road Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Timber Corporation
#7 Chenal Club Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-2, Shopping Center District Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-2, Shopping Center District Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,542 which
established The Village at Rahling Road Long-form PCD. The PCD established a 14-lot
development with C-2, Shopping Center District uses being permitted. The initial action
approved a site plan for Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each
of the remaining lots would be brought to the Commission and Board of Directors for a
revision to the PCD on an individual lot basis as a particular development was
proposed.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The project contains approximately 1.7 acres and is located near the southeast
corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway. The developer is proposing to
construct a small strip center utilizing C-2, Shopping Center District uses as
allowable uses. The site plan includes the placement of an outdoor deck for
dining. The building is proposed containing 16,140 square feet and the deck is
proposed containing 1,760 square feet. 77 parking spaces are indicated on the
site plan.
The hours of operation are proposed from 6:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per
week. Signage is proposed to meet the City of Little Rock ordinances and the
Architectural Design Elements of the Village at Rahling Road Subdivision. The
maximum building height proposed is 35-feet.
The applicant is proposing a new drive from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway.
The drive is proposed with 36-feet of pavement and is proposed to connect
Chenal Parkway at an existing traffic signal serving the Promenade at Chenal
Shopping Center.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place. The property
was cleared and graded with initial development of the conceptual PCD for the
Village at Rahling Road. Access to the lot proposed for development is via
Rahling Circle, off of Rahling Road. Smaller office buildings are located adjacent
to the site proposed for development situated around Rahling Circle. There is a
larger building located near Rahling Road constructed as a multiuse building
through the original approval of the PCD. The Promenade at Chenal, a new
shopping mall, has recently been constructed across Chenal Parkway.
Rahling Circle has been constructed as a private drive. There are sidewalks in
place along the property frontage. Chenal Parkway is constructed as a four-lane
median divided roadway. There are no sidewalks in place along the frontage of
this property on the parkway. There is a traffic light located at Chenal Parkway
and the proposed new drive extending from Rahling Circle.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area property
owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Coalition of West Little Rock
Neighborhoods, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bascom
Place Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
3
Association, the Margeaux Property Owners Association and the Witry Court
Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed south driveway should be removed. In the subdivision, every
two (2) lots share one (1) driveway. This particular lot has 2 driveways
proposed. The existing driveways spacing in the subdivision is 240 feet and
120 feet. The proposed south driveway is only 55 feet from the closest
driveway to the south.
2. In accordance with Section 31-210 (h)(12), access driveways running
parallel to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 75 feet of
the curb line of the street. When Lot 6 develops, a four-way intersection will
be created similar to the other lots in the subdivision.
3. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Chenal
Parkway to the existing sidewalk in accordance with Section 31-175 of the
Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along both sides of
the driveway in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and
the Master Street Plan.
6. A left turn in from Chenal Parkway cannot be allowed into the proposed
driveway. A left turn out of the driveway cannot be allowed onto Chenal
Parkway. Contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineering, for additional
information at 379-1818.
7. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street
improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
8. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
10. Provide the proposed centerline grades periodically of the access easement
drive.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
4
12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
13. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
14. The access easement should have a width of 60 feet and the drive
constructed with the minimum width of 31 feet from back of curb to back of
curb. The maximum allowed centerline grade is twelve (12) percent.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or
relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the
expense of the developer.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
5
Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial. The primary function
of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal
Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. Rahling Road is a Minor Arterial. A Minor
Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary
function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Rahling
Circle is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide
access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-
residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as
“Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is planned along Chenal Parkway. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of
way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock
Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape:
1. Before a landscape permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to
the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more require the landscape plan
be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect.
2. An irrigation system is required for developments of one (1) acre or larger.
3. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage
of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and
appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The
screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by
at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height.
4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or
freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide.
5. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any
vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces. In order to
apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the minimum size
of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for
developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Trees
must be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for
every twelve (12) parking spaces. Flexibility is permitted with placement of
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
6
interior landscape islands, however, interior landscaping should be generally
distributed throughout the vehicular use areas.
6. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and one-half
(7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit.
7. Street buffers are required in all instances. The street buffer along Rahling
Circle and Chenal Parkway must average 23.22 feet in width and in no case
less than one-half or 11.6 feet.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the development. Staff presented the
item stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff stated the basic infrastructure was in place with the development
of the Villages at Rahling Road. Staff stated the site plan indicated the
placement of the proposed dumpster within the front yard setback along Rahling
Circle. Staff requested Mr. Daters provide a detailed sketch of the proposed
dumpster screening mechanism. Staff questioned if the building proposed would
have two fronts. Staff stated the Village at Rahling Road development plan
indicated buildings were to be constructed with a 13-foot setback from the curb
and a minimum of fifty percent of the buildings were to front the loop drive.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated in the existing
development the developments shared drives and the drives were placed
approximately 120 and 240 feet apart. Staff stated the drive indicated was 55
feet from the closest driveway to the south. Staff stated drives running parallel to
the street could not create a four-way intersection within 75-feet of the curb line
of the street. Staff stated the driveway extending from Chenal Parkway to
Rahling Road would not be allowed left turns out or left turn in from southbound
Chenal Parkway. Mr. Daters stated Mr. Ernie Peters had prepared a traffic
assessment for the intersection and would meet with Traffic Engineering to
address their concerns.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the development would
require the submission of a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered
landscape architect. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system would be
required to water landscaped areas.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
7
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the
issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised
site plan has relocated the dumpster away from the front building setback and
has removed the driveway located on Rahling Circle. The development is
proposed with the front facing Rahling Circle with parking located within the front
yard area. According to the development plan provided to staff with the filing of
the original conceptual PCD all buildings are to be constructed within 13 feet of
the back of curb of the loop street and at least 50% of the buildings are to face
the loop street.
The development is proposed as a strip center containing 16,140 square feet of
building area and 1,760 square feet of covered deck area. The proposed uses of
the building are C-2, Shopping Center District uses. The parking indicated on the
plan is 78 spaces. Based on the typical parking required for a mixed use
development a total of 79 spaces would typically be required. The development
has been constructed with parallel spaces on the street and a centralized parking
area to serve the users. Staff feels with the available parking the parking
indicated is adequate to serve the proposed use and will not impact the
remainder of the development.
The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 2:00 pm seven days per week. All
signage is to comply with the Chenal Architectural Design Elements for the
Village at Rahling Road and City ordinance. The site plan indicates a maximum
ground mounted sign height of six feet and a total sign area not to exceed forty
square feet. Building signage will not exceed signage allowed in commercial
zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area.
The building is proposed with a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet. All site
lighting will be low level and directed downward and into the site and away from
adjacent properties.
The developers have indicated the placement of a 60-foot driveway and utility
easement extending from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway. The easement is
proposed to be recorded in conjunction with the final platting of Lot 7 referencing
the drive as shared. The drive is proposed to connect on Chenal Parkway at an
existing traffic light serving the Promenade at Chenal Shopping Center.
Lot 7 is indicated with two access points on the shared drive. The drive has not
been redesigned as requested by Public Works staff to eliminate the potential
future traffic conflicting traffic movements. Staff also has concerns with the drive
proposed extending from Rahling Circle to Chenal Parkway. The developers
have indicated a traffic analysis has been completed but the information has not
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-M
8
been provided to the City’s Traffic Engineering Department. Staff feels there are
too many outstanding issues for the item to move forward as proposed. Staff
feels the issues concerning the placement of parking within the front yard area
and the driveway locations and configurations should be addressed prior to staff
providing a positive recommendation. Based on the development as currently
presented staff cannot support the development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating on July 17, 2009, the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of
the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
NAME: BCI Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 6500 Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:
Bell Corley Investments, LLC
100 Gamble Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
SURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-O - Expired
ALLOWED USES: Real Estate Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Daycare center
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site was constructed as a non-residential building prior to annexation by the City of
Little Rock in the 1980’s. The building has served as a number of commercial uses
including a roofing contractor’s office. The site was previously allowed a C-4, Open
Display District non-conforming status. The building sat vacant for more than one year,
thus resulting in the loss of its non-conforming status.
Ordinance No. 19,340 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 21, 2005,
rezoned the property from R-2, Single-family to PD-O to allow a real estate office to
locate on the site. The immediate plans included the painting of the interior and
exterior of the building along with the addition of planting beds in front of the building to
enhance the overall appearance of the site. The approval allowed the utilization of the
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
2
existing right-of-way for backing from the parking spaces for three (3) years. The site
plan indicated sufficient backing space to allow for motorists to maneuver without
backing into the travel lanes of Mabelvale Pike. The office use was not located on the
site and no improvements were completed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL:
The owner of the property located at 6500 Mabelvale Pike is requesting an
amendment to the previously approved PD-O to allow the use of the property as
a daycare facility. The property is owned by Bell-Corley Investments, LLC and is
under conditional lease agreement subject to zoning approval with
Mrs. Julia Wilkins. Mrs. Wilkins owns Meme’s House of daycare and desires to
locate her business at this location due to the proximity to her home and the
need for child care services in the neighborhood.
The days and hours of operation from Monday through Friday from 5:30 am to
7:30 am and from 2:00 pm to 7:30 pm when school is in session and from
5:30 am to 7:30 pm during holiday breaks and summers and Saturday from
8:00 am to 1:00 pm. 15 to 20 school aged students is proposed as the maximum
number of clients. The business has two (2) employees and no vehicles are
used in transporting the children to the daycare center.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a commercial building along with a narrow paved area located
in front of the building. Parking stalls have not been indicated on the paved area.
A new wood fence has been constructed along the northern perimeter and
fencing is in place along portions of the western and southern perimeters.
There are single-family homes located to the west and south of the site along
West 65th Street. There are also single-family homes located to the north of the
site across West 65th Street. There is a funeral home located to the north of the
site, also across West 65th Street. To the east of the site are commercial uses
abutting South University Avenue. To the southwest of the site there are
single-family homes along from Mabelvale Pike.
Mabelvale Pike is a narrow unimproved road with no curb, gutter or sidewalk in
place abutting the property. West 65th Street appears to have been constructed
to Master Street Plan standard with the proper pavement width, curb and gutter.
There is a sidewalk located on the north side of West 65th Street.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock
United for Progress, the Meadowcliff Brookwood Neighborhood Association, the
South Brookwood Ponderosa Neighborhood Association and the Wakefield
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Mabelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
2. West 65th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
West 65th Street and Mabelvale Pike.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required on Mabelvale Pike
in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
5. Provide the location of child drop off and pickup area.
6. Backing vehicles out onto Mabelvale Pike from this property is not allowed
due to it creates unsafe driving conditions. A vehicle turnaround area must
be provided.
7. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
8. 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).
9. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be
implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the
increased impervious area.
10. Per City code, the width of the driveway must not exceed 36 feet. The
driveway is currently 53 feet wide. The northeastern portion of the driveway
width should be reduced.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. If we set another meter a Capital
Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this
project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #17 – the Mabelvale-Downtown
Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property.
The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Development Office.
The request is to continue and use the structure for Office use, since no change
in use is requested, no Land Use Plan change is proposed.
Master Street Plan: West 65th Street and Mabelvale Pike are Collectors. The
primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local
Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes planned for the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Geyer Springs West
Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Land Use and Zoning goal states: “Ensure that
non residential development and multi family development in the area be limited
to areas currently reserved for such uses on the Future land Use Plan or in areas
currently zoned for non residential and multi family uses.”
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
5
Landscape:
1. A minimum 9-foot wide street buffer along Mabelvale Pike and along West
65th Street is required. The minimum width allowed by the landscape
ordinance is 6-feet 9-inches. Any variation from the landscape ordinance
requirement must be approved by the City Beautiful Commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
2. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern
and western perimeters of the site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Matt Bell was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the request stating there were additional items in need of addressing prior to
the item being forwarded to the Commission for final action. Staff requested
Mr. Bell provide the number of students, the number of faculty and the number of
vehicles to serve the daycare. Staff also requested Mr. Bell provide how the drop
off and pick up would function on the site. Staff stated a new paved parking area
would be required. Staff stated the parking would not be allowed to back into the
public right of way or the street. Staff requested the revised site plan indicate the
area proposed for the playground.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20 foot radial dedication
would be required at the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and West 65th Street.
Staff stated sidewalks with handicap ramps would be required on Mabelvale
Pike. Staff stated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk would require replacement
prior to occupancy.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening was required
along the northern, western and southern perimeters. Staff stated landscaping
would be required in conjunction with the new on-site paving. Staff stated a
minimum street buffer was required on West 65th Street and Mabelvale Pike.
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.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant provided staff with a revised site plan on July 8, 2009, addressing
the concerns raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised cover letter indicates the days and hours of operation are Monday
through Friday from 5:30 am to 7:30 am and from 2:00 pm to 7:30 pm when
school is in session and from 5:30 am to 7:30 pm during holiday breaks and
summers and Saturday from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm. 15 to 20 students are
anticipated all school aged children. The business has two employees. There
are no vehicles for transporting the children to and from school. The business
will contact with a provide to provide transportation of the students to area
schools and to bring them back in the afternoon.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a parking area and removes the
need for backing of vehicles onto Mabelvale Pike. The parking area is located
along the south side of the building and contains four (4) spaces. Parking for a
daycare center is typically based on the number of staff and the licensed capacity
of the center. Based on the current number of students and facility members a
total of four (4) parking spaces would typically be required.
The site plan also indicates the placement of a dumpster within the parking lot
area near the residentially zoned and used property to the south and west. Staff
is not supportive of the dumpster as proposed. Staff feels based on the limited
use of the site the refuse needs could be served by the placement of trash bins
eliminating the need for a full sized dumpster.
The site plan indicates the placement of a playground area located behind the
building. The site plan indicates a screening fence will be placed along the
perimeters of the site. A new wood fence has been placed along the northern
perimeter. The remaining fence will be replaced or repaired as needed to
provide the required screening for the adjacent residential uses.
Signage has not been addressed. Staff recommends any ground signage be
limited to a maximum height of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four
square feet. Staff also recommends any building signage be limited to building
signage typically allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten percent of the
façade area abutting a public street.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site formerly housed a commercial use
and was previously approved for an office use, which never materialized. The
site plan has been developed to allow the pick-up and drop-off activity to take
place on the site. The site is located at the intersection of two Collector Street
Standard streets per the Master Street Plan and one block removed from an
Arterial classified roadway. The use of the property is limited with the number of
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835-A
7
students and the hours of operation. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues in need of addressing related to the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends the development not utilize a dumpster and accomplish refuse
collection with the placement of garbage can trash containers.
Staff recommends any ground signage be limited to a maximum height of six feet
and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square feet. Staff also recommends any
building signage be limited to building signage typically allowed in office zones or
a maximum of ten percent of the façade area abutting a public street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 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 conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report. Staff presented a recommendation the development not utilize a dumpster and
accomplish refuse collection with the placement of garbage can trash containment.
Staff presented a recommendation any ground signage be limited to a maximum height
of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square feet. Staff also presented a
recommendation any building signage be limited to building signage typically allowed in
office zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area abutting a public street.
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7964-A
NAME: Kanis Creek Lot 10 Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 20 Kanis Creek Place
DEVELOPER:
Summit Bank
12915 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
SURVEYOR:
Central Arkansas Surveying, Inc
1012 Autumn Road, Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Building envelope adjustment
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,71 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 7, 2006,
rezoned the property from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow a 9.94-acre tract to be
subdivided into 50 single-family residential lots resulting in a density of 5.0 units per
acre. The applicant indicated the lots would be developed utilizing standards less than
the typical minimum standards for R-2 zoned properties and therefore, requested the
development of the homes as a Planned Residential Development
The minimum lot size proposed was 5,395 square feet and the maximum lot size
proposed was 11,094 square feet. The site plan indicated 14,697 square feet of
common open space and 154,416 square feet of green space. Variances were
approved to allow reduced front building lines adjacent to the indicated roadways and
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7964-A
2
double frontage lots. The maximum build area for the proposed lots included 5-foot side
yard setbacks and 20-foot rear yard setbacks.
At the time of approval the site was located outside the City limits of the City of Little
Rock. The property has since been annexed into the City limits to allow the
development to connect to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved PD-R to
increase the building envelope for Lot 10 Kanis Creek Subdivision. A new home
has been constructed on the property. The home contains approximately
2,350 square feet with a covered patio area located in the rear of the home. The
covered patio was constructed outside the previously approved buildable area.
The covered patio encroaches into a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback and
easement by two (2) feet. The length of the cover is fourteen and one-half
(14.5) feet. There are no other modifications proposed to the previously
approved PD-R.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A number of the new homes are in various states of completion and a number
are occupied residences. The streets have been constructed and the
improvements to Pride Valley Road have been completed. Kanis Road has been
widened and a new sidewalk has been put in place along the property frontage.
Across Kanis Road to the north is a single-family residence and a PD-O zoned
site which contains a contractor’s office. Further north is a single-family
subdivision accessed from Chenal Parkway. Baker Elementary School is located
to the east of the site. The property to the west is undeveloped, mostly wooded,
and is zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District. There are single-family homes
located along Pride Valley Road to the south of the site located on large lots.
Immediately east of the site proposed for development is wooded property
owned by Baker Elementary School.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from
area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Parkway Place
Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7964-A
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revised Planned Residential Development.
There is no use change requested that would require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Creek Place is a Local Street. The primary function of
a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes planned for the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock
Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape: No comment.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7964-A
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were no
outstanding technical issues in need of addressing prior to the Commission
acting on the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no revisions to the site plan necessary based on comments raised at
the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is a revision to a
previously approved PD-R to increase the building envelope for Lot 10 Kanis
Creek Subdivision. According to an as-built survey the new home located on Lot
10 Kanis Creek Subdivision was constructed outside the allowable building
envelope along the eastern perimeter (rear yard) area. The home contains
approximately 2,350 square feet with a covered patio area. The covered patio
was constructed outside the previously approved buildable area and encroaches
into a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback and easement by two (2) feet. The
length of the roof cover is fourteen and one-half (14.5) feet.
Staff is supportive of the request. There are no other modifications proposed to
the previously approved PD-R. The cover was constructed within a utility
easement/setback. The various agencies did not indicate any concerns with the
structure as presently located. The area to the east is undeveloped property
currently owned by the Pulaski County Special School District. Staff does not
feel leaving the structure as presently constructed will impact the subdivision or
the adjacent properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7964-A
5
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.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-8470
NAME: Ramirez Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 3723 West 98th Street
DEVELOPER:
Jose Able Ramirez
3723 West 98th Street
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
Hope Engineering
322 North Market Street
Benton, AR 72015
AREA: 2.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and Non-conforming Commercial
Automotive Repair
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Automotive Repair
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Manufactured Homes,
Automotive Body Repair
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to respond to comment raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision
Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 3, 2009,
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had failed to respond to comment raised at the
July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the
item be deferred to the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8470
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-8471
NAME: Young Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 712 Ash Street
DEVELOPER:
Carol Young
712 Ash Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying, Inc.
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District
ALLOWED USES: High-density residential uses at a density of thirty-six units
per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Rear Yard Garage - Variation from the Hillcrest
Design Overlay District to allow an increased percentage of rear yard lot coverage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting the establishment of a PD-R to allow the extension of
a garage roof to cover a two-car parking pad located in the rear of the existing
home. The pad measures 21.8 feet by 23 feet. The applicant intends to
demolish the existing garage located off the alley at 712 Ash Street and construct
a new two (2) door, side-entry garage, using the same footprint, 20’2” x 21’8”.
The structure will be constructed with a five foot setback from the alley. The
entire roof will result in approximately 950 square feet of covered space.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471
2
The new structure will be constructed with a raised roof pitch, using three tab
singles and the sheath of the garage will be with horizontal siding, much more in
keeping with the residence on the property.
The request is for a variation from Section 36-434.14(C). According to the
Hillcrest Design Overlay within the rear-lot twenty-five foot setback from the rear
property line accessory building coverage shall be no more than forty (40)
percent of the area in that section. The new garage structure is proposed
containing approximately 950 square feet. Without the approval of a variation,
the Overlay would allow a structure containing approximately 500 square feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The home is located mid-block on Ash Street with a walk extending to the house
from Ash Street. This area of Hillcrest contains a number of single-family, duplex
and multi-family structures. The alley located behind the residences is a
functioning alley with a number of the residences on Ash and Beachwood Streets
parking off the alley.
The rear yard currently contains a garage structure and a two car parking pad.
The property to the north also contains an accessory structure located off the
alley as does a property further north and one to the south. Across the alley is a
property zoned PD-R which was approved to allow the construction of a garage
apartment. South of these properties are the non-residential uses located along
Kavanaugh Boulevard. At the end of the alley is a restaurant and an auto repair
shop.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. CATA Bus
Route #1 – Pulaski Heights Route is located to the south of the site along
Kavanaugh Boulevard.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential High Density for this property.
The request does not change the use of the property, no change to the Land Use
Plan is proposed.
Master Street Plan: Ash Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local
Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is planned along Kavanaugh Boulevard. A
Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional
paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be
required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Plan. Their Housing Goal states: “Pursue establishing an overlay district that
protects the eclectic architectural character of the Hillcrest Neighborhood without
imposing unreasonable restrictions on property owners' rights to remodel of
otherwise alter their property.” This PDR application is a direct result of the
Hillcrest Design Overlay District.
Landscape: No comment.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development stating there were no outstanding technical issues
in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the request. The
Commissioners encouraged the applicant to contact the Hillcrest Residents
Association and inform the association of her request. There was no further
discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting
in need of addressing with a revision to the site plan. The request is a rezoning
and the establishment of a PD-R to allow the extension of a garage roof to cover
a two-car parking pad located in the rear of this existing home. The site plan
indicates the existing garage located off the alley will be demolished and the new
construction involves a new two (2) door, side-entry garage, using the same
footprint, 20’2” x 21’8” and extending the roof of the new garage over an existing
two car parking pad located with a five foot setback from the alley.
The existing garage is constructed of sheet plywood and a flat roof. The new
structure will be constructed with a raised roof pitch, using three tab singles and
the sheath of the garage will be with horizontal siding, much more in keeping with
the residence on the property.
The site is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District which addresses a
number of issues including rear yard lot coverage. Section 36-434.14(C) states
within the rear-lot twenty-five foot setback from the rear property line accessory
building coverage shall be no more than forty (40) percent of the area in that
section. The structure is located approximately five (5) feet from the alley. As
currently constructed the structure contains approximately 500 square feet and
the two car parking pad located to the south of the garage is uncovered. The
new structure is proposed containing approximately 942 square feet and allows
replacement of the existing garage and covering the two car parking pad. Based
on the structure as proposed the area of rear yard coverage is 69 percent. As
stated the Hillcrest Design Overlay District allows a maximum rear yard coverage
of 40 percent. If for any reason the DOD cannot be adhered to the applicant
must seek a rezoning to a planned zoning district with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
overlay standards.
Staff is supportive of the request. Although the structure is proposed in excess of
the typical overlay standard the southern portion of the structure will remain open
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8471
5
allowing for the visual effect of breaking the massing. There are similar
situations located in the area with garages and garage apartments located off the
alleys. Staff does not feel the garage as proposed will impact the site or the
area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request dated July 15, 2009, requesting a deferral
of the item to the September 3, 3009, public hearing to allow additional time to meet
with the Hillcrest Residents Association. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 23, 2009
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-8472
NAME: Mid-Town at Fair Park Long-form PCD and Right of Way Abandonment for
portions of Fillmore Street, Maryland Avenue, Taylor Street and alleys located within
Blocks 3, 4 5 and 6 Perry Heights Addition
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of I-630 and Fair Park Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
AA Development
Attn. Scott Richburg
12911 Cantrell Road, Suite 7-118
Little Rock, AR 72223
St. Marks Baptist Church
Attn. Lamarr D. Bailey
5722 West 12th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
Richburg Services Group
Attn. Scott Richburg
12911 Cantrell Road, Suite 7-118
Little Rock, AR 72223
Crafton Tull Sparks
Attn. Barry Williams
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 6.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 Zoning Lots FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, R-6, O-1 and C-3
ALLOWED USES: Residential, Multi-family, Office and Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Hotel, Restaurant, Parking lot
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration ordinance to allow grading of the entire five (5)
lot development with the development of one or more lots.
2. A variance from the Master Street Plan and the Boundary Street Ordinance to allow
a decrease in the typical driveway spacing criteria.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The project consists of a redevelopment of a number of blocks located within the
Perry Heights Subdivision. The plan is to abandon portions of Maryland Avenue,
South Taylor Street and Fillmore Street along with the alleys within the area. The
developers will then reconstruct portions of Maryland Avenue and South Taylor
Street and set up a five lot subdivision. There are multiple utility lines that
traverse the site and most of these will no longer be needed with the proposed
reconfiguration. Easements will be platted for the newly aligned utilities.
The new uses will include a hotel, a drive-in restaurant, a drive-through
restaurant and two new parking facilities to support St. Mark Baptist Church. The
building proposed for Lot 1 contains approximately 4,000 square feet with
61 parking spaces. The building is proposed as a drive-through restaurant. The
building proposed for Lot 2 contains approximately 1,200 square feet and
39 parking spaces. The development is proposed as a drive-in restaurant. The
building proposed for Lot 3 is proposed as a four (4) story 81-room hotel with
90 parking spaces. The maximum building height proposed is 55 feet. Lot 4 is
proposed containing 67 parking spaces and Lot 5 containing 158 parking spaces.
As indicated the parking areas will serve St. Mark’s Church located across West
10th Street.
Signage is proposed with a 36-foot tall pylon sign containing 160 square feet in
area for Lots 1 – 3 adjacent to I-630. A single ground mounted monument sign is
proposed for each of the lots along Maryland Avenue/South Taylor Street. The
monument signs are proposed with a maximum height of ten (10) feet and
100 square feet in area. Building signage is proposed on the facades of the
buildings with street frontages. A wall sign is proposed on the western façade of
the proposed hotel building. This façade does not have public street frontage.
The maximum wall signage coverage is ten (10) percent of the façade area.
Lot sizes range from 0.68 acres to 1.66 acres. All the lots will be developed with
public street frontage.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
3
The request includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
grading of the entire five (5) lot development with the issuance of a building
permit for one or more lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This area of the City contains a mixture of uses including commercial, residential,
warehouse, church activities and a cemetery. A number of the homes located in
the area proposed for development have been removed. Homes are remaining
on South Taylor, south of Maryland Avenue. Across Fair Park Boulevard is a
property zoned PCD which contains a restaurant building, a hotel and a
convenience store. South of the site on the west side of Fair Park Boulevard is a
self service carwash, a boarded residences, office uses and apartments. On the
east side of Fair Park Boulevard are vacant and occupied single-family
residences. Along West 10th Street on the north side is a refrigeration company,
a plumbing warehouse, mini-storage a multi-story office building and a hotel.
On the south side of West 10th Street are church related uses, the sanctuary of
St. Mark’s Baptist Church, a cemetery and a multi-story office building.
Both West 10th Street and Fair Park Boulevard appear to have been constructed
to Master Street Plan standard. The streets located within the area proposed for
redevelopment are substandard streets with open ditches for drainage and no
sidewalk in place.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners and neighborhood associations. All property owners located
within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the site, the Oak Forest Initiative Coalition, the Oak Forest ACORN,
the War Memorial Neighborhood Association and the Fair Park 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 Maryland Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
4
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that South Taylor Street for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Maryland Avenue and Fair Park Boulevard.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
South Taylor Street and West 10th Street.
5. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Maryland Avenue
and South Taylor Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development. The streets should be constructed with 36 feet from back of
curb to back of curb.
6. 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).
7. 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. Will this entire
development be constructed in one phase? If not, is advanced grading
being requested for future development areas?
8. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
9. 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.
10. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
11. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. The proposed street
must have one name instead of two names.
12. 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.
13. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
5
14. Landscaping should be restricted to provide adequate sight distance
between the driveways of Lot 5, parking lot. Contact Nat Banihatti in Traffic
Engineering at 379-1818 for additional information.
15. Due to the proposed driveway locations, a variance should be requested for
the proposed driveway spacing.
16. Submit traffic impact and circulation plans showing estimated volumes and
maximum drive-through stacking during peak hours.
17. Improvements for Fillmore Street for the cul-de-sac are shown beyond the
existing right-of-way. Is this additional right-of-way being dedicated?
18. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
19. Maintain the right-of-way as utility easements if utilities are present.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer mains on site must be relocated or abandoned by
the developer of the project prior to any construction. No street right of way
abandonment can be approved by Little Rock Wastewater Utility without retaining
an easement for all existing sewer mains. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility
for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Central Arkansas Water has
no objection to closure of these rights-of-way. However, CAW has existing water
facilities located within this area and requires that the rights-of-way be retained
as utility easements or that the facilities are abandoned. Additional water facilities
will be required. A portion of the existing facilities, particularly the 8-inch main
and fire hydrant in the vicinity of Taylor and Maryland, should probably be
retained to serve the proposed development. In this case 7.5-feet on both sides
of water facilities should be dedicated as utility easement. 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. If there are facilities that
need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work
would be done at the expense of the developer. Please submit plans for water
facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
6
revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service.
Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division
and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems which do not
contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector
check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer shall be required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: There is not a dedicated CATA Bus Route located within the proposed
development area. CATA Bus Route #3 – Baptist Medical Center Route – runs
along West 12th Street, south of the site. CATA Bus Routes #17 – Mabelvale-
Downtown, #17A – Mabelvale UALR and #21 – University Avenue run along
South University Avenue to the west.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for
a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development for a mixed use development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Interstate 630 is part of the state freeway system. Fair Park
Boulevard is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and
through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Fair Park since it is a
Minor Arterial. West 10th Street is a Collector. The primary function of a
Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown along I-630. A Class I bikeway is built separate
from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. A
Class III is shown along Fair Park. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a
street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class
III bicycle route signage may be required.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
7
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Oak Forest
Neighborhood Plan. Their Economic Development goal states: “Create a healthy
economic climate that encourages investment, reinvestment, and diversity of
employment opportunities.”
Landscape:
1. Before a landscape permit is issued a landscape plan must be submitted to
the City. Developments of two (2) acres or more requires the landscape plan
be affixed with the seal of a registered landscape architect. The development
is being reviewed as an overall development plan containing a five lot
development requiring each of the lots to provide a landscape plan stamped
with the seal of a registered landscape architect at the time of building permit
for each lot.
2. An irrigation system is required for developments of one (1) acre or larger.
This development will be reviewed as an overall development plan containing
a five lot development requiring each of the individual lots to contain an
automatic irrigation system at the time of development.
3. Dumpsters, loading docks, heating and air conditioning units, external storage
of materials, communications equipment and similar outside activities and
appurtenances must be screened from abutting properties and streets. The
screen must exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by
at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height.
4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street, highway or
freeway. This strip must be at least nine (9) feet wide. The perimeter planting
strip adjacent to freeways or expressways must be at least thirty (30) feet
wide except within mature areas. Within the mature area the perimeter strip
may be reduced to nine (9) feet adjacent to the freeway.
5. Interior landscape areas must comprise at least eight (8) percent of any
vehicular use area containing twelve (12) or more parking spaces.
6. In order to apply toward the required eight (8) percent landscape area, the
minimum size of an interior landscape area must be one hundred fifty
(150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer
parking spaces. For developments with more than one hundred fifty
(150) parking spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area must be
three hundred (300) square feet. Trees must be included in the interior
landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking
spaces.
7. Flexibility is permitted with placement of interior landscape islands, however,
interior landscaping should be generally distributed throughout the vehicular
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
8
use areas. Interior planting island width must be not less than seven and
one-half (7 1/2) feet in order to receive credit.
8. Street buffers are required in all instances. All sites developed, modified or
enlarged must provide street buffers at six (6) percent of the average depth of
the lot with the minimum dimension being one-half (1/2) the full width
requirement and in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension
required is fifty (50) feet.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 2, 2009)
Mr. Barry Williams and Mr. Scott Richberg were present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were additional
items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. Williams
provide a detailed grading plan for the site. Mr. Williams stated grading would
take place on Lots 1 and 2 with the development of Lots 4 and 5. He stated the
developers were requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to
allow grading of multiple lots when construction was proposed for one lot. Staff
requested Mr. Williams provide the time line for phasing of the future
development.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a radial dedication would
be required at the intersections of the streets. Staff also stated streetlights were
required prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or prior to final
platting. Staff stated all work in the right of way would require permits prior to
doing work in the right of way. Staff stated landscaping should be restricted to
provide adequate sight distance between the drives of Lot 5 and the proposed
parking lot.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated interior landscaping was
required per the landscape ordinance. Staff also stated the northern perimeter
strip, adjacent to the interstate, was allowed to be reduced to nine (9) feet. Staff
stated a small amount of building landscaping would be required at the time of
development. Staff stated the site was being reviewed as an overall
development plan instead of a development with five (5) individual lots. Staff
stated a landscape plan and an automatic irrigation system would be required for
each of the individual lots at the time of development.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
9
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
at the July 2, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
a detailed grading plan will be submitted to Public Works staff at the time of
development. The revised cover letter indicates the development of Lots 4 and 5
will be immediate as will the grading on Lots 1 and 2. According to the applicant
the need for advanced grading on these lots will allow the dirt from Lots 4 and 5
to be used as fill material for Lots 1 and 2. The time line for the initial phase of
development (Lots 4 and 5) is beginning September 2009 with completion
January 2010. The grading of Lots 1 and 2 will also be initiated in the first phase.
Other phases do not have a specific time frame since the developer does not
have a specific tenant as yet. The applicant also indicates stormwater detention
will be on each lot and will not be provided in a regional detention facility.
The hours of operation are indicated as 24-hour operation for the restaurant and
hotel facilities. The two (2) parking areas will be owned by St. Mark’s Church
and used as parking for services and special events. The Church is requesting
the ability to gate the parking areas when they are not in use by the Church to
limit loitering on the property. Staff is supportive of the request.
The site plan indicates the placement of signage on all the proposed lots. Lots 1,
2 and 3 are indicated with a pylon sign located adjacent to I-630 with a maximum
height of 36-feet and a maximum sign area of 160-square feet. Each of these
lots will also have a ground mounted sign located on the new street. The signs
are proposed with a maximum height of ten feet and a maximum sign area of one
hundred square feet. The two parking lot lots are indicated with ground mounted
signage also. The signs proposed are a maximum of ten feet in height and one
hundred square feet in area. Building signage is proposed on the facades of
the buildings with street frontages with the exception of a wall sign is proposed
on the western façade of the proposed hotel building. The maximum wall
signage coverage is ten (10) percent of the façade area.
Lot sizes range from 0.68 acres to 1.66 acres. All the lots will be developed with
public street frontage. The new uses will include a hotel, a drive-in restaurant, a
drive-through restaurant and two new parking facilities to support St. Mark’s
Baptist Church.
The building proposed for Lot 1 contains approximately 4,000 square feet with
61 parking spaces. The building is proposed as a drive-through restaurant. The
maximum building height proposed is 35-feet. The typical parking required for a
restaurant based on the proposed square footage is 40 parking spaces. The
parking is adequate to serve the use.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
10
The building proposed for Lot 2 contains approximately 1,200 square feet and
39 parking spaces. The development is proposed as a drive-in restaurant. The
maximum building height proposed is 35-feet. The parking typically required for
a drive-in restaurant based on the square footage proposed is 12 spaces. The
parking is more than adequate to serve the restaurant use.
The building proposed for Lot 3 is proposed as a four (4) story 81-room hotel with
90 parking spaces. The maximum building height proposed is 55 feet. The
hotel is proposed with a meeting room, breakfast and drinks at happy hour.
There will not be a full service restaurant or a lounge/bar located within the hotel.
The parking typically required for a 81-room hotel is 89 parking spaces.
Lot 4 is proposed containing 67 parking spaces and Lot 5 containing 158 parking
spaces. As indicated the parking areas will serve St. Mark’s Church located
across West 10th Street.
The request includes the redevelopment of a number of blocks located within the
Perry Heights Subdivision. The request includes the abandonment of portions of
Maryland Avenue, South Taylor Street and Fillmore Street along with the alleys
associated with these blocks. Upon redevelopment the developer will
reconstruct portions of Maryland Avenue and South Taylor Street and replat the
area into a five-lot subdivision. With the abandonment the applicant is also
seeking approval for the abandonment of all utility easements located within the
street and alley rights of way. There are multiple utility lines that traverse the site
and most of these will no longer be needed with the proposed reconfiguration.
Upon completion of the project and relocation of the utilities within the area new
easements will be platted.
The specific abandonment includes a strip of land on Fair Park Boulevard located
south of Maryland Avenue running 140 feet south and is 10.83 feet in width. A
portion of Maryland Avenue located adjacent to Lots 6 and 7 Block 4 and Lots 1
and 12 Block 5. A portion of South Taylor Street located adjacent to Lots 7 – 12
Block 3 and Lots 1 – 6 Block 4 and a portion of Fillmore Street located adjacent
to Lots 8 – 12 Block 4. The alleys proposed for abandonment are located
between Lots 1 – 12 Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6. The alleys are indicated as 10-foot
alleyways. The right of way for South Taylor Street is indicated as a 40-foot right
of way. The right of way for Maryland Avenue is indicated as a 50-foot right of
way and the right of way for Fillmore Street is indicated as a 44-foot right of way.
With the exception of a portion of Fillmore Street and Maryland Avenue the rights
of way will become the ownership of the applicant. A 25 foot by 140 foot portion
of Maryland Avenue located adjacent to Lot 12 Block 5 will become the
ownership of southern property owner the plumbing company, Anne Moore
Family Partnership LLC. 22-feet by 211.50 feet of Fillmore Street will become
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
11
the ownership of the adjacent property owner to the west a mini-storage facility,
AA Storage LLC.
The revised cover letter indicates an enhanced streetscape will be placed along
Fair Park Boulevard. An area has also been identified on the site plan for
placement of a decorative embellishment adjacent to Fair Park Boulevard and
I-630 to serve as a gateway into the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated
a desire to utilize decorative lighting fixtures for the development. The desire is
to match any decorative lighting, furniture or streetscape which may ultimately be
placed along the 12th Street Corridor. The applicant has also stated the
landscape strip along Fair Park Boulevard will include trees placed as typically
required by the Landscape Ordinance but the size will be 3-inch caliper trees.
The developers have also indicated a commitment to increase the shrub count by
50 percent with one shrub every three feet. The effect is in some areas of the
street buffer will be a double row of shrub plantings.
The site plan indicates a number of drives accessing the new street from the
various lots. The drive are not indicated with the typical spacing to adhere to the
typical standards of the Boundary Street Ordinance or the Master Street Plan.
The drives are indicated to provide access and cross access to the lots as
proposed. Staff is supportive of the drives as indicated. Staff feels the majority
of the traffic accessing this street will be to visit the establishments within the
proposed subdivision. Staff does not feel based on the propose uses and the
limited times traffic will be generated on Lots 4 and 5 the drives as proposed will
negatively impact traffic flows in the area.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the applicants have done a good job
in addressing the site development issues concerning redevelopment of this
area. The developers have also indicated the intent to enhance Fair Park
Boulevard and to provide visual interest for this street which will ultimately serve
as a gateway to the 12th Street Corridor. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the use of
the property as proposed should benefit the site and the overall area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduction in the
driveway spacing criteria for drives accessing the new proposed street.
July 23, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8472
12
Staff recommends approval of the rights of way abandonment as indicated within
the application request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 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 conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to
allow a reduction in the driveway spacing criteria for drives accessing the proposed new
street. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the rights of way abandonment
requests as indicated within the application request.
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.