pc_01 18 2007sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 18, 2007
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Gary Langlais
Lucas Hargraves
Robert Stebbins
Troy Laha
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: Mizan Rahman
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 7, 2006 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 2007
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. Z-4663-C The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD, located at
12226 Kanis Road.
B. Z-6120-M Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form PD-R, located on
the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road.
C. S-1100-I Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat, located on Cooper
Orbit Road, South of Capitol Hills Boulevard.
D. Z-8117 CBM Appraisals Inc, Short-form POD, located at
15924 Cantrell Road.
E. LU06-08-04 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City Planning
District for a change from Single Family and Mixed Use to
Office and Neighborhood Commercial at 1401 Bishop
Street and 1311 Bishop Street.
E.1. Z-8101-A Bishop Street Short-form POD and Central Station
Commercial Retail Center Short-form PCD, located on the
Southwest corner of 14th and Bishop Streets and the
Northwest corner of Daisy Gatson Bates and Martin L. King
Boulevard.
F. LU06-15-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West
Planning District at the southwest corner of Bunch and
Chicot Roads from Commercial and Multi Family to Single
Family.
F.1. Z-3951-F Village on the Green Subdivision Long-form PD-R, located
on the Southwest Corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads.
G. Z-4923-D Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-form PCD, located on
the Southwest corner of I-430 and Shackleford Road.
Agenda, Page Two
OLD BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
H. Z-8133 Vick Short-form PD-R, Alley Abandonment and Right-of-
way Abandonment for Ludwig Street, located North of West
29th Street between Ludwig and Malloy Streets.
I. LA-0006-A Colonel Glenn Center Clearing and Wall Construction,
located West of Talley Road, North of Remington Road.
J. LA-0014 Boen Timber Harvest, located on the Northwest corner of
Colonel Glenn Road and I-430.
K. LA-0015 Whisenhunt Investments Land Alteration Variance Request,
located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and
Kanis Road western intersection.
L. Z-7603-C 14910 Cantrell Road Short-form PCD, located at
14910 Cantrell Road.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. S-992-T Pinnacle Valley Revised Preliminary Plat, located on the
West side of Pinnacle Valley Road, just North of Cantrell
Road.
2. S-1495-A Park Circle Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located at the end
of Park Avenue, East of Western Hills Avenue.
3. S-1554 Herndon Place Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located South
of Stagecoach Road, East of Herndon Road.
4. S-1555 Bradford Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located at
10204 German Road.
5. S-1553 Gains and Garland Subdivision Site Plan Review and Right
of Way Abandonment for a portion of Garland Street,
located on the Northwest corner of Garland and Gains
Streets.
Agenda, Page Three
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW :
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
6. Z-3001-E St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center Zoning Site Plan
Review, located on the Southeast corner of West Markham
Street and University Avenue.
7. Z-4336-Z Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review,
located between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Bishop
Street, South of Maryland Avenue and North of 10th Street.
8. Z-4336-AA Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review for
the Placement of Directional Signage, located at various
locations within the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Campus.
9. Z-7418-B EMTEC Zoning Site Plan Review, located at
1617 Aldersgate Road.
III. REZONING/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
10. Z-4336-BB Arkansas Children’s Hospital Rezoning from C-3, I-2 and
O-3 to O-2, located between Martin Luther King Boulevard
and Bishop Street, South of Maryland Avenue and North of
10th Street.
11. Z-7421-B Mid-Town Shopping Center Revised Long-form PCD,
located on the Northeast corner of West Markham Street
and University Avenue.
12. Z-7878-A Glenn Abbey Court Revised Short-form PD-R, located at
1716 Watt Street.
13. Z-8035-A Madison Park Revised Short-form PD-R, located on the
Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery
Road.
14. Z-8152 LPS Properties Short-form PCD, located at 424 North
University Avenue.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-4663-C
NAME: The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 12226 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Kanis Otter Creek Property Partners, LLP
8060 Count Massie Road
North Little Rock, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Office Building and 136 Room Assisted Living Facility
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Office, Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 20, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to
the September 14, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION: (August 3, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated July
20, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the September 14, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4663-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 applicant has contacted staff to request additional item to resolve the outstanding issues
associated with the request. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the item to the
October 26, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had contacted staff to request
additional item to resolve the remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
stated the applicant was requesting a deferral of the item to the October 26, 2006, 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 Withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, 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 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4663-C
3
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated November 20, 2006, requesting a deferral of this
item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated
November 20, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, 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 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with an updated site plan or addressed staff concerns
related to issues raised at the July 13, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff
recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice to allow the
applicant to resolve all outstanding issues and staff’s concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had not provided staff with an updated site plan or addressed staff concerns related
to issues raised at the July 13, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of withdrawal from consideration without prejudice to allow the
applicant to resolve all outstanding issues and staff’s concerns.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
10650 Maumelle Blvd.
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 9.45 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1,600 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – 44 Patio Homes
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site
with the construction of the public utilities.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone
42.58+ acres from R-2, Single-family to MF-12, Multi-family. The rezoning request was
associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File
No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi-family was located in two tracts lying on
either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue),
south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The application was
the third version of proposed multi-family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
2
The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of
the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the
proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring
Valley Manor Subdivision, which is adjacent to the south. The applicant at the Planning
Commission Public Hearing later withdrew the application.
The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of
the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street (Capitol
Hills Boulevard) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed multi-family property was in two
tracts, a 27+-acre tract lying south of the arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) and a
7+-acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi-family property was moved well north
of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported
this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density
had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was
basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter
relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street (Rushmore Avenue)
and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). There was some opposition to this
proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve
this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis
Renewal Center with their concern of locating the 7+ acres of Multi-family property
adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant
withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors’ agenda and filed a third
version of the proposed rezoning request.
The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the
proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue) from R-2 to MF-12.
The proposed Multi-family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment
of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street (Capitol Hills
Boulevard). The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper
Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which
was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was
moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of
Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the
arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a
“reserved” tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat.
The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2
to MF-12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any
development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on
the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres
within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not
developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of
sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer
improvement district, expansion or the existing sewer improvement district or some
other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
3
zoned MF-12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty
(20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned
Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regarded
area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50)
percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The
rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12 and Tract C,
14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12.
Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes
Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres).
The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse
development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on
11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of
5.3 units per acre.)
On July 11, 2002, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the
west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development – Residential to allow the
development of a 528-unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement
of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed for a
property zoned MF-12 and located to the east of the PD-R site. The request to rezone
the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both
Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20,
2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the western MF-12 property to
PD-R and Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the eastern MF-12 site to R-2.
The applicant proposed the PD-R development to be constructed in three phases with
156 units being constructed in Phases One and Two and 216 units in the third and final
phase. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been constructed to allow
access to the site as a part of the Phase I portion of the PRD.
Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003,
approved a revision to allow the creation of a three-lot plat following the previously
proposed phasing lines. The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street
frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take
access through a cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were
numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan
did not changed from the original submission.
The applicant revised the building placement slightly to allow for landscape strips
between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access parking
agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the typical
minimum parking demand for multi-family development.
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,963 on October 21, 2003,
revising the PD-R to allow the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The
applicant indicated a private contractor would service the compactors once a week.
The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should allow the driver
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
4
easy access and minimal disturbance to the residents in the early morning hours when
the compactors were serviced.
The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously
proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request included a
restoration plan for the buffer areas. The restoration plan included plantings in the area
previously designated as the land use buffer area be replanted at double the plantings
required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the south and the west
on Lot 1 of the development. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch
caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation
easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a
tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be maintained in the future.
On January 29, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request by the
applicant to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of the
site until Lot 3 was developed. The site was originally approved as a single tract
development and was later revised to allow three lots to develop following previously
approved phasing lines. The applicant stated since the PD-R for Capitol Hills
Apartments was revised to allow the creation of the three lots a deferral of street
improvements was customary until the lot abutting the roadway was developed (Lot 3).
The applicant withdrew the request from consideration and the roadways were
constructed.
Ordinance No. 19,277 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15,
2005 revised the previously approved PCD for the apartment portion of the overall
development plan. The proposed revision allowed for the construction of covered
parking and a clubhouse with a pool within the Phase II portion of the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and
Rushmore Avenue is proposed for rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to
allow the development of 9.45 acres with 44 patio home lots. The development
is proposed as a gated community with a single entrance from Rushmore
Avenue. The development will be constructed in a single phase. The request
includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced
grading of the entire site with the construction of the public utilities. The request
also includes the abandonment of a portion of Cooper Orbit Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has a number of trees located along the eastern portion of the site. The
western portion of the site was previously cleared and used for storage of dirt for
the construction of Rushmore Avenue. Cooper Orbit Road is the eastern
boundary of the proposed site and Rushmore Avenue is the western boundary.
To the north of the site is a tract which is being used as a regional detention
storage area for the Capitol Hills Development. The area to the south of the site
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
5
is wooded. To the west of the site is an apartment development previously
approved in three phases with only the first phase currently constructed.
Northwest of the site are two single-family subdivisions with new homes being
constructed in these areas. The Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located
further south. Rushmore Avenue has been constructed to Master Street Plan
standard abutting the properties western boundary.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association along with all
residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property
owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. The minimum horizontal radius of a residential street is 150 feet per the
Master Street Plan.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. The entrance lane to the subdivision must be at least 20 feet in width. Turn
around must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to
the width, the gated entrance does not appear to provide a sufficient
turn-around for a single unit truck SU-30 turning radius. Provide and
adequate turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. Public Works supports a variance for grading of
the lots prior to plat approval.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on preliminary plat.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
6
10. Access should be provided for the adjacent property to the east for future
street access to Rushmore Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Fire hydrants will be private. Annual charges will apply.
Easements will be required for any water mains that are outside public rights of
way. 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. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information. Gates must maintain a minimum gate
opening of 20-feet.
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 Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a long form PD-R to allow the placement of 44 patio homes on a
9.45 acre tract to be constructed as a gated community.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Capitol Hill Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and Rushmore Avenue is shown as a Collector. These
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
7
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements. 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. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a
connection from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development indicating there were a number of outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the proposed site plan
include the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green space
both public and private. Staff also noted the street names were incorrect and
should be revised to reflect the correct street names. Staff also stated previous
agreements had allowed a collector street through the site. Staff stated the
proposed site layout did not allow for the east-west collector connection to
Rushmore Avenue.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to development. Staff also stated the entrance to the subdivision
should be a minimum of 20-feet in width and have a depth sufficient to allow
ample stacking for cars attempting to enter the subdivision.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green
space both public and private. The revised plan indicates the corrected street
name of Rushmore Avenue. The revised plan indicates the placement of a
collector street along the northeastern perimeter of the site to allow an east-west
collector and provide access to the adjoining property.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
8
The development is proposed as a gated community with the call box being
placed at approximately 20-feet and the gate placed at approximately 43-feet
from the right-of-way. Staff is not supportive of this placement. Typically to allow
sufficient stacking and turn-around for cars not entering the subdivision the gate
should be placed at 60-feet and the call box should allow for a minimum stacking
of two cars waiting the enter the development. Staff is concerned with the
reduced stacking area. With the current configuration, cars will stack onto
Rushmore Avenue, a collector street classification, as they are waiting to enter
the development.
The development indicates an average lot size of 5,500 square feet with a
building footprint of approximately 2,800 square feet. The front and rear yard
setbacks are indicated at 15-feet and the side yard setbacks are indicated at
5-feet. The proposed site plan indicates the placement of a maximum buildable
area for each of the proposed lots. A six foot fence is proposed around the
perimeter of the site. The site plan does not indicate the placement of public
open space. The applicant has indicated all open space will be contained on the
homeowner lot.
The site plan indicates the placement of a subdivision identification sign within
the median area of the proposed drive entrance. The site plan does not indicate
the size of the sign. Staff recommends the signage be limited to signage
typically allowed in single-family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
thirty-two square feet in area.
The request includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading of the site. The applicant has not provided staff any
information concerning the need for the request and why the advanced grading is
necessary. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for advanced
grading.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a collector street along the
northeastern portion of the property. The location of the connection of the
proposed collector street to Capitol Hills Boulevard is questionable. Staff feels
the proposed intersection will be located too close to the existing connection of
Rushmore Avenue and an existing bridge located on Cooper Orbit Road. The
applicant has not provided staff with any documentation which would lead staff to
believe the location of the indicated roadway will serve the future needs for a
collector street.
Although, there is not a collector street indicated on the Master Street Plan
extending from this site to the east, staff feel the placement of a collector street in
the area is critical to ensure traffic flows in the area based on the development
pattern in the area and potential future development. Per the Master Street Plan
Section 2: Road Classifications – Street Functional Classifications – Collector –
(Paragraph 2) - “The spacing of Collectors may be decreased and/or the right of
way and paving surface increased due to density of residential development and
the locations of commercial areas or other large traffic generators. At the time of
the subdivision, the exact location and additional need for Collectors will be
determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advice by City Staff.”
Also Section 31-201(b) states “the street layout should be appropriate for the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
9
type of development proposed and properly integrated with the street system in
the area adjoining the subdivision. The layout shall also conform to the existing
and proposed land uses and the most advantageous development pattern of the
surrounding area”. Staff feels this additional collector street is necessary to
serve future developable lands located to the east of the site.
The applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit
Road to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff has
concerns with the abandonment of the right of way with the current request. The
applicant has not provided staff with the required information from the utility
companies indicating their need for easement. Staff feel all the required
documentation should be provided prior to the Commission acting on the
request.
Staff has concerns with the application as proposed. There are a number of
issues which staff feels should be addressed to allow the development to move
forward. The location of the collector street could potentially affect the lot layout
and the development of the property. Staff feels the location of this street should
be addressed prior to the Commission acting on the application request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, 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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the was not enough information
provided to allow them to make a complete review of the proposed development
including outstanding issues associated with the location of a proposed collector street
extending to the east. Staff stated the request also included a variance from the Land
Alteration Ordinance. Staff stated they did not have enough information to support the
request. Staff stated there were a number of issues related to the design of the
proposed subdivision. Staff stated the indicated gates did not allow sufficient stacking
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
10
on the site and there was a potential for cars stacking into the right of way. Staff stated
the request included an abandonment of the “old” Cooper Orbit right of way. Staff
stated they were not in the position of making a recommendation since the applicant
had not provide staff with comments for all the utility companies. Staff stated of the
comments provided a number of the utilities had indicated their desire to maintain the
area as an easement. Staff stated with the current lot layout a number of the homes
would be constructed over utilities.
Staff stated the developers had provided a location of an east-west collector street on
the site plan. Staff stated no data had been provided to ensure the street could be
constructed in the proposed location.
Mr. Andy Francis addressed the Commission on behalf of the developer. He stated the
developer was no longer requesting a gated entrance. He stated this should eliminate
staff’s concerns related to the gate design and stacking of automobiles into the right of
way. He stated the developers engineering firm had indicated a location of a collector
street along the northeastern portion of the property. He stated according to his
engineering firm the location of the collector street would accommodate staff’s request
for a collector street running east-west through the area. He stated his owner was
willing to dedicate the right of way for the street but was not willing to construct the
street. He stated staff was also requesting a second collector street located to the
south of Tract C. He stated his client did not feel this street was required due to spacing
requirements for collector streets.
Commissioner Yates stated he felt he was in support of the concept of the development
but he was confused as to the request. He stated he felt the proposed application was
lacking detail and information to allow staff and the Commission to act on the request.
He stated since the meeting was a public hearing and not a work session he did not feel
this was the place to work out the details.
There was a general discussion concerning the location of the proposed collector street
which was previously proposed through Tract C. Mr. Francis stated his client was not
willing to bisect the tract with a collector street when an acceptable alternative location
had been identified. He stated the volume of traffic in the area did not warrant the
placement of two collector streets in the area. He stated the previous commitments had
required the property adjacent to Tract C legal and physical access to a roadway prior
to the abandonment of Cooper Orbit Road. He stated the previous owner had no other
access. Mr. Francis stated now Rocket Properties owned the land and they did have
access to the east without the placement of a connection or collector street in the area
to serve the property. He stated he felt the connection should be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard and not Rushmore Avenue since Rushmore Avenue was a collector street
and Capitol Hills Boulevard was an arterial roadway. He stated the developer would
give the right of way through Tract D to allow the connection to be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard. The Commission questioned the ownership of Tract D. Mr. Francis stated
the Property Owners Association owned the tract. The Commission questioned how the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
11
developer could provide the right of way if he did not own the property. The
Commission then questioned who would build the road. Mr. Francis stated his client
was not willing to construct the section of road through Tract D. He stated the
developer was willing to provide the right of way.
Mr. Baker Kurrus addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
property was located along the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and he was not
agreeable to the abandonment unless access to the property could be resolved. He
stated currently he had access along the western frontage of this property and his
desire was to maintain this access. He stated there were a number of utilities which
would have to be relocated prior to the construction of the street. He questioned at
whose expense this would be undertaken. He also stated he was not willing to
construct street improvements to property he did not own and was not able to develop.
He stated he was not sure the location of the street would work since Tract D, the
location of the proposed connection, held the detention pond. He stated presently the
detention pond was leaking and any construction could cause instability for the
structure.
Mr. Kurrus provided the Commission with a history of the site and agreements which
had been made. He stated an agreement from the Public Works Department in 1999
stated the road would be constructed to 31 feet of pavement and would provide legal
and physical access to his property in two locations.
Mr. Ron Tyne addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the collector street
system was designed to allow automobiles to move through the area. He state within
his current development collector streets had been designed to make the western
connection. He stated in preliminary meetings with staff a collector street was
requested to allow flow and connectivity through out the area. He stated staff’s request
for the 2nd Collector street could be addressed if he had additional time to meet with
staff and provide a preliminary lot layout plan. He stated he understood staff’s concerns
since no future planning had been completed in the area to determine the need for
additional streets.
Mr. Tyne stated the location proposed for the connection near Tract C was
questionable. He stated it would be difficult to construct street improvements on
property his company did not own. The Commission stated it would also be difficult for
the City to fund the street improvements under the current budget constraints.
Mr. Robert Arnold addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his concerns were primarily safety concerns. He stated with the grade of Rushmore
Avenue residents were unable to enter their subdivision during bad weather. He stated
he did not feel Cooper Orbit Road should be abandoned until such time the grade of
Rushmore Avenue was corrected.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
12
Mr. Francis stated due to the questions and the concerns his client was willing to accept
a deferral to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request.
The Commission questioned the deferral date. Staff stated the date would be
January 18, 2007. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated December 21, 2006 requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration. This area will be combined with a proposed preliminary
plat located to the south of the site to be held for future development. See Item No. C,
File No. S-1100-I for additional information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff syated the
applicant had submitted a request dated December 21, 2006 requesting the item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated the area was being combined with a
proposed preliminary plat located to the south of the site and would be held for future
development. Staff stated the item would be combined with Item No. C, File No.
S-1100-I and suggested this item be consulted for additional information.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1100-I
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat and the Abandonment of
Cooper Orbit Road
LOCATION: Located on Cooper Orbit Road, South of Capitol Hills Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
P.O. Box 13256
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 85.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 199 FT. NEW STREET: 14,900
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced front building line 15-feet for Lots 6 – 14 Block 14.
(Section 31-256)
2. A variance to allow a reduced front building line adjacent to a collector street.
[Section 31-256(1)]
3. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 6 – 14 Block 14. [Section 31-232(a)]
4. A variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block 9.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the
development of 190.624 acres with 318 single-family lots. Subsequently, two final plats
have been filed for the previously approved plat area. A tract totaling 39.84 acres which
included 103 single-family lots and a PD-R for Governors Manor was final platted which
contained 9.42 acres and 45 zero lot line single-family lots. Rushmore Avenue and
Capitol Hills Boulevard have also been constructed.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
2
In October of 2003, during development of the apartment site located immediately north
of the proposed plat area the required land use buffer area was destroyed. The area
damaged was located along the western and southern perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1) of
the apartment development. The Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of
Directors approved a restoration plan for the destroyed buffer area. The restoration
plan included plantings in the area previously designated as the land use buffer area be
replanted at double the plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included
the area to the south and the west on Lot 1 of the apartment development located to the
north of this site. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch caliper and
additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation easement
and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 of the apartment development
be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be
maintained in the future.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting an amendment to the previously approved
preliminary plat for the portion located south of the intersection of Capitol Hills
Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue. The project contains 85.5 acres and the
request includes the area to be subdivided into 200 single-family residential lots.
An average lot size of 80-feet by 130-feet or 10,400 square feet is proposed.
The request includes several variance request; A variance to allow a 15-foot front
building line for Lots 6 – 14, Block 14 and Lots 29 - 32, Block 9; A variance to
allow a 25-foot building line adjacent to a collector street for Lots 1 and 2, Block
9, Lots 1, 8, 9 and 10, Block 11, Lots 1, 5, 6, Block 12, Lots 1, 5 and 6 Block 13,
Lots 30 – 32 Block 9; A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 6 – 14,
Block 14; A variance request to allow double frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block
9.
Portions of Cooper Orbit Road runs through the proposed plat area. The
applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit Road
to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is
currently zoned R-2, Single-family. The Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is
located south of the site and an apartment development is located to the north of
the plat area. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been
constructed to the north of the area. There are new single-family homes
currently under construction to the north of the proposed site in the Governor’s
Manor Subdivision.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from
area residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association along with
all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all abutting
property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Provide documentation showing the proposed streets provide adequate
Intersection Sight Distance (for all intersections). Calculations must be done
in accordance with the 2004 AASHTO Green Book.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. For properties adjoining intersections, Section 32-8 of the Little Rock Traffic
Ordinance prohibits construction of any sign or fence, planting shrubbery or
other obstruction to the view higher than 30 inches within that triangular
area between the property line and a diagonal line joining points on the
property line fifty (50) feet from point of their intersection. For exceptions
and/or more information about the ordinance, contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1817.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. A variance must be obtained for grading of lots
prior to plat approval or advance grading of a future phase.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Staff does not support variance request to exceed the street and
intersection grade limits required by the Master Street Plan as proposed on
this plan. Proposed intersection grades must have a vertical alignment of
3% or less per 2004 AASHTO Green Book. Intersection grades can be in
excess of 3%, up to 6% if justification is provided. The Master Street Plan
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
4
allows street grades to be a maximum 15% for residential streets and 16%
for minor residential streets.
10. The name "Dover" for a street name is already in use. Another name
should be chosen. Contact David Hathcock at 371-4808 for additional
information.
11. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct full street improvements to Rushmore Avenue
(Cooper Orbit Road) including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development to
meet the Master Street Plan standards.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Easements will be required for any water mains that are
outside public rights of way. 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. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff stated the street names were incorrect on the
plat and requested the applicant rename Cooper Orbit Road to Rushmore
Avenue. Staff also stated the plat did not indicate the required building line
adjacent to a collector street. Staff noted there were a number of variances
being requested for the proposed development. Staff stated the variances had
not been requested with the initial application request and requested the
applicant update the variance request form. Staff questioned if a subdivision
identification sign would be placed within the development. Staff stated if the
development was proposing a subdivision sign, the applicant should provide the
location of the sign along with a note concerning the total height, total length and
total sign area.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they were not supportive
of the variance request for the increased street grades at intersections. Staff
also stated a grading permit would be required prior to the development of the
proposed subdivision. Staff noted the street construction for Rushmore Avenue
should conform to the Master Street Plan requirements for a collector street.
Staff noted there were concerns with the proposed plat from an adjoining
property owner. Staff stated previous agreements had indicated the placement
of a collector street from the east connecting to Rushmore Avenue. Staff stated
this location had not been “pinned down” but was located within the eastern
portion of the plat area or with the proposed Planned Residential Development
area for Tract C, which was a separate item on this agenda (Z-6120-M). Staff
requested the applicant meet with the adjoining property owner to determine the
best location for access to the future phases of the Woodlands Edge Subdivision
to allow connectivity in the area.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 preliminary plat to staff addressing some of the
issues raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has renamed Cooper Orbit Road to Rushmore Avenue, indicated a
30-foot building line adjacent to Rushmore Avenue, and indicated the requested
variances. The revised plat does not include the placement of a subdivision
identification sign and the applicant has indicated signage is not being requested.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
6
A number of the previously indicated variances have been removed from the
request. The plat does indicate a variance to allow a reduced lot depth for eight
of the proposed lots. Lots 6 – 8 and 10 – 14, Block 14 have been indicated with
a depth less than the typically required 100-foot depth. The lots have also been
indicated with a reduced front building line, 15-feet along Lot 10, Block 14 and
Lots 29 - 32, Block 9. The request is to allow the development of these lots
utilizing the Hillside Development Standards per Section 31-367. This criteria
requires the developer to provide the average slope of the development to
calculate the minimum lot size. The ordinance also requires no lot be less than
ten thousand square feet. The proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area
requirement. The request also includes a variance to allow a reduced building
line adjacent to a collector street, Lincoln Street. Typically the building line
adjacent to a collector street is 30-feet. The proposed plat indicates the
placement of a 25-foot building line. The plat includes a variance to allow double
frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block 9. These lots include the placement of a
10-foot restrictive access easement along the rear lot line to limit the number of
curb cuts.
Lincoln Street and Rushmore Avenue have been indicated constructed to
Collector Street standard per Master Street Plan. The remaining streets are
indicated as residential (50-feet of right-of-way) or minor residential streets
(45-feet of right-of-way) which will be constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
The plan indicates Phoenix Street extending to the eastern boundary of the plat
area. The street is indicated as a residential street with a 50-foot right-of-way
and 26-feet of paving. Based on the currently undeveloped property located to
the east of this proposed development, staff feels this street should be
constructed to a collector standard with a 60-foot right-of-way and 36-feet of
pavement.
Per the Master Street Plan Section 2: Road Classifications – Street Functional
Classifications – Collector – (Paragraph 2) - “The spacing of Collectors may be
decreased and/or the right of way and paving surface increased due to density of
residential development and the locations of commercial areas or other large
traffic generators. At the time of the subdivision, the exact location and additional
need for Collectors will be determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission
upon advice by City Staff.” Also Section 31-201(b) states “the street layout
should be appropriate for the type of development proposed and properly
integrated with the street system in the area adjoining the subdivision. The
layout shall also conform to the existing and proposed land uses and the most
advantageous development pattern of the surrounding area”. Staff feels this
additional collector street is necessary to serve future developable lands located
to the east of the site.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
7
The proposed preliminary plat indicates the placement of trails and tracts
dedicated as open space within the development. The proposed open space
tracts and trails will be maintained by the Property Owners Association through
the Bill of Assurance.
As stated in the Background Section of this report, in October of 2003, during
development of the apartment site located immediately north of the proposed plat
area the required land use buffer area was destroyed. The buffer that was
removed was located along the western and southern perimeters of the
apartment development. The Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of
Directors approved a restoration plan for the destroyed buffer area which
included plantings of the previously designated land use buffer with double the
plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the
south and the west of the apartment development. The plan included planting of
all trees of three inch caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south (land
located within the current proposed plat area) was to be retained in a
conservation easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2
of the apartment development be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3
also of the apartment development to ensure the buffer would be maintained in
the future. The plat as proposed does not appear to comply with this previous
agreement or approval. The plat indicates the placement of a 30-foot buffer
within the apartment development but does not include the additional 30-feet as
agreed coming from this plat area. If viewing the proposed plat layout the
affected lots are Lots 20 – 28 Block 9. Staff feels the proposed lots should be
redesigned to reduce the lot depth by the previously agreed to 30-feet.
Portions of Cooper Orbit Road runs through the proposed plat area. The
applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit Road
to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff has concerns
with the abandonment of the right of way with the current request. The new
street has not been constructed. Staff feels the abandonment should not take
place until the new access is constructed after which the abandonment may be
requested.
Staff is supportive of the proposed subdivision but has concerns with the number
of outstanding issues associated with the request. The request includes the
development of 85.54 acres with 200 single-family lots resulting in a density of
2.3 units per acre. Staff feels the developer should address staff’s concerns
regarding street design and construction, address the previously agreed to
reduction in the plat area along the northwestern perimeter of the property and
providing access to property located to the east in the form of a collector street to
serve future development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, 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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were a number of objectors present. The applicant
requested a deferral of the item to the January 19, 2007, public hearing to allow this
item to be discussed with the previous item Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form
PD-R (Z-6120-M) and Right of Way abandonment for Cooper Orbit Road, located on
the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper Orbit Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to defer the item. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has submitted the following amendment and details concerning the
proposed application request. The applicant is withdrawing Item No. B. File
No. Z-6120-M, the PD-R for Tract C of Capitol Lakes Estates. The property will be
combined with this item (Item No. C File No. S-1100-I) and will be presented as a single
item, all of which will be a subdivision plat for R-2 zoned property with no rezoning
required. In addition, the applicant makes the following amendments to this item
(File No. S-1100-I), which now includes Tract C:
1. The applicant is revising Tract C as follows:
a. The applicant will construct an east-west street to collector standard through
Tract C from Rushmore Avenue east, terminating at the common boundary
line between Tract C and Rocket Properties’ Woodlands Edge subdivision.
The north right of way line of the collector will be approximately 105 feet from,
and parallel to, the north boundary line of Tract C. The applicant will
construct the collector with the development of either of the tracts shown on
the revised plat of Tract C.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
9
b. The applicant is requesting the City abandon the right of way for Cooper Orbit
Road through Tract C. The abandonment of this right of way will not take
place until the construction and final platting of the collector street, but this will
not prevent the applicant from developing the balance of Tract C with the
construction of the Collector street.
c. The applicant is requesting the City also abandon 15-feet of the eastern right
of way from Rushmore Avenue. Rushmore Avenue is a collector street, but
the right of way was increased from 60 feet to 90 feet to accommodate
potential grade changes from the adjacent site. This additional distance is not
needed on the eastern edge of the right of way by Tract C. After abandoning
15 feet of the right of way the eastern right of way will still conform to
Collector standards. The applicant will use the additional 15 feet to increase
lot depths on Tract C and to create an undeveloped tract between any lots on
Tract C and Rushmore Avenue, thus eliminating any need for variances for
double frontage lots along Rushmore Avenue.
d. The applicant is requesting an advanced grading variance for Tract C and the
applicant is preparing a grading plan for Tract C to provide more detailed
information on the advanced grading request.
e. The remainder of Tract C is shown as two tracts for future development. After
final approval of the amendments to Tract C, the applicant anticipates filing an
amended subdivision application for the development of each tract.
2. The applicant is revising Phase 2 as follows:
a. With the platting of the Collector street through Tract C, the applicant will not
construct Phoenix Street in Phase 2 of Capitol Lakes Estates to Collector
standard. Phoenix Street will be constructed to minor residential street
standard. Also, Phoenix Street will not stub out on the eastern boundary line
of Phase 2, but will be looped, running to the south.
b. The applicant will revise the Phase 2 plat to clearly indicate that the additional
30 foot undisturbed buffer taken from Phase 2 adjacent to the common
boundary line of Lot 1, Capitol Hills Apartments.
c. The applicant has prepare a sketch grading and drainage plan for the portion
of Phase 2 which drains south into the Spring Valley Manor subdivision.
d. The applicant has removed all variances from Phase 2 except for some minor
street grade variances shown on the revised plat.
The revised preliminary plat has removed a number of the previously indicated variance
requests. The revised plan indicates the placement of a 30-foot building line adjacent to
the proposed collector streets and removed all proposed double frontage lots. The site
plan clearly identifies the previously agreed to buffer along the boundary of Lots 23 –
28, Block 7 of the Capitol Lakes Estates Subdivision. The buffer has not been included
as a tract as was a part of the previous agreement. Staff recommends the buffer be set
aside in a tract to ensure the buffer remains in perpetuity. The development is
proposed to be a phased development.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
10
The plat indicates a reduced building line for Lot 6, Block 3, Lots 6 – 10, Block 12, Lots
29 – 32, Block 7. The lots have a significant slope which the developer has indicated
would qualify for hillside development standards. The hillside development standards
require slopes greater than eighteen percent and a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
feet. The indicated lots do not qualify for utilization of the hillside development standards
since the lots do not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Staff is supportive of the
variance request to allow a reduced building line on the proposed lots. Staff does not
feel the reduced building line as proposed will negatively impact the development or the
area.
The proposed plat indicates a single lot with a depth less than the typical minimum
ordinance standard. Proposed Lot 29, Block 7 is indicated along the northern lot line
with a depth of 74 feet. The lot also has a large easement located along the western
boundary. In staff’s opinion the lot does not appear buildable. Staff recommends the lot
be removed or the applicant provides staff with a buildable area for a proposed structure
to ensuring the buildability of the proposed lot.
The proposed plat indicates a variance request for increased street grades at
intersections. The street grades along the collector streets have been indicated
meeting ordinance requirements but a number of the minor residential streets have an
increased street grade. Staff is supportive of the proposed increased street grade at the
indicated intersections. The streets will be developed as minor residential streets which
will have low volumes and should not significantly impact the development or the area.
The development of Tract C has been reviewed by staff and they feel the placement of
the Collector Street as proposed is adequate to serve future development in the area.
Staff is no longer requesting a collector street along the southern portion of the
proposed plat area (Phoenix Street). The collector street through Tract C has been
indicated with a 60-foot right of way and 31 feet of pavement. Woodlands Edge located
to the east of the subdivision has been constructed to this design standard but no
access to the street was taken. Staff recommends if access to the street is proposed by
any future development the street be constructed with 36-feet of pavement from back of
curb to back of curb consistent with street design construction per the Master Street
Plan.
The Collector Street has also been indicated with a median and the appearance of
gates. Staff is not supportive of the proposed median in this location. The street is a
collector street and should function as such. Staff feels the placement of the median
will constrict traffic flows in the area creating safety concerns.
The applicant submitted a sketch grading and drainage plan for the subdivision. Staff is
still reviewing the data provided and will provide a recommendation of the proposed
detention and drainage plan at the public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
11
The applicant is requesting the City abandon the right of way for Cooper Orbit Road
through Tract C and the remainder of the proposed subdivision. The abandonment of
this right of way will not take place until the construction and final platting of the collector
street through Tract C and portions of roadways to maintain access to Spring Valley
Manor. The maintenance of access to the adjoining subdivision does not prevent the
applicant from developing the balance of Tract C with the construction of the Collector
Street. Staff is supportive of the abandonment request as long as access to Spring
Valley Manor from the north is maintained throughout the development of the proposed
subdivision and the subsequent phases.
The applicant is requesting the City abandon 15-feet of the eastern right of way from
Rushmore Avenue. Rushmore Avenue is a collector street, but the right of way was
increased from 60 feet to 90 feet to accommodate potential grade changes from the
adjacent site. Tract C does not need this additional distance on the eastern edge of the
right of way. After abandoning the 15 feet of the right of way Rushmore Avenue will still
have sufficient right of way to conform to Collector standards. Staff is supportive of the
request. Rushmore Avenue has been constructed and staff does not feel it necessary
for the City to retain the additional right of way which was previously dedicated.
The request includes an advanced grading variance for Tract C. The applicant has
provided staff with a grading plan for Tract C to detail the advanced grading request.
The developers have indicated the grading is necessary for construction of the
proposed collector street to reduced the need to move dirt into and out of the site. The
advanced grading plan currently indicates all grading activities will take place on the site
after which the developer will reseed the site per the minimum ordinance requirements.
The developer also indicates Tract C is shown as two tracts, Tract C-1 and C-2 to be
held for future development. After final approval of the street construction located within
Tract C, the applicant anticipates filing an amended subdivision request for the
development of each tract. Staff is supportive of the proposed advanced grading
request.
Staff cannot provide a recommendation since they are still reviewing the data provided
for the proposed detention and drainage plan. Staff will provide a recommendation to
the Commission at the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the
applicant had addressed their concerns with regard to detention and drainage and a
number of previously remaining outstanding issues.
Staff stated the proposed plat included the subdivision of 85.54 acres into 201 single-
family residential lots. The average lot size proposed was 80-feet by 130-feet or
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
12
10,400 square feet. The development was proposed in 12 phases. Staff stated there
were a few variances being requested as a part of the platting request. Staff stated the
variances included one lot with a reduced lot depth, fourteen lots with a reduced
building line and several locations with an increased street grade at intersections. Staff
stated these variances were all located at residential street standard intersections.
Staff stated the applicant had satisfied staff’s concerns related to detention and
drainage and staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s indicated plan. Staff
stated the applicant had indicated the detention located along the southern perimeter of
the site would be utilized as permanent detention storage areas. Staff recommended
these areas be identified as easements to ensure the areas were maintained. Staff
stated the detention areas indicated within the proposed plat area would be maintained
as temporary detention basins. Staff stated some of the temporary basins would be
maintained after final platting to help manage storm water runoff into the construction
phase of the single-family residences of the development. Staff stated the developers
had also retained the engineering firm of FTN Associates to assist in the design and
monitoring of water quality and erosion control measures for the Capitol Lakes Estates
subdivision for expert advice in the design of the structures both temporary and
permanent to ensure compliance with City, State and Federal regulations.
Staff stated based on their review the downstream structures appeared to be adequate
with the exception of a couple of pipes under driveways on Cooper Orbit Road. Staff
stated the applicant had indicated they planned to perform improvements to these
drainage structures. Staff stated the applicant would further assure the discharge from
Capitol Lakes Estates would not flood any structures in Spring Valley Manor. Staff
stated presently Spring Valley Manor utilized open ditches for drainage and flooding of
yards was already a problem in the neighborhood. Staff stated the applicant was not
making any assurances to address the current flooding problem only to ensure no
additional flooding problems would occur.
Staff stated the wall height on Tract C would be a maximum of 15-feet. Staff stated the
proposed slope would not exceed minimum ordinance standards or a 3:1 slope. Staff
stated the grading and clearing of the site would not take place until a preliminary plat
was approved for the site and construction was imminent. Staff stated the grading
permit would include advanced grading of the site including the clearing of the lots with
the construction of the streets and drainage. Staff stated erosion controls would be
installed prior to the start of work. Staff stated per the Land Alteration Ordinance open
areas not planned for immediate use would be seeded or sodded. Staff stated soil
which was exposed for more than 21 days with no construction activity would be
sodded, mulched or revegetated in accordance with the code.
Staff stated the proposed northern collector street, Avoyelles Boulevard, would be built
to a full collector street standard, 36-feet of pavement within a 60-foot right of way. Staff
stated if the median was used the street design would be sufficient in width to allow
three lanes of traffic at Rushmore Avenue.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
13
Staff stated there had been a number of conversations concerning the grade of
Rushmore Avenue. Staff stated the street would be constructed to a collector standard
and no variances were being requested with regard to street grade. Staff stated the
grade of the new street would be much improved over the grade of the existing tie-in
between new Rushmore and Cooper Orbit Road. Staff stated the new grade would be
more shallow than the existing grade, providing for a less steep road. Staff stated there
would be a crown area at the top of the hill which was designed to help reduce build up
of ice in cold weather. Staff stated the sight distance of the new road would be much
improved over the existing conditions. Staff stated the new road would be much wider
than the existing Cooper Orbit Road and would have the added benefit of curb and
gutter.
Staff stated as indicated in the agenda package staff had concerns with the buildability
of proposed Lot 29, Block 7. Staff stated they felt this lot should be removed from the
proposed plat area and included in the abutting tract located to the north.
Staff stated the plat indicated a variance request for increased street grades at
intersections. Staff stated the street grades along the collector street had been
indicated meeting ordinance requirements but a number of the minor residential streets
had an increased street grade. Staff stated they were supportive of the variance
request. Staff stated the streets would be developed as minor residential streets which
would have low volumes of traffic and should not significantly impact the area.
Staff stated the plat indicated the placement of a 15-foot building line adjacent to Lot 6,
Block 3, Lots 6 – 10, Block 12 and Lots 29 – 32 Block 7. Staff stated the lots had a
significant slope which the developer had indicated would qualify for hillside
development standards. Staff stated the hillside development standards required a
slope greater than 18 percent and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Staff
stated the lots proposed did not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Staff stated
the lots would require a building line variance to allow the development as proposed.
Staff stated they were supportive of the variance request. Staff stated they did not feel
the variance to allow a reduced building line would adversely impact the area.
Mr. Andy Francis addressed the Commission as the applicant. He stated the developers
were willing to remove the lot as indicated by staff and amend their application request
eliminating the lot (Lot 29, Block 7).
Mr. Ross Phillips addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated he was
concerned with the proposed development and the impact the development would have
on the neighborhood’s lakes. He stated the quality of the lake and the impact on the
dam were concerns of his and the entire neighborhood. He stated he desired the
developers to explain the changes proposed with regard to detention and how the
detention would work.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
14
Mr. Tom Lewis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
neighborhood had not been given the opportunity to review the proposed changes. He
stated the detention did not address the new streets and roads which were proposed
with the development. He stated the quality of the lake was the majority of the value of
the homes in the area. He stated without proper controls and measures the quality of
the lake could be destroyed.
Mr. Leroy Arnold addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he
was aware the developers were following the rules of the ordinances but the cumulative
effect of development was not being considered. He stated as additional surfaces were
hardened run-off was increased. He stated another concern was the existing roadway
and the grade of the proposed roadway. He stated presently residents could not get
into the neighborhood in bad weather. He stated the road was proposed with a
12 percent grade which was a steep grade. He stated federal design standards allowed
for a maximum 8 percent grade. He stated long grades caused cars to lose momentum.
He stated with the grade and the distance cars would not be able to get into the valley.
He stated the rock was shale and easily removable to decrease the grade of the road.
He requested the Commission require the developer to construct the new road with a
maximum of 10 percent grade and preferably an 8 percent grade.
Ms. Anita Spence addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the neighborhood was opposed to the intensity of building on the hillside. She stated
the neighborhood only had one way in and out during bad weather and it was important
the road was designed and constructed to allow residents to access the neighborhood
in bad weather.
Mr. Andy Francis addressed the Commission. He stated there was currently an
approved preliminary plat for the site. He also stated he felt the plat as currently
proposed was a better plat than the previous approval. He stated the plat currently
under consideration had been revised to address staff’s concerns.
Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates addressed the Commission on the
engineering aspects of the proposed plat. He stated to decrease the grade from 12 to
8 percent would result in a 15 foot cut. He stated presently the trees on both sides of
the road precluded the road from thawing. He stated with the new road curb and gutter
would be added which would channel the water to the sides. He stated the new road
would be a wider road. He stated presently the road was 20 feet and the new road
would be 36-feet. He also stated a crown would be added to the new road to shed
water. He stated the drainage basin which fed the Spring Valley Manor Lake was
540 acres. He stated this development was only 27 acres of the overall drainage basin.
He stated detailed drainage plans had not been completed and were not required at this
point in the approval process. He stated the detailed design would be submitted with
final platting.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
15
There was a general discussion of the Commission as to the grade of the existing
roadway and the requirements of the Master Street Plan. Mr. Daters stated presently
the road was notched into the side of the hill and the new road would go over the hill.
He stated with the wider road it was not possible to notch the road into the hill as was
previously constructed. Commissioner Adcock questioned Mr. Daters as to if he would
build the road with a reduced grade. Mr. Daters stated he could not commit to an
8 percent grade but the developer would commit to constructing the road was as
minimum grade as possible.
Commissioner Yates questioned the street naming configuration. Mr. Francis stated the
developers were willing to change the name of the street back to Cooper Orbit Road if
this was the desire of the Commission.
The Commission questioned Mr. Baker Kurrus as to his position of the proposed plat.
He stated his concern was the timing of the closure of Cooper Orbit Road. He stated
staff had informed him that the road would not be closed until access through Tract C
was constructed. He stated he was supportive of this proposal.
The Commission questioned who would be responsible for storm water. Mr. Francis
stated the developer would apply for and hold all permits regarding storm water. He
stated the developers would regulate storm water run-off and had hired a professional
engineer to design and monitor the proposed storm water plan.
Commissioner Yates stated citizen could call the City’s new 311 system with any
comments and concerns and particularly if the silt fences were found to not be in place
for the development.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
2 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-8117
NAME: CBM Appraisals Inc, Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 15924 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
CBM Appraisal, Inc.
P.O. Box 56560
Little Rock, AR 72215
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Appraisal Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the site from R-2 to PD-O to allow an
existing residential structure to be converted to an office use. The applicant is
proposing the use of the site for an appraisal company which currently has three
employees. According to the applicant, there are no plans for any additional
employees in the foreseeable future. According to the applicant, the type of
business would not require the placement of a dumpster on the site or
necessitate the placement of any type signage. Due to the nature of the
business, the applicant has stated customers typically do not come to the
business for services. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm
Monday through Friday. The applicant has indicated there are no plans for
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
2
modification of the structure. The structure was recently remodeled and would
not require any additions or alterations for this specific office use. Asphalt will be
added to the exterior yard area for additional parking on the site. The existing
carport structure will be used as one space and two additional spaces will be
added to the front yard area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family structure with a single drive from Cantrell Road.
The property to the west was recently rezoned to PD-O for use as an insurance
agency. North of the site is a creek with a single-family subdivision located
further to the north. Across Cantrell Road is Bella Rosa Commerce Center an
office development wrapping mini-warehouse units. Southeast of the site is a
POD zoned area containing number of office uses including a bank and
mortgage company. A large portion of the site including the structure is located
within the regulated floodway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester Neighborhood Association, the Westbury Property Owners
Association, the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, all owners of
property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
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. Show
centerline of Cantrell Road on survey.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to construction.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
3
6. The majority of the property is located in the floodway of Taylor Loop Creek.
No additions to the structure are allowed in the floodway. No fencing or
screening is allowed to be located in the floodway.
7. Since the structure is in the floodway, the existing structure can only be
improved up to 50% of the market value of the structure. Provide certified
appraisal of the structure and estimate of the cost of the improvements
prepared by a licensed contractor, professional engineer, or architect.
8. Per Section 36-341(h)(2), floodways shall be kept free of structural
involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment,
vehicle parking and other impediments to the free flow of floodwater.
9. Provide "No rise certification" prepared by a professional engineer to show
that the base flood elevation at this location did not rise due to the addition of
gravel in floodway.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if sewer service is
needed for this development. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414
for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. 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 #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-2 to Planned Office Development to allow the
site to be used as an appraisal office.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
4
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements. 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 since it is a Principal Arterial.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown just north of this site. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance is required.
2. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires a minimum of forty feet (40)
of landscape area along Highway 10. The proposed parking is located within
this area. The parking lot should be relocated to the rear of the property.
3. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip nine feet in
width along the eastern and western perimeters of the site.
4. A thirteen foot (13) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed
development from the residential property on the northern perimeter of the
site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Ed Penick, Jr. was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff stated the cover letter indicated there
would not be any signage as a part of the development. Staff questioned if this
included building signage. Staff also requested the applicant provide a site plan
drawn to scale including the proposed parking.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
a regulatory floodway. Staff stated only improvements up to 50 percent of the
market value of the structure were allowable. Staff requested a certified
appraisal of the site. Staff stated a no rise certification prepared by a
professional engineer including the base flood elevation and the addition of the
paving and graveled parking areas was required.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated parking was not allowed
within the first 40-feet of Highway 10 per the Design Overlay District. Staff also
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
5
stated a minimum landscape strip would be required along the eastern and
western perimeters of the associated with any new paved areas.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has provided a site plan drawn to scale as requested by staff. The applicant has
not addressed building signage. Staff would recommend if the rezoning request
is approved, building signage be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the
façade area as typically allowed in office zones.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of three on-site parking spaces.
Two of the spaces have been indicated within the front yard area and one within
the existing carport structure. The proposed parking does not allow for the
automobile parked within the carport area to exit the site if the two exterior
spaces have automobiles parked in them. In addition, the two proposed parking
spaces are located within the front yard area leaving a 7.7-foot landscape strip
along Cantrell Road, which is typically reserved for a 40-foot landscape strip
within the area defined by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Since the structure is in the floodway, the existing structure can only be improved
up to 50% of the market value of the structure. A certified appraisal of the
structure and estimate of the cost of the improvements prepared by a licensed
contractor, professional engineer, or architect is required to determine value.
The applicant has not provided staff with the requested appraisal report. Staff
also has concerns with the conversion of this structure into a use higher than
single-family and adding value to the site with the higher zoning classification.
Staff has supported two previous applications in this area to allow the conversion
of single-family structures into office uses. The site located immediately west of
this site and a site located to the east. Staff support for the structure located
immediately west of this site was due to only a small portion of the structure
being located within the floodway and staff support for the structure located to the
east of this site was based on an inaccurate survey indicating the site was not
located within the floodway. Staff found once all approvals were received and
the remodeling permit was issued, the survey was not accurate.
Due to the fact the site is located within the floodway, staff cannot support the
request for rezoning. Staff feels the City should not rezone this site and add
value to the structure by providing the site with a zoning classification of a value
which is higher than single-family.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 23,
2006, requesting a deferral of this item to the December 7, 2006, 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. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has not had any contact with the applicant since the previous public hearing. Staff
continues to recommend denial of the request as indicated in the analysis section of the
above agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated November 29, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 18,
2007, 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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated December 18, 2006, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant had submitted a request dated December 18, 2006, requesting the item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Central City Planning District
Location: Either side of Daisy Bates east of Bishop Street
Request: Single Family and Mixed Use to Office and Neighborhood Commercial
Source: Ron Woods
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from Single Family to
Office and Mixed Use to Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed Neighborhood
Commercial is a quarter block at the northeast corner of Daisy Bates and Bishop
Streets and the proposed Office is one lot at the southeast corner of Daisy Bates and
Bishop Streets. Neighborhood Commercial includes limited small-scale commercial
development in close proximity to a neighborhood. Office represents services provided
directly to consumers as well as general offices, which support more basic economic
activities. The proposed use of the property is for residential/office and commercial.
Staff is not expanding this application because this area was reviewed within the past
year.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is urban residential with one single-family residence and two duplexes. It
is currently zoned O3 General Office District on the north side of Daisy Gatson Bates
Drive and R3 Single Family on the south side of Daisy Gatson Bates Drive. The site is
1 acre ± in size. To the east and southeast of this site is zoned C3 General Commercial
and is used for commercial type uses: a beauty parlor, a Church’s Chicken and Uncle
T’s Food Mart. To the west is currently vacant, and it is zoned O2 General Office for a
new medical clinic and a parking lot. To the southwest is zoned R3 Single Family for
single-family residences. Immediately north of this site is zoned R4 Two Family District,
but it is a vacant lot. Northeast of the area is zoned R5 and currently is used for multi
family housing. The area to the south has a single-family residence on it, and there is
very little space between the application area and this house. To the southwest of this
site, on the southwest corner of Bishop and Daisy Gatson Bates is a Planned Office
Development for a hair salon in a house.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The application site is currently planned for Mixed Use on the north side of Daisy
Gatson Bates Drive. The portion of the application on the south side of Daisy Gatson
Bates Drive is planned for Single Family. To the southwest is also planned for Single
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
2
Family Residential. To the east and southeast is planned Neighborhood Commercial,
and to the west is Public Institutional. North of this site is planned for Mixed Office
Commercial.
October 4, 2005, Ordinance 19418 amended multiple locations in this area.
Immediately to the west of the application was changed from Mixed Use to
Neighborhood Commercial. To the southeast was changed from Mixed Use to Single
Family. And north of this site at 13th and Bishop was changed from Mixed Office
Commercial to Public Institutional.
March 19, 2002, Ordinance 18656 changed multiple areas in this vicinity. Two blocks
between Wolfe and Bishop and north of Daisy Gatson Bates were changed from Public
Institutional and Mixed Use to Mixed Use and Public Institutional.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Bishop Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that
are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are
considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same
as a Collector. Daisy Gatson Bates Drive is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local
Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may
require street improvements.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class II route is shown along Daisy Gatson Bates Drive. A Class II bikeway is located
on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and
right of way may be required.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is within eight blocks of a park or open
space. The application area is located between three different parks: Centennial,
Dunbar, and Ninth Street.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
3
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The area is not covered by a city recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The application site is part of an existing residential area in the Central City Planning
District. The application site is on the north and south sides of Daisy L. Gatson Bates
Drive on the east side of Bishop Street. Daisy Gatson Bates Drive is one of the main
entryways into the Central High National Historic District. Central High School National
Landmark is also accessed from downtown via Daisy Gatson Bates. As the entryway to
this national landmark, this street and its development should be closely scrutinized.
Within a half-mile of this application site there are various opportunities for Commercial
uses on the Future Land Use Plan. The intersection of 16th Street and Martin Luther
King Drive is occupied and planned for Neighborhood Commercial. Half a mile to the
south of the application area is Wright Avenue, which is planned for either Mixed Use or
Commercial between Summit and Pulaski Streets. This area has several vacant lots
that could be developed for commercial use.
Currently the portion of the application site on the north side of Daisy Gatson Bates
Drive is planned for Mixed Use. A Planned Zoning Development (PZD) is required with
the Mixed Use category if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a
mixture of the three (residential, office, commercial). A PZD would allow this area to be
scrutinized more closely before development while a change to Neighborhood
Commercial would allow small-scale commercial development without a PZD. While
commercial uses are allowed in both Mixed Use and Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed
Use category is preferable for this site because it requires the PZD. Children’s Hospital
is developing the site immediately west of the application area. A site plan review for a
clinic in O2 zoning was required. One block further west on Daisy Gatson Bates Drive
is an old school building that has been converted into apartments. This site was
reviewed through the PZD process for a Planned Development-Residential. In
essence, the two blocks immediately to the west went through a more intense plan
review. In keeping with this trend, this new application site should be required to
complete a PZD as required in the Mixed Use category.
Another point to consider is that the tract of land just east of this application site, the
quarter-block at the northwest corner of Martin Luther King Drive and Daisy Gatson
Bates, is already planned for Neighborhood Commercial, zoned C3, and is vacant.
While there is still vacant Neighborhood Commercial available with no development
pending, a Land Use Amendment without a specific use seems premature. There does
not seem to be a high demand in the area for more commercial uses. There are also
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
4
many opportunities for office space to the north of Daisy Gatson Bates Drive. South of
Daisy Bates has a land use pattern of single-family residences. North of Daisy Bates is
seeing increasing amounts of Children’s Hospital owned property. The medical office
uses will most likely continue to dominate this area north of Daisy Bates.
The portion of the application site on the south side of Daisy Gatson Bates Drive is
planned for Single Family. There is currently a single-family residence on the lot and
there are houses next door and across Bishop Street. These houses are the
northernmost part of a larger area of housing that expands south to Roosevelt. These
houses were built very close together, and there is very little space on the south side of
Daisy Gatson Bates between the proposed office and the single-family house on
Bishop. Also, these single-family homes face the side streets. This is an aspect of the
neighborhood that needs to be protected and strengthened. A design review of
development to the north of Daisy Bates can help to protect these side street facing
houses. Again, a change to Suburban office instead of Office could be more
appropriate since the Suburban Office category requires a PZD for the site. The
juxtaposition between the Office and the Single Family needs to be addressed in the
bulk, mass, and use of any proposed development. A change to Office on the Land
Use Plan would be inappropriate because it would not leave any sort of buffer between
the houses and the offices.
Also, the Land Use Plan for this area was just reviewed last year, and Ordinance 19418
amended multiple locations in this area. The three acres adjacent to the east of this
application site was changed from Mixed Use to Neighborhood Commercial. At the
intersection of 15th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, four acres were changed
from Office to Mixed Use. One block further south was changed from Mixed Use to
Neighborhood Commercial. All these changes were intended to make the Land Use
Plan more reflective of the existing land use, zoning and likely short-term future land
use development of the area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Central High
Neighborhood, Inc. and Downtown Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received
any comments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Staff believes that not only the use but
also the design should be reviewed for the entry to a National Landmark Site such as
Central High School.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006)
At the request of the applicant this item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral.
By a vote of 9 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 9, 2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral at the request of the applicant
to December 7, 2006. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against (Rahman, Allen absent) the consent
agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant requested this item be differed to January 18, 2007. The item was placed
on consent agenda for deferral. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda was
approved.
STAFF UPDATE:
Part of the application (the portion north of Daisy Gatson Bates) has been withdrawn.
The application has been amended to a change from Single Family to Suburban Office
on the south side of Daisy Gatson Bates. Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
Staff believes that, while Suburban Office is designed to be compatible with surrounding
Single Family Residential, this does not mean that Suburban Office change from Single
Family is always appropriate. In this case the structures are oriented to the side street.
Staff feels that it is inappropriate to introduce a different land use plan category into this
block. As has been noted the general neighborhood is a fragile residential
neighborhood. There has been some minimal redevelopment of the residential in the
area to the south and east. The City wishes to encourage this reinvestment in the
residential housing stock of the neighborhood. As part of this effort non-residential uses
should be kept to the north of Daisy Bates in this section of Bishop Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral at the request of Staff due to an
issue on the related PZD application. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda
was approved.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
NAME: Bishop Street Short-form POD and Central Station Commercial Retail Center
Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of 14th and Bishop Streets and the Northwest
corner of Daisy Gatson Bates and Martin L. King Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Ron Woods, AIA
2200 South Main Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.97 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-3 and C-3 and R-4
ALLOWED USES: General and Professional Office, General Commercial
and Two-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD and PD-O
PROPOSED USE: C-3 uses and Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property located on the northwest corner
of Daisy L. Gatson Bates and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive from O-3 and C-3 to
Planned Commercial Development (PCD) to allow the development of the site with a
two story structure of approximately 20,000 square feet in area. The use is mixed
retail and office space; with retail approximately 10,076 square feet and office
approximately 10,000 square feet. There are fifty-two (52) onsite parking spaces and
the developer is currently in negotiations with Arkansas Children’s Hospital to lease
thirty (30) additional spaces adjacent to the property to the west.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
2
The request includes the abandonment of an alley located within the development.
The alley is located adjacent to Lots 4 – 6 and Lot 7R Centennial Addition to the City
of Little Rock.
The property located on the southeast corner of West 14th and Bishop Streets is also
proposed for rezoning. The property is currently zoned R-4 and the applicant is
seeking approval of a Planned Office Development (PD-O) to allow the site to be
utilized as an office use for the management of the retail center proposed for
construction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are two sites under consideration for redevelopment. The property at the
northeast corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Bishop Street and Daisy L.
Gatson Bates Drive and a property located at the southeast corner of Bishop Street
and Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive. The northern site is occupied by three (3) single-
family residential structures and the lot at the southeast corner is occupied by a single-
family residence. There are platted alley rights-of-way along the east side of both
properties. There is a mixture of uses in this general area. Arkansas Children’s
Hospital property is located immediately north and west of the northern property. The
intersection of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive has
commercial uses on three of the four corners; these commercial businesses including
a barbershop, a strip center and a restaurant. Single-family residential structures and
vacant lots are located to the south and southwest.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Downtown and Central High
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide notification of all property owners located within 200-feet of the site,
complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and
proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than November 22, 2006.
The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later
than November 30, 2006.
2. Provide a detailed cover letter of the application request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
3
3. Provide the proposed zoning classifications of each of the proposed uses (south
of Daisy L Gatson Bates and north of Daisy L Gatson Bates). Will the southern
property be used as an office for the strip center?
4. The site plan indicates the placement of the green area at the intersection of
Bishop Street and not at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Staff feels this intersection should be enhanced.
5. Provide details of the proposed bus pull off. Will the buses be parked in this area
for a length of time?
6. Provide the total square footage of restaurant space and the total square footage
of other retail space. The site plan indicates the placement of an outdoor dining
area. Provide the total square footage of the outdoor dining area as well.
7. Provide the proposed building elevations for the center. Provide construction
materials of the new building being proposed.
8. Will any parking or additional paving be added to the southern property? If so
provide a site plan indicating the proposed additional paving.
9. Provide the days and hours of operation for each of the proposed uses.
10. Provide the hours of dumpster service in the general notes section of the site
plan.
11. Any additional site lighting must be low level and directed downward and into the
site.
12. Provide written agreements for any off site parking.
13. Provide the total percentage of landscaped area, the total percentage of building
coverage and the total percentage of parking coverage in the general notes
section of the site plan.
14. Provide the maximum building height in the general notes section of the site plan.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: There is an existing 8 inch sewer main located on the property. No
construction of any permanent structure within five feet of the existing sewer main.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be
required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the
required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
4
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #11 – the Martin Luther King Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family and Mixed Use for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning to Planned Office Development and Planned Commercial
Development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office on the southeast corner
of Daisy Gatson Bates and Bishop Street is a separate item on this agenda
(LU06-08-04).
Master Street Plan: Daisy Gatson Bates is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan and Bishop Street is shown as a Local Street. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function
of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The
primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown on Daisy Gatson Bates Drive. A Class II
bikeway is located on the street as either a 5 foot shoulder or six foot marked bike
lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located
in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The proposal appears to be located within the six foot nine inch (6’-9”) wide
landscape strip along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned
property. This is a requirement of both the zoning buffer ordinance and the
landscape ordinance. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain
undisturbed. A variance from the City Beautiful Commission will be required prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern
perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for
existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
5
4. A small amount of building landscaping is required. This landscape area is to be
located between the parking lot and the building.
5. The landscape ordinance and the street buffer ordinance requires a minimum of
six foot nine inches of landscaped area along Daisy L. Gatson Bates. Current
proposal does not allow for this minimum requirement. A variance from this
minimum requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission
prior to the issuance of a building permit. It appears the parking lot can be reduced
to help meet this minimum requirement.
6. Street trees may be required in this area. They would also enhance the area and
this project.
7. An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas is required.
8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of
the proposed development indicating there were a number of outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide a detailed cover
letter for the project. Staff questioned the proposed uses for the new strip center and
the proposed office use for the residence located south of Daisy L. Gatson Bates.
Staff questioned the number of restaurants to locate in the strip center. Staff also
questioned how the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Daisy L.
Gatson Bates would be softened.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated radial dedications would be
required at the intersections of the abutting streets. Staff also stated the site plan was
not drawn to scale and requested the applicant provide a scalable drawing.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposal appeared to be
located within the required land use buffer located along the northern perimeter. Staff
stated screening would be required along the northern perimeter. Staff also stated a
small amount of building landscaping would be required.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information and
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
submitted a revised site plan which places the building closer to Daisy L. Gatson Bates
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
6
and places the parking within the rear of the building. The site plan indicates the
placement of landscaping and a courtyard at the intersection of Daisy L. Gatson Bates
and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to soften the impact on the intersection.
The site plan includes the placement of 51 on site parking spaces. The developer has
indicated negotiations are underway with an adjoining property owner to lease an
additional 30 parking spaces through a long-term lease. The development is proposed
with approximately 20,000 square feet of retail and office spaces. Based on the typical
minimum parking required for a mixed use development 88 parking spaces would
typically be required. Staff is supportive of the parking as proposed provided the
applicant secure the additional 30 offsite parking spaces as proposed.
The site plan does not include the placement of signage on the site plan. Staff
recommends signage be limited to signage as allowed per the commercial zoning
district or a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area. Building
signage should be limited to building signage as allowed in commercial zones or a
maximum of ten percent of the façade area.
The hours of operation for the facility have not been indicated. Staff would
recommend hours of operation be limited to 6:00 am to midnight seven days per week.
The adjacent parking lot has been indicated as a part of the proposed site plan. The
parking lot has been indicated with two drive locations along West 13th Street. Staff is
not supportive of the placement of the two driveway locations. Typically drives are to
be spaced at a minimum of 150-feet from the intersection and 150-feet from the
property line. Staff recommends the parking lot access be provided via the existing
alley or one drive location be provided to serve the proposed parking lot.
With respect to the lot at the southeast corner of Bishop Street and Daisy Bates Drive,
staff believes the zoning should remain single family residential. With the exception of
the POD zoning immediately west, the properties south of Daisy Bates Drive and west
of the C-3 zoned property at the southwest corner of M. L. King Drive and Daisy Bates
Drive contain single family/two-family residences and are zoned R-3 and R-4. There
are also a number of vacant lots in this area. Staff believes that new home
construction could take place in this area in the near future, with renewed interest in
the Central High area of Little Rock.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request located on the Northwest corner of
Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive from O-3 and C-3 to
PCD subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
7
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from R-4 to PD-O located on the
Southeast corner of Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive and Bishop Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the March 1, 2007, public hearing. Staff
stated concerns had been raised concerning the proposed parking arrangement and they
needed additional time to alleviate this concern.
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 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs West Planning District
Location: Southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads
Request: Commercial and Multi Family to Single Family
Source: Mizan Rahman, ETC Engineers, Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from
Commercial and Multi Family to Single Family. Single Family provides for single family
homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The request is to allow
development of single-family lots as part of the Village on the Green Subdivision.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is rural and is currently zoned MF-12 and is C-2. The property is
approximately 5.5 acres in size. This area is surrounded to the south, west and east by
R-2 Single Family zoning and is mostly undeveloped except for some new houses to
the west. Also, there are several houses along the north side of Bunch Road. To the
east of this area is a church and a few houses. To the southwest of the amendment
area is OS Open Space and MF-6 Multifamily district zoning for the Lake View Country
Club and golf course. To the north is zoned C-2 and undeveloped, and further north of
this area is a PID Planned Industrial Development for Graves Insulation. This building
appears vacant and is for sale. South and southeast of this area (south of the old
railroad bed) is located within the Little Rock extraterritorial boundary, but there is no
zoning practiced in this area. This area is also rural and consists of scattered single-
family housing.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Ordinance 18,724 was passed on July 16, 2002. This ordinance amended an area west
of Heinke Road, north of the county line and south of the railroad bed from Single
Family to Low Density Residential for a special population residential development.
Ordinance 18,665 was passed on April 2, 2002. This ordinance amended many
different areas in this planning district. These amendments were brought about by a
staff review of the area. These amendments were made to update the plan to reflect
current and future needs of the area. A change was made on the west side of Chicot
Road north of Nolen Drive from Office, Multi Family, and Single Family to Mixed Use.
The Single Family and Commercial at the west side of Chicot between Burnelle Drive
and Rebecca Drive was changed to Mixed Use. The Multi Family on the west side of
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
2
Chicot Road between Morris Drive and Rebecca Drive was changed to Commercial,
Office and Suburban Office. The Single Family on Mabelvale Cutoff Road at Shiloh
Drive east of the Heinke Road intersection was changed to Mixed Use. The Single
Family on Heinke Road north of Johnson Road at the proposed route of the South Loop
was amended to Neighborhood Commercial.
Ordinance 18,626 was passed on January 2, 2002. This ordinance changed many
different areas in the planning district. The Multi Family on Topaz Court was amended
to Low Density Residential to recognize existing duplexes. The Multi Family and Single
Family in an area on the east side of Chicot near the 12600 block was amended to
Single Family and Public Institutional to recognize the existing church and residences.
The ‘Area for Future Study’ north of Green Road on Chicot Road was amended to
Mixed Use. The ‘Area for Future Study’ on the northeast and northwest corners of
Green Road and Geyer Springs Road was amended to Single Family. The Commercial
and Single Family at Willow Springs and Hilaro Springs Roads was amended to Public
Institutional to recognize the existing church and parsonage.
The amendment area is currently planned for Commercial and Multi Family. The
Commercial area extends north to the corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads. Most of the
surrounding area is either planned for Single Family or Park Open Space for the Lake
View Country Club and golf course. The Park Open Space also extends northeast
across Chicot Road and follows the floodplain. Directly east of the application area is
an area of Public Institutional for an existing church.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chicot Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. 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 Chicot Road since it is a Principal
Arterial. Bunch Road is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The
primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
According to the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section, a Class I bike route is proposed
southeast of this location. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
Additional paving and right of way may be required.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
3
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is not within eight city blocks of a park or
open space. There is a need for recreation space in this area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West-I-30 South
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal states:
Encourage new single-family growth and maintain and enhance the quality of existing
housing.
ANALYSIS:
The application area has been undeveloped for many years. Located just north of the
city limits, it is surrounded by mostly residential uses. Demand for new single-family
residences is shown in the new houses on Coulter Lake Road, Castle Valley Drive,
Whispering Oak Drive and Whispering Oak Trail. Forty-six building permits have been
issued in 2006 for Census Tract 41.05, and twenty-one of these were for houses on
Castle Valley Drive, Whispering Oak Drive and Whispering Oak Trail, which is just west
of the application area.
While this change would remove some Multi Family and Commercial from the Future
Land Use Plan, there would still be other opportunities for these uses in the area. More
than half of the planned Commercial area at the corner of Bunch Road and Chicot Road
will remain Commercial in use. Some Commercial at this location could be beneficial,
since there is no real opportunity for commercial services within a mile. The closest
commercial center to the application area is located north at the intersection of Chicot
and Mabelvale Pike. One commercial building permit was issued this year in the
application area’s census tract.
The Multi Family will be completely changed at this location, but there are almost fifty
acres of Low Density Residential planned within a mile north of the application area.
There is also approximately six acres of M-6 Multi Family zoning at the corner of Castle
Valley Road and Coulter Lake Road. This will allow for other types of housing in the
area. There does not appear to be a demand for multi family housing in this area since
there has only been one permit issued within the last five years for multi family within
this census tract.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
4
A change from Multi Family to Single Family on the Future Land Use plan would also be
less demanding on the existing infrastructure. Chicot Road needs improvements in this
area, and a new development may spur some much needed road improvements.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Deer Meadow
Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, and Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The item was placed on consent agenda to allow more to resolve outstanding issues.
By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:
No new information has been provided. Staff recommendation remains the same.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the
consent agenda was approved.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: F.1 FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
NAME: Village on the Green Subdivision Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest Corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads
DEVELOPER:
Woodland Homes, LLC
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 36.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 121 FT. NEW STREET: 4,100 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2 - Single-family, C-2 – Shopping Center District and
MF-12 – Multifamily 12 units per acre
ALLOWED USES: Single-family, Commercial and Multi-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 12,
13, 35, 36, 52 – 58, and 95 - 103.
2. A waiver of the Master Street Plan required street improvements to Bunch Road.
BACKGROUND:
On January 20, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat
for this site known as the Pines Subdivision (S-643-C). The site contained 36.31 acres
and the applicant proposed to subdivide the area into 83 single-family lots, a park area
and two tracts. Tract A was zoned C-2 – Shopping Center District and the second tract
would be utilized as detention. Portions of the site were zoned R-2, Single-family and
MF-12, Multi-family District, which would require rezoning prior to development. The
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
2
proposed plat indicated Lots 69 – 78 were zoned MF-12, Multi-family District. The
applicant indicated the subdivision with a single entry, which would add 4,100 linear feet
of new street within the proposed subdivision. Street improvements were proposed
along Chicot Road and Castle Valley Road. The applicant requested a waiver of the
required street improvements to Bunch Road. The applicant did not propose access to
Bunch Road but did provide an emergency access to the site from Bunch Road. The
applicant stated the property had only a small frontage on Bunch Road. A “sliver” of
property between the applicant’s ownership and Bunch Road for the majority of the site
was owned by the property owners to the north of Bunch Road.
A 25-foot front building line, 10-foot side yard setbacks and a 20-foot rear yard set back
was approved for all lots within the subdivision. Variances to allow a reduced rear
building set back and to allow the development of a portion of the indicated lots as
double frontage lots were also approved.
A playground area along with on-site detention were indicated on the approved
preliminary plat. The applicants proposed plat indicated an average lot size as
7,700 square feet and a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet. The site plan indicated
a maximum buildable area of 3,250 square feet and a minimum buildable area of
2,150 square feet.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, C-2 and MF-12 to
PD-R to allow the development of 27.9 acres as a single-family subdivision. The
development is proposed with 121 single-family lots and a detention
storage/playground area. The development will be constructed in three phases
with 43 lots in the first phase, 34 lots in the second phase and 44 lots in the final
phase. The average lot size proposed is 7,000 square feet and the minimum lot
size proposed is 5,000 square feet.
The plat indicates Lots 12 and 13, 35 and 36, 52 – 58 and 95 – 103 as double
frontage lots per the Subdivision Ordinance. A ten (10) foot restrictive access
easement has been placed along the rear lot line of these proposed lots to limit
curb cuts and access to the adjoining streets.
The development is proposed with a single access extending from Castle Valley
Road with an emergency access indicated along Bunch Road. The streets are
proposed as minor residential streets. The total linear feet of new street
proposed is 4,534 linear feet.
The applicant has indicated no portion of the site is located within
floodplain/floodway. The applicant has indicated the source of water as Central
Arkansas Water and the means of wastewater disposal will be by Little Rock
Wastewater Utility.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site currently zoned R-2, C-2 and MF-12. The streets in the
area are not constructed to Master Street Plan standard with narrow roadways
and open ditches for drainage. There is a mixture of uses in the area. There are
single-family homes located across Bunch Road to the north and the City limits is
located to the south across Caste Valley Road. To the southwest of the site is a
golf course with new homes developing in the Whispering Pines Subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Legion Hut
Neighborhood Association, the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections. Contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineer at
379-1816 for additional information. Traffic calming devices should be
installed on Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Castle
Valley Road to a collector standard including a 5-foot sidewalk prior to final
platting. Construct one-half street improvements to Chicot Road to principal
arterial standard including a 5-foot sidewalk prior to final platting.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. "Whispering Pine
Drive" street name is repetitive. Provide street name for cul-de-sac at the
NW corner of property. "Whispering Pine Circle" could be used. Provide
new name prior to final platting.
5. Construct Whispering Pine Court and Whispering Pine Lane to residential
street standards including a 5-foot sidewalk on one side. Construct
Whispering Pine Drive to a residential collector standard 31 feet in width
from back of curb to back of curb including a 5 foot sidewalk.
6. Chicot 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.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
4
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
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) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
9. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
11. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of all
streets.
12. Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
13. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the site
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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. A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing
water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
5
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial, Single Family, and Multi Family
for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to allow the
development of 121 single-family lots on a 27.9-acre tract.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Single Family is a separate item on
this agenda (LU06-15-03).
Master Street Plan: Chicot Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Bunch Road is shown as a Local Street. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. 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
Chicot Road since it is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Local Street
is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: According to the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section, a Class I bike
route is proposed southeast of this location. A Class I bikeway is built separate
from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Chicot West-I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal states: Encourage new single-
family growth and maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide
a detailed bill of assurance for the proposed subdivision detailing the proposed
construction materials, minimum square footage of the homes and estimated
sales price of the homes. Staff also requested the applicant provide details of
any proposed subdivision identification signage including height, area and
location. Staff stated the previous development allowed for a density of 2.2 units
per acre and the current application request was to allow a density of 3.3 units
per acre.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
6
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated traffic calming devices
were required for long straight streets. Staff stated devices should be installed
along Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane. Staff also stated street
improvements to Bunch, Chicot and Castle Valley Roads would be required per
the Master Street plan. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to
development and the City’s storm water detention ordinance would apply to the
proposed development.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 few of the
comments raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has not provided staff with a detailed Bill of Assurance for the
proposed subdivision indicating the minimum square footage of the homes or the
construction materials. The applicant has also not provided staff with details of
the proposed subdivision identification signage or the location of the proposed
sign. Street improvements have been noted along Castle Valley Road and
Chicot Road. No street improvements have been indicated along Bunch Road.
The revised site plan does not include the placement of traffic calming devices
along Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane as requested by staff.
Staff feels the traffic calming devices should be included along the roadways.
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, C-2 and MF-12 to
PD-R to allow the development of 27.9 acres as a single-family subdivision
containing 121 lots and a detention storage/playground area. The development
will be constructed in three phases with 43 lots in the first phase, 34 lots in the
second phase and 44 lots in the final phase. The average lot size proposed is
7,000 square feet and the minimum lot size proposed is 5,000 square feet. The
maximum buildable area has been indicated on the proposed site plan.
The plat indicates Lots 12 and 13, 35 and 36, 52 – 58 and 95 – 103 as double
frontage lots per the Subdivision Ordinance. A ten (10) foot restrictive access
easement has been placed along the rear lot line of these proposed lots to limit
curb cuts and access to the adjoining streets.
The development is proposed with a single access extending from Castle Valley
Road with an emergency access indicated along Bunch Road. The streets are
proposed as minor residential streets. The total linear feet of new street
proposed is 4,534 linear feet. The revised site plan indicates Whispering Pine
Drive constructed to Collector Street standard for the first 420 feet as requested
by staff. The site plan does not indicate the required improvements to Bunch
Road. Staff feels one-half street improvements to Bunch Road should be
completed by the developer as required by the Master Street Plan.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
7
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request to allow the creation of
121 single-family lots from this 27.9 acre tract. The development was previously
approved for 83 single-family homes meeting most of the typical minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to minimum lot size,
minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths. The previous proposal allowed an
overall density of 2.2 units per acre. The current proposal allows an average lot
size of 7,000 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. If the
development were developed as a single-family subdivision there would be a
number of variances associated with the request with regard to minimum lot size,
minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths. Staff feels the development as
proposed does not provide adequate livable space for the proposed residents of
the subdivision. Although, the site plan indicates the placement of a small
playground/detention storage area, with the small lot area, staff does not feel the
open space area provided will be adequate to meet the demand for recreational
needs of the subdivision. Staff feels the development as proposed will result in
buildings and roadways and will not allow adequate outdoor livable space for the
future residents of the subdivision.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferred to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues
associated with 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. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing a number of their
concerns raised by the previous application. The revised plat indicates the placement
of 116 single-family lots with an average lot size of 7,000 square feet and a minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet. The revised plat indicates a playground area located along
the northern portion of the proposed plat area containing 29,271 square feet or
0.67 acres. The plat continues to set aside an area along the southeastern portion of
the plat area as detention storage and open space containing 1.28 acres.
The development is proposed in three phases with 43 lots in the first phase, 32 lots in
the second phase and 41 lots in the final phase. The plat indicates buildable areas with
a 25-foot front and rear yard setback and the side yard setback at 10 percent of the lot
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
8
width not to exceed 8-feet. A note on the plat indicates the first 420 feet of Whispering
Pine Drive will be constructed to collector standard with the remainder of Whispering
Pine Drive constructed to residential street standard per the Master Street Plan.
Previously staff was not supportive of the proposed request. Staff felt the development
appeared too intense and the development as proposed would result in buildings and
roadways with limited outdoor livable space for future residents. Staff no longer feels
this is the case. The development as proposed allows two park areas for the youth and
large lot sizes for the future homeowners creating outdoor livable space both on the
individual lot and within the proposed park areas.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as presently proposed subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the above agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request as presently
proposed 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. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
NAME: Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of I-430 and Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Shackleford Crossing, LLC
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 94.87 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Commercial and Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Office Uses – Revise the approved signage plan, allow
dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road and add food sales as an allowable use.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,237 on November 23,
2004, approving a Conceptual PCD known as Shackleford Crossing Long-form PCD,
which was located at the southwest corner of South Shackleford Road and Interstate
430. The conceptual plan included the north 62 acres being developed with C-2
permitted uses, the south 20 acres being O-2 permitted uses and the middle 15 acres
being a transition area where O-2 and C-2 permitted uses would be allowed. The plan
also showed four out parcels along the Shackleford Road frontage, with three main
entry drives from Shackleford Road. The total project would consist of 1,000,000
square feet of gross building area. The applicant noted that the commercial building
area would not exceed 750,000 square feet, with office uses occupying a minimum of
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
2
25% or 250,000 square feet of the total gross floor area of the project. There would be
a maximum of 25,000 square feet of restaurant use within the out parcels and
35,000 square feet of restaurant use within the interior commercial development, with a
total gross floor area for restaurant use not exceeding 50,000 square feet. The
applicant noted that a hotel/convention use would possibly occupy up to 10 acres of the
overall development.
The development of the overall property would be done in phases with the Conceptual
PCD plan, each phase of the development, beginning with the Phase I, would require
review and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. As a part of
the Conceptual PCD proposal, the applicant submitted a three-page list of development
criteria to be placed on the property. The development criteria included conditions
related to right of way improvements, grading/excavation, landscaping/buffers, public
transportation, signage, outdoor speakers, site lighting, dumpsters, building
design/orientation, as well as other issues. Another condition included in the
development criteria was compliance with a written agreement between the developer
and Camp Aldersgate. (Both reproduced below.)
The site would allow the development of 400,000 square feet of commercial building
area with the existing I-430 entry/exit ramps and overpass conditions. Prior to
additional building area being constructed, the City’s Traffic Engineer and the
applicant’s traffic engineer would review the traffic volume in the area and if the study
indicated failure of the existing entry/exit ramps or overpass, the applicant would install
necessary improvements as agreed between the applicant and the City, prior to any
additional building area being constructed. All boundary street improvements would be
installed on Shackleford Road with the Phase I portion of the development.
The applicant noted that because of the site’s topography, site work for the entire
97 acres would be done with Phase I of the development. An overall
grading/excavation plan would be provided with the Phase I site plan review.
North/south and east/west cross sections would be provided, addressing retaining wall
construction details and areas within the site where trees would be preserved. A
grading permit for the site would not be issued until a building permit for Phase I
construction was issued.
The following list the previously approved criteria/conditions, which were imposed by the
developer and approved by the Board of Directors in the approval process:
Conditions on 97.446 Acres at the Southwest Corner of I-430 and S. Shackleford
Road - October 14, 2004
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
3
OFFSITE/IMPROVEMENT COSTS:
The building areas of the site will be allowed up to a total of 400,000 square feet of
commercial and office building area with the existing overpass and bridge conditions.
Prior to any additional building areas being added, the applicant’s traffic engineer will
review the volume of traffic with the City Engineer to determine the LOS grading.
Should the volume demonstrate failure of the related exits, entrances and bridge traffic
volumes then the applicant shall install necessary improvements as agreed between
applicant and the city to said intersection before additional commercial space or office
space could be built on the subject site.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES:
A traffic study must be submitted by the developer and approved by the City’s
Traffic Engineer, with development complying with recommendations of the study
as approved by the Traffic Engineer.
All improvements to Shackleford Road full width required by the Boundary Street
Improvements ordinance shall be constructed with Phase I development. In
addition to those required by the ordinance, the improvements made during
Phase I along Shackleford Road shall also include streetlights, turning lanes at
intersections and entry points and traffic signals at locations as determined by
Little Rock’s Traffic Engineering Department. In addition, a traffic signal shall be
installed on the I-430 north bound off-ramp at the time of the Phase I
improvements.
Phase I Shackleford Road improvements shall include the Comcast frontage.
Provide written agreement with Comcast for dedication of right-of-way and
construction of improvements.
The Highway Department I-430 right-of-way shall remain undisturbed until the
applicant has received approval of any alteration plan with the Highway
Department. The clearing of undergrowth and trees will be restricted to a caliper
of less than six (6”) inches complying with the current practices of the Highway
Department.
GRADING AND EXCAVATION ISSUES:
Provide overall grading plan for the entire property with Phase I site plan review.
Grading plan must note areas within the site where trees will be preserved,
address retaining wall construction details and identify variances from the Land
Alterations Ordinance. Along with the Phase I site plan review, the applicant
shall seek approval of a “phased grading plan” and provide justification for and
seek approval for clearing, excavation and filling areas both inside and outside
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
4
the Phase I development area in order to minimize hauling off excess materials
or importing borrow materials.
North/south and east/west sections and elevations must be provided with grading
plan.
A grading permit will be issued in conjunction with the first building permit that
allows clearing and grading in conformance with the phased grading plan
approved by the Commission. Modifications to the phased grading plan will be
dealt with according to Sections 29-189 (e) & (f) of the Land Alterations
ordinance.
LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER ISSUES:
During Phase I site work, the required land use and street buffers must be
preserved.
Construction fencing must be in place to protect all required buffers prior to the
initiation of any site work.
All portions of the property shall be landscaped in compliance with the City’s
Landscape Ordinance.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ISSUES:
Prior to submittal of Phase I site plan review to the Planning Commission, the
developer shall meet with Central Arkansas Transit Authority representatives to
discuss opportunities for providing bus facilities (pull-outs, internal circulation,
etc.).
The site development plan for the entire property must be designed to provide
adequate internal pedestrian circulation.
SIGNAGE ISSUES:
All wall and directional signage must comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission during site plan review.
The commercial portion of the development will be limited to two (2) ground-
mounted signs, one (1) at an entry drive from Shackleford Road and one along
the I-430 Freeway area. Each sign shall have a maximum height of 36 feet and
a maximum area of 320 square feet.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
5
The office portion of the development will be limited to one (1) ground-mounted
sign at the entry drive from Shackleford Road. The sign shall have a maximum
height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet.
Out parcels within the commercial portion of the property shall be restricted to
one (1) monument-type ground-mounted sign per out parcel. Each sign shall
have a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100 square feet.
Any retail or retail commercial sign lighting along Shackleford Road or within
200’ feet thereof must be turned off ½ hour after store closing and not be turned
on prior to ½ hour before store opening.
OTHER SITE DESIGN ISSUES:
Total project shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of area.
Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property shall not exceed a
total of 750,000 square feet of gross floor area, with a maximum of
25,000 square feet of restaurant uses on out parcels and 35,000 square feet
of restaurant uses on the balance of project with a total maximum restaurant
use for the entire property not to exceed 50,000 square feet.
Buildings constructed containing permitted O-2 uses shall be at least 25%, or
250,000, of the total gross floor area of the project.
Hotel and Convention use available on this site. Project to be in keeping with
design of others on Chenal or Shackleford Road. Size not to exceed
10 acres.
All site lighting must be low-level, directed away from adjacent property,
shielded downward and into the site.
Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for 1/2 hour before and after the advertiser's hours of
being open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and
system is limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from
South Shackleford Road or at a distance of two hundred feet or more from
the source of such sound.
Any dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from Shackleford
Road and screened as per the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Servicing of dumpsters or trash receptacles must be during day light hours
only.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
6
The design of buildings on the site must be approved by the Planning
Commission during the site plan review process.
All service/loading dock doors shall be oriented away from Shackleford and
provide proper screening.
Maximum building height on the property will not exceed 45’ unless approved
by the Planning Commission consistent with the height regulations as
allowed within the O-2 zoning district for the office portion of the
development.
Compliance with the written agreement between the developer and Camp
Aldersgate.
CONDITIONS - CAMP ALDERSGATE – November 8, 2004
1. Water Quality Assurance.
Developer agrees to comply with all current local, state, and federal law
regarding water run off and detention. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, Camp Aldersgate or the Developer will obtain from ADEQ or other
appropriate agency and share with one another the watershed affecting Camp
Aldersgate. Developer will ensure that the water quality and quantity from the
Property will not adversely affect either the quality or quantity of Camp
Aldersgate’s existing watershed.
2. Shackleford Road Improvements.
This letter agreement is conditioned upon the signatories’ written agreement to
the final specifications of road widening plan for Shackleford Road as approved
by the City of Little Rock. Nonetheless, Developer agrees to widen Shackleford
Road to two through lanes in each direction plus a turn lane as approved by the
City of Little Rock in front of Shackleford Crossings without cost or expense to
Camp Aldersgate. It is understood that Camp Aldersgate will not be required to
dedicate land for the widening of Shackleford Road or for any additional rights-of-
way that may be needed in conjunction with its widening.
3. Lighting and Signage.
Freestanding (lighted or unlighted) pole signs will be permitted only within 50 feet
of the property’s (1) west and northwest boundaries that abut the property
comprising I-430 or its rights-of-way and (2) 500 northern most feet of the east
boundary that abuts Shackleford Road as measured from the intersection of
Shackleford Road and I-430’s right-of-way.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
7
The Property’s parking lot lights shall not exceed 30 feet in height or be directed
towards adjoining properties or roadways. The Property’s parking lot lights shall
be full cutoff, metal halide fixtures that utilize 400 watt or less horizontal bulbs
with flat lenses to control glare and over spill of lighting. No downward lighting
fixtures shall be permitted on the Property except those specifically designed to
light parking areas, service drives, sidewalks, and areas necessary for the
protection of persons or property, and none shall exceed the height or foot
candle specifications of the Property’s parking lot lights.
Signage for the remaining portions of the Property shall comply with Section
36-346(f) and 347 of the Little Rock Code as currently enacted. Any monument
signs erected within 100 feet of Shackleford Road shall be oriented perpendicular
to Shackleford Road. Vertical illumination of any monument signs shall not
exceed 0.1-foot candle measured on a vertical plane.
Any eastern facing signs visible from Camp Aldersgate’s property, except those
freestanding pole signs permitted above, shall remain unlighted except for
½ hour before and after the advertiser’s hours of being open to the general
public.
4. Use Restrictions.
Developer agrees to place certain restrictions on the Property limiting certain
uses which are currently permitted or conditional uses under the City’s current
C-2 zoning classification, which use restrictions are attached as Attachment “A”.
This requirement shall also apply if Developer elects to self develop any of the
Property.
5. Use of Outdoor Speakers.
Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the
Property except for ½ hour before and after the advertiser’s hours of being open
to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to
those that do not omit sound that is plainly audible from South Shackleford Road
or at a distance of two hundred feet or more from the source of such sound.
6. Legal Matters and Continuing Cooperation.
Developer agrees to provide a declaration of restrictive covenants consistent with
the terms of this letter and in a form acceptable to Camp Aldersgate that will be
part of the land for future uses and will file said declaration as part of the public
record. Approval of said form shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Developer covenants that in connection with Camp Aldersgate’s pledge of future
cooperation with Shackleford Crossings, that Developer and its consultants will
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
8
periodically provide Camp Aldersgate’s Executive Director with reports
concerning the status of development at the site to the extent that such
development touches or impacts Camp Aldersgate. For instance, Developer will
provide Camp Aldersgate with copies of any water quality testing and monitoring
performed by the engineering firm engaged to provide these services in a
reasonably timely manner. Developer shall provide reasonable prior notice of the
commencement of excavation be given to the Executive’s Director in order that
any necessary on-site preparations be made at Camp Aldersgate.
The provisions of this letter shall be incorporated into (1) the final plan of
development and the zoning ordinance amendments approved by the City of
Little Rock and (2) any site plans or building plans to be approved by the City of
Little Rock for any parcel within the Property.
The enumerated restrictions above shall automatically terminate in the event
either Camp Aldersgate is no longer owned by the Women’s Division of the
United Methodist Church or other 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation or its property
is no longer used for purely charitable purposes.
ATTACHMENT “A”
Excluded Uses from Property’s C-2 Zoning:
a. Bar, lounge, or tavern (except as part of restaurant or hotel use).
b. Cabinet and woodwork shop.
c. College dormitory.
d. College fraternity or sorority.
e. 24 hour Community welfare or health center.
f. Feed store.
g. Group care facility.
h. Lodge or fraternal organization.
i. Mortuary or funeral home.
j. Pawnshop.
k. Private club with dining or bar service.
l. Recycling facility, automated.
m. Taxidermist.
n. Ambulance service post.
o. Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation shall be limited to
Block A provided that building shall be no closer than 200 feet of Shackleford
Road right-of-way. Auto repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road
right-of-way. Auto repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road.
Enhanced landscaping shall be provided with the parking area fronting the
bay door, which shall include trees at 30 feet on center in the area fronting the
bay.
p. Bus station and terminal.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
9
q. Crematorium.
r. Upholstery shop, furniture.
s. Upholstery shop, auto.
t. Appliance repair, excepting as part of a larger use.
Ordinance No. 19,399 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 20,
2005, established revisions to the previously approved PCD. The approval defined the
site plan for Phase I, the Commercial portion of the project and one of the office lots.
With the request, a preliminary plat for the subdivision of the site with sixteen lots and
out-parcels was also approved. The approved site plan included an area previously
excluded containing the Comcast office tract on Shackleford Road and incorporated this
area into the overall project plan.
All the conditions that were a part of the previously approved Conceptual P.C.D. were
incorporated into the submittal with one revision. The one change requested from the
prior conditions was the second bullet point under “Other Site Design Issues” and was
to increase in the allowable restaurant square footage and place a minimum parking
ratio requirement for restaurants on the site as imposed by the developer as indicated
below:
Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property shall not exceed a total of
750,000 square feet of gross floor area, with a maximum of 25,000 40,000 square
feet of restaurant uses on out parcels and 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses on
the balance of project with a total maximum restaurant use for the entire property
not to exceed 50,000 65,000 square feet. Additionally, all restaurants shall have a
parking ratio of not less than 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet calculated
independently of retail parking ratios.
The applicant provided as an Attachment a rendered site plan of the intersection of the
“Main Street” portion of the retail development. The applicant stated the rendering was
intended to show the character of the retail development. The developer indicated the
actual building design had not been completed, but the intent was for the buildings to
look as if they had been built over time and by multiple designers to give the look, feel,
and sense of place that is reminiscent of a village, marketplace, or Main Street
atmosphere. According to the applicant the final design would include extensive
hardscape and landscape design that provided for excellent pedestrian circulation
throughout the shopping center.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved
Planned Commercial Development to clarify the signage plan, allow dock doors
to be oriented to Shackleford Road and add food store as an allowable use for
the site. The following indicates an exerpt from an ordinance being proposed
with the changes being underscored and bolded:
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
10
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for
Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-Form PCD (Z-_______) is conditioned upon
obtaining a final approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section
36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances. The change in zoning classification is further
subject to the conditions stated as follows:
1. Uses Allowed. Uses allowed are C-2 permitted uses plus food
store and retail uses not listed (enclosed), and O-2 uses.
2. Offsite Improvement Costs. The building areas of the site will be
allowed up to a total of 400,000 square feet of commercial and
office building area with the existing overpass and bridge
conditions. Prior to any additional building areas being added, the
applicant’s traffic engineer will review the volume of traffic with the
City Engineer to determine the LOS grading. Should the volume
demonstrate failure of the related exits, entrances and bridge traffic
volumes then the applicant shall install necessary improvements as
agreed between applicant and the city to the intersection before
additional commercial space or office space could be built on the
subject site.
3. Right-Of-Way Issues.
a. A traffic study has been submitted by the developer and
approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer, with development
complying with recommendations of the study as approved
by the Traffic Engineer.
b. All improvements to Shackleford Road full width required by
the Boundary Street Improvements ordinance shall be
constructed in Phase I of the development. In addition to
those required by the ordinance, the improvements made
during Phase I along Shackleford Road shall also include
streetlights, turning lanes at intersections and entry points
and traffic signals at locations as determined by the Little
Rock Traffic Engineering Department. In addition, a traffic
signal shall be installed on the I-430 north bound off-ramp at
the time of the Phase I improvements.
c. Phase I Shackleford Road improvements shall include the
Comcast frontage. Provide written agreement with Comcast
for dedication of right-of-way and construction of
improvements.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
11
d. The Highway Department I-430 right-of-way shall remain
undisturbed until the applicant has received approval of any
alteration plan with the Highway Department. The clearing
of undergrowth and trees will be restricted to a caliper of less
than six (6”) inches complying with the current practices of
the Highway Department.
4. Grading and Excavation Issues.
a. Provide overall grading plan for the entire property with
Phase I site plan review. Grading plan must note areas
within the site where trees will be preserved, address
retaining wall construction details and identify variances from
the Land Alteration Ordinance. Along with the Phase I site
plan review, the applicant shall seek approval of a “phased
grading plan” and provide justification for and seek approval
for clearing, excavation and filling areas both inside and
outside the Phase I development area in order to minimize
hauling off excess materials or importing borrow materials.
b. North/south and east/west sections and elevations must be
provided with grading plan.
c. A grading permit will be issued in conjunction with the first
building permit that allows clearing and grading in
conformance with the phased grading plan approved by the
Commission. Modifications to the phased grading plan will
be dealt with according to Sections 29-189 (e) and (f) of the
Land Alteration ordinance.
5. Landscaping and Buffer Issues.
a. During Phase I site work, the required land use and street
buffers shall be preserved.
b. Construction fencing shall be in place to protect all required
buffers prior to the initiation of any site work.
c. All portions of the property shall be landscaped in
compliance with the City’s Landscape Ordinance.
6. Public Transportation Issues.
a. Prior to submittal of Phase I site plan review to the Planning
Commission, the developer shall meet with Central Arkansas
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
12
Transit Authority representatives to discuss opportunities for
providing bus facilities (pull-outs, internal circulation, etc.)
b. The site development plan for the entire property shall be
designed to provide adequate internal pedestrian circulation.
7. Signage Issues.
a. All directional signage shall comply with the Zoning
Ordinance.
b. Wall signage is allowed on the interior of the shopping
center at the front and rear wall of each tenant, facing
interior streets and parking, and on I-430 and
Shackleford Road frontage. However, tenants greater
than 100,000 square feet are allowed a maximum of
three (3) exterior walls for signage, and tenants less
than 100,000 square feet are allowed a maximum of two
(2) exterior walls for signage
c. The total area for exterior wall mounted signs may not
exceed 10% of the wall surface area of the front wall of
the tenant’s demised premises.
d. Tenants less than 15,000 square feet may have one wall
sign per exterior wall. Tenants greater than 15,000
square feet may have more than one sign per exterior
wall but must comply with “c” above.
e. In addition to a through d above, tenants may have one
blade sign perpendicular to the main façade with a
maximum size of six (6) square feet, restaurants may
have an exterior Menu Board within 5 feet of the
entrance not to exceed eight (8) square feet, and
Tenants may incorporate logos or names on glass
areas and/or awnings.
f. The commercial portion of the development will be limited to
two (2) ground-mounted pylon signs, one (1) at an entry
drive from Shackleford Road and one along the I-430
Freeway area. Each sign shall have a maximum height of
36 feet and a maximum area of 400 square feet. An
additional monument sign (hardscape wall) may be
constructed at the Shackleford Road/I-430 Intersection. Wall
may be natural stone or brick masonry, 5-foot maximum
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
13
height, with a 30 inch by 50-foot area for metal letters to
spell project name. The area around the wall shall be
planted to create a landscape feature at this corner of the
site.
g. The office portion of the development shall be limited to one
(1) ground-mounted sign at the entry drive from Shackleford
Road for the Office Park name. The sign shall have a
maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 64
square feet. Signage for each lot within the office use
areas shall be as permitted in Section 36-553 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
h. Out parcels within the commercial portion of the property
shall be restricted to one (1) monument-type ground-
mounted sign per out parcel. Each sign shall have a
maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100
square feet.
i. Out parcels within the commercial portion of the
property must comply with a, b, d, and e above, except
that out parcel tenants are allowed to place sign on two
or three (2 or 3) of their exterior walls.
i. Any retail or retail commercial sign lighting along
Shackleford Road or within 200 feet thereof must be turned
off ½ hour after store closing and not be turned on prior to a
½ hour before store opening.
8. Other Site Design Issues.
a. Total project shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of area.
b. Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property
shall not exceed a total of 750,000 square feet of gross floor
area, with a maximum of 40,000 square feet of restaurant
uses on outparcels and 35,000 square feet of restaurant
uses on the balance of project with a total maximum
restaurant use for the entire property not to exceed 65,000
square feet. Additionally, all restaurants shall have a parking
ratio of not less than 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet
calculated independently of retail parking ratios.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
14
c. Buildings constructed containing permitted O-2 uses shall be
at least 25%, or 250,000 square feet of the total gross floor
area of the project.
d. Hotel and Convention use available on this site; project to be
in keeping with design of others on Chenal or Shackleford
Road; area not to exceed 10 acres.
e. All site lighting shall be a low-level, directed away from
adjacent property, shielded downward and into the site.
f. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall
be prohibited on the property except for ½ hour before and
after the advertiser’s hours of being open to the general
public. The operation of any such speaker and system is
limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible
from South Shackleford Road or at a distance of two
hundred feet or more from the source of such sound.
g. Any dumpster or trash receptacles shall be oriented away
form Shackleford Road and screened as per the Zoning
Ordinance requirements. Trash enclosures shall be
screened from public view on three sides with a six to eight
foot high (depending on the height of container) screen of
masonry, precast, or other building compatible materials.
Trash enclosures shall be located to allow a 50 foot clear
path for trucks. When located in a highly visible area,
screening walls shall be softened with landscaping or
earthen berms.
h. Servicing of dumpsters or trash receptacles shall be during
day light hours only.
i. All buildings (Main Street, Anchors, and Jr. Anchors) are
required to be “4 sided” architecture, meaning that the back
of the building will be as well designed as the front and
sides. Exteriors shall be of materials such as native or cast
stone, brick, colored split-face block, “Dryvit”, or similar
materials that are permanent in nature (no metal buildings).
Most roofs will be flat, but any sloped roofs will be
architectural/standing seam metal panels. Truck service and
compactor areas will be screened by walls and landscaping.
All exterior (roof or ground mounted) mechanical equipment
will be screened with architectural or landscape screening
treatments. Plans for final exterior design must be submitted
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
15
to Planning staff and approved prior to applying for any
building permits.
j. All service/loading dock doors shall be screened. In
addition, all service/loading dock doors within 300 feet
of Shackleford Road shall be oriented away from
Shackleford Road.
k. Maximum building height on the property shall not exceed 45
feet unless approved by the Planning Commission
consistent with the height regulations as allowed within the
O-2 zoning district for the office portion of the development.
l. Compliance with the written agreement between the
developer and Camp Aldersgate.
m. Drive-through facilities of restaurants shall be screened as
follows: speaker will be mounted so that it is baffled on all
sides in a manner which will direct the sound produced to
the vehicle served. Each speaker location shall be designed
to provide for a solid wall at least six feet in height and
twenty feet in length along the opposite lane line. This wall
shall be constructed of masonry or wood with a textured
finish to diminish sound deflection.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed site is currently being graded for future development of the site.
Building permits have been issued for two of the buildings located near the
northern portion of the site. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west
of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp
Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property
immediately south is also vacant and wooded. The general area contains a mix
of residential, office and commercial uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Sandpiper Neighborhood Association, the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, along with all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and
all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the site were
notified of the public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
16
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff questioned if the proposed buildings would be
allowed more than two sign locations. Staff also questioned if the service docks
would be screened from view from South Shackleford Road. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no remaining outstanding technical issues in need of addressing
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request
includes three items for clarity of the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development. The request is to add food sales as an allowable use for the site,
redefine the signage plan and provide a provision for dock doors oriented to
South Shackleford Road.
The previous approval allowed for C-2 uses as allowable uses for the site. The
applicant is requesting the addition of food sales as an allowable use. Staff is
supportive of this request. There is an ordinance amendment package the
Commission will review in the near future to adds food sales as an allowable use
under the C-2 Zoning District.
The previous approval allowed for the placement of two shopping center
identification signs located along Interstate 430 and along Shackleford Road.
The original approval allowed the signs to be 36-feet in height and 320 square
feet in area. The current request allows the signs to remain 36-feet in height and
increase the sign area to 400 square feet. Staff is supportive of this request.
The proposal is to allow the placement of dock doors located in excess of
300-feet from Shackleford Road to be oriented to Shackleford Road. Presently
the approval does not allow dock doors to front or be oriented to Shackleford
Road. The applicant is proposing all service/loading dock doors be screened. In
addition, all service/loading dock doors within 300 feet of Shackleford Road will
be oriented away from Shackleford Road. The applicant has provided a line of
sight for the area proposed with dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road.
Based on the line of sight provided, the location of the proposed dock doors will
not be visible from Shackleford Road and will be fully screened from the interior
parking lot area. Staff recommends the applicant provide written agreement with
this request from Camp Aldersgate since this item was placed in the original
memorandum of agreement between the developers and Camp Aldersgate.
The developer is proposing a revision to the previously approved signage plan.
The revision would allow signage on the building along the service drives and
within the parking lot area. The applicant has indicated the total sign area would
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
17
be an aggregate split between the number of signs being requested. The total
sign area allowed would calculated by using the front façade and be allowed at
ten percent of the front façade area. All directional signage will comply with the
typical standard of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the Planning Commission can act
on the proposed request at this meeting provided the applicant provide staff with
a written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of loading
dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road prior to the meeting. Staff does not feel
the addition of food sales as an allowable use will adversely impact the
development nor does staff feel the proposed signage plan will adversely impact
the development or the area. Although the placement of the signage does not
meet the typical minimum ordinance standard staff does not feel the allowance of
additional signage will impact the development. The center is being developed
as a shopping center which would typically allow the placement of signage along
the interior walls of the development. The request includes the allowance of
signage within the parking lot area to identify the businesses and direct
customers to the desired store location. In addition, staff does not feel the
allowance of larger shopping center identification signs will impact the
development or the area. The site contains approximately 100 acres with limited
signage proposed to serve the development. To staff’s knowledge there are no
remaining issues associated with the request other than the applicant providing a
written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of the
loading dock doors.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with staff
comments as noted in Paragraphs E above.
Staff recommends the applicant provide a written agreement from Camp
Aldersgate concerning the placement of the loading dock doors oriented to
Shackleford Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided a
written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of the loading dock
doors oriented to Shackleford Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
18
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the requested letter from Camp Aldersgate as
indicated in the previous Planning Commission write-up and recommendation. Staff
recommends if this letter is not received prior to the Planning Commission Public
Hearing the item be deferred until such date the letter is received.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
Staff stated the applicant had provided a letter of support from Camp Aldersgate as
requested by staff. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed revision to the
currently approved PCD subject to compliance with all comments and conditions as
outlined in 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. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-8133
NAME: Vick Short-form PD-R, Alley Abandonment and Right-of-way Abandonment
for Ludwig Street
LOCATION: Located North of West 29th Street between Ludwig and Malloy Streets
DEVELOPER:
Jacqueline Vick
801 South Rodney Parham, Apt. 22F
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Arrow Surveying
550 Edgewood Drive, Suite 592B
Maumelle, AR 72113
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
Roberts and Williams
1501 North University Avenue, Suite 430
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 1.90 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Duplex Housing
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five (5) year deferral of the required street
construction of Malloy Street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a single ownership development plan for two
structures of duplex housing for a total of four units. The goal is to create and
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
2
ensure a clean and visually appealing residential environment that will include
adequate landscaping and walkways to enhance the development and the
community as a whole. Each structure is proposed as a single story building
containing two units of living areas.
The request also includes the abandonment of a previously platted street right of
ways located along the eastern perimeter and an alley located within the
proposed development area. The applicant has provided letters from the utility
companies only one of which indicates the desire to maintain this area as an
easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered with a significant slope falling from south to north. There
are single-family homes located to the south of the site and vacant property to
the north and west of the site. To the east of the site is a commercial business
fronting on John Barrow Road. The streets in the area are substandard with
minimum paving and open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed land use would classify 29th Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to
collector standard per the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street
improvements to 29th Street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned
development.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
4. Unless specifically requested, grading of the site will only be allowed for
each phase. No advanced grading of future phases without imminent
construction will be permitted.
5. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section
29-186 (e).
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
3
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
8. 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) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
9. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
10. If utilities are present, the abandoned streets should be maintained as
easements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. No objection to
the abandonment but the right of way must be retained as easement. There are
existing sewer mains in the right of way of Ludwig and Malloy Streets. Contact
the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Central Arkansas Water has
no existing or planned facilities located within the rights-of-way to be abandoned
and has no objection to closure and abandonment of easement rights for the
alley and Ludwig and Malloy Streets, north of West 29th Street. A water main
extension will be required in order to provide adequate service to this property.
Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and
contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the
hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
4
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning to Planned Residential Development to allow the
development of 16 units contained in eight buildings of duplex housing.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda (LU06-10-03).
Master Street Plan: West 29th Street, Ludwig Street, and Malloy Street are all
shown as a Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization goal has these objectives relevant to this case:
“Encourage the development of additional affordable housing in the John Barrow
Neighborhood Area.”
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a number of
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant
provide building elevations for the proposed units. Staff stated they felt the
building orientation should be more neighborhood oriented as opposed to the
current design layout. Staff questioned if the dumpster hours of service would be
limited to the daylight hours.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated if advanced grading of the
site was desired a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance would be
required. Staff also stated with the site development one-half street
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
5
improvements to West 29th Street would be required. Staff stated if disturbed
area was one or more acres permits would be required. Staff also stated the
City’s storm water detention ordinance would apply to any development on the
site.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised
plan indicates a replat of the twelve previously platted lots into two lots, the
abandonment of Ludwig Street and an alley located within the proposed
development area and the construction of two duplex buildings on the site. By
reducing the proposed development area the applicant is no longer required to
submit a detailed grading plan for the entire development area, only the portion
proposed for immediate development.
The site will contain two lots, Lot 1 containing 0.78 acres and Lot 2 containing
1.074 acres. Lot 1 is proposed for development and Lot 2 has been indicated for
future development. The buildings have been oriented to West 29th Street. The
buildings are proposed with a building footprint of 3,025 square feet with a
25-foot front yard setback and a 25-foot rear yard setback.
The site plan indicates the placement of four parking spaces and four guest
parking spaces which are stacked per unit. The parking is indicated along West
29th Street with cars backing into the right-of-way. Although, West 29th Street is
not a busy street staff has concerns with the proposed parking backing into the
right-of-way creating traffic concerns and conflicts. Staff feels the proposed site
plan should be redesigned to allow the residents to not back into the public right
of way and access the roadway head-on.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six-foot opaque privacy fence along
the eastern and western perimeters of the site. Each of the units is proposed
with a rear yard patio area. The patio areas will be separated with a six foot
opaque screening fence to allow each of the tenants privacy in their patio area.
The site plan also indicates large areas of landscaping around each building and
in the rear yard area.
The units are proposed to be residential in scale and character. The units will be
constructed with wood siding, wood trim, face brick on the front and insulated
glazed aluminum windows. The proposed roof pitch is 5/12 with fiberglass
composition shingles on #15 roofing felt.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
6
The request includes the abandonment of Malloy Street and a previously platted
alley. The street and alley have not been constructed. The applicant has
provided letters from the various utility companies. The wastewater utility has
indicated a desire to maintain the abandoned right of way for Malloy Street as a
utility easement.
The applicant is seeking a five year deferral of the required street construction to
Malloy Street. Staff is supportive of a deferral of the required street
improvements for a period of five years or until adjacent development occurs.
Staff is supportive of the placement of duplex units on the site but staff is not
supportive of the site plan as proposed. Staff is not supportive of the parking as
proposed by allowing cars to back into West 29th Street. Staff feels the parking
should be redesigned to eliminate backing into the right-of-way to minimize any
potential impacts on traffic flows in the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
December 7, 2006, requesting a deferral of this item to the January 18, 2007, 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. A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver for the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff with a minor modification to the
proposed plan. The revised plan indicates the driveway for the proposed units
separating the paving and placing a landscaped area between the proposed driveways.
The driveway length is proposed at 20 feet adequate to meet the typical minimum stall
depth for parking. The site plan indicates the placement of two parking spaces per unit
which is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking requirement for a multi-family
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
7
development. Staff has revisited their concern with the backing of automobiles into
West 29th Street and no longer sees this as a major concern. As previously stated West
29th Street is a low volume street and other homes in the area presently back into the
street as is being proposed by the applicant.
The site plan indicates the placement of guest parking within the public right of way.
Staff is not supportive of the indicated guest parking. The guest parking is not a
requirement of the ordinance and staff feels the indicated parking outside the right of
way is adequate to serve the development.
As indicated previously the units are proposed to be residential in scale and character.
The units will be constructed with wood siding, wood trim, face brick on the front and
glazed aluminum windows. The roof pitch proposed is 5/12 with fiberglass composition
shingles on #15 roofing felt.
The request includes the abandonment of Malloy Street and a previously platted alley.
The street and alley have not been constructed. The applicant has provided letters from
the various utility companies. The wastewater utility is requesting the maintenance of
the abandoned right of way for Malloy Street as a utility easement. The request
includes a five year deferral of the right of way for street construction to Ludwig Street.
Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
As previously stated staff is supportive of the placement of the duplex units on four
previously platted lots. Staff previously opposed the backing of cars into West 29th
Street but as indicated above staff no longer feels this is a major concern. Presently
there are a number of residences in the area, which back into the right of way as is
being proposed by the applicant, and this does not appear to have negatively impacted
the area or traffic flows in the area.
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments
and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the applicant had addressed
their previous concerns related to the site design and backing into the street. Staff
presented a recommendation of approval of the request and the request for the
abandonment of the proposed alley and the abandonment of the right of way for Ludwig
Street. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a
five-year deferral of the street improvements to Malloy Street.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
8
Mr. Barry Williams was present representing the applicant. He stated he had little to add
to staff’s presentation and would reserve his time to address comments raised by the
opposition.
Ms. Carolyn Voss addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the neighborhood could not be present because a number were working or were ill.
She stated the previous meeting there were ten persons present from the neighborhood
to speak in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood did not want duplex
units. She stated the neighborhood would prefer single-family homes either rental or
owner occupied but no duplex structures. She stated with the construction of duplex
units property values in the area would decrease. She stated renters did not care about
the home or the area. She stated with renters would come children and the residents
did not want to watch for children playing in the street. She stated illegal dumping was
occurring on the site and the City would not pick up the trash. She requested the
Commission deny the request for duplex structures and require the construction of
single-family homes.
Mr. Williams stated the illegal dump was located on the adjacent property and not Ms.
Vick’s property. He stated Ms. Vick would occupy one of the units and rent the other
three units. He stated the development as proposed was less dense than was currently
allowed under single-family development. He stated the development allowed for a
transition between the multi-family zoned property to the north and the multi-family
zoned property to the east.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the limits
which could be placed on the occupants of the site. Staff stated the placement of the
owner residing in one of the units in perpetuity was not a requirement the Commission
typically imposed. Mr. Williams stated the requirement was not acceptable to the
applicant. He stated Ms. Vick was young and unmarried and a situation may arise in
which she no longer desired to live in one of the units due to marital status or a job
commitment outside of the City.
A motion was made to approve the applicant’s request. The motion carried by a vote of
7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
NAME: Colonel Glenn Center Addition – Clearing & Wall Construction
Variance Request
LOCATION: West of Talley Road; North & South of Remington Road
APPLICANT: Boen Enterprises
ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick
AREA: approximately 12 acres
CURRENT ZONING: O3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not
imminent;
2. Construct a retaining wall that exceeds the cut and fill limits of Sec. 29-190.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to clear, and
grade on lots 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18 without construction being imminent. Following
grading, the applicant proposes to construct retaining walls on these lots. The
proposed wall shows to be about 19 ft tall which exceeds the terrace and wall height
limits of 15 ft per Sec 29-190.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
These O-3 zoned lots located along Remington Drive are approximately 12 acres and
covered in trees. The lots are adjacent to Remington College and Value Place Hotel
located to the west. Undeveloped, tree covered lots zoned O3 are located to the east
of the lots to be graded. On the north, the property is bordered by C3 zoned
properties that are already cleared by this same applicant. Also located to the north is
Landers Toyota. The property located to the south of the lots is zoned R2 and
separated by a 35 ft open space buffer and a private street.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (August 24, 2006)
Public Works comments were given to Pat McGetrick representing the applicant. Staff
questioned why additional clearing and grading is being requested when the majority
of the existing cleared lots of the subdivision are yet to be developed and no new
building permit applications have been submitted. These lots were cleared
approximately 5 years ago and at that time the owner told staff construction on those
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
2
lots was imminent. Staff was given a letter from Mr. McGetrick from the Arkansas
Baptist State Convention which stated the convention intends to begin construction on
lots 10 and 11 no later than June 1, 2007. Staff questioned why the clearing, grading,
and wall construction could not begin when the Arkansas Baptist State Convention
applies for a building permit. Mr. McGetrick stated he would give this information to
the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item was previously on the May 25, 2006 Planning Commission agenda but was
withdrawn by the applicant. Now, the applicant has sent staff a letter dated August 31,
2006 asking for the request to be deferred for three (3) weeks in order to obtain
commitment of purchase of the lots to be developed. Staff is in support of the deferral
request.
E. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request to defer the item
to the September 28, 2006 agenda. 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 deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff did not receive further proof of imminent construction for review as requested.
Due to lack of information and proof of notice, staff recommends deferral of the
request to October 26, 2006 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the October 26,
2006 Agenda in order for the applicant to submit additional information.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the October 26, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
3
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, 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 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the review
process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with the
required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation of
deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, 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. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request to staff on January 5, 2007, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a request to staff on January 5, 2007, requesting 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. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: LA-0014
NAME: Boen Timber Harvest – NW I-430 & Col. Glenn
LOCATION: Northwest corner of I-430 & Colonel Glenn Road
APPLICANT: Loenard Boen
APPLICANT AGENT: Pat McGetrick
AREA: Approximately 82 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Conduct land alteration, activities, harvest timber,
with construction not being imminent as required by the Land Alteration Regulations, Sec.
29-186(b).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest
timber on approximately 82 acres located at the northwest corner of I-430 and Colonel
Glenn with construction not being imminent.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This 82 acre, C2 zoned property is located Northwest of Colonel Glenn Road and
Interstate 430. Interstate 430 is located to the east of the property and the site plan
shows a 50 ft undisturbed buffer located between the property and I-430. On the
north, the property is bordered by an open space which is the floodplain of Brodie
Creek. Also located to the north are single family homes on R2 zoned properties and
some undeveloped property zoned MF12. The properties across Bowman Road
located to the west zoned R2 are a horse farm and a manufactured home park. The
property to the south is the Baptist Health System education center zoned C2 and
some other cleared, undeveloped properties zoned C2.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (August 24, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff stated no information has been provided except the
application and a site plan. A forestry management plan had yet to be submitted for
staff review. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0014
2
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This same application but by another applicant was previously withdrawn from the
August 3, 2006 Planning Commission agenda due to a forestry management plan had
not been submitted as required by code. Staff did receive a forestry management plan
for review on September 1, 2006. Due to the lack of information in that plan, staff did
not have sufficient time or information for review prior to preparation of staff
recommendation and comments. Staff recommends deferral of the request to the
September 28, 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating they had received the requested forestry
management plan but it appeared the plan was lacking critical information to complete the
review process. Staff stated due to the lack of information in the plan and staff had not had
sufficient time to complete the review, a recommendation of deferral of the request to the
September 28, 2006, public hearing was presented.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, 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 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the review
process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0014
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with the
required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation of
deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, 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. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request to staff on January 5, 2007, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a request to staff on January 5, 2007, requesting 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. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: LA-0015
NAME: Whisenhunt Investments Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road
APPLICANT: Whisenhunt Investments
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Development Consultants, Inc.
AREA: 4.06 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration
Regulations to advance clear and grade with construction not being imminent.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to
advance clear and grade the property with construction not being imminent. The
approximately 4.06 acre property is located on the northwest corner of Chenal
Parkway and western leg of Kanis Road. The applicant desires to clear and fill
the property with excess dirt from the Fellowship Church site and other
undeveloped parcels north of the future extension of Wellington Hills Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This approximately 4.06 acre tree covered C3 zoned property is tract land
located on the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western leg of Kanis
Road. Developed C3 zoned property is located on the west. The Entergy power
substation is located on the northwest. On the north, the property is bordered by
a transmission right-of-way and beyond that right-of-way is tree covered
undeveloped property zoned C3. The property is bordered to the west by Chenal
Parkway and beyond Chenal is tree covered, undeveloped property zoned C3.
Kanis Road is located south of the property and beyond Kanis is tree covered
undeveloped property. Just south of the tree covered undeveloped property is
additional property that will be filled by dirt from the Fellowship Church site off
Kirk Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any phone calls or letters asking
questions or requesting additional information.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
2
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
2. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires
approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic
Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more
information.
3. Tracking of mud and dirt onto City streets is not permissable on city streets.
A tracking pad must be installed at least 250 ft from the Kanis-Chenal
intersection.
4. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater.
5. Per Little Rock Code Sec. 29-190(14), a perimeter buffer strip shall be
temporarily maintained around disturbed areas for erosion control purposes
and shall be kept undisturbed except for reasonable access for maintenance.
The width of the strip shall be 6% of the lot width and depth. The minimum
width shall be twenty-five (25) feet and the maximum shall be forty (40) feet.
6. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of harvest activities.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (October 5, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff stated the comments as written above. The
applicant’s representatives, Doug Robertson of Whisenhunt Investments, stated
the clearing and grading will comply with Little Rock code, staff
recommendations, and comments.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
F. ANALYSIS:
The request is to clear the trees and fill the 4.06 acre property located on the
northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western leg of Kanis Road with the
dirt from the Fellowship Church site and the undeveloped parcels north of the
future expansion of Wellington Hills Road. No construction is proposed to
proceed after the filling and grading activities are completed.
The Land Alteration Regulations (Sec. 29-186(b)) specifically state no land
alteration shall be permitted until all necessary city approvals of all plans and
permits, except building permit, have been issued and construction is imminent.
Imminent construction as defined by code means the installation of a foundation
or erection of a structure without unreasonable delay following land alteration
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
3
activities. With this application, the applicant desires to clear and fill the site but
has no plans for construction to proceed after the grading is completed. Per
code, a grading permit cannot be issued by staff for the clearing and filling
without construction being imminent. The code does provide the Planning
Commission with the authority to grant a variance for issuance of a grading
permit to clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where
construction is not imminent on all phases of the development.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Even though the applicant has agreed to comply with the Public Works
comments, staff does not support the clearing of additional trees without
imminent construction. The additional clearing and filling does not follow the
purpose of the Land Alteration Regulations (Sec. 29-168). The code states the
purposes are to prevent the excessive grading, clearing, and filling activities and
preserve the natural vegetation which enhances the quality of life of the
community. Prior to adoption of the Land Alteration Regulations, the applicant
cleared and graded about 11 acres south of Chenal Parkway near the Krogers
store that has yet to be developed. Recently, staff supported filling
approximately 21 acres south of Chenal Parkway and about 47 acres north or
Chenal Parkway as part of the Fellowship Church application because they were
nearly treeless. In that same application, staff did not support clearing and filling
of the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western
leg of Kanis Road because of the existing trees. The applicant’s site plan is
incorrect showing the area adjacent to Kanis Road to be cleared and filled.
Being the subject property has trees, staff believes it should not be cleared and
filled until construction is imminent. The excess dirt can be taken to the previous
approved fill areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating applicant had submitted a request
dated October 24, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the December 7, 2006,
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. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
4
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the
review process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff
with the required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, 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. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has told staff that several individuals had contacted them about
developing the property. Staff requested the applicant provide a plan of development
for the property with schedules of when construction would begin. At the time of writing,
a plan of development has not been provided. With this being the case, staff still does
not support the clearing of additional trees on this property without imminent
construction as stated in the previous staff recommendation. The excess dirt can be
taken to the previous approved fill areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated January 8, 2007, requesting the item be deferred to the March 1, 2007,
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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: L FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
NAME: 14910 Cantrell Road Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 14910 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Steve Hockersmith
14910 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 4.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant Development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 22, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to rezone this
site along with additional area located to the west of this site from POD and R-2 to PCD.
The proposal was to allow a four lot subdivision with a combination of sit-down and
drive-thru restaurants. The lots varied in size from 1.3 acres to 2.5 acres. The
restaurants ranged from 4,100 square feet to 7,200 square feet. A cul-de-sac was to be
constructed as a public street from Highway 10 through the middle of the lots to provide
public street frontage for each lot. The developer requested the flexibility to shift lot
area and restaurant size within the development to accommodate a variety of tenants.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
2
A 40-foot access and utility easement was proposed from the cul-de-sac to a property
located to the east of the site. This site was approved as a PCD to allow the
construction of a strip retail center with no parking or access located along the rear of
the building. According to the applicant access to the site to the east would allow
circulation between developments and limit the need for vehicles to access Cantrell
Road from the site.
A. PROPOSAL:
The original application submission included an area containing 7.39 acres and
four lots. This application request has since been amended removing the
western portion of the development and two of the proposed lots. The current
rezoning request includes the development of 4.2 acres with two lots. The
applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-2 to PCD to allow the property to be
developed utilizing C-3 uses as allowable uses for the site. The applicant has
excluded the following listed uses as allowable uses: Beverage shop, College
dormitory, College fraternity or sorority, College, university or seminary,
Convenience store with gas pumps, Convent or monastery, Day nursery or day
care center, Day care center, adult, Establishment for the care of alcoholic,
narcotic or psychiatric patients, Group care facility, Hospital, Hotel or motel,
Laundromat or pick-up station, Lodge or fraternal organization, Mortuary or
funeral home, Multi-family dwellings, Parking commercial lot or garage,
Pawnshop, Private club with dining or bar service, School (business), School
(commercial, trade or craft), School (public or denominational), Service station.
The site plan indicates two buildings will be constructed on the site. A building
containing 11,000 square feet and 107 parking spaces are proposed on the lot
fronting Cantrell Road and a second building containing 9,900 square feet and
110 parking spaces are proposed for the rear lot. The lots are proposed each
containing in excess of two acres. Access to the development is proposed
through a 24-foot existing drive located along the western perimeter of this site
and is to be shared with the property located to the west proposed for future
development of office and commercial uses.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an occupied single-family home. To the west of the site is
property zoned POD to allow the future development of an office/commercial
development which is the area of the original application request. The homes
have been removed. To the east of the site is the Wal-Greens development and
Catfish City is located further east. The area to the north is vacant and
undeveloped; currently zoned R-2, Single-family. To the west of the site is a
newly constructed branch bank adjacent to Cantrell Road and a dentist office
located in the rear of the site on a separate lot. To the south of the site are
vacant properties zoned R-2, Single-family.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Westchester-Heatherbrae and the Westbury Neighborhood
Associations, the Pankey Improvement Association, the Pinnacle Neighborhood
Association and the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association along with all
owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public
Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
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.
Sufficient right-of-way does not exist for the entire frontage of Cantrell
Road.
2. A 5 foot sidewalk with appropriate handicap ramps is required in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan along Cantrell Road and access easements.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior
to the start of construction. A variance is required to be obtained for
grading of lots without imminent construction.
5. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
6. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
8. Submit a letter certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State
of Arkansas stating that the driveway location on Highway 10 provides the
required sight distance for driver’s entering/exiting the facility. Analysis
must be done in accordance with the 2004 Edition of the AASHTO Green
Book. All proposed landscaping and signage should be considered in
certification. The proposed driveway (60 foot access easement and
Cantrell Road) maybe re-designed to be right-in-right-out due to
inadequate site distance. A triangular island with proper geometry must to
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
4
be provided to eliminate left turn movements into and out of driveway.
9. 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 future curb line of the street.
10. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section
31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets. A minimum access easement width of 60 feet is required and
street width of 36 feet from back of curb to back of curb.
11. Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project. Study should
address trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also
should take into account existing and projected traffic growth. Traffic
simulation models should be developed to show that all affected
intersections will be capable of handling projected traffic.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to
this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 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 River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
5
has applied for a Short form PCD requesting a rezone of this site from R-2,
Single Family to Planned Commercial Development to allow the creation of four
lots and the placement of a restaurant facility on each of the lots.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements. 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.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I route is shown on Taylor Loop. A Class I bikeway is built
separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be
required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable
Natural Environment goal has these objectives relevant to this case: Preserve
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and Promote vigorous enforcement of
Landscaping and Excavation Ordinances. These objectives could affect the
application thorough proper landscaping and screening.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. The proposed land use buffer along the northern perimeter abutting
residential property is less than the thirty-four (34’) feet minimum
requirement. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement.
Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed.
3. The property to the north is zoned residential; therefore, a six (6) foot high
opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,
a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern
perimeter of the site.
4. This project is being reviewed as a whole; therefore, all comments will
apply for each building permit obtained.
5. Berming is encouraged along Scenic Highway 10.
6. The proposed land use buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter
abutting residential property is less than the 25-feet average width
required by the Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance.
7. A portion of the proposed parking lot encroaches into the forty (40’) feet
wide Highway 10 Overlay District requirement.
8. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands. Interior islands must be
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
6
a minimum of three hundred (300) feet in area to receive credit toward
fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements. These islands are to be
evenly distributed throughout the site.
9. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
10. 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.
11. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees
of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 24, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. The Commission
questioned why the application request was being considered. Commissioner
Yates stated the application was the exact application which was recently denied
by the Commission. He stated according to the Commission’s By-laws the
Commission could not consider the application request. There was no further
discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF UPDATE: (October 5, 2006)
This item was presented to the Subdivision Committee by staff at their October 5,
2006, committee meeting. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised
plan to staff eliminating the western portion of the proposed development thus
creating a substantially different application request. Staff stated they would
work with the applicant to address concerns related to the proposed site plan
prior to the Commission hearing the request.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has addressed most of staff’s concerns related to the proposed
site plan which were raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee
meeting. As indicated, the site plan has been amended from the original filing
creating a substantially different application request. The original application
submission included an area containing 7.39 acres and four lots. This
application request has since been amended removing the western portion of the
development and two of the proposed lots. The current rezoning request
includes the development of 4.2 acres with two lots, one lot being developed as a
lot without public street frontage.
The applicant is requesting the property be developed utilizing C-3 uses as
allowable uses for the site. The applicant has excluded the following listed uses
as allowable uses: Beverage shop, College dormitory, College fraternity or
sorority, College, university or seminary, Convenience store with gas pumps,
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
7
Convent or monastery, Day nursery or day care center, Day care center, adult,
Establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic or psychiatric patients, Group
care facility, Hospital, Hotel or motel, Laundromat or pick-up station, Lodge or
fraternal organization, Mortuary or funeral home, Multi-family dwellings, Parking
commercial lot or garage, Pawnshop, Private club with dining or bar service,
School (business), School (commercial, trade or craft), School (public or
denominational) and Service station.
The site plan indicates two buildings will be developed on the site each on an
individual lot. A building containing 11,000 square feet and 107 parking spaces
are proposed on the lot fronting Cantrell Road and a second building containing
9,900 square feet and 110 parking spaces are proposed for the rear lot. The lots
are proposed each containing in excess of two acres. Access to the
development is proposed through a 24-foot existing drive located along the
western perimeter of this site and is to be shared with the adjacent property.
The site is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The Overlay
typically requires a minimum lot development size of two acres. The lots are
indicated with 2.01 and 2.33 acres which are adequate to meet this typical
minimum ordinance requirement for lot size.
The Highway 10 Design Overlay typically requires the placement of a 25-foot
average landscape buffer along the perimeters of the site and a 40-foot
landscape strip along the highway frontage. The proposed site plan indicates the
front yard and western landscape strips as typically required by the Highway 10
Design Overlay District. The landscape strip along the eastern perimeter does
not meet the typical minimum ordinance requirement. The indicated parking
stalls and drives are in excess of the typical minimum ordinance standards and
could be reduced to allow sufficient landscaping to fully comply with minimum
ordinance standard.
The front building line per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District is typically
required at 100-feet. The side yard building setback is typically required at
30-feet and the rear yard setback at 40-feet. The setbacks on the indicated site
plan are more than adequate to meet these typical minimum ordinance
standards.
The site plan indicates the placement of an 11,000 square foot commercial
building and 107 parking spaces on one lot. The ordinance would typically
require the placement of 36 parking spaces for a commercial business other than
a restaurant and 110 parking spaces for a restaurant facility. The second
building is proposed with 9,900 square feet and 110 parking spaces. The typical
minimum parking required for a commercial business would be 33 parking
spaces and a restaurant would typically require the placement of 99 parking
spaces.
The site plan indicates the placement of a single development sign along the
southeastern portion of the proposed drive. The sign is proposed with a
maximum height of ten feet and a total sign area of one hundred square feet,
consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District standards. Building
signage is proposed as typically allowed per commercial building signage of the
zoning ordinance or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
8
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The site is indicated as Mixed
Use on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. This classification allows for a mixture of
residential, office and commercial uses to occur. Staff feels a mixed use
development is more appropriate for the site allowing a transition from the
commercial uses located to the east of the site, at a commercial node, to the
office uses located to the west.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. McGetrick
stated the original application did include the development of four lots which was
revised to only include the development of two lots. He stated the development was
limited to C-3 uses with a number of the uses stricken from the listing. He stated the
site would allow a transition from the commercial uses to the east and the office uses to
the west. He stated the western property was approved for 21,000 square feet of office
and 8,000 square feet of commercial space on the rear lot and a restaurant on the front
lot. He stated the development would tie to a previously approved access to the
western lot so no new curb cuts were proposed for Cantrell Road. He stated he felt the
development was less intense than an office use since patrons would be accessing the
commercial uses at non-peak traffic hours. He stated he could not commit to the hours
of operation since he did not know the specific users of the site. He stated the user
could be a commercial business or a restaurant. Mr. McGetrick stated he was willing to
amend his application request to increase the landscaping along the eastern perimeter
to comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Ms. Celia Martin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the development was too intense for the area. She stated the previous proposal did not
allow for the amount of commercial development being proposed with the current
application. She stated the commercial uses should be restricted to the commercial
node and not allowed to expand to the west.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
League of Women Voters had lived and died for the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District. She stated it was important to allow step down classifications to protect the
corridor. She stated the current requested expanded the commercial node which
existed at Taylor Loop and Cantrell Roads. She stated Mr. McGetrick indicated
commercial was not as intense as office uses but most restaurants had to serve a
minimum of two meals per day to be profitable. She stated many served three which
did conflict with traffic movements in the area.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
9
Mr. McGetrick stated he felt the zoning did allow a step down in classification with the
commercial uses to the east and the office uses to the west. He stated a commercial
development was already in place to the west of the site and the proposed development
would only compliment the area. He stated the commercial businesses would have
different traffic patterns than the peak traffic in the area.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion failed by a vote of
4 ayes, 4 noes and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was heard by the Board of Director’s on an appeal at their December 18,
2006, public hearing. At the Board of Directors hearing the applicant amended the
application request and it was determined by the Board of Directors the item should be
returned to the Planning Commission for a vote on the amended application. The
following states the amended request as set forth to the Board of Directors in a letter
received by staff on December 20, 2006:
As per your request, we hereby submit the following amendments to item Z-7603-C to
approve a Planned Zoning Development at 14910 Cantrell Road. Any restaurant uses
on the 4.5 acre site shall be limited to a maximum total of 13,000 square feet. The
restaurants hours of operation shall be designated as 10:00 am until midnight. The
restaurants shall be “sit down dining facilities”.
A “sit down restaurant” is a type of restaurant which provides tables where one sits
down to eat a meal, typically served by wait staff. Historically called simply restaurants,
following the rise of fast food restaurants, a retronym for the older “standard” restaurant
was created. Most commonly, “sit down restaurant” refers to a casual dining restaurant
with table service rather that a fast food service where one orders food at a counter. Sit
down restaurants are often further categorized as “family style” or “formal”.
As noted in the minute record above the applicant previously amended the application
request to include all perimeter landscaping as typically required per the Highway 10
Design Overlay District. During the Board of Directors meeting there was discussion
concerning an amended site plan to reduce the overall square footage of the proposed
buildings. As indicated in the Proposal Section, C-3, General Commercial District uses
(with the exception of a few of the allowable C-3 uses) are proposed as potential uses
for the site. This includes a number of uses other than a restaurant use.
The applicant is continuing to provide staff with additional information. Staff’s
recommendation is forthcoming.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
developers were willing to reduce the total square footage for a restaurant use and limit
the hours of operation to non-peak am hours. He stated the development should be
viewed with the development located to the west since the two would share a driveway.
He stated in this case this did allow for a mixed use development to occur. He stated
the development was proposed at the intersection of two five lane roadways. He stated
the development as proposed allowed for a transition between the commercial uses to
the east and the office uses to the west.
Mr. Ernie Peters addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated traffic
impacts of a restaurant development during the am peak would be less than an office
development. He stated this was due to the applicant limiting the hours of operation to
non-am peak hours and retail uses did not generate the traffic demand during the am
hours as an office use did since persons would be accessing the site for work if
developed as an office use.
Ms. Celia Martin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the Westchester Neighborhood was very concerned with commercial development in
the area. She stated with the continued expansion of the commercial node to the west
this did not allow a transition. She stated the development was planned with two
restaurant pads and the site to the west was also proposed with a restaurant pad. She
stated the developer had indicated two potential users were Outback and Red Lobster.
She stated these two restaurant franchise were in the top five revenue producing
restaurants for the last five years in Little Rock and North Little Rock. She stated to
produce this type revenue then the tables had to turn a number of times per day. She
stated presently there were six restaurants between Pinnacle Valley and Taylor Loop.
She stated the area was not lacking in restaurant space. She requested the
Commission adhere to the spirit of the Highway 10 Design Overlay and deny the
request.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
development was a commercial development and the only change was decreasing the
square footage for a restaurant user and limiting the hours of operation for a restaurant
user. She stated traffic was a concern not only in the am hours but during lunch and
dinner hours as well. She stated it was not difficult to develop a plan but in the later
years it was difficult to hold to the plan. She requested the Commission hold to the
previously approved Highway 10 Design Overlay and deny the request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-C
11
Mr. Allen Kerr addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he
was the JP for District 3 and lived in the area. He stated it was important to hold to the
plan. He stated area residents bought their homes and area retails established their
businesses based on the City’s plan. He stated if the City continued to make
exceptions in the end the area would not resemble the original plan.
Mr. Peters stated the project could be viewed as an in-fill project. He stated the
development was limited to one point of access shared with the neighboring property.
He stated a restaurant use would have less impact on traffic than an office use. He
stated the peak hours were considered home to work and work to home.
Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the developers were not trying to expand the commercial
node. He stated the developers were trying to use the site as a mixed use development
with an office building and commercial uses. He stated the site was next to a
commercial center and a potentially 24-hour pharmacy. He stated the development was
located at the intersection of two five lane roadway and should be considered as an
in-fill development.
The Commission questioned why the development was not being considered with the
property to the east which would allow this site access to the traffic light at Taylor Loop
Road. Staff stated the property to the east was considered as a part of a previous
application. Staff stated the eastern development did not lend itself to access through
the site since the eastern site was constructed allowing backing of cars into the service
or access drive.
The Commission questioned staff as to their opposition of the request. Staff stated the
development was expanding the commercial node to the west. Staff stated residents in
the area feared a stripping of Highway 10. Staff stated with the expansion of the node
to the west this opened the door for additional properties to become commercial. Staff
stated the developer had indicated he would not come back and amend the property to
the west and the only assurance to the Commission was his word. Staff stated he could
sell the property and a new owner could request commercial uses. Staff stated they felt
it important to maintain the future land use plan and support the area residents and their
desire for maintenance of the plan.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,
4 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-992-T
NAME: Pinnacle Valley Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the West side of Pinnacle Valley Road, just North of Cantrell
Road
DEVELOPER:
Kelton Brown
c/o McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 2.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request includes a revision to the previously approved Pinnacle Valley
Phase V Preliminary Plat to allow the creation of three lots from this remaining
2.09-acre tract. The lots are proposed with a 30-foot building setback along
Pinnacle Valley Road as required per the Subdivision Ordinance for lots abutting
a collector street. According to the applicant’s cover letter, the right of way
dedication and in-lieu payment for improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road were
previously paid to the City.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-T
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing single-family home located on proposed Lot 1. There are
single-family homes to the south located in the Pinnacle Valley Phase V
Subdivision. To the east of the site is the Beau View Subdivision, a single-family
subdivision located on five-acre tracts. To the west of the site are single-family
homes located within Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase IV.
Adjacent to the site Pinnacle Valley Road has not been constructed to Master
Street Plan standards. Partial street improvements have been completed to the
area located to the south of the site; adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Phase V
Subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. All abutting property owners and the River Valley Neighborhood
Association and the Pinnacle Valley Neighborhood Association were notified of
the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Pinnacle Valley Road
including curb, gutter and sidewalk with the planned development. A
payment has already been received from the property owner in-lieu of
improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road to a rural standard.
2. The proposed right-of-way dedication meets Master Street Plan requirements.
3. Per City standards for streets and site development, the minimum driveway
spacing on a minor arterial street is 300 feet. This would allow only one (1)
access for the three (3) lots because the existing driveway to the south is
considered. Access should be taken from other lots located to the south not
Pinnacle Valley Road. Show access location.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of final platting.
6. If the subdivision plans to access Pinnacle Valley Road, provide a letter
prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the
intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-T
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The existing easement water
and sewer easements will severely impact development of Lots 2 and 3. Contact
Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
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: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were concerns with the
buildability of Lot 3. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide the total buildable
area to ensure a new home could be constructed on the lot.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed
development would be allowed only one additional curb cut. Staff requested Mr.
McGetrick indicate the driveway locations on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff
requested Pinnacle Valley Road be constructed to Master Street Plan standard
complete with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff noted an in-lieu payment had
been received from the developer to allow the construction of the street to a rural
standard.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-T
4
and 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 preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated a buildable area for proposed Lot 3 allowing sufficient
area to construct a new home, avoiding the existing easements and adhering to
the indicated platted 30-foot platted building line. The revised plat indicates the
placement of one additional driveway on Pinnacle Valley Road. The southern
two lots will share a drive while the new home will utilize a new drive extending
from Pinnacle Valley Road. Staff is supportive of the indicated driveway
locations. The applicant has also submitted a letter certifying the sight distance
for the proposed driveway location.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The plat indicates the
creation of two additional lots from an existing tract. The lots are indicated with a
minimum lot size of 0.30 acres and an average lot size of 0.69 acres. The
proposed preliminary plat indicates the required building line adjacent to Pinnacle
Valley Road (30-feet) and sufficient area to construct the new homes. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
does not feel the creation of three lots from this 2.09-acre site will have any
adverse impact on the adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1495-A
NAME: Park Circle Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at the end of Park Avenue, East of Western Hills Avenue
DEVELOPER:
CL Clifton
608 Nan Circle
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 7.07 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 2,500 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed for the July 7, 2005, Planning Commission public hearing to
allow the creation of 12 single-family lots from a 3.22-acre tract. The lots were
proposed with an average lot size of 60-feet by 120-feet or 7,200 square feet and
600 linear feet of new street was to be constructed to serve the new lots. Staff raised
concerns related to access for the proposed development and the Commission deferred
the request to their November 10, 2005, public hearing. At the November 10, 2005,
public hearing the applicant withdrew the proposed plat request.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing the subdivision of a 7.07-acre site into 30 single-
family lots. The proposed plat area has been expanded to the north to include a
portion of property previously owned by the Country Club. An average lot size of
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
2
60-feet by 120-feet or 7,200 square feet is proposed with an overall density of
4.24 units per acre, consistent with single-family development.
The developer has indicated the lots will be served by a new 600 linear foot
cul-de-sac, Park Circle, extending from Park Avenue, a yet to be constructed
street located to the west of the site, which extends from Western Hills Avenue.
The developer has indicated Lot 1 Block 3 of the Brookside Park Addition will be
reconfigured as right of way to allow Park Avenue to extend into the proposed
plat area.
The developer has indicated the site is adjacent to the floodway and has
indicated a 25-foot access easement adjacent to the floodway for the proposed
lots (Lots 1 – 5) to meet the current ordinance requirement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located to the east of Brookside Park Addition, a recognized plat
which was platted a number of years ago, and lots sold, but the streets and
infrastructure were never constructed. The Little Rock Board of Directors
approved an Improvement District for the Brookside Park Addition to allow
funding for water, sewer and street construction.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All abutting property owners and the Westwood Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The subject property appears to be out of the 100-year floodplain.
2. Western Hills Drive must be constructed to the full width prior to final platting
of the proposed subdivision.
3. A temporary cul-de-sac or turn around must be constructed on the north end
of Parkside Circle until the next phase to the north is constructed.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Western
Hills Drive and the northern portion of Parkside Circle in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
3
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of platting.
7. With the site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to Western Hills Drive
and Parkside Circle including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development.
8. With the site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Western Hills
Avenue including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
11. 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) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
12. Due to an identification problem, the street name "Parkside Circle" cannot
be used. The street name Parkside Drive is already used in another part of
the City. Using the street name "Parkside Circle" in no close vicinity to
"Parkside Drive" creates confusion. Contact David Hathcock at 371-4808
for additional information and assistance with this matter.
13. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Installation of a public
waterline and fire hydrant(s) will 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 at 377-1225 for additional information.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
4
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: (December 28, 2006)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the
proposed development was a preliminary plat to allow 7.07 acres to be
subdivided into 30 single-family lots. Staff questioned access to the proposed
subdivision and the time frame for construction of the proposed street to serve
the lots. Mr. McGetrick stated Lot 1 Block 3 of the Brookside Park Addition would
be dedicated as right of way to serve the indicated lots. Staff also questioned if
the development would be constructed in phases.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated minimum floor elevations
would be required to be shown on the proposed plat. Staff also stated a
dedication of an access easement adjacent to the floodway would be required
along the rear of abutting the floodway. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide
the 100 year floodplain and floodway on the proposed preliminary plat to ensure
compliance with existing ordinance requirements. Staff noted a grading permit
would be issued for right of ways and drainage easements prior to construction.
Staff noted comments from all other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting Mr. McGetrick contact them individually for additional information.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided the minimum floor elevation for lots abutting the floodplain
and indicated a 25-foot access easement along the rear of the lots abutting the
floodway. The applicant has also provided a letter indicated the proposed street
extending from Western Hills Avenue will be constructed before year end of
2007. The revised plat indicates the lots will be developed in a single phase.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1495-A
5
The proposal is to allow the subdivision of a 7.07-acre site into 30 single-family
lots. The proposed plat indicates an average lot size of 60-feet by 120-feet or
7,200 square feet and an overall density of 4.24 units per acre. The
development will be served by a new 600 linear foot cul-de-sac, Park Circle,
extending from Park Avenue, a yet to be constructed street located to the west of
the site, which extends from Western Hills Avenue. Lot 1, Block 3 of the
Brookside Park Addition is proposed to be dedicated as right of way to allow Park
Avenue to extend into the proposed plat area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The developer is not seeking
any waivers or variances from the City ordinances to allow the creation of the
subdivision as proposed. The lots are indicated with a minimum lot size of
60-feet by 120-feet adequate to meet the typical minimum requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff feels the development of the subdivision as
proposed will have minimum impact on the adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item requesting a deferral of the item to the March 1, 2007, public
hearing. Staff stated a concern had been raised concerning access to the proposed
plat area. Staff stated they needed additional time to research information provide.
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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1554
NAME: Herndon Place Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located South of Stagecoach Road, East of Herndon Road
DEVELOPER:
RED Land, LLC
9107 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 21.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 70 FT. NEW STREET: 2,950 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow Bracey Circle to be constructed to Minor Residential Street
Standard.
2. A variance to allow six foot fences within the required building setback of Lots 6 – 12
Block 1.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of 21.65 acres into 70 single-family
residential lots. A total of 2,950 linear feet of new street is proposed to serve the
new subdivision with access points to Herndon Road. The subdivision is
proposed with reverse frontage lots abutting a new street, Bracey Circle, and
Stagecoach Road. A 10-foot restrictive access easement has been placed along
the rear lot lines of Lots 6 – 12 Block 1 to limit the number of curb cuts to
Stagecoach Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for reverse frontage
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1554
2
lots. A 35-foot building setback has been indicated along the rear of these lots to
comply with minimum development standards for lots abutting an arterial
roadway.
The proposed plat indicates the placement of a subdivision identification sign
located at the intersection of Bracey Lane and Herndon Road. The sign is
proposed with a maximum of six feet in height, ten feet in length and a total sign
area not to exceed thirty-two square feet in area. Fencing has been identified
along the rear lot lines of Lots 6 – 12 Block 1, within the required building
setback, not to exceed six feet in height.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a tree-covered site located at the intersection of Herndon Road and
Stagecoach Road. The Pecan Lake Subdivision is located to the east of the site
and the Greenwood Acres Subdivision is located to the south of the site. Across
Stagecoach Road is a church campus and there is a nursing home located to the
north of the site.
Stagecoach Road has not been constructed to Master Street Plan standard
abutting the proposed subdivision. Presently the roadway is a two lane road with
no sidewalk and open ditches for drainage. Herndon Road also has not been
constructed to Master Street Plan standard abutting the proposed subdivision
with no curb and gutter or sidewalk in place.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All abutting property owners and the Pecan Lake Homeowners
Association, the Tall Timber Homeowners Association and the Stagecoach Dodd
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. With the site development, provide the design of the street conforming to
the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to
Stagecoach Road including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
3. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Bracey
Circle from Bracey Lane to Bracey Lane in accordance with Section 31-175
of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1554
3
5. No vehicle parking will be allowed in cul-de-sac.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
9. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required to be submitted per
Section 29-186 (e). The plan shows the release of 144.3 cfs discharging in
an existing ditch between 2 houses and into a 24-inch pipe under
Timberside Road. A 24-inch shows to have a capacity less than 30 cfs.
Improvements of the downstream drainage system maybe required. In
addition, show on plan the high water mark of the lake.
10. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
12. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide service to
this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1554
4
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicate CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the item stating there were additional items necessary to complete
the review process. Staff requested Mr. White provide a 35-foot platted building
line for the lots abutting Stagecoach Road. Staff also questioned the purpose of
Tracts A and B and who would be responsible for maintenance of the two tracts.
Staff question if fencing would be placed along the property line for lots abutting
Stagecoach Road. Staff noted the maximum fence height allowed within the
required building setback was four feet. Staff requested Mr. White indicate a
note on the proposed plat if fencing was proposed.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated permits would be required
from the City and the Highway Department prior to street construction. Staff also
stated a grading permit would be required prior to the development of the site.
Staff noted the storm water detention ordinance requirements would apply to the
development of the site.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised plat indicates the dedication of right of way on Stagecoach Road per the
Master Street Plan. The plat also indicates the placement of a 35-foot building
line along Stagecoach Road and the placement of a six-foot fence on the
property line for the lots abutting Stagecoach Road. The developer has indicated
a homeowners association will be created and be responsible for maintenance of
the indicated tracts. The tracts will serve as detention storage for the proposed
subdivision. Staff has concerns with the indicated storm water detention and the
pipe capacity exiting the subdivision located on the southeastern portion of the
subdivision. The applicant has indicated they will work with staff during the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1554
5
design phase of the subdivision to eliminate any potential for down stream
flooding by either increasing the detention storage size, increasing the pipe
capacity located on the southeastern portion of the proposed subdivision,
diverting storm water to the existing lake located to the north of the proposed
subdivision or providing an in-lieu contribution to the City for down stream
maintenance to increase pipe size and capacities of the down stream facilities to
receive the potential run-off.
The proposal is to allow the subdivision of 21.65 acres into 70 single-family
residential lots. A total of 2,950 linear feet of new street is proposed to serve the
new subdivision with access points to Herndon Road. The subdivision is
proposed with reverse frontage lots abutting a new street, Bracey Circle, and
Stagecoach Road. A 10-foot restrictive access easement has been placed
along the rear lot lines of Lots 6 – 12, Block 1 to limit the number of curb cuts to
Stagecoach Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for reverse frontage
lots. A 35-foot building setback has also been indicated along the rear of these
lots to comply with minimum development standards for lots abutting an arterial
roadway.
The proposed plat indicates the placement of a subdivision identification sign
located at the intersection of Bracey Lane and Herndon Road. The sign is
proposed with a maximum of six feet in height, ten feet in length and a total sign
area not to exceed thirty-two square feet in area.
The plat includes a variance request for the placement of fencing along the rear
lot lines of Lots 6 – 12, Block 1, within the required building setback, not to
exceed six feet in height. Typically fencing within the required building setback is
allowed at a maximum height of four feet. Staff is supportive of the variance
request. Staff does not feel the placement of a six-foot fence within the required
building setback will impact the development or the area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The plat indicates the
creation of 70 lots on this 21.65-acre site resulting in a density of 3.23 units per
acre within the allowable density of single-family development. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
does not feel the creation of the single-family subdivision as proposed will
significantly impact the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends the applicant work with staff during the design phase of the
subdivision to eliminate any potential down stream flooding.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow the placement of a
six-foot fence within the required building setback along Stagecoach Road.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1554
6
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow Bracey circle to be
constructed with a minor residential street standard.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with
the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report.
Mr. Tim Daters addressed the Commission as the applicant. He requested the
Commission allow the opposition to speak first and he would try to address their
concerns.
Ms. Nancy Gambill addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her home
was located to the north of the proposed development and her concern was with the
water quality of the lake. She stated her background was in hydrology. She stated she
was concerned with construction practices and the detention ordinance. She stated silt
fences did not appear to work and questioned who to call when fences failed or were
not in place.
Ms. Mary Rogers addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated the lake was
the primary asset of the Pecan Lake Subdivision. She stated presently the lake was
having water quality problems and the association was in the process of hiring a firm to
renovate the lake. She stated the lake was important to the youth of the subdivision.
She stated the lake as proposed did not allow an easement around the lake. She
stated the proposed subdivision was located adjacent to the deepest part of the lake.
She requested the Commission defer the item to allow the developers and the
neighborhood to meet and discuss the proposed development and the potential impacts
on the neighborhood lake.
Mr. Daters stated he was willing to defer the item to meet with the neighborhood and
address their concerns.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 1, 2007, public hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1555
NAME: Bradford Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 10204 German Road
DEVELOPER:
Famus and Barbara Bradford
10204 German Road
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Hope Engineers
322 North Market Street
Benton, AR 72105
AREA: 2.00 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: Located within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction
in which the City does not exercise zoning.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 27 – Fish Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 40.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots without pubic street frontage.
2. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to German Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction in which
the City exercises Subdivision Control only. The applicant is proposing the
subdivision of an existing two-acre tract into three single-family residential lots
and one tract. A 30-foot access and utility easement will be located across the
northern boundary to serve the rear lots and the tract. The tract is located within
the flood plain/floodway and is proposed containing .59 acres. Lot 1 is proposed
containing .77 acres and Lots 2 and 3 containing .32 acres. The lots will be
served by the Higgins Switch wastewater collection and treatment system.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1555
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing single-family home located along German Road. The
remainder of the site is tree covered with the Fish Creek located along the
western boundary. The area is predominately single-family with homes located
on large lots or tracts. German Road is an unimproved County Road with open
ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff not has received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an
active neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed lots appear to be in the 100-year floodplain. Contact the
Pulaski County Planning Department for further floodplain assistance.
2. German Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A
dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
3. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to German Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. Staff supports a
deferral of constructing street improvements for 5 year or until adjacent
property develops. The Little Rock Board of Directors must approve the
street deferral request.
4. Private access is proposed for these lots. A minimum access easement
width of 30 feet is required.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide a letter from the area
wastewater utility indicating their ability to serve the subdivision and desire for
easements.
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. Installation of a public
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1555
3
waterline and fire hydrant(s) will be required. A minimum 15-foot wide easement
will be required for all public water facilities. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be
required. Contact the Fire Department having jurisdiction to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development
will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: The site is located outside the City limits of the City of Little
Rock. The site may require the placement of a fire hydrant. Provide a letter from
the area volunteer fire department indicating their knowledge of the project, their
ability to serve the proposed subdivision and their desire for the placement of a
fire hydrant.
County Planning: No comment received.
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: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the source of title be
included on the proposed plat. Staff also requested the area indicated to the
west along Fish Creek be indicated as a tract.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated German Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Staff also stated the
indicated access and utility easement should be increased to a minimum of
30-feet. Staff stated per the Master Street Plan German Road should be
constructed complete with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff stated a deferral from
the Little Rock Board of Directors could be sought to allow for five years to
construct the required improvements. Staff stated they would support the
deferral request.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1555
4
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised plat indicates three lots and a tract as requested by staff. The source of
title of the landowner has been provided in the general notes section of the
proposed preliminary plat. A 30-foot access and utility easement has also been
indicated.
The plat includes a variance request to allow the creation of lots without public
street frontage. Lots 2 and 3 and the proposed tract have been indicated as lots
which are not served by a public street. A 30-foot access and utility easement
has been indicated to serve the proposed lots and tract. A large portion of the
tract is indicated within the floodplain and floodway and the applicant has
indicated no development is proposed for the tract. Staff does not feel the
variance request will significantly impact the developability of the lots since
sufficient access and easements have been provided. Staff is supportive of the
variance request.
The request includes a five-year deferral of the required street improvements to
German Road. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. The proposed plat
indicates right of way dedication per the Master Street Plan to 30-feet from
centerline per Collector Street standard. The site is located with the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction in which the City exercises the Subdivision
Ordinance and Master Street Plan. The area is predominately single-family with
roads constructed to rural design standards without curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Staff is supportive of the deferral request. Staff does not feel the deferral of the
required street improvements along the property frontage will significantly impact
the area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat request. The proposal is to
allow the subdivision of an existing two-acre tract into three single-family
residential lots and one tract with a 30-foot access and utility easement located
across the northern boundary to serve the rear lots and the tract. The tract
located within the flood plain/floodway is proposed containing .59 acres, Lot 1 is
containing .77 acres and Lots 2 and 3 containing .32 acres. The lots will be
served by the Higgins Switch wastewater collection and treatment system and
fire protection will be provided by the area volunteer fire department. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
feels the creation of two additional single-family lots from this existing tract will
have minimal impact on the adjoining properties and the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the development of lots
without pubic street frontage.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1555
5
Staff recommends approval of the five-year deferral request of the required street
improvements to German Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow the
development of lots without pubic street frontage. Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the five year deferral request of the required street
improvements to German Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1553
NAME: Gaines and Garland Subdivision Site Plan Review and Right of Way
Abandonment for a portion of Garland Avenue
LOCATION: located on the Northwest corner of Garland Avenue and Gaines Streets
DEVELOPER:
Hank Kelley, Jr.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
SURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ARCHITECT:
Heiple Wiedower Architects and Planners
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.56 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: UU – Urban Use District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 5 - Downtown
CENSUS TRACT: 9
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow an increased fence height along the eastern perimeter.
2. A variance to allow a reduced street buffer along Garland Avenue.
3. A variance to allow a reduced landscape strip along the eastern and western
perimeters.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a Subdivision Site Plan Review for the property
located on the Northwest corner of Gaines Street and Garland Avenue and
a right of way abandonment for a portion of Garland Avenue. The proposal
includes the development of residential housing in three phases. The first phase
of the development will include construction of nine townhouses of traditional
residential type structural composition of approximately 1,800 square feet each
built adjacent to the Arkansas River with parking beneath each unit and to the
south. Phase two will consist of an additional eight townhomes of the same size
and structural composition. The final phase is being planned with parking for
48 automobiles on two levels and an additional 24 flats of 1,800 square feet each
built on four levels on top of the parking structure.
The development is proposed as a gated community with access to the site from
Garland Avenue. The site plan indicates the placement of two gates maintaining
a minimum 20-foot gate opening.
The application request also includes the abandonment of a portion of Garland
Avenue located along the southern perimeter of Lot 8, Block 181 Original City of
Little Rock. North Gaines Street located along the eastern perimeter was
abandoned by the Little Rock Board of Directors through the adoption of
Ordinance No. 14,899.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a mixture of gravel and concrete and is currently being used as a
parking lot. To the north of the site is a railroad spur located on the banks of the
Arkansas River. To the east of the site is a power substation. To the south of
the site is LaHarpe Street and west of the site is an office use. Other uses in the
area include the Police Department and City Hall located to the south and
residential uses located to the northwest.
LaHarpe Street is a four lane median roadway with a break at State and Chester
Streets. There is not a sidewalk in place abutting the proposed development
area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received informational phone calls only from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the
Downtown Neighborhood Association, the River Market District Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Some right-of-way in this area has been deeded to AHTD by the City many
years ago. The ownership of the Garland Street and Gaines Street right-of-
way should be verified.
2. Easements should be maintained in closed right-of-ways.
3. Provide plan showing access to/from LaHarpe that meets the AASHTO
Green Book Standards. U-turns will not be allowed for westbound traffic on
La Harpe at the east curb cut and at State Street.
4. 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) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
5. Turn around must be provided for a WB-30 vehicle attempting to enter
development. The gates must be moved further east to provide at least
30 feet of stacking outside of the public right-of-way for vehicles.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
7. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
9. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
11. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
12. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street
improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main outfall located on the property not shown on
the drawing. No construction within easement for outfall is allowed. The site
plan should show outfall and easement. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
4
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Central Arkansas Water has
no objection to the closure of this street right-of-way. We do, however, have
water facilities in Summit Street and a portion of Gaines Street, some of which
are not shown on the project plans. We request that the portion of this closure
which falls within the affected area be retained as a utility easement. The existing
fire hydrant may need to be relocated or converted to a private fire hydrant,
depending on the recommendation of the Little Rock Fire Department. 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. Onsite fire
hydrants will be required. 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 the plans for the
private fire line to Central Arkansas Water for review. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of private fire line. Approval of plans
by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
Department is required. 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 Carroll Keatts at
377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this
project. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. The gates and drive must
maintain a minimum gate opening of 20-feet in all areas. 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.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Site plan must comply with all the City’s minimal Urban Use UU overlay
requirements.
3. Coordination with the City of Little Rock’s Parks and Recreation Department
are required for the adjoining City trail system. Approval from this department
is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The minimum landscape and buffer width is not being met. The minimum is 6
foot nine inches (6’-9”). A variance from this minimum requirement will
require approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
5. The street buffer requirement is an average of 24 foot and in no case less
than half. Currently, this proposal is not meeting this minimal average
requirement.
6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements
can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
Mr. Hank Kelly was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were technical issues
remained outstanding associated with the request. Staff stated additional
documentation was needed concerning the requested right of way abandonment.
Staff questioned the location of guest parking for the first phase of the
development.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated easement should remain
in the closed right of way. Staff also stated a portion of the right of way was
previously dedicated to AHTD. Staff suggested the applicant verify the existing
right of way for Garland Street. Staff noted a grading permit would be required
prior to development of the site. Staff also noted permits would be required from
the City and AHTD prior to improvements being completed in the right of way.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the Little Rock Parks Plan
indicated a trail along the northern boundary of the property. Staff requested the
applicant note the trail on the proposed site plan. Staff also stated the indicated
landscape strip did not appear to meet the minimum requirement. Staff stated a
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
6
variance from this minimum requirement would require City Beautiful
Commission approval.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 some of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the location of guest parking for the first phase of the
development. The applicant has also noted the proposed fencing and the total
building height on the proposed site plan.
The request includes the abandonment of a portion of Garland Street. There are
conflicting records indicating the ownership of Garland Street. After further
review it has been determined the right of way is owned by the State of
Arkansas. The abandonment request is no longer a part of the application
request.
The site plan indicates the placement of a five foot decorative iron fence along
the street side of the development. The site plan indicates the placement of five
feet of landscaping on the applicant’s property with the remainder of the
landscaping located within the right of way. Typically a 24-foot average
landscape strip is required along the street side and in no case less than one
half. As indicated, the site plan does not appear to meet this minimum
requirement.
The side yard landscape strips do not appear to meet the typical minimum
ordinance standard. A minimum of six feet nine inches is typically required which
may be reduced by 25 percent requiring a 5.175 landscape strip. The site plan
indicates the placement of a six foot nine inch landscape strip along the eastern
and western perimeters but the landscape strip is reduced to one foot along the
northeastern and northwestern perimeters. The applicant has also indicated
Entergy will not allow the placement of vegetation within the easement or along
the eastern perimeter due to concerns with lack of maintenance. The site plan
indicates the placement of an eight foot screening fence along the eastern
perimeter and a six foot screening fence along the western perimeter. The
ordinance typically allows a maximum fence height of six feet.
The site plan indicates the construction of carport structures located within a
50-foot utility easement. There are eight carport structures proposed to serve the
units all or portions of all the carport structures are located within the utility
easement. Typically building construction is not allowing within a utility
easement. According to the applicant if the site plan is approved the garage
structures will be removed from the final site plan.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1553
7
The site is located adjacent to the City Trails system. The applicant has
indicated they will seek approval from the Little Rock Parks and Recreation
Department prior to construction of a walkway with a gated entrance connecting
the development to the river.
Public Works staff has concerns with the proposed access to the site. The site
plan indicates the placement of a median across Gaines Street to eliminate
u-turns into the site. Staff also has concerns with u-turns at State Street for
westbound motorists. Staff also has concerns with the indicated turn-around
proposed for the site at the gated entrance. Staff and the applicant are
continuing to review the proposed access to the site and staff will provide a
recommendation at the public hearing concerning this issue.
The site is located within the UU Zoning District which does not allow for ground
mounted signage and no on-site parking is required. The applicant has indicated
ground mounted signage is not anticipated to identify the development.
Although, parking is not required, the site plan indicates the placement of
sufficient parking on site to serve the typical parking demand of a multi-family
development.
Staff is supportive of the concept of the development but has concerns related to
access from LaHarpe and the proposed gate construction design. The applicant
and staff are continuing to meet to discuss options for development of the site.
One option is to allow a slip ramp from LaHarpe to Garland Avenue to allow
westbound motorists easy access to the site. The developer is reviewing this
proposal to determine of the alternative is cost feasible. As stated staff is
continuing to work with the applicant and staff will provide a recommendation at
the public hearing.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommendation forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
associated variances related to the reduced landscaping and buffer ordinance
requirements and the associated variances from the UU zoning district.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
NAME: St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of West Markham Street and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
St. Vincent Health Systems
C/o Taggart Foster Currance Gray Architects
4500 Burrow Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72116
ARCHITECT:
Taggart Foster Currence Gray Architects
4500 Burrow Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72116
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 38.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 – I-630
CENSUS TRACT: 17
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow an increased building height to a maximum of 60-feet. (Section
36-282(d).
2. A variance to allow a reduced setback adjacent to South University Avenue (Section
36-282(e)(1).
3. A franchise agreement to allow the placement of the service drive within the right of
way of South University Avenue.
4. A variance to allow a reduced street buffer adjacent to South University Avenue.
5. A variance from the minimum landscape strip along South University Avenue (City
Beautiful Commission).
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The scope of the project consists of a four story, 73,000 square foot addition
attached to the southeast corner of the existing St. Vincent Infirmary Medical
Center. The main purpose of the project is to construct a new state of the art
Emergency Department on the ground level that will better serve the community
by providing high quality emergency services with less wait time. The other
purpose of the addition is to expand the Critical Care Cardiovascular Care
Departments on the second level to better serve these types patients. The first
level of the new addition will be shell space for future expansion. The materials
of the new expansion will consist of brick, precast concrete, and glass
curtainwall. The proposal includes a new drive off South University Avenue
which will provide a more direct travel and visual connection to the Emergency
Department for those patients traveling from the south. The new drive will be a
one-way drive which can only be accessed by motorists traveling north on
University Avenue onto the hospital campus.
The request includes a variance to allow an increased building height to 60-feet
and a setback variance along the northwestern portion of the building. The site
plan indicates the building approximately 19-feet from the right of way of South
University Avenue. The site plan also indicates the placement of the service
drive within the right of way of South University Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a franchise agreement to allow the drive to remain as proposed. A
portion of the landscape strip along South University Avenue falls below the
street buffer requirement and the landscape strip as required by the buffer and
landscape ordinances. A variance to allow the reduced street buffer is being
requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains St. Vincent’s Medical facility situated in a number of structures
and buildings. There is a hotel facility located immediately south of the proposed
expansion area. To the west of the site is a shopping center and southwest is a
second medical facility, Doctor’s Office Building and Doctor’s Hospital. To the
north and north west of the site is also retail shopping. To the south and east of
the St. Vincent’s Medical Campus is a City owned golf course.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association and the Briarwood Neighborhood Association were
notified of the public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for
the improvements located in the right-of-way.
2. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e)
to be provided. This plan should take into account the proposed University
Avenue plans which show a retaining wall along this frontage. The plan
should address retaining walls along the frontage, retaining wall at driveway,
driveway slope, and sidewalk crossing.
3. The driveway grades shall be designed to keep the storm water in the
street. The sidewalk crossing is limited to a maximum cross slope of two (2)
percent. The running slope of the sidewalk cannot exceed 8.33 percent.
The maximum driveway centerline grade is 15 percent. The sidewalk
located on the University Construction plans show the sidewalk on the
retaining wall 8 feet vertical and 6 feet horizontal from the back of curb.
4. From the University Construction plans, the right-of-way line appears to not
be in the correct location. Contact Jon Honeywell at 371-4822 for further
assistance.
5. Driveway and retaining wall plans must be approved by Public Works, Civil
Engineering, prior to construction beginning on this section of the federally
funded public construction project for University Avenue for considerations
to be taken to account for the property owner's driveway and retaining wall
plans. The cost of any improvements beyond those shown on the public
project plan and all tear out of existing or constructed improvements will the
responsibility of the property owner. Contact Jon Honeywell at 371-4822
for further assistance.
6. The storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
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. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
8. Driveway improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
9. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
10. The proposed retaining walls must comply with the Land Alteration
regulations, Section 29-190(1).
11. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or
relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. It appears that a portion of the
private facilities onsite will need to be relocated. Any relocation work would be
done at the expense of the developer. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required.
Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the
required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Please submit the plans
for modification of the fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for extension of
the fire service to this facility.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The proposal encroaches into the minimum street buffer requirement.
Requirement is an average of 6% of the depth and in no case less than half.
3. The proposal also encroaches into the City’s minimum perimeter landscape
strip per the landscape ordinance. Encroachment into this area will require
approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
4. Screening of any new parking areas will require additional landscaping per
the landscape ordinance.
5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
5
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements
can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were outstanding
technical issues which needed addressing prior to the request being considered
by the full Commission. Staff noted there were variances associated with the
request. Staff stated an increased building height and a building setback
variance were being requested. Staff questioned the building setback along
South University Avenue. Staff also questioned the relocated parking indicated
on the site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a franchise agreement
from Public Works would be required to allow the indicated drive to be located
within the right of way. Staff also stated driveway grades should be designed to
keep the storm water from running across the street. Staff stated the storm
water detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site and a
grading permit would be required prior to any land clearing activities on the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated street buffer
along South University Avenue was not adequate to meet the landscape or buffer
ordinance requirements. Staff stated a variance from City Beautiful Commission
would be required along the portion where the drive extended into the required
landscape strip.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant is requesting a franchise agreement for the placement of the proposed
driveway within the public right of way. The applicant has indicated due to the
current building location and the desire for two-way access around the building,
locating the drive outside the City right of way cannot be achieved. The drive will
be constructed to allow the storm water to not run across South University
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
6
Avenue as noted in the Public Works comments. Staff is supportive of the
franchise agreement request.
A note on the revised site plan indicates the relocated parking is located on an
adjacent lot and will not be accessed from this service drive. According to the
applicant the relocation of the parking is necessary to install a retaining wall
along the western perimeter of the driveway.
A variance to allow a reduced building setback is being requested. A small
corner of the building is located at 19-feet from the right of way of South
University Avenue. The zoning would typically require the placement of a 25-foot
building line around the perimeter of the site. Staff is supportive of the proposed
variance request since only a small portion of the building extends into the
required building setback with the majority of the building being located well
beyond the required building setback.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow a reduced street buffer and reduced
landscape strip along South University Avenue. As indicated, a portion of the
drive is located within the right of way of South University Avenue eliminating any
landscape strip or buffer area. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow a
reduced street buffer in the areas in which the drive encroaches into the required
landscaping. The applicant will be required to seek approval of the reduced
landscape strip from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff is supportive of the
variance to allow the reduced street buffer. Other areas of the site are indicated
with landscaping more than adequate to meet the typical minimum ordinance
requirements. Staff does not feel this small area of encroachment will adversely
impact the area.
A variance to allow an increased building height of 60-feet is being requested.
The site is zoned O-2 which typically allows for a maximum building height of
45-feet and allows for an increase in building height up to 120-feet as additional
setbacks are provided from yard lines (one foot may be added to the height of
the building for each foot that the building or portion thereof is set back from the
required yard lines). A small portion of the building extends within the required
setback with the bulk of the building well within the required setback. Staff is
supportive of the requested variance.
Staff is supportive of the site plan as proposed. Although, there are a number of
variances being requested for the development of the site as proposed staff does
not feel the variances as requested will significantly impact the area. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
feels the addition to the hospital as proposed will be an asset to the community
and the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3001-E
7
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an increased
building height to a maximum of 60-feet. (Section 36-282(d).
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a reduced setback
adjacent to South University Avenue (Section 36-282(e)(1).
Staff recommends approval of the franchise agreement request to allow the
placement of the service drive within the right of way of South University Avenue.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a reduced street
buffer adjacent to South University Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow an
increased building height to a maximum of 60-feet, a variance request to allow a
reduced setback adjacent to South University Avenue and a variance request to allow a
reduced street buffer adjacent to South University Avenue. Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the franchise agreement request to allow the placement
of the service drive within the right of way of South University Avenue.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-4336-Z
NAME: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review, located between Martin
Luther King Boulevard and Bishop Street
LOCATION: South of Maryland Avenue and North of 10th Street
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Attn: Mr. Scott Gordon, COO
800 Marshal Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects and Engineers
Attn: Kent Taylor
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.64 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, I-2, O-3 and O-2 (See Item #10 File No. Z-4336-BB –
A request to rezone from various classifications to O-2)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 –Central City
CENSUS TRACT: 10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a site plan review and rezoning of a parcel of land located
between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Bishop Street and between Maryland
Avenue and 10th Street. The scope of work includes the demolition of an existing one-
story building and construction of a new parking lot, to include perimeter fencing to
match Arkansas Children’s Hospital standard, and site lighting that is “Dark Sky”
compliant. The rezoning request (Item #10 File No. Z-4336-BB) includes the rezoning
of parcels of lands within this block from C-3, I-2, and O-3 to O-2.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-Z
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The building was recently removed from the site. There are buildings located along
the southeastern portion of the property and a portion of the site is covered with
asphalt parking. The area to the west of the site is the Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Campus. The area to the east of the site includes a number of uses including a
school, workforce training center and further east a City park.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Downtown
Neighborhood Association, the Central High Neighborhood Association, the Wright
Avenue Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill 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 all intersections.
2. Close all old curb cuts.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public
right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Due to the closure of Marshall Street and Maryland Avenue,10th Street was
required to be improved to the commercial street standard (36-feet of pavement)
including widening, curb, gutter, drainage improvements and street lights.
5. As shown on the plan, improve the intersection radiuses at 10th Street and Martin
Luther King Jr. Drive, Maryland Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, and
Maryland Avenue and Bishop Street to at least a 20 foot radius.
6. Handicap ramps should be reinstalled at all intersections.
7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
8. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main on the site. Care should be taken during
construction not to damage existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility
at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-Z
3
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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #11 and #3. The Martin Luther King
Jr. and the Baptist Medical Center Bus Routes.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Areas set aside appear to meet with the City’s minimum landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
3. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
4. 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.
5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given
when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of
the proposed development stating there were few outstanding issues associated with
the request. Staff requested the applicant clearly identify the boundary of the project.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
would be required at the intersections. Staff also stated all plans for work in the right
of way would require approval prior to construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the areas set aside for
landscaping appeared to meet minimum ordinance standard with regard to the
landscape and buffer ordinances. Staff stated prior to the issuance of a building
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-Z
4
permit a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect
would be required.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information and
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the project boundary on the proposed site plan. The applicant has also
indicated a 20-foot radial dedication of two of the three intersections. Staff
recommends the radial dedication and street construction also be completed to the
intersection of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and West 10th Street.
The applicant has indicated the placement of landscaping and landscape islands
within the parking area. The indicated landscaping appears to meet the typical
minimum ordinance requirements of the landscape and buffer ordinances. The
applicant has indicated a landscape plan will be submitted at the time of building
permit request.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six foot iron fence along the perimeters of
the site. The site plan does not include the placement of gates. The fencing is
proposed to match existing fencing located on the campus. Fencing is allowed in
office zones between the required building setback line and the street right of way with
a maximum height of six feet. The fencing will not be placed in areas which will cause
any obstruction of views for motorists.
The site plan indicates the placement of an alternative location for the placement of
the ground mounted identification sign. The desired sign location is located on the
southwest corner of West 8th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive within excess
right of way owned by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
Should an agreement with the Highway Department not be reached, the applicant has
indicated an alternative location for the sign placement. Alternatively, the sign is
proposed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Should the sign be located at this alternative location,
four of the proposed parking spaces will be removed. For details of the proposed sign
height, area and design please see Item No. 8 – File No. Z-4336-AA.
Staff is supportive of the development of the site as a parking lot to serve Arkansas
Children’s Hospital. The site plan indicates the placement of buffering and
landscaping within the proposed parking lot adequate to meet the typical minimum
requirements of the landscape and buffer ordinance. To staff’s knowledge there are
no remaining outstanding issues associated with the request.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-Z
5
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 applicant provide a 20-foot radial dedication and the required
street construction for the intersection of West 10th and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Drive per the Master Street Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
Mr. Paul Dodd addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he was
opposed to the development practices of the hospital. He stated the minimum requirements
allowed the developers to place a six foot chain link fence with razor wire along Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. Drive which was once a thriving commercial street. He stated the lighting
used by the hospital took away from the neighborhood. He stated he drove by the area daily
and felt the hospital could do a better job in embracing the neighborhood and presenting a
connectivity to the area.
Mr. Kent Taylor addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the hospital
was following their master plan which the Commission had reviewed and embraced. He
stated with the construction of new buildings and the removal of parking for the building
construction new parking areas had to be added. He stated there were 300 in-patients at any
given time and a number of out-patients. He stated the parking had to support the growth of
the facility. He stated fencing would be arched iron fencing. He stated the parking lot would
be landscaped in excess of the minimum ordinance standards. He stated lighting was
important because it was important for visitors to feel secure when visiting the facility.
Commissioner Williams questioned the neighborhood involvement in the process. Mr. Taylor
stated the neighborhood had been presented the master plan. Commissioner Williams
suggested the applicant provide letters of support for future projects.
Commissioner Yates questioned the placement of sidewalks. Mr. Taylor stated the hospital
was located in an urban setting not unlike downtown. Commissioner Yates suggested the
sidewalk be relocated to the back of the right of way. Mr. Taylor stated that was not possible
along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive without the loss of parking.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of
the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
NAME: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review for the Placement of
Directional Signage
LOCATION: Located at various locations within the Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Campus
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Attn: Mr. Scott Gordon, COO
800 Marshal Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects and Engineers
Attn: Kent Taylor
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.64 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: Various Zoning Classifications
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 –Central City
CENSUS TRACT: 10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the provision of Article X of
Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to allow the signage as proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request includes the approval of the site plan review for a project contained
entirely on the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Campus. The scope of the work
includes the support of Arkansas Children’s Hospital in regard to their on-going
contract with FMG Design of Huston. FMG is the designer of the interior, exterior
and campus wide signage, monuments and other aspects to identify buildings,
rooms and even the campus limits. The primary thrust of the project is to make it
clear to visitors to the campus where to enter, where to park and how to find the
services or people they need.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
2
The project includes the placement of “The Beacon Sign” and building mounted
identification sign which will be separated to optimize the hospital brand
exposure. The “Beacon Sign” will be placed at the northeast corner of the Friday
Tower which allows for sight lines from the north, east and west, as well as
limited exposure from the south. The size of the “Beacon Sign” will
approximately 28-feet in height with the individual blocks being approximately 7-
feet high with a total of four blocks. The hospital mounted brand is proposed 14-
feet high and 23-feet in length located along the southeastern portion of the
building.
The ground mounted identification sign is proposed in two locations. The first
location is at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. and 8th Street. The
property is owned by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Department and ACH is requesting permission for placement of the sign on State
owned property. The alternative location is at the southwest corner of Maryland
Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The sign is proposed with a
maximum height of 18.7 feet and a total length of 69.3 feet. The sign contains
metal framed painted blocks with a lettered surface in vinyl to match. The sign
will contain three blocks a pylon with the ACH logo and lettering spelling
Arkansas Children’s Hospital.
A Ground Mounted Ceremonial Identification sign is proposed at the entrance to
the hospital. The sign is proposed of three blocks lettered A, C and H. The
Blocks are six feet tall and six feet across. The blocks are proposed as metal
frame painted and lettering of vinyl to match the painted surface.
A number of primary vehicular directional signs are proposed. All the vehicular
directional signs are proposed with a maximum height of 18.8 feet and a total
width of 6.2 feet. The cabinets will be internally illuminated with aluminum block
frame. The Secondary Vehicular Directional signage will be a maximum of 12.6
feet with a total width of 5.6 feet. The signage will also be internally illuminated
with aluminum block frame. The secondary vehicular directional signage will be
a maximum of 12.6-feet and 5.6-feet in width. The sign will also be internally
illuminated with an aluminum block frame.
The primary parking identification signage is proposed to be a maximum of 12-
feet in height and shaped as a crayon. The sign area on the pole will be a
maximum of 5.7-feet the signage indicating parking and the color of the crayon
representative of the parking lot which are also indicated as colors (blue parking
lot, red parking lot, green parking lot, etc). Secondary parking identification
signage is proposed with a maximum height of 9 feet ¼ inches and a maximum
width of 2.6 feet. Again the signs are proposed with aluminum cabinets.
Lettering is proposed as vinyl graphics.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
3
A ceremonial entrance identification sign is proposed on the Roy and Christine
Sturgis Building. The sign is proposed with ½” letterforms with natural aluminum
finish clear coated with polyurethane sealant. The total sign height is three feet
three inches. The primary building identification sign is proposed with a
maximum letter height of two feet one inch. All letters are proposed of aluminum
skin fastened to an aluminum framework. Neon tubes will be used to illuminate
the lettering.
Pageantry signage is proposed throughout the campus. The locations are
primarily along Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard, West 10th Street, 8th and 9th Streets. A total of 66 banners are
proposed. The banners are proposed to read Care Love Hope with the
silhouette of a child and a logo for ACH or provide information to the patrons of
the hospital. The banners are a total of 16.9 feet with a total width of 5.9 feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The sign locations are proposed at various locations around the Arkansas
Children’s Hospital Campus. The signage is proposed along the perimeters of
ACH property and within the main campus. Uses in the area include the ACH
campus both medical facilities and parking areas, residential, commercial and
office uses not owned by ACH.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the
Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Central High Neighborhood
Association, the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to wind-load factors affecting structural integrity, traffic signal poles or
mast-arms cannot be used for hanging banners or other signage.
2. For hanging banners and signage on streetlight poles in public right-of-way, it
is the responsibility of the Hospital to obtain permission from owners of the
poles (such as Entergy). Traffic Engineering cannot authorize such
installations.
3. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located
within a triangular area 50 feet back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or
intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at intersections.
4. For further assistance, contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineering, at
379-1818.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: There may need to be adjustments in the location of the light posts
and signs. The applicant MUST contact One Call and have the utilities located
prior to construction. There may be conflicts with existing wastewater lines in the
area of construction. The light posts and signs must be placed at least five feet
from the lines that crosses in that area. The applicant will be responsible for any
damage to Little Rock Wastewater facilities.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: There may need to be adjustments in the location of
the light posts and signs. The applicant MUST contact One Call and have the
utilities located prior to construction. There may be conflicts with existing water
mains in the area of construction. The light posts and signs must be placed at
least five feet from the water main that crosses in that area. The applicant will be
responsible for any damage to Central Arkansas Water facilities.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #11 and #3. The Martin Luther
King Jr. and the Baptist Medical Center Bus Routes.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were few outstanding
technical issues associated with the request.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated all banners and signage
on streetlight poles in the public right of way would require approval from the
owners of the poles. Staff stated no obstruction to visibility would be allowed
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
5
within a triangular area of 50-feet back from the intersecting right of way line at
intersections.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 are no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from the
December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated they will contact the utility companies for permission to place the
banners on the proposed poles and indicated no obstruction to visibility will be
placed within the triangular area as required by Public Works.
The proposal is to review and approve the signage plan for Arkansas Children’s
Hospital. The plan does require a variance from Article X of Chapter 36 of the
Little Rock Code of Ordinances with regard to the size of a number of the
proposed signs located on office zoned property. Typically the maximum sign
height is six feet and the maximum sign area is sixty-four square feet. The
ground mounted signs as proposed exceed this typical sign area. In addition
directional and informational signage is defined as signs of two feet square or
less, and having no more than six feet in height, giving direction to a specific
location, instructions or facility information. The sign may contain the business
name or logo and an arrow for direction of travel, but no advertising or
commercial copy.
The request includes the placement of the ground mounted identification sign on
property currently owned by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department as excess right of way for I-630 located at the southwest corner of
West 8th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. The applicant has proposed an
alternate location for this sign should an agreement not be reached with the
Highway Department for placing the sign in their excess right of way.
Staff is supportive of the signage as proposed and the indicated locations of the
proposed signs. Staff feels the signage as proposed will not adversely impact
the area. The signage is proposed to visually appeal to the clients of the
hospital, the youth. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-AA
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
Chairman Stebbins requested the applicant work with the neighborhood to open
dialogue and create a design which the neighborhood residents could buy into.
Mr. Kent Taylor addressed the Commission on behalf of Arkansas Children’s Hospital.
He stated he was familiar with the design of developments which had been referred to
by Mr. Paul Dodd and the cost of development was expensive in both land cost and
building construction. He stated Children’s Hospital had made a decision to put money
into facilities to serve the patients and not into the extra cost of construction as
proposed by Mr. Dodd.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
NAME: EMTEC Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 1617 Aldersgate Road
DEVELOPER:
APJ, Inc.
2020 West 3rd Street, Suite 214
Little Rock, AR 72203
ENGINEER:
Al Johnson
P.O. Box 3703
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: .29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,911 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 4, 2003
rezoned the site from R-2 to O-2. The site contained 2 lots (Lots 7 and 8, Block 16 of
the Hicks Interubarn Addition to the City of Little Rock).
The site contains an old vacant single-family residential structure and accessory
building, which is mostly overgrown with vines and vegetation. Otherwise, the property
is mostly tree covered. There are existing single-family residential uses (including
manufactured homes) located to the north and east along Perry Street. The Future
Land Use Plan designates the site as Suburban Office.
On August 26, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for this
O-2, Office and Institutional District, site. The requested site plan review was for the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
2
placement of a two story (height 33-feet) on the site. The building was proposed with
4,800 square feet or 40-feet by 60-feet. Fourteen parking spaces were to be provided.
The owner desired to maintain the permitted uses under O-2 Zoning, however, day
cares, nursing homes, and school facilities were uses not being considered.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
EMTEC Environmental engineering Solutions is currently located at 1213 West
4th Street in a one story 3,000 square foot structure with seven parking spaces.
For business reasons the company has elected to relocate to West Little Rock in
the 1600 Block of Aldersgate Road. EMTEC has negotiated with APJ, Inc. to
provide the necessary improvements for the relocation. The Company is an
environmental engineering firm which employs from five to seven people. The
work is primarily in Arkansas and through out the southeast region. Some of the
services include obtaining Storm Water Permits for clients, air monitoring, design
for asbestos abatement projects, developing Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure plans, acting as consultant to the Arkansas Municipal League
and inspecting reinforced concrete pipe plants in Arkansas and other states.
Many of the services require maintenance of historical records for up to 30 years.
Truck traffic to the site is limited to Fed-Ex or UPS. EMTEC has no walk-in
clients. The proposed site plan for the company’s improvements are critical to
the company’s efficient operation. The applicant is requesting a site plan review
for the placement of a 3,000 square foot single-story office building on the site. A
total of ten (10) parking spaces have been indicated. The site plan includes the
placement of a six foot privacy fence along the eastern perimeter. An eight-foot
retaining wall is located along the southern perimeter.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is wooded and abuts Aldersage Road to the west. Aldersgate Road is a
narrow road with open ditches and the crest of a hill near the site. A new office
building is currently under construction to the south of the site. Other uses in the
area include office uses to the west and single-family to the east.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received one informational phone call from an area
residents. The John Barrow Neighborhood Association and all property owners
located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Aldersgate Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector. A
dedication of right-of-way 30-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot
sidewalk with the planned development.
3. Verify adequate stopping sight distance for the proposed commercial
driveway location.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
6. Plans for all work in the 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) 379-1818 (Derrick Bergfield).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. 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.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
4
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Site plan is insufficient for a full review of minimum City requirements. The
minimum street buffer should be calculated at six (6) percent of the average
depth of the property and in no case less than nine (9) feet as required by the
Zoning Ordinance or six feet nine inches (6’9”) as required by the Landscape
Ordinance. The minimum side buffer should be calculated at six (6) percent
of the average width of the property and in no case less than nine (9) feet.
The minimum street buffer and landscape strip appear to be insufficient
therefore, approval must be obtained for any areas not in compliance with
these minimal ordinance standards from the City Beautiful Commission prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
4. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
to the adjacent property, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required
along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff stated typically a 25-foot building setback was
required around the perimeter of the site. Staff noted based on the configuration
of the site the side yard setbacks would be difficult to achieve. Staff noted a
variance would be required. Staff also requested the applicant indicate the
location of any proposed signage and include a note concerning the height and
total square footage of sign area.
Public works comments were addressed. Staff stated Aldersgate Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street which would require a
right of way dedication of 30-feet from centerline. Staff stated street construction
conforming to the Master Street Plan would also be required including curb,
gutter and sidewalk. Staff stated prior to any grading activities on the site a
grading permit would be required. Staff also stated all plans for work in the right
of way would require approval prior to the start of construction.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
5
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the required street buffer
should be calculated at six percent of the depth of the property and the required
side yard buffer should be calculated at six percent of the width of the property.
Staff noted screening would be required along the northern and eastern
perimeters of the site.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 some of the
issues raised at the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated screening along the eastern perimeter of the site and
included a note stating if the northern portion of the site is developed with a
single-family residence screening will be installed. Staff is supportive of the
indicated screening.
The site plan indicates the proposed parking stalls at 18.0 feet and the
driveway/maneuvering area of 20.30 feet. The ordinance typically requires a
minimum stall depth of 20-feet and a maneuvering area of 20-feet. A landscape
strip of 8.42 feet has been indicated along the northern perimeter. The front of
the vehicles would hang over into the landscaping by 2-feet reducing the
landscaping to 6.42 feet. A 9 foot landscape strip is typically required. Staff is
not supportive of the parking as proposed. Typically if sufficient landscaping and
maneuvering area are provided, staff is supportive of allowing the front of the
vehicle to overhang into the landscaped area. Staff is not supportive of this
instance. Staff feels the building should be relocated two feet to the south to
increase the parking stall depth to the 20-foot typically required. In this case staff
would support the reduced landscape strip of 8.42 feet.
The signage has been indicated on the proposed site plan. The sign is proposed
with a maximum sign height of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four
square feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage.
The site plan indicates a building setback of 25-feet along the northern, eastern
and western perimeters. A 10-foot building setback is proposed along the
southern perimeter. The ordinance typically requires the placement of a 25-foot
building setback along all property lines of the development. The applicant is
seeking a variance to allow a reduced building setback along the southern
perimeter. Staff is supportive of the variance request.
The site plan indicates dedication of right of way and street construction per the
Master Street Plan. A 30-foot dedication of right of way from centerline will be
provided per Collector Street standard and curb, gutter and sidewalk will be
placed along the property frontage.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7418-B
6
Staff has concerns with the development as proposed. Staff feels the parking
should be constructed to meet the typical minimum ordinance standard which
would allow visually for ample landscaping and adequate maneuvering room.
Staff feels the parking as proposed does not allow sufficient maneuvering room
for vehicles to enter and exit the stalls and the overhang of vehicles into the
landscaped area visually reduces the required landscape strip along the northern
perimeter.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant had agreed to increase the parking stall depth to 20-feet by reducing the
sidewalk area around the building and moving the building to the south by one foot to
gain the additional area necessary to comply with the minimum parking stall depth per
the ordinance. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced building
setback along the southern perimeter and the request to not install screening along the
northern perimeter until a time when the adjacent site was used as residential. Staff
stated they were supportive of the reduced landscape strip along the northern perimeter
as indicated on the site plan.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-4336-BB
NAME: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Rezoning from C-3, I-2 and O-3 to O-2
LOCATION: Located between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Bishop Street, South
of Maryland Avenue and North of 10th Street
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Attn: Mr. Scott Gordon, COO
800 Marshal Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects and Engineers
Attn: Kent Taylor
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.64 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, I-2 and O-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 –Central City
CENSUS TRACT: 10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Parking Lot Arkansas Children’s Hospital; zoned O-3
South – Parking Lot Arkansas Children’s Hospital; zoned O-2
East – Elementary School; zoned I-2, C-4 and O-3
West - Parking Lot Arkansas Children’s Hospital; zoned O-2 and C-3
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-BB
2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at all intersections.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #11 and #3. The Martin Luther King Jr.
and the Baptist Medical Center Bus Routes.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the
Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Central High Neighborhood
Association, the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional and Mixed Office Commercial for
this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning of O-2 Office and
institutional for Arkansas Children’s Hospital.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Martin Luther King Drive is shown as a Collector on the
Master Street Plan and Bishop, Maryland and 10th Streets are shown as Local
Streets. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a
connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street
is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown along Martin Luther King Drive. A
Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot marked
bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-BB
3
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH) owns this 1.64 acre site located on the West
side of Martin Luther King Boulevard between Maryland Avenue and 10th Streets.
The property is currently zoned C-3, I-2 and O-3 and ACH is requesting to
rezone the property to O-2, Office and Institutional District. The rezoning is
proposed to allow the development of the property with a parking lot to serve
ACH (filed as a separate item on this agenda – Item No. 7, File No. Z-4336-Z).
The property is currently undeveloped and gravel covered. A structure was
recently removed from the site. The property is relatively flat.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. The area to the west
bounded by Martin Luther King Boulevard, I-630, Daisy L. Gatson Bates and
Schiller Streets is predominately owned and used by ACH. The Little Rock
Housing Authority has a residential tower located on the corner of 11th and South
Battery Streets. There is a multi-family development located on the corner of 13th
and Wolfe Streets in the former West Side School. The remainder of the area is
predominately office uses serving ACH. To the east of the property is an
elementary school and southeast is a building currently being used as offices.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as “Mixed Office
Commercial” and “Public and Institutional”. A Land Use Plan Amendment is not
necessary for the rezoning of the site.
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning request. The property proposed for
rezoning is located within the boundary of ACH’s Overall Master Plan. Staff feels
the proposed rezoning of the property for ACH facilities is appropriate and should
have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties and the general area.
The O-2 zoning district is a site plan review district, with the requirement that
development plans be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Any
issues associated with landscaping, buffer, building height, drainage etc., can be
addressed as a part of the site plan review process.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested O-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested O-2 rezoning.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-BB
4
Mr. Kent Taylor addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated staff
had requested the owners to rezone properties as development occurred. He stated
the requested rezoning was to adhere to staff’s desire.
Mr. Paul Dodd addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
hospital was being allowed to construct facilities with no transition into the
neighborhood. He stated the perimeters of the facility were surface parking. He stated
a historic house was removed from the site to allow for the construction of the parking
lot. He stated a second concern was the posting of signs on the property. He stated
the Commission’s By-laws required the posting of a sign for 30-days prior to the public
hearing. He stated the sign was not posted for the 30-days and was only reposted after
he called staff to complain. He stated without proper notification the neighborhood was
not allow time to comment.
Mr. Dodd also stated the hospital was not being a good neighbor. He stated the
hospital had removed the homes from fifteen block creating a disinvestments in the
neighborhood. He stated the hospital was a wonderful hospital but as a neighbor they
left something to be desired. He stated the City was allowing the hospital to expand at
the cost of the neighborhood.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns of the notification. She stated
the league felt strongly about the notification process and the allowance of those
effected the ability to participate in the pubic hearing process.
Ms. Cindy Dawson addressed the Commission stating notice was to allow due process
and notice and opportunity. She questioned the number of calls staff had received
concerning the proposed application.
The Commission questioned who was responsible for the posting and who was
responsible for making sure the sign stayed posted. Staff stated the signage was the
responsibility of the applicant. Staff stated they verified the sign was posted only one
time and the remainder of the time was the responsibility of the applicant. Staff stated
in this case the sign was posted on three occasions and the applicant had provided staff
with pictures of the posting. Staff stated in addition to the posting of the sign all property
owners within 200 feet of the site were notified by certified mail and the area
neighborhood associations were notified of the public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7421-B
NAME: Mid-Town Shopping Center Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of West Markham Street and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1275
Dallas, TX 75225
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 10.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-3, General Commercial District Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District Uses, Revise signage plan
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with a completed application. Staff recommends
this item be deferred to the March 1, 2007 public hearing. The item will be reviewed by
the Subdivision Committee at their February 8, 2007, committee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was not presented. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had
failed to provide staff with a completed application. Staff presented a recommendation
of deferral of the item to the March 1, 2007 public hearing. Staff stated this would allow
the item to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee at their February 8, 2007,
committee meeting.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7421-B
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 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
NAME: Glenn Abbey Court Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 1716 Watt Street
DEVELOPER:
Chandler Johnson Development, Inc.
1012 Autumn Road Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72221
SURVEYOR:
Central Arkansas Surveying
1012 Autumn Road Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72221
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.93 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Attached Single-family Residential – 8 Units
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Attached Single-family Residential – 8 Units– allow the
creation of lot lines
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,363 on August 11, 2005
establishing Glen Abbey Court. The development was proposed as a planned residential
development that would blend the Traditional European architecture with 21st century
construction to consist of eight attached patio homes. The proposed homes were to consist of
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
2
two bedrooms, great room, two full bathrooms, dining area, kitchen attached garage and full
compliment of built-in stainless steel appliances. All homes would have a traditional European
exterior with accented décor and feature amenities that generally are standard for an upscale
development of this style. Interior amenities included travertine tile, hardwood flooring, granite
slab kitchen counter tops, marble bathrooms, and raised ceilings with stacked crown moldings
and recessed can lighting.
Exterior features included masonry with structural accents and details such as brick on
all four sides, precast keystone, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof
shingles, landscaped lawns with zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler system. The roof
pitch elevations were to be a minimum of 8/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the
development. The homes would have a minimum front setback of eighteen feet and
fifteen feet of setback in the rear with a wooden privacy fence along the east and north
sides.
The applicant indicated the homes would range in square footage from 1,300 to
1,500 square feet of heated and cooled space and it was anticipated the homes would
sell in the $110 to $115 per square foot price category. A bill of assurance would be
established to maintain and protect the values of properties in and around the
development.
Entrances to the development would have an old world European rock entrance with
wrought iron railing, accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green
space to promote an appealing environment that complimented the development.
Additionally, each lawn and all common areas within the subdivision would be
maintained by the Property Owners Association.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned
Residential development to allow the creation of lot lines within the development.
The lots range in size from 25.50 feet by 94.18 feet (2,401.59 square feet) to
26.0 feet by 80.0 feet (2,080 square feet). A single tract has been indicated to
include the private drive, guest parking and areas of open space. There are no
other changes or modifications to the previous approval being proposed. All
previously imposed conditions continue to apply to the proposed development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant single-family structure. There is a church located to
the north of the site and to the east of the site. South and west of the site are
single-family homes. Several of the homes along Watt Street have large lots or
acreage. The Anthony School has purchased a number of the homes in the area
and has removed the structures leaving a number of vacant lots in the area. The
properties to the west of the site are developed as more traditional single-family
residential lots.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the rezoning request. The Meriwether Neighborhood
Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed
development were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention would generally not apply to the proposed
development since the lot size is less than one acre.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A revised contract for water
facilities will be required due to the platting of property into individual lots. The
water line that has been installed with be converted to a public waterline with
private fire hydrants. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement will be required for all
public water facilities.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
4
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
is proposing to revise the Planned Residential District to redraw the lot lines on
this property.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Watt Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street
Plan. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is
covered under the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The Neighborhood
Action Plan does not address the issue of redrawing lot lines.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
2. The proposed land use buffer area along the western perimeter must average
an 18 ½ foot minimum width. Additionally, the northern and southern land
use buffers and landscape strip widths must be a minimum of nine feet as
required by the Zoning Ordinance and in no case less than 6-feet 9-inches as
required by the Landscape Ordinance. Variances from the Landscape
Ordinance require City Beautiful Commission approval.
3. 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 sites
northern, southern and western perimeters.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were few
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the
indicated Public Works and landscaping comments and conditions were a part of
the original approval and would continue to apply to the proposed development.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
5
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from
the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the previously approved Planned Residential
Development to allow the creation of lot lines within the development. The lots
range in size from 2,080 square feet to 2,401 square feet along with a tract
containing 0.424 acres which is designated as open space and guest parking.
The lots are indicated with a minimum lot width of 26 feet and a minimum depth
of 80.0 feet. The lots are proposed similar to lot development standards for
Townhouse lots (Section 31-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance). The ordinance
typically requires the creation of lots not less than 22-feet in width, eighty feet in
depth and 2,000 square feet in area. The indicated lots are more than adequate
to meet these typical minimum requirements.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant has indicated the creation of lot
lines to allow the transfer of property with the individual unit as the units are sold.
There are no other changes or modifications to the previous approval being
proposed. The previously approved setbacks from the perimeter property lines
remain as was approved and a homeowner’s association will maintain all lawn
areas as well as common spaces.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff does not feel the revision as proposed will have any impact on the
development or the adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report and compliance with all previous comments and conditions
as noted in the prior approval (Z-7878).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the site was less than one acre therefore the storm water detention did not apply to the
site. Staff stated the creek was not located on the applicant’s property.
Staff then presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject
to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F
of the agenda staff report and compliance with all previous comments and conditions as
noted in the prior approval (Z-7878).
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7878-A
6
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
NAME: Madison Park Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and
Montgomery Road
DEVELOPER:
Chandler Johnson Development Investments
P.O. Box 22021
Little Rock, AR 72221
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Engineering
1012 Autumn Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 1.85 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: 11-units townhouse
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: 11-units townhouse – allow the creation of lot lines
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,541 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 6, 2006,
established Madison Park Short-form PD-R. The development was a planned
residential development to allow the development of 1.85 acre with 11 units of
townhouse structure. The architecture was proposed to blend the traditional European
architecture with 21st Century construction. The homes would consist of three (3)
bedrooms, great room, two (2) full bathrooms, and powder bath, dining area, kitchen,
attached garage and a full compliment of built-in stainless steel appliances. All homes
would have a traditional European exterior with accented décor and feature amenities
that generally are standard for an upscale development of this style. Interior amenities
will included travertine tile, hardwood flooring, granite slab kitchen countertops, marble
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
2
bathrooms and ten foot ceilings with stacked crown moldings, and recessed can
lighting.
Exterior features included masonry, with structural accents and details such as brick on
all four sides, precast keystones, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof
shingles, landscaped lawns and zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler systems. Roof pitch
elevations were 14/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the development. The homes would
have a minimum front setback of 20-feet with wooden privacy fencing planned for the
entire development.
The homes would range in square footage from 1,640 to 1,900 square feet heated and
cooled. The developer anticipated the homes would sell in the $215,000 to $247,000
price category. A bill of assurance would be established to maintain/protect the values
of properties in and around Madison Park.
The entrance to Madison Park would have an old world European Brick entrance with
accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green spaces to promote an
appealing environment that complimented this development. Additionally, each
individual lawn and all common areas within Madison Park will be maintained by the
Property Owners Association. The common maintenance of all the residences in
Madison Park reinforces the quality that has been planned, and would continue to be
stressed throughout this daunting residential development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned
Residential Development to allow the creation of lot lines within the development.
The lots range in size from 2,080 square feet to 3,672 square feet. The site plan
indicates the placement of a tract containing 1.07 acres which is designated as
open space and guest parking. There are no other changes or modifications to
the previous approval being proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a level grass covered site with a scattering of trees. There is a newly
developing single-family subdivision located to the south and southeast along
Montgomery Road and there are single-family homes located to the west along
Gooch Road. East of the site is a Montessori School with access drives from
Montgomery Road and Taylor Loop Road. Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery
Road are unimproved roadways abutting the site with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all
residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
3
Westchester Neighborhood Association and the Chenal Ridge Property Owners
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 intersection of
Montgomery Road and Taylor Loop Road.
2. With the site development, provide the design of the streets conforming to
the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the
streets including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The
entire length of Montgomery Road must be widened to 13 feet from
centerline with back of sidewalk at the property line. Taylor Loop Road
must be widened to 18 feet from centerline with the back of sidewalk at
the property line.
3. Interior driveway must be at least 20 feet wide for emergency vehicle
access. Signage must be provided at driveway locations for one-way
traffic.
4. If gates are proposed, an area for vehicles to turn around must be
provided. The call box must be located at least 30 feet from the street
pavement to allow for stacking.
5. 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.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. A 5 foot drainage easement should be dedicated to the City along the
western property line.
8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
9. 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) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
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.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
4
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. Installation of a public waterline and private fire hydrant(s)
will be required. A minimum 15-foot wide easement will be required for all public
water facilities. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place 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 Single Family and Park/Open Space for this property. The
applicant is proposing to revise the Planned Residential District to redraw the lot
lines on this property.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Taylor Loop is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan and Robyn Street is shown as a Local Street. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary
function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to
Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent
properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
5
2. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around requirement.
3. The street buffer along Taylor Loop Road must average 18.6 feet and along
Montgomery Road must average 15.9 feet and in no case less than nine feet
(9). This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the
zoning/buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require
approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
4. A fifteen (15) foot wide land use buffer is required along the western
perimeter and a 16.8 foot wide land use buffer is required along the southern
perimeter to separate this proposed development from the residential
property. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were few
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the
indicated Public Works and landscaping comments and conditions were apart of
the original approval and would continue to apply to the proposed 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 outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from
the December 28, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the previously approved Planned Residential
Development to allow the creation of lot lines within the development. The lots
range in size from 2,080 square feet to 3,672 square feet along with a tract
containing 1.07 acres which is designated as open space and guest parking.
The lots are indicated with a minimum lot width of 26.0 feet and a minimum depth
of 80.0 feet. The lots are proposed similar to lot development standards for
Townhouse lots (Section 31-233 of the Subdivision Ordinance). The ordinance
typically requires the creation of lots not less than 22-feet in width, eighty feet in
depth and 2,000 square feet in area. The indicated lots are more than adequate
to meet these typical minimum requirements.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant has indicated the creation of lot
lines to allow the transfer of property with the individual unit as the units are sold.
There are no other changes or modifications to the previous approval being
proposed. The previously approved setbacks from the perimeter property lines
remain as was approved and a homeowner’s association will maintain all lawn
areas as well as common spaces.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035-A
6
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff does not feel the revision as proposed will have any impact on the
development or the adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report and compliance with all previous comments and conditions
as noted in the prior approval (Z-8035).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report and compliance with all previous comments and conditions as
noted in the prior approval (Z-8035).
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8152
NAME: LPS Properties Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 424 North University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
LPS Properties, LLC
Sam Storthz III, Managing Partner
810 North University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Edward Smith – White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.96 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District
ALLOWED USES: General and Professional Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: O-3 uses and selected C-3 uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A deferral of the required right of way
dedication to South University Avenue and Father Tribou Street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The building located at 424 N. University was originally constructed in 1970 as a
masonry construction and contains approximately 11,968 square feet of rental
area. The property is currently zoned O-3, General Office District which allows
for general office type uses as allowable uses on the site. In addition, the site is
allowed a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area as a listed accessory
use as indicated in the O-3, General Office District zoning classification. The
applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site to PCD to expand the allowable uses
for the site. The site is proposed as a mixed use development and is proposed
to contain the following uses either as a single user or a mixture of uses:
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8152
2
A. Keeping the existing permitted uses under the “0-3” General Office District
Zoning.
B. Keeping the following existing permitted uses under the “0-3” General Office
District Accessory Uses Zoning except delete the “shall not exceed ten (10)
percent of the total floor area on the site” provision.
Antique shop, Barber and beauty shop, Book and stationary shop,
Camera shop, Candy store, Clothing store, (including clothing
accessories), Custom sewing or millinery, Drugstore or pharmacy, Eating
place, (Pick-up Only), Florist shop, Health studio or spa, Hobby shop,
Jewelry store, Key shop, Laundry pickup station, Tailor shop.
C. Add the following permitted uses in the “C-3” General Commercial District:
Appliance sales and repairs, Audio sales and service, Auto parts and
accessories, Bakery or confectionery shop, Beauty supply store, Bicycle
shop, Beverage shop, (coffee, tea, fruit or health drinks), Card shop,
Carpet and flooring store, Catering, commercial, Clock or watch repair,
Cosmetic store, Computer sales and repair, Dollar and variety store,
Fabric store, Food store, Frame shop, Furniture store and/or rentals
and/or repairs, Garden and supply shop (indoor only), Gift shop,
Handicraft, ceramic, sculpture or similar artwork store, studio or gallery,
Hardware store, Houseware and kitchen store, Interior decorating shop,
Job printing, Lithographer, printing or blue printing, Kitchen remodeling
store, Linen shop, Luggage store, Medical appliance fittings and sales,
Mail services store, Massage therapist, Music store, Office equipment
sales and service, Office supply store, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper
store, School supplies, Second hand shop (resale of used goods such as
used furniture, clothes, books, etc, ), Shoe repair, Sporting goods store,
Swimming pool sales and supplies, Telephone and accessory sales and
repair, Television sales and repairs, Toy store, Upholstery shop, Video,
DVD, CD’s sales and rentals, Vitamins and health food store.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an office building and associated parking currently being used
as a medical office. To the north of the site is a private school and to the south of
the site is a residential tower and an office tower is located to the southwest.
There is a nursing home located immediately west of the site and east of the site
are office uses. Other uses in the area include two shopping centers, Park Plaza
and Mid-Towne.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8152
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association and the Briarwood Neighborhood 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. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. The proposed land use would classify Father Tribou Street (Lee Street) on
the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. 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
Father Tribou Street and University Avenue.
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: No objection. Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger
and/of additional water meters are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant is
proposing to rezone the site to Planned Commercial District to all additional
commercial uses to be available as allowable uses for the site.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8152
4
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Farther Tribou is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan and University Avenue is shown as a Arterial street. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The
primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local
Streets to Arterials. The primary function of an Arterial Street is to serve through
traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within an
urbanized area.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Mid-Town Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use goal has these objective(s) relevant to this case: “Improve and increase
retail development to meet local demands for goods and services, revitalize
declining commercial areas and support smart growth and positive in-fill
development.
Landscape: No comment. Any future redevelopment of the site may require the
addition of landscaping such as perimeter landscaping, parking lot landscaping
and building landscaping.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 28, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical
issues associated with the request. Staff stated they would work with the
applicant to ensure all comments were complied with or variances and/or waivers
requested. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues remaining from the December 28,
2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has met with staff
concerning the requested right of way dedication and is seeking a deferral of the
required dedication. Staff is not supportive of the deferral request however staff
is supportive of a reduced right of way dedication. Staff is supportive of the
allowance of a 25-foot right of way dedication along Father Tribou Drive and a
45-foot right of way dedication along South University Avenue. According to the
applicant, with the current configuration of the site plan, the full right of way
dedication would severely impact the site and present access drives. This being
the case, staff is supportive of the reduced standard for this application request.
Staff is not supportive of a deferral of the right of way dedication. Staff feels the
right of way should be dedicated as a part of the approval. The rezoning request
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8152
5
will potentially increase the activity on the site, creating a commercial
development, thus potentially necessitating additional street improvements in the
area.
The site is located within the Midtown Overlay District. The purpose of the
Midtown Overlay District is to create a quality vital atmosphere for businesses,
commercial or office and residents. Buildings, parking, signage, landscaping and
street furnishings should all be designed to complement and encourage
pedestrian use both day and evening. As stated in the purpose and intent
section of the Midtown Overlay District proper planning is necessary to ensure
visual clutter is avoided. Guideline and strategies must be in place to protect the
district from the negative impact of poorly planned or incompatible development
has the potential to destroy the attributes that will attract people to the district.
The district regulations shall apply to new development, and redevelopment
exceeding fifty percent of the structure’s current replacement value and
expansion of existing development. The design guidelines shall be implemented
when a permit is requested for exterior improvements on buildings or in the
public right of way. Routine repairs, maintenance and interior alterations shall
not require compliance with the overlay regulations.
The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site as a mixed use
development with no limits placed on the uses proposed. There are no exterior
modifications proposed to the existing building or parking. All renovations will be
interior renovations only. The building contains 11,968 square feet along with
72 parking spaces. Based on typically minimum parking requirements for a
commercial development, 39 parking spaces would be required. Based on
typical parking ratios for a mixed use development (1 space per 225 square feet)
53 parking spaces would typically be required.
Neither the site plan nor cover letter indicates any signage either existing or
proposed. Signage typically allowed in office zones is a maximum of six feet in
height and sixty-four square feet in area. With regard to signage, the Midtown
Overlay District states no pole-mounted signs and no wood, painted signs or
pan-faced-style signs are permitted. Staff would recommend if additional
signage is approved, the signage conform to signage as allowed per the Midtown
Overlay District.
Staff has concerns with the proposed use mix and a number of the indicated
uses proposed for the site. As stated, the applicant has not placed limits on the
proposed use mix of the site; only indicated the site will be redeveloped as a
mixed use development. The site is indicated on the City’s Future Land Use
Plan as “Mixed Use” which allows for the residential, office and commercial uses
to occur. The Land Use classification requires the approval of a planned zoning
district if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the
three. With the current application request, the site could be solely a commercial
use as indicated in the Proposal Section above. There are a number of uses
staff feels are not appropriate for the site based on the level of activity the
proposed uses typically generate.
Although there are a number of commercial uses located in the area staff does
not feel this site is appropriate for a one hundred percent commercial
development. There are residential uses located to the west and south of the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8152
6
site both in a nursing home and a residential tower and office uses located to the
south, west and east of the site. A school is located to the northwest of the site.
The retail activity has predominately been held south of C Street at the
intersections of University Avenue and West Markham Street both classified on
the Master Street Plan as arterial roadways. The site is currently zoned O-3
which allows 10 percent of the total floor area to be a commercial type activity as
listed in the accessory uses under the O-3 zoning district. Staff feels the
presently allowed commercial uses are adequate. Staff feels the use of the
property should remain predominately office with the commercial activity being
secondary.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant had submitted a request dated January 18, 2007, requesting a deferral of
the item. 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. A motion was made to waiver the By-laws
with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.