pc_06 07 2007
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 7, 2007
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Chauncey Taylor
Troy Laha
Jerry Meyer
Jeff Yates
Mizan Rahman
Robert Stebbins
Fred Allen, Jr.
Lucas Hargraves
Members Absent: Darrin Williams
1 Open Position
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 26, 2007 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
JUNE 7, 2007
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. G-23-383 Van Buren Street – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Adjacent to 5101 Hawthorne Road
B. Z-4562-E Hickory Grove Revised Long-form PD-R, located on
Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive.
C. Z-8167 Meyer Short-form PCD, located at West Markham and
Kavanaugh.
D. S-1561 Riviera Condos Subdivision Site Plan Review, located
on the Northwest corner of Old Cantrell Road and
Magnolia Street.
E. S-1567 Ponds Edge Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located East
of Vimy Ridge Road, approximately ¼ miles North of
County Line Road.
F. S-662-A J.A. Riggs Tractor Subdivision Site Plan Review,
located at 9125 Interstate 30.
G. LU07-11-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-430 Planning
District West of John Barrow Road between West 28th
Street and Tanya Drive from Low Density Residential to
Single Family and Neighborhood Commercial.
G.1. Z-3173-G Sage Meadows Long-form PCD, located on the West
side of John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive.
H. Z-3738-A J. A. Riggs Rezoning from R-2 to I-2, located at 9125
Interstate 30.
I. Z-8193-A Rawls Short-form PCD, located at 801 South Chester
Street.
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. Z-7275-A Warren Group Home – Special Use Permit
3801 West Street
2. Z-8177-A Under Grace Ministries Parolee Housing Facility –
Special Use Permit
805 Lewis Street
3. Z-8225 Hubbard Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
6724 Carolina Drive
4. Z-3592-L Rezoning from OS to O-3
West side of Centerview Drive, 400’ North of Peach
Tree Drive
5. Z-8226 Rezoning from R-3 to R-7A
Southwest corner of East 39th Street and Jones Street
(College Station)
6. Z-8227 Rezoning from R-2 to I-1
12601 Interstate 30
7. Z-5659-A Chenal Valley Church of Christ – Revised Conditional
Use Permit
16025 Taylor Loop Road
8. Z-6240-B D1 Sports Training – Conditional Use Permit
#10 Viewpointe Cove
9. Z-8214 Jefferson Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
3200 and 3208 Gilman Street
10. Z-8216 The L.C. and Daisy Bates Museum – Conditional
Use Permit
1207 West 28th Street
11. Z-8219 Scholastic Academy Preschool – Conditional
Use Permit
415 East 17th Street
Agenda, Page Three
II. NEW BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
12. Z-8220 Kane Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
1701 N. Spruce Street
13. Z-8221 Sienna Lake Subdivision Recreation Area –
Conditional Use Permit
Sienna Lake Drive
14. Z-8222 Bylites – Conditional Use Permit
712 East 11th and 1011 McMath Avenue
15. Z-8223 Best Carwash – Conditional Use Permit
7019 Kentucky Avenue
16. Z-8224 Jordan Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
8211 Colonel Glenn
17. G-25-196 Ives Walk Street Name Change to New Horizon Lane
18. LU07-01-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in River Mountain District
requiring change to include entire subdivision.
19. S-1571 Lots 4, 5 and 6 Replat, Block 99, Original City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas and the East/West
Alley located in Block 99, Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas, located south of Garland
and East of Broadway Streets.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: G-23-383
Name: Van Buren Street – Right -of-Way Abandonment
Location: Adjacent to 5101 Hawthorne Road
(Lot 1, Block 12, Newton’s Addition)
Owner/Applicant: Thomas and Paige Rystrom
Request: To abandon the west 15 feet of the Van Buren
Street right-of-way (15 feet by 140 feet) located
adjacent to Lot 1, Block 12, Newton’s Addition to
the City of Little Rock.
Purpose: To incorporate the area of abandonment into the
adjacent single family residential lot.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way:
As noted in paragraph G. of this report, all of the public utility companies
consent to the right-of-way abandonment. Three (3) of the utilities request
all or part of the area of abandonment be retained as a utility easement.
The Public Works comment is as follows:
1. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of Hawthorne Road and Van Buren Street.
B. Master Street Plan:
There are no Master Street Plan issues, as the right-of-way is not
classified as a collector street or higher.
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain:
The area of abandonment is currently undeveloped and used as yard
space for the residence at 5101 Hawthorne Road.
D. Development Potential
After abandonment, the area of abandonment will be incorporated into the
adjacent single-family lot as yard space.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-383
2
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect
The area of proposed abandonment is surrounded entirely by R-2 zoned
property and single-family residences.
F. Neighborhood Position
The Heights Neighborhood Association was notified of the abandonment
request. As of this writing, staff knows of no objectors to the abandonment
request.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Wastewater: No objection to abandonment. Retain entire area of
abandonment as a utility easement.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment. The east ten (10) feet of the west
fifteen (15) feet must be retained as a utility easement.
Centerpoint Energy: No objection to abandonment. Retain ten (10) foot
utility easement with ingress and egress.
AT&T (SBC): No objection to abandonment.
Water: No objection to abandonment.
H. Reversionary Rights
The Van Buren Street right-of-way was dedicated with the original
subdivision of Newton’s Addition to the City of Little Rock. The
reversionary rights will extend to the owner of Lot 1, Block 12, Newton’s
Addition for this portion of the west half of the right-of-way.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning this small portion of Van Buren Street right-of-way will have
no adverse impact on the public welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire
Department has expressed no objection to the abandonment request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 5, 2007)
Tom Rystrom was present, representing the application. Staff presented the
application, noting that the abstract list of abutting property owners needed to be
submitted.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-383
3
The utility comments were briefly discussed. Staff noted that three (3) of the
utilities requested all or part of the area of abandonment be retained as a utility
easement.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission for resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of the 15-foot by 140-foot
portion of the Van Buren Street right-of-way located adjacent to Lot 1, Block 12,
Newton’s Addition, subject to the area of abandonment being retained as a utility
and drainage easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the
June 7, 2007 Agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notification
of abutting property owners. Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 7, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the application with a recommendation of approval.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The
application was approved.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD-R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive
DEVELOPER:
EV-Mark Development
2 Dorado Beach Drive
P.O. Box 541850
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Crafton, Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 38.62 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential – Time extension for construction
of Dorado Beach Drive
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120-acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the
property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a
multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres
have since developed as a single-family neighborhood.
This property was zoned MF-6, Multi-family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed)
in mid-1981. A “Declaration of Covenants” was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs
with the property. The private covenants regulate the property’s use and portion of the
property’s development.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
2
The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale
only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS
(Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one
location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one
area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the
northern boundary of the site.
A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May
1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior
to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with
22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing.
Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003,
rezoned this 39-acre site from MF-6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83
units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero-lot line
townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be
shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This
would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of
the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a
private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit.
The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this
property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The
applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach
Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted.
There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the
applicant intended to maintain as private streets.
There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of
non-encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to
be in force.
Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for
lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to
allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as
required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero-lot line developments.
Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18,
2003, revised the previously approved PD-R. The Commission reviewed this request at
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
3
their October 16, 2003, public hearing. The applicant proposed to amend the PD-R to
allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The
developer indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the
areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant indicated Dorado Beach Drive
would be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway
was final platted).
This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their November 18,
2003, Public Hearing. Director Michael Keck requested the item be returned to the
Planning Commission to reconsider the need for the connection of Dorado Beach Drive
between Rahling Road and Hinson Road. There were many conversations between the
neighborhood, the developer and the Board concerning the connection of the street. In
these conversations the neighborhood did not want the street connection and the
developer indicated he did not desire to build the street. Director Keck was not
convinced the Commission considered all the issues related to the street and if the
development should be developed without the through connection. He stated he was
not stating the street should not be built only that the Commission should consider the
need for the street connection when making their decision concerning the approval of
the project.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, gave a presentation to the Board of Directors
concerning traffic in the area. The Commission was not given this presentation at their
October 16, 2003, public hearing. The presentation contained background material
concerning when the street was proposed as a collector street to the City’s Master
Street Plan, the current development patterns in the area and traffic counts on Pebble
Beach Drive. Director Keck indicated he did not feel the Commission had all the
relevant information and therefore did not consider the street connection issue or if the
subdivision should be developed without the connection.
In summary the presentation is as follows: The Commission first considered the
connection in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates was preliminary platted. At the time
two (2) streets were proposed to extend eastward into undeveloped areas; one of which
is now developed as Pebble Beach Woods, the other area is the site being considered
by this application. At the time the applicant proposed to subdivide 39.87 acres into
116 single-family lots. There were two (2) connections proposed one (1) Beckenham
Road and the other Dorado Beach Drive. Beckenham Road has been shown on the
Master Street Plan as a collector street since 1988. Staff and the Commission at the
time of the proposal for Pebble Beach Estates requested Dorado Beach Drive be
constructed to Collector Standards. [Per the Master Street Plan the Commission has the
authority to request additional streets at the time of subdivision. “The exact location and
additional need for Collectors will be determined by the Little Rock Planning
Commission upon advise of Staff.”]
When the Commission reviewed the Woods at Hinson, now known as Pebble Beach
Woods in June of 1997, the Commission once again requested Dorado Beach Drive be
constructed to Collector Standards. This request extended the street to the west
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
4
property line of the current proposed development. The Master Street Plan was never
officially amended to include this connection but the minute record indicates the
Commission’s desire for Dorado Beach Drive to extend from Hinson Road to the west.
There is currently one east/west connection in the area, Pebble Beach Drive. The
current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive indicate approximately 1,500 automobiles
per day of through traffic. The service volume of a collector street is 5,000 cars per
day. Other average daily traffic counts in the area indicate Pebble Beach Drive carries
approximately 550 automobiles northbound and 575 automobiles southbound on
Montvale Drive. On Valley Park Drive the average daily traffic counts indicate
775 northbound automobiles and 1080 southbound automobiles. The final area
analyzed was on Pebble Beach Drive just east of Valley Park Drive. Estimates indicate
there are approximately 2950 automobiles per day eastbound in this area and
2790 automobiles per day westbound. This data was provided in October of 2003.
Currently Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods are 85 percent “built-out”.
Of the homes constructed there are a number of the homes currently vacant. In
addition there are an additional 50 plus lots, which have been approved with a
preliminary plat but have not yet began construction in the Chenal Ridge Subdivision.
The current proposal involves the completion of the connection of Dorado Beach Drive
to Hinson Road. The applicant stated he was willing to make the connection and move
forward with the project. Staff felt the connection was desirable and should be
completed. With construction of Dorado Beach Drive extending from Hinson Road to
the west and connecting to the current terminus the current traffic pressure on Pebble
Beach Drive would be relieved. Although Beckenham Road has been identified on the
Master Street Plan as a collector street staff does not feel Beckenham Road will be
constructed in the near future. Once the connection is made this will aid in relief of
traffic pressure on Pebble Beach Drive and Dorado Beach Drive should traffic volume
become an issue.
Staff received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning Dorado
Beach Drive. All of the callers indicated the need for another connection to Hinson
Road. Traffic on Pebble Beach Drive was heavy and dangerous according to the
callers.
On August 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the
Master Street Plan for Dorado Beach Drive and a revision to the previously approved
PD-R. The applicant requested a revision to a previously approved PD-R to remove the
connection between Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road which in their opinion would
allow for a more efficient subdivision layout. It was the position of the applicant that this
connection was unnecessary and will not provide any traffic relief for Pebble Beach
Drive. It was also the position of the applicant that the amount of traffic on Pebble
Beach was such that the level of service was still well within acceptable limits. The
Master Street Plan amendment request was denied by the Commission at their August
26, 2004, public hearing. The denial was not appealed to the Board of Directors.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
5
The revised plat allowed for the extension of the Phase II cul-de-sacs and a lot count of
86. The site plan indicated the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Dorado Beach
to allow for emergency back entrance to the subdivision should the bridge on Hinson
Road be impassable. A turnaround would be constructed on the west side of the bridge
and a single gated access would be constructed for the subdivision. The streets would
remain private but constructed to City standard. All deed-restricted areas would remain
in tact. This item was later withdrawn by the applicant.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD-R
to allow a time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive. The
existing PD-R states the road will be completed by June 1, 2007. The owners
and developers of Hickory Grove Subdivision are requesting an extension of one
year from the specified date to June 1, 2008, for completion of the road. An
engineering firm has been retained to prepare construction documents for
bidding the work. The proposed time frame for design, bidding and construction
is anticipated to be completed within the one year time period.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The infrastructure is in place and a final plat has been signed for the Phase I and
a portion of Phase II of the subdivision. New homes are being constructed in the
subdivision with the Phase I portion being near completion and a few new homes
are under construction in the Phase II portion. The Windsor Court Condominium
development and single-family residences are located to the south, with
single-family residences to the north. There is undeveloped R-2, Single-family
property to the west, with single-family residences further west. Single-family
residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located across Hinson Road
to the east.
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
located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the
Westchester Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
6
sidewalk with the planned development.
2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado
Beach Drive is completed.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3.
Contact 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 and 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 facilities. Waterline or utility
easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of-
way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on
the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach 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.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
7
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. 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 Residential
Development goal states: “Develop Neo-traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian
and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles),
in areas that have not yet developed.”
Landscape: Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance is
required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 22, 2007)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request
stating there were no technical issues associated with the request remaining
outstanding. Staff stated the original approval required Dorado Beach Drive to
be completed by June 2007. Staff stated the request was to allow a one year
time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive or until June 2008.
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 technical issues associated with the request raised at the March
22, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting which needed addressing. The
applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the completion of Dorado
Beach Drive, from June 2007 to June 2008. The applicant has provided a
development schedule indicating the Design/Development – Dorado Beach Drive
and Hickory Grove Phase III began in January 2007, and will be completed
mid-March 2007. The remaining aspects include review by the Arkansas
Department of Health, Little Rock Public Works, Central Arkansas Water and
Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Contract – Bidding and Negotiations, Construction
– Dorado Beach Drive, Construction – Hickory Grove, Phase III; Senoma Hills,
Utilities, etc., Platting – Remaining Lots in Hickory Grove Phase II, Platting –
Hickory Grove Phase III. The timetable indicates the review process will be
completed in May 2007. The bidding and negotiations will be completed in June
2007 and construction of Dorado Beach Drive will be completed in November
2007. The remaining time is for completion of Phases II and III of the Hickory
Grove Subdivision.
Staff is supportive of allowing additional time for completion of the street. The
applicants have not begun the governmental review process for the street design
which will take time in itself. The applicant has indicated the street construction
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
8
completed by November/December 2007, with the remaining time allocated for
completion of Phases II and III of the subdivision extending the completion date
to June 2008. Staff feels the timetable proposed by the applicant is reasonable
based on the indicated time frames for each of the indicated activities. Staff feels
an additional six months from June 2007, allows adequate time for completion of
the street and connecting Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road as was previously
approved. Staff recommends at the time of completion of Dorado Beach Drive
and acceptance by the City the applicant final plat the right of way for the
roadway.
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 a six month extension for the completion of Dorado Beach
Drive beginning six months from the original approval date or be completed by
December 2007.
Staff recommends the applicant final plat the Dorado Beach Drive right of way as
a public street at the time of completion and acceptance by the City of Little
Rock.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 12, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of a six month extension of the proposed
request. Staff stated the application request included the allowance of a one year time
extension but based on the applicant’s provided time schedule they felt the road
construction would be completed within six months of the originally approved
completion date. Staff presented a recommendation of a six month time extension.
Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission as the owner’s representative. He stated
the owners were requesting a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado
Beach Drive. He stated the owners were committed to completing the road but were
unaware the approval required the completion of the road by June 2007. He stated his
owner felt the approval required the road construction to begin by June 2007. He stated
staff contacted his clients in January and provided clarification of the completion date.
He stated only after being contacted by staff did his owners realize the road was to be
completed by June 2007. He stated he felt the additional time would allow the owners
to complete the design, review process, bidding and construction. He stated if
construction was not initiated in the near future the fall weather would not allow the
completion of the road. He stated with the additional time this would keep the owners
from coming back to the Commission in December begging for relief.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
9
Mr. Danny Broaddrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He
stated the developers had been given four years to complete the road and were now
asking for additional time. He stated the residents of the abutting subdivision had sat
quietly for four years assuming the developers would meet their commitment. He stated
presently Valley Park Drive carried a great deal of traffic that should be able to use the
new road and exit to Hinson Road. He stated presently all the traffic from Pebble Beach
Estates and Pebble Beach Woods only had two choices to exit their subdivisions. He
stated the residents on Pebble Beach Road had also been promised the road would be
completed to relieve traffic on this roadway as well. He stated the developers had
constructed all the roads within their new subdivision but did not complete Dorado
Beach Drive when they were constructing the subdivision infrastructure.
Mr. Broaddrick stated the developers had promised in 2003 to construct the road but in
2004 were before the Commission requesting to remove the road from the Master
Street Plan and to construct the development a gated community. Mr. Broaddrick
stated he did not remember the vote but felt the Commission unanimously rejected the
request. He stated he felt the road should be constructed as promised by the
developers. He stated six months was acceptable unless the developers came back at
the end of six months and requested an additional six months. He stated the residents
were requesting the road be constructed as was agreed by the developers.
The Commission questioned why the road was not constructed and if the developers
had been granted a previous extension. Staff stated the developers misunderstood the
previous agreement and felt the road should be started within the time frame and not
completed. Staff stated the developers had not been granted any previous extensions.
Mr. Evans stated his firm was constructing the homes which ranged from ½ to over
1 million dollars. He stated his firm had gone to far to not complete Dorado Beach Drive
as was previously agreed. He stated the bridge crossing was expensive and the
development was looking for financing for the completion of the street. He stated with
the addition of one year the development could secure all financing, approvals and
complete the road as required by the original approval.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the need for additional
time and the amount of time it took to complete a road. Commissioner Rahman
indicated the completion of the construction season was drawing near if the design was
not complete it would be difficult to complete the road by the end of the current
construction season. Staff stated during November and December it was difficult for
developers to install streets and drainage. The Commission questioned if the
developers were given six months to complete the road and it was not completed within
the time frame what would be the course of action. Staff stated they would be in
violation of their zoning and a revocation could be pursued. Staff stated building
permits could also be held for future construction of homes.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
10
The Commission discussed their typical procedure for allowance of additional time. The
Commission indicated typically a one year time extension was granted to developers on
preliminary plat expirations. The Commission acknowledged the road could not be
completed by June 2007, and questioned a realistic time frame for completion.
Commissioner Yates stated the developers were willing to step up and build the road.
He stated Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods had been completed a
number of years and no one was willing to develop this property because of the
challenge of construction, the bridge, and making the connection from the current
terminus to Hinson Road. Commissioner Yates stated right now today these were the
only guys willing to construct the road. He stated it was important for the Commission
to ensure what they were asking for could be completed in the time frame allowed.
Commissioner Adcock questioned the time frame for completion of ¼ mile of road.
Commissioner Rahman stated it would be difficult to complete the road within this
construction season. Commissioner Adcock questioned various City street projects and
the time for completion. Commissioner Rahman stated completion of pubic projects
was vastly different than private projects.
The Commissioners questioned staff if the item had been previously placed on the
Consent Agenda. Staff stated the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval. The
Commission questioned the amount of time the developers would have been given if
the item had remained on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated six months.
A motion was made to approve the applicant’s request which was to allow a one year
time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The motion stated the road
would be completed by June of 2008. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes
and 0 absent.
Commissioner Adcock requested a progress report by the owners at the December
Planning Commission public hearing.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was before the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 15, 2007, for final action.
At the meeting staff stated based on additional information provided by the applicant’s
engineer they were no longer opposed to the request. Mr. Frank Riggins the project
engineer addressed the Commission as the owner’s representative. He stated the
developers were seeking approval of a revision to the PD-R to allow a one year
extension for the required street construction of Dorado Beach Drive. Mr. Riggins
stated the original date for completion of the road connection was June 2007 and the
developers were requesting to be allowed until June 2008 for the completion of the
connection of the current terminus with Hinson Road. The Mayor questioned
Mr. Riggins if the application was being amended Mr. Riggins stated the developers
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
11
were seeking until June 2008 to allow the connection. Staff read to the Board of
Directors the e-mail which was received by staff –
%HFDXVHRIWKHYHU\KLOO\WRSRJUDSK\RQWKHVLWHZHDUHKDYLQJ
GLIILFXOW\LQGHVLJQLQJDYHUWLFDOSURILOHIRU'RUDGR%HDFK'ULYH
Z L W K R X W F X W W L Q J R U I L O O L Q J ´ W K H Z R U O G µ , F D Q V D \ W K D W Z H D U H
JHWWLQJFORVHUWRDSURILOHWKDWZLOOEHXSWR/5SXEOLFZRUNVDQG
$$6+726WDQGDUGV
$ V R X U Z R U N W R W K L V S R L Q W K D V S U R J U H V V H G Z H K D Y H D O V R
GHWHUPLQHG WKDW WKH 6WRUP 6HZHU DQG6DQLWDU\ 6HZHUOLQHVZLOO
QHHGWREHVL]HGDQGSODFHGVRWKDWZHFDQHQVXUHDGHTXDWH
FRYHU XQGHU QRW RQO\ 'RUDGR %HDFK EXW DOVR WKH SURSRVHG
SDUDOOHOURDGNQRZDV6HQRPD+LOOV WKHUHIRUHZHDUHSUDFWLFDOO\
GHVLJQLQJ WKH HQWLUH VXEGLYLVLRQ WR PDNH VXUH DOO XWLOLWLHV DQG
URDGVZRUNWRJHWKHU %HFDXVHRIWKHFRPSOH[LW\RIWKLVSURMHFW
Z H E H O L H Y H W K D W Z H P D \ K D Y H S U H OL P L Q D U \ S U R I L OH V I R U ' R U D G R
6 H Q R P D + L O O V D Q G W K H V W R U P V H Z H U D Q G V D Q L W D U \ O L Q H V E \ W K H
E H J L Q Q L Q J R I - X O \ 7 K H Q Z H F R X O G S R V V L E O \ J R W R E L G Z K L O H
FRQFXUUHQW O\UHFHLYLQJ$'+ /53: &$: DQG/5: 8DSSURYDOV
IRUWKHHQWLUHSURMHFW$IWHUVHOHFWLQJWKHFRQWUDFWRUDQGZRUNLQJ
RXW DOO FRPPHQWV IURP WKH DERYH JRYHUQLQJ ERGLHV, EHOLHYH
FRQVWUXFWLRQFRXOGEHJLQQHDUWKHVWDUWRI6HSWHPEHU(90DUN
'HYHORSPHQW ZRXOGOLNHWRKDYHRQHFRQW UDFWRUIRUWKHHQWLUH
MREVRWKDWWKH\PD\LQVWDOODOOQHHGHGXWLOLWLHVXQGHUDQGDORQJ
'RUDGRDQGFRQVWUXFW'RUDGRILUVWPDNHWKHFRQQHFWLRQWRWKH
H[LVWLQJURDGWKHQPRYHRQWR6HQRPD
6KRUWRIVD\LQJ´ZH·UHZRUNLQJRQLWµ,EHOLHYHWKDWZHFDQPDNH
WKHFRQQHFWLRQWR'RUDGR%HDFK'ULYHE\WKHILUVWIHZPRQWKVRI
QH[W\HDUEDUULQJDQ\XQIRUHVHHQFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIFRXUVH
Staff stated based on the language of the e-mail they felt the developers were offering
to complete the road within the first few months of 2008. Staff stated their original
opposition was to allowing one year to complete the road but they felt the additional
“few” or in their minds two to three months was not a deal breaker.
There was a lengthy discussion by the Board of Directors concerning the time frame for
completion of the road and the amount of time previously given to complete the road.
Staff stated the developers were put on alert in January the road was to be completed
by June 2007. The Board indicated with the additional 12 months this was in fact giving
the developers 18 months to complete the road. Many of the Board members indicated
this was not acceptable. The Board stated they were not in the business of negotiating
and debating with developers for specifics of applications. Several Board members
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
12
requested the item be returned to the Commission for debate and return to the Board of
Directors once all the specifics were resolved.
An e-mail received from the applicant’s representative on May 28, 2007 indicated a
proposed time line for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The e-mail is as follows:
2XU ILUP UHSUHVHQWV (Y0DUN 'HYHORSPHQW ´(Y0DUNµ $V \RX
DUHDZDUHWKHUHZDVFRQIXVLRQEHWZHHQWKH&LW\(Y0DUNDQG
WKHQHLJKERUKRRGUHJDUGLQJ WKHUHTXLUHGFRPSOHWLRQGDWHIRU
W K H ' R U D G R % H D F K ' U L Y H H [ W H Q V L R Q 7 K L V F R Q I X V L R Q F D X V H G P \
FOLHQWWRUHTXHVWDRQH\HDUH[WHQVLRQRIWKHFRPSOHWLRQGDWH
X Q W L O - X Q H $ O W K R X J K D S S U R Y H G E \ W K H 3 O D Q Q L Q J
&RPPLVVLRQXSRQKHDULQJRIWKH&LW\%RDUGWKHPDWWHUZDVVHQW
EDFN WR WKH 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQ ZLWK D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IRU
WKHURDGWREHILQLVKHGE\'HFHPEHU$VDIROORZXSWR
WKHPHHWLQJRQ0D\EHWZHHQ\RXDQGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHV
RIWKH&LW\P\FOLHQWV)UDQN5LJJLQVDQG,KDYHEHHQDXWKRUL]HG
E \ W K H S U L Q F L S D O V R I ( Y 0 D U N - L P 0 D U N X V D Q G % R E ( Y D Q V W R
VXEPLW D SURSRVHG WLPHWDEOH ZLWK EHQFKPDUNV IRU PRQLWRULQJ
FRPSOLDQFHIRUWKHFRPSOHWLRQRI'RUDGR%HDFK'ULYH
(Y0DUNZLOOGLOLJHQWO\SURFHHGZLWKWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI'RUDGR
%HDFK'ULYHDVIROORZV
$&7,21 & 2 0 3 / ( 7 , 2 1 ' $ 7 (
& R P S O H W H F R Q V W U X F W L R Q S O D Q V - X Q H
3ODQVUHYLHZDQGUHTXLVLWHDSSURYDOV -XO\
6LJQFRQWUDFWZLWKFRQWUDFWRU $XJXVW
& R P P H Q F H & R Q V W U X F W L R Q $ X J X V W
0RQWKO\6WDWXV5HSRUWWR6WDII LIUHTXHVWHG 6HSWHPEHU
6WDWXV5HSRUWWR3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 2FWREHU
3 U R M H F W H G & R P S O H W L R Q ' D W H ' H F H P E H U
:KLOHWKLVWLPHWDEOHSURSRVHVRQO\RQH 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
VW DWXVUHSRUW(Y0DUNZLOOEHZLOOLQJWRUHSRUWPRUHRIWHQRUWR
DSSHDU EHIRUH WKH 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQ DV UHTXHVWHG E\ WKH
/LWWOH5RFN&LW\%RDUGWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRU6WDII(Y0DUN
ZLOOPDNHHYHU\JRRGIDLWKHIIRUWWRPHHWWKLVWLPHWDEOHDQGZLOO
DIILUPDWLYHO\VWDWHDQGUHSUHVHQWWKDWLWLVWKHLQWHQWLRQRI(Y0DUN
WRKDYHWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI'RUDGR%HDFK'ULYHFRPSOHWHGE\
'HFHPEHU$V,DPVXUH\RXFDQXQGHUVWDQGHYHQWVRU
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-E
13
FLUFXPVWDQFHV RXWVLGH WKH FRQWURO RI (Y0DUN FRXOG FDXVH
(Y0DUN WR PLVV DQWLFLSDWHG WDUJHW GDWHV ,Q WKH (Y0DUN
UHDVRQDEO\GLVFRYHUVWKDWLWZLOOEHXQDEOHWRFRPSOHWHWKHURDG
ZLWKLQ WKH SDUDPHWHUV RI WLPH VHW IRUWK DERYH (Y0DUN ZLOO
SURPSWO\QRWLI\WKHRIILFHRI3ODQQLQJDQG'HYHORSPHQWDQGZLOO
FRRUGLQDWH ZLWK WKH RIILFH RI 3ODQQLQJ DQG 'HYHORSPHQW D
PRGLILHG WLPHWDEOH ZLWK WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW WLPH LV RI WKH
HVVHQFHIRUDQ\SHULRGH[WHQGLQJEH\RQG'HFHPEHU
7KHWLPHWDEOHLVQRWWREHFRQVWUXHGDVDFRQWUDFWZLWKWKH&LW\
RI/LWWOH5RFNDQGPD\QRWEHUHOLHGRQE\WKLUGSDUWLHV
Staff is supportive of the time table provided by the applicant. As indicated the applicant
is seeking to complete Dorado Beach Drive within this calendar year as previously
recommended by staff. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues
associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed time frame.
Staff stated the item was being returned to the Commission by the Board of Directors to
establish a time frame for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. Staff stated during the
Board of Directors May 15, 2007, public hearing the Board of Directors indicated
concern with the proposed 12-month extension. Staff stated they had worked with the
applicant to develop a timetable, which they felt was achievable by the applicant and
best served the needs of the neighborhood.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-8167
NAME: Meyer Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Jerry Meyer
3001 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.5+ acres LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3 and R-5
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses and Multi-family 36-units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from C-3 and R-5 to PCD to allow C-3 uses
as allowable uses for the site. The site contains an existing two story building
with approximately 4,600 square feet of space. A parking lot located to the west
of the building contains 10 parking spaces. No physical changes are proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The building is a two story building with an entrance from Kavanaugh Boulevard
to the second level and West Markham Street to the first level. This site is the
former Little Rock Paint and Wallpaper Store. There are commercial uses
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8167
2
located on the lower level. An existing paved parking lot is located along the
western perimeter of the site, accessed from West Markham Street.
The building is located in the Capitol View Stifft Station area which contains a
number of commercial uses including two restaurants. Other uses in the area
include a gas station located to the southeast. To the north and northwest of the
site are single-family and multi-family residential uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Capitol View/Stifft Station, the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood
Associations, 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. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for
the improvements located in the right-of-way.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Center Point Energy has an existing gas main in the
easement between Kavanaugh and Midland. A 10-foot easement is required
along the gas main at the mid point. Contact Billy Hale at 377-4539 for additional
information.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8167
3
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Routes - #1 the Pulaski Heights
Route and #8 the Rodney Parham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-5 and C-3 to Planned Commercial
Development to allow the site to utilize C-3 uses for the entire site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Kavanaugh Boulevard is shown as a Collector on the Master
Street Plan and West Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial. These
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. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on West Markham Street since it is a Minor
Arterial. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection
from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown on Kavanaugh Boulevard. A Class
III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving
or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use Goal states, “More mixed-use opportunities should be provided within the
commercial areas, including parts of Kavanaugh, Markham Street, and Stifft
Station. Mixed-use means more opportunities for residential over commercial in
existing commercial areas.”
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 8, 2007)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were no remaining outstanding
technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request included a
rezoning of the site to PCD to allow C-3, General Commercial District uses as
allowable uses for the site. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8167
4
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no remaining technical issues associated with the request in need of
addressing raised at the February 8, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant is seeking a rezoning from C-3 and R-5 to PCD to allow C-3 uses as
allowable uses for the site. The site contains an existing building with
approximately 4,600 square feet of space. A parking lot located to the west of
the building contains 10 parking spaces. No physical changes are proposed to
the site.
Staff is supportive of allowing C-3 uses as allowable uses for the site. Although,
the building has an R-5 zoning classification, the building has historically been
used for commercial activities. Staff has some concerns with the availability of
parking. As a C-3, General Commercial District use, the building could be used
entirely as a restaurant use or a number of restaurants. Based on the total
square footage and the present zoning ordinance, a restaurant use would
typically require the placement of 46 parking spaces and for commercial
activities, 15 parking spaces would typically be required.
The Hillcrest Residents Association is presently developing a Design Overlay
District Ordinance for the area which addresses a number of uses including
parking. It is anticipated this ordinance will be presented to the Commission at
their public hearing on June 21, 2007. According to the draft ordinance, the
parking standard requirement within the district boundaries shall be 50 percent of
that required by Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance or for a retail use one
parking space for every three hundred square feet of the gross floor area or a
restaurant use one space per every one hundred square feet of the gross floor
area. Per the Hillcrest Design Overlay District a maximum parking standard is
established and the maximum allowable parking shall be the minimum standard
established per Article VIII.
Based on the proposed Hillcrest Overlay a total of seven parking spaces would
be required for a retail use and 23 parking spaces would be required for a
restaurant use. Staff feels based on the typical minimum parking requirement,
the available parking on the site and the lack of street parking in the area, any
restaurant use should be limited to no more than 50 percent of the total building
area or 2,300 square feet.
Otherwise to staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the request. Staff feels the rezoning of the site to allow C-3 uses as allowable
uses for the site should have minimal impact on the site and the area.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8167
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 any restaurant use be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of
the total building area or 2,300 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chairman
explained to the applicant that when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present
the Commission routinely allowed the applicant to seek a deferral to a later public
hearing date to allow for additional Commissioner to be present when deciding the
applicant’s request. The Chair questioned the applicant as to if they desired a deferral.
The applicant stated they did desire a deferral. The Chair offered two dates for the
deferral request one June 7, 2007, the second July 5, 2007, and questioned the
applicant as to which date they desired their request to be heard. The applicant stated
the June 7, 2007, public hearing date was acceptable.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the June 7, 2007, public hearing docket. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated June 5, 2007,
requesting a deferral of the item to the July 5, 2007, public hearing. Staff stated the
request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late
deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-1561
NAME: Riviera Condos Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Old Cantrell Road and Magnolia Street
DEVELOPER:
Blue Cube Development
100 Gamble Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 – Heights Hillcrest
CENSUS TRACT: 16
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet). Section 36-301(e)(3)
2. A variance to allow an increased building height (in excess of 35-feet). Section 36-301(d)
3. A variance to reduced a platted building line located along Old Cantrell Road (25-feet).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Blue Cube Development is currently remodeling the existing Riviera Building into a
“high-end” condominium project. During the planning process the developers have
determined that razing the existing parking deck is necessary in order to fit the height
and turning radii of today’s vehicles. The new deck will be constructed in the
approximate same footprint that it exists in today. The current deck is constructed
over a 40-foot platted building line. The property is zoned C-3, General Commercial
District which allows for a 25-foot building line. The new structure meets the allowable
building setback per the Zoning Ordinance.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
2
Variances to allow an increased building height and a reduced rear yard setback are
being requested. The developers have indicated the new deck may exceed the
allowable 35-feet by a few feet. In addition, the property to the north is zoned R-2,
Single-family which requires a 25-foot building setback. The building has been
indicated approximately 15-feet from the rear property line, as exists today.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing high rise residential tower and a multi-story parking deck.
The site is located in the Riverdale area of the City. The area contains a mixture of
uses including residential, office and commercial. Commercial uses include a number
of restaurants, a liquor store, automobile tire center and automobile dealership. There
are a number of single-family homes located north of the site presently zoned C-3,
General Commercial District. Further north, located on the upward slope of “Cantrell
Hill”, is a high-rise residential development.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents or property
owners. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all property owners
located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be installed
along Old Cantrell Road and Magnolia Street.
2. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Old
Cantrell Road and Magnolia Street.
3. A 60-inch concrete storm water pipe that runs across the subject property and
under Cantrell Road from Allsopp Park is not shown on the site plan. This pipe can
be found in the junction box in the middle of Magnolia Street. The path of this pipe
should be determined and provided on a revised plan. No new construction can be
proposed over this pipe.
4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public
right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing 18” sewer main is located on the property. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
3
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Install and place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #21 – University Avenue Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance is required.
2. Landscaping may be required in conjunction with any new onsite parking.
3. Any/all landscaping on the site must be viable, in good condition, or be replaced.
4. Any required onsite fencing or dumpster enclosures are to be in good condition or
repaired.
5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 22, 2007)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff stated the request included
the tearing down of an existing parking deck and the construction of a new parking
deck in the same footprint. Mr. White stated the only variation could be a few feet from
the present location. Staff stated there were variances associated with the request
and a request for the approval of a reduction in previously imposed front platted
building line which the existing parking garage encroached over. Staff stated the new
structure was proposed at a 25-foot building setback which was adequate to meet the
required building setback for C-3, General Commercial District zoned property. Staff
stated a replat would be required if the request was approved to relocate the building
line in the area of the encroachment.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
4
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the development was
constructed over a box drainage structure. Staff requested Mr. White indicate the
location of the existing drainage structure on the proposed site plan. Staff stated no
new construction would be allowed over the drainage structure and suggested
Mr. White relocate the drainage structure.
Staff noted the comment from the Wastewater Utility and the 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 issues raised
at the March 22, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
the location of the existing drainage structure and located the existing sewer line.
The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing parking garage and construct a
new facility on the site. The building is proposed to be located in the same footprint as
the existing structure with the only variation being a few feet in any direction. The
request includes a variance to allow an increased building height. The structure is
proposed with a maximum building height of 40-feet. The property is zoned C-3,
General Commercial District which typically allows a maximum building height of
35-feet. The existing deck is approximately 35-feet in height and does not allow
sufficient room between the floors to accommodate today’s vehicles. The developers
have indicated a need to increase the height a “few feet” to allow for sufficient floor
separation for vehicle clearance. Staff feels with the allowance of a maximum height
of 40-feet this will allow the developers to construct the structure and provide the floor
separation necessary to accommodate vehicles entering the garage.
The site plan indicates the placement of a 15-foot rear yard setback. Per the zoning
ordinance for C-3, General Commercial District zoned property a 25-foot rear yard
setback is typically required. The area to the north is zoned C-3, General Commercial
District but is presently being used as single-family residential. Staff is supportive of
the variance request. The existing building is located 15-feet from the rear property
line and does not appear to have significantly impacted the adjoining homes.
The lot was final platted with a 40-foot front building line along Old Cantrell Road.
Typically, C-3, General Commercial District zoned sites require the placement of a
25-foot front building setback. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the parking
deck structure to be reconstructed in the same location as it exists today, with a
25-foot setback. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The deck as it presently
exists does not appear to have significantly impacted the development or the area.
Should the variance be approved, staff recommends the applicant complete a one-lot
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
5
replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the
Planning Commission.
The applicant has not addressed staff’s concerns related to the construction over the
existing drainage structure or the existing sewer line. An 18” sewer main is located on
the property. The applicant is working with Little Rock Wastewater Utility to resolve
this issue but as of this time, a resolution has not been reached.
In addition, the applicant is working with Public Works staff to resolve concerns related
to a 60-inch concrete storm water pipe that runs across the site and under Cantrell
Road from Allsopp Park. Staff is not supportive of allowing new construction over the
pipe.
Staff is supportive of the redevelopment of the site but is not supportive of the
development with these issues remaining outstanding. Staff feels the applicant should
resolve concerns raised by the Wastewater Utility and Public Works prior to the
Commission acting on the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the applicant resolve the outstanding issues associated with the
request prior to the Commission acting on the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to take the
existing storm drain as private. Staff stated in rebuilding the deck the developers will inspect
the existing pipe and replace it if necessary under the deck. Staff stated the same was true
of the existing wastewater line located beneath the building. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also
presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow an increased
building height of the proposed parking deck and the variance request to allow a reduced rear
yard setback. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow
a reduced platted building line along Old Cantrell Road. Staff presented a recommendation
the applicant provide a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as
approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mary Evans addressed the Commission with questions. She stated her home was
located behind the tower. She stated there were four homes directly affected by the
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
6
proposed construction. She questioned the time frame for completion of the construction.
She also questioned what measures would be taken to protect the adjoining homes with
regard to asbestos abatement and noise levels.
Mr. Dates stated the construction of the parking deck was a 12 to 18 month process. He
stated the construction within the residential tower was taking place with persons living in the
tower so he would assume the noise levels and work hours would be such as to not disturb
the residents of the tower as well as the adjoining neighbors. He stated all City, State and
Federal laws would be adhered to with regard to asbestos abatement.
Ms. Evans stated the existing fence located around the pool area was located 15-feet on her
property. She stated the fence was also in disrepair. She questioned if the fence would be
repaired and relocated off her property.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson questioned the length of time the fence had been located
on her property. Ms. Evans stated she was not sure. Ms. Dawson questioned more than
seven (7) years. Ms. Evans stated it had been more than seven (7) years. Ms. Dawson
stated this could be a problem.
Mr. Daters stated this was not a question that could be addressed at the present public
hearing. He requested a two-week deferral to the June 7, 2007, public hearing to allow his
firm to verify the encroachment and to seek remedies for resolution.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for a deferral of
the item to the June 7, 2007, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
4 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the item
was deferred from the May 24, 2007, public hearing to allow the applicant and the adjoining
property owner to meet to determine the location of the existing property lines. Staff stated
the meeting had occurred and it appeared there were conflicting deeds for the ownership of a
triangular piece located adjacent to the pool area. Staff stated the Commission typically did
not get involved in property line disputes. Staff stated they felt it appropriate for the item to
move forward since the area in question did not affect the proposed parking deck.
Staff stated as previously indicated the applicant had resolved their concerns related to the
storm drainage and wastewater line. Staff stated the existing storm drain would be a private
drain and Little Rock Wastewater Utility had reached an agreement with owners of Rivera on
how to proceed with the parking deck over the sewer main. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow an increased building height of
the proposed parking deck and the variance request to allow a reduced rear yard setback.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1561
7
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow a reduced
platted building line along Old Cantrell Road. Staff also recommended the applicant provide
a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the
Planning Commission.
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 9 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: S-1567
NAME: Ponds Edge Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located East of Vimy Ridge Road approximately ¼ miles North of
County Line Road
DEVELOPER:
NuAge Development
P.O. Box 250
Sweet Home, AR 72164
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 8.76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 27 FT. NEW STREET: 980 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The proposal is to allow the subdivision of this 8.76 acre tract into 27 single-
family residential lots. The lots are proposed with an average lot size of
7,475 square feet and a minimum lot width of 65-feet. The lots will be served by
a new public street extending from Vimy Ridge Road 975-feet. Proposed Lot 18
will take access from an existing City street, Leprechaun Lane.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has a scattering of trees with a large pond located along the southern
boundary of the property. There is a drainage way located along the western
perimeter of the site, County Line Ditch, with additional land area located on the
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
2
eastern side of the ditch. The area is predominately single-family with homes
constructed in subdivisions to the northwest and southeast and homes
constructed on large lots or tracts. South of the site at the intersection of County
Line Road and Vimy Ridge Road is a commercial node with a convenience store
with gas pumps and a retail store. Across County Line Road in Saline County is
an elementary school.
Vimy Ridge Road has not been constructed to Master Street Plan standard and
is narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Alexander Road Neighborhood Association, the Quail Run
Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and all
abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
2. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted storm
water.
3. Vimy Ridge Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Vimy Ridge
Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
6. 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 Travis Herbner, Traffic Engineering at
379-1805 for additional information.
7. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas and cannot be
obstructed. Especially, an easement should be provided on the east
drainage path sufficient in width to pass the 100-year storm. Provide
finished floor elevations on Lots 16 to 19 that are one foot above the
100-year storm elevation.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
3
8. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to Pond's Edge Lane
with the planned development.
9. Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code requires streetlights. Provide plans
for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to
platting. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more
information.
10. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
11. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
12. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
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 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. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the procedure for installation of stub service lines prior to
construction of the street. Additional fire hydrant(s) may 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). Easements will be required if water
facilities encroach 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.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
4
Fire Department: Install 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: (May 3, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat stating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the proposed plat. Staff requested the applicant provide a
floodplain statement in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary
plat. Staff also stated a 35-foot building line was required along Vimy Ridge
Road.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the water flow through
indicated Lot 18 could be significant. Mr. McGetrick stated a finished floor
elevation would be provided on Lot 18 as well as Lots 17 and 19 to mitigate any
potential impacts. Staff also questioned the sight distance at the intersection of
Pond’s Edge Lane and Vimy Ridge Road. Mr. McGetrick stated he would check
the vertical distance to the north. He stated the intersecting point was relatively
flat. Staff noted traffic claming devices were encouraged but not required along
Pond’s Edge Lane.
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 drawing to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the May 3, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated a minimum floor elevation on proposed Lots 17 – 19 and indicated the
sight distance at the intersection of the two roadways complies with the minimum
requirements of ASHTO. A 35-foot building line has been indicated along Vimy
Ridge Road per the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
5
The request is to subdivide this 8.76 acre tract into 27 single-family residential
lots fully complying with the typical minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance with regard to minimum lot area and minimum lot width. The lots are
proposed with an average lot size of 7,475 square feet and a minimum lot width
of 65-feet. The ordinance typically requires a minimum lot area of 7,000 square
feet and a minimum lot width of 60-feet.
A new public street extending from Vimy Ridge Road 975-feet terminating in a
cul-de-sac will serve the lots. Proposed Lot 18 will take access from an existing
City street, Leprechaun Lane. The applicant has indicated the new street as well
as Vimy Ridge Road will be constructed to Master Street Plan standard including
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat
approval to allow the creation of a single-family plat with an overall density of
3.08 units per acre. The plat as proposed appears to fully comply with the typical
minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. To staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the
development of the site with new homes should have minimal impact on 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 agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chairman
explained to the applicant that when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present
the Commission routinely allowed the applicant to seek a deferral to a later public
hearing date to allow for additional Commissioner to be present when deciding the
applicant’s request. The Chair questioned the applicant as to if they desired a deferral.
The applicant stated they did desire a deferral. The Chair offered two dates for the
deferral request one June 7, 2007, the second July 5, 2007, and questioned the
applicant as to which date they desired their request to be heard. The applicant stated
the June 7, 2007, public hearing date was acceptable.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the June 7, 2007, public hearing docket. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the owner. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff
stated the proposed subdivision appeared to fully to comply with the typical minimum
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. McGetrick stated he was willing to hear from the opposition and respond to their
comments as well as any questions of the Commission.
Mr. Roy Mottuler chose not to address the Commission.
Mr. Ron Morgan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he
was a resident of the Quail Run Subdivision and his opposition was to the development
of additional homes on the existing roadways. He stated Vimy Ridge Road was a
narrow road with a great deal of traffic. He stated there were 300 new homes proposed
for development to the north of the Quail Run Subdivision and there were a number of
new homes currently under construction is Saline County just to the South. He stated
traffic flow on Vimy Ridge Road to Alexander Road was difficult. He stated in addition
there was a great deal of traffic accessing Davis Elementary School located to the south
of County Line Road in Saline County. He stated the traffic around the school from
6:45 am to 8:15 am was significant. He requested the Commission deny the request
unless the streets in the area were developed properly.
Mr. Bob Westfall addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his concern was
the size of the lots and the need for improvement to Vimy Ridge Road. He stated
presently it took ½ hour to travel from the Quail Run Subdivision to Alexander Road in
the morning. He stated he did not feel the indicated lot size was compatible with the
neighborhood. He stated if the developers would improve Vimy Ridge Road and
increase the lot size the neighborhood association would no longer be opposed to the
development.
Ms. Jan Clements addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her homes was located to the north of the site and her concern was drainage, sight
distance and safety. She stated presently her pond drained through this site to a pond
located on the proposed development area. She stated the site plan indicated a pipe to
carry the water from her pond to the southern pond but she questioned who would be
responsible for maintenance. She also questioned who would clean the ditch when the
pipe was clogged with leaves and debris. She also questioned the drainage along the
rear of Lots 1 – 3. She stated the area was presently a low spot and did not drain with
the rest of the area.
Ms. Clements also stated the fence located along her southern boundary was in
disrepair. She questioned if the developers would be required to place a fence along
the common property line to secure her property. She stated with a new subdivision
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
7
would come children which could potentially access her property and her pond. She
stated she would be forced to place a fence on her property line and be out an expense
she was not expecting to be out.
Ms Clements stated her concerns was for sight distance entering the subdivision as
well. She stated last week an emergency vehicle was traveling Vimy Ridge Road in
excess of 80 mph. She stated there were three hills in the area and if an emergency
vehicle topped one of the hills he would be unable to stop if a car was entering the
subdivision.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the Commission
should take a look at the Subdivision Ordinance and make changes that would allow
discretionary power by the Commission to factor lot sizes in the area as a basis for their
decision.
Ms. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, stated if the plat fully complied with the
minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance the Commission had no choice but to
approve the plat. She stated the City was previously sued and quoted the Richardson
vs. the City of Little Rock Supreme Court Case. She told the objectors the Commission
was bound by the ordinances and when a plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance the Commission was bound to approve the request.
Mr. McGetrick stated traffic was beyond his control. He stated 27 lots would not add a
great deal of additional traffic on Vimy Ridge Road. He stated there was adequate sight
distance for the posted speed limit. He stated he could not design for emergency
vehicles traveling at speeds greater than the posted limit. He stated Lots 1 – 3 would
drain through a ditch along the rear property line to Vimy Ridge Road. He stated the
drainage area would be located on the lots and be the responsibility of the homeowner
to maintain. He stated the remaining drainage would be dedicated to the City and the
City would be responsible for maintaining and cleaning out the pipe and culvert. He
stated fencing was not proposed but it was assumed each of the homeowner would add
a fence to their rear property line.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the proposed
preliminary plat and the proposed drainage. The Commission also questioned staff of
the current traffic counts on Vimy Ridge Road. Staff stated there was a lot of public
concern related to the existing conditions of Vimy Ridge Road. Staff stated the
estimated cost of improvements to the road were 3.6 million dollars. Staff stated
presently there were 6,200 vehicles per day on Vimy Ridge Road and for comparison
purposes stated there were 10,200 vehicles per day on Kanis Road, 8,100 vehicles per
day on Chicot Road. Staff stated the existing four-way stop did impede traffic in the
flowing through at Alexander Road. Staff stated it was agreeable a traffic light was
needed at the intersection to facilitate traffic flow in the area but funds were not
available to install the light.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1567
8
The Commission questioned staff about a right turn lane into the subdivision. Staff
stated the development would improve Vimy Ridge Road abutting the proposed plat
area but the length did not allow for adequate tapering. Commissioner Adcock stated
although not constructed to the exact specification the ability to move out of the flow of
traffic would be better than nothing. Staff stated striping could be added for the turn
lane.
Mr. Morgan questioned the Commission if they could assist the neighborhood with
requesting the school participate in the cost of the traffic light. Commissioner Laha
suggested the neighborhood contact the Mayor of Shannon Hills for assistance.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent, 2 abstentions (Commissioners Adcock and Laha) and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-662-A
NAME: J.A. Riggs Tractor Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 9125 Interstate 30
DEVELOPER:
JA Riggs Tractor Company
9125 Interstate 30
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 34087
Little Rock, AR 72203
ARCHITECT:
Combined Efforts Design PLLC
201 South 20th Street, Suite 16
Rogers, AR 72758
AREA: 26.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, C-3, C-4 and I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduced street buffer.
2. A variance to allow an increased sign height and total sign area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
Nearly 50 years ago JA Riggs Tractor Company moved from Downtown Little
Rock and built a modern new facility on a site fronting a two-lane highway
outside the southwest edge of the City. As Little Rock grew this area was
annexed into the City, the two-lane highway became Interstate 30, and more
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
2
recently road and street modifications through and around the site has shrunk its
size from over 40 acres to 27 acres. It is now surrounded on all sides by roads,
the majority of them one way. These developments, coupled with aging facilities,
has led JA Riggs to develop a Master Plan for a phased redevelopment of the
site to be implemented over the next 20 years. The goals of the redevelopment
and changes proposed are:
GOALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED CHANGES
• Improve access to and from the site.
• Relocate primary customer access
point to University Avenue.
• Reorient all “customer-facing”
operations toward University
Avenue.
• Replace and reposition all onsite
signage to direct traffic to new
entrance.
• Improve site security and safety.
• Customer access to equipment
yard limited to drop off and pickup
only. All other traffic diverted
around equipment yard.
• All access to equipment yard will be
via controlled access gates.
• Employee access and parking
separated from customer access,
shipping and receiving, and
equipment yards.
• Improve building and site function
and appearance.
• Replace the majority of all existing
buildings over the next 20 years.
• Expand and improve landscaping,
roads, parking and paving.
• Use building to screen equipment
service storage areas where
possible.
• Maintain and improve operations
during the rebuilding process.
• Phase development to allow
buildings to be replaced with new,
operations relocated, and the old
ones demolished after that.
• Relocate operations on-site to
maintain or improve operational
efficiencies.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
3
Phase One of the plan primarily consists of a single story tilt-up concrete parts
warehouse (52,350 square feet) with an attached two story office/retail sales
space (23,800 square feet) to be built on the east side of the site now used for
equipment display. A major relocation of site access and on-site circulation,
paving, parking and utilities will also occur during this phase. No existing
buildings will be removed during this phase.
Phase Two consists of one small wash bay/truck dyno building (6,800 square
feet) on the west side of the Phase One building. This would consist of a two-
story office addition (29,500 square feet) and a single story equipment shop
(23,550 square feet). At the end of this phase the existing main building that
houses existing parts warehouse and equipment service shop will be demolished
and replaced by employee and equipment service parking.
It is anticipated that the building(s) will be built of a combination of tilt-up
concrete, conventional steel framing, and pre-engineered metal building systems.
Exterior appearance of all buildings will be color coordinated to conform to
Caterpillar corporate identify requirements that consist of a light warm grey
overall color with red, black, or yellow accents. This will be accomplished by
using a combination of low maintenance materials consisting of pre-finished steel
panels, exterior coating systems, brick or tile.
The existing site consists of multiple tracts that were annexed into the City many
years ago many have never been rezoned to a classification that conforms to the
current or future anticipated use. Parallel to this site plan review process Riggs
is requesting a rezoning of the site to I-2, Light Industrial District as a separate
item on this agenda (Z-3738-A)
The project as planned does not comply with the landscaped buffer ordinance.
The ordinance would typically require the placement of a 38-foot landscape
street buffer along the abutting roadways. The existing site conditions and the
planned development make it difficult for Riggs to comply with the ordinance
requirements.
The request, a key part of Riggs Master Plan, is the first of two phases of the
planned redevelopment. At minimum, Phase one will be implemented
immediately upon approval. Phase Two may be built at the same time
contingent on project costs. If not constructed immediately it is anticipated
Phase Two will be completed within five years.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an increased sign height and total
sign area. The signage proposed is a pole sign 60-feet in height and 100 square
feet in area.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
4
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a number of buildings currently being used by JA Riggs in their
equipment business. Along the southern boundary of the site is the Cloverdale
Ditch with a wooded area located south of the ditch. The front parking area is
paved and the service yard of the site is graveled.
To the east of the site, across University Avenue, is the Cloverdale Subdivision.
To the west of the site, across Chicot Road, are commercial uses including a gas
station, hotel and strip retail center. North of the site is I-30. Chicot and South
University Avenue were recently reconstructed. There is not a sidewalk located
along Chicot Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock
United for Progress and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site
were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. The
sidewalk should be completed along Chicot Road to the bridge.
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. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
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. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
6. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
5
7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
8. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25-foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
9. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted storm
water.
10. The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on plat and
grading plans.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
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. Additional on site fire
protection will be required. Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrants may be required. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning:
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average forty-three (43’-0”) foot
wide street buffer along the access road. Currently, this site plan is not
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
6
meeting this minimum requirement. There should be no new development
of any kind in this area.
3. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average forty-four foot (44’-0”)
wide street buffer along Chicot Road. Currently, this site plan is not
meeting this minimum requirement. There should be no new development
of any kind in this area.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum thirty foot wide (30’-0”)
landscape strip along Interstate 30. Currently, this site plan is not meeting
this minimum requirement. A variance from this requirement must be
obtained by the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine foot wide landscape
strip around the sites perimeter. A variance from this minimum
requirement must be obtained by the City Beautiful Commission prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
6. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8 % of the paved areas
be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 300
square feet in area. Proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum.
7. A small amount of building landscaping is also required.
8. Four foot can be taken off of the parking lot depth in 5 areas substantially
increasing the amount of overall green space on the site as well as
assisting in meeting the City’s minimum landscape requirements.
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: (May 3, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating the development was the first step
in implementation of the newly developing Master Plan for J.A. Riggs. Staff
stated the request included a variance to allow a reduced street buffer. Staff
stated all on-site areas would be paved with the exception of the equipment
storage area. Staff stated the time frame for completion of the two phases
proposed for development was two to five years.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
7
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 25-foot access
easement should be indicated on the proposed site plan adjacent to the drainage
structures. Staff also stated a sidewalk along Chicot Road was required to extend
from the current terminus to the southern boundary of the property. Staff also
stated a minimum finish floor elevation was required to be shown on the plat and
grading plans.
Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated a nine foot minimum
landscape strip was required around the perimeter of the site and a 30-foot
minimum landscape strip was required along I-30. Staff stated variances from
this minimum requirement would require approval from the City Beautiful
Commission. Staff noted the indicated site plan did not include the typically
required street buffers along University Avenue and Chicot Road.
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 May 3, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan
indicates the reduced street buffer along the abutting roadways. The revised
plan also indicates a 25-foot access easement along the floodway as required by
Section 31-176 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances.
The applicant is seeking site plan approval for the implementation of a master
plan for the company. The site plan indicates the plan will be constructed in two
phases with the first phase beginning immediately upon approval and the second
phase being completed within five years.
The first phase consists of a single story parts warehouse (52,350 square feet)
with an attached two story office/retail sales space (23,800 square feet) to be
built on the east side of the site now used for equipment display. As a part of this
phase access to the site and on-site circulation, paving, parking and utilities will
occur. No existing buildings will be removed during this construction phase.
The second phase consists of one small wash bay/truck dyno building
(6,800 square feet) on the west side of the parts warehouse - office/retail sales
building. This building is proposed with a two-story office addition
(29,500 square feet) and a single story equipment shop (23,550 square feet). At
the end of this phase the existing main building that houses parts warehouse and
equipment service shop will be demolished and replaced by employee and
equipment service parking.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
8
The existing site consists of multiple tracts that were annexed into the City many
years ago many have never been rezoned to a classification that conforms to the
current or future anticipated use. As a separate item on this agenda (Z-3738-A)
the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from various zoning
classifications to I-2, Light Industrial District.
As proposed the plan does not fully comply with the landscaped buffer ordinance.
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine foot wide landscape strip
around the site’s perimeter. The site plan does meet this typical minimum
requirement. The zoning buffer ordinance typically requires a forty-three foot
wide average street buffer along the access road, a forty-four foot wide average
street buffer along Chicot Road and a thirty foot wide minimum landscape strip
along Interstate 30. Currently, this site plan is not meeting these minimum
requirements. The applicant will seek a variance from the City Beautiful
Commission to allow the reduced landscape strip along Interstate 30. Staff is
supportive of the variance request.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an increased sign height and total
sign area. The signage proposed is a pole sign 60-feet in height and 100 square
feet in area. The ordinance typically allows a maximum sign height of 30-feet
and a maximum sign area of 72-square feet. Staff is supportive of an increased
sign area and height but staff recommends the applicant be limited to a single
ground mounted sign along the Frontage Road (north perimeter) and the height
of the sign be measured as allowed in Section 36-557(b) of the Zoning
Ordinance. This section allows sign heights for all ground-mounted on-premise
signs located on properties immediately adjacent to and contiguous to an
expressway or freeway to be measured from the elevation of the centerline of the
traffic lanes (excluding frontage roads) adjacent to subject property to the top of
the sign structure. It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner to submit all
necessary information when this approach is used.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan review and the variances associated
with the request. The request is a key part of Riggs Master Plan and is the first
of two phases of the planned redevelopment. Staff does not feel the requested
variance to allow a reduced landscape strip along the abutting roadways or the
increased sign area and sign height will adversely impact the development or the
area. 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 agenda
staff report.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
9
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a reduced street
buffer along the abutting roadways.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an increased sign
area and increased sign height along the northern perimeter of the site. Staff
recommends the height be measured as allowed in Section 36-557(b) of the
zoning ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. The Chairman
explained to the applicant that when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present
the Commission routinely allowed the applicant to seek a deferral to a later public
hearing date to allow for additional Commissioner to be present when deciding the
applicant’s request. The Chair stated one of the Commissioners present would be
recusing from the vote on this item which did not allow the required six votes to approve
the request. The Chair offered two dates for the deferral request one June 7, 2007, the
second July 5, 2007, and questioned the applicant as to which date they desired their
request to be heard. The applicant stated the June 7, 2007, public hearing date was
acceptable.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the June 7, 2007, public hearing docket. A vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent, 1 recusal (Troy Laha) and 1 open position was registered.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff indicated in the Analysis Section the applicant would be required to seek a
variance from the City Beautiful Commission concerning the allowance for a reduced
landscape strip along Interstate 30. This statement is incorrect. The applicant is
meeting the typical minimum requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and will not be
required to seek approval from the City Beautiful Commission. The applicant is seeking
a variance from the typical buffer ordinance requirements, which is approval by the
Commission, for a reduced landscape strip along the abutting roadways.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff stated there was an incorrect
statement in the agenda indicating the applicant would be required to seek approval
from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff stated the indicated landscaping did comply
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-662-A
10
with the minimum requirements of the Landscape ordinance. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow a reduced street buffer
along the abutting roadways. Staff stated the applicant’s revised site plan did comply
with the typical requirements of the Landscape Ordinance therefore no approvals from
City Beautiful Commission were required. Staff also presented a recommendation of
approval of the variance request to allow an increased sign area and increased sign
height along the northern perimeter of the site. Staff presented a recommendation the
height of the sign be measured as allowed in Section 36-557(b) of the zoning ordinance.
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 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner Laha) and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: LU07-11-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-430 Planning District
Location: The west side of John Barrow, south of Tanya Drive
Request: Low Density Residential to Single Family and Neighborhood Commercial
Source: Wes Lowder, The Mehlburger Firm, PLLC
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District from Low Density Residential to
Single Family and Neighborhood Commercial. Single Family provides for single family
homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Neighborhood Commercial
includes limited small-scale commercial development in close proximity to a neighborhood,
providing goods and services for that neighborhood market area. The applicant has applied
for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development to allow the development of a single-
family subdivision with 60 residential lots and a commercial strip center fronting John Barrow
Road.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The application site is wooded and undeveloped. It is currently zoned MF-12 and is 34 acres
± in size. North of this site is zoned R-4 for duplexes on Tanya Drive and MF-18 for Parkview
Rehabilitation Center, which is a residential center for the elderly. Parkview Rehabilitation
Center is directly across John Barrow Road from Parkview High School. The high school is
zoned R-2 Single Family District. West of this area is zoned R-2 Single Family and is
densely developed with single family homes. To the east of this area is also zoned R-2
Single Family District, but that area has not all been platted. To the south of the application
area is zoned Planned Residential Development for three new duplexes and MF-24 for River
City Contractors, which is a nonconforming use. The remaining area south of the application
is zoned R-3 Single Family and is mostly developed with single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
This property is currently shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Low Density Residential.
The property fronting John Barrow directly south of this area is planned for Neighborhood
Commercial. This area is surrounded by Single Family to the west, south and east. Low
Density Residential and Multi Family are planned for the area north of this application.
Ordinance 19,562 was passed on July 18, 2006. This ordinance changed an area along the
east side of John Barrow Road from 31st to 32nd Street from Single Family to Mixed Use.
This change was accompanied by a Planned Zoning District application for a carwash. This
ordinance also changed the area along the west side of John Barrow Road from 31st to 32nd
Street from Single Family to Public Institutional. The change to Public Institutional was added
by staff to recognize existing uses.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-11-01
2
Ordinance 18,768 was passed on November 4, 2002. This ordinance changed an area of
Single Family along Lehigh Court to Low Density Residential. This amendment was made to
recognize the residential along Lehigh Court as over six units per acre, which also includes
townhouses.
Ordinance 18,558 was passed on September 4, 2001 to change a portion of the Park/Open
Space at 24th and Junior Deputy Roads bounded by Romine Road be amended to Low
Density Residential. This amendment was made for a possible expansion of the Good
Shepard Ecumenical Retirement Center.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
John Barrow Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. This street 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. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on John Barrow since it is a Minor
Arterial.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class II bike route is shown on Tanya 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 located within eight blocks of a park or open
space.
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 John Barrow Neighborhood Action
Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal states: “Encourage the
development of additional affordable housing in the John Barrow Neighborhood Area.”
ANALYSIS:
This application is a request to change this area from Low Density Residential to Single
Family and Neighborhood Commercial. The Neighborhood Commercial would front John
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-11-01
3
Barrow Road and would extend north from the existing Neighborhood Commercial that is
already shown on the Future Land Use Plan.
The rest of the application area would be dedicated to Single Family housing.
Since January 2007, there have only been four permits issued for commercial development in
this general area, and these were all for the Shackleford Crossings development. This is a
proposed regional commercial center a mile to the west as the ‘crow flies’ along interstate
430. There have been very few permits issued for commercial development in this area in
the past few years, which shows minimal demand for commercial. Also, there are still several
sites shown on the Land Use Plan and zoned for commercial uses along John Barrow Road,
at the intersection of West 36th Street and John Barrow, and along Kanis Road just east of
John Barrow Road. Most of this have been on the Plan for decades and are not yet fully
developed.
This location is very close to Parkview High School and the City of Little Rock has historically
been opposed to commercial use next to a high school. Over the years commercial zoning
has been moving north along John Barrow Road from 36th Street. This is creating a ‘strip
commercial’ pattern along John Barrow Road. The City land use policy is not to allow ‘strip
commercial‘ along arterials, but rather to encourage commercial in nodes, generally at or
near major intersections. Staff wishes to discourage the further commercialization of lands
lining John Barrow Road in keeping with the City land use policy.
The application site is a large vacant area of Low Density Residential and has been
undeveloped for some time. There appears to be a demand for single family construction;
permit data shows 34 single family permits issued between January and May 2007. While
there is not much Low Density Residential in the vicinity, this site remains undeveloped,
although several duplexes were recently built on Ludwig in Single Family with the Conditional
Use Permit process. Another large tract of Low Density Residential is vacant to the west of
the application area near Aldersgate Road, which Good Shepard owns and plans to develop
as part of a retirement community. Depending on the development pattern Low Density
Residential can either be grouped together in a large area or scattered throughout a
neighborhood. The type of development being constructed in the John Barrow area has
been duplex or triplex development. This type of development can be more aesthetically
appealing when it is scattered throughout a single family area rather than all grouped
together. In addition with this ‘scattered’ development pattern some of the negative impacts
residents are concerned about with ‘multi-family’ development is less likely.
The John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan has many housing and neighborhood
revitalization goals. It states a need to improve overall appearance of the neighborhood with
an objective of reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units. There is
also an action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be compatible
with existing architecture in the area. The application area is surrounded by single-family
homes, and area residents have indicated a preference for more single family developed in
the area.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-11-01
4
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations Campus Place POA, Twin
Lakes A POA, Twin Lakes B POA, John Barrow Neighborhood Association, Kennsington
Place POA, and Brownwood Terrace POA. Staff has not received any comments from area
residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
While Staff does not support a change to Neighborhood Commercial, staff believes the
change to Single Family is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
Due to having only seven Commissioners present the applicant choose to defer this item to
the June 7, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission. By a vote of 6 for, 0 against, four
absent and one vacancy the item was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the existing use pattern in the immediate area.
Mr. Malone noted that there was some commercial and office use areas still to be developed
at the Kanis and 36th Street intersections with John Barrow, though most of the intersection at
Kanis has been developed. Over the last few years there has been some development of
new single-family and duplexes in John Barrow. However there has really not been any new
commercial development. The most recent in the general area has been at I-630 and
Shackleford which is really designed to be regional retail.
Staff is concerned about strip development along John Barrow and commercial close to a
school. This development would triple the amount of commercial at a secondary intersection
(28th and John Barrow). Staff would recommend the commercial be kept at the Kanis and
36th Street intersections with John Barrow. Staff does support the residential part of the
application but not the commercial part. Donna James of the Planning Staff reviewed the
Planned Zoning District application related to this Land Use amendment.
The Chairman asked the applicant if he would like to speak or to hear the opposition first.
He elected to allow the opposition to speak first. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters,
addressed the commission and stated that the League supported the node concept to
cluster commercial at major intersections and not to have ‘strip commercial’ along arterials.
She reviewed the use pattern to the north, including a library, high school, church, offices
and a nursing facility. She asked that the Commission turn down this application.
Wes Lowder, representative of the applicant, reviewed the John Barrow Neighborhood’s Plan
recommendation for housing. This development will address that need. Mr. Lowder
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-11-01
5
reviewed the costs of developing the southeast corner – moving a sewer and creek. The
group did look at a total single-family development but could not make that work. The costs
of development require a small amount of commercial (4 plus acres). Staff has stated that
there are several commercial areas available, which have not developed. This developer will
provide the commercial that the neighborhood has said they want. Mr. Lowder also
described the large open space areas and buffers.
Ruth Bell returned to the podium. If the reason for the Commercial is cost of development for
the southeast corner, why not move the large open space area to this location and develop
the area proposed for open space with homes? Ms. Bell reminded the Commission they are
no responsible for making a development financial viable.
Commissioner Meyer stated he did not agree with Staff and Ms. Bell. He felt that there was a
need for a lot of neighborhood commercial in walking distance, like in the neighborhood he
lived. He does not have a problem with commercial on John Barrow and people will not want
single family on John Barrow Road.
In the discussion it was noted that the uses would be ‘C-1’ Neighborhood Commercial and
limited to closing time of 10 PM. Some possible uses were discussed and a partial list of
‘C-1’ uses was provided by Staff.
A motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment as filed. By a vote of 3 for,
5 against, 1 recusal, 1 absent and 1 vacancy the item failed.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
NAME: Sage Meadows Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the West side of John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive
DEVELOPER:
WTH Development, LLC
8503 Colonel Glenn Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm, PLLC
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
AREA: 33.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2 and MF-12
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Multi-family 12 Units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Commercial strip center and Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant previously proposed to construct 34 buildings of multi-family housing on a
25.57 acre property located on the west side of John Barrow Road, just south of Tanya
Drive. The site was zoned MF-12 (Multi-family Residential – 12 units per gross acre).
The west 110 feet of the property ownership was left as R-2 zoning, when the
remainder of the property was zoned, to serve as a buffer between this site and the
single-family property to the west. The density proposed was under the twelve units per
gross acre as allowed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The request was to be heard by
the Planning Commission at their January 21, 1989, Public Hearing but was withdrawn
by the applicant prior to the Public Hearing.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
2
On May 3, 1994, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use
Permit to allow Four Oaks Living Center to locate on the northeast portion of the site.
The facility was to be constructed with a 140 bed facility and is held under a separate
ownership. This facility has been constructed.
Ordinance No. 19,088 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 6, 2004,
rezoned the site from MF-12 to PD-R to allow the development of a single-family
subdivision. The applicant proposed to develop a 34-acre site as a two-part
development. The site was zoned MF-12 which allowed for the development of
multi-family housing at a density of 12-units per acre. The applicant indicated a desire
to develop 20.64 acres as a Planned Residential Development for single-family homes
and the remaining 13.16 acres as a multiple building multi-family residential
development (S-1229-A). The applicant indicated the development of the PRD portion
of the site with 56 units of single-family homes.
The overall development plan included a clubhouse, two lakes and two playground
recreational spaces. The development also contained a series of pedestrian trails
connecting the multi-family and the single-family development. The clubhouse and pool
would be developed as a part of a property owners association through the Planned
Residential Development allowing both the single-family homes and the multi-family
residents access to the facilities.
Ordinance No. 19,324 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 17, 2005,
revoked the PD-R zoning and restored the previous held MF-12 district zoning
classification. The applicant indicated the proposed single-family development would
not be constructed on the site as proposed. According to the applicant the cost
estimates for the single-family portion of the PD-R indicated the project was not
financially feasible. The applicant’s cover letter stated the developer would “break
even” at best with a tremendous amount of financial exposure. Per Section 36-454(d)
the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development.
On June 9, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a site plan review for
the Phase I portion of a proposed multi-family development. The applicant indicated as
development plans for Phases II and III are finalized, site plans would be submitted for
final approval. The Phase I portion of the development included the development of
128 apartment units along with a clubhouse and pool facility. The site plan included the
placement of 13 apartment buildings with a maximum building height of 35-feet and one
building for the clubhouse. The applicant indicated 262 parking spaces on the site plan,
resulting in a parking ratio of 2.04 spaces per unit. The applicant indicated a total
building footprint area of 98,000 square feet. Ten of the buildings were proposed as
split-level; three stories tall on one side and two stories tall on the opposite site. The
remaining buildings were proposed as two story buildings.
The applicant indicated the minimum building setback along the southern property line
as 153-feet and 156-feet along the western property line. There was a 125-foot
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
3
undisturbed buffer along the western property line. The applicant indicated 10 acres of
the site would remain undistributed. The site plan included the placement of two lakes.
One of the proposed lakes would contain 0.32 acres and the second proposed lake
would contain 1.43 acres. The applicant indicated fishing piers would be added to the
large lake. The site plan also included the placement of a playground area near the
clubhouse pool area. A second playground area was located near the northern
boundary of the Phase I portion of the development.
One sign was proposed as a part of the development. The applicant indicated the
proposed sign would be consistent with signage allowed in multi-family zones. The
applicant also proposed the development as a gated community. The applicant
indicated the gates were not a part of the immediate plans but requested the option of
adding gates in the future.
The proposed site plan included dedication of right-of-way along John Barrow Road per
the Master Street Plan requirement.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now seeking a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family and
MF-12, Multi-family District to PCD to allow the development of the site with a
mixture of residential and commercial uses. The site plan indicates the creation
of 74 single-family residential lots and three tracts. Tracts A and C are proposed
for open space/play and recreational space. Tract B is proposed for the
development of a strip retail center containing 31,875 square feet and
214 parking spaces.
The proposal indicates a minimum lot size for the residential lots of 66-feet by
125-feet or 8,250 square feet. The setbacks are proposed typical with R-2,
Single-family residentially zoned property or a 25-foot front and rear yard setback
and side yard setbacks at ten percent of the lot width not to exceed eight feet.
The homes are indicated to range in size from 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square
feet of heated and cooled space. The maximum building height proposed is
35-feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered sloping from the north and south to the center of the site.
There is a developed nursing home located at the northeast corner of the site.
Park View High School is located to the northeast of the site and single-family
homes are located to the southeast. To the south of the site is an area zoned
MF-24 with a welding shop and a separate building containing a contractor’s
office. Single-family homes are located along West 29th Street to the south of the
site. To the west of the site are also single-family homes in the Twin
Lakes/Campus Place Neighborhood.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
4
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site,
the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Campus Place Property Owners
Association, the Twin Lakes “B” Property Owners Association and all owners of
property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. John Barrow Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. 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. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
6. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
7. Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code requires streetlights. Provide plans
for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to
platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
8. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
9. The median should be removed from the southern driveway.
10. Will the subdivision be constructed in one phase? A variance is required for
grading beyond the first phase.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
5
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. A private sewer
main is located on the site servicing the multi-family development. Contact 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. Water main extensions and
fire hydrants will be required to provide service to this area. 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: Install fire hydrants per code. Additional fire hydrants will be
required with the proposed development. 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 I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Single Family and Neighborhood
Commercial is a separate item on this agenda.
Master Street Plan: John Barrow Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan. This street 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. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on John Barrow since it is a
Minor Arterial.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
6
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown on Tanya 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 applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization goal states: “Encourage the development of
additional affordable housing in the John Barrow Neighborhood Area” and “The
design should be compatible with existing houses in the area and complement
the overall appearance of the neighborhood.”
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. A small amount of building landscaping is required; however, is not shown.
3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8 % of the paved areas be
landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 300 square
feet in area. These islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the site.
4. The site plan reflects the addition of residential units along the western
perimeter of the site. It is recommended the area be screened visually with
vegetation; however, if the proposed vegetation does not meet this visual
requirement then a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward will be required.
5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this 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: (May 3, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed
development stating there were additional items necessary to complete the
review process. Staff requested the applicant provide the maximum buildable
area for the proposed single-family lots. Staff also requested the applicant
provide the proposed uses of the retail center. Staff stated according to the State
Fire Code single-family developments in excess of 30 lots should provide a
secondary fire access to the development.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
7
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated John Barrow Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and dedication of right of
way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated a grading permit
would be required prior to any land clearing on the site. Staff stated a final plat
would not be executed for the development until the streetlights had been
installed.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the comments pertained to
the commercial portion of the development. Staff stated a small amount of
building landscaping would be required but was not indicated on the site plan.
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 May 3, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the maximum buildable area for each of the single-family lots and
indicated the proposed uses of the retail portion of the development. The site
plan also indicates a secondary fire access will be provided with the Phase II
portion of the development. Monique Street will be extended into the subdivision
to allow secondary access.
The site plan indicates the creation of 74 single-family residential lots and three
tracts. Tracts A and C are proposed for open space/play and recreational space.
Tract A is proposed containing 4.39 acres and Tract C containing 3.82 acres.
Tract B is proposed for the development of a strip retail center containing
31,875 square feet and 214 parking spaces.
The proposal indicates a minimum lot size for the residential lots of 66-feet by
125-feet or 8,250 square feet. The setbacks are proposed typical with R-2,
Single-family residentially zoned property or a 25-foot front and rear yard building
setback and a side yard setback of ten percent of the lot width not to exceed
eight feet. The homes are proposed to range in size from 1,200 square feet to
1,800 square feet of heated and cooled space. The maximum building height
proposed is 35-feet. The homes are proposed constructed of brick, stone,
stucco, wood, a wood simulated material or vinyl siding or any combination of
these materials.
The commercial portion of the development is indicated with C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The hours of operation
are indicated as a closing time of 10:00 pm daily depending on the use. The
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
8
dumpster has been located on the site plan and the service has been limited to
daylight hours.
Perimeter fencing is proposed with a maximum fence height of six feet and will
be constructed in any combination of brick, stucco, rock, wrought iron and wood
or a wood simulated product. Interior fencing is proposed with a maximum height
of six feet and the constructed of wood or a similar construction material as the
home located on the lot. Accessory structures are allowed per the typical
standards for R-2, Single-family zoned property.
A single subdivision identification sign is proposed. The sign is located along
John Barrow Road at the proposed new street intersection. The sign is proposed
consistent with signage typically allowed in single-family zones or a maximum of
six feet in height and thirty-two square feet in area. The retail center has also
indicated the placement of an identification sign. The applicant has indicated the
total sign height or area will comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or
a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area. Staff would
recommend if the development is approved the commercial signage be limited to
a maximum of eight feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff
recommends building signage be limited to signage allowed in commercial zones
or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area.
The plat/plan indicates 4.6 acres of retail with the remainder of the site,
approximately 29.5 acres, of residential and open space/recreational space
resulting in an overall density of 2.5 units per acre. The plan indicates 8.21 acres
of open space or 24 percent of the total site. The Planned Zoning District
Ordinance typically requires a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of the site area
dedicated to open space and a minimum of 500 square feet of usable private
open space per unit. The site plan as proposed has more than adequate areas
to meet these typical minimum requirements for public and private open space.
Although staff is supportive of the single-family portion of the development staff is
not supportive of the commercial aspect of the proposed development. The
proposed commercial activity is inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use
plan. A land use plan amendment to Neighborhood Commercial is a separate
item on this agenda (LU07-11-01). Staff feels there is adequate area already
commercially zoned or identified on the City’s Future Land Use Plan for retail
activity along John Barrow Road to the north and south of this site. Staff does
not feel the change to neighborhood commercial and the commercial aspect of
this development is appropriate at this time.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. The Chairman
explained to the applicant that when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present
the Commission routinely allowed the applicant to seek a deferral to a later public
hearing date to allow for additional Commissioner to be present when deciding the
applicant’s request. The Chair questioned the applicant as to if they desired a deferral.
The applicant stated they did desire a deferral. The Chair offered two dates for the
deferral request one June 7, 2007, the second July 5, 2007, and questioned the
applicant as to which date they desired their request to be heard. The applicant stated
the June 7, 2007, public hearing date was acceptable.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the June 7, 2007, public hearing docket. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector
present. There were two items associated with the proposed site, a Land Use Plan
Amendment (LU07-01-01) and a PCD rezoning request. The Commission discussed
the items simultaneously. See Item #G for the minute record for the proposed Land
Use Plan Amendment.
Staff presented the rezoning request with a recommendation of denial of the request.
Staff stated the indicated site plan provided a connection to Monique Street located to
the west of the proposed development area along the northwest portion of the plat area.
Staff stated according to the applicant the intent was for this area to be an emergency
access entrance only and was not proposed as a street to connect to the subdivision to
the west. Staff stated they would recommend if the development was approved the
applicant redesign this area and include the “street” in the abutting lots and indicate the
area as an emergency access easement.
Mr. Wes Lowder addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
developers desired to develop the site with single-family homes and a small
neighborhood commercial center. He stated the area indicated for retail was to costly
to develop as residential and the commercial aspect of the development allowed the
development to be economically feasible. He stated the desire was for affordable
housing in the John Barrow area. He stated the developer had met with the
neighborhood and they were in full support of the proposal. He stated the developers
had agreed to meet with the association prior to a business locating in the center ensure
the business was conducive to the neighborhood.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: G.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3173-G
10
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Votes, addressed the Commission in opposition of the
request. She stated the proposed changes would strip out John Barrow Road. She
stated there were a number of large users along John Barrow Road including churches,
a school, a library and a large retirement center. She stated the site was located not far
from a commercial node. She requested the Commission not support the change.
Mr. Lowder stated the development was maintaining a significant amount of open
space. He stated with the existing drainage way and an existing sewer line which would
need to be relocated made the southern area cost prohibitive for residential
development.
Mr. Kevin Howard addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated
his home was located in the area and he had talked to a number of the neighbors and
most supported the request. He stated the neighborhood association had sent a letter
of support and Director Wright had indicated support of the proposed development. He
stated the proposal was similar to Stagecoach Village located on Stagecoach Road.
Mr. Howard stated the homes were located in the rear and there were neighborhood
commercial uses intended to serve the homes located nearby.
There was a general discussion of the Commission as to the allowable uses in the C-1
zoning district. Staff read a number of the uses allowed to the Commission. The
Commission questioned Mr. Lowder as to the willingness to exclude a tobacco store
from the allowed uses. Mr. Lowder stated they were willing to amend their application
and remove a tobacco store from the allowed uses.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended to remove a tobacco store as
an allowable uses for the commercial center and include the indicated emergency
access easement in the abutting lots.
The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent, 1 recusal (Commissioner
Yates) and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-3738-A
NAME: J. A. Riggs Rezoning from R-2, C-3, C-4 and I-2 to I-2
LOCATION: Located at 9125 Interstate 30
DEVELOPER:
JA Riggs Tractor Company
9125 Interstate 30
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 34087
Little Rock, AR 72203
ARCHITECT:
Combined Efforts Design PLLC
201 South 20th Street, Suite 16
Rogers, AR 72758
AREA: 26.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, C-3, C-4 and I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Interstate 30; zoned I-2
South – Vacant; zoned C-3
East – South University Avenue – City Park; zoned PR
West – Motel and Gas Station; zoned C-3
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3738-A
2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. The
sidewalk should be completed along Chicot Road to the bridge.
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. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
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. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
6. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
8. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25-foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
9. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted storm
water.
10. The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on plat and
grading plans.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3738-A
3
and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the
Public Hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Industrial for this property. The applicant has
applied for a multiple building site plan review of JA Riggs Master Plan to
improve access to and from the site and improve building and site function and
appearance and a rezoning from R-2, C-3 and C-4 to I-2.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Chicot Road 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.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown on Chicot Road. A Class III
bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or
right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Cloverdale Watson Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land
Use and Zoning goal states, “Encourage the use of Planned Zoning Districts for
business developments.”
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
J.A. Riggs owns approximately 27 acres located between Chicot Road, South
University Avenue and the I-30 Frontage Road. The property is currently zoned
C-3, C-4, I-2 and R-2 and J.A. Riggs is requesting to rezone the property to I-2,
Light Industrial District. The rezoning is proposed to allow the development of
the property consistent with the company’s overall master plan. The plan will be
developed in two phases with the anticipated time frame for completion of the
entire project within five years. J.A. Riggs Tractor is currently using the property
for business operation including parts warehouse, office, equipment storage and
equipment repair.
The site contains a number of buildings currently being used by JA Riggs in their
equipment business. Along the southern boundary of the site is the Cloverdale
Ditch with a wooded area located south of the ditch. The front parking area is
paved and the service yard of the site is graveled.
To the east of the site, across University Avenue, is the Cloverdale Subdivision.
To the west of the site, across Chicot Road, are commercial uses including a gas
station, hotel and strip retail center. North of the site is I-30. Chicot and South
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3738-A
4
University Avenue were recently reconstructed. There is not a sidewalk located
along Chicot Road.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as “Industrial”. 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 Riggs property and indicated in the
Company’s Overall Master Plan. Staff feels the proposed rezoning of the
property for J.A. Riggs facilities is appropriate and should have no adverse
impact on the surrounding properties and the general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. The Chairman
explained to the applicant that when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present
the Commission routinely allowed the applicant to seek a deferral to a later public
hearing date to allow for additional Commissioner to be present when deciding the
applicant’s request. The Chair stated one of the Commissioners present would be
recusing from the vote on this item which did not allow the required six votes to approve
the request. The Chair offered two dates for the deferral request one June 7, 2007, the
second July 5, 2007, and questioned the applicant as to which date they desired their
request to be heard. The applicant stated the June 7, 2007, public hearing date was
acceptable.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the June 7, 2007, public hearing docket. A vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent, 1 recusal (Troy Laha) and 1 open position was registered.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the rezoning request from
R-2, C-3, C-4 and I-2 to I-2.
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 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner Laha) and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
NAME: Rawls Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 801 South Chester Street
DEVELOPER:
C.E. Buddy Rawls
3700 Cantrell Road #904
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
900 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.50 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use District
ALLOWED USES: Inside and Enclosed “permitted uses” as allowed in the
residential, office and commercial districts of Chapter 36 of
the Little Rock Code of Ordinances
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Auto sales outside, Pole signage and UU, Urban Use
District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On April 12, 2007, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to rezone the
site from UU, Urban Use District to PCD. The request was to allow additional signage,
outdoor display of products and inventory and the outdoor sales of automobiles. The
hours of operation were 7:30 am to 6:00 pm but were likely to be expanded in the
future.
The applicant sought approval of a free standing sign, not to exceed 150 square feet in
area and 35-feet in height, on an existing sign pole located near the northwest corner of
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
2
the property, within the right of way. The sign could include the tenant’s name, fuel
prices and associated services. An alternative sign location was indicated on the site
plan in the event the first location was concluded inappropriate or unworkable. The
request included the temporary placement of a movable, ground-based fuel pricing sign
until such signage could be included on the free-standing pole sign.
Outdoor display was proposed for the site. The applicant requested the placement of
energy and transportation-related products and product displays outside the confines of
the building. In addition, the applicant requested the utilization of the site for vehicle
sales with total number of vehicles available for sale not to exceed 20 vehicles.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now seeking a rezoning of the site from UU to PCD to allow the
placement of a monument or pedestal-style sign, place a movable, ground-based
fuel pricing sign on the property and allow the placement of three vehicles for
sale on the site. In addition the applicant is seeking approval to allow automobile
detailing on the site in the rear yard area along side an existing alley.
The pedestal-style sign is proposed to be located near the northwest corner of
the property. The sign, yet to be designed, would be lighted and include the
name of the business, along with that of any tenant’s business and include fuel
prices and associated services. The size of the sign will comply with signage
typically allowed in office zoning districts. The sign would not exceed six feet in
height and sixty four square feet in area. The temporary placement of a
movable, ground-based fuel pricing sign is being requested until the construction
of the permanent monument sign is completed.
The designation of specific sections of the property, outside the confines of the
building, for the placement of energy and transportation-related projects, product
displays and vehicles, not to exceed three vehicles, for sale are included on the
site plan. The vehicles will be placed in the least-intrusive area of the lot,
specifically away from the frontage of the property on Chester Street. In addition
behind the building the applicant is seeking permission for the use of a portion of
the site for outdoor detailing of vehicles. The work will be conducted in full
compliance with the water recycling procedures as required by the applicable
wastewater regulations, including the use of a mat to capture and re-use water
and the proper disposal of the water at the Little Rock Wastewater Department.
The designation of this space means these activities will not be visible from
Chester Street and would only be briefly visible to vehicles passing on 8th Street.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a fuel station located on the corner of Chester and 8th Streets. The
area is a commercial/industrial area with a number of uses including office
warehouse, restaurant uses, a television station and the City of Little Rock
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
3
Central Fire Station. The Chester Street freeway exit ramp intersects Chester
Street at 8th Street across from the site. Adjacent to the site 8th Street is a
one-way street with west bound travel only. Chester Street is a four lane road,
with curb, gutter and sidewalks in place. Signage in the area is limited to building
signage.
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, all residents located within
300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Downtown
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
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.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route # 15 - the 65th Street Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Downtown Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow outdoor display and
sales of three automobiles and the placement of a ground mounted sign no
higher than six feet tall.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
4
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Chester Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. This street 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. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chester Street since it is a Minor Arterial.
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. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 3, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed
development stating there were no technical issues associated with the request
remaining outstanding.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a franchise would be
required for any improvements located within the right of way.
Mr. Rawls stated the request was substantially different than the original
application. He stated the request was to allow the placement of three (3)
vehicles on the site for sale, the placement of a ground mounted sign and an
area for outdoor detailing of automobiles. He stated the area for detailing would
fully comply with wastewater requirements for water capture.
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 technical issues raised at the March 22, 2007, Subdivision
Committee meeting which required addressing. The applicant is seeking a
rezoning of this site from UU, Urban Use District to PCD to allow additional
signage, outdoor display of products and inventory and the outdoor detailing and
sales of automobiles. The property has served as an automobile care
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
5
center/service station for decades. There are no plans for any external changes
to the building.
The applicant is seeking approval of a free standing sign, not to exceed six feet
in height and 64 square feet in area. The site plan indicates a general location of
the sign which is located near the northwest corner of the property and is
potentially located within the right of way near an existing pole of a previous sign.
The request includes the temporary placement of a movable, ground-based fuel
pricing sign until the permanent signage can be constructed. Per the UU, Urban
Use District zoning classification off-premise, pole and monument signs are not
allowed. Otherwise, signage is allowed as permitted per Section 36-553, Signs
permitted in Institutional and Office zones. On the street level, the maximum
area of signage may be doubled if at least 50 percent of the street-level office
and retail space has direct access to the street.
Outdoor display is proposed for the site. The applicant is requesting the
placement of energy and transportation-related products and product displays
outside the confines of the building in a specific location near the front door area
of the building.
The request includes an area located behind the building for use as automobile
detailing. The area is located adjacent to the alley along the rear of the building
on the eastern side.
In addition the applicant is requesting the utilization of the site for vehicle sales
with total number of vehicles available for sale not to exceed 3 vehicles.
Permitted uses in the UU, Urban Use District include those allowed in the
residential district, office district and commercial district as permitted uses,
except that all uses must be inside or enclosed. Conditional uses include those
allowed in the I-2, Light Industrial District as permitted uses except that all uses
must be inside or enclosed.
Staff is not supportive of the requested signage. The UU, Urban Use District was
designed to assure the continuation of development consistent with a traditional
urban form. The urban use district is designed to help create a compact, dense,
distinguishable core area and is established in order to provide for an urban form
allowing mid-rise and high-rise structures. The district is to provide for the office,
civic and business core of the City. The Development Criteria addressed eleven
(11) key elements with signage being one of the elements. As noted above
off-premise, pole and monument signs are not allowed. Otherwise, signage is
allowed as permitted per Section 36-553, Signs permitted in Institutional and
Office zones. Staff feels the ordinance should be adhered to related to the
allowable signage since the district is very limited on the specific issues the
zoning district chooses to address.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
6
With regard to the utilization of the site with outdoor activities, staff does not
support this aspect of the request either. The Use Regulations outline the
activities which can take place on UU, Urban Use District zoned sites. The only
allowable uses prohibited per the residential, commercial and office zones are
the uses which include outdoor activity. Staff does not feel the placement of
outdoor activities is appropriate for this site. The site is located at a key entrance
to the District. Staff does not feel this site is appropriate for outdoor sales of
automobiles or outdoor automobile detailing activity.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 24, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair
informed the applicant presently there were five (5) Commissioners present which did
not allow adequate member present to conduct business. The Chair informed the
applicant his request would be placed on the Commission’s June 7, 2007, public
hearing docket for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff
presented the item indicating they had reconsidered their recommendation of denial for
the requested ground signage. Staff stated since the site was not located within the
pedestrian area of the UU District they felt the ground mounted sign would not
significantly impact the area. Staff stated they were not supportive of the movable
temporary sign nor the requested outdoor activities.
Mr. Buddy Rawls addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he
would limit his comments but this did not in any way indicate his willingness to not
exhaust all his appeals for the request to be allowed the activities being requested. He
stated his vision was to develop the site with an environmentally friendly transportation
center. He stated he bought the property in good faith thinking the property was zoned
I-2, Light Industrial District. He stated after he purchased the property and began trying
to place the typical transportation related activities on the site did he learn the zoning
had been changed without the former owners knowledge. He stated the removal of the
I-2 zoning had created a hardship on his business and his vision for developing the site.
There was a general discussion among the Commission and Mr. Rawls as to if the
request as an all or nothing request. Mr. Rawls stated he needed the sale of vehicles
and the detailing to be allowed on the site to generate the needed revenues. He stated
the margin on fuel was very low. He stated he needed the wide range of services for a
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8193-A
7
higher margin than the fuel allowed. The Commission questioned Mr. Rawls again as to
if he was willing to seek approval of portions of his request and then return later for the
additional items. Mr. Rawls stated he needed the flexability of a number of activities to
cover the cost.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition.
She stated the League was not supportive of the C-4, Open Display District uses being
allowed on the site. She stated the signage was acceptable since the site was not in
the middle of the UU District. She stated the UU District was designed to make the area
more people friendly and she did not feel C-4 was appropriate at this location.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of
4 ayes, 5 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-7275-A
NAME: Warren Group Home – Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 3801 West Street
OWNER: Derek Warren
APPLICANT: Derek Warren
PROPOSAL: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a
group home to be operated in the single family
residence located on the R-2 zoned property at
3801 West Street.
A. Public Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow, Campus
Place, Kensington Place and Westbrook Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
B. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
C. Staff Analysis:
3801 West Street is located at the southeast corner of West Street and
West 38th Street. The property contains a two-story brick and frame single
family structure. There is a two-car wide driveway from West 38th Street,
which leads to a two-car detached carport. There is a one-story
accessory building within the east half of the property. There is a
deck/step structure on the west side of the residential structure, which
accesses an exit door on the second floor. There is off-street parking for
approximately six (6) vehicles.
All surrounding properties contain single family residences and are zoned
R-2 and R-3. There are multifamily uses to the north along West 36th
Street.
The applicant, Derek Warren, proposes to utilize the existing 2,105 square
foot structure as a group home. The residential facility will serve as a
temporary shelter for men recovering from substance abuse addictions.
The applicant is proposing to house fourteen (14) residents, plus a
residence for the property owner/program manager. The applicant has
also noted that he goes out and finds clients at homeless shelters,
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7275-A
2
etc. The residents/clients will reside in three (3) upstairs bedrooms. The
owner will reside in a downstairs bedroom. A recent inspection of the
property by City staff revealed 15 beds on the second floor of the structure
and as many as nine (9) residents. Based on enforcement action, the
applicant has reduced the total number of residents to four (4), which
conforms to the City’s definition of “single family”.
The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Route #14 (Rosedale Route)
runs along West 36th Street, two (2) blocks to the north. The applicant
provided a Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood, which was recorded in
1952 and appears to no longer be valid.
Section 36-54(e)(4) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides the following
provisions for Group Home Facilities, as adopted by the Board of Directors
on September 6, 2005:
1. family care facility, group care facility, group home,
parolee or probationer housing facility, rooming, lodging
and boarding facility.
(a) Separation, spacing and procedural requirements for family
care facilities, group care facilities, group homes, parolee or probationer
housing facilities and rooming, lodging and boarding facilities will be
determined by the planning commission so as not to adversely impact the
surrounding properties and neighborhood. Unless the commission
determines that a different area is more appropriate, a neighborhood shall
be defined as an area incorporating all properties lying within one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of the site for which the permit is
requested.
(b) There shall be a presumption that a special use permit for a
group home of 5, 6, 7, or 8 handicapped persons will be granted if all
ordinance requirements are met, except that individuals whose tenancy
would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals
of whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the
property of others shall not be allowed in such a home.
(c) Issues that the planning commission will consider during its
review of a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee or
probationer housing facility, or rooming, lodging and boarding facility
include, but are not limited to:
1. Spacing of existing similar facilities.
2. Existing zoning and land use patterns.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7275-A
3
3. The maximum number of individuals proposed to be served,
the number of employees proposed and the type of services
being proposed.
4. The need and provision for readily accessible public or
quasi-public transportation.
5. Access to needed support services such as social services
agencies, employment agencies and medical service
providers.
6. Availability of adequate on-site parking.
(d) The fire marshal must approve the use of any structure
proposed as a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee
or probation housing facility or rooming, lodging and boarding facility.
(e) Family care facilities, group care facilities, group homes and
parole or probation housing facilities shall be operated within any and all
applicable licensing and procedural requirements established by the State
of Arkansas.
According to an area survey, there are no other transitional residential
facilities within 1,500 feet of the property. There are two (2)
public/institutional-type uses to the north along Romine Road (church and
school facilities).
As noted previously, there are three (3) bedrooms on the second floor of
the structure, which will accommodate the residents/clients. The applicant
proposes to occupy the three (3) bedrooms as follows:
Bedroom 1 – 93.5 sq. ft. – 3 beds
Bedroom 2 – 144 sq. ft. – 3 beds
Bedroom 3 – 184 sq. ft. – 8 beds
Section 8-406(a) of the City’s Buildings and Building Regulations
Ordinance (minimum area per dwelling unit) requires 150 square feet for
the first occupant and 100 square feet for each additional occupant.
Therefore, the minimum area for a residence occupied by 15 persons is
1,550 square feet. As noted earlier the residential structure contains
2,105 square feet.
Section 8-406(b) (minimum area per bedroom) requires 70 square feet for
the first occupant and 50 square feet for each additional occupant.
According to Section 8-406 of City Code, following is the minimum
required area for each bedroom with the occupancy as proposed:
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7275-A
4
Bedroom 1 – 170 sq. ft. – 3 beds
Bedroom 2 – 170 sq. ft. – 3 beds
Bedroom 3 – 420 sq. ft. – 8 beds
The occupancy as proposed does not conform to Section 8-406. The
property owner will reside on the first floor.
Staff is not supportive of the requested special use permit to allow a group
home at 3801 West Street. Although staff’s survey revealed no other
residential living facilities within 1,500 feet of the site, staff does not feel
the existing residential structure is of adequate size to support the
proposed group home facility. As noted previously, the three (3) upstairs
bedrooms are not large enough according to Section 36-406 (b) to support
the number of residents as proposed. Staff feels the applicant should
seek a larger residential structure for the proposed group home use.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was not present. Staff briefly described the proposed group
home use. Staff explained the issues associated with the size of the
structure.
After the brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the
full Commission for final action.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested special use permit to operate a
group home at 3801 West Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the
July 19, 2007 Agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notification
of abutting property owners. Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 19, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-8177-A
NAME: Under Grace Ministries Parolee Housing Facility –
Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 805 Lewis Street
OWNER: Shelby Smith
APPLICANT: Under Grace Ministries
PROPOSAL: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a
Parolee Housing Facility to be operated in the
single family residence located on the R-3 zoned
property at 805 Lewis Street.
A. Public Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Forest Hills, Pine to
Woodrow, Hope and Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.
B. Public Works Issues:
1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of West 8th and Lewis Street.
C. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
805 Lewis Street is located at the southeast corner of Lewis Street and
West 8th Street. The property contains a two-story frame residential
structure, which is in the process of being remodeled. There is a gravel
driveway from West 8th Street, which accesses a gravel parking area at
the northeast corner of the lot. Off-street parking exists for several
vehicles. There are two (2) accessory buildings at the southeast corner of
the property. A deck/step structure is located on the rear (east side) of the
residence, leading to a second floor exit door. There is also a second
floor deck structure on the south side of the residential structure. A
conditional use permit was recently approved for the property for use of
the structure as a duplex.
The properties to the east, west and south are zoned R-3 and R-4 and
contain single family and two-family uses. There are office and
commercial uses further east along Cedar Street. The UAMS/Veteran’s
Hospital facilities are located across I-630 to the north.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8177-A
2
The applicant, Under Grace Ministries, proposes to utilize the existing
2,902 square foot structure as Parolee Housing Facility. The residential
facility will serve as transitional living facility for paroled inmates
transitioning from prison to self-sufficient lifestyles, operating under the
name Philemon’s House. The purpose of Philemon’s House is to offer a
transitional housing program that allows residents to become self-
sufficient, independent, drug and alcohol-free members of society.
Philemon’s House will provide transitional housing and life skill training for
men who have graduated from specific classes offered and taught by
Under Grace Ministries. It will offer Biblical community, safe shelter,
transportation, and employment assistance for select non-violent and
non-sexual ex-offenders transitioning from prison to free society.
Philemon’s House will sleep 10 residents and 1 house manager. Each
resident will stay for 90 days as long as he abides by the rules with an
option of staying another period of up to 90 days, but not exceeding 180
days. Additionally, each resident must be an active participant in the
Under Grace Ministries programs which include, but are not limited to,
addiction recovery, worship services, financial training and accountability,
spiritual development, accountability with a mentor and community
involvement through required work projects.
There will be two bedrooms upstairs, each approximately 11’ X 12’ (appx.
264 sq. ft.) with 2 beds per bedroom. There will also be a common area
upstairs of approximately 588 sq. feet which will have 6 beds and 6
dressers to accommodate 6 residents. A bathroom for the residents will
be located upstairs. In addition to meeting rooms for the Under Grace
Ministries life skill training program, there will be two bedrooms
downstairs. One will be for the house manager and the second one will
be ADA compliant, but will be used as an office unless a physically
disabled resident is accepted into the facility.
The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Bus Route #17 (Mabelvale –
Downtown Route) runs along I-630 to the north, and Bus Route #3
(Baptist Medical Center Route) runs along West 12th Street to the south.
The applicant has noted that no Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood
could be located at the County Courthouse.
Section 36-54(e)(4) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides the following
provisions for Group Home Facilities, as adopted by the Board of Directors
on September 6, 2005:
1. family care facility, group care facility, group home,
parolee or probationer housing facility, rooming,
lodging and boarding facility.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8177-A
3
(a) Separation, spacing and procedural requirements for family
care facilities, group care facilities, group homes, parolee or probationer
housing facilities and rooming, lodging and boarding facilities will be
determined by the planning commission so as not to adversely impact the
surrounding properties and neighborhood. Unless the commission
determines that a different area is more appropriate, a neighborhood shall
be defined as an area incorporating all properties lying within one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of the site for which the permit is
requested.
(b) There shall be a presumption that a special use permit for a
group home of 5, 6, 7, or 8 handicapped persons will be granted if all
ordinance requirements are met, except that individuals whose tenancy
would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals
of whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the
property of others shall not be allowed in such a home.
(c) Issues that the planning commission will consider during its
review of a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee or
probationer housing facility, or rooming, lodging and boarding facility
include, but are not limited to:
1. Spacing of existing similar facilities.
2. Existing zoning and land use patterns.
3. The maximum number of individuals proposed to be served,
the number of employees proposed and the type of services
being proposed.
4. The need and provision for readily accessible public or
quasi-public transportation.
5. Access to needed support services such as social services
agencies, employment agencies and medical service
providers.
6. Availability of adequate on-site parking.
(d) The fire marshal must approve the use of any structure
proposed as a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee
or probation housing facility or rooming, lodging and boarding facility.
(e) Family care facilities, group care facilities, group homes and
parole or probation housing facilities shall be operated within any and all
applicable licensing and procedural requirements established by the State
of Arkansas.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8177-A
4
According to an area survey, there are two (2) other similar residential
facilities within 1,500 feet of the property. There are forty-four (44)
available beds within these facilities. These facilities are as follows:
1. Group Home – 4017 West 12th Street
Residential facility for up to 12 women recovering from substance
abuse.
2. Black Community Developers/Hoover UMC Center for drug and
alcohol addiction – 4000 West 13th Street
Residential treatment facility for up to 32 residents.
There are also several other public/institutional type uses in the area
within 1,500 feet of the property.
Section 8-406(a) of the City’s Buildings and Building Regulations
Ordinance (minimum area per dwelling unit) requires 150 square feet for
the first occupant and 100 square feet for each additional occupant.
Therefore, the minimum area for a residence occupied by 11 persons is
1,150 square feet. As noted earlier the residential structure contains
2,902 square feet.
Section 8-406(b) (minimum area per bedroom) requires 70 square feet for
the first occupant and 50 square feet for each additional occupant. The
bedroom arrangement as proposed will conform to ordinance standards.
Staff is not supportive of the requested special use permit to allow a
parolee housing facility at 805 Lewis Street. Based on the survey, which
staff conducted of the area within 1,500 feet of the site, staff feels that the
two (2) other similar residential living facilities, in conjunction with the other
public/institutional uses in the area, are more than adequate number for
the defined neighborhood area. The two (2) facilities represent a
maximum of 44 transitional residents within the neighborhood. Staff feels
the applicant should seek another location for the proposed parolee
housing facility, in a neighborhood area, which contains a smaller number
of similar transitional residential facilities.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
Randy Frazier and Paul Chapman were present, representing the
application. Staff briefly described the proposed parolee housing facility.
Staff noted that some additional information was needed regarding the
size of the residential structure and the individual bedrooms. In response
to a question from staff, Mr. Frazier noted that no Bill of Assurance could
be located at the County Courthouse. Mr. Chapman explained that the
on-site staff was experienced.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8177-A
5
The issue of notification was briefly discussed. Staff informed the
Committee of the neighborhood associations notified.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested special use permit to operate a
parolee housing facility at 805 Lewis Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be
deferred to the July 19, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position, the Commission
voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five
(5) working days prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 19, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-8225
NAME: Hubbard Day Care Family Home –
Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 6724 Carolina Drive
OWNER: Derrick and Myia Hubbard
APPLICANT: Myia Hubbard
PROPOSAL: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day
Care Family Home to be operated in the single
family residence located on the R-2 zoned
property at 6724 Carolina Drive.
A. Public Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Wright Avenue, Central
High and Downtown Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
B. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
C. Staff Analysis:
6724 Carolina Drive is located on the west side of Carolina Drive, south of
West 65th Street. The properties to the north, south and east are zoned
R-2 and contain single family residences. There is PR zoned property
(Hindman Park) immediately to the west.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure, and is
typical of those in the general area. The rear yard is fenced and provides
a safe play area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from
6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted
that she will have no employees. Her mother fills in for her if needed.
There is a one-car driveway from Carolina Drive, which widens to a two-
car width. There is parking for five (5) vehicles including the carport. Staff
feels that this will allow sufficient space for drop-off and pick-up of
children. On inspection of the site, staff observed no vehicles parked on
unpaved areas. Staff also observed no vehicles on the site, which were
not operational.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8225
2
The applicant is currently providing care for five (5) children at this
location. The applicant is in the process of being licensed by the State for
up to ten (10) children.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No
signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood,
which was recorded in 1965 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of
Assurance contains the following language:
“(1). No lot shall be used except for residential purposes.
No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to
remain on any lot other one single-family dwelling not to
exceed two stories in height and a private garage for not
more than two cars.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes
the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
Day care family home:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver and which is the full time residence of the care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State
of Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day
care centers are not allowed by right.
f. After the effective date of this subsection, no Special Use Permit will
be approved for a day care family proposed to be located within 300
feet of a licensed day care center or an operating day care family
home for which a Special Use Permit has previously been approved.
For the purposes of this subsection, the distance between properties
shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening
structures or objects, from property line to property line.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8225
3
g. All day care family homes located in the City of Little Rock are required
to obtain a City of Little Rock business license and to pay an annual
business tax as specified in Chapter 17. of the Code.
h. A copy of the day care family home’s current State of Arkansas license
must be submitted to the City Collector’s Office each year at the time
of payment of the annual business tax.
i. All vehicles must be parked on an on-site paved surface.
j. All vehicles located on the site must be operational.
k. All pick-up and drop-off of children shall be on the property’s driveway
and not on the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
l. Special Use Permits for day care family homes shall be reviewed by
staff every three (3) years for compliance with the development criteria
and Planning Commission approval.
m. The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed
day care family home.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot
be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this
location will have no adverse impact on the general area. Based on
information provided by the State, there are no permitted/licensed day
care family homes or day care centers within 300 feet of the site.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
Myia Hubbard was present, representing the application. Staff presented
the proposed special use permit request. Staff noted that inspection of the
site revealed no violation of the ordinance requirements for day care
family homes. Staff noted that the applicant is currently caring for up to
five (5) children at this location. Staff also explained that this property is
not located within 300 feet of another day care family home or day care
center.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mrs. Hubbard noted that
there will be no therapist or other employee associated with the day care
family home.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8225
4
The issue of notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood
associations was briefly discussed. Staff noted that as of this date no
comments from the neighborhood had been received.
There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for final action.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care
family home at 6724 Carolina Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria in Section 36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to
day-light hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be
deferred to the July 19, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position, the Commission
voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request being less than five
(5) working days prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 19, 2007 Agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-3592-L
Owner: Dr. Pat Walker
Applicant: Jack Castin
Location: West side of Centerview Drive, 400 feet north
of Peach Tree Drive
Area: 0.882 Acre
Request: Rezone from OS to O-3
Purpose: Future office development
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property; zoned O-3
South – Undeveloped property and single family residences;
zoned OS and R-2
East – Undeveloped property (across Centerview Drive); zoned O-2
West – Undeveloped property and an office facility; zoned OS and O-1
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Bus Route #3 (Baptist
Medical Center route) runs along Executive Center Drive to the north.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Sandpiper Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Suburban Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from OS Open Space to O-3 General Office District.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3592-L
2
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
Centerview 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. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan:
Existing or proposed Class I, II or III Bikeways are not in the immediate
vicinity of the development.
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.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Dr. Pat Walker, owner of the 0.882 acre property located along the west
side of Centerview Drive (400 feet north of Peachtree Drive), is requesting
to rezone the property from “OS” Open Space District to “O-3” General
Office District. The property represents a 50-foot wide strip running
approximately 770 feet along the south side of Lots 1R-A and 1R-B,
Westrock Office Addition (zoned O-3). The 50-foot OS strip is part of an
OS strip having an overall width of 200 feet. The 200-foot wide strip was
zoned OS in 1985, as part of an overall zoning of approximately 107 acres
north of the Sandpiper Addition. The current rezoning is proposed in order
to incorporate the 50-foot wide strip into the adjacent office zoned lots to
the north for future development. The 50-foot wide strip is currently
undeveloped and wooded.
The property immediately north is undeveloped and zoned O-3. Additional
undeveloped OS zoned property and the Sandpiper Subdivision (zoned
R-2) is located to the south. Undeveloped O-2 zoned property is located
to the east across Centerview Drive, with office developments to the
northeast. There is additional OS zoned property and an office
development to the west.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as “Suburban
Office”. The requested O-3 zoning does not require an amendment to the
Land Use Plan.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3592-L
3
Staff is supportive of the requested zoning. Staff views the requested
rezoning as reasonable. The overall OS zoned buffer strip immediately
north of the Sandpiper residential development has a width of 200 feet.
The proposal is to rezone just the north 50 feet of the overall width to O-3,
to be incorporated into the office zoned lots immediately to the north.
Therefore, the remaining OS zoned buffer strip immediately north of the
residential area will be 150 feet wide. This will continue to represent an
OS buffer strip substantially wider than the 50-foot wide undisturbed buffer
strip as typically approved. Staff believes the rezoning of the north 50 feet
of the overall 200-foot wide OS strip will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested O-3 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the application with a recommendation of approval.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The
application was approved.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8226
Owner: Naomi Swift
Applicant: Naomi Swift
Location: Southwest corner of East 39th Street and
Jones Street (College Station)
Area: 0.083 Acre
Request: Rezone from R-3 to R-7A
Purpose: Single-wide manufactured home
Existing Use: Single-wide manufactured home
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Single family residences; zoned R-2
South – Single-wide manufactured home and an office building;
zoned R-2
East – Single family residences; zoned R-2
West – Single family residences; zoned R-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. East 39th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential
street. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be
required.
2. Jones Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential
street. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be
required.
3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of East 39th and Jones Street.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Bus Route #20 (College
Station Route) runs along Frazier Pike to the south.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8226
2
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the College Station
Progressive League were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Sweet Home College Station Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-3 Single Family to R-7A
Manufactured Home District.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
East 39th Street and Jones Street are shown as 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 property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Naomi Swift, owner of the lot at the southwest corner of East 39th and Jones
Streets, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-3” Single Family
District to “R-7A” Manufactured Home District. The property owner is
proposing placement of a single-wide manufactured home (80.3’ x 15.9’) on
the property. The home is a 2006 model and was recently placed on the
property. The lot is relatively small, at 36 feet by 100 feet. The structure is
located approximately 18 feet (25 feet minimum required) from the front
(north) property line, approximately two (2) feet (25 feet minimum required)
from the rear (south) property line, three (3) feet (5 feet minimum required)
from the west side property line and 16.7 feet from the east side property
line (5 feet minimum required). Setback variances are requested with this
application. A manufactured home (single-wide) previously existed on the
site and was removed for the new home placement.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8226
3
Single family residential structures are located north, east and west of the
property. There is a single-wide manufactured home to the south, with an
office building and elementary school further south. There are a number of
other manufactured homes in the general area. The area is located outside
the Little Rock city limits, but within the City’s Extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The City’s Future Land Use Plans designates this property as Single Family.
The requested R-7A zoning does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
The R-7A Zone District is a site plan review district. The following are the
siting criteria for manufactured homes in the R-7A District as per Section 36-
262(d)(2) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance:
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or
greater.
b. Removal of all transport features.
c. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood.
e. Underpinning with permanent materials.
f. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures.
g. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards.
On May 23, 2007 the applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff, which
addresses issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised plan moves the home forward (north) slightly, providing a six (6) foot
rear (south) yard which allows a small porch/step structure without
encroaching onto the property to the south. The revised plan also shows
the tongue of the structure being removed, parking for one (1) vehicle, and a
porch/step structure on front (north) of the home. The required right-of-way
dedication has also been shown on the plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested R-7A rezoning. Staff views the request
as reasonable. As noted above, there are a number of other manufactured
homes in this residential area of College Station. Most of these
manufactured homes are nonconforming and have existed as part of the
neighborhood for a number of years. Therefore, the placement of the
manufactured home at the southwest corner of West 39th and Jones Streets
is not out of character with the neighborhood. To staff’s knowledge the
proposed manufactured home will comply with the siting criteria found in
Section 36-262(d)(2) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes the
requested R-7A zoning will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8226
4
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
Naomi Swift was present, representing the application. Staff described
the proposed rezoning and placement of a single-wide manufactured
home. Staff explained that the manufactured home needed to be moved
forward (north) on the lot in order to have sufficient space at the rear of the
structure for a porch/step addition without encroaching onto the adjacent
property to the south. The siting of the structure was briefly discussed.
In response to a question from staff, Ms. Swift noted that the new
manufactured home replaces an old single wide manufactured home,
which was removed from the property.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full
Commission for resolution.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7A rezoning, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the siting criteria as per Section 36-262(d)(2) of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2. The manufactured home must be moved forward on the lot, as per the
revised site plan, within 60 days of final approval.
3. Compliance with the Public Works Comments as noted in paragraph A.
of the staff report.
4. Staff also recommends approval of the requested setback variances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the application with a recommendation of approval.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The
application was approved.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8227
Owner: George Hirrill
Applicant: George Hirrill
Location: 12601 Interstate 30
Area: 2.84 Acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 to I-1
Purpose: Future development
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property and a church development; zoned R-2
South – Undeveloped property; zoned I-2
East – Industrial development; zoned R-2
West – Creek, undeveloped property and mixed commercial uses;
zoned R-2, C-4 and PCD
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. At the time of construction, driveway locations and widths must meet
the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and
31-210. The lots must share a single driveway access centered on the
property line.
2. It appears a portion of the property could be in the floodplain. Provide
the floodplain and floodway delineations on the plan.
3. If the property is shown to be in the floodplain, at the time of
construction, the minimum finish floor elevation of the proposed
structure(s) must be constructed to 1 foot or greater above the base
flood elevation.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8227
2
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the SWLR United for Progress
and Alexander Road Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for
a rezoning from R-2 Single Family to I-1 Industrial Park District.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
Frontage Road 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. Local Streets which area abutted by non-residential
zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as
“Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector.
Bicycle Plan:
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 Chicot West I-30
South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Plan’s Economic Development
Goal states: “Attract more light industrial uses to the area.”
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
George Hirrill, owner of the 2.84 acre property at 12601 Interstate 30, is
requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family District to “I-1”
Industrial Park District. The rezoning is proposed for future light industrial
development.
The 2.84 acre property is currently undeveloped and partially wooded.
There is a driveway from the I-30 service road, which serves as access.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8227
3
The front portion of the property is partially paved and contains two (2) small
temporary buildings, which are fairly old structures.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There is
undeveloped property to the north, across I-30, which is owned by an
adjacent church development. There is a mixture of commercial and
industrial uses to the east and west, along I-30. There is undeveloped I-2
zoned property to the south.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as “Light
Industrial”. The requested I-1 zoning does not require an amendment to the
Land Use Plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested zoning. Staff views the requested
rezoning as reasonable. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates the
property as “Light Industrial”. Additionally, there is existing I-2 zoning
immediately to the south and a large industrial facility to the east.
Therefore, the proposed I-1 zoning will be continuance of the light industrial
use pattern along the south side of Interstate 30. Staff believes rezoning
this property to I-1 will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
the general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-1 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the application with a recommendation of approval.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstention
(Laha). The application was approved.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
NAME: Chenal Valley Church of Christ –
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 16025 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chenal Valley Church of Christ/Scott Richburg
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
remodeling of the day care facility, addition of office
space and updating of future phased development of
the existing church located on the R-2 zoned 5.4 acre
tract. A deferral of street improvements is requested.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The church is located at the southeast corner of Taylor Loop Road and
Carter Lane.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The church has been located at this site for many years. Prior to that,
another church occupied the site. The church is not proposing to expand
its land area. The proposed development was previously approved in
1994 and the church is proposing a modification to the previously
approved phasing plan. Doing so will not affect the church’s continued
compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Westchester-
Heatherbrae Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The existing sanctuary seating capacity is 380 persons, requiring 95
parking spaces. There are 143 spaces on the site. Additional parking will
be added in two phases with an ultimate total of 263 spaces. The final
seating capacity in the sanctuary is proposed to be 705 persons, requiring
176 spaces. The day school was previously approved to have an
enrollment of 125 students. There is sufficient parking on the site to
accommodate the uses.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
2
The zoning buffer ordinance requires a thirty-seven (37’) foot wide land
use buffer along the northeastern perimeter of the site next to the
residentially zoned property. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to
remain undisturbed. A note on the site plan reflects the addition of
another row of 90 degree parking. This additional row must remain out of
this buffer area.
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8 % of the paved areas
be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 300
square feet in area. Proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along
the northern and the eastern perimeters of the site and/or next to any
residentially zoned property. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can
be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
All existing required on-site vegetation to meet all minimal city ordinance
requirements. Therefore, all missing, diseased, or dead vegetation to be
replaced per minimum ordinance standards.
Any/all fencing or dumpster enclosures to be in good repair or be
replaced/refurbished per the minimal ordinance requirements.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan must be
approved and must obtain the seal of a licensed Landscape Architect.
An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas is required.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that Carter Street for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
3
3. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Taylor
Loop Road including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Two
previous deferrals have been granted to the Church for improving
Taylor Loop Road. The cost of the improvements to Taylor Loop Road
cannot only be compared to this addition. The cost should be
compared to existing site improvements and proposed site
improvements. Staff does not recommend deferral of half street
improvements to Taylor Loop Road. Taylor Loop Road is already
being improved just east of this site on the east side of Gooch Lane.
4. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plan. Based on inspection of
the site, the detention structure does not appear to function properly. It
appears the detention structure is upstream of the parking lot and no
water gets in the pond.
5. Verify sufficient detention provided for the existing site and new
additions.
6. Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the LR code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must be
installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic
Engineering at 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
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) 379-1805 (Travis
Herbner).
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants will be required on the south side.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
4
Planning Division: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding signage, fencing, building heights, site
lighting, days and hours of uses on the site and dumpster location. Staff asked
the applicant to provide information on the enrollment for the day school. Staff
also asked the applicant to specify the use of the relocated modular building.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were presented and discussed.
Much of the discussion centered on the church’s request for an additional 5-year
deferral of the street improvements to Taylor Loop Road. Staff noted the church
had received two prior deferrals and staff did not support an additional deferral.
In response to a question, the applicants stated the church had made no
preparations for doing the street work. The applicants stated the current
construction project was valued at $400,000.00 and the estimated street
improvement cost was $100,000.00. Staff stated the improvements were
required whether there was a current project or not since the previous five-year
deferral had come due. The applicants were advised to meet with staff.
The applicants were advised to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Chenal Valley Church of Christ occupies the 5.4 ± acre tract located at 16025
Taylor Loop Road. In 1994, the Commission approved a multiphased
development plan to allow for expansion of the church buildings and parking.
What was previously identified as the Phase I sanctuary and education building,
the Phase IV Family Life Center building and parking through Phase II have been
constructed. What was the original building on the site was converted for use by
the day school. An existing modular building has continued to be used as office
space. Required street improvements to Carter Lane and Taylor Loop Road
were deferred for five (5) years. In 1998, the previous Planning Director
approved the permit for construction of the Family Life Center building with street
improvements to Carter Lane only. He stated no more building permits are to be
issued for the site until Taylor Loop Road improvements are constructed. Carter
Lane has been built. No improvement have been made to Taylor Loop Road.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
5
The church is now requesting a revision to the C.U.P. to update the phasing plan
to reflect the buildings which have already been constructed and to better
represent the sequence in which the site is anticipated to be developed. As part
of this revision, an additional deferral of the required half-street improvements to
Taylor Loop Road is requested for a period of five (5) more years.
The church has submitted the following phasing and parking plan:
PROJECT PHASING
PHASE I Existing Sanctuary 7,000 s.f.
Existing Education Space 6,500 s.f.
Maximum Height = 42’
PHASE II Existing Family Life Center – 10,500 s.f.
Maximum Height = 28’
PHASE III Existing Dayschool – 4,550 s.f.
Proposed Office Addition – 650 s.f.
Maximum Height = 22’ – 4”
PHASE IV Proposed Education Space 3, 460 s.f.
Maximum Height = 27’ – 4”
PHASE V Proposed Education Space 3, 900 s.f.
Maximum Height = 27’ – 4”
PHASE VI Proposed Sanctuary Expansion 3,000 s.f.
(Interior Expansion)
Proposed Education Space 10,500 s.f.
Maximum Height – 27’ – 4”
PARKING
Existing Parking = 143 spaces
Existing HC Parking = 4 spaces
Sanctuary Capacity = 380 people
Seats per Parking Space = 2.7
HC Parking Added in Phase III = 2 spaces
Total Parking after Phase III = 142 spaces
Seats per Parking Space After Phase III = 2.7
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
6
Parking to be added @ PH. VI = 121 spaces
Total Parking Spaces after PH. VI = 263 spaces
Total Sanctuary Capacity after PH. VI = 705
Seats per Parking Space after PH. VI = 2.7
INFORMATION
Hours of Operation: Church: All Day Sunday, Wednesday until 10PM
Family Life Center: Sun.-Sat. 7AM – 12AM
Day School: Monday through Friday 7AM – 6PM
Maximum Dayschool Enrollment: 50 children
Number of Dayschool Employees: 11
The applicant submitted additional responses to the issues raised at Subdivision
Committee. Signage will consist of a single, 12-foot wide by 6-foot tall monument
style ground sign and building signage. Fencing and landscaping are shown as
required. Screening will be installed along the perimeters where adjacent to
residential properties. The dumpster and screening are now shown behind the
building. The existing modular building is to be relocated to the rear portion of the
site in Phase III and will be used as storage until completion of Phase VI; at
which time, it will be removed from the site. All proposed site lighting will be
shielded downward and into the site. There is no bill of assurance for this
acreage tract.
Staff is supportive of the proposed revisions to the C.U.P. There is, to staff’s
knowledge, only one outstanding issue. The church has requested, and staff is
not supportive of, an additional five (5) year deferral of the required half-street
improvements to Taylor Loop Road. Staff believes the improvements are
overdue and should be installed at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested revision to the C.U.P. subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of
the agenda staff report.
Staff recommends denial of the requested five (5) year deferral of half-street
improvements to Taylor Loop Road.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5659-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the Church had withdrawn the requested deferral of
half-street improvements to Taylor Loop Road. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the comments and
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6240-B
NAME: D1 Sports Training – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: #10 Viewpointe Cove
OWNER/APPLICANT: Pfeifer and Hathaway/Barger
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow
construction of a sports training and physical therapy
clinic on this O-3 zoned, 4.0 acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the west side of Viewpointe Cove, one lot north
of Cantrell Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located within an office/institutional node that has developed at
the intersection of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck. Most of the surrounding
properties are occupied by office type uses. The R-2 zoned property to
the west contains a cemetery. Undeveloped, wooded property is adjacent
to the north, between this site and the homes above on Southridge. The
proposed use is not incompatible with uses in the area.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Piedmont and
Walton Heights Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via a single driveway off of Viewpointe Cove
which will be extended beyond its current terminus. A total of 40 parking
spaces will be provided. An average of 15 persons at a time will be
attending this specialty sports fitness facility. On occasion, up to 30
persons will be at the facility, if a whole sports team comes in as a group.
There is additional space on the site to accommodate more parking, if it is
determined it is needed.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
This proposal appears to reflect the twenty-five foot (25’) landscape area
around the sites perimeter per the Highway 10 district standards.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6240-B
2
Areas set aside for buffer and landscaping appear to meet with the
landscape ordinance and the Highway 10 district standards.
An automatic irrigation system to water newly landscaped areas will be
required.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
northern and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around requirement.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan must be approved
and must obtain the seal of a licensed Landscape Architect.
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
Both the City Beautiful Commission and the City of Little Rock commend you
for the preserving of many on-site existing trees.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. In a letter dated August 19, 2005, Jim Hathaway, representing the
applicant, requested the sidewalk along Cantrell Road be deferred for
two (2) years or until platting of the next lot which ever occurred first.
Staff was acceptable of the deferral request. Since this application is
for development of the second lot, at time of construction, sidewalk
with handicap ramps will be required to be installed along Cantrell
Road.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. If
detention has already been provided, verify the capacity including the
proposed development.
4. At the time of development, repair or replace any curb and gutter or
sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6240-B
3
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: A water main extension will be required in order to provide 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 water facilities.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant will be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding building design and height, building setbacks,
signage, fencing, site lighting and days and hours of operation. The applicant
was asked to provide information on the typical number of clients and employees
that would be at the facility at any one time.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were noted and discussed.
Public Works staff noted that platting of this lot would trigger construction of a
sidewalk on the Cantrell Road frontage of adjacent Lot 1 which had previously
been deferred. The applicant stated he would make the developers of the
Subdivision aware of that comment.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
D1 Sports Training proposes to construct a specialty sports fitness facility on the
O-3 zoned, 4 acre tract located at #10 Viewpointe Cove. The site is currently
undeveloped. The southern portion of the site was cleared and leveled
previously. The northern portion of the site is heavily wooded and slopes up from
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6240-B
4
the south to the north. The proposed development is to be located on the
southern portion of the tract. D1 Sports Training focuses on speed, strength and
agility training for athletes. D1 previously prepares inter-scholastic athletes to
participate in Division 1 College Sports. The company also trains those same
athletes to play at the professional level. D1 facilities are not designed to be the
typical fitness facility. Members must schedule specific times for training.
The proposed development consists of an 18,000 square foot building and a
40-space parking lot. The building will be constructed with a colored metal siding
and roof. The building will have an eave height of 25± feet and a ridge height of
35 feet. The building will contain a small indoor turf football field, fitness
machines, a therapy room, locker rooms and offices. Days and hours of
operation are proposed as 6:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 8:00
a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Saturday; and closed on Sundays. On the average, 15 clients
will be at the facility at one time. On occasion, up to 30 clients will be at the
facility if an entire sports team comes as a group.
The applicant submitted responses to issues raised at Subdivision Committee
and has agreed to comply with all comments. Signage consists of a wall sign on
the front wall and a single ground-mounted sign, which will comply with office
district standards (6’ in height and 64 square foot in area). Screening has been
shown and landscaping will comply with the Highway 10 Overlay District
Standards. There is no bill of assurance issue since this subdivision is now
being final platted and any bill of assurance will accommodate the use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
comments and conditions as outlined in Sections 4, 5, 6 and the Staff Analysis of
the agenda Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-8214
NAME: Jefferson Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3200 and 3208 Gilman Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Gail Lambert/Lanell Jefferson
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow
conversion of these two residential structures into
a day care center. The properties are zoned R-3.
STAFF REPORT:
On May 24, 2007, the applicant contacted staff and requested deferral of the item
to allow more time to address issues raised at the May 17, 2007 Subdivision
Committee meeting. Staff recommends deferral to the July 19, 2007
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of deferral. There was no additional discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved for deferral to the
July 19, 2007 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-8216
NAME: The L.C. and Daisy Bates Museum – Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 1207 West 28th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Christian Ministerial Alliance/Kwendeche
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use
of the existing residential structure as a circa 1957
museum. The property is zoned R-3.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of West 28th Street, between
Cross Street and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a single family neighborhood. The homes
immediately around this site are well maintained and in good condition.
Other uses in the larger neighborhood around the site include a church,
apartments and the LRSD Ish Instructional Resource Center. Some of the
homes in the general area are in poorer condition; including some that are
vacant and boarded. In so much as the proposal is to, in all ways,
maintain the single family character of the property, staff believes the
proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the MLK, South End
and South End Developers Neighborhood Associations were notified of
this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has a double-wide driveway and carport. No changes are
proposed to the parking. It is anticipated that small groups will tour the
facility on an appointment basis. Some groups will arrive via shuttle.
Others may park on the street. West 28th Street has 37 feet of pavement
which will comfortably allow on-street parking.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments on this use-only issue.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8216
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments on this use-only issue.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Existing 18” sewer main located under structure. Sewer
available to this property.
Entergy: No Comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No Comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. ¾-inch is the largest meter available off the
existing water main.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located near two CATA bus routes. One route extends
along Martin Luther King Drive and the second route extends along
West 28th Street, east of Ringo Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff informed the Committee that there were no
outstanding issues. Staff explained that the goal was to restore the residence to
circa 1957 condition which meant no parking would be provided on site. The
applicant commented that groups of no more than 9 persons at a time would be
touring the facility, by appointment. He stated the plan had been approved by
the National Park Service.
There was no further discussion. The Committee forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The L.C. & Daisy Bates Museum is located at 1207 West 28th Street. In 2001,
the house was designated a National Historic Landmark (listed as the "Daisy
Bates House") which is owned by the Christian Ministerial Alliance. The Owners
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8216
3
have established the L.C. & Daisy Bates Museum Foundation, Inc. a non-profit
501 (c) (3) organization to manage and operate the house.
The Foundation intends to restore the house (interior and exterior) as it appeared
during the period of historical significance - 1957. The intent is to replicate the
furniture, accessories, appliances, artwork, and the overall decor to that period.
The specific infrastructural requirements (electric, plumbing, heating / air
conditioning) shall be inspected and upgraded to accommodate an active living
environment. The use of the house as a museum shall also include a normal
residential living condition for a live-in caretaker and periodic overnight visits by
guests. On certain occasions, media events, holiday recognitions, receptions
may occur in the back yard of the house with catered services, prepared, off-site.
No changes or enhancements to the kitchen or its equipment are intended.
The house is intended to remain open to the public (year round) from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. each day of the week. Due to the delicate mix of furniture and
accessories and the resulting concerns of providing a meaningful tour of the
house, the Foundation intends to limit the numbers of guests who may enter into
the house at any time to a maximum of nine (9).
The kitchen door shall act as the means for handicap accessibility to the ground
floor of the house. A portable ramp shall be provided to allow wheelchair and
walking disabled guests to enter into the house. While not in use, the portable
ramp shall be stored in the basement crawl space. Accessibility to the basement
shall be from a hard surfaced walkway (no railing) on the west side of the house
connecting the concrete driveway. The specific type and route of "hard surfaced
walkway" must be determined upon consultation with the National Park Service.
The Foundation has established a relationship with an offsite facility (close to the
house) for the toiletry needs of wheelchair bound guests.
On the exterior, new roofing shingles shall be installed; a new working gas
lantern in the front yard shall be installed; a segment of the concrete drive shall
be replaced; the green outdoor carpet shall be removed; a segment of the
missing carport railing shall be replaced; general landscaping (shrubs and lawn)
improvements shall occur; and two (2) metal windows shall be replaced. All
exposed wood shall be refinished. In the interior, no changes shall occur to the
partitions and doors. The existing hardwood floors shall be refinished and all
gypsum board surfaces shall be repaired / refinished where uneven or damaged
by rainwater leaking. No new additions, fencing, and other physical structures
shall be included in the overall work to restore the house. No external
freestanding or wall mounted signage of any type / size is intended for the
museum.
In order to maintain originality of the overall site, no off-street parking shall be
requested as a variance to the conditional use of this property.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8216
4
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. Staff is supportive of this
proposal to recognize this historically significant site. The 1905 bill of assurance
does not address use issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P., as filed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-8219
NAME: Scholastic Academy Pre-School – Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 415 East 17th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jonell, LLC/Chris and Shacona Jones
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a pre-school facility on this R-4 zoned
property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of East 17th Street, between
Rock and Commerce Streets.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in the predominately single family neighborhood
that was impacted by the 1999 tornado. Many of the lots were cleared
and remain undeveloped. Other properties in the area are occupied by
single family residences. Some of the residential structures have been left
vacant and have been vandalized. Other uses in the area include three
churches located to the south of the site and a special needs multifamily
development located two blocks to the north. There has been a recent
renaissance of residential construction in this area. New homes have
been constructed on several of the lots around this site. Staff believes it is
important to encourage new residential development in the area and is
concerned that this nonresidential use could hamper that effort. The day
care center would be better located in an area outside of or on the fringe
of the residential neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown, MacArthur Park
and Pettaway Park – East of Broadway Neighborhood Associations were
notified.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The day care is proposed to have a maximum enrollment of 50 students
with 5 employees, requiring 10 on-site parking spaces. The applicant
proposes to construct 12 parking spaces and a separate drop-off/pickup
drive; both taking access via a one way driveway off of 17th Street. The
parking and driveways are sufficient for the proposed use.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8219
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average eighteen foot (18) street
buffer along Rock Street and in no case less than half. The current
proposal reflects parking within this area; please revise.
The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot 9 inch wide land use buffer
along the southern perimeter of the property next to the residentially
zoned property. Seventy percent of this area is to remain undisturbed.
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 perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned property.
Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees
and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement.
All newly landscaped areas must include a water source within seventy-
five foot.
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8% of the paved areas
be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150
square feet in area. Proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Rock Street and 17th Street and 17th Street and
Commerce Street.
2. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of
driveway must not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. Staff will support
driveway spacing for one-way driveways only, as indicated.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Existing 6” sewer main located in alley. Sewer available to
this property.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8219
3
Entergy: No Comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No Comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: A fire hydrant may be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: A CATA bus route is located along Rock Street, west of this site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding building design and height, days and hours of
operation, student enrollment and employee numbers, fencing, signage, site
lighting and dumpster location. Staff noted the design criteria of the Central City
Redevelopment Corridor Design Overlay District and stated there would likely be
variances requested from those standards.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were noted and discussed.
Public Works Staff stated they would review the driveway locations based on the
one-way traffic movement on the site.
In response to a question, the applicants stated they currently operated a facility
at 200 East 13th Street and this proposed facility would be for children ages 2-5.
The applicants were instructed to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a preschool
center on the R-4 zoned lots located at 415 East 17th Street. The property is
comprised of three (3) lots. Currently, five (5) residential structures are located
on the property. Four (4) of the five (5) are vacant and boarded. The applicants
propose to remove the structures and build in their place a one-story, 60’ X 100’
building and associated driveways and parking.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8219
4
The preschool center is proposed to have an enrollment of 50, 2-5 year olds with
5 employees. Days and hours of operation are proposed as Monday through
Friday, 6:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. A play area will be located on the west side of the
building. The building will be one story in height and will have an exterior finish
of brick and siding that resembles wood and is compatible with the homes in the
area. The building will have a metal flat panel roof with a 4:12 pitch. A 6-foot tall
privacy fence will be installed along the southern perimeter of the site. Site
lighting will consist of down lighting at the building corners and a single pole light
in the parking lot.
Access to the site will be via a one way driveway off of 17th Street. The driveway
splits to access a 12 space parking lot on the west side of the property and a
drop-off/pickup drive in front of the building. The drop-off driveway extends
under a canopy that extends out from the building toward 17th Street.
The applicant submitted responses to most issues raised at Subdivision
Committee. There is no bill of assurance for this Original City of Little Rock
property. Signage has not been specified. If approved, signage should be
limited to that allowed in office-institutional zones. The dumpster location has
been shown. Screening of the dumpster must comply with ordinance
requirements. The applicants are currently operating a facility at 200 East 13th
Street. That facility will be converted to infants-only and this facility will focus on
children ages 2 – 5.
The site is located within the Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design
Overlay District and new development must comply with the following criteria:
(1) Roofline. A roof pitch of less than 4:12 shall be prohibited.
(2) Materials. The materials of the exterior shell shall be wood, brick or a
material that resembles wood.
(3) Orientation. The orientation shall be consistent with that of other
structures on the developed block face.
(4) Entrances. The primary entrance shall be consistent with that of other
structures on the developed block face.
(5) Parking. Parking shall be prohibited in the front yard setback.
(6) Nonresidential setbacks. Nonresidential new construction shall be
sited at the front property line of the block face.
Due to the number of vacant lots immediately around the site, it is difficult to
determine exactly what orientation best matches other structures. A variance will
be required to allow the parking in the front yard setback adjacent to Rock Street.
Staff has concerns about siting this nonresidential use at this location. The
neighborhood, which was devastated by the 1999 tornado, has experienced a
modest resurgence in new residential construction. New single family homes are
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8219
5
being built by private investors and the CDC. Staff feels the proposed business
could negatively impact those redevelopment efforts. The day care center would
be better located outside of or on the fringe of the residential neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicants were present. There were several supporters and one objector
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
One of the applicants, Shacona Jones, addressed the Commission. She stated
they had been in business for three years and had recently been licensed by the
State as an ABC School. She stated her teachers were all certified and all had at
least an Associate Degree or higher. Ms. Jones stated she had spoken with a
specialist who told her that the proposed pre-school would not diminish property
values in the area. She stated their investment in the property would be about
$500,000. Ms. Jones stated the building would be 100% brick. She cited several
area businesses and area citizens who supported the proposal. Ms. Jones
presented a petition and letters of support. She concluded by stating they were
investing in the neighborhood and in early childhood education.
The other applicant, Chris Jones, addressed the Commission. He stated the
building would be 100% brick and would have an 8:12 pitched, shingled roof.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition. She stated the
proposed commercial use was not appropriate for location in the residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Fred Allen stated he was familiar with the site. He stated the
proposed pre-school was preferable to the existing conditions on the site.
Commissioner Adcock stated she would support the application since it was for a
pre-school, not a day care center.
Manta Steele, of 8 Rocky Crest Court, spoke in support of the application.
Chris Jones read from a letter of support from the Pettaway Park Neighborhood
Association.
In response to a question from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Jones stated the facility
was not focusing on providing after-school care and was not a “baby-sitting”
facility. Commissioner Taylor told Mr. Jones he would have to come back to the
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8219
6
Commission at a later date if he wanted to add after-school care. Commissioner
Allen stated they could add that at this time and not have to come back at a later
date.
In response to a question from Commissioner Yates, Mr. Jones stated they had
chosen this site because they wanted to stay in the neighborhood and because
the ABC status allows children below the poverty level to attend at no cost.
There was then a discussion of the nature of conditional use permits. Staff
stated the C.U.P would go with the property unless there was a condition
attached which limited it to a specific person or business.
A motion was made to approve the application subject to all staff comments and
conditions, less the recommendation of denial. Staff asked the applicants to
clarify amendments they had made in their presentation. Mr. Jones stated the
building would be 100% brick and that it would have an 8:12 pitched, shingled
roof. The vote on the motion was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-8220
NAME: Kane Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1701 N. Spruce Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Max and Rebecca Kane/Carolyn Lindsey
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory dwelling (guesthouse)
on this R-2 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of N. Spruce Street, north of
Crestwood.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area of larger single family homes on R-2
zoned lots. Many of the properties in the area have larger accessory
structures, some of which are two-stories. In so much as the purpose of
the accessory dwelling is to serve as a guesthouse for friends and family
visiting the homeowners, the proposed use should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Heights,
Hillcrest, Prospect Terrace and Forest Park Neighborhood Associations
were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
One on-site parking space is required for each unit. The accessory
structure will contain a ground floor two-car garage. There is room for
several additional vehicles to park on the driveway that extends off of
Spruce Street.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
April 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8220
2
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No Comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No Comment received.
Water: CAW requires that meters be relocated to the front of the property.
These relocations will be done at no cost to the property owner;
however, the property owner will be required to tie his houseline to the
new meter location. Due to insufficient easement, to protect the
existing water main in the rear of this property, we request that the
building be located a minimum of five feet from the east property line.
Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No Comments.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted addition
information was needed regarding building design and height. In response to a
question from staff, the applicant stated separate utilities were not requested.
The applicant stated it had been decided to do a lesser kitchenette, with no
stove.
Central Arkansas Water comments were noted. The applicant stated she would
visit with the utility regarding relocating the meter.
The Committee determined there were no other issues. The applicant was
constructed to reply to staff comments by May 23, 2007. The item was
forwarded to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned lot located at 1701 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence and a detached two-car carport. The
April 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8220
3
applicants propose to remove the carport and build in its place a two-story
accessory structure. The accessory structure will contain a two-car garage and a
second floor accessory dwelling. A four-foot deep, cantilevered balcony will be
located on the south side of the second floor, overlooking the applicant’s yard.
The garage level of the accessory structure will be painted brick to match the
existing house. The roof will be of architectural grade fiberglass composition
shingles and the total building height will be 25’8”. The sole purpose of the
proposed accessory dwelling is to serve as a guesthouse for visiting friends and
family. It will not be a rental unit. Separate utilities are not requested. The
guesthouse will contain a small kitchenette, with no stove.
In response to Central Arkansas Water’s comments, the proposed accessory
structure has been moved to provide a five-foot rear yard setback. A new water
meter will be located at the front of the property. A new water line will be
extended to the house and on to the accessory building. The old water line will
then be abandoned.
The 1924 Declaration of Restrictions (bill of assurance) for Cliffewood Addition
appears to still be in effect and contains the following statement that is relevant to
the proposed application:
“None of said lots may be improved, used or occupied for other
than private residence purposes and no flat or apartment house
though intended for residence purposes may be erected thereon.
Any residence erected or maintained thereon shall be designed for
occupancy by a single family, no more than one such residence
shall occupy any single lot as platted in Cliffewood.”
The applicant has responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The
proposed accessory structure occupies 31.5% of the required rear yard; slightly
more than the 30% allowed by the Code. To staff’s knowledge, there are no
other issues. The structure will be designed to match the architecture of the
house and the use will be limited to a guesthouse for visiting friends and family.
Staff believes the proposed use is appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. The structure is to be designed as proposed; of brick and stucco to match
the existing house.
2. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Section 6 of the
agenda Staff Report.
April 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8220
4
3. Use of the accessory dwelling is to be limited to use as a guesthouse for
family and friends of the occupants of the principal dwelling.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the proposed 31.5% rear yard
area coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8221
NAME: Sienna Lake Subdivision Recreation –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Sienna Lake Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Cooper Land Development/Crafton, Tull
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow
construction of a Subdivision recreation area on this
R-2 zoned, 2.4 acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the north side of Sienna Lake Drive, ¼ mile north of
Crystal Valley Road, in the new Sienna Lake Subdivision.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The private recreation area is to serve the residents of the new
Subdivision which is developing around the site. The master plan for the
subdivision identifies the community center. The use is compatible with
the neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, any residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the SWLR United for
Progress and Crystal Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of
this proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Parking for the community center will be constructed in two phases as the
subdivision builds out.
The first phase will contain 23 parking spaces and a single driveway off of
Sienna Lake Drive. The second phase provides another driveway and
28 more parking spaces. It is also anticipated that many residents will
walk or bike to the site.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8221
2
The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average seventeen foot (17) wide
street buffer along the street and in no case less than half. This minimal
average appears to be deficient.
An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
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.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Provide pedestrian crossing to community center including signage
and other improvements required by AASHTO Green Book standards.
Contact Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering, at 379-1816 for additional
information.
2. Per the Land Alteration regulations slopes cannot exceed 3:1. In some
cases, retaining walls are installed to meet 3:1 slope requirements.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer not available to this property at this time. Sewer
project under construction but not accepted into Little Rock
Wastewater System at this time.
Entergy: No Comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No Comment received.
Water: A water main extension will be required in order to provide 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 water facilities.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8221
3
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding building design, days and hours of operation,
site lighting, fencing, signage and dumpster location. Staff asked if there would
be a concession stand, restaurant or bar use on the site. The applicant was
asked to label undisturbed areas on the plan.
Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were discussed. Staff asked for
an appropriate pedestrian crossing to provide access from the sidewalk located
on the other side of Sienna Lake Drive. The applicant was instructed to contact
the other reviewing agencies regarding their comments.
In response to a question from staff, the applicant explained the phasing plan for
the parking area.
The applicant was instructed to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sienna Lake is a new residential subdivision developing in west Little Rock, north
of Crystal Valley Road and Stagecoach Road. In conjunction with the
subdivision, the developers are proposing to construct a private subdivision
recreation area on this 2.4 acre, R-2 zoned site. The recreation area will include
a community center building, swimming pool, tennis courts, playground and
parking. The parking will be developed in two phases as the subdivision builds
out.
The community center building will be constructed of brick and lap siding with a
pitched, shingled roof. The building will contain a lobby, clubroom, kitchen area
with microwave, exercise room, storage, equipment room, bathrooms and a
bathhouse with changing areas. The building will be accessed by a POA issued
card key. It will be unmanned. Days of operation will be seven days a week,
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Site lighting will be directed downward and into the site.
The fencing around the pool area and playground will be 6-foot block painted
metal and chainlink fence will be constructed around the tennis courts as is
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8221
4
customary. A single dumpster will be located on the site and will be screened as
required. The dumpster location will change as the second phase of the parking
lot is developed. Signage will consist of a wall sign and a single, 32 square foot,
6-foot tall ground mounted sign.
The applicant has responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. There
currently is no bill of assurance for this acreage tract. The bill of assurance will
be drafted to be specific for this use. There will be no concession stand, bar or
restaurant on this site.
A variance is requested to allow a slight reduction in the required street buffer
width of 15.6. The buffer will average 12 feet because of the steep topography
and the close proximately of a neighbor to the north. To mitigate the impact of
the reduced street buffer, the applicant has proposed a 25% increase in the
landscape requirements within the street perimeter landscape strip and to keep
an undisturbed area of .22 acres in the northeast corner of the site.
Pedestrian crosswalks and ramps will be installed which will conform to AASHTO
Green Book standards. The tennis court has been moved to allow for 3:1 slopes
between the courts and the remainder of the improvements. The adjacent lake
will be used for storm water detention.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues. Staff supports the
proposed C.U.P.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the agenda Staff Report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested reduction in street buffer width
subject to a 25% increase in plant materials being planted in the street perimeter
landscape strip and the .22 acre area at the northeast corner of the site being
maintain as undisturbed area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8222
NAME: Bylites – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 712 East 11th and 1011 McMath Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bylites/Terry Burruss
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an addition to this existing facility to
accommodate office space, storage and shop space.
The property is zoned UU.
STAFF REPORT:
This issue was reviewed by the Historic District Commission at its May 14, 2007
meeting. The Commission deferred the item to its June 11, 2007 meeting.
There will likely be changes made to the site plan to address HDC concerns.
Staff recommends deferring this item to the July 19, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting at which time the final plan and HDC comments will be included.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of deferral. There was no additional discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved for deferral to the
July 19, 2007 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-8223
NAME: Best Carwash – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 7019 Kentucky Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT: Willis Smith/Terry Burruss
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
reconstruction of this existing carwash to include the
addition of automatic carwash facilities. The property
is zoned C-3.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Kentucky Avenue, just west of
Cantrell Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within a commercial area fronting along Cantrell
Road. A variety of commercial uses extend in both directions, on both
sides of the road. An R-5 zoned apartment building is adjacent to the
west and a newer, PD-R zoned condominium project is adjacent to the
south. There is a substantial change in grade between the carwash site
and the adjacent apartments and condominiums; with the carwash site
being much higher. Appropriate screening, in the form of fencing and
landscaping will help the carwash to be compatible with the adjacent uses.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Meriwether
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site is accessed via a single driveway off of Kentucky Avenue. The
driveway will be reconfigured to comply with the maximum allowable width
of 36 feet. There is some shared access with the property adjacent to the
east. Staff suggests that a proper cross access easement be executed
and filed prior to issuance of a building permit for the first phase of the
carwash project.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8223
2
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine foot landscape strip
around the sites entirety. A variance from this requirement must be
obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The zoning buffer requires an average nine foot wide street buffer along
Kentucky Avenue and in no case less than half. Current proposal does
not reflect this minimal amount.
The zoning buffer ordinance requires a nine foot wide land use buffer
along the southern perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned
property. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain undisturbed.
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 perimeter, of the site next to the residentially zoned property.
Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees
and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that Kentucky Street for the frontage of this property must
meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of
driveway must not exceed thirty-six (36) feet.
3. Provide an existing and a proposed sketch Grading and Drainage Plan
per Section 29-186(e).
4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8223
3
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. The location of the existing water facilities in
this area needs to be determined. 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. Existing watermine
easements should be shown.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. A bus route is
located on Cantrell Road, north of the site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding building design and height, building setbacks,
signage, days and hours of operation, site lighting, fencing and dumpster
location. The applicant was asked to dimension the landscape areas on the plan
and to locate the order box and vehicle stacking. The applicant was asked to
describe measures to keep the site clean and to describe the noise created by
the machinery and what measures would be taken to reduce noise impact on
adjacent residential properties.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted to discussed.
The applicant was instructed to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The C-3 zoned property located at 7019 Kentucky Avenue is occupied by a four-
bay, self service carwash. The applicants propose the two-phased
redevelopment of the site. Phase I is the removal of the two western bays and
the construction of a new automatic carwash tunnel. Phase II is the removal of
the two eastern bays and the construction of a second automatic carwash tunnel.
The one-story building will be built with a plaster and rock (block) exterior and
metal roof. Signage will consist of a wall mounted sign facing Kentucky Avenue.
The facility will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The site will be cleaned
3 times a day by a company maintenance person. The site will be upgraded
regarding landscaping and screening. The existing dumpster will be screened to
comply with code.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8223
4
The applicant submitted responses to most of the issues raised at Subdivision
Committee. Staff’s principal concern was the noise created by the machinery
and the possible effect on nearby residences. The applicants stated the carwash
will not use a blower system and the equipment is hydraulic which will minimize
the noise. The visual and auditory impact can be further lessened by
construction of a solid screening fence and planting of evergreen trees and
shrubs on the south and west perimeters.
Staff is supportive of the application. Upgrading the site with a new facility will be
a positive move for the area. Additionally, changing the facility from self-serve to
automatic will reduce the potential impact created by loud vehicle music and
persons loitering on the site. There is no bill of assurance issue.
One outstanding issue remains as of the time of this writing. The applicant had
not responded to Public Works staff request for an existing and a proposed
sketch grading and drainage plan. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant
on this issue and the Commission will be provided an update.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the Agenda Staff Report.
2. All site lighting is to be shielded downward and directed into the site.
3. Screening in the form of a 6-foot tall wood fence and evergreen trees and
shrubs is to be placed along the south and west perimeters. Landscaping
and screening is to be installed with Phase I of the project.
4. A cross access easement with the property adjacent to the east is to be
executed and filed prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase I.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of
opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff
informed the Commission that the required sketch grading and drainage plan had
be submitted by the applicant and approved by Public Works. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-8224
NAME: Jordan Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 8211 Colonel Glenn
OWNER/APPLICANT: Edward Jordan
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
conversion of the existing residence on this R-2
zoned lot into a day care center.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Colonel Glenn, between
Marborough Street and Walker Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses, along an
arterial street. The site does have a rear yard relationship with a single
family residence, so appropriate screening is required. The proposed day
care is compatible with uses in the area and is appropriately located
outside of the neighborhood, on an arterial street.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the SWLR United for
Progress, Westwood and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were
notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed day care center is to have a maximum enrollment of 30
children with 3 employee; requiring 6 on-site parking spaces. A single
driveway off of Colonel Glenn is proposed to access a 6 space parking lot.
The parking complies with Ordinance requirements.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
The zoning buffer ordinance requires a nine foot wide street buffer along
Arkansas Hwy #5. Currently, the site plan is not meeting this minimum
requirement and reflects parking in this area. Please revise.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8224
2
The landscape ordinance requires a nine foot wide landscape strip along
Arkansas Hwy. #5. A variance from this requirement must be obtained from
the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Currently, the site plan is not meeting this minimum requirement and reflects
parking in this area. Please revise.
The zoning buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance require a minimum
nine foot wide landscape strip between this property and the adjoining
property to the east. The minimum amount of green space and the
associated landscaping are required; however, the fencing requirement can
be waived until such time that either of the properties changes ownership.
Currently, a sidewalk is shown within this minimum green space and must be
revised.
A small amount of green space and associated landscaping is required
between the parking lot and the building.
Any/all landscaping proposed in the public right-of-way must be granted a
franchise agreement prior to approval. Contact 501-371-4646 for the
application process.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial with reduced standard. Dedication of right-of-way to
45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of
driveway must not exceed thirty-six (36) feet.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. If this property is converted to a daycare center,
contact Central Arkansas Water to have the property class changed to
commercial.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8224
3
Fire Department: Fire hydrants will be required.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 17, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on student enrollment and staffing, days and hours of
operation, signage, site lighting and dumpster location.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted and discussed. The
applicant was advised to modify the site plan to provide the required street buffer
along Colonel Glenn.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by May 23, 2007. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The subject property is occupied by a one-story, frame, residential structure.
The applicant proposes to remodel the building; converting it into a day care
center. A new, six space, paved parking lot and a playground area are also
proposed. The day care is proposed to operate Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The maximum enrollment will be 30 students, with
3 employees.
The applicant has responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The
1924 bill of assurance does not address use issues. The site plan has been
modified to provide the required landscaping and buffer areas. Site lighting will
consist of building lighting on the north and east facades. There is a fire hydrant
located within 200 feet of the property and the applicant has confirmed with the
Fire Marshall that an additional hydrant is not needed. No dumpster will be
located on the site. A 6-foot tall wood fence will be located on the south
perimeter to satisfy screening requirements. Additional plantings of evergreen
trees and shrubs are required in the buffer between the playground area and the
south property line.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The proposed daycare
center is an appropriate use for the site and the proposed site plan satisfies code
requirements.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8224
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the Agenda Staff Report.
2. The six-foot tall wood fence along the south property line is to be constructed
with its finished side facing outward and evergreen trees and shrubs are to be
planted between the playground area and the south property line to provide
additional screening.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: G-25-196
Name: Ives Walk Street Name Change to New
Horizon Lane
Location: Ives Walk; east of Cumberland Street, south of
29th Street
Petitioner: Little Rock Housing Authority
Request: Rename Ives Walk to New Horizon Lane
Abutting Uses and Ownerships:
The abutting properties are currently vacant. All are owned by the Little Rock
Housing Authority.
Neighborhood Effect:
Ives Walk is located completely within the Housing Authority site that was previously
occupied by the Ives Walk housing development. No persons will be affected by the
street name change since no one takes an address from the street.
Neighborhood Position:
Notice of the proposed street name change was sent to the Community Outreach
and Meadowbrook Neighborhood Associations. As of this writing, staff has received
no comments.
Effect on Public Services:
There will be no effect on public services since there are currently no structures with
an Ives Walk address. No objection has been raised by any of the reviewing
agencies. Two street name signs will be needed at $75.00 each.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Little Rock Housing Authority has begun an aggressive redevelopment of its
properties located in south end. As the first phase of its redevelopment effort,
the Authority is constructing seventeen (17) new single family homes on the site
of the former Ives Walk project. The new addition has been named New Horizon
Village. To reflect the change, the authority has requested that Ives Walk be
renamed New Horizon Lane.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: G-25-196
2
Ives Walk is a two-block long street that is located entirely within the boundary of
the Housing Authority site. All buildings have been removed from the site in
preparation for construction of the new single family residences. There will be no
effect on any person, agency or utility by the street name change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested street name change.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: LU07-01-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: Pine Mountain Subdivision
Request: To add the requirement that the entire subdivision be modified for a
change in zoning
Source: Staff
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District to require the entire
subdivision along Pine Mountain be included for any change.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The Pine Mountain Subdivision is developed with single family houses and is zoned R-2
Single Family. West and adjacent is a Planned Development—Office for an animal
hospital. East and adjacent is a Planned Commercial Development for a landscape
survey company and a shopping center with a large self storage facility behind it. To
the north is vacant and zoned MF-12 Multi Family District. South of Cantrell Road and
Pinnacle Valley is zoned R-2 Single Family District for single family residences.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 19, 2005, the Plan was changed from Suburban Office and Transition to Mixed
Use north of Cantrell Road, west of Taylor Loop Road, approximately half a mile to the
west. This change was to accommodate future development of the area.
On November 9, 2004, the Plan was changed from Suburban Office to Mixed Use and
Public Institutional. This change was made south of Cantrell Road near Rodney
Parham Road over a mile to the east of the application area. The requested change
was to allow for future development.
On April 6, 2004, the Plan was changed from Transition to Commercial northwest of the
Taylor Loop and Cantrell intersection. The requested change was made for future
developments.
On October 7, 2003, the Plan was changed from Transition to Mixed Office Commercial
at the southwest corner of Sam Peck Road and Cantrell Road. The change was to
allow for future development.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-01-01
2
On August 19, 2003, the Plan was changed from Transition to Commercial to the east
of this application site for future development.
On February 18, 2003, multiple changes were made to the Plan. To the west, changes
from Transition to Suburban Office, Single Family and Commercial were made. To the
east changes from Transition to Office, Low Density Residential, Single Family and
Public Institutional were made. These changes were made to more accurately reflect
existing and likely future development patterns for the area.
The amendment area is shown as Transition and Single Family on the Future Land Use
Plan. To the north is Single Family. To the west is Pinnacle Valley Road and a strip of
Park/Open Space on the western side of that road. To the east of the amendment area
is more Transition and Commercial. South of the amendment area on the south side of
Cantrell Road is planned for Transition and Park/Open Space.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pine Mountain 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. Pinnacle Valley
Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides
connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short
distance travel within the urbanized area. Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial
on the Master Street 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. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements
BICYCLE PLAN:
There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity according to the Master Street Plan
bicycle section.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, the northern portion of the Pine Mountain
Subdivision is not within eight blocks of a park or open space. The rest of the area is
within eight blocks of Taylor Loop open space.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan covers the Pine Mountain Subdivision,
but the Plan does not address this specific topic.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-01-01
3
ANALYSIS:
The Pine Mountain subdivision has been in place for many years and is largely still
owner occupied single-family houses. The homes on Pine Mountain Road are subject
to a Bill of Assurance, which states that the land uses should be restricted to single-
family homes. These homeowners and residents wish to remain in their residences
without other lots in the subdivision being converted one at a time to non-residential
uses. A similar designation is in place in east Little Rock in the areas surrounding the
Little Rock Airport. Those properties were included in a Land Use Plan amendment as
part of the East of I-30 study. The ordinance stated that the areas around the Little
Rock Airport would ultimately be Light Industrial but the changes had to be made at
least at the block level. The idea was to keep these neighborhoods from being piece-
mealed apart. This designation has allowed the residents in east Little Rock to stay in
their current locations without industrial uses next door, until the airport or another future
developer chooses to redevelop the entire block.
The Pine Mountain Subdivision has seen development pressure building to the east and
west. To the west of the subdivision is a Planned Development—Office for an animal
hospital. Immediately east of this subdivision are two Planned Commercial
Developments for a landscape survey company and a shopping center with a large self-
storage facility behind it. There have also been two recent zoning applications for areas
within the Pine Mountain Subdivision. The neighborhood has been very opposed to
both of these applications. In April 2006, the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit for 4 Pine Mountain Road to allow an ambulance substation. In
March 2007, the Planning Commission denied a request for a short form Planned
Development—Office for an office-appraisal company. According to the Planning
Commission minute record from March 1, 2007, “Staff suggested the Commission
consider recommending an amendment to the Land use Plan to create an all or nothing
classification which would not piecemeal the subdivision but require all the area to
change at one time or remain residential.” At that same meeting, it was recorded that
“the neighborhood wanted to be maintained as a single unit until such time the entire
neighborhood was transitioned or change to a non-residential use.”
On March 16, 2007, the Planning and Development office received a formal request
from the Pinnacle Valley Neighborhood Association for a Land Use Plan Amendment for
the Pine Mountain Subdivision to protect the current residents and homeowners from
the piece-mealing of the neighborhood. Staff contacted all of the property owners for
this subdivision asking for input regarding this amendment and received only positive
responses in favor of an amendment. Of sixteen properties in this subdivision, eight
responded in favor and eight did not respond at all. Two of the parcels that did not
respond are actually right of way owned by Pulaski County. Because of this response,
Staff decided to move forward with this application.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-01-01
4
The Pine Mountain Subdivision is shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan
with the northern most lot shown as Single Family. The current category of Transition is
“a land use plan designation that provides for an orderly transition between residential
uses and other more intense uses. Transition was established to deal with areas which
contain zoned residential uses and nonconforming nonresidential uses.” In areas
shown as Transition, a Planned Zoning Development is required if the use is to be
anything other than Single Family. The definition of Transition states, “Uses that may
be considered are low-density multi family residential and office uses if the proposals
are compatible with quality of life in nearby residential areas.” The proposed
amendment would leave the Pine Mountain Subdivision as Transition and Single Family
on the Future Land Use Plan, but it would stipulate that zoning changes may only be
made at the subdivision level. This area of Transition is somewhat different than other
areas shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan because this area is so small,
well defined and totally developed with smaller lot single-family houses. Any change in
this neighborhood would most likely impact the existing residents because this area is
so compact. While other areas of Transition along Highway 10 may be undeveloped,
this area has been developed as single-family homes for years. Also, while most
Transition has frontage on an arterial, this area has no such frontage.
Pine Mountain Road is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. Pine
Mountain Road is extremely narrow, does not have curbs or gutters, and is not built to
Master Street Plan design standards. The road is a cul-de-sac, and any development
along it would likely impact all of the residents either by additional traffic in front of their
houses, the proximity to non-residential uses or more congestion at the intersection of
Pine Mountain and Pinnacle Valley Road. The current road works for residential uses,
but probably would not work well with non-residential uses. As the surrounding areas of
Pinnacle Valley and Cantrell Roads have improved, Pine Mountain Road has remained
a quiet residential street. Non-residential uses would most likely change the traffic
patterns on Pine Mountain Road. Changes in use to more intense residential or non-
residential would likely also introduce larger vehicles. In addition, a change to more
intense use would likely mean demolition and construction of new ‘improvements.’
While temporary, these activities would also impact an area that is currently totally
developed.
This area is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Transition. The city still believes
the ultimate use of this area is likely to become more intense residential or non-
residential, but if and when it transitions, it would be more appropriate to change the
whole area at one time. This would allow a more uniform development with less curb
cuts and better planning to develop rather than the more haphazard lot by lot
residential.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU07-01-01
5
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Pinnacle Valley,
Secluded Hills, Westbury and Pankey.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against,
1 absent and one vacancy the consent agenda was approved.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: S-1571
NAME: Lots 4, 5 and 6 Replat, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas and the East/West Alley located in Block 99, Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
LOCATION: Located south of Garland and East of Broadway Streets
DEVELOPER:
Hal J. Kemp
c/o White-Daters Engineers
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters Engineers
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.51 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 additional lots FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 5 - Downtown
CENSUS TRACT: 1
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the various Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance requirements to allow the creation of the lots as
indicated.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a replat of three existing lots to allow the creation of a
vertical subdivision and the addition of four (4) vertical lots defined as the air
space between 305.0 feet and 427.0 feet above mean sea level. This is an
existing building. The purpose of the plat is to create a subdivision to allow the
sale of the individual floors as real property.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1571
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Building construction is taking place on the site and residential units are being
added. To the east of the site is the Old State House Museum and west of the
site is the Double Tree Hotel. South of the site is the Pulaski County Courthouse
and an office building located on the southeast corner of West Markham and
Spring Streets. To the north of the site is LaHarpe Boulevard and the Arkansas
River. Other uses in the area include public uses including Little Rock City Hall
and the Pulaski County Administrative offices. There are a number of office and
commercial uses in the area including two hotels to the east and southeast.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property abutting the proposed site along with the Downtown
Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
The Public Works staff will review the replat in detail at the time of final platting to
determine if any additional requirements are necessary to complete the final
platting process.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Staff will work with the various utility agencies during the final platting process to
determine the need for easements.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 17, 2007)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were no remaining
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff stated during the final
platting process they would work with the various departments and agencies to
seek comment and satisfy easement concerns. There was no further discussion
of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1571
3
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no remaining outstanding technical issues in need of addressing
raised at the May 17, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is
seeking a replat of three (3) previously platted lots in the Original City of Little
Rock to allow for the creation of a vertical subdivision. Although, the City of Little
Rock Code of Ordinances does not define a vertical subdivision, staff looked to
similar cities for a definition of a vertical subdivision.
According to Riverside, CA a "Vertical Subdivision" means a subdivision in which
the air space above the property is divided for the purpose of sale or for the
conveyance of an undivided interest coupled with the right of exclusive
occupancy. The typical suburban residential subdivision starts with a large
parcel of land, such as a farm field, owned by one person. This large parcel can
be sold as a whole to another person but generally cannot be sold off in smaller
parts.A developer enters the picture and formally subdivides the large parcel
into smaller parcels. Each of the smaller parcels can be identified on a survey
and can easily be sold by subsequent owners. This typical subdivision can be
thought of as a “horizontal” subdivision. Separate, subdivided lots are created
side by side. Each individual owner owns the subsurface rights beneath the lot as
well as the air rights above the lot. When subdividing a mixed-use property, a
developer follows the same procedure only the subdivided lots are located on top
of each other rather than side-by-side. Consequently, this type of subdivision is
called a vertical subdivision.
The property description of the replat is as follows: A Replat of Lots 4, 5 and 6,
Block 99, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas; AND The former
20 foot wide alley lying between Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Original City of Little
Rock and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock, Arkansas; AND A
tract of land lying entirely with the right of way of Garland Street, lying
immediately north of and adjacent to the north line of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 99,
Original City of Little Rock, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at
the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock said point
being on the South Right of Way line of Garland Street, thence West 85.0 feet
along the South Right of Way line of Garland Street which is also the north line of
Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock to a point which is 35.0 feet
east of the northwest corner of said Lot 6, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock;
thence North 51.0 feet to a point on the south curb line of State Hwy No. 10 (La
Harp Blvd); thence easterly 85.0 feet along said Hwy 10 south curb line to a point
immediately north of the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 99, Original City of Little
Rock; thence South 46.0 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 99, Original
City of Little Rock, AND The air space lying between 305.0 feet m.s.l. and 427.0
feet m.s.l. immediately above the following described tract of land: A tract of land
lying entirely with the Right of Way of Garland Street and immediately north of
Lot 6, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock, more particularly described as:
Beginning at a point on the South right of way line of Garland Street which is
24.58 East of the Northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock;
thence West along said south right of way line and along the north line of said Lot
6, 10.42 feet; thence North 51.0 feet to a point of the south curb line of Arkansas
June 7, 2007
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1571
4
State Highway 10; thence East 10.42 feet; thence South 51.00 feet to the point of
beginning. AND The air space lying between 333.22 feet m.s.l. and 346.10 feet
m.s.l. and between 346.10 feet m.s.l. and 427.0 feet m.s.l. immediately above the
following described tract of land: A tract of land lying entirely with the Right of
Way of Garland Street and immediately north of Lot 6, Block 99, Original City of
Little Rock, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point on the South
right of way line of Garland Street which is 35.0 feet East of the Northwest corner
of Lot 6, Block 99, Original City of Little Rock; thence West along said south right
of way line and along the north line of said Lot 6, 0.33 feet; thence North 51.0
feet to a point of the south curb line of Arkansas State Highway 10; thence East
0.33 feet; thence South 51.00 feet to the point of beginning.
The proposal includes variance requests from the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances to allow the creation of the plat as proposed. Although, no variances
have been identified, the applicant is seeking approval of any variances should
they exist. Staff is supportive of this request.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to allow the creation of the vertical
subdivision as proposed. As indicated in the legal description the applicant has
described the air space and the areas above mean sea level to create the four
additional lots proposed within the vertical subdivision. To staff’s knowledge
there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel
the creation of a vertical subdivision as proposed will significantly impact the area
or the development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request and any associated variances subject
to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request and any associated variances 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 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.