pc_08 03 2006subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
August 3,2006
ak00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
Members Present:
Gary Langlais
Robert Stebbins
Troy Laha
Mizan Rahman
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen,Jr.
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent:Pam Adcock
Lucas Hargraves
City Attorney:Cindy Dawson
ill.Approval of the Minutes of the June 22,2006 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission.
The Minutes were approved as presented
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
AUGUST 3,2006
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
A.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.
A.1.Z-6188-A Eagle Hill West Long-form PD-R,located West of Colonel
Carl Miller Road,North of Baseline Road.
A.2.A-308 Eagle Hill West Annexation,located along the West side of
Colonel Carl Miller Road between Baseline Road and
Crystal Valley Road.
B 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.
8.1.Z-7500-C Reese Revised Long-form PCD,located North of Cantrell
Road,West of Pinnacle Valley Road.
C.S-981-C One Source Addition Rapist Lot 2,located on the
Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road.
D.S-1477-E Two Rivers Harbor Rapist Tracts 1,3R,7 and 8,located on
the East end of Isbell Lane.
E.LU06-10-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning
District from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial,
located East of John Barrow Road between Labette Drive
and Kanis Road.
E.1.Z-8056 Sonic Restaurant —John Barrow Road Short-form PCD,
located at 1618 John Barrow Road.
Agenda,Page Two
OLD BUSINESS:(Continued)
Item Number:File Number:Title
F.LA-0007 Colonel Glenn 1-430 Timber Harvest,located on the
Southwest Corner of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430.
G.LA-0008 Colonel Glenn I-430 Timber Harvest,located on the
Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430.
H.LU06-02-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Rodney Parham
Planning District,a change from Single-family to Suburban
Office
H.1.Z-8006 Atkins Short-form POD,located at 100 Santa Fe Trail
NEW BUSINESS:
PRELIMINARY PLATS:
item Number:File Number:Title
1.S-1418-A Stalcup Addition Preliminary Plat,located on the Southeast
corner of Taylor I oop Road and Gooch Lane.
2.S-1529 Woodlawn Hills Preliminary Plat,located on the Westward
Extension of Forest Maple Court.
3.S-1530 Arkansas Realtors Association Preliminary Plat,located on
Executive Center Drive,West of Centerview Drive.
4.S-1531 Whispering Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat,located
South of Alexander Road,West of Vimy Ridge Road.
Agenda,Page Three
SITE PLAN REVIEW;
Item Number:File Number:Title
5.S-1528 Kroger Subdivision Site Plan Review,located at 8415 West
Markham Street.
6.Z-4336-Y Arkansas Children's Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review,
located at 11"and Wolfe Streets.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
7.Z-4663-C The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD,located at
12226 Kanis Road.
8.Z-5224-K Meramee Specialty Company Revised Short-form PCD,
located at 18220 Cantrell Road.
9.Z-5654-C South Square Revised Long-form PCD,located at 11725
Chenal Parkway.
10.Z-7605-B Chevaux Court Revised Short-form POD,located on the
Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau
Boulevard.
11.Z-7722-A Lagniappe Revised Short-form PD-R,located on the
Northwest corner of Walnut and I Streets.
12.Z-7783-C Miracle Development Revised Short-form POD,located at
14929 Cantrell Road.
13.Z-7837-A Fair Hills Circle Revised Short-form PD-R,located on the
Southeast corner of West Markham Street and Fairhills
Circle.
14.Z-8077 Energy Master Home Short-form PD-C,located at 20801
Colonel Glenn Road.
Agenda,Page Four
IV.OTHER BUSINESS:
Item Number.File Number:Title
15 Z-7839 Summit Heights Short-form PD-R Revocation,located on
North Summit Street,just South of Cantrell Road.
16.MSP0603 Text addition of Design Specifications to the Master Street
Plan,addition of table with Design Specifications for the
construction of roads in Little Rock's Planning Area
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A 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
Re&coast: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.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has asked that this item be deferred to allow time to further discuss the
issues on a related request.The applicant indicated a willingness to allow more
time for this discussion to occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The application was placed on consent agenda to August 3,2006.With a vote of
10 for,0 against the consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE (AUGUST 3,2006)
Staff and the applicant need additional time to review the issues.Staff
recommends deferral to August 17,2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3.2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to August 17,2006
By a vote of 9 for,0 against and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A.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
F ayetteville,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:
0LF
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.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A.1 CONT FILE NO.:Z-6188-A
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 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.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to allow additional time to further discc
the issues on a related request.The applicant has indicated a willingness to
allow additional time for discussions to occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,
2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating staff was requesting the
item be deferred to the August 3,2006,public hearing to allow additional time to
further discuss the issues on a related request.Staff stated the applicant had
indicated a willingness to allow additional time for discussions to occur.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the
deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(August 3,2006)
There are still unresolved issues related this request.Staff recommends this
item be deferred to the August 17,2006,public hearing to allow staff and the
applicant additional time to continue to work on resolving the remaining issues
associated with the request.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A.1 CONT FILE NO.:Z-6188-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating there were still unresolved
Issues related to the request.Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of
the item to the August 17,2006,public hearing to allow staff and the applicant
additional time to continue to work on resolving the remaining 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 o f9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A.2 FILE NO.:A-308
NAME:Eagle Hill West Annexation
REQUEST:Accept 36.9 acres plus or minus to the City
LOCATION:West of Colonel Carl Miller Road,between Baseline and Crystal
Valley Roads
SOURCE:Randal Frazier,Representative of Owner
GENERAL INFORMATION:
~The County Judge held a hearing and signed the Annexation Order on
April 18,2006.
~The area requested for consideration is mostly wooded with a structure
formerly used as an auto-repair facility.
~There is one owner.
~The site is contiguous to the City of Little Rock on a portion of one side.
~The annexation request is to obtain sewer service and other City Services.
~The area in question is along the west side of Colonel Carl Miller Road,
between Baseline And Crystal Valley Roads.It is a rectangle 1289 feet by
1320 feet with a 525 by 232 foot corner removed.
~No islands would be created by this annexation.
~Currently the property is zoned Single Family (R-2),however there is a
reclassification of this property before the Planning Commission.A
Planned Residential District for 312 units and a nine hole golf course has
been proposed.
Staff has asked that this item be deferred to allow time to further discuss the
issues related to this request.The applicant indicated a willingness to allow
more time for this discussion to occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The application was placed on consent agenda to August 3,2006.With a vote of
10 for,0 against the consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:(AUGUST 3,2006)
Staff and the applicant need additional time to review the issues.Staff
recommends deferral to August 17,2006.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:A.2 Cont.FILE NO.:A-308
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to August 17,2006
By a vote of 9 for,0 against and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:B 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
Re&eoest:Transition to Mixed Office Commercial
Source:Pat McGetrick,McGetrick 8 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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has no provided the required traffic study for Staff review.Staff
can support no action other than deferral or withdrawal at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The applicant failed to provide the required traffic study and the item was
placed on consent agenda for deferral to August 3,2006.With a vote of 10 for,
0 against the consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:(August 3,2006)
Staff has made an initial review of a traffic study.Issues have been raised which
the applicant must address prior to Public Hearing.Staff is therefore asking that
this item be placed on Consent Agenda for deferral to September 14,2006.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-01-02
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to September 14,2006
By a vote of 9 for,0 against and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:B.1 FILE NO.:Z-7500-C
NAME:Rees Development Long-form PCD
LOCATION:North of Cantrell Road,West of Pinnacle Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Rees Development Company
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock,AR 72212
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:24.37Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD and R-2
ALLOWED USES:Commercial,Office/Warehouse and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated April 27,2006,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 27,
2006,requesting the item be deferred to the June 22,2006,Public Hearing.Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
June 22,2006
ITEM NO.:B.1 CONT Z-7500-C
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has failed to provide staff with the requested traffic study to determine the
effected of the commercial development on the existing street network in the area.Staff
recommends this item be deferred to the August 8,2006,Public Hearing to allow the
applicant additional time to provide the requested traffic study and allow staff time to
review and provide recommendations based on their review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had failed to provide
staff with the requested traffic study to determine the effected of the commercial
development on the existing street network in the area.Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the August 3,2006,Public Hearing to allow the
applicant additional time to provide the requested traffic study and allow staff time to
review the traffic study and provide recommendations based on their review.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the
deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(August 3,2006)
The applicant has furnished staff with the requested traffic study.Staff has provided the
applicant with their initial comments.The applicant is working to respond to the
comments.Staff recommends this item be deferred to the September 14,2006,public
hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to review the study and resolve
any outstanding issues associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had furnished staff
with the requested traffic study.Staff stated they had provided the applicant with their
initial comments.Staff stated the applicant was working to respond to the comments.
Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the September 14,2006,
public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to continue to work on
resolving the remaining issues associated with the request.
2
June 22,2006
ITEM NO.:B.1 CONT Z-7500-C
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,and 2 absent.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:C.S-981-C
NAME:One Source Addition Replat Lot 2
LOCATION:Located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Collier Dickson Flake Partners
400 West Capitol
Little Rock,AR 72201
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:1.46 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT:18 —Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT:42.10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:AUGUST 3,2006
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicting the applicant had failed to respond
to issues and concerns raised at the June 1,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.
Staff presented a recommendation of deferred to the August 3,2006,public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the
deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There are still unresolved issues related this request.Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the September 14,2006,public hearing to allow staff and the applicant
additional time to continue to work on resolving the remaining issues associated with
the request.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:C CONT FILE NO.:S-981-C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item stating there were still unresolved issues
related to the request.Staff presented a recommendation of deferred of the item to the
September 14,2006,public hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to
continue to work on resolving the remaining 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 9 ayes,0 noes,and 2 absent.
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D.S-1477-E
NAME:Two Rivers Harbor Replat Tracts 1,3R,7 and 8
LOCATION:located on the East end of Isbell Lane
DEVELOPER:
Bottom Line,Inc.
24 Isbell Lane
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Civil Design Inc.
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:10 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:1 —River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:A variance to allow the development of
lots with private streets.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 22,2006)
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 June 2,2006,requesting a deferral of the item to the
August 3,2006,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the
deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
BACKGROUND:
On July 21,2005,the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary
plat request which included this site.The request included the development of
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
an existing 9.66-acre tract of residentially zoned property into five large estate
type lots ranging from 1.26 acres up to 2.29 acres and one tract for future
development.The developer indicated an average lot size of 1.56 acres.The
developer requested a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of lots with private streets served by a 30-foot access and utility
easement.The applicant submitted a FTN Certificate ("No Rise/No Impact"
statement)as required by Pulaski County for development within the Arkansas
River floodway.The lots were to be served by individual septic systems.
On February 16,2006,the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a revision
to the previously approved preliminary plat for Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision to
create two lots from a previously held tract containing 1.31 acres.A "No Rise/No
Impact"statement for the overall Two Rivers development was issued in July,
2005.The certificate covered the proposed lots in addition to the five previously
approved lots located to the west.The applicant indicated sewer service for the
two additional lots would be from a package treatment plat.The applicant
provided a NPDES permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality to allow construction of the package treatment plant as proposed.A
variance from the Subdivision Ordinance was approved to allow the development
of lots with private streets continued to be served by a 30-foot access and utility
easement.
A.PROPOSAL:
TheA licant's Statement/Pro osal:Timeline ofThe Develo mentofTwo
Rivers Harbor:
The applicant is requesting three (3)separate subdivision applications —1)
a replat of Tract 1 into two tracts,2)a replat of Tract 3 into two tracts,and
3)the final plat of Tract 8 along with a replat of the adjacent Tract 7.Staff
has grouped these three separate applications into a single application,S-
1477-E,which the applicant has indicated as incorrect.Although the item
will be considered as one Subdivision File Number staff will review each of
the proposed items and make a separate recommendation for each of the
items to reflect the filing by the applicant.
According to the applicant it appears that staff's comments assume that
the applicant is resubmitting the entire Two Rivers Harbor subdivision for
replatting and the applicant has stated that is not the case.Since the City
approved the final plat for Two Rivers Harbors the applicant has sold
several lots in the
subdivision.Accordingly,the applicant does not have the authority to
submit a replat of the entire Two Rivers Harbor subdivision.It is also not
the applicant's intent to replat the entire subdivision.Only those lots
referenced in the three applications are currently before the Planning
Commission for consideration as noted above.
2
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.F I LE NO.:S-1477-E
To understand why the applicant is making these three subdivision
applications,it may help to review the history of this development.The
Two Rivers Harbor property is an approximate 10 acre parcel of property
which is outside the city limits of the City of Little Rock but within its extra-
territorial planning jurisdiction.The property has a "dagger"shape,which
is widest on its western end and narrows to a point on its eastern end.
The final plat for Phase 1 of Two Rivers Harbor was approved by the City
on or about November 18,2005.This was for Tracts 1 through 5 and
Tract 9.The preliminary plat for the property was designed to maximize
the developable area of the property in light of the unusual shape of the
property and the location of a flowage easement for the Arkansas River
over parts of the property in favor of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
("Corps").
In January of 2006,the applicant entered into an agreement with the
Corps to resolve a question over the Corps'lowage easement.This
agreement clarified that parts of the Two Rivers Harbor property were not
subject to the Corps'lowage easement.This allowed the Declarant to
consider replatting the property to make better use of areas which were
previously thought to be subject to the Corps'lowage easement.
The applicant began considering a revised layout for the property after
entering into the agreement with the Corps.However,demand for lots
within the subdivision was strong and the applicant elected to file a final
plat for Phase 2 of the subdivision.The applicant filed a final plat for
"Phase 2"of Two Rivers Harbor on or about March 23,2006.This
included a replat of Tract 5 and a final plat of Tracts 6 and 7.The
applicant reduced the width of Tract 5 and revised the layout of Tracts 6
and 7 to make better use of the more narrow eastern end of the property.
At the time the applicant filed the final plat for Phase 2,it had prospective
buyers looking at Tracts 1 and 2 and was considering the construction of a
harbor on part of Tract 3.Therefore,the only tract available for replatting
at that time was Tract 4.At the same time the applicant filed the final plat
for Phase 2,it filed an amendment to the Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants to allow the replatting of Tract 4 into two lots.
Qn April 7,2006,the applicant filed a replat of Tracts 3 and 4.This replat
reduced the width of Tract 4 into replatted Tract 4A to accommodate a
party which wanted to purchase a smaller lot.It also took the balance of
Tract 4 and combined it with existing Tract 3.This created a larger Tract 3
which could accommodate the construction of a marina which was still
being considered by the applicant.
Since the filing of the replat of Tract 4,the applicant has decided against
3
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
the installation of a marina in the subdivision.Therefore,the applicant is
now splitting Tract 3 into two lots —Tracts 3R and 4R.Also since the filing
of the replat of Tract 4,the prospective purchaser of Tract 1 elected not to
purchase the property.Therefore,the applicant is replatting Tract 1 into
two lots.Finally,the applicant is filing a final plat for Tract 8 —the
unplatted easternmost portion of the property along with a replat of the
adjacent Tract 7 to move the common boundary line between the two
tracts.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Isbell Lane is a narrow roadway appearing as a drive serving two to three
single-family homes.The Arkansas River is located to the north of the site
and Two Rivers Park is located to the south of the site.To the west of the
site are single-family homes located on large tracts.The tracts appear
narrow at the roadway but extend to the river allowing additional acreage.
The homes sit on the riverbank and access County Farm Road through
single and shared driveways.
County Farm Road is a two lane County road with open ditches for
drainage.As indicated there is an existing City Park and the County's
Community Garden located south of the site.River Valley Marina is
located along the banks of the Little Maumelle River on River Valley
Marina Road to the southeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.
All abutting property owners,the Candlewood/Walton Height
Neighborhood Association and the River Valley Neighborhood Association
were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Due to increase in the number of lots over what was originally platted,
provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot
sidewalks with the planned development.
2.All comments from previous applications also apply.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary.Sewer service is not available
from the City of Little Rock.Provide documentation from the appropriate
State agency concerning the proposed wastewater collection and treatment.
4
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener: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.The issue of the street
name needs to be reconciled with the County.
~NC d t:I Ilk kdd t P d .C t t k Cttl ~k
Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
C ttPI I I:
1.Provide a copy of the floodplain development study of Tracts 1A —8 as
platted and at build out including the roadway.Provide a copy of the no-
rise certificate.
2.River Harbor Lane is a private drive that is accessed by a private drive.
For 911 addressing purposes,existing tracts have been addressed on
Isbell lane.Revise River Harbor Lane to Isbell Lane on the submitted
plan.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~td:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 3,2006)
Mr.James Dreher was present representing the request at the June 1,
2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff presented an overview of the
proposed request indicating there were outstanding issues associated with
the request.Staff stated the site was located within the flowage easement
for the Arkansas River and requested the applicant provider an updated
"No Rise No Impact Statement".Staff also stated the previous approval
included the construction of a wastewater treatment package plant.Staff
requested the applicant provide approval from the required State agency
allowing the additional homes to connect to the system.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposal would
require street construction to a residential street standard.Mr.Dhreher
stated the lots were a replat of previously platted lots not a replat of the
5
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
entire subdivision therefore street construction should not be required.Mr.
Dreher stated the owner no longer owned all the lots within the subdivision
and was not able to dedicate right-of-way for the entirety of the
subdivision.Staff stated the previous approval allowed for a small number
of lots on a street which did not meet Master Street Plan standard.Staff
stated the number of lots was increasing significantly therefore they felt a
minor residential street was necessary to serve the proposed
development.
County comments were addressed.Staff stated the indicated street name
was not indicated correctly.Staff requested the applicant change the
name of the street to reflect 911 addressing.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional
information and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
H.ANALYS IS:
The applicant has provided updated materials addressing issues raised at
the June 1,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
provided a statement from a registered professional engineer certifying
that the proposed replat of the three areas were included in the original
"No-Rise"report prepared by FTN Associates,Ltd.dated July 6,2005.
The applicant has also provided the permit received from the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality for the proposed wastewater
treatment facility.
The applicant is requesting three (3)separate subdivision applications —1)
a replat of Tract 1 into two tracts,2)a replat of Tract 3 into two tracts,and
3)the final plat of Tract 8 along with a replat of the adjacent Tract 7.The
specifics of the request are outlined below.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required street construction to
Minor Residential Street standard.The site has developed with a 30 foot
access easement.According to the applicant Isbell Lane is an existing
private street and is not indicated on the Master Street Plan.The existing
paving of Isbell Lane is the same as the approximate 2-miles of existing
County road leading to the project and the nearest sidewalk is located
approximately 4 miles away along Highway 10.Per Section 31-207 of the
Subdivision Ordinance,new private streets,states private streets for
residential development shall be discouraged.However,private streets
may be approved by the Planning Commission to serve isolated
developments.The design standards shall conform to public street
6
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
standards as specified in Chapter 31.Private streets are permissible only
in the form of cul-de-sac and short loop streets and only when it has been
determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public
vehicles.
The replat of Tract 1A and 1B of Two Rivers Harbor includes a Lot size of
1.20 acres for Tract 1A and 1.09 acres for Tract 1B.The proposed plat
indicates a building setback of 25-feet adjacent to the private drive and 25-
feet along the rear of the lots abutting the Arkansas River.
The replat of Tract 3R and 4R of Two Rivers Harbor includes a Lot size of
0.853 acres for Tract 3R and 0.957 acres for Tract 4R.The proposed plat
indicates a building setback of 25-feet adjacent to the private drive and 25-
feet along the rear of the lots abutting the Arkansas River.
The replat of Tract 7 and the final platting of Tract 8 of Two Rivers Harbor
includes a lot size of Tract 7 as 0.517 acres and Tract 8 as 0.60 acres.
Each lot is proposed with a 25-foot building setback along the access
easement.The applicant has indicated a 25-foot setback for Tract 7 and
is requesting a 15-foot building setback for Tract 8 along the Arkansas
River.According to the applicant the normal pool elevation of the
Arkansas River is 249 feet which is 10-feet north of the north property line
of Tract 8.The 15-foot setback from the normal pool will equal the
required 25-foot setback.Per Section 36-341 FP floodplain district of the
Zoning Ordinance no structure shall be allowed closer than 25-feet to any
established floodway line with the exception of uses having a low flood
danger potential such as parking areas,open storage of materials or
equipment or public and private recreational areas.
Staff has some concerns with the proposal as submitted.Regardless of
the semblance of the application filing,as three applications or as one
application,the overall development of the area remains the same.The
history of the site allowed approximately 10 acres to be subdivided into
five (5)residential lots to be served by a 30-foot access easement.The
site is located outside the City limits of the City of Little Rock but within its
extra-territorial planning jurisdiction for zoning and subdivision review.
Due to the limited number of lots proposed staff felt the proposed access
was adequate to serve the development.Within one year of the approved
preliminary plat the applicant sought to amend the preliminary plat to allow
the creation of two additional lots allowing a total of seven (7)lots.With
the current request the number of available lots has doubled from the
original approval (10 lots)and the allowed access has remained the same.
With the doubling of the number of lots the number of trips generated from
the site will also increase from an estimated 40 vehicle trips per day to 80
vehicle trips per day.Staff has concerns with the provided access and the
increase in the number of vehicle trips per day and the demand this
7
AUGUST 3,2006
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-E
increase will place on the ability of service vehicles to serve the
development without disrupting homeowners entering and leaving the
development.
Staff also has concerns with the indicated reduced building setback along
the northern perimeter of proposed Tract 8.The ordinance is very specific
with regard to setback requirements adjacent to a floodway.Staff is not
supportive of the requested variance to allow the reduced setback for this
proposed tract.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the requested replat of Tract 1A and 1B of
Two Rivers Harbor.
Staff recommends denial of the requested replat of Tract 3R and 4R of
Two Rivers Harbor.
Staff recommends denial of the requested replat of Tract 7 and the final
platting of Tract 8 of Two Rivers Harbor.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 stated as a condition of approval the applicant
would add three feet of pavement along the entire length of the roadway,
Bottom Line,Inc.would not further subdivide any of the lots within the Two
Rivers Harbor Subdivision and any improvements on Tract 8 were to
comply with Federal,State and County regulations regarding
improvements within the floodway.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a
motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District
Location:West of John Barrow,south of Kanis Road
~Reoeat:Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial
Source:Ross Merkling,CEI Engineering
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Mixed Office
Commercial to Commercial.Commercial represents a broad range of retail and
wholesale sales of products,personal and professional services,and general
business activities.An accompanying request to reclassify the property Planned
District Commercial for a Sonic Drive-in Restaurant has been filed.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include area to the north.With these changes,the entirety
of the Mixed Office Commercial area north of the church to the node at Kanis-
John Barrow Road would be eliminated.It is thought that the additional area
would make the boundaries more logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant and wooded currently zoned 0-3 General Office and is
4.6 acres a in size.The expanded area is vacant wooded and zoned 0-3.North
of the amendment area is zoned C-3 General Commercial and consists of small
retail uses and centers.This commercial area includes area around the John
Barrow-Kanis Road intersection and is mostly developed.Some land in the
southeast section of the intersection remains wooded and undeveloped.East of
the application area is R-5 Urban Residential and is an apartment complex.
Beyond this to the east is R-2 Single Family land currently vacant and wooded
that is currently under development.South of the amendment area is a Church
zoned R-2 Single Family,0-1 Quiet Office and 0-3 General Office land that is
vacant.Some is wooded and some of the land is partial cleared.A small area
of R-2 is to the southeast with homes.To the west is R-5 zoning with an
apartment complex;southwest is 0-3 and Planned Office Districts with medical
related uses and a public library.This is a partial developed section of the City.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
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 half-mile to the east of the application area.
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 northeast 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 over
a mile to the southeast of the application area.
January 20,2004,a change from Mixed Use to Commercial to more accurately
reflects the existing zoning and land use pattern.The site was along the south
side of Colonel Glenn Road between Cobb and Walker.This is over 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 1-630 and Kanis Road,east of John Barrow Road.
This is to the northeast of the application area.
The Land Use Plan shows this area of Mixed Office Commercial.Commercial is
shown to the north around the John Barrow-Kanis Road intersection.To the
northeast is an area of Mixed Office Commercial.To the east is a Multifamily
area followed by a large area of Single Family.West of the amendment area is
shown for Multifamily with Mixed Office Commercial surrounding this to the
northwest and south.South of the application area is a Public Institutional area
followed by Single Family and Office areas.
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.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
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 28'"Street to the south.
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 is wooded and vacant with a zone of 0-3 General Office.There is a
small commercial center to the north with shops;beyond this is commercial
zoning and land use surrounding the Kanis Road-John Barrow Road intersection.
Both to the east and west (across John Barrow Road)are apartment complexes.
The land further to the west is wooded and zoned R-2 single Family.This land is
currently underdevelopment for a large single-family subdivision.To the south is
a church and small subdivision.Beyond this is vacant mostly wooded 0-3 land.
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 to limit or
prevent direct access to John Barrow Road to facilitate its function.
The most recent construction is to the north.At the intersection a former
commercial structure was removed and a new commercial building was built for a
'tobacco store'nd across John Barrow a liquor store was constructed.To the
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
south along the west side of John Barrow a new public Library has been added
on a 10-acre tract.The other existing commercial structures have a good
occupancy rate.
Most of the office construction has been along Kanis Road to the west of this
site.This construction has tended to be medical in nature and near the Baptist
Hospital campus on Kanis Road.As noted early the infrastructure is being
constructed for a new single-family subdivision to the east of this site.While
these additions have been steady they have occurred at a gradual rate.
As mentioned,there is an existing multifamily apartment complex adjacent to the
east.A commercial use (hours of operation,outside activities,traffic areas,
waste disposal issues and signage,etc.)could be detrimental.A change from
Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial could allow future uses which could
result in negative impacts on the existing residential development.The existing
Land Use classification would allow some commercial development using the
Planned Zoning District with Office uses.Through this review the City could
attempt to eliminate any negative impacts on the existing development.
There are existing commercial uses to the north of this site.With the current
Land Use designation staff has indicated that some commercial use of this site
could be appropriate.With a church to the south and apartments to the east and
west,design and the type of commercial uses could be significant.Careful
design and consideration of the appropriate types of commercial is important.
With a change to Commercial the City would not be in a position to attempt to
address these issues.Mixed Office Commercial does not allow a completely
commercial development.Staff is not necessarily apposed to a one hundred
percent commercial development along this portion of John Barrow Road,if
access,signage and other issues can be worked out.Therefore staff cannot
support a change to Commercial,however a change of the front (western)half to
Mixed Use could be supported by Staff.This would continue the possibility of
some office and also allows for closer review of the proposed future development
of the site.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following associations:Twin Lakes B Prop.Owners
Association,as well as Brownwood Terrace,John Barrow and Twin Lakes "A"
Neighborhood Associations.Staff has received no comments from area
residents.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Mixed Use for the front
(western)half of the site can be supported.This alternate change would better
protect the existing adjacent uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The application was placed on consent agenda to July 6,2006.With a vote of
10 for,0 against and 1 absent,the consent agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 6,2006)
The applicant requested this item be deferred to work out issues.The item was
placed on the consent agenda for deferral.By a vote of 9 for and 0 against the
consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:(July 6,2006)
The applicant has proposed a change to the Planned Commercial District
accompanying this item,however no change to the Land Use Plan is proposed.
Staff remains in support of the requested change to Mixed Use along John
Barrow Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff reviewed the request.Mr.Malone indicated to the
north was commercial,east and west was Multifamily and the south a Church.
There have been a couple of small commercial businesses constructed to the
north and a new Library to the south.Most of the Office development is along
Kanis Road to the west closer to Baptist Hospital.The Land Use Plan shows
Mixed Office Commercial,thus the City has already said some commercial in this
location would be appropriate.Staff does not believe a total commercial
development would necessarily be inappropriate.However with the surrounding
uses (apartments and church)design is significant.Staff therefore is supportive
of a change to Mixed Use,which allows a review of the development for
appropriateness whether commercial or office.
Donna James,Planning Staff,presented the case for a Planned Commercial
District on a portion of this site.See the minute record for item E.1:Z-8056 for a
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-10-02
complete minute record.Commissioner Williams asked about the Mixed Use
proposal.Mr.Bozynski,Planning Director,replied that the development could
be commercial,office or residential,using the Planned Zoning District process.
Currently the Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial.Staff does not support the
original request to Commercial,however the application has been amended
to Mixed Use for the western half of the tract.After discussion and
presentations for and against (mostly the Planned District request),a motion was
made to approve the requested Plan change.By a vote of 4 for,4 against,2
absent,and 1 recusal the item failed.
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 FILE NO.:Z-8056
NAME:Sonic Restaurant —John Barrow Road Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located at 1619 John Barrow Road
DEVELOPER:
Sonic Corporation
300 Johnny Bench Drive
Oklahoma City,OK 73104
ENGINEER:
CEI Engineering
Ross Merking
3317 S.W."I"Street
Bentonville,AR 72712
AREA:5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:0-3,General Office District
ALLOWED USES:General and Professional Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD and 0-3,General Office District
PROPOSED USE:Drive-in restaurant and Future development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The request is to rezone approximately one (1)acre of this five (5)acre lot from
0-2 to PCD to allow the creation of a separate lot for the development of a
restaurant with drive-in facilities.The proposal includes the construction of a
1,557 square foot Sonic Restaurant.The facility is proposed with outdoor dining
consisting of eight to ten tables located along the street side of the building.The
site plan also includes the placement of twenty (20)drive-in stalls along the south
side of the building in two (2)locations each covered with a canopy.Seven
parking spaces have been indicated on the site plan with six parking spaces
indicated for future development.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a part of a larger five acre lot which is wooded with the property to the
north sloping from north to south.This portion of the site is comparatively flat
related to the overall site.There is a church located to the south.Of the overall
larger tract the areas to the north and east are not a part of the current
application request and will remain undeveloped and wooded.A preliminary plat
will subdivide the five acres,creating a one acre lot for the proposed Sonic
Restaurant.There is a multi-family development located to the east and
commercial uses located to the north of the large tract.Across John Barrow
Road is also a multi-family development.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents,many indicating support of the request.The John Barrow
Neighborhood Association,the Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,
the Penbrook/Clover Hill Property Owners Association,all residents who could
be identified located within 300 feet of the site and all property owners located
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.John Barrow 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.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
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.Per City code,crossover lane must be relocated at least 75 feet from right-
of-way line.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
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.
10.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available on west side of John Barrow Road.Contact Lihle
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:SHOULD BE ODD NUMBER ADDRESS.All Central
Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service
must be met.Additional fire hydrant(s)will be required.Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s)and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).A water main extension may be required.This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
FFOFN t:App d p It d.
~CPI::N ~
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial District for a restaurant.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.
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
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
the time of development.
~Bl Pl:Tk Bttl ~k Blk Pl d t k y Blk dj
to the site.The closest Bike Route is a Class II Route along 28'"Street to the
south.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood 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.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
3.An average of eighteen-foot (18)wide land use buffer is required to
separate this proposed development from the residentially zoned property
on the eastern perimeter of the site.Seventy percent (70%)of these
buffers are to remain undisturbed.Easements cannot count toward
fulfilling this requirement.
4.An average of nine-foot (9)wide land use buffer is required to separate
this proposed development from the residentially zoned property on the
southern perimeter of the site.Seventy percent (70%)of these buffers are
to remain undisturbed.Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement.
5.The property to the south and the east is zoned residential,therefore,a six
(6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along
the southern and eastern perimeters of the site.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(June 1,2006)
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 days and hours of operation and the proposed hours of the indicated
dumpster service.Staff also requested the applicant provide the total percentage
of building coverage,the total area designated to landscaping and the total area
covered with parking.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed driveway
was a concern.Staff stated based on the design of the driveway proper turning
movements were not allowed.Staff stated they felt this could potentially cause
conflicting traffic movements on the site as well as the adjoining property.Staff
also stated the width of the driveway should not exceed 36-feet in width.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated compliance with the City'
Landscape and Buffer Ordinance was required.Staff stated buffering would be
required along the southern perimeter where abutting residentially zoned
property.Staff stated a minimum of seventy (70)percent of this buffer area was
to remain undisturbed.The applicant questioned if a variance could be sought to
allow grading within the buffer area.Staff stated the Planning Commission as a
part of the approval process could approve the request.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the June 1,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated the days and hours of operation,the proposed hours of the indicated
dumpster service,the total percentage of building coverage,the total area
designated to landscaping and the total area covered with parking.The driveway
has also been extended to facilitate traffic movement with the site located to the
north,when developed.
The hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday from 6 am to 12 am and
Friday and Saturday from 6 am to 2 am.The dumpster hours of service are
indicated from 6 am to 12 am daily.
The total site is 43,486 square feet and the building will consume 1,557 square
feet.The total area designated for paving is 23,258 square feet and the area
designated for landscaping is 18,671 square feet.A total of 840 square feet of
outdoor dining is proposed.
The site indicates the placement of twenty (20)drive-in stalls and seven (7)
surface parking stalls.A second phase indicates the addition of six (6)surface
parking stalls should additional parking become necessary.The 840 square feet
of outdoor dining requires eight on-site parking spaces.The proposed Phase II
parking must be constructed with the Phase I portion of the development to
provide parking for employees and the outdoor dining area.
The applicant has indicated shrubs will be planted along the southern property
line to assist in providing a noise barrier between the adjoining church and the
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
new restaurant.The volume of music will be lower during church service and
according to the applicant the gymnasium is located adjacent to the restaurant
which will also act as a sound barrier.
A single pylon sign is proposed in the front yard area not to exceed 36-feet in
height and 110 square feet in area.Building signage is proposed along the front
of the building not to exceed 18-square feet in area.The indicated signage is
consistent with signage typically allowed in commercial zones.
The site plan indicates an automatic irrigation system will be installed to water
landscaped areas and plant materials will be installed per minimum ordinance
requirements.The applicant is requesting to grade the entire southern perimeter
of the site removing the required 70 percent undisturbed buffer.A retaining wall
is required in this location and the removal of the buffer is necessary to allow
reasonable grading and to allow proper drainage for the site.The site plan
indicates a 12.5 foot setback from the paving to the property line in this area.
According to the applicant shifting the building to the north to allow the required
buffer is not an option due to increased grades along the northern perimeter.
Staff is supportive of this request.
The revised plan extends the drive from John Barrow Road to allow the
crossover point at 75-feet.According to the applicant this will facilitate traffic
movements within the site and allow for reduced conflicts when the site to the
north is developed.
The proposal includes the subdivision of this existing lot to allow a four acre
parcel and a one acre parcel.The four acre parcel will be maintained by the
current owners with the one acre parcel being sold to the potential restaurant
developers.Staff is supportive of this request.The indicated lots sizes are
more than adequate to meet the typical minimum standards for office and
commercial zoned property.Staff recommends the applicant provide the
required platting documentation to staff within 60 days of approval by the Board
of Directors.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.Staff feels the applicant has done a
good job in minimizing the impacts of the proposed development on adjoining
properties.Although the site plan indicates the removal of the required buffer
along the southern perimeter the applicant has indicated the buffer will be
replanted with shrubs and trees to protect the adjoining church property.The
applicant has also indicated the new restaurant will be sensitive to the adjoining
church and their activities by reducing the volume of their music during church
services and activities.To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the request.Staff feels the proposed development will be an
asset to the community and should have minimal impact on the adjoining
properties.
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and proposed PCD
for Sonic Restaurant subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1.Comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the
above agenda staff report.
2.All parking including the Phase II parking must be constructed in Phase I.
3.The applicant lower the volume of outdoor music played through the
speaker system during church service and church events.
4.Staff recommends the applicant provide the required platting
documentation to staff within 60 days of approval by the Board of
Directors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 22,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant was requesting a deferral of
the item to the July 6,2006,public hearing.Staff stated the deferral request would
require a waiver of the Commission's By-laws with regard to the late deferral request.
Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusal
(Jeff Yates).A motion was made to approve the deferral request.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1 recusal (Jeff Yates).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan relocating the building from the southern
portion of the property to the northern portion.The revised site plan was reviewed by
Public Works and for compliance with the City's minimum buffer and landscape
ordinances.The following comments are associated with these two reviews:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.John Barrow 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.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
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.Per City code,crossover lane must be relocated at least 75 feet from right-of-
way line.
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.
10.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The width of driveway must not
exceed 36 feet.
11.Provide a notation indicating the total wall height on the proposed site plan.
~Ed
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
3.A nine foot land use buffer is required along the northern property line next to the
residentially zoned property.Seventy percent (70%)of this buffer is to remain
undisturbed.The plan appears to meet this minimum requirement.
4.A nine foot (9)wide perimeter landscaping strip is required along the southern
property line per the landscape ordinance.A variance from this requirement will
require approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
5.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern
perimeter next to the residentially zoned property.
6.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on tree covered sites.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements may be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
The Subdivision Committee at their July 13,2006,committee meeting,reviewed the
revised site plan.The applicant was not present.Staff noted the deficiencies with the
proposed site plan indicating they had contacted the applicant concerning the
deficiencies and the applicant was addressing staff's concerns.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of buffers and landscaping as required by
the City's Landscape Ordinance and the Buffer Ordinance.The applicant has indicated
a nine foot land use buffer along the northern property line,and nine foot perimeter
landscaping strip along the southern property line and note concerning the retaining wall
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
height.The site plan also indicates the dedication of right-of-way to meet the current
Master Street Plan requirement along John Barrow Road.The driveway width does not
exceed 36-feet in width and the crossover lane has been relocated to 75-feet from the
right-of-way line.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request.The proposed development is located just
south of a commercial node with the property located to the north of this site zoned C-3,
General Commercial District.The relocation of the restaurant to the northern portion of
this property allows separation between the proposed use and the church located to the
south.The remainder of the site will remain zoned 0-3,General Office District which
will allow a transition between the commercial uses to the north and the church facility
located to the south.
The proposed site plan occupies only a portion of the tract and the applicant is
proposing the subdivision of the parcel to allow the development to occur.As noted in
the above agenda staff report,the applicant will be required to provide staff with
preliminary plat documentation within 60 days of approval by the Board of Directors to
allow the subdivision activity to take place.
To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request.Staff
feels the placement of the restaurant on the site as proposed will have minimal impact
on the adjoining properties.As noted in the Analysis Section staff was supportive of the
proposed development when the site plan indicated the development along the
southern portion of the site.Staff continues to recommend approval of the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and proposed PCD
for Sonic Restaurant subject to compliance with the following conditions:
5.Compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs
D,E,F and H of the above agenda staff report.
6.All parking including the Phase II parking must be constructed in Phase I.
7.The applicant must lower the volume of outdoor music played through the
speaker system during church service and church events.
8.Staff recommends the applicant provide the required platting
documentation to staff within 60 days of approval by the Board of
Directors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the
applicant had indicated the hours of operation for the site would be from 6 am to 12
midnight and not 2 am as indicated in the written agenda.
Mr.Ross Merkling addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant.He stated the
9
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
building proposed was 1500 square feet with dine-in and drive-through service.He
stated the building would be constructed of split face block,drivit or hard board siding.
He stated the landscaping would be increased from the minimum ordinance standard to
allow a more attractive site and offer buffering for the church located to the south.
Ms.Betty Snyder addressed the Commission in support of a Sonic Restaurant in the
John Barrow Neighborhood.She stated she had worked with Sonic for five years to
locate in their neighborhood.She stated the location was a concern not the restaurant.
She stated she felt there would be a better suited location for the facility in the
neighborhood.She stated the John Barrow Neighborhood Association did not take an
official vote on the proposed location but most felt the church and Sonic should resolve
the issue of location.Chairman Stebbins stated it appeared she was presenting
comments of opposition.Ms.Snyder stated she was not opposed to a Sonic only the
location of the Sonic since the church had been such a good neighbor and an asset to
the neighborhood.
Mr.Rodney Chandler addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He
stated he was the spokes person for Second Baptist Church which was located to the
south of the proposed restaurant.He stated he did not feel this was an appropriate
location for a restaurant.He stated his research had found that there was not a single
Sonic restaurant located adjacent to a church.He stated the church had been an active
member of the neighborhood for more than 40 years.He stated the church provided
outreach to the neighborhood and made a substantial investment in the neighborhood
when others were not willing to locate in the John Barrow community.He stated the
church was concerned with the location for a number of reasons one of which the
apartment complex located across the street.He stated a number of children in the
apartment complex were latch-key children.He stated the children would be crossing
John Barrow Road to access the Sonic which would cause safety concerns.He
requested the Commissioners consider how they would feel if the Sonic was located
adjacent to their church home.
Reverend Paul Kelly addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated
he was the pastor of Second Baptist Church which currently had approximately 4,000
members in two locations.He stated the membership was opposed to locating a Sonic
next door to their church.He provided the Commissioner with petitions signed by over
1,000 members of the church.He stated the Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood was
also opposed to the request.He stated the neighborhood also had signed a petition
with 35 signatures in opposition of the location of a Sonic next door to their
neighborhood.He stated the church had made a sizable investment in the
neighborhood.He stated he felt the use inappropriate and he was offended that the
Commission was discussing the matter of locating a malt stand next door to a church.
Ms.Doris Wright addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She stated
she was President of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and a member of the
Second Baptist Church.She stated the location was a concern.She stated the
neighborhood had worked a number of years to attract a Sonic to their area and was in
full support of the restaurant locating in the area just not in this location.She stated she
10
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
was aware of the reasoning for choosing this site by Sonic because all commercial uses
would like to locate along the Kanis corridor.She stated the church was not originally
opposed to the location because the church was unaware of the restaurant was
considering locating adjacent to their facility.She stated once she found the item was
placed on the Consent Agenda for Approval at the June 22,2006,public hearing she
approached the pastor and suggested he review the proposed request.She stated
once the church members review the request for the placement of the unattractive
drive-through facility on the site they were not in support of the request.She stated the
apartments were a concern.She stated the children would be crossing the street to
access the Sonic and would cause a safety concern.She also stated the children would
be hanging around the restaurant.She stated the facility located on Cantrell Road in
the Riverdale area was more the style restaurant the neighborhood was looking for.
She requested the Commission consider the petitions,the neighbors present in
opposition and the apartments located across the street when making their decision.
Mr.Larry Gilreath addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated he
was the representative of Brownwood Terrace.He stated the subdivision was opposed
to the placement of a malt stand adjacent to their neighborhood and the church facility.
Mr.Bill Walker addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated the
neighborhood had enough bad elements including a liquor store and a check cashing
service.He sated the neighborhood did not need another bad element.He stated a
malt stand called a restaurant was not a desirable use for this location.
Mr.Mike Loggins addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated
most of his comments had been made but he felt the Commission should consider the
children before placing the restaurant across from a large apartment complex.
Mr.Marvin Thaxton addressed the Commission in support of the request.He stated his
family owned the 4.7 acres of property currently under consideration and had for over
30 years and long before the church expanded their facility to the present state.He
stated the church had shown no interest in purchasing the property until a contract with
Sonic had been signed.He stated the church was offered the property on a number of
occasions in the past and prior to placing the property under contact with Sonic.He
stated the property was 300-feet fronting John Barrow Road with the Sonic locating
along the northern portion of the property.He stated the restaurant would occupy 1.7
acres of the 4.7 acre site.He stated the remaining property would be zoned 0-3 as was
currently zoned.He stated the restaurant had committed to being a good neighbor and
the restaurant had a local and national reputation to uphold.He stated the development
was proposed in the mist of a commercial node at Kanis and John Barrow Roads.He
stated John Barrow Road currently had 18,200 vehicles per day traveling along the road
with a number of teens playing loud music riding on the roadway.He stated the church
had expanded their facility not away from John Barrow Road but closer to John Barrow
Road and the traffic noise.He stated with the placement of a restaurant on the site the
traffic would not be greatly increased.He stated the church currently had 4,000
members which would generate a minimum of 1,000 vehicles.He stated the restaurant
traffic would be a drop in the bucket compared to the church.He stated there would be
11
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
no loitering on the site.He stated there were a number of locations that Sonic had
located adjacent to a church.He stated his hometown of Newport,AR was one
example.He asked the Commission meet the request of the community and the John
Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan by approving the request.
Mr.Mike Bailey of Sonic Corporation addressed the Commission.He stated the use
was not the most offensive use that could locate next to a church.He stated there were
a number of uses and restaurants which were much more offensive than a Sonic which
could locate on the site.He stated the developers had worked with the church to
address their concerns and he felt when they left the meeting with the church and
neighborhood association all the issues had been resolved.He stated the location had
been moved and the landscaping enhanced.He stated the restaurant was willing to
reduce the volume of music on the site upon request by the church and providing
substantial buffers along the south.He stated the church and been offered the
remainder of the site at the price paid by Sonic.He stated zoning was put in place to
protect the public health,safety and welfare of the citizens.He stated it was not a tool
for individuals to use for their own gain.He stated the purpose was to give citizens a
voice but not control the use of property.
Commissioner Rahman questioned Mr.Bailey of the type of building construction.He
stated the Sonic Corporation had made a decision to no longer construct the cafe style
restaurants like the one on Cantrell Road.He stated the store would be the current
conventional model of store being constructed nationally.Commissioner Rahman
questioned the future plans for the remaining property.Mr.Bailey stated the property
would be available for sale.
Commissioner Williams questioned staff as to the current Future Land Use classification
and the allowable uses as well as the proposed amendment and the allowable uses.
Staff stated the site was currently shown as MOC or Mixed Office Commercial which
allowed a mixture of office and commercial uses.Staff stated the amendment would
allow residential,office or commercial with a planned development required if the
development were office or commercial.
There was a general discussion concerning the location of the restaurant and the
potential for sound to be heard at the church.Mr.Ross Merkling stated the decibel level
of sound would be very low.He stated the sound of the street was typically at 80db and
the sound 75 to 80 feet into the site was be less than 40db.Mr.Merkling stated the
restaurant use would be less than the street noise.With the discussion it was added
that a typical customer was on the site five to ten minutes.A Sonic representative
stated the goal was for food orders to be served in four minutes or less and drink orders
in two minutes or less.He stated there was no loitering allowed on the site.He stated
the restaurant was focused on moving customers in and out.
There was a general discussion concerning the choice of the proposed location.Mr.
Bailey stated the location was chosen because of the location of the health centers as
well as the proximity to Kanis Road.He stated the health care employee traffic was key
in the choice of locations and he did not feel the medical traffic would travel very far
12
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:E.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8056
down John Barrow for service.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the request.The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes,5 noes,2 absent and 1
recusal (Commissioner Jeff Yates).
13
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:F.FILE NO.:LA-0007
NAME:I-430 8 Col.Glenn —Southwest Timber Harvest
LOCATION:Southwest corner of I-430 8 Colonel Glenn Road
APPLICANT:Glenn Ridge Crossings,LLC.
APPLICANT AGENT:Steve Hockersmith
AREA:Approximately 54 acres
CURRENT ZONING:Unknown
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Conduct land alteration activities,harvest timber,with construction not being imminent
as required by the Land Alteration Regulations,Sec.29-186(b).
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest
timber on approximately 54 acres located at the southwest corner of l-430 and
Colonel Glenn south of the Rave Theater with construction not being imminent.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:Unknown
C.SU BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(June 1,2006)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated no information has been provided
except the application.There was no further discussion of the item.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
D.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As of time of writing,staff has yet to receive any information pertaining to this
variance request.Staff recommends deferral of the request to the August 3,
2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 22,2006)
There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had not
submitted additional information as requested.Staff requested the item be
deferred to the August 3,2006 Planning Commission agenda.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.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:LA-0007
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has been contacted by staff requesting a forestry management plan and a
survey of the property.To date,no additional information has been submitted.Staff
recommends the item be withdrawn from the August 3,2006 Planning Commission
agenda without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was not present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item indicating the applicant had been contacted by them requesting a
forestry management plan and a survey of the property.Staff stated to date,the
information had not been submitted.Staff presented a recommendation of withdrawn of
the item from consideration without prejudice.
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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:G.FILE NO.:LA-0008
NAME:I-430 8 Col.Glenn —Northwest Timber Harvest
LOCATION:Northwest corner of l-430 8 Colonel Glenn Road
APPLICANT:Col.Glenn Bowman Road Dev I,LLC.
APPLICANT AGENT:Steve Hockersmith
AREA:Approximately 82 acres
CURRENT ZONING:Unknown
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Conduct land alteration activities,harvest
timber,with construction not being imminent as required by the Land Alteration
Regulations,Sec.29-186(b).
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest
timber on approximately 82 acres located at the northwest corner of I-430 and
Colonel Glenn with construction not being imminent.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:Unknown
C.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(June 1,2006)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated no information has been provided
except the application.There was no further discussion of the item.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
D.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As of time of writing,staff has yet to receive any information pertaining to this
variance request.Staff recommends deferral of the request to the August 3,
2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 22,2006)
There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had not
submitted additional information as requested.Staff requested the item be
deferred to the August 3,2006 Planning Commission agenda.There was no
further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for placement of
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:LA-0008
the item on the consent agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10
ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has been contacted by staff requesting a forestry management
plan and a survey of the property.To date,no additional information has been
submitted.Staff recommends the item be withdrawn from the August 3,2006
Planning Commission agenda without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was not present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item indicating the applicant had been contacted by them requesting a
forestry management plan and a survey of the property.Staff stated to date,the
information had not been submitted.Staff presented a recommendation of withdrawn of
the item from consideration without prejudice.
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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:LU06-02-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Rodney Parham Planning District
Location:100 Santa Fe Trail
~Re ueat:Single Family tc Suburban Office
Source:Paul Atkins for Robert 8 Mary Atkins
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning District from Single
Family to Suburban Office.Suburban Office represents low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density
residential areas to assure compatibility.The proposal is to convert an existing
house to a professional office use —Insurance Agency.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is a single-family home currently zoned R2,Single Family and is
0.16 acres a in size.The properties to the north,south and east are zoned R2,
Single Family and have houses on them.The property to the west is zoned
Planned Office District and then 03,General Office.There are existing office
uses on both of these tracts.Generally to the north and south are single-family
neighborhoods,with R2 Single Family zoning.Along Markham to the west are a
mix of office uses with a few commercial and public (churches)uses.The zoning
pattern is generally 03 General Office.At Markham and John Barrow Road
there is C3 General Commercial zoning with an existing shopping center.This is
a developed part of Little Rock,with established residential and non-residential
areas.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On December 12,2000,several changes were made to the Land Use Plan to
more accurately reflect the existing and likely future development of the area.
One change was to the west on Markham from Suburban Office to Public
Institutional;one was south of the site from Single Family to Public Institutional;
one was east of the site from Single Family to Commercial and the last was
southeast of the site from Single Family and Multifamily to Low Density
Residential.All these changes surround the application area along Markham.
On May 6,2003,a change was made from Single Family and Low Density
Residential to Multifamily Low Density Residential and Public Institutional.These
changes were made to more accurately reflect the current and likely future
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-02-01
development of the areas along Mara Lynn Road over a mile to the north west of
the site.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family use to the north and east.The Plan
shows Public Institutional to the south.Suburban Office is shown to the west of
the site.A large area of Single Family is to the northeast and northwest,as well
as to the south.To the west are Suburban Office use areas along Markham,with
a couple of Public Institutional use interspersed.A large Commercial area is
shown at the southwest corner of Markham and John Barrow Road to the east.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Markham is shown as a Minor Arterial,with Santa Fe Trail a Local Street on the
plan.A Minor Arterial is designed to provide connections to and through the
urban area,with a primary function to move traffic not provide access to adjacent
properties.A Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties;movement
of vehicles is a secondary function.There are no plans at this time to make
further street improvements to either roadway.As a result of this application
additional right-of-way or widening may be requested.
BICYCLE PLAN:
There are no Bike routes shown on the City Master Bike Plan adjacent to the
area under review.The closest routes are proposed to be along Rock Creek to
the south and Brushy Flat Creek to the east.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates there is a deficient
area on the south of Markham.However there is an existing public or private
recreation or open space within 8-blocks of this site as recommended by the
Plan.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The site is within the area covered by the West Markham Neighborhoods Plan.
The Plan does not address the issue of converting a single-family house to
non-residential.However it does call to "Limit expansion of non-residential
development to areas shown as non-residential on the Future Land Use Plan as
well as limiting businesses to areas zoned for non-residential activity."The Plan
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-02-01
also recommends repair and replacement of sidewalks along Arterials
(Markham).
ANALYSIS:
The site under review is at the northwest corner of Santa Fe and Markham.The
general area is single family homes with offices/institutional uses to the west.
This is a developed area of Little Rock with any proposals for the area likely to be
redevelopment proposals.The structures in the area appear to be in good
condition and occupied.This is true for both the residential and non-residential
uses in the area.To the east along Markham,the City has opposed the
conversion of single-family homes to non-residential uses.
To the south and north of Markham are single-family subdivisions,which are fully
developed with homes.To the west are both small offices and large office
buildings.This development pattern starts at this site and continues west to
I-430 for a half mile.There are a couple of churches and one retail center also
located in this corridor.To the east is all Single Family until you get to the
southwest corner of Markham and John Barrow Road where a commercial center
has been located for many years.The tenant mix has changed significantly over
the years but the occupancy rate is high for the center.
Markham is a minor arterial.The function of a minor arterial is to move vehicles
around the city not to provide access to adjacent land.It is important that
developments along Markham be designed to limit access and signage which
might reduce the efficiency of the road to move vehicles.The Planned
Development with this item proposes that the access be from the side street,
Santa Fe Trail.
In a developed area with homes fronting a major street,the City is continually
pressured to allow the conversion of the residential to non-residential uses.The
City policy is not to line major roads with retail or non-residential uses.This is to
discourage some of the negative affects on the street of such uses lining them.
Santa Fe Trail is a local street providing access to Markham for the
neighborhood to the north.This site and the house at the northeast corner front
Markham rather than Santa Fe Trail.It should be noted that there are several
other homes which front Markham further to the east.The City policy does not
recognized that just because a home is on a major street it can no longer be
residential.For that matter there are many homes on Cantrell Road,Markham
and other main roads in Little Rock.
Based on a review of the structures in the area,there does appear to be demand
for office space in the area.There are not a large number of vacant office
structures or space.However the homes in the area are also in good condition
and there does not appear to be a single-family vacancy or abandonment issue
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-02-01
and there does not appear to be a single-family vacancy or abandonment issue
in this area.Thus there is demand forboth uses in thearea.The only reason
given to make a change is that the current owners of the property would like to
use it for an office.No one has tried to indicate that there is more demand for
office than residential in the area and thus a change is appropriate.
The impact of a change in use from single family could have a negative impact
on the desirability of the remaining homes.A change would introduce non-
residential traffic on Santa Fe Trail,a residential street currently.Even if the
current structure is used for the new use,the site will change in character with
the addition of parking,signage,activity,and hours of usage.Of even larger
concern is what a change to office might mean for the other homes fronting
Markham to the east.The question becomes if it is okay to change this structure
why not the others and what impact all these changes would have on the
neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Pennbrook/Clover
Hill Property Owners Association,Santa Fe Heights and Treasure Hills
Neighborhood Association.Pennbrook/Clover Hill Neighborhood Association,
which covers this site,is opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2006)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff review the conditions around the site.Current
there appears to be demand for both Single Family and Office use in the vicinity.
Staff is concerned about the implication a change might have on other single-
family properties to the east.Staff can not support the requested change.
Ms.Donna James presented the Planned Office District request and the two
items were heard together.For a complete record of comments see item 22.1.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed.By a vote of 0 for,
10 against the request was denied.
STAFF UPDATE:(July 6,2006)
The applicant applied the Planning Commission's denial to the Board of
Directors.At the Board level the applicant proposed some changes to the site
plan.The Board determined that the Commission should review the changes
and referred the items back to the commission for your review.There is no
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:LU06-02-01
change proposed in the Land Use Plan amendment.Staff remains opposed to
the requested change of Suburban Office at the northwest corner of Santa Fe
Trail and Markham.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reminded the Commission they had already heard
this request.A change in the related Planned Office District has caused both
items to be referred back to the Commission.Staff believes nothing has
changed in the Plan Amendment request.There is still demand for both uses,
Staff believes the existing single-family should not be converted to non-
residential.Staff still believes the change is not appropriate.
Donna James,Planning Staff,reviewed the requested Planned Office District.
The applicant and a couple of those opposed addressed the Commission
(their comments were on the requested reclassification).For a full minute record
see item H.1:z-8006.A motion for approval was made.By a vote of 0 for,9
against the motion failed.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 FILE NO.:Z-8006
NAME:Atkins Short-form PD-0
LOCATION:Located at 100 Santa Fe Trail
DEVELOPER:
Robert Atkins
10200 West Markham Street,Suite 201B
Little Rock,AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Land Surveyor
Arch Street Pike
Hensley,AR
AREA:0.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
PROPOSED USE:Office —General and Professional
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at 100 Santa Fe Trail is proposed for rezoning from R-2,
single-family to PD-0 for the use of the site as an insurance agency.The intent
is to retain the residential character of the property except for some additional
parking and a small (32 square foot)ground mounted monument style sign.
Typical business hours are from 8 am to 5 pm,Monday through Friday.
Screening will be provided along the northern perimeter of the site with the
placement of a six (6)foot wood fence in the rear portion of the property and the
placement of evergreen shrubs near the front of the property.
Currently the business employs two agents and one administrative assistant,all
full time with no plans for additional employees.Customer traffic is anticipated at
two (2)to three (3)per day but usually traffic is only two (2)to three (3)per week.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
The site plan indicates the placement of five (5)on-site parking spaces.The
applicant has indicated two (2)of the parking spaces and the landscaping within
the City's right-of-way.The request includes franchising of the parking and
landscaping located within the right-of-way.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family residence with a drive located on Santa Fe Trail.
Single-family homes are located to the north and east of the site.To the west of
the site are office uses located on the north side of West Markham and
residential uses located on the south side of West Markham.
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 along with the Treasure
Hill Property Owners Association,the Santa Fe Neighborhood Association and
the Pennbrook Clover Hill Property Owners Association were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with
special provisions.A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be
required.
2.The proposed land use would classify Santa Fe Trail on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Markham Street and Santa Fe Trail.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public
right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The width of driveway must not
exceed 36 feet.Backing out into the right-of-way is not permissible at this
location by city code.
7.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.
8.In accordance with Section 32-8,no obstruction to visibility shall be located within
a triangular area 50 feet back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or
intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications)at the intersection of Santa Fe
Trail with Markham Street.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 if larger
and/or additional water meter(s)are required.
~yi C d t:App d h ilt d.
~dt Pi:N
CATA:The site is located on CATA Bus Route ¹5—the West Markham Bus
Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Office District for a small professional office.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item
on this agenda (LU06-02-01).
Master Street Plan:Markham is shown as a Minor Arterial,with Santa Fe Trail a
Local Street on the plan.A Minor Arterial is designed to provide connections to
and through the urban area,with a primary function to move traffic not provide
access to adjacent properties.A Local Street is to provide access to adjacent
properties;movement of vehicles is a secondary function.There are no plans at
this time to make further street improvements to either roadway.As a result of
this application additional right-of-way or widening may be requested.
~Bi i Pi:yh Bik ~t h h City M t Bik Pi
adjacent to the area under review.The closest routes are proposed to be along
Rock Creek to the south and Brushy Flat Creek to the east.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The site is within the area covered
by the West Markham Neighborhoods Plan.The Plan does not address the
issue of converting a single-family house to non-residential.However it does call
to "Limit expansion of non-residential development to areas shown as non-
residential on the Future Land Use Plan as well as limiting businesses to areas
zoned for non-residential activity."The Plan also recommends repair and
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
replacement of sidewalks along Arterials (Markham).
~Landsca e:
1.Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer minimal
ordinance requirements.
2.The proposed parking lot doesn't reflect the nine foot wide (9)minimum landscape
strip.This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the zoning
ordinance.Seventy percent (70%)of this area is to remain undisturbed.
3.A three foot (3)wide landscape strip is required between the associated parking
lot and the building.
4.For the proposed evergreens to count towards meeting the landscape and buffer
minimums,in lieu of a fence,then they must create a year around opaque
barrier.
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 outstanding issues
associated with the request.Staff stated since the request was to allow the
conversion of an existing single-family structure into an office use the applicant
should contact the Building Codes Division of the Department of Planning and
Development to determine the potential fiscal impacts of ADA compliance.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated right-of-way dedication
would be required along West Markham Street and Santa Fe Trail per the Master
Street Plan.Staff stated the indicated parking design allowed for cars to back
into the public right-of-way,which was not acceptable.Staff requested the
applicant redesign the site plan to remove the backing of cars into the right-of-
way.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the site plan did not reflect
the nine (9)foot wide minimum landscape strip required along the northern and
southern perimeters of the site.Staff also stated a three foot landscape strip
would be required between the parking lot and the building.
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 March 8,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The revised site
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
plan indicates right-of-way dedication,a revised parking layout and landscaping
to comply the with nine (9)foot minimum landscape strip requirement along the
northern and southern perimeters of the site.
The site plan indicates the placement of a monument sign located in the front
yard area not to exceed six feet in height and 32 square feet.The site plan does
not indicate the utilization of building signage.Staff would recommend if building
signage is utilized,the signage be limited to building signage allowed in
residential zones.The typical business hours are indicated from 8:00 am to
5:00 pm,Monday through Friday.A dumpster has not been located on the site.
The site plan indicates screening will be provided along the northern perimeter of
the site with the placement of a six (6)foot wood fence in the rear portion of the
property and the placement of evergreen shrubs near the front of the property.
The site plan indicates minimum landscape strips along the northern and
southern perimeters.The property located to the west has a similar zoning to the
request.
Currently the business employs two agents and one administrative assistant,all
full time with no plans for additional employees.Customer traffic is anticipated at
two (2)to three (3)per day but usually traffic is only two (2)to three (3)per week.
The site plan indicates the placement of five (5)on-site parking spaces.The site
plan indicates two (2)of the parking spaces and the landscaping within the City'
right-of-way.The request includes franchising of the parking and landscaping
located within the right-of-way.The intersection is a high volume intersection.
The intersection currently warrants a left turn lane.Staff is not supportive of the
franchise request.
The revised site plan indicates the sidewalk at the right-of-way and not located as
recommended by staff at one and one-half feet from right-of-way line.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed request.The applicant is requesting an
amendment to the City's Future Land Use Plan in addition to the rezoning
request.The site is currently shown as single-family as is the property to the
east of the site.The homes on Santa Fe Trail are well maintained with what
appears to be stable properties and property values.There has been a line
established to the west of this site limiting the intrusion of non-residential uses
into this neighborhood.Staff feels the allowance of this property to become a
non-residential use will erode into the neighborhood thus encouraging other
properties to seek a similar use.Staff feels the unit should remain as a
residential use and not be allowed this conversion.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 30,2006)
Mr.Paul Atkins was present representing the request.There was one registered
objector present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Atkins addressed the Commission on the merits of the application request.He
stated his insurance firm was primarily a life and health insurance company.He stated
clients did not come to the office for service and most service was provided at the
client's home or business.He stated there were three employees of the business but
very rarely were there three persons at the office.He stated the history of the site was
the site had been a rental unit.He stated the house had not been maintained and the
area residents were dissatisfied with the previous owners.He stated he had met with
the neighbors and most felt the use of the site as an office use was an appropriate use.
He stated the intent was to maintain the residential character of the unit and provide
protection to the abutting property owners.He stated limiting the hours of operation
would not interfere with the area residents.He stated signage was not necessary if the
Commission deemed the indicated signage as out of character with the neighborhood.
Ms.Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She stated a
lager number of the homes located in Hillcrest were rental units and the neighborhood
seamed to work quiet well.She stated the neighborhood abutting the proposed office
development was a stable neighborhood with a mix of family types ranging from young
married families to elderly residents.She stated she felt Mr.Atkins would be a good
neighborhood while he was there but when he moved to a larger office and the next
office tenant moved they may not be as good of a neighbor.She stated she felt the use
an inappropriate use in a residential area.
Mr.Atkins stated the residents would prefer the site to be owner occupied and a family
live in the unit.He stated the structure would be owner occupied just he would not live
there.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed use of the site.
Commissioner Yates questioned the applicant's as to their current location and the
reason for moving.Mr.Atkins stated his office was located on West Markham a few
blocks away.He stated this was an opportunity to own the building and not lease
space.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed parking and the volume of
traffic on the abutting streets.Mr.Atkins questioned if redesigning the parking outside
the right-of-way would satisfy the Commission.The Commission questioned the
location of the proposed parking.Mr.Atkins stated along the northern and southern
portions of the building.
There was a general discussion concerning the approval of the Land Use Plan verses
the approval of the rezoning request.A motion was made to approve the proposed
Land Use Plan Amendment (Item ¹22).The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,10 noes
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-8006
and 1 absent.A motion was made to approve the rezoning request.The motion failed
by a vote of 2 yes,8 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(August 3,2006)
This item was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Directors at their June 20,2006,
Public Hearing as an appeal of the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial.
At the Board of Directors meeting,the applicant indicated a modification to the site plan
was being requested.The applicant indicated the site plan would be redesigned to
remove the parking from the right-of-way.The Board of Directors determined any
modification to the site plan reviewed by the Commission should be returned to the
Commission for a recommendation of the current application request.Based on the
revised site plan the Public Works Department and Landscape comments have been
revised.They are as follows:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with
special provisions.A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be
required.
2.The proposed land use would classify Santa Fe Trail on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Markham Street and Santa Fe Trail.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The width of driveway must not
exceed 36 feet.Backing out into the right-of-way is not permissible at this
location by city code.
7.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.
8.In accordance with Section 32-8,no obstruction to visibility shall be located
within a triangular area 50 feet back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or
intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications)at the intersection of Santa
Fe Trail with Markham Street.
~Ed
1.Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer minimal
ordinance requirements.
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 CONT FILE NO.:Z-8006
buffer ordinance requirements along Santa Fe Trail.
The revised site plan has not indicated the dedication of right-of-way as required
by the Master Street Plan.A dedication of 35-feet from centerline of West
Markham and 30-feet from centerline on Santa Fe Trail will be required at the
time of development.The site plan has indicated the radial dedication,sidewalk
placement and construction and driveway width in accordance with Sections 30-
43 and 31-210.The revised site plan has also removed any obstructions to
visibility within the triangular area 50-feet back from the intersecting right-of-way
line of Santa Fe Trail and West Markham Street.
The revised site plan appears to place the required landscaping within the area
required for right-of-way dedication along Santa Fe Trail.The sidewalk has been
placed at the back of curb along Santa Fe Trail thus leaving the only available
landscape area within the right-of-way.All other landscaping appears to comply
with the minimum ordinance standards.
The current proposal is to revise the applicant's request for the site by utilizing
the existing carport for one parking space and placing three additional parking
spaces on the site.As was previously indicated,the business employs two full
time agents and one administrative assistant.The business services a maximum
of two to three customers on site per day since most of the customer activity
takes place at the customers'usiness or residence.The indicated parking
should be adequate to serve the development.
Staff continues to not support the request.The site is located in an area
indicated as Single Family on the City's Future Land Use Plan as is the property
to the north and east of this site.Staff feels the site should be maintained as
residential to protect the area from encroachment of non-residential activities into
this somewhat stable and well maintained neighborhood.As previously indicated
a line has been established to the west of this site limiting the intrusion of the
non-residential uses into this neighborhood.Allowing this property to become a
non-residential use will erode into the neighborhood thus encouraging other
properties to seek a similar use.Staff feels this unit should be maintained as a
residential use and not be allowed to convert to a non-residential use as
pl oposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
Mr.Paul Atkins was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff stated the item was previously heard by the Commission and was at the
Board of Directors on an appeal of the Commissions recommendation of denial.Staff
stated the applicant had amended their site plan and the Board of Directors had
returned the item to the Commission for reconsideration.Staff presented the item with
a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Paul Atkins stated he was now proposing to utilize the carport as parking to allow
the required on-site parking.He provided the Commission with letters of support from
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:H.1 CONT FILE NO.:Z-8006
the adjoining property owners.He stated the neighbors would like to see the property
maintained and used as an office use rather than remain in its current stated.He stated
there were a number of office and residential uses located in close proximity through out
the City.He provided the Commission with a number of examples including a number
in the Hillcrest neighborhood.He stated the mixing of office and residential did not
appear to have hurt property values in the Hillcrest area since the neighborhood was
very popular.He stated with the placement of an office use on the site this would bridge
a gap for needed office adjacent to residential which existed through-out the city.
Ms.Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the requests.She stated
she was representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County for the evening.
She stated the League had considered the request and felt the request was
inappropriate for the location.She stated the neighborhood as a whole was somewhat
stable.She stated a number of the uses shown located in Hillcrest had been in
existence for a number of years.She stated if they were to come in today and request
a rezoning the league would likely not support the conversion.She stated it was a
slippery slope when you put non-residential uses into a residential area.
Ms.Nell Matthews-Monk addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She
stated she too was with the League of Women Voters but was speaking as a citizen.
She stated she did not support the request.She stated the location was not appropriate
for the conversion of a residential use to an office use.She stated Mr.Atkins had
provided a photo of the Shelter building located on Rodney Parham Road.She stated
the building was not situated the same as the residence proposed for conversion by Mr.
Atkins.She stated the Rodney Parham site was located facing Rodney Parham Road
and a screening fence was placed along the western perimeter to screen the adjoining
homes.
Mr.Atkins stated he was willing to limit the use to his ownership and if he no longer
operated a business from the site the only allowable use would be residential.He
stated the structure would remain residential in character and the only addition would be
parking along Santa Fe.He stated it was important for an area to maintain a mix of
office and residential uses for a healthy neighborhood.He stated this would reduce the
number of trips by allowing persons to walk to their destination.
There was a general discussion concerning the existing non-residential uses in the
area.Commissioner Meyer questioned the use of the structure prior to the applicant's
buying the property.Mr.Atkins stated the structure had been used as storage and a
rental unit.
Commissioner Laha questioned Ms.Young as to the reasoning for the League
supporting day care family homes and not supporting the office use in this location.Ms.
Young stated typically the League viewed daycare homes differently because they were
providing a service and allowing a person,typically a female to gain economically.She
stated it was viewed more as economic development than a business.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the
request.The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,7 noes and 2 absent.
9
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.1 S-1418-A
NAME:Stalcup Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:located on the Southeast corner of Taylor Loop Road and Gooch Lane
DEVELOPER:
Mike Stalcup
15901 Taylor Loop Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue,Suite 202
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:A waiver of the required street improvements
to Gooch Drive.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary plat for this
site on March 11,2004.The applicant proposed to subdivide an existing parcel into
three single-family lots.An existing home was located on Lot 1 and a new home was
proposed on Lot 2.Proposed Lot 3 was to be held for future development.
Per Section 31-94(e)of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances,a preliminary plat approved
by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for
two (2)years from the date of approval or as long as work is actively progressing,at the
end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted
to the Planning staff.Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set
forth or otherwise conforming to the requirements of Chapter 31 shall be null and void,
and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary
approval subject to all zoning restrictions and Chapter 31.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.1 CONT FILE NO.:S-1418-A
A five-year deferral of the Master Street Plan improvements to Taylor Loop Road and
Gooch Drive was previously approved.A radial dedication and intersection
improvements were required at the time of approval.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The previously approved preliminary plat has expired for the property and the
applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary plat to allow the subdivision of 0.91
acres into three (3)single-family residential lots.The lots are indicated
containing a minimum lot size of 7,720 square feet (Lot 3)and an average lot
size of 8,125 square feet.
The request includes a waiver of the required street construction to Gooch Drive.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure located near the intersection
of Taylor Loop and Gooch Drive and a second home has been located on site
along the eastern perimeter.The second home was moved from a nearby
location and set on the foundation.No additional work has been completed on
the structure and the structure is not habitable.Other uses in the area include
single-family homes located on acreage.The area to the southeast is currently
developing as a single-family subdivision.Immediately east of the site a PD-R
for a townhouse development containing 11 units was recently approved.No site
work or construction for the development has begun.
Both Taylor Loop Road and Gooch Drive are unimproved roadways with open
ditches for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident concerning the proposed platting request.All abutting property owners,
the Westchester/Heatherbrae and Charleston Height/North Rahling Road
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Taylor Loop 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.
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Taylor Loop Road and Gooch Drive.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.1 CONT FILE NO.:S-1418-A
3.With site development,provide the design of the streets conforming to the
Master Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvements to Taylor Loop
Road and Gooch Drive including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development.
4.Lot 1 must take access from Gooch Drive.
5.A 7.5 foot drainage easement should be platted along the eastern property
line.The ditch located along the eastern property line should be cleaned prior
to final platting.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to serve Lot 2.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The Little
Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional
public fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they
will be installed at the Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water at
377-1225 for additional information.
~FO d:Add d d It d.
C ttPI d:N
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Ed:N
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.1 CONT FILE NO.:S-1418-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
Mr.Mike Stalcup was present.Staff presented an overview of the proposed
preliminary plat indicating the Commission had approved a plat request for the
site which had expired.Staff stated once the plat expired the applicant was
required to seek approval from the Commission as a new application.Staff
stated there were a few additional items necessary to complete the review
process.Staff requested the applicant provide the name and address of the
landowner in the general notes section of the preliminary plat.Staff also
questioned if there were any waivers or variances being request.
Mr.Stalcup stated he was willing to construct the street improvements to Taylor
Loop Road and construct the radius as was previously approved.He stated
Gooch was a private street and did not require improvements.Staff stated
Gooch was a public street based on the Mackey Court Order.Mr.Stalcup stated
the previous approval did not require improvements to Gooch.Staff stated they
would review the previous approval and the conditions would remain as were
previously approved.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has indicated the name and address of the landowner,the dedication of
right-of-way for Taylor Loop Road and Gooch Road and indicated the required
street improvements would be completed to Taylor Loop Road.
The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat on March 11,2004 to
allow the creation of three lots and a five year deferral of the street improvements
to Taylor Loop Road and Gooch Drive.The site contains 0.91 acres and the
applicant is proposing three (3)single-family residential lots for a density of 3.29
units per acre.The lots will have public street frontage along Gooch Drive and
Taylor Loop Road.The lots are indicated containing a minimum lot size of 7,720
square feet (Lot 3)and an average lot size of 8,125 square feet adequate to
meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The request includes a waiver of the required street construction to Gooch Drive.
Although staff is supportive of the subdivision request staff is not supportive of
the waiver of the Master Street Plan improvement requirement to Gooch Drive.
Gooch Drive is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage.Staff feels the
portion of the road abutting the plat area should be constructed to meet the
current ordinance standard.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.1 CONT FILE NO.:S-1418-A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 August 2,2006,requesting the item be deferred to the September 14,
2006,public hearing.Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver
with regard to the late deferral request date.Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request.The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:2.S-1529
NAME:Woodlawn Hills Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:located on the Westward extension of Forest Maple Court
DEVELOPER:
Spillway Homes,LLC
43 Prospect Trail
North Little Rock,AR 72218
ENGINEER:
Civil Design,Inc.
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.589 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:10 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:19 —Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT:42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 19,2006,requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.Staff is supportive of the withdrawal
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated
the applicant had submitted a request dated July 19,2006,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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:3.S-1530
NAME:Arkansas Realtors Association Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:located on Executive Center Drive,West of Centerview Drive
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Realtors Association
1701 Centerview Drive,Suite 201
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:4.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:0-3,General Office District
PLANNING DISTRICT:11 —I-430
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage (Section
31-231).
A.PROPOSAL:
The property contains 4.5 acres.The developer is proposing to subdivide the
property into two (2)lots.The rear lot will require a variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance,Section 31-231,to allow the creation of a lot without public street
frontage.According to the applicant the property has an extreme depth relative
to the width and an existing draw running through the property provides a natural
lot line.Access to the lot will be provided from a common access easement
located along the eastern perimeter of Lot 1.Lots 1 and 2 will share and
maintain the cost of the driveway.Lot 2 will be developed as an office building
for the Arkansas Realtors Association.Lot 1 will be held for future development.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.3 CONT FILE NO.:S-1530
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered as is the property to the east.To the south of the site is
a large office building.To the west of the site are two additional office buildings.
Centerview Drive is constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident.The Gibralter Height/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Association,the John Barrow Neighborhood Association,the Sandpiper
Neighborhood Association and all abutting property owners were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.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).
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.
5.A shared access driveway with the property to the west should be provided.
Lots 1 and 2 should take access from this shared access easement.
6.A 15 foot drainage easement should be provided between Lots 1 and 2.
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.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available to this property.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.3 CONT FILE NO.:S-1530
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.Additional fire hydrant(s)will be
required.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the
required placement of the hydrant(s)and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of the hydrant(s).A water main extension will be required
in order to provide service to Lot 2.This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system.Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
adequate pressure and fire protection.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225
for additional information.
~NC d:App d P ttt d.
C ttPI t t:N
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~td ~:N ~
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 3,2006)
Mr.Joe White and Mr.Ron Tabor were present representing the request.Staff
presented an overview of the proposed subdivision indicated there were
additional items necessary to complete the review process.Staff stated the
driveway should be relocated to allow a shared driveway with the property to the
west.Mr.Tabor stated this was not an option since the property to the west was
developed and their driveway was in place.Staff stated the ordinance required
minimum separations for driveway placement.Staff stated the driveway width
needed to be 60 feet and 31 feet of paving.Staff also stated drives were to be
125 feet from property lines and 250 feet between the drives.Mr.Tabor stated
the drive proposed was only 26 feet and questioned if a variance could be
sought.Mr.Tabor stated only 65 percent of the site was developable due to
topography.He stated the site would not develop with an intense development
generating a great deal of traffic.Mr.White stated he would review the
separation issue and get back with staff.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.3 CONT FILE NO.:S-1530
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has relocated the driveway to the eastern property line to reduce
potential conflicts with the existing drive located to the west.The drive has also
been indicated as a 60-foot access and utility easement with 31-feet of pavement
to meet a minor commercial street standard per the Master Street Plan.
The rear lot will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance,Section 31-
231,to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage.Access to the lot
will be provided from a common access easement located along the eastern
perimeter of Lot 1 and Lots 1 and 2 will share the maintenance cost of the
driveway.
Staff is supportive of the request.The site is currently zoned 0-3,General Office
District and contains a total of 4.5 acres.The average lot size proposed is 2.26
acres with a minimum lot size of 1.975 acres.Staff does not feel the requested
variance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage will
adversely impact the adjoining properties.To staff's knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the request.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance,Section 31-231,to allow the creation of a lot without public street
frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 above agenda staff report.Staff also
presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance,Section 31-231,to allow the creation of a lot 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 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Jeff Yates).
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:4.S-1531
NAME:Whispering Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:located South of Alexander Road,West of Vimy Ridge Road
DEVELOPER:
Paul Evans
1805 South Woodrow
Little Rock,AR 72206
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:114 FT.NEW STREET:5,970 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:16 —Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT:41.04
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 20,2006,requesting this item be deferred
to the August 17,2006,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated July 20,2006,requesting the item be deferred to the September 14,
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 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 recusal (Commissioner Mizan Rahman).
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:5.S-1528
NAME:Kroger Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:located at 8415 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Kroger Limited Partnership I
800 Ridgelake Boulevard
Memphis,TN 38120
ENGINEER:
Pickering,Inc.
6775 Lenox Center Court,Suite 300
Memphis,TN 38115
AREA:4.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT:3 —West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT:21.01
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 17,2006,requesting this item be deferred
to the September 14,2006,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNIING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated July 17,2006,requesting the item be deferred to the September 14,
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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:6.Z-4336-Y
NAME:Arkansas Children's Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION:located at 11'"and Wolfe Streets
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Children's Hospital
800 Marshall Street
Little Rock,AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects Engineers
Attn:Kent Taylor
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 Zoning Lot FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:0-2,Office and Institutional
PLANNING DISTRICT:8 —Central City
CENSUS TRACT:10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:A variance to allow a reduced setback along
the western perimeter (24.1-feet).Section 36-280(e)(1)
A.P ROPOSAL:
The request is a Zoning Site Plan Review of this 0-2,Office and Institutional
District property.The site is located at the intersection of West 11'"Street and
Wolfe Street and serves as the Energy Building for Arkansas Children's Hospital.
The Energy Building provides chilled and hot water,as well as emergency power
for much of the hospital campus.The desire is to build an addition onto the
northwest corner of the Energy Building in order to facilitate major new facilities
on the campus,as well as to provide a fully redundant system.These major new
facilities are in the beginning stages of design.The project will not impact any
current landscaping,as the entire proposed addition is to be constructed on an
existing paved area.All existing landscaping will be maintained or replaced as
needed.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:6.Cont.Z-4336-Y
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area proposed for site plan review is located adjacent to an existing building
containing hospital facilities.The site is located within an area that is occupied
and owned by the Arkansas Children's Hospital.West of the site is a parking lot
covering the entire block and southwest of the site are office uses.Across 13'"
Street is a site zoned PD-R which has redeveloped as an apartment facility.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from an area resident.The
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,the Central High Neighborhood
Association and all property owners located within 200 feet of the site were
notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.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).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available to existing building on site.
EntercnE:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.If there are facilities that need to be
adjusted and/or relocated,contact Central Arkansas Water.That work would be
done at the expense of the developer.It appears that there may be a conflict with an
existing 16-inch main that was cut and plugged 16.5 feet east of existing fire hydrant
01225.Please submit two copies of the plans for modification of the fire protection
system to Central Arkansas Water for review.Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding procedures for extension of the fire service to this facility.Fire sprinkler
systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a
double detector check valve assembly.If additives are used,a reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer will be required.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-
1225 for additional information.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:6.Cont.Z-4336-Y
~Fi ~d I:I t litt hyd I p d.B tth tktl ~kFI
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
B~tPI:N ~
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.d:B pll Ith h Bty'd p ddd Qdl
required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
The applicants were present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the project indicating there were few outstanding issues associated
with the request.Staff noted the Public Works conditions and the comments
from the various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the
applicant contact them directly for additional information and clarification.The
applicant stated there were no concerns with the comments as noted and stated
they would contact the water department concerning their comment about the
water main.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 related to the request remaining from the July
13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The request is a Zoning Site Plan
Review for property located at the intersection of West 11'"Street and Wolfe
Street.The property serves as the Energy Building for Arkansas Children'
Hospital providing chilled and hot water and emergency power for much of the
hospital campus.The request is to build an addition to the northwest corner of
the Energy Building matching the western facade of the existing building.The
addition is necessary to facilitate major new facilities on the campus which are
currently in the beginning stages of design,as well as to provide a fully
redundant system.The project as proposed does not impact any on-site
landscaping since the entire proposed addition is to be constructed on an
existing paved area.
The proposed construction will require a variance to allow a reduced building
setback along the western perimeter of the site.The proposed construction will
match the existing building setback along this building face.Staff is supportive of
the requested variance.Staff does not feel the variance will impact the adjoining
properties since the proposed construction matches the existing building face.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:6.Cont.Z-4336-Y
Staff is supportive of the request.To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the request.Staff does not feel the proposed addition will
have any adverse impact on the area or on adjoining properties.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced building
setback along the western perimeter.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 above agenda staff report.Staff also
presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced
building setback along the western perimeter.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:7.Z-4663-C
NAME:The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD
LOCATION:located at 12226 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Kanis Otter Creek Property Partners,LLP
8060 Count Massie Road
North Little Rock,AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:Office Building and 136 Room Assisted Living Facility
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mixed Office,Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 20,2006,requesting this item be deferred
to the September 14,2006,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated
July 20,2006,requesting the item be deferred to the September 14,2006,public
hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:8.Z-5224-K
NAME:Meramee Specialty Company Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION:located at 18220 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Meramee Specialty Company
381 Front Street
West Memphis,AR 77301
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:1.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:General Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Seasonal Sale of Class C 1.4G Common Fireworks from June 20'"
through July 4'f each year.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 7,2006,requesting this item be withdrawn
from consideration without prejudice.Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated
the applicant had submitted a request dated July 7,2006,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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:9.Z-5654-C
NAME:South Square Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION:located at 11725 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
South Square LLC
2851 Lakewood Village Drive
North Little Rock,AR 72116
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
424 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
ARCHITECT:
Andrew Hicks Architects
3200 South Shackleford
Little Rock,AR 72205
AREA:11.17Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Retail and Two (2)Restaurant buildings
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Retail,Restaurant buildings —placement of additional signage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Ordinance No.19,279 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February
15,2005,approved an additional restaurant building for this site with specific
allowable signage.The approved PCD for this site allowed a ground mounted
sign consistent with signage allowed per the Chenal Design Overlay District and
building signage to be placed on the front and rear (north and south)of the
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.F ILENO:Z-5654-C
building consistent in size to wall signage allowed in Section 36-555 or a
maximum of ten percent of the facade area.The approved signage has been
installed and the applicant is now requesting the placement of signage along the
eastern facade.The third building sign is thought to be necessary to identify the
restaurant from the east side.The site grades in this area are dramatic from the
Chenal Parkway side.The oak trees in the landscape are maturing.Thus,the
two existing building signs are nearly invisible from Chenal Parkway,as is most
of the building.The Mimi's Cafe owners feel the current sign condition is
inadequate due to physical site constraints.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three buildings,Mimi's Cafe,Garden Ridge and On the Border
Restaurant,along with an abundance of hard surface parking.The land area has
a slight elevation change from the Hermitage/Bowman area falling to the east
toward the Parkway at Autumn Road.The area around the site is a major
commercial node that has developed intensely with a mixture of uses.Directly
across Hermitage Road is an office/mini-warehouse development and a strip
center faces Bowman Road.Wal-Mart and Sam's are across Bowman Road to
the west of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The Birchwood,Parkway Place,John Barrow and the Gibralter Heights/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations along with all property owners
within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,within 300-
feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
The applicant was not present representing the request.Staff stated the request
was to allow the placement of a sign along the eastern facade of the existing
building.Staff stated 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.
E.ANALYSIS:
There were no issues remaining from the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee
meeting.The applicant is requesting signage to be placed along the eastern
facade of the existing Mini's Cafe.The previously approved PCD allowed wall
signage to be placed on the front and rear (north and south)of the building
consistent with signage allowed in Section 36-555 or a maximum of ten percent
of the facade area.
Staff is supportive of the request.The building has been constructed with public
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.F I LE NO:Z-5654-C
street frontage fronting Chenal Parkway along the eastern and northern facades.
Typically signage is allowed on all sides which have public street frontage.The
signage along the southern facade which fronts into the parking lot and faces
Hermitage Road was allowed as a part of the previously approved PCD.Staff
does not feel the addition of a third sign on the building will have any adverse
impact on the area or the adjoining properties Since the proposed sign will also
have direct frontage.To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the request.
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow signage as proposed along
the eastern facade of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 to allow the signage as proposed along the eastern facade of the building.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10.Z-7605-B
NAME:Chevaux Court Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION:located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau
Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Orion Capitol Ventures
2200 N.Rodney Parham Road,Suite 206
Little Rock,AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:3.4 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:Planned Office Development —0-3 General Office District uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised POD
PROPOSED USE:Planned Office Development —0-3 General Office District uses—
creation of lot lines
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance request to allow backing into a service easement.
2.A variance to allow the development of lots without public street frontage.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.19,098,adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 18,2004,
established Chevaux Short-form POD.The project consisted of 33,600 square feet of
proposed building space containing 0-3,General Office District uses.The applicant
requested ten percent of the building square footage be allowed the Accessory uses
allowed in the 0-3 zoning district.The applicant indicated 142 parking spaces or 4.23
spaces per 1000 square feet.The proposed building was indicated as an "L"shaped
building and turned away from existing residential property to the south and east.The
rear of the building was to act as screening to the adjoining properties to the east and
south since no doors or windows were proposed other than those required by fire code.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
A cross access easement and shared driveway would be utilized to provide adequate
circulation with the adjacent development to the west.
Ordinance No.19,451 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 5,
2005,revised the previously approved Planned Office Development to allow the
creation of seven lots and the construction of seven buildings each on individual lots.
The applicant indicated smaller individual building footprints to allow the construction to
match the existing topography of the site.The applicant indicated site improvements
and perimeter landscaping would be constructed as an overall development.There
were variances approved to allow the development of lots without public street frontage
and to allow backing into the access easement.The applicant indicated each of the lots
would be final platted in a single phase.The applicant also indicated the buildings
would be constructed based on market demand.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting to amend the POD zoning for Chevaux Office
Development.The requested amendment would allow the front one-half of the
site to develop with a branch bank facility,with drive-through,and the rear
remaining two acres would remain relatively unchanged with five lots as
approved in the previous site plan.The buildings proposed for the five lots will
range in size from 4,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet with 0-3 uses as
allowable uses.There are no changes in the proposed driveway cuts from
Cantrell Road with access being along the eastern perimeter and a shared
driveway access near the western perimeter.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and sloping slightly from Cantrell Road.There are single-
family homes located to the south and east of the site.To the west of the site is
property recently developed with a strip retail center.
Cantrell Road adjacent to the site is a four lane roadway with a turn lane at
Chenonceau Boulevard.A traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of
Chennonceau Boulevard and Cantrell Road.There is not a sidewalk in place
adjacent to the site.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Per the land alteration regulations,Section 29-186(h),a one time approval
was given by Public Works to allow stockpiling of construction spoil material
on site for a period of six (6)months.The six (6)months has been exceeded
and the material must be removed.A building permit has been applied for the
project.
2.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
3.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
4.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
5.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
6.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
7.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
9.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
10.If disturbed area is one (1)or more acres,obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
11.Sidewalk should be installed on east side of the private drive/street.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,to serve the
proposed development.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge based
on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.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 water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this
property.Easements are required to adequately install and maintain the water main
adjoining the right-of-way of Cantrell Road,as well as within the development.This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
~Fi C d t:I t IIII kyd t p d.C t ttk ttltl ~kFI
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~CPI:N
CATA:The site is located on CATA Bus Route ¹25—the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNI GAUD ESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has requested to
revise a previously approved Planned Office Development to allow a six lot
development with five lots being used as office uses and the sixth lot being used
as a branch bank facility.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.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.Chenonceau
Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial.A Minor Arterial provides connections to
and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area.These streets may require dedication of right-
of-way and may require street improvements.
~Bi I Pl:A CI II Btk ~t I k C II ~d t t
Chenonceau Boulevard.A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a
five foot shoulder or six foot marked bike lane.Additional paving and right of way
may be required.A Class III bikeway is located on Chenonceau Boulevard.A
Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic.No additional
paving or right-of-way is required.Class III bicycle route signage may be
required.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
I d
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.All previous comments apply.
3.Interior islands are to be evenly distributed.An additional island is needed in the
parking area along Cantrell Road.
4.Berming is encouraged along Cantrell Road in accordance with the Highway 10
Design Overlay District.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
5.The plan appears to meet the 25 foot landscape area required per the Highway
10 Design Overlay District along the side and rear property lines.
6.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required for all new landscaped areas.
Since the site is being reviewed as a single development irrigation will be
required on each of the newly created lots.
7.Since the site is being reviewed as an overall development plan,prior to the
issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide landscape plans
stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect for each of the
proposed lots.
8.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on tree covered sites.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 3,2006)
Mr.Tim Daters 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 requested the applicant provide a note
concerning the proposed dumpster screening.Staff also stated the indicated
signage was less than typically allowed per the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District.Staff also noted the parking on the site plan did not appear to work since
all the parking generators had been moved to the back of the site and the parking
was located on the front of the property.Staff questioned the proposed parking
scheme.Mr.Daters stated he would review the proposed layout and provide
staff suggestions to the developer and respond to staff as requested.
Public Works comments were addressed.Mr.Daters stated development was
beginning on the site and the stockpiled construction spoil materials would be
removed from the site.Staff also stated street improvements to Cantrell Road
would be required at the time of development of the site and a dedication of right-
of-way 35-feet from centerline would be required.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated irrigation to water
landscaped areas would be required for each lot as it was developed.Staff also
stated landscape plans stamped by a registered landscape architect would be
required at the time of development for each of the proposed lots.Staff stated
interior islands should be evenly distributed throughout the parking lot areas.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated a note concerning the required dumpster screening.The site plan
indicates the dedication of right-of-way per the Master Street Plan requirement.
The applicant has not redesigned the site with regard to the proposed parking
layout.The applicant has indicated the parking as proposed meets the parking
demand for the site.According to the applicant the proposed parking along
Cantrell Road will serves the bank facility by allowing customers to park in front
of the building to access the lobby area.Staff is supportive of the parking as
proposed.
The request is to amend the Planned Office Development changing the front
one-half of the site to allow development of a branch bank facility,with drive-
through.This modification would include two previously indicated lots combined
to one lot.The rear portion of the site will remain relatively unchanged (with five
lots)as approved in the previous site plan and 0-3,General Office District uses
as allowable uses.The buildings proposed for the five lots will range in size from
4,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet and are proposed as single story
buildings.The site plan indicates the placement of a 25-foot building setback
along the southern perimeter (rear yard)and the eastern perimeter of proposed
Lot 6 (side yard).The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the
placement of a 40-foot building setback around the rear yard and 30-foot side
yard setback.The building along Highway 10 has been indicated at 100-feet as
required by the overlay district.
The applicant is proposing the development of lots without public street frontage.
The lots will be served by a 24-foot access and utility easement.The applicant is
requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of lots
without public street frontage.Staff is supportive of this variance request.
The proposed driveway cuts on Cantrell Road are located in the location they
were previously approved.Access is proposed along the eastern perimeter and
a shared driveway access is located near the western perimeter.Staff is
supportive of the proposed driveway placement.
The site plan indicates the placement of 122 parking spaces.Based on the total
square footage of the proposed buildings a total of 58 parking spaces would
typically be required.The indicated parking is more than adequate to serve the
parking demand of the site.
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
The applicant has indicated the location of the proposed dumpster facilities on
the site plan and included a note concerning the required screening.The
applicant has also indicated the dumpster service hours will be limited to normal
business hours.The hours of operation proposed for the development are 6:00
am to 8:00 pm.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the backing into a service
easement.Per the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-210(g)(7)parking spaces
shall not be permitted to back into a service easement.Section 31-210(j)states
the Commission may approve a variance of this subsection for applications
before them.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant has
indicated as a part of the site development,features such as pedestrian tables
and landscape islands and to be used to slow traffic on the site for both motorist
and pedestrians.
Site lighting will be low level and directional,directed inward away from
residentially zoned properties per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
requirement.
The applicant has proposed a single development sign within the landscaped
area along Highway 10 and each individual lot will have an identification sign.
The applicant has indicated the signage along Highway 10 will be a ground
mounted monument style sign a maximum of ten feet in height and 100 square
feet in area.Each of the development signs will be a maximum of six square feet
in sign area.Building signage is proposed as typically allowed in office zones.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The proposed site plan does not
fully comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to
landscaped area and building setback along the eastern and southern property
line.The ordinance would typically require a 30-foot building setback along the
eastern perimeter and a 40-foot building setback along the southern perimeter.
The applicant's site plan indicates screening will be provided along the eastern
and southern property line as a six foot opaque fence.Staff recommends the
fencing be designed to match the existing fencing within the adjacent subdivision
as a wood fence with brick columns.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and condition as outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends the fencing be designed to match the existing fencing within
the adjacent subdivision as a wood fence with brick columns.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow backing into a
service easement.
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:10 CONT FILE NO.:Z-7605-B
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots without public street frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 condition as outlined
in paragraphs D,E and F of the above agenda staff report.Staff presented a
recommendation the fencing be designed to match the existing fencing within the
adjacent subdivision as a wood fence with brick columns.Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow backing into a
service easement and a recommendation of approval of the requested variance
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 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11.Z-7722-A
NAME:Lagniappe Revised Short-form PD-R Lots 1 -4 Lagniappe Addition
LOCATION:located on the Northwest corner of Walnut and I Streets
DEVELOPER:
Lagniappe Addition,LLC
2106 Beechwood
Little Rock,AR 72207
Bill Rector
300 South Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
424 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:1.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential —four lots and two tracts
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Single-family Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.19,241 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 7,
2004,established Lagniappe Short-form PD-R.The applicant proposed the
redevelopment of the site,previously platted as six lots,with a four lots and a two tract
development through a PD-R.Two of the lots were approved as pipe-stem lots served
by a 16-foot paved drive and a 30-foot access and utility easement extending from "I"
Street near the intersection with Walnut Street.A fifteen foot building line was approved
along "I"Street.The side yards within the development were proposed as six feet.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
A minimum square footage of heated and cooled space for the homes was 2,500
square feet.The maximum square footage of the homes along I Street was limited to
3,500 square feet and 4,500 square feet on the rear two homes.The maximum building
height was limited to 32-feet.A maximum building coverage of 28 percent without
garages and 32 percent,including the garage,was approved.The applicant also
indicated the construction materials would be compatible with existing exteriors in the
area.The applicant indicated stone,brick,stucco,cobblestone,cypress or non-vinyl
siding,antique cypress and pine beams would be added to the new homes.All
windows and doors were wood and the roof constructed of asphalt shingles,wood
shingles or clay roof tiles.Possible features of the new construction were antique
gates,wrought iron railings,antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD-R for
Lots 1 —4 of Lagniappe Addition to allow the site to comply with previously
imposed condition for lot coverage.The original PD-R included several
restrictions including maximum square footage of houses (3500 square feet on
Lots 1 and 2,4,500 square feet on Lots 3 and 4),maximum roof height (32 feet)
and a maximum lot coverage of 32 percent.According to the applicant,these
restrictions were included in an effort to address neighborhood concerns,
specifically those of the Hillcrest Resident's Association.Infrastructure work
began in March of 2005 which included the addition of a fire hydrant to bring not
only the proposed lots into compliance with the city fire code,but also existing
homes in the neighborhood that were not in compliance.Water and sewer
system improvements were constructed which included replacing the 50 year old
water line between Ash and Walnut Streets with a new 3 inch line benefiting each
homeowner's property on the block and new 6 inch sewer access installed for the
houses west of 4400 I Street.The new 6 inch sewer access was done at the
request of the City and in no way benefited the developers project.A private
drive for access to Lots 3 and 4 was also completed.After completing the above
mentioned infrastructure work,the developers submitted detailed plans,drawings
and lot survey to the City of Little Rock for the issuance of a building permit.The
permit was issued to Pursell Construction by the City of Little Rock on February
27,2006 after which construction commenced on Lot 2.On May 18,2006,at the
request of the Hillcrest Resident's Association,a field audit was conducted by the
City of Little Rock.It was determined that while the square footage,roof height,
and other restrictions of the PD-R were in compliance,the percentage of lot
coverage,which was built in accordance with plans submitted to and approved
by the City,was in excess of the 32 percent allowed.According to the
developers,this was unintentional and an oversight on the part of the applicant
as well as the City.Currently,the construction is essentially in the "dry."A
cease work order was issued by the City on May 23,2006.
The request also includes the placement of ornamental iron architectural features
that do not extend into the side yard set back more that 36 inches,as typically
allowed by City Code.The original PD-R included the approval of iron railings
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
but did not specify the location of the railings or the extension of decks porches
and patios within the required setback.No other revisions to the existing PD-R
are being requested.The developers are requesting the typical ordinance
standards for R-2,Single-family zoned property apply for issues not specifically
addressed in the PD-R.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single family home currently under construction on Lot 2 with
a building footprint of 3,127 square feet or 42.8 percent building coverage.The
four lots and two tracts have been final platted.There are single-family homes
located in the area and Alsop Park is located to the north."I"Street has been
widened to Master Street Plan standard abutting the proposed development.
The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50-foot by 150-foot
lots;many of the homes sitting on two lots.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association,all owners of
property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents located within 300-
feet of the site,who could be identified,were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.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.
2.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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.Erosion controls must be installed to protect
downstream properties.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main on site constructed with easements in 2006.
Any changes in planned subdivision may require relocation or extension of existing
sewer main.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
information.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection.
~NC d t:I tilt hyd t p d.Mitt 22-t tdl y
width.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional
information.
C ttPI I:N
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has requested a revision of a previously approved Planned Residential
Development to modify the previously imposed conditions concerning total
allowed building coverage.The request does not require a change to the Land
Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:I Street is shown as a Local Street.The primary function of
a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
~NI Pl:ACI III Blt ~t I h K Bh B I d d
Beechwood Street.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.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan.The Zoning and Land
Use goal has these objective(s)relevant to this case:"Adopt a plan of action to
stop the degradation,to reverse its course,and to recreate a neighborhood that
is once again a pleasant place to work and live.This includes no net loss of
residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses."
~Ed:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
Larry and Martha Chisenhall were present representing the request.Staff
presented the item indicating there were few outstanding issues associated with
the request.Staff noted the proposal as submitted indicated the adjustment of a
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
lot line to allow the proposed development to come into compliance with the
maximum lot coverage allow per the approved PD-R.Staff stated there were
other options being considered for the proposed request;one being increasing
the lot coverage for Lot 2 and reducing the allowable building height for the
remaining lots.Staff stated the developers,staff and the neighborhood were
working to determine the best approach for resolution.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from
the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.Based on a meeting with the
developers,the adjoining property owners and the Hillcrest Resident's
Neighborhood Association,there were concessions made for modifications to the
approved site plan and the approved PD-R.
The approved PD-R allow for minimum setbacks,maximum square footages of
the homes,maximum building coverage and maximum building heights.Based
on a City audit of the site it was determined the structure currently under
construction was in compliance with all previously imposed conditions with the
exception of the total building coverage.The proposed revision would allow the
coverage ratio for existing Lot 2 to be amended from 32 percent to 42 percent or
as built,to reflect the current building footprint.The coverage ratio for Lot 1 will
be increased from 32 percent to 38 percent and the 32 percent coverage ratio
will remain for Lots 3 and 4.
Lot 1 was approved with a six foot side yard setback along the west side.The
developers are proposing Lot 1 to have a 10 foot set back,as opposed to the
existing 6 foot set back,on the west side of Lot 1.With the increased space
between Lot 1 and Lot 2,the dwelling on Lot 2 will be allowed to have a
cantilevered deck on the east side of the dwelling not to exceed 45 inches in
depth.In addition,the applicant is proposing the allowance of a decorative iron
railing,not exceeding 36 inches in depth on the west side of the Lot 2 dwelling.
No "unfinished"space will be included in dwellings built on Lots 1,3 and 4.
Unfinished space is defined as enclosed,floored space that in the future could be
heated and cooled and has dimensions that meet the City's requirements for
occupiable space.This restriction is not intended to prohibit a garage intended
for parking vehicles,storage or workshop space opening off the garage,space to
house mechanical equipment,or unfinished attic or eave space as long as such
space is not heated and cooled.
The original approval allowed for a six foot side yard setback along the common
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
lot line of Lots 3 and 4.The revision would increase this setback to a 15 foot set
back from the north line of Lot 3 and the south line of Lot 4.This setback does
not include decks which will be allowed to extend into the setback /~of the
setback in this area.In addition,the same encroachment of decks applies to
Lots 1 and 4.Deck space will not be considered in the calculation of any
coverage ratio.
The applicant has defined maximum building height.The maximum height for
dwellings on Lots 1,3 and 4 will be no more than 35 feet to the highest point on
the roof ridge line from the average ground elevation within the foundation
perimeter before any grading takes place.If there are to be multi-level roof ridge
lines,the 35 foot measurement is to be taken from the average ground elevation
within the perimeter of the foundation of that part of the structure supporting each
roof ridge line.
As required by City Ordinances,all construction materials will be confined to
developer's property with no items stored in the public right-of-way between the
sidewalk and the street.The working hours to be observed are pursuant to City
code or ordinance which are as follows:Monday through Friday from 6 am to 6
pm,Saturday from 7 am to 6 pm and Sunday from 1 pm to 6 pm.Interior work is
allowed Monday through Saturday as allowed for exterior work hours with the
work hours increasing to an ending time to 10 pm.As a courtesy to the
neighbors there is to be no loud music played by workers on the site.
In summary the proposed amendments to the PD-R are as follow:
~Lot coverage for Lot 2 is to be 42%,including garages,or as built
~Lot coverage for Lot 1 is to be 38%,including garages
~Lot coverage for Lots 3 and 4 is to be 32%,including garages
~Lot 1 west side yard setback is 10-feet
~Lot 2 is permitted to have cantilevered deck on the east side not to exceed
45"in depth
~Lot 2 permitted to have an architectural embellishment extending out not
to exceed 36"in depth and enclosed with a decorative railing on the west
side
~Building height on Lot 2 to be as the structure is now built
~Building height on Lots 1,3 and 4 is to be no more than 35 feet to the
highest point on the roof ridge line from the average ground elevation
within the foundation perimeter before any grading takes place.If there
are to be multi-level roof ridge lines,the 35 foot measurement is to be
taken from the average ground elevation within the perimeter of the
foundation of that part of the structure supporting each roof ridge line.
~Construction materials are to be stored on the property
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
~Working hours are to be Monday through Friday from 6 am to 6 pm,
Saturday from 7 am to 6 pm and Sunday from 1 pm to 6 pm.Interior work
is allowed Monday through Saturday as allowed for exterior work hours
with the work hours increasing to an ending time to 10 pm.
~No loud music is to be played by construction workers on the site
~There is to be no unfinished space on Lots 1,3 and 4.Unfinished space is
defined as enclosed,floored space that in the future could be heated and
cooled and has dimensions that meet the City's requirements for
occupiable space.This restriction is not intended to prohibit a garage
intended for parking vehicles,storage or workshop space opening off the
garage,space to house mechanical equipment,or unfinished attic or eave
space as long as such space is not heated and cooled.
~The side yard setback for the northern property line of Lot 3 shall be 15
feet.
~The side yard setback for the southern property line of Lot 4 shall be 15
feet.
~Decks will be allowed into A of the side yard setback for Lots 1,3 and 4.
~Deck space will not be considered in the calculation of any coverage ratio.
Staff is supportive of the amendment to the PD-R for Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of the
Lagniappe Addition as proposed by the developers and the neighbors.To staffs
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant's were present representing the request.There were registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
Mr.Larry Chisenhall addressed the Commission on the merits of the request.He
stated the original request was to change the lot lines between Lots 2 and 3
increasing the lot area of Lot 2 to allow the 32 percent building coverage to be
met.He stated after working with the neighborhood a compromise was reached
to increase the allowable coverage and defining certain aspects of the
development.One of which was building height.
Ms.Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She
stated the League of Women Voters did not support the request.She stated the
developers knew the rules and chose to not abide by the rules.She stated if the
developers violated the rules they should not be rewarded.She stated a
decision should be made to send a message to the development community.
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
Ms.Susan Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She
stated her home was located on Ash and I Streets just west of the site.She
stated the original approval was worked on and agreed upon by the
neighborhood the developers,the Planning Commission and the Board of
Directors.She stated the developers did not honor the commitments made.She
stated her main concerns were building height,setbacks and no net gain.She
stated the unfinished space constructed in the existing home should be removed
from the remaining homes yet to be constructed.She stated the developers had
committed to construct homes which fit the character of the neighborhood along
with providing architectural features consistent with the housing stock in the area.
She stated the neighborhood had invested their lives in their homes and felt the
neighborhood character should be maintained.
Mr.Jim Vandenburg addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He
stated he was distressed by what was being built.He stated the basic opinion
was the developers had a disregard for the rules and regulations from the original
agreement.He stated the 600 square feet of unfinished space looked like it
could be finished with little effort.
Mr.Scott Smith,President of the Hillcrest Resident's Association addressed the
Commission.He stated the Resident's Association was not opposed to or in
support of the request.He stated the height of the house in the rear put a
spotlight on the structure.He stated with the agreement the height and setback
concerns had been addressed.He stated the spacing between the houses had
been increased and the lot coverage increased.He stated the basic concepts of
the agreement were important to the fabric of the neighborhood.He stated the
Resident's Association did not support the allowance of the 600 square feet of
unfinished space.He stated the area had been floored which would allow this
space to be finished with little effort by adding drywall,heat and air.He stated
the area was clearly square footage which exceeded the allowable square
footage contained in the home.He stated the Resident's Association was in a
Grass Roots effort the define an overlay district or local ordinance district which
would provide staff with technical information to help with future developments.
He stated once staff was engaged they could clearly define floor area ratios and
ridge heights which was included in the proposed agreement.He stated the
Resident's Association supported the agreement but not the allowance of the 600
square feet of unfinished space and they felt this area should be removed from
the remaining structures for a no net gain of square footage for the development.
Mr.Chisenhall stated the all the imposed conditions had been met with the
exception of the lot coverage.He stated the lot coverage was an oversight by
both the builder and City staff.He stated the rear wall was constructed to hold
up the back of the house.He stated once the area was defined it was floored for
storage.He stated the area was never intended for livable space.He stated the
house under construction was less than the allowable 3,500 square feet.He
stated a total of 16,000 square feet was allowed through the approval contained
on four lots.He stated the 600 square feet of unfinished space could not be
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO:Z-7722 A
finished without a violation of the PD-R.He stated there was no equitable way of
removing the 600 square feet and if require would be difficult to enforce.Staff
stated if this was a condition of approval the Commission would need to
determine where the 600 square feet would be removed.The Commission
questioned the roof pitch of the house under construction.Mr.Chisenhall stated
the roof pitch was 10/12 or 12/12.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposal and the previous
commitments made.Commissioner Meyer stated the developers had pitched the
development as in fill development which would be compatible to the existing
neighborhood.He stated the previous approval was quiet contentious and the
developers had ensure the Commission and the Board the development would fit
the neighborhood.He stated he did not feel this was the case.
Commissioner Williams questioned staff how they would ensure the 600 square
feet would not be finished space by the future homeowner.Staff stated the
address would be flagged but since a zoning clearance review was not required
on renovation permits it would be difficult.
There was a general discussion concerning the agreement for no loud music.
Staff stated this would be difficult to enforce.Mr.Chisenhall stated his desire
was to not place anything in the agreement that was subjective.He stated this
was an item the neighborhood wanted in the agreement.He stated he was
agreed this would be a difficult item to enforce.He stated the work hours would
be posted on the site and would be attached to all future contracts.He stated the
work hours would be closely monitored by the builder to ensure compliance.
The Commission questioned how the agreement was reached.Mr.Chisenhall
stated the original proposal was to adjust the lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 to
allow the lot coverage to comply with the previous approval.Mr.Chisenhall
stated after meeting with the neighborhood and the adjoining property owners it
was determined there was a way to reach a compromise without creating an odd
shaped lot.
A motion was made to approve the request.The motion carried by a vote of 8
ayes,1 no and 2 absent.
9
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Z-7783-C
NAME:Miracle Development Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION:located at 14929 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Miracle Development
8015 Stagecoach Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
ENGINEER:
Global Surveying Consultants Inc.
217 West 2"Street,Suite 100
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.21 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:0-2,Office and Institutional Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant submitted a proposal to rezone the site from R-2,Single-family to PCD to
allow the construction of a two-bay automatic carwash facility with three vacuum
stations along Cantrell Road with the addition of a future third bay.The Little Rock
Planning Commission denied this rezoning request at their April 14,2005,Public
Hearing.
The applicant also submitted a requested rezoning of the property located at 14929
Cantrell Road from R-2,Single-family District to 0-3,General Office District for future
office development.The Little Rock Planning Commission denied this request at their
April 28,2005,Public Hearing.
Ordinance No.19,356 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 1,2005,
established Miracle Development Short-form POD.The approval rezoned the site from
R-2,Single-family to POD to allow a conceptual site plan for a future office
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
development.A maximum building footprint of 20,000 square feet and a maximum
building height of 35-feet or two stories was approved.Landscape buffers and building
setbacks consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District along the north,south
and western perimeters of the site were approved and a reduced landscape buffer
along the eastern perimeter of the site of 20-feet was also approved.A 30-foot side
yard setback along the western perimeter of the site and a 20-foot building setback
along the eastern perimeter of the site were proposed and both the front and rear yard
building setbacks were indicated at 100-feet.The allowable uses approved for the site
were 0-2,Office and Institutional Uses.As a final development plan was secured,the
applicant was to submit the development plan to the Commission and Board of
Directors for final approval through a revision to the Planned Office Development.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved conceptual
POD to allow the development of the site with two (2)lots.Lot 1 is proposed to
contain approximately 1.0622 acres with 196.69 feet of frontage on Cantrell Road
and access from the existing Cantrell Road driveway curb cut.Lot 2 which
currently contains two (2)single-family residences,is proposed with
approximately 1.1478 acres with access from a 24-foot common access drive to
be constructed along the west property line of Lot 1.The use of Lot 2 is
proposed for the operation of a Montessori School.
The buyer of Lot 2 will completely renovate the existing red brick home with an
approximately 2,500 square foot addition as indicated on the site plan.The
existing buff brick house will be used for future expansion of the school with the
addition of approximately 1,300 square feet as indicated on the site plan.The
remaining Lot 1 will be available for sale for the development of a one story,
maximum 6,600 square foot office building with 24 parking spaces.The
applicant is proposing 0-1 office uses for the building.
According to the applicant the development would reduce the previously
approved maximum square foot of development on the site from 40,000 square
feet to 16,600 square feet.The development of Lot 2 as a Montessori School will
have much less negative impact on the adjoining residential neighbors than the
20,000 square foot building footprint which is currently approved located on Lot
2.The proposed Buyer of Lot 2 will simply renovate and improve the existing
residential structures on the property that the surrounding neighborhood is
familiar with and keep almost all of the existing trees with additional landscaping.
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains two (2)single-family residential structures,with a
single access drive from Cantrell Road.Single-family residences are located on
the property immediately west and south of the site.A mixture of residential,
office and commercial uses and zoning exists to the west along Cantrell Road.
Single-family residential and office uses and zoning is located across Cantrell
Road to the north.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Westbury Neighborhood Association,the Westchester
Neighborhood Association,the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association,all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who could
be identified,located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Provide the direction of storm water flow.Provide expected storm water
quantities.Provide sketch grading and drainage plan showing proposed
drainage and grading for future site development.Additional easements for
future storm water improvements may be required.
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.Westchester Subdivision to the west has a history of flooding problems.
Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5.Private access is proposed for the lots.In accordance with Section 31-207,
private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets.A
minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street width of 31
feet from back of curb to back of curb.Sidewalk should be installed on the
east side of street.Provide access easement.
6.Sidewalks along Cantrell Road with appropriate handicap ramps are required
in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
7.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,to serve the
proposed development.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT &T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge based
on the size of the connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.A water main extension will be required to serve Lot 2.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.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
FEED IR I:I tilt hyd tP'd.d t tthvltl ~kFI
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~Ct Pl I:N
CATA:The site is located on CATA Bus Route ¹25—the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin 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 previously approved "Conceptual"POD to allow
the development of the site with a Montessori School and an office building.The
school is proposing the utilization of the existing red brick structure with a 2500
square foot addition and the buff brick structure with a 1300 square foot addition.
~Bi I Pl:E I tl g p p ddt I,II,Ill hlk y tl th
immediate vicinity of the development.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
Master Street Plan:Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan.The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic
and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and
pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial.These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Infrastructure goal states that the neighborhoods need to "have an adequate
infrastructure network,including sidewalks,roadways,and drainage systems,
within the neighborhood which is designed and works to produce a safe and
attractive neighborhood environment."
I d
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.All previous comments apply.
3.The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires a 25 foot wide landscape area
along the side and rear perimeters.Currently,the proposed driveway
encroaches into this area.
4.A 10 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the western and eastern
perimeters adjacent to the residentially zoned property.Seventy percent (70%)of
this buffer is to remain undisturbed.Currently,the proposed driveway
encroaches into this area along the western perimeter.
5.A 33 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the southern perimeter next
to the residentially zoned property.Seventy percent (70%)of this buffer is to
remain undisturbed.
6.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the western,
eastern,and southern perimeters next to the residentially zoned property.
7.The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine foot wide landscape strip
along the eastern and western perimeters of the site.Along the western property
line the driveway encroaches into this area.A variance must be obtained from
the City Beautiful Commission to allow this reduction.
8.Berming is encouraged along Cantrell Road.
9.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required to water landscaped areas.
10.Since the site is being reviewed as a single development plan,prior to the
issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide landscape plans
stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect for each of the
proposed lots.
11.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on tree covered sites.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
Mr.Ed Willis 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 stated the indicated site plan did not allow for
the minimum landscape strip,building setback and driveway spacing as required
by the Overlay District and the Master Street Plan.Staff also stated the indicated
site plan did not provide the location of the proposed dumpster facilities,
proposed signage or details of the proposed playground screening.Staff
requested the applicant provide the total number of employees,the total number
of students and the hours of operation of the facility.Staff also questioned if
there would be after school activities and the number of events anticipated and
the occurrence of the events.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the site plan did not
provide the location of the proposed detention,the indicated drive was not
adequate to meet typical minimum ordinance standards and the site plan did not
include improvements required to Cantrell Road.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District typically required a minimum landscape strip of 25-feet around
the perimeters of the site.Staff stated the Landscape Ordinance required a
minimum landscape strip of nine (9)feet and any variance from this requirement
would require City Beautiful Commission approval.Staff stated the indicated
drive did not allow the minimum landscape strip as required by the Landscape
Ordinance.
Mr.Willis stated to develop the site meeting all the minimum requirements was
not economically feasible.He stated the proposed use of the site was less
intense than was currently approved.He stated the developers were limiting the
buildings to single story buildings and lessening the allowable square footage on
the site.Staff stated limiting the use of the site to this Montessori School,
providing the minimum landscape strip of nine (9)feet,relocating the driveway to
not encroach onto the neighboring property,indicating the improvements to
Highway 10 on the site plan,indicating the driveway as an access easement and
showing the detention of the proposed site plan would address a number of
staff's concerns.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
indicated the days and hours of operation,the number of students and the
number of employees.The applicant has also relocated the proposed driveway
away from the property line,provided the location of the proposed dumpsters and
provided the minimum landscape strip along the western perimeter.
The applicant is proposing a modification to the previously approved Planned
Office Development to allow the creation of a two (2)lot plat and the future
development of the site with a Montessori School on Lot 2 and a single story
6,600 square foot office building located on Lot 1.Lot 1 is proposed to contain
approximately 1.0622 acres with 196.69feet of frontage on Cantrell Road and
access from the existing Cantrell Road driveway curb cut.Lot 2 is proposed with
approximately 1.1478 acres with access from a 24-foot common access drive to
be constructed along the west property line of Lot 1.The Highway 10 Design
Overlay District typically requires a two (2)acre minimum lot size and building
sites are to be limited to one building per every two (2)acres.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation for the school are
Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 6:00 pm.The hours of operation for the
office portion of the development are 7:00 am to 7:00 pm daily.
There are 100 students with 15 employees.Twenty (20)students will participate
in the one-half day program,50 students in the full day program with staggered
discharge times from 2:45 to 3:15 pm.There are 25 —30 students participating
in extended program.These students will participate in after school arts and
crafts programs.Of the 15 employees,seven (7)are full time employees and
eight (8)are part time employees.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of two (2)dumpsters on the site;
one dumpster will be provided on each lot.The dumpsters have been located
along the eastern perimeter and a note has been included concerning the
required screening.The dumpster service hours have been limited to 7:00 am to
7:00 pm or daylight hours only.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a nine (9)foot landscape strip
along the western perimeter and a minimum of nine (9)feet along the eastern
perimeter.The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the
placement of a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of 25-feet from the
property line along the sides and rear yards and a 40-foot landscape strip located
along the front yard adjacent to Highway 10.The indicated landscape strip along
the eastern perimeter of Lots 1 and 2 appears to comply with the typical
minimum Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The plan does not appear meet
the typically minimum landscaping requirement per the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District along the western perimeter of Lot 1.
Lot 2 is proposed with a complete renovation of the existing red brick home with
an approximate 2,500 square foot addition along the western and southern
portions of the structure.The existing buff brick house will be used for future
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
expansion of the school with the addition of approximately 1,300 square feet
along the western portion of the structure.Lot 1 will be available for sale for the
development of a one story,maximum 6,600 square foot office building with 24
parking spaces.
The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the placement of a 40-
foot building setback along the side and rear yard setbacks and a 100-foot
building line adjacent to Highway 10.The indicated site plan includes the
required building setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the rear portion of the site.
The site plan does not indicate the required setback along the eastern and
western perimeters.The building proposed for Lot 1 has been shown with a 20-
foot setback along the eastern perimeter of the site and a proposed addition to
the existing structure located on Lot 2 along the western portion of the site has
been indicated with a 30-foot building setback.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a 24-foot drive placed in an
access easement to serve Lot 2.Staff is not supportive of the drive width.Staff
feels the drive should be constructed with a 36-foot opening at Cantrell Road to
allow three lanes of traffic tapering to a 31-foot drive the length of Lot 1 after
which tapering to a 24-foot drive as proposed.
The site plan indicates the placement two (2)detention areas both located on Lot
1.Staff feels the detention area should be increased in size allowing additional
storage area due to the history of flooding of the properties located to the west of
this site.
The site plan for Lot 1 indicates the placement of 24 parking spaces.Based on
the typical minimum ordinance standards for an office building,16 parking
spaces would be required.Lot 2 is proposed with 22 parking spaces.The
developer has indicated there will be 15 employees;seven (7)full time and eight
(8)part time employees.Five classrooms are proposed.Parking is typically
required at one space per classroom plus one space for each teacher,employee
and administrator.Stacking space for drop-of and pick-up is also required on the
site.The indicated parking for the school is adequate to meet the typical
minimum parking standards.
The proposed playground area has been shown along the western perimeter of
the site and a six (6)foot fence has been placed to screen the play area.
Staff has concerns with the proposed redevelopment of the site as indicated.
Staff is supportive of the proposed use as a private school with a future office
building but staff is not supportive of the drive and detention storage as
proposed.As noted above,staff feels the drive should be increased to a
commercial street standard through Lot 1 and the driveway width at the street
constructed to allow three lanes,a right turn lane,a left turn lane and a entrance
lane.Staff also feels the detention area should be increased to reduced any
potential flooding problems to the adjoining subdivision.
8
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had
addressed their concerns and they were now supportive of the request.Staff
stated the driveway width had been increased and the proposed detention had
also been increased to meet staff initial concerns prompting their original
recommendation of denial.
Mr.Kelton Price addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant.He
stated his firm had worked with staff to address the flooding issues.He stated
the development needed 1800 cubic feet of detention storage and the proposal
included 5000 cubic feet of detention storage.He stated the detention would be
provided in the first phase of development as requested by staff.He stated the
drive would be constructed to a commercial street standard and an eight foot
fence would be provided along the western property line as requested by the
Westchester Neighborhood Association.
Mr.Michael Sarr addressed the Commission in support of the request.He
stated the developers had meet with the neighborhood prior to the Commission
meeting and had met most of their concerns.He stated the neighborhood
association was in support of allowing the existing structures on the site to be
located within the previously imposed 100 foot building setback but wanted to
ensure any future development of the site would maintain the previously
imposed 100-foot building setback along the rear portion of the site.He stated
the neighborhood wanted to limit the allowable uses for proposed Lot 1 to those
of office uses.
Ms.Celia Martin addressed the Commission in support of the request.She
stated the development was less intense than the original approval which was
appealing to the neighborhood.She stated the total allowed square footage,
building height and uses were less intense than the originally approved
conceptual POD.She stated it was important to the neighborhood that the 100
foot rear building setback be maintained on any future development.She stated
the neighborhood was appreciative of the developer and the City working with
the neighborhood to ensure a compatible development.
Mr.Bob Altoff addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He
stated the neighborhood had concerns with flooding and had requested relief
from the Board of Directors since the 1990's.He stated City staff had reviewed
the flooding problems and determined and undersized pipe from Westchester
Court and the outlet being lower than Taylor Loop Creek were parts of the
problem.He stated the location of the pipe in Taylor Loop Creek created head
9
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
pressure which in turn backed water into the street causing street flooding.He
stated the water would reach three and one-half feet in the road before getting
relief through resident's yards.He stated the developers would provide
detention at the 10 year flows but the water all flowed into the Westchester
Basin.He stated with the undersized pipe the basin could not accept any
additional water.He stated all the water from the proposed development should
be force piped to Highway 10 and taken to the Taylor Loop Creek beyond the
Westchester Subdivision.He stated with the creation of additional buildings and
additional asphalt there would be addition water released on the neighborhood.
He stated water was within 3-inches of this neighbor's home earlier in the
spring.Mr.Altoff provided the Commission with photos taken which showed the
severity of the spring rain.He stated without a serious effort by the City the
homes would flood if additional water was allowed to be released into the
Westchester Basin.He stated the Commission could send a message for
development and future development by requiring all storm water to be piped to
Highway 10 and not allowing any additional water to be released into the
Westchester Basin.
Mr.Price stated he had contacted the Highway Department to see if the water
could be piped to their inlet on Highway 10.He stated he was willing to commit
to piping the water from the building and parking lot for proposed Lot 1 to
Highway 10 if the Highway Department would accept the water.He stated this
was reviewed at the time the adjoining property to the east was proposed
development and the Highway Department had required the developers to
install a new pipe to pipe the water to Taylor Loop Creek.He stated this site
was not proposed to join the piping project since the pipe was higher than the
site.He stated with the approval of the conceptual POD this site was not
required to pipe to Highway 10 and was slated to drain to the Westchester
Drainage Basin.He stated this was a small site which could not fix the
drainage problems of the Westchester Subdivision unless the entire site was
held for detention storage.
There was a general discussion concerning the flooding problems of the
Westchester Subdivision.Staff stated a study had been done and the problem
was an undersized pipe and the location of the outlet in Taylor Loop Creek.
Staff stated maintenance to the creek was also preformed which did reduce
restrictions in the creek.Staff stated Westchester was built in the floodplain
and all the homes were constructed on fill.Staff stated the flooding would
continue to be a problem.Staff stated a capital improvement project was
necessary to correct the problem but one was not scheduled.
Mr.Ed Willis stated it would be difficult to get the Highway Department to
accept the water from the development.He stated his firm had done a number
of projects along Highway 10 and very seldom did the Highway Department
accept any additional storm water.
10
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:12.Cont.Z-7783-C
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and
requiring the developers to force all storm water to Highway 10.The
Commission stated the developers had committed to taking the water to
Highway 10 if the Highway Department would accept the water.Mr.Altoff
requested the Commission deny the request unless the water was taken out of
the Westchester Basin.The Commission stated they could not force the State
Highway Department to accept the storm water.
A motion was made to approve the request.The motion carried by a vote of 8
ayes,1 no and 2 absent.
11
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Z-7837-A
NAME:Fairhills Circle Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:located on the Southeast corner of West Markham Street and Fairhills
Circle
DEVELOPER:
Rodney Chandler
P.O.Box 22021
Little Rock,AR 72221
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Surveying
Autumn Road
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:0.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Townhouse development —4 units
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.19,357 on August 1,2005,
establishing Fairhills Circle Short-form PD-R.The applicant proposed the development
of this site with two patio homes through a Planned Residential Development.The
applicant indicated each of the homes would be contained on individual lots with a
shared driveway through a cross access easement extending from Fairhills Circle.The
applicant indicated each of the homes would contain a minimum of 1,600 square feet of
heated and cooled space and be constructed of brick or brick and siding fronts with
siding on the sides and rears.The applicant indicated each of the units would have a
two car garage,three bedrooms,two or two and one half baths and each of the units
would have usable living space outdoors.Fencing was proposed along the southern
property line as well as a retaining wall with a maximum height of six feet.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved PD-R to
allow the development of four units on the site.Fair Hills Court is a planned
residential development that will blend the traditional architecture with 21"
Century construction to consist of four (4)town homes.The proposed homes will
consist of two (2)bedrooms,great room,one full and one half bathroom,dining
area and kitchen.All the homes will have a traditional exterior with accent decor.
Interior amenities will include travertine tile,carpet,hardwood flooring,granite tile
kitchen counter tops,marble bathrooms,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,transom windows,
architectural roof shingles,landscaped lawns and automatic sprinkler systems.
Roof pitch elevations will be a minimum of 6/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the
development and blend in with neighboring homes.The homes will have a
minimum front set back of 25 feet from West Markham Street and 15 feet of set
back in the rear with wooden privacy fencing planned for the east and south
sides of the development.Additionally,trees to the south and north will remain
as to create a natural landscaped green space around the development thus
providing additional privacy for residents and surrounding homes.
The approximate square footage of the homes is 1,150 square feet of heated and
cooled space.The development is proposed to attract single professionals and
couples.The homes are anticipated to lease for $1,200.00 per month.The
entrance to the development will be from Fairhills Circle and accent lighting and
extensive landscaping with substantial green space is planned to promote an
appealing environment that compliments the neighborhood and promotes
increased property values.Additionally,all lawn and common areas within Fair
Hills Court will be maintained by the developer.The common maintenance of the
property reinforces the quality that has been planned,and will continue to be
stressed throughout the residential development.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located near the West Markham/Mississippi Avenue intersection.The
area is predominately single-family with a church located at the southeast corner
of Mississippi Avenue and West Markham Street and an elementary school
located on West Markham west of the site.Fairhills Circle is a narrow residential
street with five homes located on the cul-de-sac.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Briarwood Neighborhood Association,all owners of property
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
located within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,
located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with
special standards.A dedication of right-of-way 40 feet from centerline will be
required (special reduced standard for Markham Street is 70 feet with 80 feet
near intersections).
2.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Markham Street and Fairhills Circle.
3.Signage cannot be located within right-of-way.
4.Due to excess terrain,provide grading and drainage plan showing existing
and proposed contours.Provide heights of walls,building pad elevations,
and slopes.Wall heights cannot exceed 15 feet and slopes must be 3:1 or
flatter.
5.Fairhills Circle is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be required.
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.Landscape island should be removed due to access problems in and out of
development.Several of the parking spaces have no room for vehicle
backing movements.The two (2)parking spaces on the north should be
removed due to backing problems.Parking should be redesigned and could
require driveway to be relocated.
8.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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).
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.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 5 T:No comment received.
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge based
on the size of the 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.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
~pi P t:I tilt hyd t p d.d t tth tgl ~kFI
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~dpi I:N
CATA:The site is located on CATA Bus Route ¹5—the West Markham Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District)to PD-R (Planned
Development -Residential)for construction of two duplex units on the lots.
Because of the small scale of this project staff believes an amendment to the
Land Use Plan is not applicable at this time.
~gi I Pl:g*l tl g p p ddt I,II,Ill hlk y tl th
immediate vicinity of the development.
Master Street Plan:Fairhills Circle is shown as a Local Street and West
Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan.The
primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties and
the purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban
area.This site is near the Mississippi Street-Markham Street intersection,which
is oftentimes congested during peak travel times.In the event of approval of this
application staff feels that access to the duplexes should be off of Fairhills Circle,
the Local Street,to minimize impact on Markham Street,a Minor Arterial.West
Markham Street and Fairhills Circle may require dedication of right-of-way,may
require street and sidewalk improvements.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Action Plan.The Land Use and
Zoning goal is "To maintain the character of homes in the Briarwood
Neighborhood,"with an action statement,"Identify rental property in the
neighborhood to maintain the character of the neighborhood."This
neighborhood action plan indicates a concern for rental property in the
neighborhood.This proposal would construct two new duplexes,which may or
may not result in rental units.
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
~Ed
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.The two separate parking spaces currently encroach into the minimum 9
foot wide street buffer and the minimum 9 foot wide landscape strip.The
City Beautiful Commission must approve a variance.
3.The proposed structures encroach into the 9 foot wide land use buffer
along the eastern perimeter of the site.Seventy percent (70%)of this
buffer is to remain undisturbed.Easements cannot count towards meeting
this minimum requirement.
4.The southern perimeter is also required to have a minimum 9 foot wide
land use buffer.Seventy percent (70%)of this buffer is to remain
undisturbed.
5.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the
southern and the eastern perimeters next to the residentially zoned
property.
6.It appears the maneuvering area within the parking lot could be reduced
allowing for more green space on the site.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
Mr.Rodney Chandler was present representing the request.Staff stated the
developers were requesting to revise a previously approved PD-R to allow the
development of two (2)duplex units on the site which contained one half acre
and two (2)lots.Staff stated there were a number of outstanding issues
associated with the request.Staff questioned the need for a development sign.
Mr.Chandler stated he would remove the sign request from the application.Staff
also stated the trash pick-up location would need to be coordinated with the
Public Works Department to ensure the site was accessible for collection.Staff
questioned if any decks,porches or patios were proposed.Staff also noted the
location of all proposed fencing was required on the site plan.Staff requested
the applicant provide elevations and construction materials proposed.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
was required at the intersection of Fairhills Circle and West Markham Street.
Staff also stated dedications would be required on West Markham and Fairhills
Circle.Staff stated the two (2)parking spaces on the north should be removed
due to backing problems within the proposed parking area.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the two parking spaces
interfered with the required street buffer.Mr.Chandler stated the parking spaces
would be removed from the revised site plan.Staff noted the eastern perimeter
did not meet the minimum land use buffer requirement of nine feet.Staff stated
easements could not count toward meeting this minimum requirement.
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
noted the location of the proposed fencing,provided elevations and the
construction materials.A radial dedication has been included on the proposed
site plan as requested by the Public Works Department.The revised site plan
also indicates the placement of the required land use buffer along the eastern
perimeter.
The site plan indicates the site contains a total of 15,892 square feet (0.36 acres)
with a total building coverage of 4,637 square feet (34.2%)and a total
landscaped area of 8,015 square feet (47.8%).The Planned Zoning District
Ordinance requires a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of the site area be
designated as common usable open space and a minimum of 500 square feet of
usable private open space per unit.The site plan includes private patio areas for
each of the units separated with a six foot wooden fence.The indicated common
and private open space are adequate to meet the typical minimum requirements
of the ordinance.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six foot wood fence along the eastern
and southern perimeters of the site to provide screening for the adjoining single-
family homes.A 19-foot building setback has been indicated along the eastern
perimeter and a 20-foot building setback along the southern perimeter to allow an
adequate land use buffer to the adjoining homes.The applicant has also
indicated Leeland Cypress trees will be planted on the south side of the
development to provide additional privacy for residents and the surrounding
homes.
The site plan indicates the placement of eight on site parking spaces.The
development is proposed with a total of four units.Based on the typical minimum
parking required for a multi-family development six parking spaces would
typically be required.The indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical
minimum parking required.
The applicant has provided building elevations which appear as a two story
Brownstone architecture.The roof is proposed with a 6/12 elevation with
architectural shingles.The construction materials proposed are brick on all four
sides,precast keystones,brick quoins and,transom windows.
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:13.Cont.Z-7837-A
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development.Staff is not supportive of
the density,parking court and the massing of the structures.The area is
designated as Single Family on the City's Future Land Use Plan.The developer
is proposing the placement of duplex units on two previously platted lots with a
surface parking area in front of the buildings to serve the units.In staff's opinion
the development as proposed does not give the appearance of a single-family
development but more of a multi-family development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
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 August 2,2006,requesting the item be deferred to the
September 14,2006,public hearing.Staff stated the deferral request would
require a By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request date.Staff stated
they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request.The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.The Chair entertained a
motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral.The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Z-8077
NAME:Energy Master Home Short-form PD-C
LOCATION:located at 20801 Colonel Glenn Road
DEVELOPER:
Energy Master
20801 Colonel Glenn Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:4.74 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential —Non-conforming Heating and Air
Conditioning Service and Installation Company and Gun and Ammo Shop
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-C
PROPOSED USE:Heating and Air Conditioning Service and Installation Company and
Gun and Ammo Shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements to Colonel Glenn Road.
2.A variance to allow an increased driveway width for the existing drive.
A.P ROPOSAL:
Currently Energy Master Home,Inc.is operating all aspects of this business from
the office and warehouse located at 20801 Colonel Glenn Road.The company
is a complete heating and air conditioning service and installation company.The
company uses blown cellulose,installs vapor barriers and does complete energy
audits for customers.The warehouse contains stock items frequently used in
daily operations.The hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday
through Friday.The company employees eleven persons and maintains nine
vehicles.Four of the vehicles are stored on the site over night with the remaining
vehicles driven by employees to their homes.Each of the vehicles typically
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
accesses the site two to three times per day to restock items for job site
installation.
There is an existing six by five sign located in front of the business along the east
side of the driveway.No additional signage is being requested as a part of the
application request.There is an existing semi-trailer located on the front parking
area used to store the cellulose insulation.The storage is necessary because
the material is delivered by the semi-trailer load.The company that supplies the
cellulose insulation trades the semi-trailer each time orders are received to
eliminate the need for handling the material a number of times.
The company is proposing a three to five year building plan beginning with the
construction of a 40-foot by 60-foot office building.Soon after completion of the
new office building,construction of the covered parking is proposed.After the
completion of these two buildings an addition to the existing warehouse is
proposed.The long term plan includes the placement of a single-family
residence along the southern portion of the site.
The owner of the site also operates a gun and ammo shop from the site.The
business has been in operation since 2000.
The request includes a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirement to Colonel
Glenn Road for five years and a variance from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to
allow an increase driveway width for the existing drive.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently houses a commercial business with the office located in a
converted single-family home.There is a warehouse located along the western
perimeter of the site.The site has a significant elevation change sloping upward
from Colonel Glenn Road to the south.There are a number of uses in the area
including residential and non-residential uses.There are single-family homes
located on large tracts,auto sales and auto repair.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from the area residents.The
Crystal Valley Property Owners Association,all residents who could be identified
located within 300 feet of the site and all property owners located within 200-feet of
the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
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.With the site development,provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvements to the street
including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
3.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
2
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The width of driveway must not
exceed 36 feet and be located in the center of the property.
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:Outside the service boundary.No comment.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
AT 8 T:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.Approval of the City of Little Rock
Planning Department is required prior to water service availability to this property.
This property is subject to a special monthly assessment by Salem Water Users
P.W.A.which would be due with their water billing.Contact Central Arkansas Water
at 377-1225 for additional information.
~Fi 0 d:dtd d I d dd.P Id Itt t td
volunteer fire department indicating their knowledge of the project and their ability to
serve the development.
~CPI
1.Provide a new survey and site plan.The submitted materials are inaccurate.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the West Fourche Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a rezoning of this property to Planned Commercial Development to
allow an existing business to expand by the construction of additional buildings
for covered parking and a warehouse facility.Since the use is existing,it is a
home-based business and there is no significant addition in land area of non-
residential use,the proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use
Plan,which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan:Colonel Glenn is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
3
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
Street Plan.A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area
and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized
area.Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic
and pedestrians on the Arterial.These streets may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements.
~gi I Pl:E*I Ig ~p p ddl I,II,IIIBIk p tt tk
immediate vicinity of the development
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~td
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.The street buffer requirement along Colonel Glenn Road should average 46 feet in
width,and in no case be less than 23 feet.The proposed plan reflects a building in
this area.The structures should be moved south,out of this area.
3.A 16 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the eastern and western
perimeters adjacent to the residentially zoned property.Seventy percent (70%)of
this buffer is to remain undisturbed.Currently,the plan reflects a building proposed
within this area.The structure should be relocated out of this area.
4.A 46 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the southern perimeter
adjacent to the residentially zoned property.Seventy percent (70%)of this buffer is
to remain undisturbed.Unless,this structure is to be used as a residence.
5.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the southern,eastern
and western perimeters adjacent to the residentially zoned property.
6.Additional landscaping may be required in conjunction with any new parking areas.
7.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required for all new landscaped areas.
8.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
9.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible on tree covered sites.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(July 13,2006)
The applicants were 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 activities currently
taking place on the site and questioned the immediate plans for redevelopment
of the site.Staff also questioned the number of employees and the days and
hours of operation.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated street improvements to
4
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
Colonel Glenn Road would be required per the Master Street Plan.Staff
suggested the applicant seek a five (5)year deferral of the improvements which
could be supported by staff.Staff stated the existing driveway did not meet
ordinance standards.Staff stated the maximum driveway width allowed was 36-
feet.Mr.Finkbeiner stated the driveway was 40-feet and was necessary to
facilitate large truck maneuvering onto the site.Staff stated a variance for the
driveway width would also be supported since the drive was existing.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated screening was required
around the perimeters of the site where abutting residentially zoned or used
property.Staff stated this would include the future home site area unless the
structure would be used solely as a residence.Staff stated a few of the indicated
buildings were located within the required land use buffer areas.Staff suggested
the applicant relocate the structures away from property lines to allow the
buffering as required by ordinance.
Mr.Finkbeiner questioned the requirement of a 40-foot building setback around
the perimeter of the site.Staff suggested the applicant contact the County
directly concerning their comments.Staff stated in some cases the County
would relinquish their required setbacks to those required by the zoning
ordinance.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification.There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter addressing most of the issues
raised at the July 13,2006,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated the immediate plans for redevelopment of the site,the number of
employees and the days and hours of operation.The applicant has also
indicated screening will be provided around the perimeters of the site to comply
with the minimum buffer and landscape ordinance requirements.
The company employees eleven persons and maintains nine vehicles.Four of
the vehicles are stored on the site over night and the remaining vehicles are
driven home by the employees.Each of the vehicles typically accesses the site
two to three times per day to restock items for job site installation.There is an
office assistant on site during normal business hours.The typical business hours
are from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
The immediate plan is to construct a 40-foot by 60-foot office building.Soon
after completion of the new office building,construction of a covered vehicle
parking structure is proposed.After the completion of these two buildings an
addition to the existing warehouse is proposed.The applicant has indicated a
5
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
three to five year build out for completion of the commercial buildings.The long
term plan includes the placement of a single-family residence along the southern
portion of the site
The request includes a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirement to Colonel
Glenn Road for five years and a variance from Sections 30-43 and 31-210 to
allow an increased driveway width for the existing drive.The applicant has
indicated the driveway is existing and the 40 foot driveway width is necessary to
accommodate truck traffic entering the site.Staff is supportive of the deferral
request and the request to allow the existing drive to remain with a 40-foot
opening.
Currently Energy Master Home,Inc.is operating all aspects of their business
from the office and warehouse located at the site.The company is a complete
heating and air conditioning service and installation company.The company
uses blown cellulose,installs vapor barriers and does complete energy audits for
customers.The warehouse contains stock items frequently used in daily
operations.The owner of the site also operates a gun and ammo shop from the
site.The gun and ammo business has been in operation since 2000.
The office activities for Energy Master Home,Inc.are being conducted from a
converted single-family residence located near the northern portion of the
property.There is an existing six by five sign located in front of the business
along the east side of the driveway.No additional signage is being requested as
a part of the application request.There is an existing semi-trailer located on the
front parking area used to store the cellulose insulation.The storage is
necessary since the material is delivered by the semi-trailer load,which is traded
each time orders are received,to eliminate the need for handling the material an
increased number of times.
Energy Master Home,Inc.has been operating from this site since the early
1990's.At the time the business was established,the site was located outside
the City's Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction.Staff is supportive of the
allowance of some expansion of commercial activity on the site but staff has
concerns with the degree of expansion the applicant is proposing.The site is
shown as Single Family on the City's Future Land Use Plan.Typically,when
existing businesses located within the planning boundary have requested
rezoning to allow conformance,staff has supported the request and not required
a Land Use Plan amendment to be filed.In some cases,staff has supported a
small degree of expansion of the existing businesses when staff has felt there
would not be a significant change in the character of the development or provide
a significant impact on the adjoining properties.In staff's opinion the
development as proposed will change the character of the site.Staff feels with
the expansion of the warehouse building and the construction of a new office
building,the site will no longer appear as a rural residential home site.Staff is
not opposed to the rehabilitation of the existing structure for the office use and
the construction of the covered parking on the site.The office is currently located
on the site in the former home and the vehicles are currently being stored on the
site and in staffs opinion the construction of a structure to allow protection of the
vehicles will minimally impact the area.
6
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:14.Cont.Z-8077
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Ricky Finkbeiner addressed the Commission on the merits of his request.He
stated he was unaware he could provide the Commission with photo's,petitions
and additional information to support his case.Chairman Stebbins asked Mr.
Finkbeiner if he would prefer to defer the item to allow him addition time to
prepare his presentation.Mr.Finkbeiner questioned if any one had been to the
site to view the proposed location for building construction.Staff stated the
location of the construction was not the issue.Their concern was the expansion
of the non-residential use.Staff suggested Mr.Finkbeiner defer the item to allow
addition time for them to meet with him and discuss their opposition and
determine if there was an application that would be agreeable to both staff and
the applicant.
Mr.Finkbeiner stated a deferral was acceptable.The Chair entertained a motion
to defer the item to the September 14,2006,public hearing.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:15.Z-7839
NAME:Summit Heights Short-form PD-R Revocation
LOCATION:located on North Summit Street,just South of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Moses Tucker Real Estate
c/o Jamie Moses
200 South Commerce Street,Suite 300
Little Rock,AR 72201
ENGINEER:
AMR Architects
200 South Commerce Street,Suite 300
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.94 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
ALLOWED USES:Condominium Development Seven (7)Units
PROPOSED ZONING:R-3,Single-family
PROPOSED USE:Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.19,344 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 21,2005,
established Summit Heights Condominiums Short-form PD-R.The rezoning was from
R-3 to PD-R to allow the development of the site with seven units of condominium
housing.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant submitted a request dated June 21,2006,requesting the current
PD-R zoning be revoked and the previous R-3,Single-family District zoning
classification be restored.The applicant has indicated the proposed residential
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.
August 3,2006
ITEM NO.:15.Cont.Z-7839
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a tree covered site with a steep grade change from Summit Street to
Gill Street.Summit Street is a narrow street with no curb,gutter or sidewalk in
place.The area is predominately residential with the immediate area being
single-family.There are duplex and triplex units located to the south of the site
along Summit Street and Markham Street.Uses to the east of the site along Gill
Street include office/warehouse and further east is a private school complex.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents including the neighborhood association.The Capitol View
Neighborhood Association,all residents,who could be identified,located within
300 feet of the site 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-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The applicant was present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for the
revocation of the current PD-R zoning classification and the restoration of the
zoning classification to R-3.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
I
2
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:MSP06-03
Name:Master Street Plan Amendment
Location:Area-wide
~Recast:Add Design Specification Table
Source:City Staff,Traffic Engineering
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
The request is to add a table with design specifications for roads by classification
type of roadway.This table includes the design speed and service volumes,
maximum grades,sight distance requirements,horizontal radii as well as right-of-
way,paving width and sidewalk requirements.The table has been a part of the
Master Street Plan and was inadvertently left out of the draft for the current
Master Street Plan when it was approved.
The table proposed is the same as that in the earlier version of the Master Street
Plan,only updating the citation to a more current version of the ASSTO manual.
The 'Design Specifications'able provides standards for each type of road—
Design Speed,Maximum Grade,Minimum Sight Distance,Minimum Horizontal
Radii,Minimum Horizontal Tangent Distance,Service Volume,Minimum Right-
of-way,Minimum Pavement,and Sidewalks.
The information included in the table is already in the Master Street Plan
document included with each street cross-section within the 'Design
Standards'ection
of the Master Street Plan.The table just provides an easy to use
summary of the standards for all the streets types in one place.When approved
this table will be made a part of 'Section 3:Design Standards'f the Master
Street Plan document.(attached is a copy of the Table)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the ordinance change contact list of some fifty
neighborhood groups,professional organizations,developers and engineers.
Staff has received one comment against the change from a property owner along
the alignment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
ITEM NO:16 CONT FILE NO:MSP06-03
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 3,2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval to august 17,2006.By a vote
Of 9 for,0 against and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
2
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Design Principal Minor Minor
Consideration Ex resswa Arterial Arterial Collector Res.Res.
Design speed 55 45 40 30 25 20
(miles per hour)
Maximum grade 8%8%9%12%15%16%*****
at centerline
Min.sight
550'00'25'00'00'00'istance
at
crest of
vertical curve
Min.horizontal 1700'00'00'75'50'5'**
radius at centerline
(normal crown)
Min.horizontal 1000'00'00'35'/A N/A
radius at centerline
(super-elevated
Cross section)
Min.horizontal 600'00'00'00'0'/A
tangent distance
bet.reverse
curves
Service volume 40,000 25,000 18,000 5,000 2,500 Max.of
35 lots
Min.right-of-way
200'10'0'0'0'5'in.
pavement 48'+s hid 66'****
59'6'6'4'idth
(back to 8 median
back of curb)
Sidewalks may be***both both one one None
required sides sides side side
NOTE:All minimum design standards comply with the 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric
Design Manual,Fourth Edition.All roadway design elements shall be in accordance with the
AASHTO Manual
*Corresponds to a 200 ft.horizontal tangent distance between reserve curves.*Minimum standard corresponds to design speed of 15 mph***Sidewalks may be required in areas of intense development****2 divided 26 ft.lanes with proper provision for future widening.*****may be increased to 18%with approval.
¹No more than 35 lots.
F
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
&r
3
mo
4
C.
MS
~
T
ME
M
B
E
R
C,
h
I
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
LU
C
A
S
LA
H
A
,
TR
O
Y
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
\
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
TA
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
YA
T
E
S
,
J
E
F
F
kC
VL
Ar
o
-
&
b
4
II
I
I
E
M
B
E
R
1&
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
A
@-
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
e
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
L
U
C
A
S
LA
H
A
,
TR
O
Y
v
7
y
e
~
e
~
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
e
e
s
e
ME
Y
E
R
,
J
E
R
R
Y
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
dd
g
g
y
e
e
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
ed
e
dd
'
dd
'
A
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
S
e
e
dd
'
J
'
u'I
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
v'
0
e
~
YA
T
E
S
,
J
E
F
F
J
~
~
J
v'
li
d
dd
t
do
d
d
Pd
M
.
~A
Y
E
+
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
AJ
S
AB
S
T
A
I
N
~R
E
C
U
S
E
August 3,2006
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was
adjourned at 7;15 p.m.
9.ff.Of
e re hairman