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.