Loading...
pc_05 11 2006sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 11, 2006 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock Gary Langlais Lucas Hargraves Robert Stebbins Troy Laha Mizan Rahman Jeff Yates Jerry Meyer Fred Allen, Jr. Darrin Williams Chauncey Taylor Members Absent: None City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the March 30, 2006 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MAY 11, 2006 OLD BUSINESS: Item Number: File Number: Title A. S-1451-B Easthaven Addition Preliminary Plat, located on the Northeast corner of Frazier Pike and Riddick Street. B. S-1513 Arkansas Autoplex Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 10819 Hilaro Springs Road. C. S-1515 Good Shepard Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 2701 Aldersgate Road. D. Z-4765-C Lots 7R, 9 and 10 West Highlands Zoning Site Plan Review, located on Autumn Road, North of Chenal Parkway. E. Z-5522-B St. Mark’s Revised Long-form POD, located at 1024 North Mississippi Avenue. F. Z-6019-C GMAC Revised Long-form POD, located on the Southwest corner of LaGrande Drive and Chenal Parkway. G. Z-6453-B Value Health Short-form PD-R, located on the Southwest corner of Labette Drive and Barrow Road. H. Z-6698-B 3900 Barrow Road Revised PCD, located at 3900 Barrow Road. I. LU06-01-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain Planning District, a change from Transition to Mixed Use. I.1. Z-7436-A Cantrell/Pinnacle Valley Revised Short-form PCD, located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Pinnacle Valley Road. J. Z-7603-B 14910 Cantrell Road Revised Short-form PCD, located at 14910 Cantrell Road. Agenda, Page Two OLD BUSINESS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title K. Z-7980 Entergy Substation Conditional Use Permit, located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. L. Z-8007 Dr. Hampton Short-form POD, located at 1109 - 1111 Welch Street. M. LU06-18-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District, a change from Single-family to Service Trades District. M.1. Z-8008 Keyees Short-form POD, located North of Lawson Road and West of Devall Road. N. Z-5936-F Rezoning from MF-18, O-2 and C-3 to R-2, O-3, C-3 and OS, located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. O. LU06-19-02 Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Single-family, Low Density Residential, Multi-family, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office to Single-family, Office, Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial, located in the area West of Chenal Parkway and North of Kanis Road. P. LU06-19-01 Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial, located East of Kirk Road North of Chenal Parkway. Q. LU06-18-03 Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Multi-family to Commercial, located South of Chenal and Kanis Road, West of Kirk Road. R. Z-6219-D Bella Rosa Revised Long-form PCD, located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive. Agenda, Page Three NEW BUSINESS: I. PRELIMINARY PLATS: Item Number: File Number: Title 1. S-1301-F Colonel Glenn Center Revised Preliminary Plat, located on the West side of Talley Road, South of Colonel Glenn Road. 2. S-1397-D Stonecreek Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat, located on the Westward extension of Glen Valley Drive, West of the existing Stonecreek Subdivision. 3. S-1518 Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat, located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. 4. S-1519 Eagle Crest Addition, located West of the intersection of Cease Drive and Shea Drive. 5. S-1520 Royal Oaks Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located West of Chicot Road, East of Ponderosa Drive. 6. S-1521 Fiser Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located on South Shackleford Road, just South of Clearwater Drive. II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: Item Number: File Number: Title 7. Z-4343-S The Ranch Tract F Revised PCD, located North of Ranch Drive, West of Chenonceau Boulevard. 8. Z-4807-F Shackleford Farms Long-form POD, located North of Wellington Hills Road, West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision. 9. Z-4807-G Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD, located South of Wellington Hills Road, East of Kirk Road. Agenda, Page Four II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title 10. Z-5139-D Harvest Foods Revised Long-form PCD, located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road. 11. Z-5617-A Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD, located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. 12. LU06-17-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District change from Single-family to Low Density Residential, located West of Colonel Carl Miller Road, North of Baseline Road. 12.1. Z-6188-A Eagle Hill West Long-form PD-R, located West of Colonel Carl Miller Road, North of Baseline Road. 13. Z-6881-C McKinstry-Threet Revised Short-form PCD, located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Highland Drive. 14. Z-6957-G Landers Lot 20 Colonel Glenn Center Long-form PD-C, located East of Landers, West of Talley Road. 15. LU06-01-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain Planning District a change from Transition to Mixed Office Commercial, located North of Cantrell Road, West of Pinnacle Valley Road. 15.1. Z-7500-C Reese Revised Long-form PCD, located North of Cantrell Road, West of Pinnacle Valley Road. 16. Z-8032 Freeze Short-form PD-I, located at 1112 Jones Street. 17. LU06-16-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District a change from Light Industrial to Industrial, located South of Warrior Drive. 17.1. Z-8033 Mabelvale West Industrial Park Long-form PD-I, located on Warrior Drive, Lot 1 Mabelvale West Industrial Park Subdivision. 18. Z-8034 Stanton Road Short-form PD-R, located at 8501 Stanton Road. Agenda, Page Five II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED) Item Number: File Number: Title 19. Z-8035 Madison Park Short-form PD-R, located on the Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road. 20. Z-8036 McKellips Short-form PD-O, located at 16000 Cantrell Road. 21. LU06-10-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District a change from Single-family to Mixed Use and Public Institutional, located on the Northeast corner of West 32nd Street and John Barrow Road. 21.1. Z-8037 John Barrow Appearance Center Short-form PCD, located on the Northeast corner of West 32nd Street and John Barrow Road. 22. Z-8038 Herring Short-form PD-R, located on the Northwest corner of East 24th Street and Scott Street. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Item Number: File Number: Title 23. Z-6832 Oak Place Court Short-form PRD Revocation, located at 13123 Baseline Road. 24. LA-0005 Tract B5 Sachs Suburban Tract, Appeal/Variance Request of the Land Alteration Ordinance, located at 15123 Kanis Road. 25. LA-0006 Colonel Glenn Centre Addition Appeal/Variance Request of the Land Alteration Ordinance, located West of Talley Road and North of Remington Road. 26. MSP0602 Master Street Plan Amendment to remove Labette Street as a Collector from John Barrow Road to Labette Manor. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1451-B NAME: Easthaven Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: On the Northeast corner of Frazier Pike and Riddick Street DEVELOPER: Roger Doyne 4501 Frazier Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F. CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 – Sweet Home CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A waiver of the required Master Street Plan improvements to Frazier Pike. 2. An in-lieu contribution for the required storm water detention. 3. A variance to allow a reduced lot width for proposed Lot 8 (Section 31-232(e)). 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks (5-feet) for the proposed lots. The applicant submitted a request dated February 3, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated February 3, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1451-B 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 16, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 27, 2006, requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1513 NAME: Arkansas Autoplex Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 10819 Hilaro Springs Road DEVELOPER: Michael S. Rebick 721 West 9th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 1.64 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: Not Zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 – Geyer Springs East CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow reduced screening and landscaping along the perimeters of the site (Section 31-13(g)). A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the sale of carport structures from this site. The site plan indicates the placement of seven (7) inventory types to be located adjacent to Hilaro Springs Road west of the existing driveway and along the eastern perimeter of the site. The cover letter indicates the structures are not permanent structures and the units will be display inventory and periodically sold and new display inventory placed on the site. The units are various sizes as indicated as follows: the steel truss unit (20-feet by 40-feet), the barn style unit (20-feet by 40-feet), the classic style (18-feet by 20- feet), the A-Frame (18-feet by 20-feet), the enclosed storage with porch (24-feet by 24-feet), the carport 20-feet by 20-feet and the boat cover (18-feet by 28-feet). May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1513 2 The applicant has indicated if the sale of carport structures is discontinued the displays will be removed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located outside the City Limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction where the City enforces the Subdivision Ordinance only. The site is currently being used as a car lot with a single building being used as an office and the carport structures are located on the site all near the front portion of the property. The remainder of the property is grass covered with a scattering of trees. The property to the south and west is tree covered and the property to the east is a single-family residences and pasture. Other uses in the area include single- family homes and a number of commercial businesses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area neighborhood association. The abutting property owners along with Southwest Little Rock Untied for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Any future development at this site is subject to right-of-way dedication and the boundary street ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Outside Entergy’s service area. Contact the local utility company if additional service is required. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Fire Department having jurisdiction to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1513 3 Fire Department: Outside the service boundary. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the site. County Planning: Provide a 40-foot setback from all property lines for the proposed temporary structures. Contact Pulaski County Planning and Development at 340-8260 for additional information. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer minimal ordinance requirements. 2. Landscaping may be required in association with any newly developed paved surface areas. 3. A twenty-four foot (24) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed development from the residential property on the southern perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain undisturbed. 4. A twenty-four foot (24) wide street buffer is required along Hilaro Springs Road. This area should at least be an average of twenty-four foot (24) foot but in no case less than half. 5. A ten foot (10) wide land use buffer is required along the eastern and western perimeters of the site, which is residential property. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is this buffer is to remain undisturbed. 6. Additional screening may be required next to the residentially zoned properties depending upon existing conditions. If applicable, either 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, eastern and western perimeters of the site. 7. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 8. 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. 9. 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. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1513 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the site was located outside the City limits in an area where the City did not exercise zoning jurisdiction, only subdivision control. Staff stated the developer was proposing the placement of inventory on the site for display of product for sale. Staff stated there were no typical standards to apply to the development since the City did not exercise zoning jurisdiction. Staff stated the County did have commercial development standards with regard to building setbacks. Staff stated the typical setback was 40-feet from all property lines. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated site plan did not allow sufficient buffering along the eastern and western perimeters of the site. Staff stated the indicated street buffer was not adequate to meet minimum ordinance standards and should be increased to 24-feet. Staff stated buffering was required to be a minimum of ten feet along the eastern and western perimeters of the site and at least seventy percent of the buffer area was to remain undistributed. Mr. Ribick stated he could not setback the structures 40-feet from all property lines. He stated the rear of the property had been protected from commercial activity and his desire was to maintain that protection and not allow the commercial activities to encroach into the site. He stated he could comply with the buffer ordinance requirements. He stated with the buildings setback at ten to twelve feet this would allow sufficient area for display and protect the rear of the property. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing several of the technical issues raised at the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has increased the landscaping strip along the eastern and western perimeters of the site. The buildings are proposed at 10-feet and 14-feet from the eastern property line and 30-feet from the western property line. The minimum setback from the roadway is 20-feet which will allow a 24-foot average as required by the Landscape Ordinance. Screening has not been indicated on the proposed site plan. According to the applicant, the properties to the east and west are heavily wooded. The applicant has also indicated the structures will be located on the site temporarily and serve as inventory only. According to the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1513 5 applicant if the sale of carport structures is discontinued the displays will be removed. The site plan indicates the placement of seven (7) inventory types to be located adjacent to Hilaro Springs Road west of the existing driveway and along the eastern perimeter of the site. The structures are not permanent structures and the units will be display inventory and periodically sold and new display inventory placed on the site. The units are various sizes as indicated as follows: the steel truss unit (20-feet by 40-feet), the barn style unit (20-feet by 40-feet), the classic style (18-feet by 20-feet), the A-Frame (18-feet by 20-feet), the enclosed storage with porch (24-feet by 24-feet), the carport 20-feet by 20-feet and the boat cover (18-feet by 28-feet). The applicant is required to seek approval from the Pulaski County Planning Board for the placement of the structures as indicated on the proposed site plan. As of this writing this meeting has not taken place. Staff recommends the applicant provide written approval from the Pulaski County Planning Board for the proposed placement of the inventory structures. The site is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction in an area the City does not exercise zoning, only subdivision control. The site is being reviewed as a Subdivision Multiple Building Site Plan review which addresses technical aspects of a proposed development. The indicated site plan appears to comply with the various minimum ordinances standards for this type of review process. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends the applicant provide written approval from the Pulaski County Planning Board for the proposed placement of the inventory structures. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation the applicant provide written approval from the Pulaski County Planning Board for the proposed placement of the structures on the site. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1513 6 Mr. Raymond Scroggins addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located adjacent to the site and objected to the placement of the commercial structures within 10-feet of the property line. He stated the County ordinance required commercial buildings to be located at a minimum of 40-feet from the property line. The Commission questioned Ms. Ashley Pope the Director of Pulaski County Planning as to the outcome of the County Planning Board Meeting. Ms. Pope stated the Board approved the variance request to allow the structures to be placed within 10-feet of the property line along the eastern perimeter. She stated the structures were inventory and it was necessary to place display merchandise close to the roadway to market the product. She stated the structures were to have no utilities and were only temporary structures. There was a general discussion of the proposed request concerning the allowable placement of the structures. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1515 NAME: Good Shepherd Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 2701 Aldersgate Road DEVELOPER: Good Shepherd /Ecumenical Retirement Center 2701 Aldersgate Road Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 100+ acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: MF-12 and R-6 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated March 10, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 10, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1515 2 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a request dated April 25, 2006, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 25, 2006, requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-4765-C NAME: Lots 7R, 9 and 10 West Highlands Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located on Autumn Road, North of Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Colliers Dickson Flake Partners, Inc. P.O. Box 3456 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: Cromwell Architects Engineers 101 S. Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 8+ acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District, with conditions PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. On March 7, 2006, the applicant requested this item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 7, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4765-C 2 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a request dated April 21, 2006, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 21, 2006, requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-5522-B NAME: St. Mark’s Revised Long-form POD LOCATION: Located at 1024 North Mississippi Avenue DEVELOPER: Wooden, Fulton & Scarborough, PC c/o Verizon Wireless Communication 737 Market Street, Suite 620 Chattanooga, TN 37402 ENGINEER: Excel Communications, Inc. 6247 Amber Hills Road Birmingham, AL 35176 AREA: 14.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PD-O ALLOWED USES: Church Facility and Commercial Catering Service PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Church facility, a Commercial Catering Service and Cellular Tower PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 1, 2004, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved a rezoning request for this site to PD-O to allow the use of the existing church kitchen facilities as a commercial catering business. The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed this request on October 7, 2004, and made a recommendation of approval of the request. The applicant proposed to rezone the existing church site to PD-O to allow a May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 2 commercial catering company to operate from the existing church kitchen facilities. The applicant indicated there would not be any exterior modifications to the structure and there would not be any activities on the site other than the preparation and cooking of the food. The applicant stated there would not be any consumption of food or pick-up service available on the premises. The applicant also indicated the days and hours of operation would be limited to normal business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm daily with the exception of special events. The applicant indicated there would be no more than four employees of the business and no more than four vehicles parked on the site during operation. On November 10, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a request to amend the previously approved PD-O to allow the placement of a cellular tower on the site. Verizon Wireless Communications proposed to lease a 75-foot by 75-foot site from St. Mark’s Episcopal Church to place a 120-foot monopole and communications facility. The monopole was indicated as a state of the art telecommunication tower that would create minimum intrusiveness into its surrounding neighborhood while providing critical telecommunication services to the residents of Little Rock. The applicant indicated the successful construction and operation of tower facilities was critical to the completion of the Verizon Wireless’s network. This item was appealed to the Board of Directors but the appeal request was withdrawn prior to any Board of Directors action. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the current PD-O zoning to POD to allow the placement of a cellular tower on the site. Verizon Wireless Communications is proposing to lease a 75-foot by 75-foot site from St. Mark’s Episcopal Church to place a 120-foot steeple design rather than a 120-foot monopole tower as proposed in the previous application. The structure will be comprised of materials resistant to weathering. The structure’s panels around the antennas will be comprised of sheets of ABS plastic with a foam core. The technology utilizes a combination of steel and fiberglass to produce a structure that will create a long lasting structure. The body of the structure will be encased in modern stucco. The stucco will be designed to appear as a traditional steeple finish while providing a weather resistant finish. No illumination of the structure is planned since the FAA does not require lighting on towers of the proposed height. Additionally no artificial lighting source or flood lighting is proposed for the tower structure at ground level. No lettering identifying the church is proposed. The applicant has indicated Verizon Wireless has made every effort to find a suitable structure to locate or collocate its antennas upon. The applicant has indicated suitable structures have not been located that would allow for the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 3 completion of the Verizon Wireless’s network. The applicant has provided staff with a letter of intent to allow collocation for proposed wireless telecommunication facilities when collocation at the tower site is commercially feasible and collocation is feasible within engineering parameters. The applicant’s statement indicates the proposed tower has the capability of providing collocation for additional tenants. The site plan indicates compliance with the typical standards of Section 36-593 – Development Standards with regard to height standard, setback standards, landscaping and screening, aesthetic, placement, material and colors, lighting and security fencing. The application includes a statement from the Radio Frequency Engineer indicating the site’s Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) for this installation is 890 watts or less. According to the applicant the current FCC rule (reference: Code of Federal regulations, Title 47-Telecommunications, Chapter 1 Federal Communications Commission, Part 24 – Personal Communications Services, Subpart E- Broadband PCS, Section 24.232 – Power and antenna height limits) permits up to 1640 watts EIRP for this type of installation. The applicant has indicated the property is not subject to any Bill of Assurance filed with the Circuit Clerk’s Office of Pulaski County. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing church with several buildings and activities on the site. There are single-family uses located to the south and west of the site and across Mississippi Avenue to the east. To the north of the site is also a church facility. Evergreen Street is located along the northern boundary, which has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard. Mississippi Avenue is located on the eastern boundary of the property and has also been constructed to Master Street Plan standard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, the Leawood Garden Club and the Merriwether Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 4 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 2. A grading and drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of grading permit. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer service is not required for this project. No comment. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #8 – the Rodney Parham Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to the POD for the addition of a cell phone tower. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment. Master Street Plan: Mississippi Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Evergreen is shown as collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area while a May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 5 Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown along Evergreen. 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 Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not specifically address this type of action. Landscape: The landscaping must comply with the minimum requirements of Article XII – Wireless Communication Facilities - Section 36-593(c)(1). G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) The owner’s representative was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned if the structure would contains any lettering or lighting. Staff also questioned details of the proposed structure including the treatment of the outside surface. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading plan would be required prior to any land clearing on the site. Staff also stated a grading and drainage plan would be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant responded to comments raised at the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The structure will be comprised of materials resistant to weathering. The structure’s panels around the antennas will be comprised of sheets of ABS plastic with a foam core. The technology utilizes a combination of steel and fiberglass to produce a structure that will create a long lasting structure. The body of the structure will be encased in modern stucco. The stucco will be designed to appear as a traditional steeple finish while providing a weather resistance finish. No illumination of the structure is planned since the FAA does not require lighting on towers of the proposed height. Additionally no artificial lighting source or flood lighting is proposed for the tower structure at ground level. No lettering identifying the church is proposed. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 6 According to the applicant every effort has been made to find a suitable structure to locate or collocate its antennas upon. A suitable structures has not been located that would allow for the completion of the network. As required by the application process a letter of intent to allow collocation for proposed wireless telecommunication facilities when collocation at the tower site is commercially feasible and collocation is feasible within engineering parameters has been submitted. The applicant’s statement indicates the proposed tower has the capability of providing collocation for additional tenants. The application also includes a statement from the Radio Frequency Engineer indicating the site’s Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) for this installation is 890 watts or less. According to the applicant the current FCC rule (reference: Code of Federal regulations, Title 47-Telecommunications, Chapter 1 Federal Communications Commission, Part 24 – Personal Communications Services, Subpart E- Broadband PCS, Section 24.232 – Power and antenna height limits) permits up to 1640 watts EIRP for this type of installation. The site plan indicates compliance with the typical standards of Section 36-593 – Development Standards with regard to height standard, setback standards, landscaping and screening, aesthetic, placement, material and colors, lighting and security fencing per Article XII - Wireless Communication Facilities. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed concerns with regard to placement of the proposed facility and limiting the visual impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 28, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the requested By-law waiver. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 7 STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated the Commission had reviewed a request identical to the proposal and the Commission had recommended denial of the request less than one year ago. Staff stated to hear the request it would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws since the item was previously denied and it was less than one year of the denial request. Mr. Tracy Wooden addressed the Commission indicating he did not feel a waiver was required. He stated the previous proposal was for the placement of a tower with the antenna array located on the outside of the pole. Staff stated this was incorrect. Staff stated the previous proposal was a stealth tower which was also the current proposal. He stated if the property were not zoned PD-O the review and approval would be administrative. He stated since the previous public hearing he had worked with the church and the neighborhood to come-up with a design which was acceptable to the residents and still meet the needs of the wireless carrier. A motion was made to waive the By-laws and hear the application request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Staff introduced the item presenting a recommendation of approval. Mr. Tracy Wooden addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the telecommunications act mandated a level of service to be provided. He stated to have adequate coverage in the area the Radio Frequency Engineer had indicated two possible locations for the tower. He stated the St. Marks site was the preferred location. He presented the Commission with scatter maps indicating the level of service with the location and several alternative locations. He stated to move the tower to the east would overlap with an existing tower site. He stated to locate the tower to the north would also overlap with an existing tower located to the north. Mr. Wooden stated when a network was being designed the engineers did field visits to determine the best locations for tower placement. He stated he felt the current proposal best met the needs of the wireless communication provider and the neighborhood. The Commission questioned if the antenna array would be internal to the tower. He stated this was correct. The Commission questioned if collocation was allowed. He stated collocation was allowed and if the Commission desired all co-locators would be required to internalize their antenna array as well. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 8 Ms. Donna Morey addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located across the street from St. Marks more specifically the tower site. She stated leaving her carport her first view would be the tower. She stated the tree line was 40-50 feet and the tower height was 120-feet. She stated the homes in the area had appreciated over the past 30 – 40 years. She stated recently a home located next to the church sold for $265,000. She stated the community meeting held last week was not a representation of the neighborhood. She stated not all the area was invited to the meeting and many were not aware the meeting was being held. She stated the tower would be better suited to the school property located two blocks east of the site. Ms. Dorothy Morey addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had lived in the area since 1968 and was an original owner of the neighborhood. She stated there were very few original owners left in the neighborhood and most of the homes had sold to young families. She stated these families had a substantial investment in the neighborhood and felt they should be protected. She stated the garden club kept up the entrances to the subdivision and all the funding was from the neighborhood and volunteers. She stated St. Marks was a good neighbor but had not given the residents enough information. She stated the neighborhood did not want commercial property at the entrance to their subdivision. Mr. Walt Jeffus addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the proposal was the same as was previously denied by the Commission. He stated the church was a non-profit but would be receiving revenues from the tower placement. He stated there were alternative locations and requesting the Commission review these locations. He stated he did not want to see the tower every time he entered his neighborhood. Joann Erwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she felt the tower would destroy the neighborhood. She stated the City of North Little Rock recently disapproved the placement of a tower on JFK Boulevard. She stated JFK Boulevard was a major roadway with regard to the volume of traffic. She state the placement of a tower within the neighborhood should not be allowed. Ms. Jill Harbart-Pratt addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She requested the Commission never underestimate the power of a myth. She stated the cell company had indicated the need for the placement of a tower in this location to receive reliable coverage. She stated there were a number of ways to receive reliable coverage without the placement of a tower at this location. She stated the RF Engineer designed site for a maximum return on the investment. She stated a monopole was easy and cheaper than other alternatives. She stated she did not feel the placement of a tower was a requirement to complete the network but just the desire alternative. She stated St. Marks had indicated at the neighborhood meeting that if they did not follow through with the application request they would be sued by the wireless communication provider. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 9 Mr. Wooden stated he was respectful of the comments including the opposition. He stated there were voids in the coverage without the placement of a tower at this location. He stated collocation was available which would lessen the number of tower request in the future. He stated the site was wooded which would soften the impact of the tower placement and the design of the tower met with ordinance requirements. The Commission questioned maintenance. Mr. Wooden stated if the Commission desired they could place a condition on the approval as to the required maintenance of the tower. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed tower and the possibility of collocation. Commission Adcock stated in the past collocation had been pushed possibly resulting in the lack of suitable alternative locations. She questioned locating the tower at the school site. She questioned with the additional height if the tower could not receive the same coverage area. Mr. Wooden stated the site was possibly located to close to an existing tower located to the east. He stated towers were the last thing a cellular company want to build. He stated the first option was to collocate with the second being locating on tall buildings. Commissioner Yates stated he was not satisfied with the answers he had received concerning alternative locations. He stated there were two or three churches located in the immediate vicinity which he felt were suitable locations. Mr. Wooden stated he felt the current location gave the City and the neighborhood more control. He stated on the adjoining properties the tower would not be a stealth tower nor were the sites tree covered to provide screening. He stated with the additional height this would intrude into another neighborhood who if they were notified would not want a tower at their entrance either. Commissioner Rahman stated he felt the tower was an intrusion into the neighborhood. He stated he felt there were alternatives to providing service to the network without placing a 120-foot pole at the entrance to the subdivision. Commissioner Williams stated he felt collocation was an acceptable alternative. Mr. Wooden stated the provider originally looked for site to collocate. Commissioner Meyer questioned the placement of the tower at the school. He stated the church was a non-profit and the school had publicly requested the placement of towers for revenue generation. Commissioner Yates requested comment from Mr. Jim Tilley. Commissioner Yates questioned Mr. Tilley as to the feelings of the church on the proposal. He stated he was a member of the church and council for the church. He stated the church entered into a contract with the provider in 2004 without fully considering the needs of the neighborhood. He stated the church had found themselves in a position of being May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-B 10 required to full-full their contract at the threat of being sued if they did not allow the provider to move forward with the application request. He stated the church was a good steward of their land and the revenue from the placement of the tower on the church property was not enough for the church to go against the neighbors. Commissioner Rahman stated he did not see a substantial change from the previous proposal. A motion was made to approve the request including the applicant’s statements regarding maintenance and all co-locators must also internalize their antenna array. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6019-C NAME: GMAC Revised Long-form POD Revocation and Chenal Valley Tract B Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of LaGrande Drive and Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Deltic Timber Corporation 7 Chenal Club Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District PROPOSED USE: Office – allow the creation of four additional lots. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-231) to allow the creation of lots without public street frontage. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,964 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 15, 1995, rezoned a portion of this property from R-2 and C-2 to O-2. On October 31, 1995, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and approved a zoning site plan review for the development of a 19-acre tract to contain two 2-story office buildings with 75,000 square feet each and parking for 601 vehicles. Phase I of the development was constructed. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 2 A request to rezone the site from O-2, R-2 and PCD to POD was approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15, 2000, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,207. The majority of the property was previously zoned O-2, with a small portion of R-2 and PCD (part of a large PCD on the north side of LaGrande Drive). The existing GMAC Office building (27,000 square feet, 30-feet in height) and associated parking areas (268 parking spaces) were located within the southeast corner of the property and were previously zoned O-2. Access to the site was gained by utilizing an existing drive from LaGrande Drive, with a future access point shown to Chenal Parkway. The proposed POD zoning was to allow additional office development in two (2) phases. Phase I consisted of the construction of a second building containing 73,500 square feet and 402 parking spaces within the northeast portion of the property. Access to the building would be gained by utilizing the existing drive from LaGrande Drive. Phase II of the proposed development included construction of a third office building, 60-feet in height, and 783 parking spaces within the west one-half of the property. This portion of the development would also utilize the existing drive from LaGrande Drive as well as a second access to LaGrande Drive when the roadway was extended. This development as not been constructed. The extension of LaGrande Drive is currently underway. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to revoke the previously approved POD for a portion of the site and revise the previously approved preliminary plat. The revocation would restore portions of the property to the previously held O-2 and R-2 zoning classification. The revision to the preliminary plat would allow the creation of four (4) lots from the formerly identified Tract B. Tract A contains the existing GMAC building and Tract B is currently vacant. The entirety of the area proposed for preliminary platting would revert to the O-2 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting the placement of signage on the existing GMAC Building. The applicant has indicated the signage would be located on the building fronting on Chenal Parkway and be a total of 88 square feet. The signage includes lettering 23 inches in height with a sign length of 19 feet and a 42-inch logo. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing two-story office building and parking areas on a portion of the site. The remainder of the property is undeveloped, with the western portion being wooded. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 3 There is undeveloped property immediately west of this site and to the north across LaGrande Drive. The area to the north was recently reviewed by the Commission as a zoning site plan review for the development of a shopping center. There is a mixture of office and commercial uses to the east across Chenal Parkway. An AP&L substation and single-family residences on large tracts are located to the south along the north side of Kanis Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site along with the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association, the Parkway Place Property Owners Association and the Pinnacle Neighborhood Association 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. A sidewalk along Chenal Parkway should be installed to the property line. 2. Commercial streets should comply with the Master Street Plan. The commercial drive within the development should be constructed to 36 feet wide instead of the proposed 30 feet. 3. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along commercial drives in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 4. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 4 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A utility easement and water main extension will be required in order to provide service to Lot B-3. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). A shared fire hydrant agreement between Crain Investments, LP and the owner of Lot B-3 appears to be advantageous to both parties if approved by the Little Rock Fire Department. Fire Department: Placed fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to the current Planned Office Development for the creation of potential lot lines. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. The entirety of the site lies within the Office planned area. Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and LaGrande Drive is shown as a Collector Street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. Collector Streets (LaGrande Drive) primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: A Class I Bikeway is located along Chenal Parkway extending from Bowman Road to Highway 10. 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 property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 5 Landscape: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required at the time of development of the indicated lots. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 26, 2006) Mr. Joe White and Mr. Tim Daters were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicting there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. There was a general discussion as to if the POD zoning should be revoked and restoring the underlying zoning classifications. Mr. Daters stated the development the POD zoning was approved for never developed and the POD zoning classification should be revoked. Staff questioned the previous zoning for the site. Mr. Daters stated he would research the underlying zoning and get back with staff. Public Works comments were addressed stating that with the final development the indicated comments and conditions would apply. Landscaping comments were also noted indicating with final development of the site the City’s minimum landscape and buffer ordinance requirements would be required. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 26, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has requested a revocation of the current POD zoning on the portion of property currently located within the City limits. The applicant has indicated they do not have control of the remainder of the property and those owners have not indicated a willingness to participate in the revocation request. The applicant has indicated the proposed office development will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section 36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. Staff is supportive of the revocation. The applicant is requesting a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat for Tract B Chenal Valley. The area is proposed with O-2, Office and Institutional District zoning and the applicant has indicated the placement of four lots. The average lot size proposed is 2.48 acres and the minimum lot size proposed is two acres as required by the O-2 zoning district. Proposed Lot B-3 has been indicated as a lot without public street frontage, which will require a variance from May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 6 the subdivision ordinance to allow the lot to develop as proposed. The proposed preliminary plat indicates access to the lot via access and utility easements located along the western perimeter and the northern perimeter. Staff is supportive of the proposed variance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage. The request also includes the placement of signage on the existing GMAC Building. The applicant has indicated the signage would be located on Chenal Parkway and be a total of 88 square feet. The signage includes lettering 23 inches in height with a sign length of 19 feet and a 42-inch logo. Typically building signage is not to exceed ten percent of the façade area. The indicated signage appears to meet this minimum requirement. Staff is supportive of the indicated signage. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. The indicated lots will be zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District, which will require site plan review prior to development. Staff feels the proposed platting should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current POD zoning classification and the restoration of the previously held O-2 and R-2 zoning classifications. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development of proposed Lot B-3 without public street frontage. Staff recommends approval of the requested signage to be placed on the GMAC Building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated February 3, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating they were requesting the item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing to allow staff additional time to consider the revocation request. Staff stated the applicant was agreeable to the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has noticed the owners of record of the affected properties. There have been no other changes in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend approval of the revocation request and the preliminary plat application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the revocation request of the current POD zoning classification and the restoration of the previously held O-2 and R-2 zoning classifications. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested preliminary plat application subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report and of the requested variance to allow the development of proposed Lot B-3 without public street frontage. Mr. Tim Daters addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated a developer assemble the property for a project which was not going to develop. He stated revocation was necessary to clean up the zoning and allow for future development of the property. Mr. Daters stated the proposed plat was to allow the developer options for marketing the property. Mr. Darrell Baker addressed the Commission in opposition of the revocation request. He stated the POD zoning encompassed his property and he did not desire to remove his option for the development of an office in the future. He stated his property contained nine acres with three acres zoned POD. He stated with the revocation this would leave him with an island of R-2 zoned property. He stated he did not agree with May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6019-C 8 staff concerning their comment of minimal impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Baker stated his desire was for Deltic to provide access to the property via the private access easement. Staff stated Mr. Baker’s property would remain zoned POD and at the time of development he would be required to submit a revised site plan to allow development or Mr. Baker could request a revocation of the POD zoning restoring the R-2 zoning classification. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed revocation of the proposed platting of the property. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-6453-B NAME: Value Health Short-form PD-R LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Labette Drive and Barrow Road DEVELOPER: Dr. Betty Orange 5100 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineer 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 6.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F. CURRENT ZONING: MF-18 ALLOWED USES: Multi-family – 18 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Senior Assisted Living Facility - 220 units VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site from MF-18 to PD-R to allow this 6.27-acre site to be developed as a 220-unit senior citizen adult living facility. The units are proposed as one-bedroom units. The site plan includes the place of 220 parking spaces. Each of the units will have an independent kitchen facility. The development will not have on-site food preparation. A nursing station will be located on site and a small satellite medical office. Limited transportation will be provided for the residents. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is tree covered, sloping upward to the southwest. There are multi-family units located to the west of the site accessed from Labette Manor Drive. There is a nursing home located to the north of the site adjacent to John Barrow Road. A POD is located on the corner of Labette and John Barrow Road currently housing medical equipment sales and service with a new building constructed south of the POD (currently zoned O-3) for an automobile customizing business. Also south of the site is an approved POD, the site of a branch facility for the Central Arkansas Library System. Labette Drive dead-ends into the site. The street has been constructed with curb and gutter adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, which were previously final platted. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Twin Lakes “B” Property Owners Association, the Campus Place Neighborhood Association and the Twin Lakes B Special Improvement District were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Labette Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Provide a 60-foot right-of-way and design of a 36-foot wide street from back of curb to back of curb with sidewalk at time of development. 2. Labette Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. The proposed street design does not comply with the minimum horizontal radius requirement of 275 feet for a collector street. 3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 4. Submittal of a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required per Section 29-186 (e). 5. A round a bout should be constructed on Labette Drive on the west side of development. 6. The median on the north side driveway of development should be narrowed to approximately 10 feet wide or removed. The maximum width of a driveway is 36 feet. 7. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 3 8. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right- of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 10. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 11. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main on site must be relocated prior to construction. Indicate the location of the existing sewer main and easement on the site plan. Capacity Analysis Required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. It appears that existing water facilities will need to be relocated. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi-Family and Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Residential for a senior assisted residential development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. The majority of the project lies within the Multi-Family Planned area. Master Street Plan: Labette Drive is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: The closest bike route lies along Romine Road and Tanya Drive and is a Class II. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing & Neighborhood revitalization Goal listed an objective of “To enhance housing opportunities for seniors in the area.” This application could work toward fulfilling this goal. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. The site plan doesn’t allow for the nine (9) foot minimum landscape and buffer strip along the eastern perimeters of the site and a small portion along the northeastern area. 3. The street buffer width along the site should average twenty-nine foot in width and in no case less than fourteen foot. The proposed site plan does not meet this average along the northern perimeter of the site. 4. A total of eight (8) percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior landscaping islands. These interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet in area and be generally evenly distributed. 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. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 5 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 26, 2006) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating clarification of the proposed development was needed. Staff questioned the proposed employee mix, the services to be offered, and the number of staff per shift. Staff stated any proposed signage was required to be shown on the proposed site plan along with a note concerning the proposed height and area. Staff also questioned the indicated number of parking spaces. Staff stated if the development was proposed as elderly housing, the indicated parking was substantially more than the parking typically required by the ordinance. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the right of way for Labette Drive should be indicated at 60-feet with 36-feet of pavement. Staff also stated the indicated curve radius did not meet current ordinance requirements. Mr. McGetrick stated the right-of-way was dedicated with the final platting of the Value Health Addition. Staff stated a round-a-bout would be required on Labette Drive on the west side of the development. Mr. McGetrick stated he would review this request and get back with staff concerning this comment. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated landscaping strip along the eastern perimeter was not adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff also stated the street buffer width along the site did not average the 29-foot width along the northern perimeter. Staff noted the vehicular use area must provide interior landscaping islands or a variance from City Beautiful Commission was required. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 26, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a round-about as requested by staff and increased the perimeter landscaping to comply with the typical minimum ordinance standards. The applicant has provided the proposed employee mix and the number of staff per shift. The applicant has indicated services to be offered for the residents. The provided response indicates the development will be senior citizen assisted adult living facility with all residents being at least 56 years or older to live in the facility except for one designated apartment for a staff nurse and a designated apartment of an on-site manager. The kitchen will not be a full service kitchen May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 6 and the only food preparation on site will be for special events. The kitchen will be limited to reheating of prepared foods from off-site. The facility will provide limited transportation of seniors on planned outings and activities, however, it is the intent of the facility to partner/work closely with facilities such as Baptist Hospital, Second Baptist Church, Dr. Alonzo Williams and other medical provider in the area to provide medical transportation and community outing activity projects. The facility will partner with Baptist Hospital to provide patient care on an as needed basis and to provide continuing medical education and screening for all residents. There will be a nursing station on site with a small satellite medical office. Gates at the entrances to the development will be installed and controlled parking for the resident’s vehicles is proposed. The site plan indicates the placement of 162 parking spaces. The development is proposed with a total of 220 units, which would typically require the placement of 110 parking spaces for elderly housing. The indicated parking is more than adequate to serve the development. A single sign has been located near the entrance to the proposed development. The signage is consistent with signage allowed in multi-family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and thirty-two square feet in area. The site plan indicates the building with three stories and a maximum building height of 40-feet. The site is currently zoned MF-18 which typically allows for the placement of a 35-foot tall building. Staff is supportive of the indicated building height. The site plan indicates the site containing 6.84 acres with 76,200 square feet of building coverage and 46,200 square feet of open space. The site plan also indicates any site lighting will be low level and directional, directed into the site and away from residentially zoned or used properties. The applicant has indicated development as a gated community. Staff has concerns with the placement of gates on the site. Based on the current design of the site, there is not adequate maneuvering area for gating the development. Staff recommends the development not be gated. Staff is supportive of the proposed development. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site from MF-18 to PD-R to allow this 6.84-acre site as a 220-unit senior citizen adult assisted living facility. Staff feels the development of the facility as proposed should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 7 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated in response to issues raised at the January 26, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the technical concerns related to the site layout but had not addressed staff concerns regarding the proposed use of the property. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the March 30, 2006, public hearing to allow the applicant additional time to provide staff with the requesting information concerning the specifics of the proposed use of the site. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating they were requesting the item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing to allow staff time to forward a Master Street Plan Amendment request to the Commission to address a concern raised by the Neighborhood. Staff stated the applicant was agreeable to the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend approval of the PD-R request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6453-B 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda staff report. Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. He stated the developers were requesting the development of the property as an assisted living facility. He stated the developers were requesting gating of the development but would move the gates back into the parking lot to not back automobiles onto the public right-of-way. Ms. Viola Belton addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood would prefer the development to be gated to protect the neighborhood and the residents. Ms. Bernetta Levy addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the residents were assured the development would be gated and felt a gate was critical to the development. There was a general discussion concerning the request and the development of the site as an assisted living facility. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-6698-B NAME: 3900 Barrow Road Revised PCD LOCATION: Located at 3900 Barrow Road DEVELOPER: Supplies Plus Co., Inc. Edward Jacobs 3520 West 69th Street, Suite 404 Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Matrix IV Architects 100 South Main Street, Suite 418 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Mixed Office/Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Mixed Office/Commercial – allowance of a ground mounted sign VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. Staff has been unable to contact the applicant concerning issues related to the proposed placement of the sign. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was not present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating had been unable to contact the applicant concerning issues related to the proposed placement of the sign. Staff recommended the item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6698-B 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has been unable to contact the applicant concerning this application request. Staff recommends this item be withdrawn without prejudice and refiled if and when the applicant addresses staff concerns related to sight distances and the placement of the proposed sign. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating they had been unable to contact the applicant concerning the application request. Staff presented a recommendation the item be withdrawn without prejudice and refiled if and when the applicant addressed staff concerns related to sight distances and the placement of the proposed sign. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: LU06-01-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District Location: Northeast corner Cantrell & Pinnacle Valley Roads Request: Transition to Mixed Use Source: Joe White, White-Daters On March 15, 2006 the applicant requested that this item be deferred. Staff is not opposed to deferral. The item will be heard on May 11, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) This item was placed on the consent agenda for defer to May 11, 2006 at the request of the applicant. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against, the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has failed to provide the additional information required by Staff. The item is not complete and must be deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) To allow time to resolve issues, the item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to June 22, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: I.1 FILE NO.: Z-7436-A NAME: Cantrell/Pinnacle Valley Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Pinnacle Valley Road DEVELOPER: Collier-Dickson Flake Partners 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 10.18 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD and R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Mini-warehouse development and a strip commercial center and Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant site, Mini-warehouse development and a strip commercial center VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated March 15, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of this deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 15, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7436-A 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff recommends this item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: Z-7603-B NAME: 14910 Cantrell Road Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 14910 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Collier-Dickson Flake Partners 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 8.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 400 LF CURRENT ZONING: POD and R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Restaurant/Office and Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant Development VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated March 16, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 16, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-B 2 STAFF UPDATE: Staff recommends this item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: Z-7980 NAME: Entergy Substation – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Minton, LLC/Entergy Arkansas by Bill Stephens PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an Entergy Utility Substation on this R-2 zoned tract. 1. SITE LOCATION: The site is located south of Colonel Glenn Road, west of its intersection with Cooper Orbit Road. The site is off of the road, approximately midway between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road. The property is outside of the city limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial jurisdiction. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The area is rural in nature and contains single family residences and farms on larger tracts of property. Much of the overall area around the site is undeveloped. The proposed substation is to be located adjacent to a 115KV electrical transmission line that crosses the property. The nearest residence appears to be located some 400± feet northeast of the site. The other residences in the area are located farther away. It is possible that the substation may be visible from one or two residences. It appears that the substation is located where it will have minimal visual impact on a small number of nearby properties. All owners of properties located within 300 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of this item. A drop-in open house was hosted by Entergy on March 20, 2006. There were prominently displayed articles about the proposal in the March 10, 2006 and March 15, 2006 issues of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the site will be via a driveway located within a 25-foot wide access easement off of Colonel Glenn Road. The road will consist of packed gravel. It will be paved from Colonel Glenn Road to the first entrance gate. A parking pad will be located on the north end of the substation, at the entry road and gates. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 2 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. Due to the residentially zoned property around the site’s entire perimeter, an undisturbed buffer area is required. Along the northern and southern boundaries, 21 foot of undisturbed area is required. Along the eastern and western perimeters of the site, 24 foot of undisturbed area is required. In addition to the undisturbed buffer area, screening is required. This screening is to be a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, 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 site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Show the limits of the floodway on the proposed plat. Per FEMA regulations, no fill or building construction is permitted in the floodway. 3. Proposed alterations of floodway require flood map revisions or a no rise certification. Obtain conditional approval from Pulaski County and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 4. The minimum finish floor elevation above the 100 year flood elevation, as established by Pulaski County is required to be shown on plat. Plans indicate a base flood elevation of 355 feet. All supporting mechanical and electrical equipment must be constructed to the base flood elevation or higher. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 3 6. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment. Entergy: No comments received. Reliant: No comments received. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Outside of Little Rock City Limits. Provide statement from local volunteer fire department indicating approval and ability to provide service. Install fire hydrants per code. Contact LRFD Fire Marshal at 918-3710. County Planning: The applicant must apply for and receive a Floodplain development permit from Pulaski County. Please address the necessity of locating the proposed substation at this specific location. CATA: The site is not located on or near a CATA bus route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 22, 2006) The applicant and two representatives of Entergy were present. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed on the proposal. Staff asked the applicant to provide a detailed description of the proposed substation. The applicant was advised to locate the substation on the survey so that setbacks could be determined. Staff asked that proposed fencing and site lighting be located and described. It was noted that the proposed access drive would need to be paved. Staff asked the applicant to provide a detailed explanation of why this site was chosen; what engineering criteria were used to determine that this is the sole site that will accommodate Entergy’s needs; whether another site would work that would be less intrusive on neighboring residential properties. Staff asked that the applicant provide an explanation of possible effects on neighboring residents from electrical current and what noise would be provided by the substation. Staff asked the applicant to explain what measures would be taken to protect the adjacent gas transmission line. Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were discussed. It was noted that the property was in the floodplain and any development would have to comply with regulations covering development in the floodplain. Screening and May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 4 buffer requirements were explained. Ashley Pope, Director of Planning for Pulaski County, asked the applicant to address the necessity of locating the substation at this site. She also noted the requirement of obtaining a floodplain development permit. During the discussion, it was determined that an illegal subdivision of the property had occurred and that Entergy was proposing to purchase the proposed 4+ acre tract. Staff stated a plat needed to be filed to address both actions. The applicants determined they would defer the C.U.P. and file the plat. STAFF ANALYSIS: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for construction of an electrical substation on this R-2 zoned property. An associated preliminary plat has been filed to subdivide a 7.8 acre tract into three (3) lots (S-1518, Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat). The substation is to be located on proposed Lot 3. The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The surrounding area is rural in nature with a scattering of residential properties and farms. The substation is proposed to be located in an open field midway between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, adjacent to an existing 115kV transmission line. The proposed site is for a nominal 230 feet by 174 feet fenced area. The substation graded and graveled berm (pad) will extend outside the fenced area approximately 5 feet (all round) and there is proposed parking area on the north end of the station at the entrance road and gates. The substation 115kV high voltage dead-end structure top will be approximately 60 feet above existing/initial site grade (which includes a nominal 57 feet tall structure). The shield-wire height is projected to be at 60 feet and the conductor height is projected to be 45 feet above the initial site graded. Two to six individual 90 feet tall steel poles may be needed for Lightning protection (the number will depend on a lightning protection and shielding study that will be done once the final design is completed). Low voltage structures will be less than a nominal 35 feet above initial grade. The existing Transmission Line Poles, conductor, and shield-wire heights are as follows: • Structure 29 is a three wood pole structure consisting of two 80 foot poles plus one 75 foot pole. The transmission line conductor is approximately 51 feet above grade and the transmission shield-wire conductor is approximately 69 feet above grade. • Structure 30 is a two wood pole structure consisting of two 65 foot poles. The transmission line conductor is approximately 45 feet above grade and May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 5 the transmission shield-wire conductor is approximately 55 feet above grade. To satisfy neighborhood concerns, normal service night (dark-sky) lighting that point down would be installed for security purposes. Flood lighting will be installed which will only be turned on and used for emergency and worker safety lighting when necessary. It is proposed that the drive be paved from Colonel Glenn to the first entrance gate. A waiver will be requested for the remainder of the road. The road will consist of packed gravel built above the 100 year flood plain. The area located west of I-430 and along Colonel Glenn and Lawson Road is developing rapidly with commercial and residential electrical loads. Electrical loads in this area are estimated to expand by 20 to 25 MVA (which represents 80% electric load growth) within 3 to 5 years. Due to westward expansion and the large load growth expected in the area a substation is needed west of the I-430 and Colonel Glenn intersection. The existing substation serving this area is 3 miles to the east of Colonel Glenn and I-430 and is nearing its capacity. Construction of a new substation in the Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads area will alleviate the expected overloading at existing substations and allow for better reliability of service. Commercial and residential electrical load growth west of I-430 would be accommodated for many years. Service liability would be vastly improved with extended electrical outages being all but eliminated for 1st contingencies on the distribution system for the areas west of the I-430/Colonel Glenn corridor. Due to increasing and rapid development in the area, adequate and sufficient parcels of land suitable for an electrical substation in the vicinity of existing 115kV transmission facilities is limited. The preferred substation site is directly under the existing Transmission line, and in between (about 800 feet) the two Distribution feeder lines presently serving the area. This location would have the least amount of added electrical lines of all the options considered, which makes it the most reliable and cost effective solution. It also has the lowest environmental impact due to the minimal tree clearing required. The Quarry site is 4200 feet to the west of the existing Transmission line and an additional 1500 feet to the Colonel Glenn Distribution feeder. The additional mile of Transmission and Distribution lines makes this option less reliable, more costly, and has a much more negative environmental impact than the preferred May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 6 site. This site would likely require condemnation proceedings based on statements from landowners that Entergy could not cut any trees on their property. Also, Arkansas Public Service Commission (Commission) standards have been established by the Commission in specific cases over the years. Regarding filing of proposed facilities, the Commission will inquire into the general reasonableness of the propose project. The Commission will consider evidence of the aesthetic and environmental impact of the project and its impact on other property uses. The Commission will also consider the possible consequences to public health and safety. Finally the Commission must determine whether the utility has established a need for the facility and has made the most economic and prudent decision. As to the issue of EMF (Electric and Magnetic Fields), Entergy states it should be noted that there is no scientific proof that there is an effect on humans from EMF and thus there are no regulations regarding allowed levels. Due to this lack of guidelines, Entergy works to minimize the EMF from their facilities whenever practicable. With the proposed substation site under the existing transmission line, the only measurable increase in EMF would come from any additional lines that would be required. The EMF from these distribution lines would be the same as from any other line not near a substation. If the new substation were constructed in a site not under the current transmission lines then there would be an increase in EMF from the new transmission lines that would be required – thus, on the proposed site, minimal to no measurable increase. Entergy’s primary transformer supplier advises that Entergy’s present transformer specifications require inherently low noise transform units. If someone is going to be at least 300 feet, they will experience transformer sounds not much louder than a library and quieter than a “quiet Office” environment. Sound levels fall off with distance traveled. In general, transformer noise will not be noticeable, if audible, above ambient noise at the substation fence line and cannot be heard at all at a distance of 300 feet. In response to staff’s questions about the proximity of a gas line, Centerpoint has visited the site and states that the DL – 38 gas line is buried approximately 5 ft. below ground. The line flows gas north across Colonel Glenn Road to its regulator station. This is not a disconnection point for gas flow in a contingency event. Initial feedback is that Centerpoint does not believe the substation poses a problem provided Entergy does not impede across to its line (concrete pad over the main). Entergy’s design of the substation layout will not violate Centerpoint’s easement or pipeline integrity. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 7 The site is outside of the Little Rock city Limits. A joint meeting was held with the Little Rock Fire Chief Kerr, Assistant Chief Larry Tyner, Crystal Valley Fire District #24 Chief Gary Boyle, Andy Traffenstedt, Deputy Director Pulaski County Office of Emergency Management and Bill Muehsam – Emergency Response Manager, Pulaski County Office of Emergency Management. Based on negotiations with the Arkansas State Emergency Response Commission, the Commission decided to exempt reporting of dielectric fluids contained within oil- filled electrical equipment from the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act Tier II reporting. The basis for this decision was largely due to the fact that any emergency response action on the part of municipal or volunteer fire departments would be at the direction of Entergy electrical workers. Entergy’s management strategy relies upon early detection of abnormal operating conditions in a substation that could be indicative of an oil release, ready availability of absorbents and other materials or tools for initial containment of the oil spill by electrical workers, and rapid mobilization of spill response contractors to the site to complete contaminant removal and restoration. As with catastrophic fires in substations, catastrophic releases of dielectric fluid from substation equipment that impact waterways are rare. A question was posed by Pulaski County OEM representatives as to the likelihood of an oil discharge impacting adjacent residences. Due to the proposed location being within the flood plain and lower in elevation than the houses in the area, such a scenario would be unlikely. Entergy will provide copies of substation safety awareness video for emergency responders training and arrange for periodic electrical safety/refresher training to the Volunteer Fire District. Entergy will also host officials of the Crystal Fire District, Little Rock Fire Department and Pulaski County Department of Emergency Services to tour the Entergy Distribution and Transmission Operations Centers in Little Rock to provide a better understanding of how Entergy handles electrical outages and/or catastrophic electrical events. Included in this tour will be detailed discussion of procedures on how Entergy de- energizes transmission and distribution lines entering/leaving a substation plus explanation of the 24/7 monitoring equipment installed in the substation. Entergy can de-energize a substation within 5 to 7 cycles (60 cycles in a second). Entergy’s Environmental Management group has offered to conduct briefings to the Crystal Fire District and other interested emergency response personnel to communicate the potential environmental issues associated with dielectric fluid releases. These briefings will describe how pre-positioning of Haz-Mat materials by Entergy reduces response time to releases and the chances for runoff from any spill that might occur. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 8 Entergy has met with Pulaski County’s Director of Planning and Development. It is understood that Entergy is required to submit details showing that the substation will be built above the flood plain to obtain the necessary construction permit. The substation pad will be one to one and one-half feet above the 100 year flood plain. Electrical equipment will be an additional 3 to 4 higher. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s proposal. Within the past decade, the intensity of development west of I-430 has increased substantially. That growth is now expanding to encompass the broader Colonel Glenn corridor. New commercial development is occurring along the southern I-430, Colonel Glenn and Stagecoach Road corridors. Several new residential developments have been approved in the area south of David O Dodd, west of I-430. The Cooper Communities development on Crystal Valley Rod and Lochridge Estates on Marsh Road and Colonel Glenn each contain over 200 lots. It is estimated that somewhere near 1,000 new residential lots have been approved in the area. As this area becomes more densely developed, the need arises for enhanced support infrastructure, including utility service. This proposed substation is to be located underneath an existing high-voltage transmission line. The site is relatively well isolated from surrounding development. The applicant submitted responses to questions raised by staff, as reflected in the analysis above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. STAFF UPDATE: On December 22, 2005, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant requested deferral of the C.U.P. to coincide with a preliminary plat application that is necessary to address the issue of subdividing the property. On January 9, 2006, the applicant requested deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006 agenda. Staff recommends deferring the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006 meeting. There was no further discussion. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 9 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the May 11, 2006 Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicants were present. There were several objectors present. Sixteen persons submitted registration cards in opposition. Many letters of opposition and other items of information had been submitted to staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the “Staff Recommendation” above. James Jones, of Entergy, spoke on behalf of the application. He cited the new development in the area as prompting the need for the substation. He stated it had been 26 years since a new substation had been built in the Little Rock area. Mr. Jones stated the substation that currently served this area was operating at capacity. He stated Entergy had identified 5 potential locations. Mr. Jones described a feasibility study, which had been done of the 5 sites with this site being chosen as the best. He referred to a written report, which had been distributed to the Commissioners when speaking of the reasons why this site was chosen. Mr. Jones cited the lack of clear-cutting, reduced cost in transmission lines, the property being for sale, better distribution routes, good access and the overall reduced cost to Entergy customers. Stephen Giles, attorney representing the objectors, stating adding a substation to the site was adding a new use that was not compatible with the area. He stated a substation was an industrial use. He asked those present who were in opposition to stand. Approximately 20 persons stood. Mr. Giles referred to letters of opposition from area property owners and a letter from an appraiser stating the substation would have a negative impact on property values. Mr. Giles stated the ordinance required conditional uses to be compatible with uses in the area. He stated the area residents were asking for protection under the City’s extraterritorial zoning. He concluded by stating there was also a property line dispute. Sue Ann Stephens, of 14075 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition. She played a tape of noise she had recorded at the Entergy substation on Vimy Ridge Road. Ms. Stephens voiced concerns about access, fire, gas lines and flooding. She stated there were other sites that were better suited, specifically an inactive quarry site on Lawson Road. Ms. Stephens stated the substation was an industrial structure that was dangerous in nature and hideous in appearance. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 10 Roy Jolley, of 14300 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition. He described the beauty of the valley. He stated the substation would be located in a bowl and all those around would be looking at it. Mr. Jolley stated there would be light pollution and noise pollution. He stated he had seen this area flood and he surmised this development would increase flooding in the area. He referred to a letter from a realtor in which he predicted the substation would decrease surrounding property values by 50%. Mr. Jolley voiced concern about fire danger and noted the local volunteer fire department did not support the development. He referred to the number of neighbors in opposition and noted the quarry site was only 7/10 of a mile down the road. Mr. Jolley stated there would be a negative environmental impact. Carolyn Jolley, of 14300 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition and stated there had not been enough time for opposition. Stephen Giles showed a power point presentation with photographs of the area, flooding, the Vimy Ridge Substation, traffic on Colonel Glenn Road and the quarry site. James Jones responded that there were 53 substations in the Little Rock area and 490 in Arkansas. He stated several were located in floodplain areas. Mr. Jones stated the flood photographs shown by the opponents were of the property on the opposite site of the creek from the proposed substation site. He addressed the issue of a possible fire at the site by stating the substation could be de-energized within seconds. He stated surrounding properties would be protected and the fire department and Entergy personnel would respond in an emergency. Mr. Jones stated substations do not necessarily devalue properties. He stated there would be no noise beyond 200 feet away from the substation. He stated Entergy had looked at the quarry site but had determined it would add 3 million dollars to the cost and would involve clear-cutting an 80-foot by 1-mile path for a new transmission line. In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Jones stated both this site and the Vimy Ridge site were 115 KVA, the added cost of locating at the quarry site would be borne by rate payers, the substation would be low-lighted with flood lights used only when needed for work at the site and the site did need to be filled. In response to questions from Commissioner Yates, Mr. Jones stated access over the creek had not yet been designed but would be designed to comply with regulations and Entergy and the fire department would respond to any emergency at the site. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980 11 In response to questions from Commissioner Meyer, Jim Lovell of Entergy discussed the various types of transmission and distribution lines. Commissioner Taylor asked, of the 490 substations in Arkansas, how many per year have explosions or fires. Mr. Jones responded there had been only two since 1990. In response to additional questions, Mr. Jones stated there would be only ambient noise at 200 feet from the substation and the substation site needed to be built-up rather than constructed on piers for safety reasons. In response to questions from Commissioner Rahman, Mr. Jones stated the substation was needed to serve the area west of I-430 and Entergy hoped to have it operational by late 2007 or early 2008. A motion was made to approve the C.U.P. subject to all staff comments and conditions. The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock). May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: L FILE NO.: Z-8007 NAME: Dr. Hampton Short-form POD LOCATION: Located at 1109 - 1111 Welch Street DEVELOPER: Dr. R. J. Hampton 1111 Welch Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Land Surveyor 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72066 AREA: 0.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two family district ALLOWED USES: Two family residential PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Hospitality House VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The property located at 1109 and 1111 Welch Street is proposed for rezoning from R-4, Two-family District to POD to allow two existing lots to be used as a Hospitality House and associated parking area. The intent is to utilize the house for weddings, special and private events, family reunions, a special meeting location and when not used as one of these indicated uses, the house would be available as a bed and breakfast. The facility will be available for rental twenty-four hours per day either as a hospitality house or bed and breakfast and special meetings and other events would be scheduled on an as needed basis with hours varying depending on the circumstance. The general business hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 2 There are four (4) employees of the business including the owner-director, events coordination, secretary and groundskeeper. The owner of the site will maintain a business office on the site from which he will also operate his ministry and counseling service. The parking is proposed of asphalt surface materials and nine parking spaces are being proposed. There will be a trash dumpster located on the site adjacent to the rear of the structure. The applicant has indicated a screening fence will be placed around the dumpster. The site plan indicates the placement of landscaping along the perimeters of the site and a landscaped area located in the rear yard area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a residential structure currently being used as an office/hospitality house. The adjoining lot is currently vacant. The area has a number of vacant lots within the immediate area of the structure but further east of the site are single-family homes, which appear to be in good condition. There are non-conforming businesses located in the area with a sign company located one-half block south of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site along with the Hanger Hill and McArthur Park Neighborhood Associations 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. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Backing out into the right-of-way is prohibited. The width of the driveway must not exceed 36 feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 3 Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. If this becomes a commercial structure, contact Central Arkansas Water to change the rate classification on this account from domestic to commercial. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-30 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a POD for a hospitality hose and adjoining parking lot. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Welch Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. It may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes within a quarter mile of this application. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer minimal ordinance requirements. 2. Plan is unclear. 3. The proposed parking lot doesn’t reflect the six foot nine inches (6’-9”) minimum landscape strip along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the zoning ordinance. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 4 4. A three foot (3) wide landscape strip is required between the associated parking lot and the building. 5. A water source is required within seventy-five foot (75) of the landscaped areas. 6. Either 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 southern perimeters of the site adjoining the residential property. 7. These calculations take into account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned the uses of the site stating the existing sign indicated a number of activities taking place on the site. Staff also questioned if there would be a dumpster located on the site and requested the applicant define hospitality house. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated backing out into the street right-of-way was prohibited. Staff requested the applicant redesign the parking to not back into the public right-of-way. Staff also stated sidewalks would be required per the Master Street Plan along the property frontage. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated based on the plan submitted it was difficult to tell if the typical minimum landscaping requirements were being met. Staff stated a three foot wide landscape strip was required between the parking and the building. Staff also stated a water source was required within 75-feet of all landscaped areas. Staff stated screening would be required along the perimeter property lines, which abutted residentially zoned or used property. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the technical issues raised at the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has redesigned the proposed parking area to eliminate backing into the street, increased the landscaping along the northern perimeter of the site May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 5 and building landscaping along the southern perimeter. There are also landscaped areas located within the front and rear yard areas of the site. Staff would recommend the parking be adjusted somewhat to give the appearance of a larger front yard area. The parking is proposed of asphalt surface materials and contains nine parking spaces. The drive is proposed from Welch Street and will be constructed with a minimum width to reduce the intrusiveness of a commercial parking lot within the neighborhood. A trash dumpster has been located on the site adjacent to the rear of the structure. The applicant has indicated a screening fence will be placed around the dumpster. Staff has concerns with the proposed dumpster and location. The dumpster has been located near the residential portion of the neighborhood which staff feels should be protected. The facility will be available for rental twenty-four hours per day either as a hospitality house or bed and breakfast and special meetings and other events will be scheduled on an as needed basis with hours varying depending on the circumstance. The general business hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. Staff has concerns with this intensity of a use. Staff feels the potential use of the site as a 24-hour operation could potentially impact the adjoining properties. Staff is not supportive of the application as filed. Although, there are a number of vacant lots located along Welch and Barber Streets, College Street in this area is somewhat stable with the homes being maintained. A Model Block Program was also implemented along College Street to enhance the area. Staff feels the residential units in this area should be maintained and protected and the allowance of the proposed use could potentially impact these adjoining properties. Staff feels the site may be suitable for some of the proposed uses on a limited bases. Staff does not feel the use of the site on a 24-hour basis is an acceptable use of the property. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating they were requesting the item be deferred to the May 11, 2006, public hearing to allow staff additional time to consider May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 6 the application request. Staff stated the applicant was agreeable to the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has met with the applicant since the previous public hearing and is now supportive of the applicant’s request with limited conditions placed on the approval. The applicant has more clearly defined the proposed uses, defined the hours of operation and limited the approval to the current ownership. The proposed uses of the site are a bed and breakfast and a hospitality house or events center. The bed and breakfast will allow check-in from 3:00 pm until 7:00 pm daily. Reservations may be made at the site from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm daily. The applicant has offered a condition that the approval will be limited to the current ownership of Dr. Hampton and will not be a transferable use to subsequent owners. The hospitality house or events center will be offered for rental on a daily basis from 8:00 am to 12:00 am. The center will be used to host weddings, birthday parties or special events such as dinners parties. The applicant has indicated all activities will conclude on the site by 12:00 am with entertainment ending at 11:00 pm. Staff has concerns with the events ending at this hour especially Sunday through Thursday. Staff would recommend outdoor activities and entertainment with music end at dusk and all activities on the site end by 11:00 pm. Staff has concerns with the occupancy loads of the structure related for fire code and safety. Staff recommends the applicant contact the fire marshal to determine the number of occupants allowed within the structure related to the number of exits. To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associates with the request. Staff feels with the indicated conditions the use of the site as a bed and breakfast and hospitality house or events center will have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report and the conditions as indicated above in the staff update. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8007 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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 also presented a recommendation that the approval be limited to the current ownership of Dr. Hampton and is not a transferable use to subsequent owners. Staff presented a recommendation all outdoor activities and entertainment with music end at dusk and all activities on the site end by 11:00 pm. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: M FILE NO.: LU06-18-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District Location: 19618 Lawson Road Request: Single Family to Service Trades District Source: Pat McGetrick, McGetrick Engineering PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family to Service Trades District. Service Trades District provides for a selection of office, warehousing and industrial park activities that primarily serve office service or industrial businesses. The accompanying Planned Zoning District requested is for a Contractors Yard. Staff is not expanding the application since Staff could determine no logical area of expansion. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is rural, undeveloped, currently zoned R2 Single Family and is 2 acres ± in size. The location is outside the city limits. The areas to the north, west and south are rural in nature. Most of this area is zoned R2 Single Family with some AF Agriculture and Forestry zoning. The City zoned these areas as part of the initiation of extra-territorial zoning. To the southwest is one tract zoned Planned Commercial Development. Along Lawson Road both to the east and west are a few legal non-conforming uses zoned R2 Single Family. There are also homes along Lawson Road zoned R2 Single Family. To the east along Lawson Road is a more density though rural development pattern of homes with a few businesses. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: July 20, 2004, a change was made from Mixed Use to Mixed Office Commercial along the north side of 36th Street between Bowman Road and I-430, about a mile east of the site. This change was made as a result of a rezoning request for office zoning. April 6, 2004 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office at the southeast corner of Kanis and Pride Valley Road, over two miles to the north of the site. This change was for redevelopment of a structure for an office use. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-02 2 February 4, 2003, a change was made from Multifamily to Mixed Office Commercial south of Brodie Creek west of I-430, about a mile to the north east of the sire. This change was made to incorporate all the land south of Brodie Creek into one large proposal for a shopping center development. January 7, 2003, a change was made from Low Density Residential to Multifamily at Cooper Orbit and Capital Lakes Blvd., over two miles to the north of the site. This change was made to accommodate a plann4d development for apartments. July 3, 2001, a change was made from Low Density Residential, Mixed Office Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family – over a mile to the north of the site. This change was made to replace the proposed ‘Brodie Creel New Towne’ development with the ‘ Woodlands Edge’ residential subdivision. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this site and all the surrounding area. There is a small Public Institutional Use area shown to the southeast. The only other non-Single Family use area east of McHenry Creek along Lawson Road is from Church to Colonel Glenn Road. This area is shown for Office use with a small amount of Commercial at the intersection of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. MASTER STREET PLAN: Lawson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan. The primary function is to move vehicles through and area the area, not to provide access to adjacent properties. These roads tend to be four or five lane roads with sidewalks on both sides. Currently this section of Lawson Road is not built to standard. Additional right-of-way and street improvements will likely be required as part of the development process. BICYCLE PLAN: The Master Street Plan, Bicycle section, shows a Class I Bike route along Mc Henry Creek to the south and south west of the site. A Class I bike route has a separate paved path for the sole use of bicycles. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not indicate that the site is within 8-blocks of an existing public or private park or open space. However the Plan’s ‘Take it to the Extreme’ Trail is proposed to follow McHenry Creek in this area and with this addition the site would meet the Plan’s 8-block goal. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-02 3 HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. 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. ANALYSIS: The request area is outside the city limits within the Little Rock Planning and Zoning area. The section of Lawson Road from Church to McHenry Creek is a typical rural development pattern near an urban area. That is primarily single- family homes lining the road with a scattering of non-residential uses. The use pattern has been in place for many decades. It should be noted that it appears that one or two single-family homes have been added in the last few years along this corridor. There is one large business area east of Duvall on the north side of the road. This is a contractors office and yard, with an automobile repair facility. A second contractor office with yard is located on the south side of Lawson Road west of Duvall halfway to McHenry Creek. This application area is for a third such use. This would be on the north side of Lawson almost to McHenry Creek. Lawson Road is classified as a Minor Arterial road. The road is currently two- lanes with open ditches. An arterial design standard is for four lanes with curb and gutter and sidewalks. The road is significantly under design. Additional right-of-way will be required with redevelopment and widening is likely. The 2004 traffic count for this section of Lawson was 6700 vehicles a day. The volumes are approaching levels where the additional lanes will be necessary. The City policy for land use is to develop using the ‘node’ concept. That is, retail, commercial and businesses should be group around major intersections. These uses should not line major roads. This is done in part to reduce traffic issues along the major roadways. Lawson Road is a major road and just non-residential uses should be clustered or grouped at major intersections. A major intersection is one with another arterial or a collector road. The recent addition of single-family homes indicates a continuing demand and desire for residential along Lawson Road. It should be noted that in the last five years significant development of non-residential uses has been occurring at the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-02 4 Colonel Glenn Road – I-430 Interchange. This is just over a mile to the east of the site. There remain abundant undeveloped areas zoned for commercial and office uses at this location. The immediate area is rural in nature. With the ridgelines to the north and south along with McHenry Creek, high density or urban density development is not likely. The topography is likely to also reduce the likelihood of future north-south road development. The area to the south and southeast, which is still outside the city limits, is the most likely candidate for a more urban development pattern. And this is not likely without annexation to the City. With a rural development pattern less non-residential use is needed and the separation between such uses is greater. In this section of Lawson Road the primary use is Single Family. Homes currently exist and are well maintained. There are, as noted, a couple of non- residential uses in the general vicinity. However they are the exception not the development rule. They existed prior to the City implementing land-use regulations (zoning) in the area. The City has allowed via the Planned Zoning District process the expansion of one of these uses. There have been actions over the last five years, which have increased the available Commercial, Office and Service Trades uses in the vicinity to the east. Much of this land still has not been developed. There appears to be demand for single-family use based on the occupancy and maintenance of the properties. The request is to change the Land Use Plan from Single Family to Service Trades to allow a new use to locate on Lawson Road. The site has been used for single family in the past. The overall area is rural in nature. Lawson Road will have to be widened in future years. With the topography and lot depth a single- family home could be built on this site. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the John Barrow Neighborhood Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-02 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) This item was placed on the consent agenda for defer to May 11, 2006 at the request of the applicant. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against, the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE: No new information has been provided to Staff. The recommendation remands the same. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the existing conditions and Land Use Plan in the area. The area is predominately single-family with a couple of pre-existing commercial uses. There has been an addition of a few homes in the immediate area. Staff does not support the change. Mr. Malone turned the meeting over to Ms. James of the Planning Staff to review the requested Planned Development for this site. Mr. David Holzhauer, the property owner across Lawson Road, spoke against the application. Mr. Holzhauer indicated he was against the Land Use change from Single Family. He wanted to make sure he did not have a business across the street, which he would see any time he went out on his front porch. He also indicated there were other site to the east which, while maybe more costly were more appropriate for this use. See item M.1 for a complete minute record. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: M.1 FILE NO.: Z-8008 NAME: Keyes Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located North of Lawson Road and West of Devall Road DEVELOPER: Alessi-Keyes 15 Shackleford Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 2.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Contractor’s office and storage yard VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site contains 2.0 acres and is currently zoned R-2, Single-family. The request is to rezone the site to PCD to allow a contractor’s office and storage yard to locate on the site. The site plan indicates the existing structures would be removed from the site and a new 3,000 square foot office building and 3,000 square foot warehouse building would be added to the site. The site plan indicates future construction of an additional 4,200 square feet of warehouse space. A covered storage area has been indicated on the site plan for immediate construction and a second covered storage area is indicated for future construction. An area of open storage has also been indicated. The proposed construction materials are brick and metal siding. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 2 The days and hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family structure currently in disrepair. There are a number of trees on the site located near the rear of the property. The area is primarily residential with a few non-residential uses, which appear to have been in the area for a number of years. South of the site is a contractors office and storage yard and east of the site is an electrical contractor’s office and storage yard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site along with the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Lawson 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 the site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide a written certification of approval by the State Department of Health indicating approval of the proposed wastewater disposal. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. If this becomes a commercial structure, contact Central Arkansas Water to change the rate classification on this account May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 3 from domestic to commercial. Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Fire Department having jurisdiction to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information. Fire Department: Outside the service boundary. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the site. County Planning: 1. Provide a minimum of 4-foot contours on the site plan and indicate a drainage plan for the site. 2. Provide a factual survey of the property. Include bearings and distances. 3. Place new lot pins at the corner of the lot where the 20-feet of right-of-way is dedicated. 4. Provide a 40-foot building setback from all property lines. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial District for Contractors office and yard. A land use plan amendment for a change to Service Trades District is a separate item on this agenda (LU06-18-02). Master Street Plan: Lawson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan. The primary function is to move vehicles through and area the area, not to provide access to adjacent properties. These roads tend to be four or five lane roads with sidewalks on both sides. Currently this section of Lawson Road is not built to standard. Additional right-of-way and street improvements will likely be required as part of the development process. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, Bicycle section, shows a class I bike route along Mc Henry Creek to the south and south west of the site. A Class I bike route has a separate paved path for the sole use of bicycles. 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. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 4 Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer minimal ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning ordinance requires an average of thirty-one foot (31) for the street buffer requirement and in no case less than half. The plan proposes twenty-five foot (25) currently, it appears that the maneuvering area for the parking lot can be reduced by five foot (5) thus allowing for this minimum requirement. 3. The zoning ordinance requires thirty-one foot (31) wide land use buffer next to the residentially zoned property to the north. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. 4. The zoning ordinance requires a ten foot (10) wide land use buffer next to the residentially zoned properties to the east and west of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. 5. Either a six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site adjoining the residential property. 6. This site is 2 acres in size; therefore, 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. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned the materials and equipment to be stored in the outdoor storage area. Staff also requested the days and hours of operation and the number of employees. Staff stated the site plan did not include the total sign height or area and requested a note be included depicting the proposed signage. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Lawson Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-way would be required 45-feet from the centerline. Staff also stated street construction would be required per the Master Street Plan. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan did not allow for the required 31-foot street buffer. Staff stated by reducing the maneuvering May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 5 area for the parking lot this minimum requirement could be achieved. Staff also stated screening would be required along the perimeters of the site where abutting residentially zoned or used properties. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the technical issues raised at the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated materials to be stored within the open area of the site, days and hours of operation and the number of employees. The revised site plan indicates a dedication of right-of-way and street construction per the Master Street Plan. The landscape strip along the street has been increased to 31-feet as requested. The request is for the placement of a contractor’s office and storage yard on this 2.0 acre site located outside the City Limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The existing structures will be removed from the site and a new 3,000 square foot office building and 3,000 square foot warehouse building would be added to the site along with 21 parking spaces. The site plan indicates future construction of 4,200 square feet of additional warehouse space. A covered storage area has been indicated on the site plan for immediate construction and a second covered storage area is indicated for future construction. An area of open storage has been indicated and the items to be stored are a job site trailer, backhoe and construction material not stored at construction site. The site plan indicates “in and out” storage will be 30 – 45 days. The proposed building coverage is thirteen (13) percent with seven (7) percent in landscaped areas and eighteen (18) percent in paved areas. The proposed construction materials are brick and metal siding. The site plan indicates the placement of a dumpster on the site internal to the development. Screening will be provided per City Ordinance requirements. The site plan indicates the placement of a single ground mounted monument style sign not to exceed six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The site plan also indicated building signage is not anticipated but will be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the front building façade area if utilized. The days and hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Staff is not supportive of the request. The development is inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan, which currently designates this site as single-family. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 6 Although there are non-residential uses in the area most have been in the area a number of years or are located nearer the Colonel Glenn/Lawson Road/David O Dodd Road intersections. There are a number of new homes located in the area, which would lead staff to believe the area is primed for single-family development. There are a number of areas designated on the City’s Future Land Use Plan and currently zoned for non-residential activities in the area. Staff feels non-residential uses should be limited to those areas currently defined for such activities. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated March 29, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the requested By-law waiver. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Jimmy Aessi addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated his company had looked at a number of site and this site was best suited to his company’s needs. He stated there were a number of non-residential businesses located in the area. He stated the site was located directly across the street from a similar use and a May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: M.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8008 7 church. He stated the site plan did locate an area of outdoor storage but the outdoor activities of his company were limited. He stated the building would be constructed aesthetically pleasing and would enhance the neighborhood. He stated there were large buffers around the perimeter of the site and landscaping and screening would be placed around the site to shield the views from adjoining properties. He stated his firm only employed seven persons and the hours of operation were from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday. He stated the business did not generate a great deal of traffic and the impact on the residential uses in the area should be minimal. The Commission questioned the use of the outdoor storage area. Mr. Aessi stated the area was used to store an equipment trailer. He stated in ten years the trailer had been stored at their current location for a total of four months. He stated his company rented job site trailers when they were necessary. Mr. David Holzhawer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located across the street from the proposed business. He stated he felt the land use plan should not be changed and the applicant’s should not be allowed to open a business in a residential neighborhood. He stated he felt a number of his neighbors were also opposed to the request but felt they were not present because of the process. He stated he did not want to look out his front door on a daily basis and look at a business. He stated he felt the location of a non-residential business in the area would devalue his property. He stated the applicant’s had a choice of location but he did not since he already owned his home. He stated there was no guarantee the developers would own the property next year and the next owner may not abide by the same rules as the current applicant’s. There was a general discussion of the proposed request. The Commission questioned if there were building elevations available. Mr. Aessi provided a rendering of the proposed building façade. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 6 noes 0 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: N FILE NO.: Z-5936-F Owner: Deltic Timber Corporation Applicant: Tim Daters; White-Daters and Associates Location: Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road Area: 40.03 Acres Request: Rezone from MF-18, O-2 and C-3 to R-2, O-3, C-3 and OS Purpose: Future development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Residential uses and Chenal golf course; zoned R-2 and MF-6 South – Undeveloped property and residential uses; zoned R-2 East – Undeveloped property; zoned C-2 West – Residential uses and Chenal Golf Course; zoned R-2 and MF-18 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing. There was no nearby neighborhood association to notify. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-F 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential and Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to C-3 General Commercial, O-3 General Office and R-2 Single Family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial, Office and Single Family is a separate item on this agenda. Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road are shown as Arterials on the plan. LaGrande is shown as a Collector on the Plans. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and area the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. A Collector functions to bring vehicles from the neighborhoods to the Arterial system as well as to provide access to adjacent property. These roads are designed to be three-lane roads. Not all of the roads are built to standard. Currently, there are no plans by the City to make road improvements at this location. At the time of development additional right-of-way and road improvements may be required. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. 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: Deltic Timber Corporation, owner of the 40.03 acre tract at the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road, is requesting that the zoning be reclassified from “MF-18” Multifamily District, “O-2” Office and Institutional District and “C-3” General Commercial District to “R-2” Single Family District, “O-3” General Office District , “C-3” General Commercial District and “OS” Open Space District. The rezoning is proposed for future development of the property. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-F 3 The applicant has divided the 40.03 acre property into eight (8) parcels proposed for rezoning. The individual parcels are as follows: Parcel # Area Proposed Zoning 1 10.43 acres O-2 to R-2 2 8.78 acres MF-18 to R-2 3 0.71 acre MF-18 to OS 4 0.44 acre C-3 to OS 5 1.00 acres O-2 to OS 6 1.94 acres O-2 to O-3 7 6.93 acres O-2 to C-3 8 9.80 acres O-2 to OS This property was previously zoned PCD – Planned Commercial Development. The Planning Commission approved a request to revoke the PCD zoning on February 16, 2006. On March 21, 2006, the Board of Directors approved the revocation (Ordinance No. 19501), reverting the property’s zoning back to MF-18, O-2 and C-3. The 40.03 acre property is currently undeveloped and wooded. The property slopes downward from Chenal Parkway to the west. There are residential uses and the Chenal Golf Course property to the north, with undeveloped property and additional residences to the south. Undeveloped property, zoned MF-18, C-2 and C-3, is located to the east. Additional portions of the golf course and additional residences are located to the west. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential and Single Family. A Land Use Plan Amendment for a change to commercial, office and single family is a separate item on this agenda (LU06-19-02). The Land Use Plan Amendment was expanded to include property in addition to the 40.03 acres proposed for rezoning. Staff is supportive of the rezoning request. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant is proposing a total of 19.21 acres for R-2 zoning and 11.95 acres of OS zoning. The proposed OS zoning will serve as a buffer between the existing and proposed R-2 zoning to the north and west, and the future office and commercial uses along the future extension of Rahling Road, west of Chenal Parkway. A minimal amount of the overall property is proposed for O-3 (1.94 Acres) and C-3 (6.93 Acres). Staff believes this rezoning request is appropriate and is also supporting this May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-F 4 portion of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LU06-19-02). The proposed zonings should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested R-2, O-3, C-3 and OS rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 13, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended deferral. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 25, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be deferred to the May 25, 2006 Agenda, to allow staff additional time to study the Land Use Plan issues in the area. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 25, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: O FILE NO.: LU06-19-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: West of Chenal, north of Kanis Road Request: Single Family, Low Density Residential, Multifamily, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office to Single Family, Office, Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial Source: Tim Daters, White-Daters PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Single Family, Low Density Residential, Multifamily, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office to Single Family, Office, Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial. Single Family provides for single-family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Office represents services provided directly to consumers (egg, legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. Commercial includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal services and general business activities. Mixed Office Commercial provides a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur, acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial with a Planned Zoning District. For some of the area there are reclassifications to allow for further development, in other there is not application for re classification at this time. In all cases the changes are intended to allow for future development of the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At the request of the Planning Commission this item will be deferred to May 11, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 13, 2006) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to May 11, 2006. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE: PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Single Family, Low Density Residential, Multifamily, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office to Single Family, Office, Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial. Single Family provides for single-family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Office represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g. legal, financial, medical) as May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: O (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-02 2 well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. Commercial includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal services and general business activities. Mixed Office Commercial provides a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur, acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial with a Planned Zoning District. For some of the area there are reclassifications to allow for further development, in other there is not application for re classification at this time. In all cases the changes are intended to allow for future development of the area. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant currently zoned MF18, Multifamily 18 units, O2 Office & Institutional, and Planned Office District and is 57 acres ± in size. To the northeast are C2 Shopping Center, C3 General Commercial and Planned Commercial District tracts. Most of this land remains vacant and wooded. A few of the offices and retail uses have been constructed in the Planned Commercial District west of Chenal Parkway. To the southeast is MF 18 and R2 Single Family land. The MF18 land is vacant and the R2 land is mostly developed as large lot and rural residential. To the Southwest is primarily R2 land with a couple of C1 Neighborhood Commercial and C3 pieces along Kanis Road. Most of the R2 land is vacant or developed as rural and large lot residential. The C3 and C1 land is partial developed and partial vacant. To the northwest is mostly R2 land with some MF6 Multifamily 6 units and MF18. All the land is developed as single-family subdivisions with a golf course. There is a separate item on this agenda to change some of the zoning within the amendment area. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: May 18, 2004, a change from Single Family to Office, south of Cantrell Road between Chenonceau and Chevaux a mile to the north of the site. This change was made related to a Planned Office District reclassification to allow for future redevelopment of the land. January 20, 2004, a change from Office to Mixed Use south of Rahling Road either side of Champlin Drive, north of the site. This change was made to allow for future development of the land (no reclassification was included at the time). June 17, 2003, changes from Office, Multifamily and Single Family to Multifamily and Low Density Residential in the same ownership as this site. These changes were made to reflect new zoning in the area for future development. June 4, 2002, a change from Single Family to Suburban Office south of Cantrell Road either side of Drew, a mile to the north of the site. This change was made related to a Planned Office District reclassification to allow for future redevelopment of the land. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: O (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-02 3 January 2, 2002, a change from Single Family to Commercial, Suburban Office and Open Space southeast of the Chenal-Northfield intersection over a mile to the northwest of the site. This change was made related to a rezoning request for the area. The land use plan for most of this area reflects the use pattern of a Planned Commercial District, which was approved by the City many years ago to develop a ‘neo- traditional’ development for the area. North of the application area is a large area of Commercial to the Chenal-Rahling intersection. To the east is Office then Multifamily use areas. To the southeast is a Commercial area at Kanis-Chenal Parkway then Single Family. To the south is Multifamily use then Single Family. To the southwest is Multifamily around a Commercial Node at Kanis and the proposed West Loop (Rahling Road). West of the application is a Single Family use area. MASTER STREET PLAN: Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road are shown as Arterials on the plan. LaGrande is shown as a Collector on the Plans. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. A Collector functions to bring vehicles from the neighborhoods to the Arterial system as well as to provide access to adjacent property. These roads are designed to be three-lane roads. Not all of the roads are built to standard. Currently there are no plans by the City to make road improvements at this location. At the time of development additional right-of-way and road improvements may be required. BICYCLE PLAN: The Master Street Plan, Bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates this site is currently within 8-blocks of an existing public or private park or open space. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: O (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-02 4 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. ANALYSIS: This is an area which has not seen much development yet. The area was annexed almost twenty years ago. Land Use Plan for the area was adopted in the mid-1980s. This was part of the “Little Rock Extraterritorial Land Use Plan” area, which was adopted in 1986. Since then there has been one major Land Use Plan amendment for this area. The owner (Chenal Properties) proposed to develop a ‘town center’ using the neo-traditional development standards. A Planned Commercial District was approved for the proposed development and the Land Use Plan was changed to reflect this new use pattern. The Planned District for this mixed use ‘town center’ has been repelled now. The owner has proposed and been approved for a large shopping center using the Power Center and main street retail design concepts. This development is half of the former Planned District and is between Rahling, La Grande and Chenal Parkway. The amendment proposed here is the remaining area of the former Planned District – west and south of the new proposed ‘Power Center’. Development has been occurring to the northwest and northeast of this application area. Subdivisions with ‘high-end’ homes have been developed both to the northwest and east. A large office development with multiple buildings has been constructed just to the east of the application area. All of this development has occurred in the last fifteen years. Currently the site is wooded and vacant. The city limits is not too far to the south and southwest of the application area. The major intersection is the Rahling-Chenal intersection however there is a high concentration of major roads in this vicinity. Rahling Road, Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road are all arterials, which are major roads. La Grande, and Chenampagnolle are Collectors. Only a portion of LaGrande and none of Rahling Road are constructed along the amendment request. The proposed ‘power center’ is zoned C2 Shopping Center and represents most of the currently zoned commercial land in the vicinity of the Rahling-Chenal Parkway intersection. The Plan change has two parts. For most of the area north and west of Rahling Road there is a companion-rezoning item. The request is to recognize the pre- PCD commercial at Rahling and Chenal and to keep the commercial area of the PCD north of Rahling Road. Rahling would be lined with commercial almost to Rock Creek. An area of office is proposed which would be the entrance to a small single-family area. The second area is the south frontage of LaGrande. There is no zoning request at this May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: O (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-02 5 time. Currently the Plan shows Office along the eastern frontage and multifamily along the west. There is a Planned Office District where the Office is shown and Multifamily- 18 zoning where the multifamily is shown. The Mixed Office Commercial designation requires that some part of the area have office, but does not require a percentage. The first area of the request northwest of the Rahling-Chenal Parkway intersection is basically to recognize the existing zoning pattern along Rahling Road. The changes to the north reduce the intensity of the development that would result. The resulting land use pattern and zoning pattern would be between that of the current zoning and the current Land Use Plan. The major change is more commercial along Rahling Road and less density of residential north of this. It should be noted that a portion of the Commercial has been purchased by a bank for their main office. These changes are minor and are basically a rearrangement of uses. The second area would introduce Commercial use along the south side of La Grande. There are significant areas shown for, yet to develop, at the Rahling Road-Chenal Intersection and to the south at the Kanis-Chenal Parkway intersection. The idea of changing the Land Use Plan to Mixed Office Commercial along the full length of a street has the appearance of ‘strip’ development. The practice in Mixed Office Commercial areas has been for predominately commercial developments. Thus ‘strip’ commercial is a possibility with this change. With all the Commercial shown in the area there does not appear to be a need to add the possibility of commercial for this land. There will be a need for residences near these future employment sources for the service workers that will be need to staff them. Having Multifamily or Low Density Residential in close proximity would seem appropriate. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: St Charles Community Association and Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the changes north of Rahling Road are appropriate but the changes south of LaGrande area not appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of Staff to allow time to resolve issues the item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to May 25, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: P FILE NO.: LU06-19-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: Rahling to Chenal, Kirk to Wellington Village Request: Neighborhood Commercial, Office & Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial Source: Robert Brown, Development Consultants PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial. Mixed Office Commercial represents a mixture of office and commercial uses, with either office or a mix of both uses with a Planned Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At the request of the Planning Commission this item will be deferred to May 11, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 13, 2006) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to May 11, 2006. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant rural in nature with one house currently zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, O-2 Office & Institutional, and MF6 Multifamily 6-units per acre and is 48.5 acres ± in size. North of the site the land is vacant rural in nature and zoned MF18 Multifamily 18 units per acre, and R-2 Single Family. To the east is an apartment complex zoned MF18 and a single-family subdivision zoned R-3 Single Family and R-2. To the south are several Planned Commercial Districts with auto dealerships and a partial developed shopping center. To the southwest is vacant land zoned C-3 General Commercial and to the northwest is O-2 and Planned Office District land with office buildings and one mixed office retail center. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: P (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-01 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: May 18, 2004, a change from Single Family to Office, south of Cantrell Road between Chenonceau and Chevaux, a mile to the north of the site. This change was made related to a Planned Office District reclassification to allow for future redevelopment of the land. January 20, 2004, a change from Office to Mixed Use south of Rahling Road either side of Champlin Drive, north of the site. This change was made to allow for future development of the land (no reclassification was included at the time). June 17, 2003, changes from Office, Multifamily and Single Family to Multifamily and Low Density Residential in the same ownership as this site. These changes were made to reflect new zoning in the area for future development. June 4, 2002, a change from Single Family to Suburban Office was made south of Cantrell Road either side of Drew, a mile to the north of the site. This change was made related to a Planned Office District reclassification to allow for future redevelopment of the land. January 2, 2002, a change from Single Family to Commercial, Suburban Office and Open Space southeast of the Chenal-Northfield intersection over a mile to the northwest of the site. This change was made related to a rezoning request for the area. The site requesting a change is shown as Neighborhood Commercial on the north, Low Density Residential on the northeast and the remainder as Office use. Northeast is Low Density Residential and Single Family. To the southeast is a small area of Neighborhood Commercial, Suburban Office and Public Institutional with Mixed Office Commercial and Commercial use beyond that. To the south is Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial use on the Plan. Southwest is Commercial with Multifamily beyond that. To the northwest is Office and Multifamily with more Office beyond. MASTER STREET PLAN: There is an amendment to the Master Street Plan before the Board of Directors for this area; the major change of this item would be the alignments. Wellington Hills Boulevard and Champlin Drive are shown as Arterials on the Plan. Kirk is shown as a Collector with a request to change it to an Arterial. An unnamed Collector has been requested for removal from the Plan between Chenal Parkway and Arkansas Systems Drive. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. A Collector functions to bring vehicles from the neighborhoods May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: P (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-01 3 to the Arterial system as well as to provide access to adjacent property. These roads are designed to be three-lane roads. None of these roads are built to standard. Right- of-way and street improvements will need to be made at the time of development. BICYCLE PLAN: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Chenal Parkway. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates this site is currently within 8-blocks of an existing public or private 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 application area is within the Rock Creek Neighborhoods Plan area. The Neighborhood Plan calls for the protections and preservation of greenbelts with strict enforcement of the excavation and landscape ordinances. It also calls for the interconnection of the area with sidewalks and other non-motorized vehicle paths. The Plan calls for the completion of Champlin Drive and Villages of Wellington Road to Kanis Road, and construct the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Champlin Drive funded with a bond issue (build prior to development). The Plan asks that amendments to the Land Use Plan be rare and only with the input of the neighborhood. ANALYSIS: The site requesting a change in land use is part of what had been a dairy farm many years ago. Currently it is rural in nature. Some of the dairy farm ownership has already been redeveloped as single-family homes, churches, and commercial uses. The land all around this ownership has been developing over the last decade. The result is moderate sized office buildings to the west; commercial uses to the south, single-family uses and apartments to the east; and apartments and vacant land to the north. The Master Street Plan has recommended a north-south arterial through this property for many years. The location did start out closer to the then eastern boundary of the property. Over the years the alignment has moved to the west. Also over the years the density has increased with more office and higher density residential proposed on the site and less single-family. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: P (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-01 4 The area is part of what is commonly called ‘west Little Rock’. Most of this area was annexed in to the city in the 1980s as vacant land. Since then subdivision of homes have been constructed to the east, Villages of Wellington and west, Chenal Valley. This site was one of the last areas to become part of the city, in the mid-1990s. Most of the Single Family and Office areas have been developed. However, the majority of the areas shown for Commercial remain partial development or undeveloped. Most of this land is along Chenal Parkway. There is a large ‘node’ of Commercial at Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway and a smaller one at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. There is a proposal to construct a large commercial center at Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway. This development would consume most of the available undeveloped commercially zoned land at that location (if the development occurs). In addition very little of the Commercial at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway is developed. In both of these locations the land is also zoned commercial, either C2 Shopping Center or C3 General Commercial. Most of the commercial development along Chenal Parkway that has developed has been approved with Planned Commercial Districts. There are still some available areas for commercial development within these projects. There have been three apartment developments constructed near the application area. Two are to the north and one to the southeast. Residential development has been limited to apartment complexes or single-family detached structures to date, even though the Plan shows some Low Density Residential use. This change would remove the last undeveloped land shown for Low Density Residential. The proposed change would also remove approximately half of the Neighborhood Commercial land on the Plan. Currently the commercial that has been built is mostly regional or community types of use, rather than retail uses designed to service the immediate neighborhood. A Conditional Use Permit has been applied for to the north of this application to construct a church complex. The uses on this land are Single Family, Multifamily, Low Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. The actual likely future use of the land is Public Institutional. The existing zoning for this land is R-2 Single Family, MF-18 Multifamily 18 units per acre, and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. There will be less residential and commercial uses as a result of the church development. The bulk of the area requesting a change in use is Office on the Plan and zoned. With the loss of the Neighborhood Commercial area at Kirk and Arkansas System some additional commercial to the south is not unreasonable. The surrounding uses are Office to the west; Commercial to the south; Multifamily, Neighborhood Commercial and Suburban Office to the east; and a church to the north. The Plan has always called for the area between Wellington Hills Boulevard and Chenal Parkway to be high density with office and commercial uses. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: P (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-19-01 5 The Planning Commission has approved a realignment of Wellington Hills Boulevard, which would place the bulk of the proposed Mixed Office Commercial area south of the road. A small portion would be north of the roadway between the proposed church and existing apartments. The area between Chenal Parkway and the alignment of Wellington Hills-Arkansas Systems is currently predominately commercial. There are two areas of office within this boundary, this site being one. The other is around Arkansas Systems Drive and is mostly developed. As noted previously there is available commercial to the west, which has been Planned and zoned for decades. There will be less commercial in this location due to the church development. In addition some Commercial will be removed from the Plan with this application. Office has been developing to the east, but areas remain further north at Chenal Parkway and Chenal Drive and to the west beyond Chenal Parkway. Of the application area approximately 30 acres is currently Office and five acres is Neighborhood Commercial. The total application area is approximately 48 to 49 acres, with the remaining 10 acres or so currently shown for residential. A change from Office to Mixed Office Commercial is not a major change. It does introduce retail as a more major possibility for the office area. In a Mixed Office Commercial area, the City and Commission can require a development to be majority office. Though historically Planned Zoning District for Mixed Office Commercial areas have been primarily commercial. Two conceptual Planned Zoning Districts have been submitted for review on this agenda. One in north of the extension of Wellington Hills Boulevard, it is a Planned Office District and south is a Planned Commercial District. These will set the percentage of office and commercial for the application area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: St Charles Community Association and Parkway Place Property Owners Association. Staff has not received any comments, though at the April 19, 2006 Plans Committee meeting there were a couple of interested property owners. One did express concerns about how changing the use pattern might affect improvement districts in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of Staff to allow time to resolve issues the item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to May 25, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: Q FILE NO.: LU06-18-03 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District Location: South of Chenal-Kanis, west of Kirk Road Request: Multifamily to Commercial Source: Robert Brown, Development Consultants PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Multifamily to Commercial. Commercial represents a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services and general business activities. Future commercial development of the site. No rezoning has been filed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At the request of the Planning Commission this item will be deferred to May 11, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 13, 2006) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to May 11, 2006. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant and a golf driving range currently zoned R-2 Single Family and PDC Planned Development Commercial and is 20.5 acres ± in size. South and west of the site is zoned R-2 Single Family and is either vacant or rural developed as large lot single-family. To the east is a Planned Commercial Development, partially developed as a shopping center. To the northeast are several Planned Commercial Developments for small offices and auto dealerships. Beyond this to the north is O-2 Office & Institutional and Planned Office Districts. Most of the O-2 land is vacant while the Planned Office Developments are office buildings. To the north is C-3 General Commercial land, which is currently vacant. Beyond this are two Planned Office Developments, one is an office building the other is a commercial center with both office and retail uses. Beyond this is a large area of vacant C-2 Shopping Center zoned land. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: Q (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-03 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: July 20, 2004, a change was made from Mixed Use to Mixed Office Commercial along the north side of 36th Street between Bowman Road and I-430, over a mile southeast of the site. This change was made as a result of a rezoning request for office zoning. April 6, 2004 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office at the southeast corner of Kanis and Pride Valley Road, to the southeast of the site. This change was for redevelopment of a structure for an office use. February 4, 2003, a change was made from Multifamily to Mixed Office Commercial south of Brodie Creek west of I-430, about a mile to the southeast of the site. This change was made to incorporate all the land south of Brodie Creek into one large proposal for a shopping center development. January 7, 2003, a change was made from Low Density Residential to Multifamily at Cooper Orbit and Capital Lakes Blvd., to the south of the site. This change was made to accommodate a planned development for apartments. July 3, 2001, a change was made from Low Density Residential, Mixed Office Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family – over a mile to the southeast of the site. This change was made to replace the proposed ‘Brodie Creek New Towne’ development with the ‘ Woodlands Edge’ residential subdivision. The site is shown for Multifamily use. To the east is a Mixed Office Commercial area. Beyond this is a small commercial area at Kanis and Chenal Parkway. To the south is a Park/Open Space corridor along Rock Creek, then a large area of Single Family use. To the north is a Commercial node at Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road, beyond this is a large Office area. To the west is an area shown for Public Institutional. This site was proposed on a consultant study done in the mid-1980s. Further to the west is Multifamily around a Commercial node at the intersection of Kanis with the west Loop (Rahling Road). MASTER STREET PLAN: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial and Kirk Road extension is shown as a Collector on the plan. A Minor Arterial is designed to move vehicles and goods in and around the urban area. A Collector functions to move traffic from neighborhoods to the Arterial system and to provide access to adjacent land. Neither road is currently built to design standard. There are not public projects scheduled for these roads. Additional right-of-way and road improvements will be required with new developments. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: Q (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-03 3 BICYCLE PLAN: The Master Street Plan, Bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates this site is currently within 8-blocks of an existing public 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 property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The site is vacant and has been most recently used as a golf driving range. The Land Use Plan shows the area for Multifamily. There is a small commercial ‘node’ at Kanis and Chenal Parkway. This is ‘T’ intersection of two arterials. Most of the Commercial use is shown for the Rahling Road – Chenal Parkway intersection. In addition there are small ‘commercial nodes’ at Chenal and Kanis/Wellington Hills to the east and Kanis- West Loop (Rahling/Edswood) to the west. Most of the Commercial land is zoned, but little is developed to the north and west. The site is along the southern edge of Little Rock’s development area. Most of the denser, Suburban type of development has been north of this area. It has moved from east to west passed this site. The city limits is near the southern boundary and western boundary of the application area. Development of single-family subdivisions has been occurring for the last decade to the northeast, north and northwest of this site. These homes are priced at the upper end of the housing market. To the north between Kanis Road and Rahling Road several moderately sized office buildings have been constructed and occupied. In more recent years apartment developments have occurred to the north and northeast of the site. To the south of the site is the floodplain of Rock Creek with large lot subdivisions beyond that, e.g. large high-end homes on 3 to 10 acre tracts. With this development pattern well established it is unlikely that much dense development will occur immediately to the south and southwest. A quarter mile further south, with larger May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: Q (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-03 4 ownerships, the possibility still exists for a more urban or suburban development density. The City approved the golf driving range as a ’holding’ use. A driving range is mostly open green space and could be redeveloped in to any other use from Single Family to Industrial. As the result of a Planned Commercial Development approved on the north side of Kanis Road between Chenal Parkway and Rock Creek, the Little Rock Board of Directors asked Staff to review the Kanis corridor to prevent ‘Strip Commercial’ along Kanis Road from Chenal Parkway to Dennis Road. The Plan as currently proposed shows this area for Multifamily. This Multifamily is designed to be a transition from the commercial node at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway to the single-family south of Rock Creek. The Plan had envisioned the primary commercial area to be around the Chenal Parkway – Rahling Road intersection. The use pattern is very intense from this site north to beyond Rahling Road, with the area shown for Office or Commercial. During the review of the Kanis Corridor Staff has been conducting with the Plans Committee, the idea of Mixed Office Commercial has been viewed favorably for this site. The designation allows for a portion of this land to be put with the existing Commercial node at the Kanis-Chenal intersection to make a better overall development. The City and Staff have expressed concerns about the development of a commercial strip along Kanis west of Chenal Parkway. A Mixed Office Commercial designation does not encourage the stripping of Kanis Road. At the same time it allows for a business developed with predominate commercial use at the intersection. In order to discourage further commercialization along Kanis Road the future development should be oriented to the east and north rather than west. The design of the Mixed Office Commercial development should be done to assure most of the commercial activity is directed away from Kanis Road. This use should be concentrated on the Kirk-Chenal intersection. The massing orientation and landscaping should be such that residential or office can comfortably be located to the west along Kanis Road. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: St Charles Community Association and Parkway Place Property Owners Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the amended change to Mixed Office Commercial is appropriate. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: Q (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-03 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of Staff to allow time to resolve issues the item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to May 25, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: R FILE NO.: Z-6219-D NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: HWY 107 Associates, LLC 3801 Woodland Heights Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 7.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Office/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development – A revision to the hours of operation VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied a request to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to POD to allow the site to develop with limited office space, conditioned storage and mini-storage. The proposal included the placement of 102,775 square feet of improvements, containing approximately 18,000 square feet of office and office/warehouse space, including an on-site manager’s office and apartment comprising approximately 1,600 square feet. The balance of the project was to be self-storage units. On March 11, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval of a request to redevelop this 7.5-acre site located on the southwest corner of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 2 Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive as a Planned Commercial Development. The applicant intended to develop the site with a total of 82,800 square feet of office and mini-warehouse buildings. The site was to contain a single building of office containing a total of 29,000 square feet and an office/managers residence for the mini-warehouse development. A second building would contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage accessed from interior halls and three buildings of stand-alone mini-warehouse buildings containing a total of 25,800 square feet of space. The total building coverage proposed was 34.3 percent with 27 percent of the site designated as landscaped/green space area. The approved site plan contained 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The days and hours of operation proposed were from 7 am to 8 pm seven days per week. The mini-warehouse would have 24-hour access. The approval allows O-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as O-3 accessory uses with the 29,000 square foot office building. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,072 on April 6, 2004, establishing the Bella Rosa Long-form PCD as presented to the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial Development at their January 20, 2005, public hearing. The request was to amend the previously approved PCD to add office/showroom/warehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in O-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The request was not appealed to the Board of Directors. On January 5, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow additional uses to occupy the site. The proposal included the allowance of up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot office building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and to allow a health studio or spa use. This recommendation has been appealed to the Board of Directors and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Directors’ April 18, 2006, public hearing. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as specified in the existing PCD, apply only to the office of the mini-warehouse facility on the south side of the property. The hours of operation will not be specified for the tenants of the 29,000 square foot office building. The mini-warehouse portion of the development is to remain with 24-hour access. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has developed with an office development and a mini-warehouse facility. The site is relatively flat with a creek running along the western and southern perimeters. The property to the east of the site (across Bella Rosa Drive) is May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 3 vacant and has been cleared. Further to the east is the Seven Acres Business Park zoned POD and developed with a mix of commercial and office uses. To the southeast are single-family homes adjoining the northern bank of the creek. To the south of the site (across the creek) a single-family subdivision is currently under construction and further south are single-family homes fronting Bella Rosa Drive. To the west of the proposed site (west of the creek) are also vacant lands fronting Cantrell Road. North of the site are single-family homes on acreage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site along with the Westchester and Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No comment regarding the extended hours of operation. Entergy: No comment. Center-Point Energy: No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment regarding extending hours of operation. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 - the Highway 10 Express Route. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD for change business hours of the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is located along the creek just north of Cantrell and 600’ north of this site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicting there were no outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation only. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as were approved in the existing PCD, would apply only to the office of the mini-warehouse facility and the hours of operation for the 29,000 square foot office building would not be specified. The mini-warehouse portion is to still have 24-hour access. Staff is not supportive of this request. The building was approved for O-3, General Office District uses which are typically not 24-hour businesses. Staff feels the hours of operation of the office building should be more in keeping with an office development and some limits should be placed on the approved hours. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) Mr. Stephen Giles was present representing the application. Staff presented the item indicating they were now supportive of the proposed hours of operation. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the closing hours of the restaurant Monday through Thursday at 11:00 pm, Friday and Saturday 12:00 Midnight and Sunday at 10:00 pm. Staff stated the office portion of the development would close at 9:00 pm and the mini-warehouse would remain open 24-hours per day. Staff stated the office portion of the mini-warehouse would close at 8:00 pm as was previously approved. There was a question concerning the removal of the wording Tavern 10 located on the awning. Staff stated the request was for hours of operation and not signage but the applicant had made the commitment to remove this wording from the awning. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers were requesting additional hours of operation to support the restaurant use of the development. He stated the additional hours would allow patrons of the restaurant to enjoy a televised game, many of which ran over the allotted time frame, and by closing at 11:00 pm this would allow the game to finish before the required closing hour. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had followed the development of Highway 10 for a number of years. She stated developments made accommodations to gain support of the Commission and the Board. She stated the developers indicated two years ago, when the development was approved, the limiting of the hours of operation would not be an issue. She stated now the developers were requesting to extend the hours of operation. She stated to approve the request would send a signal to the development community and the citizens of Little Rock that once a development was approved to wait a little while and come back to the Commission to change the limits imposed on the approval. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay was to cluster commercial development and allow residential and commercial activities to coincide along the corridor. She stated the site was shown on the Land Use Plan as Transitional which allowed for residential and office development. She stated the development was an intense development and by May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 6 extending the hours of operation would only magnify the commercial activity of the development. She stated there were restaurant uses located in office buildings around the City which did quiet well maintaining typical office development hours. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the development was not an office development and was not constructed or intended to be an office development. He stated the developers had a lust to make the site a commercial strip zone. He stated with the original approval the proper notice was not given to area residents therefore those most impacted and most opposed to the development were not notified. He stated the Commission was being asked to reward bad behavior. He stated if the development was constructed as an office development why the overhead doors were installed on each of the bays. He stated the development was constructed as an office warehouse facility and not an office development. He stated the developers provided information and press releases indicated the development as a commerce center. He stated the placement of a tavern on the site was also operating outside the approved parameters. He stated the Highway 10 Plan was developed and adopted to create commercial nodes. He stated the nodes were created to add value to properties and to allow some properties to remain as residential. He stated the development as constructed was 60 percent commercial located within a Transition area which was more than should be allowed. He stated the developers proposed an “L” shaped office building to screen the mini-warehouse portion of the development. He stated the developers agreed to hours of operation and the allowed uses. He stated now neither was good enough for the developers. He stated the developers were requesting a change to the hours of operation and the allowable uses for the site. He stated the Commission should send a message to the development community that the approval received is based on the applicant’s request. He stated the developers had already gotten more than they should have been allowed based on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jim May addressed the Commission on the proposed time request. He stated the intent was for the office of the mini-warehouse to be limited on hours and not the remainder of the development. He stated the intent was not to limit the hours of operation for the accessory or office uses. Mr. Giles stated the developers were requesting a 9:00 closing time to allow a medical office or a tax preparation service to locate on the site. He stated most of the office uses would likely close at 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation of the mini-warehouse facility. Mr. May stated the occupants could pay a fee and be offered 24 hour service. He stated currently only three customers paid for the additional hours. He stated 24 hour access was common for mini-warehouse developments. Commissioner Yates questioned the applicant if they were willing to compromise to May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 7 limiting the hours of service for the mini-warehouse facility. Mr. May stated they were willing to limit the hours of the mini-warehouse facility to closing at 8:00 pm. Commissioner Mizan stated he was not supportive of allowing the developers additional time. He stated the request was from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm as approved. He stated the developers were now requesting to change the rules. There was a general discussion concerning the use of the site. Staff stated the development was approved as a restaurant use. Staff stated a bar use not an allowable use under the O-3 zoning district. Staff stated if in fact the development was a tavern then the use was not an allowable use. Mr. Giles stated due to the confusion a deferral was likely in order. The Chairman entertained a motion to approve the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the item was a deferral item from the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff presented the hours of operation proposed by the applicant and the classification of the privilege license. Staff stated they were supportive of the request based on the previous amendment to the hours of operation. Mr. Phil Kaplan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the request was to expand the commercial node and commercial areas along Highway 10. He stated the developers were turning the center into a strip center and requesting to be awarded for their scofflaw attitude. He stated the commercial business located on the site was not a restaurant but was a sports bar. He stated if the Commission approved the request this would send a message to developers to provide a development to gain support and then amend the request to increase the intensity. Ms. Alicia Finch addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was representing the Collocation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods in opposing the request. She stated the applicant was proposing to revise the previously approved hours of operation which she did not feel were compatible with the nearby residential uses. She stated the proposed request was not in keeping with the guidelines established for development along the Highway 10 Corridor. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the two previous speakers expressed the same concerns as hers. She stated the Commission’s role was not to help someone with their business plan when not successful. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-D 8 Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the hours of operation were a small concession the City was granted to allowing a C-4 use on the site located within a transitional zone. He stated the development was never intended by the developers to be an office development but an expansion of the commercial node. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated like a bad penny Bella Rosa keeps coming back to the Commission for modification. She stated the request was before the Commission because the applicant was operating outside the allowed hours of operation which was brought to the Commission’s attention at a previous public hearing. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission answering questions raised. He stated the use was a restaurant. He stated 85% of the revenues were from food sales. Commissioner Yates questioned Mr. Giles on clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Giles stated the hours were as staff had indicated and the mini-warehouse facility would be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Commission questioned the number of times they had seen the request. Staff stated the original approval and two modifications. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation and the location adjacent to residential uses. Staff stated they felt the commercial aspect should be allowed additional hours. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1301-F NAME: Boen Center Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: On the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 DEVELOPER: Boen Enterprises LLC 10600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 68.38 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 1400 CURRENT ZONING: C-4, C-3, O-3 and PD-O PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On January 25, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat to subdivide 58.46 acres into 15 non-residential lots located at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430. The property was zoned R-2 however, the Board of Directors approved a rezoning for the site by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,418 on January 16, 2001, zoning the site to C-3 (35.8 acres) and O-3 (22.66 acres). The proposed plat included easements for shared driveways for the proposed commercial lots and a new street (Remington Drive 880 linear feet of street) to serve the office lots within the southern portion of the property. The applicant indicated the lots would be final platted based on market demand. On October 31, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat to increase the total area and the number of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1301-F 2 proposed lots. With the approval, the total area was increased to 68.38 acres and the number of available lots increased to 22. On May 21, 2002, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,686 rezoning 10.92 acres to O-3. On October 21, 2003, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,967 rezoning 13.23 acres of the site from C-3 to C-4 for an automobile dealership (Lot 1). On July 20, 2004 the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,142 establishing Value Place Short-form PD-O containing 3.59 acres. Final Plats have been executed for Lots 1, 12, 14, 15 and 19 and these lots have been sold to various property owners. Developments have been constructed on four of those five lots. These indicated lots are not proposed for modifications or changes. A. PROPOSAL: The applicant is now proposing a further modification to the previously approved preliminary plat in the form of a “lot split” of proposed Lot 8. The lots are indicated with 1.04 acres and 1.06 acres and the proposed plat indicated a 25-foot building line adjacent to Talley and Remington Roads. All other aspects of the previously approved preliminary plat are to remain unchanged. As separate items on this agenda the applicant is requesting the development of proposed Lot 20 through a rezoning to PD-C (Item 14 – File No. Z-6957-G) and a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of several of the proposed lots without a development plan (Item #25 - File No. LA-0006). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has been leveled and graded with basic infrastructure in place. Colonel Glenn Road, Remington Road and Talley Road have been constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The site is currently zoned C-4, C-3, O-3 and PD-O and adjoins I-430 to the west and Talley Road to the south and east. Colonel Glenn Road is the northern boundary. Hotels exist on Lots 12 and 19 and Remington College has been constructed on Lot 14. An automobile dealership has been developed on Lot 1. Other uses in the area include the Clear Channel Metroplex to the north and a mixed development of commercial and industrial uses to the northeast. Scattered single-family homes exist along the east side of Talley Road in a very rural setting. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, Staff has not received any comment from area residents. The John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association and all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1301-F 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. A shared access easement must be provided between Lots 8A and 8B a minimum of 45 feet in width. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer mains on the site. Easements should be sown as necessary. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: 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 easements will be required in several locations where water mains have been installed outside the easements shown. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were three requests related to developments in the area. Staff stated the first request was to allow a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat. Staff stated the request was to allow a lot split for proposed Lot 8 creating Lots 8A and 8B. Staff noted each of the lots met the minimum May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1301-F 4 criteria for the current O-3 Zoning District. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide the source of title of the landowner and the names of owners of any landlocked parcels abutting the plat area. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated access easement should be shared between the proposed lots. Staff then introduced Item 14. Staff stated the request was a rezoning from C-3, General Commercial District to PD-C to allow proposed Lot 20 to develop with a body shop and used car center to serve the adjoining new car dealership. Staff stated there were concerns with the site plan stating the site plan included parking which was backing into the access and utility easement. Staff stated typically this was prohibited and requested Mr. McGetrick remove the proposed parking. Staff also stated all proposed signage would need to be addressed since the lot did not have public street frontage and no signage would be allowed without approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Staff stated this did include any proposed building signage. Staff questioned the general note stating equipment sales was the proposed use of the site. Mr. McGetrick stated the use was after market automobile accessories. Staff suggested he more clearly define the proposed use on the site plan. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated no backing of vehicles into the service easement would be allowed. Staff also stated a grading plan would be required prior to development of the proposed site. Staff then introduced the applicant’s request for a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site. Staff stated the developer was requesting to grade Lots 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 22 without a development plan. Staff stated the developer had indicated the site development was necessary to get the sites ready for pads for future lot sales. Staff stated they had concerns with the request. Staff noted the requirements that would be required if the request was approved such as protection of buffers, seeding and sodding and landscaping of the proposed terraces. Staff noted water and wastewater comments and suggested the applicant contact the specific agencies for additional information. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. The applicants were advised to respond to staff issues by April 26, 2006. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided the source of title of the landowner and has indicated there are no May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1301-F 5 landlocked parcels within or abutting the proposed plat area. The applicant has also indicated the access easement between the proposed lots as a shared access. The proposal is a modification to the previously approved preliminary plat in the form of a “lot split” for proposed Lot 8. The lots are indicated with 1.04 acres and 1.06 acres. The indicated lot area is more than adequate to meet the 14,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for property zoned O-3. The proposed plat indicates a 25-foot building line adjacent to Talley and Remington Roads. The indicated building line is also adequate to meet the typically minimum ordinance standard. Staff is supportive of the proposed revision to the previously approved preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated the proposed lots to meet the typical minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and no waivers or variances of lot development standards are being requested. All other aspects of the previously approved preliminary plat are to remain unchanged. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. The splitting of the lot as proposed should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1397-D NAME: Stonecreek Phase I Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the West end of Glen Valley Drive on Clancy Court DEVELOPER: AS Rosen & Associates, Inc. Bill Bosley, Agent 9107 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: Civil Design, Inc. 15104 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 10.97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 42 FT. NEW STREET: 2,411 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District CENSUS TRACT: 42.11 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance from Section 31-232(a) to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 1 – 16, 24 – 27 and 30. 2. A variance from Section 31-256 to allow a reduced platted building line for Lots 1 – 42. 3. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced side yard setback for Lots 1 – 42. 4. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet) for Lots 1 – 7 and (20-feet) Lots 8 – 42. 5. A waiver of the required sidewalk construction along Glen Valley Drive. 6. A deferral of sidewalk construction to be concurrent with driveway construction. BACKGROUND: On October 16, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to subdivide 15.4 acres into 55 single-family lots. The proposal included the development May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 2 of the lots with garden style patio homes. The lots would be developed in three phases with 23 lots in the first phase (a final plat was executed for this phase on May 25, 2005), 7 lots in the second phase and 25 lots in the third phase. The applicant indicated the lots would be served by a series of residential streets (cul-de-sac’s) with no outlet being planned to Gooch Lane. On August 18, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a replat of a portion of the development. Lots 1 – 17 located within Phase I were replatted to extend the side lot lines of Lots 5 –14 across the permanent drainage easement, reduce the front building line on Lots 1 – 17 from 25-feet to 15-feet and reduce the rear yard setback of Lots 15 and 16 from 25-feet to 15-feet. The applicant indicated the reduced setbacks were necessary for the developer to maintain the average home size being developed in the area. The applicant indicated Lots 5 – 14 would contain a 20-foot permanent drainage and a 15-foot permanent landscape easement across the rear, while Lots 16 and 17 were subject to a 25-foot sewer easement that cut across a portion of each lot’s rear yard. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat for the Phase III portion of the subdivision. The purpose of the revision is to subdivide 10.97 acres into forty-two (42) residential lots. The following variances are being requested from the various ordinance development standards: 1. A variance from Section 31-232(a) to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 1 – 16, 24 – 27 and 30. 2. A variance from Section 31-256 to allow a reduced platted building line for Lots 1 – 42. 3. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced side yard setback for Lots 1 – 42. 4. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet) for Lots 1 – 7 and (20-feet) Lots 8 – 42. 5. A waiver of the required sidewalk construction along Glen Valley Drive. 6. A deferral of sidewalk construction to be concurrent with driveway construction. Please see the analysis section of this report for details of the proposed request and specifics of the indicated variance requests. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site with a large drainage ditch extending along the eastern portion of the site. There is a FEMA mapped floodway located along the northern boundary of the site. Glen Valley Drive has been extended into the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 3 development for the Phase I portion and there are new homes under construction. There are single-family homes located in the area with the Heatherbrae Subdivision located to the east and single-family homes are located to the west along Gooch Lane. Gooch Lane does not extend into the proposed development and the right-of-way for Gooch Lane which extended into the development was previously abandoned by the Board of Directors. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All abutting property owners and Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Glen Valley Drive and Highlander Drive should be platted as 50 foot wide right-of-way width and constructed with 26 feet of pavement and a sidewalk on one side. A waiver and deferral of sidewalks is not supported by staff. 2. Intersection of Glen Valley Drive and Highlander Drive should be designed with a traffic circle. 3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan for this phase and the previous 3 phases. Detention has been deferred on the previous 3 phases. Provide sketch grading and drainage plan with calculations for required detention. 4. Floodplain delineation appears to not agree with current City of Little Rock FIRM. Previous LOMRF approval letter does not show this area to be filled and the floodplain delineation revised. An incorrect reference to the FIRM is shown on preliminary plat. If lots are in the floodplain, the minimum finish floor elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 6. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 4 Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. 9. A 25 foot access easement adjacent to the floodway is required and should be reflected on plat. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. If an access gate is installed the minimum gate opening shall be 20-feet. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. James Dreher was present representing the applicant. Staff presented the item stating the request was to revise a previously approved preliminary plat to change the lot configuration. Staff stated there were several variances being requested for the proposed plat but the variances being requested were similar to May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 5 variances approved in previous phases. Staff stated there were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff requested Mr. Dreher provide the names of any landlocked parcels within or abutting the proposed plat area. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they would not support the waiver request for the placement of sidewalk along Glen Valley Drive. Staff also requested the applicant provide a “T” type intersection or provide a traffic circle at the intersection of Glen Valley Drive and Highland Drive. Staff stated if a “T” type intersection was provided then the southern portion of Glen Valley Drive would be classified as a minor residential street and a sidewalk would not be required. Staff stated detention was required with this phase of development. Staff requested Mr. Dreher provide staff with details of the proposed storm water detention facilities and calculations. Staff also noted the previous LOMRF did not include this proposed plat area and stated Mr. Dreher would be required to seek approval and set finished floor elevations above the 100-year flood elevation. Mr. Dreher stated he would work with staff to address this concern. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated there are no landlocked parcels within or abutting the proposed plat area. The revised preliminary plat also indicated a “T” type intersection with Glen Valley Drive and Highland Drive with a round-about located within the intersection. With the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection, proposed Lot 1 has been removed as a buildable lot and indicated as open space and detention pond. A minimum floor elevation has not been determined but lots have been noted with minimum floor elevation required as requested by staff. The preliminary plat indicates areas set aside for detention. There are a number of variances from the Subdivision Ordinance being requested to allow the development of the proposed subdivision. Variance requests include a reduced front, reduced rear and reduced side yard setbacks. Variance are requested from Section 31-232(a) to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 1 – 16, 24 – 27 and 30; from Section 31-256 to allow a reduced platted building line for Lots 1 – 42; from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced side yard setback for Lots 1 – 42; and from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet) for Lots 1 – 7 and (20-feet) Lots 8 – 42. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 6 Staff is supportive of the proposed variances. The proposal development pattern is similar to previous phases of this subdivision. A reduced front building line was approved for the Stonecreek Phase II Subdivision as well as reduced side and rear yard setbacks. Lots 1 – 7 are adjacent to an existing open earthen drainage ditch that was constructed with the Stonecreek Subdivision Phase II. The relative narrowness of the tract along with being adjacent to the existing ditch causes the request for reduced front and rear setbacks. In staff’s opinion this does not negatively impact the abutting properties. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk construction along Glen Valley Drive and a deferral of sidewalk construction to be concurrent with driveway construction for the remainder of the required sidewalk construction. Staff is not supportive of the deferral of the required sidewalk construction to allow sidewalks to be constructed with the driveway construction of the new homes. Staff feels the sidewalk construction should take place as required by the Master Street Plan. Staff is not supportive of the waiver request for sidewalk placement along Glen Valley Drive. Sidewalks are existing along a portion of Glen Valley Drive and staff feels the sidewalks should be put in place along the entire street frontage. While Lots 10 and 30 meet the minimum lot square footage, the buildable areas appear suspect due to their shape and setback requirements. A typical house sketch has been provided for each lot to demonstrate their developability. Staff is supportive of the lots as proposed. Other than the sidewalk issue, staff is supportive of the subdivision as proposed. To staff’s knowledge, there are no other outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The proposal includes the development of a single-family subdivision with a density of 3.8 units per acre, consistent with new single-family developments in the area. Staff feels if the subdivision is developed as proposed there should be minimal impact on the adjacent properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 31-232(a) to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 1 – 16, 24 – 27 and 30. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 31-256 to allow a reduced platted building line for Lots 1 – 42. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397-D 7 to allow a reduced side yard setback for Lots 1 – 42. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet) for Lots 1 – 7 and (20-feet) Lots 8 – 42. Staff recommends the applicant provide the required sidewalk construction along Glen Valley Drive. Staff recommends sidewalks be constructed along Highland Drive as required by the Master Street Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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 conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from Section 31-232(a) to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 1 – 16, 24 – 27 and 30, the requested variance from Section 31-256 to allow a reduced platted building line for Lots 1 – 42 and the requested variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced side yard setback for Lots 1 – 42. Staff also presented a positive recommendation of the variance request from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback (15-feet) for Lots 1 – 7 and (20-feet) Lots 8 – 42. Staff recommended the developer provide the required sidewalk construction along Glen Valley Drive and a recommendation the sidewalks be constructed along Highland Drive as required by the Master Street Plan. Staff presented a recommendation prior to the final platting, of the proposed lots, the drainage channel along the south property line be improved similar to the existing downstream channel. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1518 NAME: Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: Bill Stephens Entergy Arkansas 7 Wingfield Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: Central Arkansas Surveying, Inc 1012 Autumn Road Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 7.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from Section 31-231 to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3 Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat). 2. A variance request from Section 31-232(b) to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lot 2. 3. A deferral of the required street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road. 4. A waiver of the required sidewalk construction to Colonel Glenn Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposed subdivision involves the creation of three (3) residential lots from a 7.8 acre tract located at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. The average lot size proposed is 2.6 acres with the minimum lot size being 2.41 acres. Although, the site is located outside the City Limits the site is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single-family. Access to Lot 3 will be provided via a 25-foot private access and utility easement extending from Colonel Glenn Road. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 2 There are two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance associated with the proposed preliminary plat; a variance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage and to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio. The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street construction to Colonel Glenn Road. In addition, due to the rural nature and lack of residential density in the area, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk construction to Colonel Glenn Road. Since the area is not yet served by the municipal sewer system, wastewater disposal for the proposed lots will be by individual septic systems. The applicant has contacted the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed treatment systems. The Health Department has indicated there are no special requirements for such systems due to the size of the lots. As a separate item on this agenda, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of a utility substation on proposed Lot 3 (File No. Z-7980 – Item No. K). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing block building and barn located on proposed Lot 1. Lot 2 is currently vacant and Lot 3 is a wooded site. Colonel Glenn Road is an unimproved roadway with no sidewalk and open ditches for drainage. The roadway in this area is somewhat hilly with limited sight distance on the roadway in several locations. There are two approved Planned Developments located near the proposed plat area; a Planned Commercial Development for the Pulaski County Humane Society and a Planned Commercial Development approved for a beauty salon. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners indicating concern with the request. The abutting property owners along with the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 2. The minimum finish floor elevation above the 100 year flood elevation, as established by Pulaski County is required to be shown on plat. Plans May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 3 indicate a base flood elevation of 355 feet. All supporting mechanical and electrical equipment must be constructed to the base flood elevation or higher. 3. A minimum 50 foot shared access easement must be shown on plat. 4. With the site development, provide design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Colonel Glenn Road including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Due to proposed trucks turning, a 30 foot radius should be proposed at driveway. 5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: The site is located outside the service boundary of Little Rock Wastewater Utility. Provide documentation from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Water service is not available to Lot 3. Limited fire protection is available from water facilities on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road. Fire Department: The site is located outside the service boundary of the Little Rock Fire Department. Contact the area volunteer fire department and provide documentation of the knowledge of the proposed project and their ability to serve the proposed plat area. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: 1. Please revise proposed subdivision name to avoid confusion with Minton Road Subdivision. 2. Please provide a certificate of owner. 3. Please emphasize tract/lot boundaries. 4. Please indicated all building lines – front, side and rear. 5. Please provide a legal description of the proposed access easement. 6. Please provide Pulaski County certificate of approval. 7. A waiver is required for a lot not abutting a public street. 8. A waiver is required for a lot being more than four times as deep as it is wide. 9. Please provide the bill of assurance. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 4 10. Floodplain development permit is required from Pulaski County Planning prior to construction. 11. ADEQ permitting is required prior to construction. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating a Conditional Use Permit was filed for proposed Lot 3 which would also be heard by the Commission at their May 11, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat indicated variances for the proposed lot development standards. Staff stated a variance request to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage was being requested. Staff requested the applicant provide the names of any landlocked parcels within or abutting the proposed plat area. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated driveway width was not adequate to serve the proposed development. Staff stated with trucks accessing the site a 50-foot minimum access easement would be required. The applicants questioned the minimum easement that could be provided. Staff stated at a minimum 35-feet would be required. Staff also noted a radius would be required at the intersection with Colonel Glenn Road to allow trucks turning to make the movement. Staff stated improvements to Colonel Glenn Road would be required. The applicant indicated the request included a deferral of the required street improvements and a waiver of the required sidewalk construction. The applicant stated due to the rural nature of the area they felt sidewalks would be out of place. Staff noted comments from the Little Rock Fire Department indicating a letter from the area volunteer fire department would be required to proceed. Staff stated the letter from the fire department should include their knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the proposed development. Staff noted the water department comment stating they should contact the utilities directly for additional information on water service to the area. Staff also stated the applicant had provided documentation from the Arkansas Department of Health indicating septic system service would be adequate. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 5 Staff provided the applicant with the comments received from County Planning. Staff stated there were a number of concerns indicated which appeared to have been addressed. Staff suggested the applicant meet with County Planning to ensure all their concerns had been addressed. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated there are no landlocked parcels within or abutting the plat area. The proposed driveway width remains at 25-feet. The applicant has met with staff subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting and staff now feels the indicated access and utility easement width is adequate to serve the development. Typically the minimum access required for fire protection is a 0-foot minimum drive or gate opening. The indicated 25-foot access easement, in staff’s opinion, is adequate. The revised preliminary plat indicates the property is located in the floodplain but no portion of the property is located within the floodway. The preliminary plat indicates a minimum floor elevation set above the 100 year elevation for each of the indicated lots ranging from 356.5-feet to 357.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road for five years or until abutting development occurs. The request also includes a waiver of the required sidewalk construction. The applicant stated due to the rural nature of the area they feel sidewalks will be out of place. Staff is supportive of the deferral request of street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road but feels the required sidewalk should be put in place at the time of street construction. There are two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance associated with the proposed preliminary plat; a variance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage and to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio. Staff is supportive of the proposed requests. The lots are indicated with adequate frontage to allow development of residential units with adequate setbacks from the roadway and property lines. Staff does not feel the increased lot depth to width ratio will negatively impact the proposed lot. Based on the existing lot configuration, the parcel exceeds the lot depth to width ratio requirement and does not appear to have impacted the adjoining properties. In addition, staff does not feel the development of the proposed lot without public street frontage will negatively impact the developability of proposed Lot 3. A 25-foot access May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 6 easement, sufficient to provide emergency services to the site, has been indicated across proposed Lot 1. Since the area is not yet served by the municipal sewer system, wastewater disposal for the proposed lots will be by individual septic systems. The applicant has contacted the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed treatment systems. The Health Department has indicated there are no special requirements for such systems due to the size of the lots. Staff is supportive of the proposed wastewater disposal. The applicant has contacted the area volunteer fire department concerning the proposed preliminary plat. Staff has received written documentation from the fire department. The fire department indicates concerns with the proposed development of the site but no concerns are indicated with the proposed platting of the lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The plat area is indicated with lot sizes adequate to allow for development with the minimum lot size proposed as 1.89 acres and an average lot size of 2.49 acres. According to the Arkansas Department of Health, the indicated lot areas are adequate for septic system placement. The site plan indicates well water will be used to serve the proposed lots. Central Arkansas Water has water service available in the area and a water line could be extended to serve the proposed lots. To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff does not feel the proposed subdivision of this parcel as proposed will significantly impact the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from Section 31-231 to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3 Colonel Glenn Preliminary Plat). Staff recommends approval of the variance request from Section 31-232(b) to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lot 2. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the required street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road. Staff recommends the required sidewalk be constructed to Colonel Glenn Road at the time of street construction. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1518 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were a number of registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Bill Stephens addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the owners did not prefer to develop the site but to subdivide the property among several heirs. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the neighborhood was concerned with traffic, the speed of automobiles through the neighborhood and the applicant’s request for a deferral of street improvements. He stated the residents were previously required to move their mailboxes to allow the post carrier an area to pull off to deliver the mail. Mr. Roy Jolley addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. Mr. Jolley stated the proposed drive was 150-feet long and gated. He stated his concern was with the length of the drive and the gating of the driveway for emergency access. Mr. Stephens stated the developers had not made a determination as to the location of the gate. He stated the owners would work with the City and County for final placement. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Adcock). May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1519 NAME: Eagle Crest Addition LOCATION: Located West of the intersection of Cease Drive and Shea Drive DEVELOPER: James and Dawne Sokora 25 Nob View Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: Marlar Engineering 5318 JFK Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 AREA: 4.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 400 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from Section 31-232(b) to allow an increased Lot Depth to Width Ratio for Lot 12 Eagle Crest Addition. The applicant failed to respond to issues and comments raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1520 NAME: Royal Oaks Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located East of Chicot Road, West of Ponderosa Drive DEVELOPER: JSC Construction, LLC 29 Stoneledge Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 ENGINEER: Civil Design, Inc. 15104 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.985 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 38 FT. NEW STREET: 1,832 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposal includes the subdivision of 9.985 acres into thirty-six (36) single- family residential lots and two tracts designated as open space and detention. Access to the new lots is proposed by an extension of a new residential public street from Chicot Road to the east 1,193.9 feet connecting with Shady Grove Lane. The applicant is also proposing the removal of two residential lots from Perry Place Phase III to allow access to Ponderosa Drive. A total of 1,832 linear feet of new street is proposed, constructed to Master Street Plan standard. The proposal includes an average lot size of 65-feet by 140-feet or 0.21 acres and a minimum lot size of 60-feet by 130-feet or 0.18 acres. There are no waivers or variances being requested. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1520 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: New homes are being constructed to the east of the site in Perry Place Phase III and are in various states of completion. To the north of the site is a single-family subdivision and to the south of the site is a wooded tract. The site itself is also heavily wooded and appears to be relatively flat. Chicot Road is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalk in place. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area property owners. The abutting property owners along with the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association, the Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, the Yorkwood Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. All proposed streets are classified on the Master Street Plan as residential streets. A dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way will be required. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the proposed intersections. 3. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 4. With the site development, provide design of Chicot Road conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Chicot Road including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Construct street improvement to Royal Oaks Drive, Shady Grove Lane, and Ponderosa Drive including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements. 9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1520 3 10. Due to Royal Oak Drive shown to be straight with no curvature, traffic calming devices should be installed such as speed humps or lane narrowing medians. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easement. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. James Dreher was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were no waivers or variances being request. Staff stated a ten (10) foot no vehicular access easement would be required for proposed Lots 1 and 38. Staff also stated the indicated right of way was not adequate to meet the Current Master Street Plan requirement which could potentially reduce the proposed number of lots. Staff requested Mr. Dreher provide the names of owners abutting the proposed plat area, the zoning classification within and abutting the plat area and the source of title of the landowner. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1520 4 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed development would require construction to Chicot Road per the Master Street plan including widening and sidewalk construction. Staff stated the widening would include the length of the property and striping would be placed to signal the narrowing of the road where the improvements ended. Staff also stated traffic calming devices would be required along the proposed new street to slow traffic. Staff stated either speed humps or lane narrowing medians would be required. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the names of owners of abutting property, the zoning classification within and abutting the plat area and the source of title of the landowner. The total number of lots has been reduced to allow the required right-of-way dedication along Chicot Road. The applicant has also indicated the placement of sidewalks at the back of curb as requested at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated traffic calming devices will be put in place along Royal Oaks Drive to assist in reducing the speeds of motorists. The proposal includes the subdivision of 9.985 acres into thirty-six (36) single-family residential lots and two tracts designated as open space and detention. Access is proposed to the new lots by a new public street extending from Chicot Road to the west 1,193.9 feet and connecting with Shady Grove Lane. The proposal also includes the removal of two residential lots from Perry Place Phase III to allow access to Ponderosa Drive. A total of 1,832 linear feet of new street is proposed, constructed to Master Street Plan standard. The average lot size proposed is 65-feet by 140-feet or 0.21 acres and the minimum lot size proposed is 60-feet by 130-feet or 0.18 acres. The indicated lot sizes are more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for single-family development. A 25-foot platted building line has been indicated on the proposed preliminary plat along the new street. A 10-foot no right of vehicular access easement has been indicated on Lots 1 and 38 abutting Chicot Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for lots abutting a principal arterial. The proposed preliminary plat also indicates dedication of right-of-way sufficient to meet the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1520 5 current Master Street Plan requirement for a principal arterial and note indicating the required street improvements will be completed to Chicot Road per the Master Street Plan at the time of final platting. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The proposed subdivision allows for the development of a single-family subdivision developed at 3.8 units per acre. The proposed subdivision appears to fully comply with the minimum standards of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request and the development of a single- family subdivision as proposed should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1521 NAME: Fiser Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on South Shackleford Road, just South of Clearwater Drive DEVELOPER: Chuck Fiser 1 Pinehurst Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 15.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 1,460 LF CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A waiver of the required sidewalk placement along Fiser Road (Section 30-281). 2. A variance to allow Fiser Road to be constructed to a minor collector street (31-feet of pavement). 3. A variance to allow a horizontal curve from 275-feet to 200-feet. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The property is located on Old South Shackleford Road south of the Little Rock Wastewater Utility Offices. The property is currently zoned I-2, Light Industrial. The request includes the subdivision of a 15.4 acre tract into seven (7) lots and two (2) tracts to be developed based on market demand. A building permit application has been issued for Lot 1 to construct an ice plant. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1521 2 The developer is requesting a variance for Fiser Road, a collector, to be a minor collector street and use of reduced standards. A waiver of the sidewalk placement along Fiser Road and a variance to allow a horizontal curve from 275-feet to 200-feet is also being requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The road to the site is currently under construction with plans to construct an industrial building on proposed Lot 1. There are trees located along South Shackleford Road with an upward slope into the site. The remainder of the site appears to be somewhat level. To the north of the site is Little Rock Wastewater’s Offices. To the south of the site is a wooded tract. East of the site, across South Shackleford Road is also wooded R-2, Single-family zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area property owners. The abutting property owners along with the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. The proposed land use would classify Fiser Road on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way of 60 feet. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Fiser Road and South Shackleford Road. 3. With the site development, provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Fiser Road with the planned development. The street should be constructed to the minor commercial standard of 31 feet from back of curb to back of curb. A waiver of the sidewalk construction is supported by staff. 4. South Shackleford 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. 5. With the site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to South Shackleford Road including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. 6. A temporary 200 foot diameter cul-de-sac should be provided at end of Fiser Road. 7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1521 3 8. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 9. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements. 11. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easement. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1521 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating there were few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request included a deferral of the required street improvements to South Shackleford Road and a waiver of the required sidewalk construction to Fiser Road. Staff stated the applicant was also requesting to construct Fiser Road as a minor collector street with 31-feet of pavement. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed waiver of the required sidewalk construction along Fiser Road and the construction of Fiser Road as a minor collector. Staff stated they were not supportive of the deferral request of street improvements to South Shackleford Road. Staff requested the applicant provide a turn-around at the terminus of Fiser Road. Staff noted a grading permit would be required and the storm water detention ordinance applied to the property. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: Mr. Joe White submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. White has indicated the required street improvements will be completed to South Shackleford Road per the Master Street Plan and provided a temporary turn-around on Fiser Road as requested by staff. The revised preliminary plat also includes general notes indicating a grading permit will be sought prior to development of the proposed lots and storm water detention facilities will be provided as lots are developed. The proposal includes the subdivision of 15.4 acres of I-2, Light Industrial zoned property into seven (7) lots and two (2) tract. The proposal includes the placement of a 50-foot building line adjacent to Fiser Road and a minimum lot area more than adequate to meet the typical 14,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. The average lot size indicated is 125-feet by 190-feet or 23,750 square feet. The proposal indicates the lots will be final platted based on market demand. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s phasing plan. Typically non-residential lots are final platted based on market demand and do not appear to have adversely impacted the area. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1521 5 The developer is requesting a variance for the collector street (Fiser Road) to be a minor collector street to be developed with a reduced standard. A waiver of the sidewalks along Fiser Road and a variance to allow a horizontal curve from 275-feet to 200-feet is also being requested. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested variances. As indicated, staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The proposal includes the development of an industrially zoned subdivision with seven (7) lots and two (2) tracts with final platting based on market demand. In staff’s opinion the proposal including the requested waivers and variances will not adversely impact the abutting properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the required sidewalk placement along Fiser Road (Section 30-281). Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Fiser Road to be constructed to a minor collector street (31-feet of pavement). Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a horizontal curve from 275-feet to 200-feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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 presented recommendations of approval of the following waivers and variances: the waiver of the required sidewalk placement along Fiser Road (Section 30-281), the requested variance to allow Fiser Road to be constructed to a minor collector street (31-feet of pavement) and the requested variance to allow a horizontal curve from 275-feet to 200-feet. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-4343-S NAME: The Ranch Tract F Revised PCD LOCATION: Located North of Ranch Drive, West of Chenonceau Boulevard DEVELOPER: Ranch Properties 900 South Shackleford Road, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.44 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Commercial and Office PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Commercial and Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from Section 31-231 to allow the development of lots without public street frontage. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,957 adopted September 5, 1995, established Saddle Creek Center “PCD” located at 6301 Ranch Drive (Tract F – The Ranch). The approval included the development of the site with multiple buildings containing a mix of 50% C-2 retail type uses and 50% O-3 permitted uses. The applicant indicated the lots would be phased resulting in the construction of three buildings totaling 26,550 square feet of floor space along with 131 parking spaces in Phase I. Phase II would contain an additional 33,600 square feet of floor space and 137 parking spaces. The applicant indicated the development would be completed in two (2) years. Lots 1 – 5 of Tract F have been final platted. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 2 Ordinance No. 19,016 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 6, 2004, established a revision to the Ranch Tract F Short form PCD. The request allowed individual buildings to be platted as separate lots. The applicant requested four lots (Lots 6 – 9) and a site plan review of the proposed buildings on Lots 6 – 8. Each of the lots contained a building of approximately 6,000 square feet and 30 plus parking spaces for each lot. The development would maintain a 50/50 mix of office and commercial uses. The applicant indicated Lot 9 would be submitted for review when a development was secured. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developer is now proposing a revision to the previously approved PCD to allow the creation of five (5) lots for previously proposed Lot 9, Tract F the Ranch Subdivision. The site contains 3.44 acres and will be developed under a unified development plan with an average lot area of 0.69 acres. The buildings will range in size from 5,600 square feet to 9,100 square feet. The developer has indicated a total of 117 parking spaces with cross access and utility easement and a cross parking agreement. The development will maintain a 50/50 mix of office and commercial uses. A variance is being requested to allow the development of lots without public street frontage. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and is mostly cleared of trees. The terrain is, for all practical purposes, level. A drainage channel runs along the north boundary of the site. The current zoning of the site is PCD. There is O-1 zoned property to the north and C-3 zoned property to the west; also vacant. The area to the northwest has been constructed as an apartment development on MF-18 zoned property. The area to the northeast of the site is zoned R-2, Single-family with a Conditional Use Permit for Arkansas Baptist School and their sports complex. The area to the east of the site contains several buildings of office uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area property owners concerning the proposed development. The Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. The west driveway should be located further south away from the bridge to improve site distance due to bridge sides. 2. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 3. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 365 feet is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 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. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 7. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to portions of this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 4 project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Revision of a PCD to allow a mixed office and commercial development with five lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Ranch Drive and Chenonceau are shown as a Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. 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. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown along the railroad to the north and a Class II is shown along Cantrell Road. Both of these bikeways are located at least one-quarter mile from the subject property. 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. 2. A thirty-two (32) foot wide land use buffer is required along the northeastern perimeter and a nineteen (19) foot wide land use buffer is required along the northern perimeter to separate this proposed development from the residential property on the northern perimeters of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 5 3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 4. 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. The proposed plan does not currently reflect this minimum requirement. Interior islands should be evenly distributed throughout the site. 5. A small amount of additional building landscaping will be required. Both interior and building landscaping is a requirement of the landscaping ordinance. A variance of these requirements will necessitate City Beautiful Commission approval. 6. The development is being reviewed as a single development plan. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required for each of the indicated lots. 7. The development is being reviewed as a single development plan. 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 for each of the indicated lots. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating there were few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff stated the development was similar to previously approved developments in the area. Mr. Daters stated the current demand was owner occupied lots with office buildings containing 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Staff stated the indicated parking did not appear to meet the demand for a restaurant use. Mr. Daters stated the size of the building would be limited to the available parking. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the western drive should be relocated to improve sight distance from the nearby bridge. Mr. Daters stated he would verify if a sight distance problem existed but he did not feel the bridge May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 6 location would create any sight distance problems. Staff stated a minimum finish floor elevation of 365 feet was required to be shown on the final plat. Staff also stated a grading permit would be required at the time of development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was being reviewed as an overall development plan, therefore a landscape plan and irrigation would be required at the time of final development. Staff also stated screening would be required along the northern perimeter where abutting residentially zoned property. Staff noted interior landscaping would also be required and a small amount of building landscaping would be required. Mr. Daters noted there were no trees located on the site to preserve. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the technical issues associated with the request. The revised site plan proposes combined Lots 12 and 13 will not exceed 1,700 square feet of restaurant space. The commercial space on the site will not exceed 50 percent of the total building area and two monument signs are proposed with building signage consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. There is an existing box culvert located along the northern perimeter of the site which staff has raised concerns with sight distances. The applicant has indicated they have field verified the location of the box culvert and sight distances and there does not appear to be a sight distance problem in this area. Staff will work with the applicant with the placement of the northern most driveway along Chenonceau Boulevard at the time of final development. The site plan indicates the placement of 31,200 square feet of building area and 115 parking spaces. Based on a mixed use development (one parking space per 225 square feet of gross floor area) 138 parking spaces would typically be required. Although the indicated parking does not meet the typical minimum parking requirements staff is supportive of the indicated parking. The applicant has indicated the total building square footages will not exceed the available parking on the site. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 7 As indicated two monument signs have been identified on the plan. One sign is located near the drive on Ranch Drive and is proposed with a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The second is a project identification sign located at the intersection of Chenonceau Boulevard and Ranch Drive. This sign is also proposed with a maximum height of six feet and sixty-four square feet in area. The site plan indicates the development of the site with 31,200 square feet of building area (20.8%), 37,340 square feet of parking area (25.1%) and 74,110 square feet of landscaped area (49.5%). The area landscaped with in the parking area is proposed with 3,174 square feet or (8.4%). The indicated landscaped areas appear to meet the minimum ordinance standards. The site is being reviewed as a single development plan therefore at the time of development a landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect and an irrigation system will be required to water landscaped areas. The proposal includes a variance to allow the development of lots without public street frontage. Three of the proposed lots have been indicated as lots without public street frontage. The lots will be served by a cross access and utility easement. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff is supportive of the request. The developer is proposing a revision to a previously approved PCD to allow the creation of five (5) lots for a previously proposed lot containing 3.44 acres. A unified development plan is being proposed with an average lot area of 0.69 acres. The buildings range in size from 5,600 square feet to 9,100 square feet with limits placed on the total available restaurant space and commercial uses allowed on the site. The indicated parking does not meet the typical minimum standard for a mixed use development but staff is supportive of the proposed parking. The site has been indicated with cross access and utility easements and a cross parking agreement which should limit any impacts on the availability of parking. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel the proposed development plan will adversely impact the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow the development of lots without public street frontage. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-S 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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, F and H of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance request to allow the development of lots without public street frontage. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-4807-F NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form POD LOCATION: Located North of Wellington Hills Road, West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 10.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, MF-6, O-2 and C-1 ALLOWED USES: Single-family, Multi-family, Office and Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: O-2 and C-2 - Mix of 70% Office and 30% Commercial Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to POD (Planned Office Development) to provide a conceptual plan to establish uses for the property. The applicant has indicated as a development plan or plans are secured the POD will be revised to allow review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with established criteria. The applicant has indicated the following criteria for review and approval: May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 2 BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION - 1. The 10.08 acre site will be developed with office and commercial uses with an approximate balance of 70% office and 30% commercial measured on a proportional basis of building area for the entire property. 2. Allowed uses will be those identified under O-2 and C-2 classifications of office and commercial uses. 3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or multiple building on a single site. 4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES - 1. The layout of proposed building site improvements must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this POD application. 2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to O-2 height regulations. 3. All site lighting must be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and shielded downward and onto the site. 4. All trash enclosures will be oriented away from boundary streets, screened with masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels. 5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets. 6. All landscape and buffer areas will be provided to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements and provide a minimum street buffer of twenty-five feet along boundary streets. 7. All portions of the property will be landscaped to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - 1. A traffic study will be provided by the developer to identify street improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to evaluate proposed alignments. 2. The developer will negotiate an agreement with CLR Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. 3. The developer will review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required. 4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 3 SIGNAGE GUIDELINES - 1. Monument style signage will be used and each sign will not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side). 2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this POD application. 4. All building wall signage must comply with CLR ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES - 1. Preliminary grading will be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for surrounding properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer will provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant gently sloping site; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. The area to the west is developing as office and commercial uses abutting Chenal Parkway and the area to the southwest along Kirk Road has not redeveloped. To the east of the site is the Villages of Wellington subdivision with new single-family homes under construction. Further north of the site are the Carrington Park Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18 zoned tract, which as developed as a multi-family development. South of the site is a PD-C zoned site for Riverside Acura automobile dealership. Small-scale office development is occurring along Kirk Road on the east side. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. The 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 Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Margeaux Place Property Owners Association and the St. Charles Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 4 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A traffic study has been provided for review by Public Works. After review, the study meets all Public Work's requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: 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 will be required in order to provide service to portions of this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is 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 and Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office District for future development of the property. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU06-19-01) May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 5 Master Street Plan: There is an amendment to the Master Street Plan before the Board of Directors in this area; the major change of this item would be the alignments. Wellington Hills Blvd, and Champlin Drive are shown as Arterials on the Plan. Kirk is shown as a Collector with a request to change it to an Arterial. An unnamed Collector has been requested for removal from the Plan between Chenal Parkway and Arkansas Systems Drive. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. A Collector functions to bring vehicles from the neighborhoods to the Arterial system as well as to provide access to adjacent property. These roads are designed to be three-lane roads. None of these roads are built to standard. Right-of-way and street improvements will need to be made at the time of development. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Chenal Parkway. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The application area is within the Rock Creek Neighborhoods Plan area. The Neighborhood Plan calls for the protections and preservation of greenbelts with strict enforcement of the excavation and landscape ordinances. It also calls for the interconnection of the area with sidewalks and other non-motorized vehicle paths. The Plan calls for the completion of Champlin Drive and Villages of Wellington Road to Kanis Road, and construct the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Champlin Drive; fund with a bond issue (build prior to development). The Plan asks that amendments to the Land Use Plan be rare and only with the input of the neighborhood. Landscape: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request and indicated there were two rezoning requests located within the immediate area and suggested the Committee discuss them simultaneously (Item 8 – File No. Z-4807-G and Item 9 File No. 4807-F). Staff stated the comments for each were very much the same. Staff stated a rezoning request from various zoning districts to POD was being requested north of Wellington Village Road and a rezoning request from C-1 and O-2 to PCD was being requested for the south side of Wellington Village Road. Staff stated there were a number of outstanding issues associated with the request including the proposed development plan. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 6 Mr. Robert Brown stated the developers were requesting a conceptual planned development to establish uses for the areas and once the final development plans were secured a revision to the zoning would be applied for and the Commission could then review the specifics of the site development plan. Staff stated the developers had given a list of criteria which would establish the review process. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development plan and the lack of a development plan. Commissioner Yates questioned why the request was not a rezoning to O-2 and C-2 since the developers did not have specifics of the proposed developments. Mr. Brown stated with the current request the Commission would be allowed to review the proposed development prior to construction. Commissioner Yates noted both O-2 and C-2 zoning districts required site plan review prior to development. Public Works commented the traffic study had been provided for review and the study met all Public Work’s requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated directional signage will comply with ordinance standards, pedestrian access and circulation will be incorporated in the final design and dumpsters and trash receptacles will be serviced during daylight hours, comply with applicable codes for placement and not be located adjacent to residentially used property. The revised cover letter indicates the building design will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of an amendment to the conceptual POD application. Also all service docks are to be oriented away from streets and provided with proper screening. The proposal includes the development of this 10 acre site with a conceptual POD containing 70 percent office uses and 30 percent commercial uses. The maximum building square footage of the development will be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. There will be a maximum density of 20,000 square feet per acre of office uses and a maximum density of 10,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The maximum commercial area is 30,000 square feet based on the proposed usage mix. The maximum May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-F 7 area of restaurant use (as part of the maximum commercial area) will be 16,000 square feet. The maximum area for office uses will be based on previously stated densities which would allow 200,000 square feet if the site was developed entirely with office uses or 140,000 square feet based on the proposed use mix. One out-parcel is proposed for the site. The out parcel is proposed along the western portion of the site containing an estimated 2.0 acres. The maximum building height proposed for the office use buildings is 80-feet and the maximum building height for the commercial use buildings is 45-feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is requesting the approval of the proposed use mix and the placement of out parcels on the site with a maximum square footage identified of office and commercial uses. Limits have been placed on the building heights for office and commercial uses as well as limits placed on signage and dumpster locations. As proposed, a revision to the POD would be sought prior to development detailing the site plan and proposed building design for Planning Commission and City Board approval. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the proposal is appropriate to allow the future development of the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-4807-G NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located South of Wellington Hills Road, East of Kirk Road DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 30.28 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-1 and O-2 ALLOWED USES: Office and Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-2 and O-2 - Mix of 70% Commercial and 30% Office Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan to establish uses for the property. The applicant has indicated as a development plan or plans are secured the PCD will be revised to allow review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with established criteria. The applicant has indicated the following criteria for review and approval: May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 2 BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION - 1. The 30.28 acre site will be developed with commercial and office uses with an approximate balance of 70% commercial and 30% office measured on a proportional basis of building area for the entire property. 2. Allowed uses will be those identified under C-2 and O-2 classifications of commercial and office uses. 3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or multiple building on a single site. 4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES - 1. The layout of proposed building site improvements must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this PCD application. 2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to O-2 height regulations. 3. All site lighting must be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and shielded downward and onto the site. 4. All trash enclosures will be oriented away from boundary streets, screened with masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels. 5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets. 6. All landscape and buffer areas will be provided to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements and provide a minimum street buffer of twenty-five feet along boundary streets. 7. All portions of the property will be landscaped to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - 1. A traffic study will be provided by the developer to identify street improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to evaluate proposed alignments. 2. The developer will negotiate an agreement with CLR Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. 3. The developer will review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required. 4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 3 SIGNAGE GUIDELINES - 1. Monument style signage will be used and each sign will not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side). 2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this PCD application. 4. All building wall signage must comply with CLR ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES - 1. Preliminary grading will be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for surrounding properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer will provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant gently sloping site; the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. The area to the west is developing as office and commercial uses abutting Chenal Parkway and the area to the southwest along Kirk Road has not redeveloped. To the east of the site is the Villages of Wellington Subdivision with new single-family homes under construction. Further north of the site are the Carrington Park Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the east is a MF-18 zoned tract, which has developed as a multi-family development. South of the site is a PD-C zoned site for Riverside Acura automobile dealership. Small-scale office development is occurring along Kirk Road on the east side. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. The 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 Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Margeaux Place Property Owners Association and the St. Charles Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 4 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A traffic study has been provided for review by Public Works. After review, the study meets all Public Work's requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: 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 will be required in order to provide service to portions of this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is 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 Office and Neighborhood Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial District for future development of the property. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU06-19-01) May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 5 Master Street Plan: There is an amendment to the Master Street Plan before the Board of Directors in this area; the major change of this item would be the alignments. Wellington Hills Blvd, and Champlin Drive are shown as Arterials on the Plan. Kirk is shown as a Collector with a request to change it to an Arterial. An unnamed Collector has been requested for removal from the Plan between Chenal Parkway and Arkansas Systems Drive. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. A Collector functions to bring vehicles from the neighborhoods to the Arterial system as well as to provide access to adjacent property. These roads are designed to be three-lane roads. None of these roads are built to standard. Right-of-way and street improvements will need to be made at the time of development. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Chenal Parkway. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The application area is within the Rock Creek Neighborhoods Plan area. The Neighborhood Plan calls for the protections and preservation of greenbelts with strict enforcement of the excavation and landscape ordinances. It also calls for the interconnection of the area with sidewalks and other non-motorized vehicle paths. The Plan calls for the completion of Champlin Drive and Villages of Wellington Road to Kanis Road, and construct the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Champlin Drive; fund with a bond issue (build prior to development). The Plan asks that amendments to the Land Use Plan be rare and only with the input of the neighborhood. Landscape: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request and indicated there were two rezoning requests located within the immediate area and suggested the Committee discuss them simultaneously. Staff stated the comments for each were very much the same. Staff stated a rezoning request from various zoning districts to POD was being requested north of Wellington Village Road and a rezoning request from C-1 and O-2 to PCD was being requested for the south side of Wellington Village Road. Staff stated there were a number of outstanding issues associated with the request included the proposed development plan. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 6 Mr. Robert Brown stated the developers were requesting a conceptual planned development to establish uses for the areas and once the final development plans were secured a revision to the zoning would be applied for and the Commission could then review the specifics of the site development plan. Staff stated the developers had given a list of criteria which would establish the review process. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development plan and the lack of a development plan. Commissioner Yates questioned why the request was not a rezoning to O-2 and C-2 since the developers did not have specifics of the proposed developments. Mr. Brown stated with the current request the Commission would be allowed to review the proposed development prior to construction. Commissioner Yates noted both O-2 and C-2 zoning districts required site plan review prior to development. Public Works commented the traffic study had been provided for review and the study met all Public Work’s requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated directional signage will comply with ordinance standards, pedestrian access and circulation will be incorporated in the final design and dumpsters and trash receptacles will be serviced during daylight hours, comply with applicable codes for placement and not be located adjacent to residentially used property. The revised cover letter indicates the building design will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of an amendment to the conceptual PCD application. Also all service docks are to be oriented away from streets and provided with proper screening. The proposal includes the development of this 30.28 acre site with a conceptual PCD containing 70 percent commercial uses and 30 percent office uses. The maximum building square footage of the development will be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. There will be a maximum density of 20,000 square feet per acre of office uses and a maximum density of 10,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The maximum commercial area is 212,000 square feet based on the proposed usage mix. The maximum area of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-G 7 restaurant use (as part of the maximum commercial area) will be 42,000 square feet. The maximum area for office uses will be based on previously stated densities which would allow 606,000 square feet if the site was developed entirely with office uses or 182,000 square feet based on the proposed use mix. Two locations of out-parcel are proposed for the site. The out parcels are proposed along Wellington Hills Road and Kirk Road with a maximum of three to four lots proposed. The maximum building height proposed for the office use buildings is 80-feet and the maximum building height for the commercial use buildings is 45-feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is requesting the approval of the proposed use mix and the placement of out parcels on the site with a maximum square footage identified of office and commercial uses. Limits have been placed on the building heights for office and commercial uses as well as limited placed on signage and dumpster locations. As proposed, a revision to the PCD would be sought prior to development detailing the site plan and proposed building design for Planning Commission and City Board approval. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the proposal is appropriate to allow the future development of the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D NAME: Harvest Foods Revised PCD LOCATION: Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop DEVELOPER: Vogel Enterprises 11219 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 5.994 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Selected C-3 uses PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Selected C-3 uses - Add a second building to the site to house a drive-through restaurant. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The site contains a single story 47,675 square foot commercial building and 157 parking spaces. The site is an existing developed site, which met the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District some years ago when developed. Ordinance No. 15,718 dated August 1, 1989, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow Safeway to open a grocery store on the site. The site operated as a grocery store until Affiliated Foods “down-sized” their operation closing several stores in the central Arkansas area. The site has been vacant since that time. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 2 Certain criteria were placed on the development as conditions of approval. Those included: truck deliveries were to be coordinated from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm seven (7) days per week, all trash compacting was to be done inside the store, the dumpster pick- ups were to be made between 7:30 am and 9:30 am Monday through Saturday and the dumpster was to be located in a fenced area, there was to be nothing stored outside of the building and the parking area clean-up was to be conducted during regular business hours. On December 12, 2000, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,398 revising the previously approved PCD to add additional uses. The applicant proposed to add selected C-3, General Commercial uses to be allowed as alternative uses for the site. The approved uses included Bank or savings and loan office, Book and stationary store, Church, Cigar/tobacco and candy store, Clinic, Clothing store, Custom sewing and millinery, Drugstore or pharmacy, Duplication shop, Eating place without drive-in service, Florist shop, food store, Furniture store, Handicraft/ceramic sculpture or similar artwork, Hardware or sporting goods, Health studio or spa, Hobby shop, Jewelry store, Lawn and garden center – enclosed, Office (general and professional), Office/showroom with warehouse (with retail sales), Office equipment sales and service, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper store, Pet shop. The approval allowed the listed uses or any combination of the uses should one tenant not occupy the entire space. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to add a drive- through restaurant on the site. The site plan indicates the construction of a 2,262 square foot facility containing indoor dining only. The site will remain as one parcel and the restaurant will be located on a leased parcel with a portion of the existing parking assigned to the new use. The existing building contains 43,560 square feet of gross floor area with an area indicated for expansion for a total of 47,585 square feet of gross floor area. The site contains a total of 184 parking spaces. The site plan indicates the placement of a second sign on the site. There is an existing sign located in the front yard area of the site consistent with signage allowed within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The proposal includes the placement of a second sign near the northeastern perimeter. The applicant has indicated the sign will be limited to six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. The total site area contains 5.9 acres with 2.1 acres or 35 percent in landscaped and undeveloped area and 3.8 acres or 65 percent with building and parking coverage. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-story commercial building and surface parking area. Ingress and egress to the site are provided in two key locations; Highway 10 near the west property line and to Taylor Loop Road via a stub-out extending east to the roadway. Adjacent to the site on a separate lot there is a bank facility. Uses adjacent to the site along Taylor Loop include a veterinary office, single-family residences, general and professional office uses and a beauty shop. Uses along Highway 10 include a mixture of office and commercial uses. South of the site is the Westchester Subdivision and west of the site vacant R-2 zoned property which is shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, the Charleston Heights/Rahling Road Neighborhood Association and the Westbury Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200-feet of the site as well as all residents, who could be identified, within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Development should be shifted west to improve access from drive-through to Taylor Loop Road. A 180 degree turn is proposed into a narrow striped parking area. The majority of the traffic will desire to access the signal light at Taylor Loop Road. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Existing waterline easement (Inst. No. 2004004720) and 36-inch waterline crossing this property should be shown. Meter will be located at Taylor Loop Road. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 4 private fire system. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD for a drive through restaurant as an out-parcel. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Taylor Loop Road is shown as a Minor Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown along Taylor Loop 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 Sustainable Natural Environment goal has these objectives relevant to this case: Preserve the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and Promote vigorous enforcement of Landscaping & Excavation Ordinance. These objectives could affect the application thorough proper landscaping and screening. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. Any dead/missing vegetation shown on the plan submitted should be replaced in conjunction with this building permit. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight (8) percent of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least seven and one half May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 5 feet in width and 150 square feet in area. This will apply to any new paved areas on the site. 4. A small amount of building landscaping will also be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented the item and stated there were a number of outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned if the proposal included the creation of lease line or a separate lot. Mr. Daters stated the request did not include the subdivision of the existing parcel. Staff requested the applicant provide the days and hours of operation, the location of the menu board and the speaker box along with the screening wall, details of any proposed signage and to provide a note concerning the required dumpster screening. Staff stated the location of the building created a concern with traffic flows. Staff stated the customers exiting the site would most likely want to access the traffic light at Taylor Loop Road which would force them to make a 180 degree turn. Staff requested the applicant relocate the building to the west to eliminate this concern. Mr. Daters stated the location was the most desirable location and stated he would review the site plan to determine alternatives for circulation. Staff noted landscaping comments. Staff stated interior landscaping would be required as well as a small amount of building landscaping. Staff stated any existing dead or missing vegetation was required to be replaced in conjunction with a building permit. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies. There being no further issues to discuss, 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 technical issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates the hours of operation as 24-hour access, a note concerning the required dumpster screening and the location of the menu board along with a note stating all ordinance standards will be met with the placement of the menu board and screening wall. The proposal includes building signage a maximum of ten percent of the façade area of the building along the northern façade with smaller identification signage located along the western and eastern façades. The revised site plan indicates the building has been relocated to the west to allow sufficient turning movements from the drive-through to the parking lot May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 6 access drive. Staff remains concerned with the proposed location of the building and the indicated turning movement. Staff feels the building should be placed in a location to allow ample turning movement for those exiting the drive-through as to not interfere with motorists utilizing the access drive. Staff will continue to work with the developer for the location of the building as to not detract from the overall design and flow of traffic. The site plan indicates the placement of a second sign on the site. There is an existing sign located in the front yard area of the site consistent with signage allowed within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The proposal includes the placement of a second sign near the northeastern perimeter. The sign is indicated limited to six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the placement of an additional sign on the site. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically allows one sign per lot to identify tenants. Multiple tenant development signage is allowed with a maximum of ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. Staff feels the allowed sign area of development signage is sufficient to identify the existing and proposed new tenant of the site. The site plan indicates the construction of a 2,262 square foot facility containing indoor dining only. The site will remain as one parcel and the restaurant will be located on a leased parcel with a portion of the existing parking assigned to the new use through a cross access and parking agreement. The existing building contains 43,560 square feet of gross floor area with an area indicated for expansion for a total of 47,585 square feet of gross floor area. The total square footage on the site at ultimate build out would be 49,847 square feet. The typical minimum parking required would be 221 parking spaces. The site contains a total of 184 parking spaces which is 37 parking spaces less than the typical minimum parking required for a mixed use development. Staff is supportive of the reduced number of parking spaces. The site is approved for a limited list of allowable uses, many of which do not generate a large parking demand. Staff would however recommend the proposed uses of the site match the available parking on the site as the site redevelops with new uses. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the property as a restaurant facility but has some concerns with the proposed site plan related to building design and accesses to the site. Staff feels if designed appropriately a drive-through restaurant could develop on the site with limited impact. To accomplish this, additional review of the overall design and development of the site should be provided. Staff recommends the applicant submit to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission all building elevations, construction materials, access and circulation plans, signage plan and placement of menu boards and screening walls for final approval prior to the development of the site. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 7 To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. The total site area contains 5.9 acres with 2.1 acres or 35 percent in landscaped and undeveloped area and 3.8 acres or 65 percent with building and parking coverage. Staff does not feel the proposed development of a restaurant facility on this site, if designed appropriately, will negatively impact the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends all ground mounted signage be limited to development signage allowed per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff recommends the applicant submit to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission all building elevations, construction materials, access and circulation plans, signage plan and placement of menu boards and screening walls for final approval prior to the development of the site PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation that the applicant submit to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission all building elevations, construction materials, access and circulation plans, signage plan and placement of menu boards and screening walls for final approval prior to the development of the site. Mr. Tim Daters addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers were willing to limit the hours of operation for the proposed facility to midnight on weekends and 11 pm weeknights. He stated the developers would screen the order board so that the sound would not be audible from the near by residents. He stated the developers were willing to offer design review to the staff and Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission to ensure the development was an asset to the Highway 10 Corridor. He stated the developer were no longer requesting the placement of additional signage and the existing signage was adequate to serve the development. Ms. Celia Martin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the position of the Harvest Foods building would only screen a portion of the neighborhood. She stated there were a number of limits placed on the Harvest Foods May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-D 8 and questioned if these limits would also apply to any new development or redevelopment of the site. She questioned the expansion of commercial activity on the site and the available parking for future uses of the proposed retail building. She stated she did not feel the placement of a restaurant on the site would be of benefit to the neighborhood and requested the Commission deny the request. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the proposal did not meet the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. She stated the overlay was designed to limit ingress and egress along the roadway. She stated the goal of the Commission at the time of approval of the Harvest Foods was to protect the neighborhood. She stated a number of hours of debate were put into the decision process for the location of the grocery store at this location. She stated the developers previously requested a revision to the PCD to add additional uses to the site and now the developers were requesting yet another change. She stated she did not feel this was an appropriate location for the use and did not feel an change to the PCD zoning was appropriate. Mr. Tim Daters stated the landscaping and buffers more than adequate to met the Highway 10 Design Overlay requirements. He stated the building was conforming to the minimum setback of the overlay. Mr. Robert Vogel, the owner, addressed the Commission stating the approval of the Harvest Foods did place limits on the outdoor activities. He stated the PCD was approved for a single building and the current request was to amend the PCD to allow the placement of a second structure. He stated the original approval was 18 years ago and a lot had changed since the original approval. He stated the market design and needs of the area had changed. There was a general discussion on the proposed request. The Commission questioned if the previously imposed conditions would continue to apply to the current request. Staff stated the previously imposed conditions with regard to outdoor activities would continue to apply. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-5617-A NAME: Shackleford Farms Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road DEVELOPER: Whisenhunt Investment 35 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Development Consultant, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 30.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, PCD and R-2 ALLOWED USES: Commercial, Golf Driving Range and Office PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-2 - Commercial Uses, O-2 Office Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan to establish uses for the property. The applicant has indicated as a development plan or plans are secured the PCD will be revised to allow review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with established criteria. The applicant has indicated the following criteria for review and approval: BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION 1. The 30.8 acre site will be developed with commercial and office uses. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 2 2. Allowed uses will be those identified under the C-2 classification for commercial uses and O-2 classification for office uses along with the listed conditional and accessory uses. 3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or multiple building on a single site. 4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use. BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1. The layout of proposed building site improvements must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this PCD application. 2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to C-2 height regulations. 3. All site lighting must be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and shielded downward and onto the site. 4. All trash enclosures will be oriented away from boundary streets, screened with masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels. 5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary streets. 6. All landscape and buffer areas will be provided to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements. 7. All portions of the property will be landscaped to meet or exceed CLR ordinance requirements. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 1. A traffic study will be provided by the developer to identify street improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to evaluate proposed alignments. 2. The developer will negotiate an agreement with CLR Public Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that will be required. 3. The developer will review related utility infrastructure needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility improvements that will be required. 4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility improvements will be provided by the developer. SIGNAGE GUIDELINES 1. Monument style signage will be used and each sign will not exceed 10 feet in height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side). 2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 3 buildings and tenants. 3. Final signage locations must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to this PCD application. 4. All building wall signage must comply with CLR ordinance requirements based on the associated building use. GRADING & EXCAVATION GUIDELINES 1. Preliminary grading will be done on this property as part of a larger overall grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be done in advance of actual property development. 2. The developer will provide an overall master grading plan covering this and surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A portion of the site contains a golf driving range with the remainder of the site vacant. There is vacant C-3 zoned property located to the north of the site abutting the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. Across Chenal Parkway is C-3 zoned property previously reviewed for a preliminary plat to allow the creation of three lots and a convenience store. Kirk Road adjacent to this site has not been constructed. East of the site is the Kroger Shopping Center which has a number of out parcels currently vacant. There are single-family homes located to the northwest and west of the site along Kanis Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. The 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 Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Margeaux Place Property Owners Association and the St. Charles Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A traffic study has been provided for review by Public Works. After review, the study meets all Public Work's requirements. 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. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 4 Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to portions of this property. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Multifamily for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial District for future development of the property. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU06-19-01) Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial and Kirk Road extension is shown as a Collector on the plan. A Minor Arterial is designed to move vehicles and goods in and area the urban area. A Collector functions to move traffic from neighborhoods to the Arterial system and to provide access to adjacent land. Neither road is currently built to design standard. There are not public projects scheduled for these roads. Additional right-of-way and road improvements will be required with new developments. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. 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. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 5 Landscape: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request and indicated there were issues remaining outstanding associated with the request. Staff stated a rezoning request from various zoning districts to PCD was being requested for the site. Staff stated there were a number of unanswered questions related to the proposed development plan. Mr. Robert Brown stated the developers were requesting a conceptual planned development to establish uses for the areas and once the final development plans were secured, a revision to the zoning would be applied for and the Commission could then review the specifics of the site development plan. Staff stated the developers had given a list of criteria which would establish the review process. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development plan and the lack of a development plan. Commissioner Yates stated he felt the same as with the two previous proposals (Items 8 and 9). He stated he felt without a development plan a rezoning request should be filed and not a planned development request. He stated the purpose of a planned development zoning was to establish the development of the site. Mr. Brown stated with the current request, the Commission would be allowed to review the proposed development prior to construction. Commissioner Yates noted C-2 zoning districts required site plan review prior to development. Public Works commented the traffic study had been provided for review and the study met all Public Work’s requirements. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 6 Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated directional signage will comply with ordinance standards, pedestrian access and circulation will be incorporated in the final design and dumpsters and trash receptacles will be serviced during daylight hours, comply with applicable codes for placement and not be located adjacent to residentially used property. The revised cover letter indicates the building design will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of an amendment to the conceptual PCD application. Also, all service docks are to be oriented away from streets and provided with proper screening. The proposal includes the development of this 30 acre site with a conceptual PCD containing 85 percent commercial uses and 15 percent office uses. The maximum building square footage of the development will be tied to the proposed usage mix of the final development plan. There will be a maximum density of 12,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The maximum commercial area is 314,500 square feet based on the proposed density and 55,500 square feet of office space. The maximum area of restaurant use (as part of the maximum commercial area) will be 65,000 square feet. Four to five out parcels are proposed along Chenal Parkway/Kanis Road. The maximum building height proposed is 45-feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is requesting the approval of the proposed use mix and the placement of out parcels on the site with a maximum square footage identified of office and commercial uses. Limits have been placed on the building heights for office and commercial uses as well as limited placed on signage and dumpster locations. As proposed, a revision to the PCD would be sought prior to development detailing the site plan and proposed building design for Planning Commission and the City Board approval. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the proposal is appropriate to allow the future development of the area. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5617-A 7 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: LU06-17-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Crystal Valley Planning District Location: Westside of Colonel Carl Miller, between Baseline and Crystal Valley Roads Request: Single Family to Low Density Residential Source: Joe White, White-Daters PROPOSAL / REQUEST: The applicant requested this item be deferred on April 27, 2006. Staff supports the request for deferral to June 22, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) To allow time filing of an annexation request to be heard with this item, it was placed on consent agenda for deferral to June 22, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 12.1 FILE NO.: Z-6188-A NAME: Eagle Hill West Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located West of Colonel Carl Miller Road, North of Baseline Road DEVELOPER: Lindsey Development 1183 East Joyce Boulevard Fayetteville, AR 72703-5261 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 36.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and PCD ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential and Auto salvage yard PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Multi-family and Golf Course VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The property is located outside the City Limits but within the City’s Exterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The property most be annexed to allow the proposed development access to City services prior to development. Staff recommends this item be deferred to allow the applicant to file the annexation request so the proposed annexation request and rezoning request may be heard by Planning Commission on the same public hearing date. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the property was located outside the City Limits but within the City’s Exterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION 2 property must be annexed to allow the proposed development access to City services prior to development. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, public hearing to allow the applicant to file the annexation request so the proposed annexation, the land use plan amendment and rezoning requests to all be heard by Planning Commission on the same public hearing date. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6881-C NAME: McKinstry-Threet Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Townsend Street DEVELOPER: Pfeifer Family Limited Partnership #2 Three Financial Centre, Suite 409 Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 2.3 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Office and Retail PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office and Retail – Placement of a wall sign without public street frontage VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,594 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 20, 2001, established the McKinstry-Threet Short-form PCD. The development was to include a mixed use PCD utilizing 2.4 acres of a 4.19 acre tract located on the north side of Cantrell Road, east of Black Road. The applicant proposed a 3-lot development with one building on each lot. Lot 1 was to contain a one-story 7,200 square foot building and 37 parking spaces. The use proposed for Lot 1 was an auto service establishment specializing in tire and battery service. Their services would include related services such as front-end alignments, shock absorber replacement, etc. No services related to engine or transmission repair or paint and bodywork were proposed. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6881-C 2 The building was oriented such that the garage bay doors would not face Cantrell Road. Lot 2 was proposed to contain a one-story 4800 square foot building and a 25 space parking lot. The applicant proposed a mix for the building of no less than 25 percent office and up to 75 percent C-3, General Commercial District uses. The applicant further defined the use of the building by eliminating the following C-3 uses: Appliance Repair, Butcher Shop, Cabinet and Woodworking Shop, Church, College Dormitory, College fraternity or sorority, College, university or seminary, Convenience store with gas pumps, Convent or monastery, Custom sewing or millinery, Establishment of the care of alcoholics, neurotic or psychiatric patients, Feed store, Fire station, Hotel or motel, Lodge or fraternal organization, Multi-family dwellings, Pawnshop, Recycling facility, automated, Seasonal or temporary sales, outside, Secondhand shop, Service station, Tax office, Theater, Amusement, commercial (outside), Building materials sales (open), Bus station and terminal, Car wash, Crematorium, Eating place with drive-in service, Lawn and garden center open display, Lumberyard, Mini-warehouse, Service station with limited motor vehicle repair, Small engine repair, Tool and equipment rental (with outside display), Upholstery shop, furniture. No more than 1,200 square feet of the building would be an eating place without drive- in service (restaurant). Lot 3 was proposed to contain a one-story 3,600 square foot building and a 21 space parking lot. The building was proposed to be utilized as 100 percent office uses. Lots 2 and 3 would take access from an improved Townsend Street and Lot 1 would have access from a common access drive shared with the property to the west. Lots 1 and 2 would have a driveway connection. The site lies within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The proposed development was to conform to Highway 10 standards except for two minor points. One corner of the building on Lot 1 intruded into the 100 foot front yard setback and the landscape strip along the western perimeter of Lot 1 fell 10 feet below the 25-foot requirement. The applicant also proposed to abandon a platted but undeveloped 20-foot wide street right-of-way extended east to west through the site. On Mach 15, 2002, staff presented the Planning Commission at its informal meeting a revised site plan requesting they offer their opinion as to whether the proposed plan would require a full revision to the PCD, ie., return to the full Commission and City Board for approval. The consensus of the Commission was the full revision was not necessary since the proposal resulted in a decrease in intensity of use and buildings and the elements such as curb cuts, building setbacks and landscaping remained unchanged. The Commission did however request the applicant submit a revised site plan to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission when the final development plan was completed. This proposal did not move forward as was presented to the Commission at their March 15, 2002, Informal meeting. An agreement was reached with Twin City Bank, which is May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6881-C 3 currently located on Lot 1, in early 2003 based on the previously approved site plan. Twin City Bank has developed on Lot 1 with a slightly larger lot than was originally proposed. On October 5, 2004, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,196 revising the previously approved PCD. The amendment modified the rear and side yard setbacks for proposed Lots 2 and 3 of the Candlewood East Subdivision. A 15-foot west side yard setback and a 15.4 foot east side yard setback were approved for Lot 2. A west side yard setback of 15-feet and an east side yard setback of 15.3 feet was approved for Lot 3. With the reduced side yard setbacks a more densely planted landscape area would be provided. The approval included a rear yard setback for Lot 2 of 22-feet and the front building landscaped area was increased from 4-feet to 6-feet. The revised PCD allowed 3,600 square feet office on Lot 1, 4,640 square feet of commercial on Lot 2 and 3,148 square feet of office on Lot 3. A total of 11,288 square feet, of which 4,640 square feet of commercial and 6,748 square feet of office was approved for the development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: New Balance has opened a new store in the new retail portion of the development located at 13900 Cantrell Road on Lot 2. The store requests a revision to the current PCD zoning to allow signage on the west façade of the building. The sign will occupy 24.3 square feet of wall space. The west façade does not have direct street frontage, however, it does have visibility from a nearby access drive. The sign on the west façade is an important marketing tool for the New Balance store to identify its location to those potential customers who cannot see the entrance sign when traveling from the west. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Twin City Bank is located on Lot 1 and buildings have been constructed on Lots 2 and 3. Highland Drive has been constructed complete with curb-gutter and sidewalk. The area to the east of the site is a tree covered site. The area to the north of the site houses an office building and a plat for two additional lots was recently approved. Further west of the site is a commercial shopping node, with restaurant uses and a grocery store. There are a mixture of uses to the south of the site both residential and non-residential in nature. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not revived 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, the Westbury Property Owners Association, the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6881-C 4 Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Pankey Community Improvement Association were notified of the public hearing. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 5, 2004) The applicant was not present due to there being no technical issues related to the proposed request. Staff stated the item had not been routed to the reviewing agencies. Staff stated the request was to allow signage without public street. There was no discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the request from the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing the placement of signage along the western façade of the existing building. The site is located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District which has specific development guidelines for ground mounted signage but wall signage is typically allowed as per Section 36-557(a) of the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances. This section states all on-premise wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant. The proposed location of the wall signage does not have public street frontage. The signage is existing on the western façade and the site is currently under enforcement for placement of signage without a permit. The applicant was issued a permit for the placement of wall signage along the front façade and the eastern façade of the building which have public street frontage. The sign was placed along the western façade instead of placing the sign on the eastern façade. A notice was issued and the applicant chose to request a revision to the current PCD zoning in-lieu of removing the sign. Staff is not supportive of the allowance of the signage without public street frontage. Staff feels the existing signage located on the front façade of the building is adequate to identify the business and allows for adequate visibility. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6881-C 5 request dated May 11, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 22, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request. A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-6957-G NAME: Landers Lot 20 Colonel Glenn Center Long-form PD-C LOCATION: Located East of Landers, West of Talley Road DEVELOPER: Boen Enterprises 10912 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 4.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Retail - Indoor PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Auto body shop and Auto sales – used automobiles VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated April 26, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 26, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: LU06-01-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District Location: North of the Cantrell/Taylor Loop Intersection, south of Ison Creek Request: Transition to Mixed Office Commercial Source: Pat McGetrick, McGetrick & McGetrick PROPOSAL / REQUEST: The applicant requested this item be deferred on April 26, 2006. This deferral will be for six weeks until June 22, 2006. Staff is not opposed to the deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of the applicant this item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to June 22, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-8032 NAME: Freeze Short-form PD-I LOCATION: Located at 1112 Jones Street DEVELOPER: Freeze Drapery Cleaners 2520 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: Laha Engineers 6602 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 0.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two family residential ALLOWED USES: One and two family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-I PROPOSED USE: Warehouse facility VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 75-foot by 150-foot metal warehouse building on three previously platted lots and a part of the abandoned Chicago Rock Island Railroad Right of Way adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 12 of the Roots and Coys’ Subdivision. The warehouse building will contain a small office for record keeping, inventory of materials received and shipping, and two restrooms for employees. The warehouse will be used to store and for treatment of carpets. The carpeting is used by the aviation industry and is stored on site until orders are received. Once an order is received, the carpets are rolled on the warehouse floor, the May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8032 2 carpeting is inspected and the treatment applied. The carpets are then shipped to the customer for final installation. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant located adjacent to the main railroad line. There are commercial uses located in the area along West 12th Street. To the north and east of the site is residentially zoned and used property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the Central High Neighborhood Association, the Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association 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. 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. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lot must have a single driveway access. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer is available to this property. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and installation of additional fire hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8032 3 adequate service to this property. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 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 Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed for this property. The applicant has applied for a PD-I for an office and warehouse building. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment. Master Street Plan: 12th Street is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and Jones is shown as a local Street. Jones Street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. 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: A Class I is shown on this property on the western edge. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. This bikeway connects the bikeway along the Arkansas River (“Take it to the Edge” trail) to the bikeway along the Fourche Creek (“Take it to the Earth” Trail). City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Stephens Neighborhood Action Plan. The Economic May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8032 4 Development goal part A (To entice local businesses to locate in the Stephens Area) has an objective relevant to this case: Provide jobs within walking distance to work. This new business could provide jobs for local residents. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. A nine (9) foot wide landscape strip along the southern perimeter is required where adjacent to paved areas. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items needed to complete the review process. Staff requested the total building height, the hours of operation and the location of any proposed dumpsters. Staff also questioned the limited number of parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan. Mr. Laha stated the developer owned the business located to the south of the site which would allow for sufficient parking. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated drives did not meet the current ordinance requirements. Staff stated the lot should have only one driveway location. Mr. Laha stated he would remove the drive located near the southern property line. Staff questioned the railroad right-of-way indicated on the site plan. Mr. Laha stated the owner was provided a deed from the railroad and owned the property fee simple. Staff stated as indicated on the proposed site plan there was confusion as to the ownership of the right-of-way and requested Mr. Laha correct the notes on the site plan to clearly identify the ownership of the property. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff questioned the surface treatment of the area located near the northern drive. Mr. Laha stated this area was not a paved area and the indicated landscaping was more than adequate to meet the minimum Landscape Ordinance requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8032 5 raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan clearly indicates the abandonment of the previously held railroad right-of- way and indicates landscaped areas. The southern most drive has also been removed. The hours of operation are proposed as typical office hours or from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Saturday. The revised site plan indicates a dumpster along the southern driveway with a note concerning the required screening. The applicant is proposing to construct a 75-foot by 150-foot metal warehouse building containing a small office for record keeping, inventory of materials received and shipping, and two restrooms for employees. Building signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed per the Zoning Ordinance or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. No ground mounted signage is being proposed. The warehouse will be used for the storage and treatment of carpets. The carpeting is used by the aviation industry and is stored on site until orders are received. Once an order is received the carpets are rolled on the warehouse floor, the carpeting is inspected and the treatment applied. The carpets are then shipped to the customer for final installation. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff feels the placement of a warehouse building in this location will negatively impact the residential uses in the area. The non-residential uses in the area are located adjacent to West 12th Street and do not spill over into the residential area. There is an occupied single-family home located across the street from the site to the east and further east of the site is a somewhat stable residential neighborhood. The Land Use Plan for the area does not recognize industrial uses as allowable uses for the site. Although the site abuts a main railroad line staff still feels there could be potential developments, which would be a better fit with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the area should be protected as a residential neighborhood allowing the neighborhood to grow and prosper. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item recommending denial of the request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8032 6 Mr. Sam Freeze addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated the property had been vacant for more than 30 years. He stated the property across the street had been vacant for 20 plus years. Mr. Freeze stated his desire was to clean-up the neighborhood and increase property values in the area. He stated he currently owned the building immediately south of the site located at 2520 West 12th Street and had been in that location since 1965. He stated he owned the property leased to the Italian Couple Restaurant. He stated the new building would not generate any additional traffic to the neighborhood. He stated the building would be constructed in a manner to complement the neighborhood and would be heavily landscaped. He stated the lots were oddly shaped and located adjacent to a main line of the railroad which did not lend itself to development for residential homes. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the area was an old neighborhood within the City. She stated the area had seen a down turn in housing but was slowly returning as a desirable place to live. She stated it was not appropriate to place an industrial use adjacent to a neighborhood which was coming back. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on the nearby single-family homes. Staff stated the area was reviewed in 2004/2005 and with the help of the neighborhoods zoning and land use were designed to allow for mixed use developments. Staff stated they felt to introduce an industrial use into the neighborhood would likely impact the residential uses and future residential development within the area. The Commission questioned if building elevations were available. Mr. Freeze stated he had not fully designed the building. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 Recusal (Commissioner Laha). May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: LU06-16-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek Planning District Location: East of Otter Creek South and north of the Railroad Request: Light Industrial to Industrial Source: Pat McGetrick, McGetrick & McGetrick PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from Light Industrial to Industrial. Industrial encompasses a wide variety of manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, processing and industrial related office and service activities. The accompanying Planned Zoning District is for a concrete batch plant. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include area to the south and east. This area is also shown as Light Industrial and current has the same owner. The new Industrial area would continue south to the Union Pacific Mainline and east to the proposed South Loop. It is thought that the additional area would make the boundaries more logical. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property for both the applicant’s area and the expanded area is undeveloped wooded land, currently zoned I-2 Light Industrial. The applicant’s area is approximately 7.5 acres and the expanded area is 31 acres ± in size. To the west is an industrial park of small warehouses, zoned I-2 Light Industrial, where are a few small vacant tracts within this development. To the south is the Union Pacific Mainline then vacant (pasture land) zoned I-2 Light Industrial. To the east is vacant land (pasture land) zoned C-3 General Commercial and O-3 General Office. To the north is a Middle School zoned R-2 Single Family and vacant land zoned I-2 Light Industrial and C-3 General Commercial. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: July 16, 2002, a change was made from Single Family to Low Density Residential, west of Heike Road at the County Line. This area is over a mile to the southeast of the site. The change was made to allow for a proposed development. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-16-01 2 April 2, 2002, a package of changes was made at the intersection of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road. A change from Single Family, Low Density Residential to Single Family, Suburban Office and Neighborhood Commercial. This area is a mile to the south of the application area. The changes were made to allow for future development. The City Land Use Plan shows the site for Light Industrial use. Light Industrial is shown west to the interstate highway and south to Alexander Road. The proposed South Loop alignment is a Land Use classification change line, with Mixed Commercial and Industrial shown to the east. To the north area several Public Institutional use areas with a small amount of Light Industrial and Commercial. The Commercial is along Mabelvale West Road. The Public Institutional is the remaining area along Mabelvale West Road. MASTER STREET PLAN: Mabelvale West Road and the South Loop are shown as an Arterial on the plan. The South Loop is adjacent to the expanded area. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. The City Bond program proposes to build ‘a connection’ along the alignment of the South Loop, not the full Master Street Plan requirements. Additional right of way and street improvements may be required. BICYCLE PLAN: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along the proposed South Loop. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates this site is currently within 8-blocks of an existing public or private park or open space. This site is part of the Mabelvale Middle School. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-16-01 3 CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The site is in the Chicot West, I-30 East Neighborhoods Plan Area. The Plan does not have Objectives that directly relevant to this application. The Plan does recommend the completion of the South Loop and calls for businesses to landscape and keep clean their street frontage. Also the Plan expresses concerns about drainage and flooding, both to correct current problems and require that new developments cause no additional problems. ANALYSIS: The application area is within a larger area that has been proposed for Industrial and Light Industrial use for decades. The original idea was for a rail switching yard and related uses. This did not happen and most of the land over the last decade has been reclassified to Light Industrial on the Plan and is zoned I-2 Light Industrial. To the west is the Otter Creek Industrial Park. This area has been developing as small warehouse, distribution or light fabrication. There are two larger warehouse distribution centers (Dillard’s and Affiliated Foods) within the park as well. The area under review is part of an area proposed as an expansion to this existing industrial park. There are two areas of I-3 zoning with more intensive uses further to the southeast. The main line of the Union-Pacific Railroad is along the southern boundary of the expanded area. With this location, it may be possible to get a spur-line for a new industrial user in this location. This land is currently zoned I-2, as is the land across the rail line. The land south of the rail line is open pastureland currently. The proposed South Loop alignment is the eastern boundary. This roadway is part of the current bond program under development. There is an existing Middle School to the north. The athletic fields for the school are adjacent to the proposed area of change. This is a section of Little Rock that has not experienced a great deal of new development in the past decade or so. However commercial development has started a mile to the northeast and there has been significant single-family develop a mile or so to the west (across Interstate 30). But the land to the south and east remains of a rural nature. With the main line for the railroad adjacent to the site, a major interstate highway just to the west and existing industrial uses to the west, this is a prime location of additional industrial development. The existing development is warehouse- distribution mostly with some like fabrication. There is a heavier industrial use to the southeast near Vimy Ridge Road. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-16-01 4 There are two important and significant public uses to the north of this area, a hospital and middle school. A change in use should also look at any potential impacts on these existing uses. The middle school is adjacent to a portion of the amendment area. This happens to be the outdoor recreation portion of the school. Thus children will be playing and doing physical activities adjacent to the area of proposed change. Industrial use allows for the potential development of the most toxic industrial uses allowed by the City. These uses tend to have odors, dust, and or noise which makes them undesirable as a neighbor for residential and many other uses. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association and SW Little Rock UP. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. The potential uses with this change would be detrimental to the adjacent public school. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of the applicant this item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to June 22, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 NAME: Mabelvale West Industrial Park Long-form PD-I, located on Warrior Drive LOCATION: Lot 1 Mabelvale West Industrial Park Subdivision DEVELOPER: Razorback Concrete 211 North 6th Street West Memphis, AR ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 7.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial District ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PD-I PROPOSED USE: Concrete Batch Plant VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: A preliminary plat for the Mabelvale West Industrial Park was approved by the Planning Commission at their November 10, 2005, public hearing. The plat area contained 54.3 acres and an access easement across the North 60-feet of Lot 5 of Otter Creek Industrial Park built to City standard and dedicated as a public right-of-way. The proposed new roadway was approved in two phases. Phase I consisted of the portion of road lying within the North 60-feet of Lot 5 of the Otter Creek Industrial Park. Phase II would consist of the development of the remainder of the roadway or 892-feet. A waiver of Section 31-175 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the required sidewalk placement within the proposed subdivision was also approved. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this 7.5 acre site from I-2, Light Industrial to PD-I to allow the development of a concrete batch plat. The proposal includes the construction of a small office facility (1,000 square feet) and three (3) additional buildings related to the processing plant. Sixteen parking spaces have been indicated on the site plan; six spaces are designated for the office uses and ten employee spaces are proposed. The site plan indicates two areas of outdoor storage. One area is designated for storage of sand and the second is designated for the storage of gravel. The proposed site plan indicates a 50-foot landscape strip along the western perimeter of the site and a minimum of 125.1 feet along the southern perimeter of the site. The applicant has indicated the facility will operate from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday. A single sign is proposed adjacent to Warrior Drive, consistent with signage allowed in industrial zones. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located in an area that is developing as industrial and institutional uses. The property is bordered on the west by the Otter Creek Industrial Park, on the south by the Union Pacific Railroad and Mabelvale Junior High School is located to the east. There are a number of office and office/warehouse users located along the western perimeter of the site; along Otter Creek East Boulevard. Southwest Hospital is located across Mabelvale West Road, to the North. The site is wooded and appears to be relatively flat. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Due to spacing requirements, the code allows only one driveway. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 3 2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 5. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 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: Customer will require Three Phase Power. Contact Entergy at 954- 5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and installation of additional fire hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide adequate service to this property. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 4 CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned District Industrial for a cement plant. A land use plan amendment for a change to Industrial is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU06-16-01). Master Street Plan: Mabelvale West Road and the South Loop are shown as an Arterial on the plan. The South Loop is adjacent to the expanded area. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and area the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. These roads are designed to be four or more lanes and move large numbers of vehicles at high speed. The City Bond program proposes to build ‘a connection’ along the alignment of the South Loop, not the full Master Street Plan requirements. Additional right of way and street improvements may be required. Bicycle Plan: The Master Street Plan, bicycle section, proposes a Class I bike route along the proposed South Loop. A Class I route has a separate pavement for the sole use of bicycles. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The site is in the Chicot West, I-30 East Neighborhoods Plan Area. The Plan does not have Objectives that directly related to this application. The Plan does recommend the completion of the South Loop and calls for businesses to landscape and keep clean their street frontage. Also the Plan expresses concerns about drainage and flood, both to correct current problems and require new develops cause no additional problems. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. A nine foot (9) wide landscape strip is required along the southern perimeter of the site. 3. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 5 5. 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. 6. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated details of the proposed signage including height and area should be included on the site plan. Staff also questioned the screening mechanism to be put in place to provide screening of the activities taking place on the site. Staff stated all site lighting should be low level and directional, directed downward and into the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated driveways did not meet minimum ordinance standards. Staff also stated a grading permit would be required prior to development and the storm water detention ordinance would apply to any development on the site. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant clearly identify all areas of the proposed site plan including the areas of paving and landscaping. Staff stated irrigation would be required and prior to the issuance of a building permit it would be necessary to provide a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the technical issues associated with the request raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has removed the western most drive allowing a single 36-foot wide drive into the development. The revised site plan also indicates areas to be designated as landscaped area and area for existing trees to remain. The site plan indicates a minimum of 125-feet of buffering is to remain along the southern perimeter and a minimum of 190-feet of buffering will remain along the eastern perimeter abutting the roadway. Along the western perimeter a 50-foot setback is being proposed and only a portion of the area will remain in its current natural state. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8033 6 The proposal includes the construction of a small office facility (1,000 square feet) and three (3) additional buildings related to the processing plant. Sixteen parking spaces have been indicated on the site plan; six spaces are designated for the office uses and ten employee spaces are proposed. The site plan indicates two areas of outdoor storage. One area is designated for storage of sand and the second is designated for the storage of gravel. The site plan indicates a bermed enclosed wash area to clean trucks when returning to the site. A single dumpster has been located on the site plan near the office area. The site plan indicates the dumpster will be screened per current ordinance standards. The applicant has indicated the facility will operate from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday. A single sign is proposed adjacent to Warrior Drive, consistent with signage allowed in industrial zones or a maximum of 30-feet in height and 72 square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the proposed use. The proposed use of the site as a concrete batch plant is a heavy industrial uses and inconsistent with the current Future Land Use Plan. The area has developed primarily with office/warehouse type uses and most do not have outdoor activities with the exception of the equipment rental company located at the intersection of Mabelvale West Road and Otter Creek East Road. The site is also located near an elementary school which could potentially impact the outdoor activities of the youth. Staff feels the proposed use should be located in an area with similar outdoor activities or an area indicated on the Land Use Plan for heavy industrial uses. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated May 3, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the June 22, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-8034 NAME: Stanton Road Short-form PD-R, located on the East side of Stanton Road LOCATION: Located at 8501 Stanton Road DEVELOPER: Joe Curreri 8501 Stanton Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: .76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: 3 Residential units – manufactured housing VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the removal of the existing single-family residence and the placement of three (3) manufactured homes and a single garage/shop building on the site. The site plan indicates the placement of a single 20-foot drive to access the site and six (6) parking spaces to serve the residences. The owner has indicated he will live in the primary unit and two of the units will be offered for rent. The primary unit is proposed as a 32-foot by 80-foot home containing 2,560 square feet and the two rental units are proposed as 30-feet by 50-feet containing 1,500 square feet. The site contains 0.76 acres which would result in a density of 3.94 units per acre. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8034 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an occupied single-family home. There are manufactured homes located to the north and east of the site both in single lot and manufactured home parks along Stanton and Doyle Springs Roads. South and west of the site are site-built single-family residences. Stanton Road has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard as a part of a previous bond project. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners indicating concern and opposition. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association, the Windamere Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Stanton Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. 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 location of water meter(s). Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8034 3 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a PDR for rental housing. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Stanton Road is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: A Class III is shown along Stanton 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 Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan. The Neighborhood and Housing Revitalization Goal has an objective relevant to this case: Require all rental units (single-family and multi-family) be maintained in a high-quality manner (lawns and structures). Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 3. Screening of the parking lots is also required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Pat McGetrick and Mr. Curreri were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if any signage was being proposed, the areas dedicated for landscaping and the use of the shop garage. Mr. Curreri stated the garage was strictly a hobby shop and no commercial activities would be taking place from the garage. Staff also questioned if lots were being proposed for future sale of the units. Mr. Curreri stated lots were not being proposed and the units would be maintained under a single ownership. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8034 4 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Stanton Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street and a right-of-way dedication of 30-feet from centerline would be required. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the number of units proposed would classify the property as multi-family therefore screening would be required along the perimeters of the site. Staff also stated screening of the parking lot was required. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a six foot wood screening fence will be placed along the northern, western and southern perimeters of the site and identified the areas designated for landscape. No signage or dumpsters are being proposed. The site is proposed with the development of three residential units all to be manufactured housing. The site plan indicates the homes will be placed on the lot consistent with siting standards per the Zoning Ordinance. The roof pitch is three in twelve or fourteen degrees or greater roof pitch. All transport elements will be removed, a permanent foundation will be placed for each unit, the exterior wall finish will be compatible with the neighborhood and the two front units will be oriented compatible with the adjacent single-family structures. The homes are proposed as multi-sectional homes and underpinning with permanent materials is proposed. Two parking spaces have been indicated for each of the units. The owner has indicated one of the units will be owner occupied. Staff feels if approved, a condition of the approval should be that one of the proposed units must be owner occupied. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the placement of three units on the site does not blend with the existing neighborhood. Staff feels if two units were located on the site this would be more in keeping with a primary residence and an accessory dwelling. With the placement of three units on the site the development has the feel of a small manufactured home park. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8034 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Joe Curruri addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated there were seven mobile home parks located along and off of Stanton Road. He stated his request was for the placement of three homes on the site and a shop building. He stated he would live in one of the homes and the other two would be offered for rental. He stated the homes would look like single-family construction once placed on the site. He stated new construction of site built homes was not economically feasible. He stated appraisals did not support new construction. He stated he had lived in the area for 12 plus years in a mobile home park he owned located to the north. Mr. AD Nutt addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated Stanton Road was a fine place to live but was overloaded with mobile homes. He stated the parks in their current state attracted undesirable persons bringing a crime element to the neighborhood. He stated he had lived in the area 49 plus years and did not want a manufactured home park located next to his home. Mr. Richard Sheflett addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he moved into his home in 1961 and the area had progressively been going down hill. He stated the parks were not maintained which brought in a class of people that was affecting the neighborhood negatively. Ms. Pat Gee addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the notice mailed to the neighborhood indicated construction of homes on the site. She stated this was misleading to the neighborhood and felt the notice should have indicated manufactured housing instead of construction. She stated there were not mobile homes on Stanton Road when the Nutt’s built their home. Mr. Ed Sipe addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he owned the school located just south of the proposed mobile home park. He stated he and his wife had dedicated their time to improving the area and educating the children of the area. He stated he had a substantial investment in the buildings located on his property and was in an expansion mode. He stated there was a crime problem on Stanton Road most of which was a direct result of the mobile home parks located in the area. He stated his building had suffered break-ins resulting in property loss. He stated until all property owners invested in quality development no one from outside the neighborhood would be willing to come in and invest in the neighborhood. There was a general discussion concerning when the mobile home parks were place in the area. Staff stated the parks were in place when the area was annexed into the City. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8034 6 Mr. Curruri stated his development would be an asset to the community. He stated the homes would appear as site built homes placed on permanent foundations with an outside material to match the existing homes in the area. He stated he did require a background check on all tenants before he would rent to them. The Commission questioned his existing park as to the number of units and the age of the units. He stated the units were 1972 to 1995 year models and he had a total of 36 units. He stated the area was 70 to 75 percent manufactured homes. He stated he had a vested interest in the neighborhood and would not do anything to negatively impact the area. The Commission questioned Mr. Curruri if he would be willing to accept two units. He stated he was willing to amend his application for the placement of two units on the site. Staff stated they were now supportive of the application request. Staff stated this was more in keeping with a primary residence and accessory dwelling. Staff stated they had typically supported manufactured housing as an alternative for single-family residences. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-8035 NAME: Madison Park Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road DEVELOPER: Chandler Johnson Development Investments P.O. Box 22021 Little Rock, AR 72221 ENGINEER: Central Arkansas Surveying 1012 Autumn Road Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.78 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: 11-units townhouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Madison Park is a Planned Residential Development that will blend the traditional European architecture with 21st Century construction to consist of 11-condominium homes. Proposed homes will consist of three (3) bedrooms, great room, two (2) full bathrooms, and powder bath, dining area, kitchen, attached garage and a full compliment of built-in stainless steel appliances. All homes will have a traditional European exterior with accented décor and feature amenities that generally are standard for an upscale development of this style. Interior amenities will include travertine tile, hardwood flooring, granite slab kitchen countertops, marble bathrooms and ten foot ceilings with stacked crown moldings, and recessed can lighting. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 2 Exterior features include masonry, with structural accents and details such as brick on all four sides, precast keystones, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof shingles, landscaped lawns and zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler systems. Roof pitch elevations will be 14/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the development. The homes will have a minimum front setback of 20-feet with wooden privacy fencing planned for the entire development. Homes in Madison Park will range in square footage from 1,640 to 1,900 square feet heated and cooled. It is anticipated that homes will sell in the $215,000 to $247,000 price category. A bill of assurance will be established to maintain/protect the values of properties in and around Madison Park. The entrance to Madison Park will have an old world European Brick entrance with accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green spaces to promote an appealing environment that compliments this development. Additionally, each individual lawn and all common areas within Madison Park will be maintained by the Property Owners Association. The common maintenance of all the residences in Madison Park reinforces the quality that has been planned, and will continue to be stressed throughout this daunting residential development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site a level grass covered site with a scattering of trees. There is a newly developing single-family subdivision located to the south and southeast along Montgomery Road and there are single-family homes located to the west along Gooch Road. East of the site is a Montessori School with access drives from Montgomery Road and Taylor Loop Road. Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road are unimproved roadways abutting the site with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the Westchester Neighborhood Association and the Chenal Ridge Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Montgomery Road and Taylor Loop Road. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 3 2. With the site development, provide design of the streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the streets including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The entire length of Montgomery Road must be widened to 13 feet from centerline with back of sidewalk at the property line. Taylor Loop Road must be widened to 18 feet from centerline with the back of sidewalk at the property line. 3. Interior driveway must be at least 20 feet wide for emergency vehicle access. Signage must be provided at driveway locations for one way traffic. 4. If gates are proposed, an area for vehicles to turn around must be provided. The call box must be located at least 30 feet from the street pavement to allow for stacking. 5. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 7. A 5 foot drainage easement should be dedicated to the City along the western property line. 8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 9. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easement. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: 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 whether this will be a single parcel or individual lots. Installation of a waterline will be required and the property configuration will determine whether it is public or private. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 4 sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. The minimum driveway width shall be 20-feet. If an access gate is installed the minimum gate opening shall be 20-feet. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 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 Single Family and Park/Open Space for this property. The applicant has applied for a PD-R for an attached housing development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Taylor Loop is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and Robyn Street is shown as a Local Street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 3. The street buffer along Taylor Loop Road must average 18.6 feet and along Montgomery Road must average 15.9 feet and in no case less than nine feet (9). This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the zoning/buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 5 4. A fifteen (15) foot wide land use buffer is required along the western perimeter and a 16.8 foot wide land use buffer is required along the southern perimeter to separate this proposed development from the residential property. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if the development would be a gated community. Mr. Rodney Chandler stated the development was not proposed as a gated community. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign located within the project. Mr. Chandler stated a sign would be included on the revised site plan. Staff stated they were concerned with the massing of the indicated buildings. Staff stated a redesign of the project orienting the building to Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road and breaking the buildings would blend with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Chandler stated his desire was to internalize the development orienting the development away from the roadways. Commissioner Yates questioned the building heights and the total square footage of the proposed units. Mr. Chandler stated the units would be one and two story units with approximately 1,500 square feet of heated and cooled space. Commissioner Yates stated if the units were broken into duplex and triplex buildings the units would appear as a single large single-family home. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way was required along Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road. Staff also stated street improvements would be required to the abutting roadways. Staff stated no residential waste collection would be provided on the internal private street unless the property owners signed a waiver of damage claims for operating on private property. Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department. Staff stated the indicated driveway as inadequate to meet the minimum width required for fire access. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated street buffers would be required along the two (2) roadways and land use buffers would be required along the southern and western perimeters. Staff stated the indicated buffers appeared to meet minimum ordinance standards. Staff stated screening would be required along the southern and western perimeters. Staff stated this could be achieved through a fence, wall or dense evergreen plantings. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 6 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 April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a 20-foot drive, no gating of the development and the placement of buildings to break the massing of the units. The revised site plan indicates the placement of 11 units on the site with a central courtyard. Each of the units is proposed with a garage structure and a minimum of 1,500 square feet of heated and cooled space. Units are proposed as one and two story units. The proposed homes will consist of three (3) bedrooms, great room, two (2) full bathrooms, and powder bath, dining area, kitchen, attached garage and a full compliment of built-in stainless steel appliances. All homes will have a traditional European exterior with accented décor and feature amenities that generally are standard for an upscale development of this style. Interior amenities will include travertine tile, hardwood flooring, granite slab kitchen countertops, marble bathrooms and ten foot ceilings with stacked crown moldings, and recessed can lighting. Exterior features include masonry, with structural accents and details such as brick on all four sides, precast keystones, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof shingles, landscaped lawns and zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler systems. Roof pitch elevations will be 14/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the development. The units have a minimum front setback of 20-feet with wooden privacy fencing planned for the entire development. The fencing along Taylor Loop Road will include the placement of brick columns to break the visual appearance of the fence. The remainder of the fence is proposed as a solid board fence. Although staff is supportive of the placement of fencing around the perimeter of the site staff recommends the fence be broken allowing jogs in the fence and landscaping be added along the outside of the fence to add visual interest and soften the visual impact along the abutting roadways. The entrance to Madison Park will be from Montgomery Road and is proposed with an old world European Brick entrance with accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green spaces. A single development sign is proposed at the entrance. The sign is proposed with a maximum of six feet in height and a sign area not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area. As stated the development will include a single private drive into the proposed development with a courtyard and common parking area. There are areas of individual lawn and all common areas proposed within the development. A property owners association will be established for the maintenance of the common landscaped, drives and parking areas. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 7 Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff feels the applicant has done a good job in breaking the massing of the building and minimizing the impact on the adjoining properties. The placement of the structures as proposed in four separate buildings containing two and three units per building will give the visual appearance of a large home common to construction types in the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. The development of the site containing 1.98 acres with 11 units results in an overall density of 5.5 units per acre. Staff does not feel this density is incompatible with the single-family detached development taking place in the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends the fence be broken allowing jogs in the perimeter fence and landscaping be added along the outside of the fence to add visual interest and soften the impact along the abutting roadways. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation that the perimeter fencing be broken and jogs placed in the fence along with landscaping added along the outside of the fence to add visual interest and soften the impact along the abutting roadways. Mr. Paul Halbrook addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated his home was located just south of the proposed development. He stated his neighborhood was developing with $200 - $300 thousand dollar homes and he was told when he bought his home the area proposed for development would also be single-family homes. He stated one of his questions had been answer related to the number of units and a second question was if the units would have garages. He stated he did not understand the rezoning process to PD-R and questioned if the rezoning would affect property values in the area. He stated his primary concern was with the attached portion of the request. He stated he understood attached in this instance was condo development but the next thing to condo’s was apartments. He stated he did not want to live next door to an apartment complex. He stated the developer’s proposal did appear to go with 70 to 80 percent of the homes being constructed in the area and he felt the developer had reduced the massing for a more aesthetically pleasing look. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8035 8 Mr. Rodney Chandler addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the units would be constructed with similar values as the remaining homes in the area. He stated he was building patio homes and not condo’s. He stated the development would be fenced along the south and west property lines with a six foot board fence and along Taylor Loop Road with a brick column and wrought iron fence. He stated no fencing was being proposed along Montgomery Road. He stated all the units would have a garage with the exception of one unit. He stated the desire was to create diversity within the development and address the market demand. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-8036 NAME: McKellips Short-form PD-O LOCATION: Located at 16000 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Larry and Virginia McKellips c/o the Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.36 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-O to allow this existing single-family occupied structure to be converted to an office use for an insurance agency. The applicant has indicated other than signage and a new façade, there will be no material alterations of the building. The interior will be remodeled to allow for an agent, two staff agents and a receptionist office space while maintaining the residential character of the structure. The site plan indicates customer parking in the front of the building with employee parking located in the rear of the structure. The hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm six days per week. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8036 2 A single ground mounted monument style sign is being proposed within the front yard area consistent with signage allowed in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. The proposal also includes building signage consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family structure. To the east of the site is also a single-family structure and to the west of the site is a commercial business. Across Cantrell Road, to the south, are single-family homes and office uses. There is an approved PCD located to the southwest of the site developed as an office development and mini-warehouse facility. North of the site is a creek and floodway with a single-family subdivision developed on large lots located north of the creek. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the Westchester Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. The necessary right of way may exist. If not, the dedication is required. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 3. Floodway is shown on the property. The existing structures are pre-FIRM structures and built prior to the City being in the National Flood Insurance Program. Encroachments into the floodway beyond those that exist today are prohibited. Floodplain is also shown on the property. A special grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction or expansion in the floodplain. 4. If the existing structures are substantially improved to 50% or greater of the appraised value of the structures, then the entire structure must meet Little Rock flood code. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8036 3 Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water to change the water account to commercial if this property is to be used as commercial property. 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). Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition this property. The applicant has applied for a PD-O for conversion of a residence into an office use. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on it since it is a Principal Arterial. Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown on the northern boundary of this property. This bikeway connects to the Take it to the Edge Trail along the Arkansas River and connects southerly to the Rahling Road bikeway and to connections in the Pleasant Valley area. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8036 4 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. 2. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. 3. A small amount of landscaping is required to screen the parking areas on the site per the landscape ordinance. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicant was not present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating they would contact the applicant to clarify any outstanding issues and concerns prior to the public hearing. 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 few outstanding issues from the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided staff with a parking plan, utilizing the existing asphalt on the site, an updated signage plan and has indicated there will not be a dumpster located on the site. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-O to allow this existing single-family occupied structure to be converted to an office use for an insurance agency. The applicant has indicated other than signage and a new façade, there will be no material alterations of the building. The interior will be remodeled to allow for an agent, two staff agents and a receptionist office space, while maintaining the residential character of the structure. The site plan indicates adequate parking in the front of the building for customer parking and parking in the rear to serve as employee parking. The hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm six days per week. A single ground mounted monument style sign is being proposed within the front yard area consistent with signage allowed in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8036 5 The proposal also includes building signage consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant’s request is to utilize an existing structure as an office use for an insurance agency limited to typical office hours for an office use. The area is shown as Transition on the City’s Future Land Use Plan which allows for an office use. The interior and exterior modifications are proposed to not detract from the residential character of the structure. Although the site plan does not fully comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District staff is supportive of the plan as proposed. Staff feels the addition of the small amount of paving within the front yard area and the paving in the rear to allow for a turn-around will not negatively impact the adjoining properties. Screening will be placed along the western perimeter to screen the adjoining property. The property located to the west of the site is a non-conforming commercial business which will not likely redevelop as a residential use in the future. The property to the east is currently occupied as a single-family residence and will be slightly impacted. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the eastern perimeter to screen the proposed use from the adjoining residences. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site, as an office use for an insurance agency, should minimally impact the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the registered objector had withdrawn their objection to the application request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 recusal (Commissioner Rahman) and 1 abstaining (Commissioner Adcock). May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: LU06-10-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Boyle Park Planning District Location: Either side of John Barrow, 31st to 32nd Streets Request: Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial and Public Institutional Source: Joe White, White-Daters PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial and Public Institutional. Mixed Office Commercial provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial with a Planned Zoning District. Public Institutional represents public and quasi-public facilities that provide a variety of services to the community such as schools, churches, libraries, etc. The accompanying Planned Zoning District application is for a car wash. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the area west of John Barrow Road between 31st and 32nd Streets for Public Institutional use. This is to reflect an existing condition and make the boundaries more logical, etc. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is undeveloped currently zoned R-3 Single Family and is one acre ± in size. The expanded area is partial developed with deteriorating religious institution. The expansion area is also approximately 1 acre in size, making the total amendment area approximately 2 acres in size. To the east and west the land is zoned R-3 Single Family and has homes on residential 5000 square foot lots, with a scattering of vacant lots. South along John Barrow Road, is C-3 General Commercial and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning, with some retail businesses and vacant land partially wooded. North along John Barrow Road is R-3 Single Family land for several blocks, mostly vacant with a couple of homes. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: January 10, 2006, a change from Single Family to Transition to allow for future development. The site was along the south side of Kanis Road, east of Michael. This is a mile to the northeast of the application area. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-10-01 2 October 4, 2005, a change from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial to allow for future development. The site was just east of John Barrow Road on the south side of Kanis Road. This is a mile to the north of the application area. July 13, 2004, a change from Office and Single Family to Mixed Use to more accurately reflect the existing zoning and land use pattern. The site was along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road between Whitfield and Stanus. This is a mile to the southeast of the application area. January 20, 2004, a change from Mixed Use to Commercial to more accurately reflect the existing zoning and land use pattern. The site was along the south side of Colonel Glenn Road between Cobb and Walker. This is a mile to the southeast of the application area. November 4, 2002, a change from Commercial, Single Family, Multifamily and Office to Mixed Office Commercial, Office, Multifamily, Commercial and Low Density Residential to more accurately reflect the existing land use and zoning pattern. The site is between I-630 and Kanis Road, east of John Barrow Road. This is a mile to the north of the application area. The application area and expanded area is shown for Single Family of the Plan. Single Family use is shown to the north, east and west. Two blocks to the north a small area of Neighborhood Commercial is shown at the intersection of 28th Street with John Barrow Road (this is an Arterial-collector intersection). To the south along either side of John Barrow Road is shown for Mixed Office Commercial, with the intersection of 36th Street and John Barrow Road shown for Commercial (this is an Arterial-Arterial intersection). MASTER STREET PLAN: John Barrow Road is shown as an Arterial on the plan. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. Right- of-way and street improvements may need to be made at the time of development. BICYCLE PLAN: The Little Rock Bike Plan does not show any bike routes adjacent to the site. The closest Bike Route is a Class II Route along 28th Street to the north. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-10-01 3 PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates the site is within 8- blocks of a public or private open space or recreation area. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The site is in the John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan Area. The Plan calls for creation of a development climate in the John Barrow Neighborhood Area that would attract job-generating businesses. The Plan also calls for development design standards, but does not specifically recommend any other than to state that traffic and pedestrian flows should be improved and efficient. ANALYSIS: The site requesting the change has been filled for many years and used to park vehicles. The land is zoned single-family. Adjacent to the south is a strip commercial center, which includes a carwash business. The most recent activity in the vicinity is some duplexes (six) built along Ludwig from 33rd to 32nd Streets. Near Tanya and further to the north there have been some businesses constructed in the last few years. But in this vicinity there has been only an occasional in-fill house. Generally this is a developed section of the John Barrow Addition. The additional area, along the westside of John Barrow Road is land currently owned by a religious institution, however their facilities appears to have been abandoned. About half of the area shown for non-residential use along John Barrow Road from 36th to 32nd Streets is developed. The residential on the streets surrounding John Barrow Road is partial development with homes and vacant lots. This area is a grid-street pattern of residential lots, platted in the 1930s. John Barrow Road is an Arterial. Arterials are functionally to move vehicles and goods in and through the city not to provide access to adjacent properties. Traffic counts indicate volumes of 18200 vehicles per day from 2004 for John Barrow Road. Any use along John Barrow Road should be designed with limited or prevent direct access to John Barrow Road to facilitate its function. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-10-01 4 The new non-residential uses constructed in the last few years have either been well to the north from Labette to Kanis Road or well to the south from 40th street to Colonel Glenn Road. The new buildings and uses to the north have been medical related or retail in nature. To the south, the new uses have tended to be office/office warehouse with a little retail. As noted there has been little new construction in the immediate area. The one note worthy exception is six duplexes a block to the southwest of the amendment area. For several decades C-3 General Commercial and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial have been in place along John Barrow Road from the southern boundary of the amendment area south to beyond 36th Street. While the existing commercial structures are fairly full, there is still abundant commercial vacant zoned land. There is half a block of C-3 land on either side of John Barrow Road at 35th Street and a full block at the northwest corner of 36th Street and John Barrow Road. Additional vacant C-3 land exists south of 36th Street. This available land brings into question the need to show additional land for commercial use. The lack of reducing supply in the area, and lack of increased demand (as demonstrated by building permit activity), would indicate that there might not be a need for additional commercial land beyond that already shown. The Plan shows this land for Single Family use. There has also not been a demand for new single-family shown in the vicinity. While it is true the condition of the tract requesting reclassification makes future Single Family use difficult. The activity just a block away indicates there is a demand for additional residential in the vicinity. The City Land Use policy not to line Arterials with commercial zoning but rather to concentrate such uses at major intersections also brings into question the appropriateness of making this change. This change would likely lead to further ‘strip’ commercialization of John Barrow Road. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Brownwood Terrace, John Barrow and Twin Lakes "A" Neighborhood Association, and Campus Place Property Owners Association and Twin Lakes "B" Special Improvement District. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. There is abundant available commercial vacant zoned land in the vicinity and demand for additional residential use. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-10-01 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) At the request of the applicant this item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to June 22, 2006. By a vote of 10 for 0 against (1 absent) the consent agenda was approved. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 21.1 FILE NO.: Z-8037 NAME: John Barrow Appearance Center Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of West 32nd Street and John Barrow Road DEVELOPER: Greg King – Riverfront Details 2420 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.66 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Carwash – Detail shop, General and Professional Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A waiver of the required undisturbed buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site. 2. A waiver of the required street improvements to West 31st and West 32nd Streets. 3. A variance to allow off site grading along the eastern perimeter of the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposed development plan includes the construction of a single bay automatic carwash on the south end of the property and an L-shaped office building with an indoor detailing shop on the north end of the property. The L- shaped building will have four bays with overhead doors. Two bays will be utilized for hand detailing of cars, the other two bays will be for indoor storage of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 2 cars which have been detailed. The L-shaped building will also contain the office for the detailing operation along with 800 square feet of leasable area. The developer currently owns the property directly east of the site. The request includes a waiver of the required land use buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site and a variance to allow off site grading in this area. Two vacuum stations are proposed on the site along John Barrow Road. A single pole mounted sign 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area is also proposed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a gravel lot with a steep elevation change to the east. South of the site is a commercial center containing a carwash and a strip retail center. To the east and northeast are single-family homes located along West 32nd Street and West 31st Street. West 31st Street does not exist adjacent to the site and West 32nd Street has been constructed to residential street standards. John Barrow Road has been constructed as a four lane road with a center turn lane adjacent to the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and the Twin Lakes A Neighborhood Association, the Twin Lakes B Property Owners Association, the Camps Place Neighborhood Association, the Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association and the John Barrow Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. The proposed land use would classify West 31st Street and West 32nd Street on the Master Street Plan as commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. With the site development, provide the design of the streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to West 31st and West 32nd Streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 18 feet of pavement with curb, gutter, and sidewalks should be provided on West 31st Street or petition the City to abandon the right of way. 3. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). Provide details of wall sections and proposed drainage for adjacent properties to the east. If existing ditch is filled, drainage must be provided for the property to the east. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 3 5. Traffic circulation on interior of site is not acceptable. Cars exiting wash bay can not see other cars entering property. It is suggested to move driveway location; make West 32nd Street driveway exit only; shift wash bay to the south; and exit on the south side of wash bay. 6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 8. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial District for a car wash. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU06-10-01). May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 4 Master Street Plan: John Barrow Road is shown as an Arterial on the plan. An Arterial functions to move traffic through and around the urban area or from activity centers to the Arterial system. They are not intended to provide access to adjacent land. Right-of-way and street improvements may need to be made at the time of development. Bicycle Plan: The Little Rock Bike Plan does not show any bike routes adjacent to the site. The closest Bike Route is a Class II Route along 28th Street to the north. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The site is in the John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan Area. The Plan calls for creation of a development climate in the John Barrow Neighborhood Area that would attract job-generating businesses. The Plan also calls for development design standards, but does not specifically recommend any other than to state that traffic and pedestrian flows should be improved and efficient. Landscape: 1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 2. The area shown to be filled is located on another platted piece of property. 3. A minimum nine foot (9) wide land use buffer and landscaping strip is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain undisturbed; current proposal is eliminating this buffer. A variance from this requirement will require approval from both the Planning Commission and the City Beautiful Commission. 4. The street buffer along John Barrow drops down to five foot (5) in one area. This minimum is nine foot (9). This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the zoning/buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. 5. The street buffer requirement along West 32nd Street is shown at ten feet (10) in width. The requirement is to average sixteen feet (16) and in no case be less than half. The current site plan is not meeting the average of sixteen feet (16) it is six hundred and seventy-two 672 square feet less than the minimum requirement. 6. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 5 there were outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff requested Mr. White provide details of the total area covered by buildings, areas designated for landscaping and parking. Staff also requested details of any proposed signage including wall signage. Staff questioned if there would be vacuum stations located on the site. Staff also requested details of the proposed construction materials of the proposed carwash facility. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the proposed height of the indicated retaining wall. Mr. White stated the wall was proposed no more than ten (10) feet in height. Staff also stated grading was taking place off the applicant’s property. Mr. White stated his client did own the property to the east as well. He stated grading of the indicated area was necessary to lower the overall wall height and to correct an existing drainage problem. Staff stated West 31st Street was located along the northern boundary of the site. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-way and street construction was required per the Master Street Plan, or an abandonment sought. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated buffer along the eastern perimeter was not adequate to meet the current minimum ordinance standards. Staff stated a variance to the minimum standard would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission as well as the Planning Commission. Staff stated the street buffer along John Barrow Road was not adequate to meet minimum ordinance standards. Staff stated this too would require a variance from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff stated screening would be required along the eastern perimeter of the site where adjacent to residentially zoned or used property. Staff stated screening could be provided with the placement of a fence, wall or dense evergreen plantings. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the technical issues raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated landscaping adequate to meet the typical minimum standards of the Landscape and Zoning Ordinances along the roadways, located the proposed vacuum stations and indicated the proposed location of the trash dumpster. The revised plan also indicates wall signage on each building fronting John Barrow Road consistent with building signage allowed in commercial zones May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 6 or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. The proposal includes 800 square feet of leaseable area which is slated for use by a general or professional office user. The request includes a waiver of the required street construction to West 32nd Street and West 31st Street. According to the applicant, the grades from east to west along West 31st Street are extreme and there would be little benefit in connecting the street to John Barrow Road. West 32nd Street is constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant has indicated the street currently dead-ends just east of this site and the street services a limited number of residential units. Staff is not supportive of the request. Staff feels the abandonment of West 31st Street should be sought or the right-of-way and roadway improved per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff also feels West 32nd Street should be constructed to Master Street Plan standards. The road is constructed to residential street standard, 24-feet of pavement, and should be constructed to a commercial standard, 36-feet of pavement if the development is approved. The site plan indicates the placement of two (2) vacuum stations along John Barrow Road. The vacuum stations are proposed with a canopy and a logo identifying the business on the canopy. The canopy is not to exceed ten feet in height. The site plan also indicates the placement of a trash dumpster along the eastern perimeter of the site. A note indicates the dumpster will be screened per the current ordinance requirement with a wood fence a minimum of two feet above the finished container height. The site plan indicates the placement of a two bay manual wash facility, an office area, indoor parking, lease area and a single bay automatic carwash facility. The office space is proposed to be used by the owner of the facility for record keeping and billing. The indoor parking will be used to store automobiles after cleaning and prior to the owners picking up the car. The manual wash bays will be used by the owner only and not available to the public. The hours of operation of the facility will be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm daily with the automatic carwash facility operating 24-hours per day. A single pole mounted sign 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area is being proposed. The indicated signage is consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones. As indicated previously building signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 10 percent of the façade area. The site plan indicates the placement of eleven (11) on site parking spaces. The total building area for the office and details shop is 2,930 square feet. Based on typical commercial parking ratios 9 parking spaces would typically be required. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 7 The car wash building structure is concrete block and glazed block construction with a veneer of the building in EIFS and simulated stone. The roof system is wood truss 7/12 pitch with OSB decking and simulated slate shingles. The site lighting is proposed with 30-foot tall poles and 1000 watt metal halide shielded downward lighting. The site is proposed to be illuminated all night. A six foot wood fence is proposed along the eastern perimeter of the site. The site plan notes the fence will be placed with its finished side facing outward. Grading is proposed along the entire eastern perimeter and a segmented block wall is proposed along the southern portion. The maximum wall height is proposed at 12-feet. The site plan indicates an area to be filled along the northeastern perimeter of the site. A portion of the fill is located outside the applicant’s ownership. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The proposed use is inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan. A land use plan amendment has been filed as a separate item on this agenda and staff is not support the associated Land Use Plan Amendment. Staff feels West 32nd Street is a logical breaking point for the commercial activities. There are existing single-family homes located to the east of this site which staff feels should be protected from such an intense commercial activity. The proposed use is allowed as a by-right activity under the C-4 Zoning District. Staff does not support having a C-4 use in such proximity to residential uses. In addition, staff feels to allow additional commercial along the roadway in this area will create a creeping effect with the potential of ultimately stripping out John Barrow Road. Currently there are areas identified for commercial activities along the roadway which staff feels would be a more appropriate location for commercial activities. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 11, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 22, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request. A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8037 8 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-8038 NAME: Herring Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of East 24th Street and Scott Street DEVELOPER: Dee Herring and Timothy Berrong 21378 Eddie Road Hensley, AR 72065 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-4 and R-5 ALLOWED USES: Two family and Multi-family PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developers have purchased the “shotgun house” located at 118 West 24th Street and the adjoining property. The existing home is located on a 25-foot lot (the west ½ of Lot 5 Original City) and the lot immediately to the east is also a 25-foot lot (the east ½ of Lot 5 Original City). The applicant is requesting the lot split of a 52-foot lot (Lot 6 Original City) into two separate lots. The replat would allow construction of three additional new homes in the same “shotgun” style, completing the block. The developer has indicated the intent is to renovate the existing home and live in the residence. The developers have indicated they intend to blend the homes in the existing area, while also improving the area. The property is located just May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8038 2 outside the Capitol Zoning District boundaries but the developer intends to follow the guidelines required for development within the Capitol Zoning District. The development plan includes the creation of a typical block of “shotgun houses” that one might find in New Orleans. These homes would be small, yet upscale. The most recent trend in housing appears to be “downsizing”, wanting less house without losing the amenities typical of large homes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a vacant boarded single-family residence located on the western most lot with the remainder of the area being vacant. The area is primarily residential with a mix of single-family and multi-family units. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association and the East of Broadway Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of East 24th Street and Scott Street. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8038 3 Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PD-R for a single-family development. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment. The average lot size in the neighborhood is similar to the lot size proposed in this development. Master Street Plan: Scott Street and 24th Street are shown as a Local Streets on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: A Class III is shown one block to the west on Main Street. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing goal has these objectives relevant to this case: Increase owner-occupied homes from 37 percent to 60 percent of our residential housing units; Link to objective to add 7,000 population, and promote additional homeowner families to fill vacant homes and lots; and Redevelop 153 vacant lots and re-occupy 512 vacant houses and 325 vacant apartments. This application could aid in achieving these goals. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 20, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide the location of the proposed fencing on the site plan. Staff also questioned if the garages would be constructed in the first phase. Ms. Herring stated the garages would not be constructed in the first phase but were shown to allow future homeowners the option of adding a garage. Staff also questioned if the units were proposed as one or two story units. Ms. Herring stated the units were proposed as one story units. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8038 4 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a radial dedication of right-of-way would be required at the intersection of East 24th and Scott Streets. Staff also stated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk would require replacement prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has addressed comments raised at the April 20, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a four foot fence to be placed along the street frontage with the placement of six foot fencing between property lines and along the northern boundary of the development. The site plan also indicates the garages will not be constructed as a part of the initial development but have been indicated to allow the future homeowner the ability to construct a garage should one be desired. The proposal is to rehabilitate an existing single-family structure located within the site and develop three (3) new residential homes located on 25-foot lots with the corner lot being 27-feet. The lot area proposed is 4,800 square feet. The new homes would be constructed with 3.5 foot side yard setbacks and a 5.5 foot setback adjacent to Scott Street. The existing home is located 6-feet from the western property line. The homes are proposed with a 25-foot front yard setback and a 25-foot rear yard setback adjacent to the garages. This setback will be encompassed within a 20-foot paved drive accessing the four new homes from Scott Street. The site is located just outside the Capitol Zoning District. The developer has indicated the intent is to rehabilitate and construct the homes utilizing Capitol Zoning District guidelines for rehabilitation and new construction. The homes are proposed as single story units with a maximum building footprint of 1,224 square feet. Each of the units are proposed with front and rear yard areas adequate to provide the required usable private open space per the Zoning Ordinance for Planned Residential Development Ordinance standard. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The site is currently zoned R-4 and R-5 which would allow for duplex and multi-family development up to 36-units per acre. In staff’s opinion the proposed development reduces the overall density as allowed under the current zoning and is consistent with densities of surrounding properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the development of new residential homes in May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8038 5 the area will not negatively impact the adjoining properties and if constructed as proposed should act to enhance the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) 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. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: Z-6832 NAME: Oak Place Court Short-form PRD Revocation LOCATION: 13123 Baseline Road DEVELOPER: Marcus Fitts 16 Perdido Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 4.53 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 538 LF CURRENT ZONING: PRD ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential and Condominiums PROPOSED ZONING: R-2, Single-family PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,294 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 20, 2000, established Oak Place Court Short-form PD-R. The rezoning was from R-2 to PD-R to allow the creation of 11 single-family residential lots within the west ½ of the property, with patio homes and\or zero lot line homes. The proposals included the eastern ½ to be developed with four buildings and 14 units of condominium homes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant submitted a request dated April 3, 2006, requesting the current PD-R zoning be revoked and the previous R-2, Single-family District zoning classification be restored. The applicant has indicated the proposed residential May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6832 2 development will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section 36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing single-family residence and accessory buildings located on the property. The south portion of the property is partially wooded. The Eagle Hill Apartment Complex is located across Baseline Road to the north, with a church to the northeast. There are single-family subdivisions located to the west and south of the property. To the east are single-family residences on large lots along the south side of Baseline Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received not comment from the neighborhood. The Otter Creek Homeowners Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current PD-R zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to R-2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: LA-0005 NAME: Tract B5 Sachs Suburban Tract – Land Alteration Variance Request (Kanis Creek Subdivision) LOCATION: Kanis Road and Pride Valley Road APPLICANT: KCA Development, LLC. ENGINEER: Central Arkansas Surveying, Inc., Randy Alburius AREA: Approximately 10 acres CURRENT ZONING: R2 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Conduct land alteration activities; harvest timber, clear, and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not imminent on the lots of the subdivision. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest timber, clear, and grade on the individual lots beyond the boundaries of the right-of-way of the streets and drainage easements with construction not being imminent on the preliminarily platted lots. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to harvest timber on the entire preliminary platted area. Immediately following harvest, the western 38 lots will be graded to reduce the existing slopes. The applicant states this grading is needed to reduce the cost of construction on each lot due to the size of the lots and proposed houses on the lots. Each house will be approximately 10 ft apart. Grading the lots at one time will lessen sever slopes between each house. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This approximate 10 acre tree covered site was preliminary platted into 50 single- family residential lots by the Planning Commission on January 5, 2006 and annexed into the City of Little Rock by the Board of Directors on April 4, 2006. The preliminary plat shows 2 streets off Pride Valley Road and a cul de sac on the eastern part of the property near Kanis Road. Undeveloped R2 zoned property is located on the west which is covered with trees. Baker Elementary School is located to the south and the property is zoned R2. The properties located across Kanis Road and north of Pride Valley Road are undeveloped and zone O2. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0005 2 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two phone calls requesting additional information. No letters or phone calls have been received expressing opposition. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Per Sec. 29-190(14), a 40 ft undisturbed buffer shall be maintained around perimeter of site. In no event shall these temporary strips be less than the width of the permanent buffers required for development. Provide revised plan. 2. Per Sec. 29-187(e)(2), provide a forestry management plan prepared by a registered forester or certified arborist using best management practice guidelines for silviculture in urban areas. Provide in report the health and conditions of trees; estimated # of trees on site by variety and size; estimated # of trees to be removed by variety and size; describe activities to be conducted on site; and schedule to perform work. 3. Per Sec. 29-187(e)(2), clear cutting or total harvests shall not be allowed. 4. Harvest activities must comply with state and federal forestry harvest techniques and code. Damage to off site property must be repaired by the applicant in a timely manner. 5. Tree tops and debris generated from the harvest activity must be removed at the conclusion of harvest to reduce the potential fire hazard. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for conditions and additional requirements. 6. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 7. Vegetion must established on disturbed areas within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 8. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plan per Sec. 29-186(e). E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (April 20, 2006) The applicant was present. Staff stated the comments as written above. The applicant stated that he would have asked for a variance at the time of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0005 3 preliminary platting but was not aware harvesting trees and grading on the lots was not allowed after the preliminary plat is approved. It was an over-site only. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. F. ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat for this approximate 10 acre tract of land was recently approved by the Planning Commission and the property was later annexed into the City. The land alteration regulations allow clearing and grading for streets and drainage improvements in residential subdivisions following preliminary plat approval only. Clearing and grading of the lots is not allowed until the lots are final platted. The applicant is seeking a variance to harvest timber on all the lots and clear and grade the 38 of the 50 lots prior to final platting. The applicant has stated the grading is needed to reduce the cost of construction on each lot due to the size of the lots and proposed houses on the lots. Each lot is 60 ft wide and has a 5 foot side building line which will place the houses about 10 ft apart. Grading the lots at one time will lessen sever slopes between each house and coordinate the grading on the lots. From the forestry management plan, it appears the property consists of pine and hardwood trees. The timber inventory results indicate a total of 1351 trees on the property or an average of 136 trees per acre. The plan targets removal of approximately 769 trees or approximately 77 trees per acre, leaving an average of 58 trees per acre. The applicant has stated that immediately following harvest activities, clearing and grading for streets and drainage improvements will occur. Simultaneously with street construction, the western 38 of the 50 lots will be cleared and graded. Twenty five (25) foot undisturbed buffers are shown to be maintained along the east, south, and west property lines. Two (2) vehicle tracking pads will be installed off Pride Valley Road for construction access. All debris generated from harvest activities will be burned on site. The applicant has agreed to comply with all Public Works comments. Particularly, all tree tops and debris generated from the harvest will be removed per LRFD requirements and vegetation will be established on disturbed areas within 21 days of completion of the harvest activities. The applicant told staff he has spoken with the adjacent property owner to the west who is in support of the subdivision and this variance request. At the time of writing, staff has not received any calls or comments in support or opposition to the request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0005 4 G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a twenty five (25) foot undisturbed buffer remain on the north property line along Pride Valley Road except for 2 vehicle access points. The forestry management plan shows about 50% of the trees to be harvested and grading to occur on 6 of the 10 acres. A similar variance was granted in 2005 for harvesting timber and clearing just east of this location on Kanis Road at Taylor Park subdivision. Due to the construction to immediately follow after land alteration activities, amount of the area to be harvested and graded, the size of the lots, size of the homes, and amount of area not cleared on the lots after installation of streets utilities; staff recommends approval of the request subject to staff comments and recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the staff comments outlined in paragraph D of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation that a twenty-five (25) foot undisturbed buffer remain on the perimeter of the site with the exception of two (2) vehicular access points along Pride Valley Road and that all tree tops and debris generated from the harvest shall be removed per the Little Rock Fire Department requirements and vegetation shall be established on disturbed areas within 21 days of completion of the harvest activities. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: LA-0006 NAME: Colonel Glenn Center Addition – Clearing and Grading Variance Request LOCATION: West of Talley Road; North & South of Remington Road APPLICANT: Boen Enterprises ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick AREA: Approximately 12 acres CURRENT ZONING: O3 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not imminent; 2. Construct a retaining wall that exceeds the cut and fill limits of Sec. 29-190. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not imminent and construct a retaining wall that exceeds the cut and fill limits of Sec 29-190. B. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (April 20, 2006) Public Works comments were given to Pat McGetrick representing the applicant. Staff questioned why additional clearing and grading is being requested when the majority of the existing cleared lots of the subdivision are yet to be developed and no new building permit applications have been submitted. These lots were cleared approximately 5 years ago and at that time the owner told staff construction on those lots was imminent. Mr. McGetrick stated he would give this information to the applicant. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: On April 26, 2006, staff received a letter from the applicant’s representative requesting a three (3) week deferral to address the questions presented by staff. This deferral would place the item on the May 25, 2006 agenda. Staff is in support of the applicant’s deferral request. May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 27, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the May 25, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: MSP06-02 Name: Master Street Plan Amendment Location: Labette, John Barrow to Labette Manor Request: Remove Collector Source: Doris Wright, John Barrow Neighborhood Association PROPOSAL / REQUEST: The request is to remove Labette as a Collector from John Barrow Road to Labette Manor. Collectors connect Local Streets to the Arterial network to activity centers. They have a secondary function of providing access to adjoining property. Ideally the spacing of Collectors should be a quarter of a mile and not be continuous for long distances. Labette has been on the Master Street Plan for several decades and provides a connection between the Twin Lakes subdivision and John Barrow Road (an Arterial). The section under review for removal passes through an area of non-residential zoning. Thus any street built in this general location would have the same design standard as a Collector. All Local commercial streets are built to the Commercial Street Standard, which is the same as a Collector design standard. The Master Street Plan does not show any bike routes on Labette. Thus the requested change should have no impact on the bicycle section of the Master Street Plan. Labette is the only collector shown on the Plan from Kanis Road to 36th Street, west of John Barrow Road. This is a distance of over a mile. As noted earlier the standard spacing would suggest at least two Collectors should be in place. Labette has been on the Plan as a Collector for several decades. The portions currently built are constructed to Collector standards. Thus the current sections of Labette have the capacity of a Collector not a Local street. Without the connection, other streets will have to provide this function. These streets will not have been designed to serve Collector needs and are therefore likely to see road failures, higher than acceptable traffic volumes and speeds and unsafe conditions on those roadways. The connection functioning currently as the ‘Labette connection’ is Labette Manor-Morris Manor. This road is built as a Local Street and bi-sects an May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP06-02 2 apartment complex. In addition a portion of the road is not a public street. That is, the connection is made using a private street. This is not desirable. First the street is not designed to function as a Collector (lane width and street curvatures. Second it bi-sects an apartment complex, which increases potential conflicts with pedestrians. And third as a private street there are additional maintenance and access issues. To not make the connection will require the continued use of a private road as a public street to connect the Twin Lakes neighborhood to John Barrow Road. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The application area is within the John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan area. The Plan does not have any objectives directly related to the request. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: John Barrow and Twin Lakes "A" Neighborhood Associations. Staff has received one comment against the change from a property owner along the alignment. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the area and some of the history on this case. Labette is the only proposed Collector from the Twin Lakes area to John Barrow Road. The two existing routes connection the Subdivision to John Barrow Road are both constructed as local streets and a portion of one is a private road. The portions of Labette already constructed are to Collector standard both to the east and west (in the single-family neighborhood). Staff believes Labette should remain on the Master Street Plan so that traffic will use a street designed for that traffic. Ms. Viola Belton, resident of Twin Lakes, expressed concerns about traffic problems in the area. Currently there are several opens into Twin Lakes ‘B’ which causes security and traffic problems for the neighborhood (they have enough problems already). It would not be helping the neighborhood to open an arterial putting more traffic in the area. There are speed issues with people driving 50 in a 25. People cannot even get out of their driveways. She noted May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP06-02 3 that the traffic counts done on Romine were done Ester week with no school traffic. Romine was not built correctly. There was discussion about speed bumps and their location. She is against more traffic and the problems this brings for the police and neighborhood. The City needs to stop the traffic not add more. Ms. Marty Huett-Brown spoke in opposition to the remove. Ms. Brown owns a lot along Labette. To not make the connection would reduce the value of her lot. This road has been shown on the Plan for decades and to not to it would adversely affect her. Ms. Bernetta Leu, president of Twin Lakes ‘B’, expressed concerns about opening the roadway. She discussed speeding problems. The pool and recreation area of the association is near Labette Manor and Labette. If Labette were opened this would create a straight shot by their recreation facility where small children walk. She expressed concern about future injuries. The neighborhood is ‘too’ open now. We need to keep the neighborhood private but with several ways in and out it is not. The road should stay closed for the safety of elderly and children. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, agreed about the negative impacts of traffic. She indicated there was a need for a regional review of transportation needs (all forms). To remove Labette in the ‘League’s’ view is not appropriate. Traffic moves like water through the path of least resistance. Without Labette traffic will flow on roads not constructed to handle the demand that will result in additional problems on those roads. Mike Hood, Public Works Staff, was asked a question about the situation. He indicated that the Traffic is already there. It is more appropriate to make the connection to move this traffic. When asked why this connection now and when it had never been made, Mr. Hood responded that it was developer driven. Developers build roads and until the adjacent properties are developed the roads usually do not get constructed. A motion was made to approve the request to remove Labette from the Master Street Plan. By a vote of 1 for and 9 against the motion failed.