pc_12 07 2006sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 7, 2006
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Gary Langlais
Lucas Hargraves
Robert Stebbins
Troy Laha
Mizan Rahman
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: Fred Allen, Jr.
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the October 26, 2006 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
DECEMBER 7, 2006
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. Z-7593-C South Shackleford Hotel Short-form PCD, located in the
800 Block of South Shackleford Road.
B. Z-8116 Arbors Development Short-form PD-R, located on the
Southeast corner of 15th and Cumberland Streets.
C. Z-4663-C The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD, located at
12226 Kanis Road.
D. LU06-18-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain
Planning District a change from Office to Low Density
Residential.
D.1 Z-5758-B The Ridge at Pride Valley Long-form PD-R, located on the
Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Pride Valley Road.
E. Z-6120-M Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form PD-R, located on
the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road.
F. S-1100-I Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat, located on Cooper
Orbit Road, South of Capitol Hills Boulevard.
G. S-1543 Mondari Estates Preliminary Plat, located on the South side
of Denny Road, 0.75 miles East of Ferndale Cut-off.
H. Z-8117 CBM Appraisals Inc, Short-form POD, located at 15924
Cantrell Road.
I. LA-0006-A Colonel Glenn Center Clearing and Wall Construction,
located West of Talley Road, North of Remington Road.
Agenda, Page Two
OLD BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
J. LA-0013 Hockersmith Timber Harvest, located West of I-430 and
South of Bowman Plaza Drive.
K. LA-0014 Boen Timber Harvest, located on the Northwest corner of
Colonel Glenn Road and I-430.
L. LA-0015 Whisenhunt Investments Land Alteration Variance Request,
located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and
Kanis Road western intersection.
M. S-1540 8622 Chicot Road Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at
8622 Chicot Road.
N. LU06-08-04 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City Planning
District for a change from Single Family and Mixed Use to
Office and Neighborhood Commercial at 1401 Bishop
Street and 1311 Bishop Street.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. S-1232-B Bright Point Subdivision Being a Replat of Lot 6R Doyne
Subdivision, located South of Tall Timber Boulevard, East
of Tall Pine Boulevard.
2. S-1407-A Oxford Point Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located South of
57th Street between Hopson Street and Larch Place.
3. S-1424-B Sienna Lake Preliminary Plat, located South of David O
Dodd Road and North of Crystal Valley Road.
Agenda, Page Three
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW :
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
4. S-1550 Herron-Horton Subdivision Site Plan Review and PCD
Revocation, located on the Northeast corner of East 13th
and Spring Streets.
5. S-1551 Chahta Uakni Falama Subdivision Site Plan Review,
located on HWY 365 between Sweet Home and Higgins
Switch.
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
6. LU06-15-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West
Planning District at the southwest corner of Bunch and
Chicot Roads from Commercial and Multi Family to Single
Family.
6.1 Z-3951-F Village on the Green Subdivision Long-form PD-R, located
on the Southwest Corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads.
7. Z-4411-F Pleasant Ridge Town Center Revised Long-form PCD,
located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell and Pleasant
Ridge Roads.
8. Z-4923-D Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-form PCD, located on
the Southwest corner of I-430 and Shackleford Road.
9. Z-4969-D Spring Tree Village Revised Long-form PD-R, located
South of Yarberry Lane and East of Doe Run on Spring
Tree Drive.
10. Z-5139-E Harvest Foods Revised Long-form PCD, located on the
Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road.
Agenda, Page Four
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
11. Z-7723-B Treadway’s Revised Short-form PCD, located at
1115 Jefferson Street.
12. Z-7879-A Boyd Homes Inc. Revised Short-form PD-R, located at
617 Cumberland and 614 Rock Streets.
13. Z-7917-A Verizon Revised Short-form PCD, located at 12018 Chenal
Parkway.
14. Z-7948-A Gillam Photograph Revised Short-form PD-O, located at
1 Portrait Place.
15. Z-8101-A Bishop Street Short-form POD and Central Station
Commercial Retail Center Short-form PCD, located on the
Southwest corner of 14th and Bishop Streets and the
Northwest corner of Daisy Gatson Bates and Martin L. King
Boulevard.
16. LU06-14-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs East
Planning District on the south side of Baseline Road
between Reck Road and Hilaro Springs Road from Low
Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial.
16.1 Z-8129 B’s Mortgage Financial Services Short-form POD, located
at 4001 Baseline Road.
17. Z-8130 Intercity Future Net Short-form POD, located South of 16th
Street between Battery and Wolfe Streets.
18. Z-8131 Muex Short-form PCD, located at 25501 Kanis Road.
19. Z-8132 Cycle Breakers, Inc. Short-form POD, located at
800 Apperson Street.
20. LU06-10-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning
District north of W 29th St. west of John Barrow Road from
Single Family to Low Density Residential.
20.1 Z-8133 Vick Short-form PD-R, Alley Abandonment and Right-of-
way Abandonment for Ludwig, Malloy and West 28th
Streets, located North of West 29th Street between Ludwig
and Malloy Streets.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
NAME: South Shackleford Hotel Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located in the 800 Block of South Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
David Patel
300 Markham Center Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Parkway, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 0.74 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District
ALLOWED USES: Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: 4-story 46 room hotel facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
A rezoning request and a conditional use permit were originally filed for this site. The
applicant proposed to rezone the site from O-3 to O-2 and also requested a conditional
use permit to allow the construction of a five-story fifty-eight room hotel. On June 2,
2004, the applicant submitted a request that the conditional use permit be withdrawn,
which was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their June 17, 2004,
Public Hearing. The accompanying rezoning request was to be amended to a PD-C.
On July 15, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to rezone the
site to Planned Commercial Development to allow the placement of a hotel on this site.
The applicant proposed the construction of a four story forty-six room hotel facility on
the site. The proposal included the placement of 56 on-site parking spaces. The total
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
2
building height proposed was 45-feet. The applicant indicated a total of 26.42 percent
or 6,758.57 square feet of landscaped area. The total floor area included
4,841.68 square feet on the first floor, 5,082.97 square feet on each of the remaining
three floors for a total floor area of 20,090.59 square feet. A six foot monument style
sign was proposed along Shackleford Road not to exceed the sign area allowed in
office zones.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site to Planned Office
Development to allow the placement of a four story hotel containing 42 rooms
and 46 parking spaces. The site plan indicates the ground floor containing
5,300 square feet with the remaining three floors containing 6,120 square feet.
The maximum height of the building is 52-feet.
The site plan indicates the site contains 1.72 acres with 17.6 percent covered in
building and 55.78 percent in paved area. The site plan indicates a single
ground mounted monument style sign located along South Shackleford Road
with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square
feet. Building signage is proposed consistent with signage as typically allowed in
commercial zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located in an area dominated by office uses and zoning. The
predominant use is larger, multi-story office buildings on larger tracts. Other uses
in the general vicinity include other hotels, a restaurant and a furniture store. The
I-430 right-of-way is located across Shackleford Road, to the east.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one phone call from an area resident. The
Birchwood and the John Barrow Neighborhood Associations, 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed along
Shackleford Road in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code
and the Master Street Plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
3
2. Private access is proposed for this lot. In accordance with Section 31-207,
private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets.
Sidewalks with access ramps should be installed along the 40 foot access
easement on south side of site.
3. Parking space #1 should be removed because the vehicle in parking space
#1 will back into the driveway and easement.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from O-3 to Planned Commercial Development to allow the placement
of a hotel on the site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
4
Master Street Plan: South Shackleford Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an
urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on South Shackleford since it is a Minor Arterial.
This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. While the
neighborhood action plan has many goals pertaining to community
redevelopment, it does not cover this issue.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. The area along the northern property line falls below the nine foot (9’) wide
minimum landscape strip. A variance from the City Beautiful Commission will
be required.
3. Otherwise, areas set aside for landscaping appear to meet the City’s
minimum landscape requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide details
of the proposed signage. Staff also requested Mr. McGetrick provide a note
concerning the required screening.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated access to the proposed
site should be constructed to public street standard. Staff also stated the parking
space #1 should be removed because the vehicle in parking space #1 would
back into the driveway easement.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the area along the
northern perimeter fell below the nine foot minimum as required by the
Landscape Ordinance.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
5
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the proposed dumpster screening and included the total height and
area of the proposed signage. The site plan has removed proposed parking
space #1 as requested by Public Works. The revised site plan also indicates the
minimum buffer along the northern perimeter. The revised site plan also
indicates interior landscaping per the minimum requirements of the Landscape
Ordinance.
A 42-room hotel is required to have 46 on-site parking spaces based on one
space per room plus an additional 10% for staff, etc. The applicant is proposing
46 on-site parking spaces as typically required. The parking is accessed via two
driveways off of a 24-foot private driveway that serves this lot and other
properties to the south. The hotel will not have any meeting rooms, restaurant or
bar that might generate additional parking requirements.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Commercial Development to
allow for the development of a 4-story, 42-room hotel on the site. The building will
have 23,660 square feet and be 52 feet in height. The proposed hotel will not
have a restaurant or meeting rooms. Signage is proposed to consist of a single
ground-mounted sign on the Shackleford Road frontage which will comply with
ordinance standards for office zones; 6 feet tall and 64 square feet in area. Wall
signage is proposed on the front (east) façade complying with Ordinance
Standards; 10% coverage.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the development of a multistory
building for a hotel with a relatively small number of rooms is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area. The proposed site plan indicates parking,
landscaping, building heights and signage consistent with typical minimum
ordinance requirements for this type development. To staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the proposed
development of the site for a hotel is an appropriate use for the site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating applicant had submitted a request
dated October 24, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the December 7, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made for placement of the item on
the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff relocating the structure and
redesigning the proposed parking area. Previously staff supported the applicant’s
proposal due to the site plan meeting most of the typical minimum ordinance
requirements for a hotel development. This is no longer the case and staff no longer
supports the request. The redesigned plan indicates the placement of a five story hotel
with a total of 53 rooms and 38 on-site parking spaces. The site plan indicates 16 off-
site parking spaces but the applicant has not provided staff with any written agreements
from adjoining property owners indicating their willingness to provide the additional
parking. Typically, a hotel facility is required one parking space per room plus an
additional ten percent of the total parking spaces required for developments larger than
20 rooms for employees and non-guest users patronizing meeting rooms, restaurants
and other facilities. The proposed hotel is not proposing the placement of meeting
rooms, restaurants or other facilities. Based on the typical minimum parking required a
hotel with 53 rooms would be required a total of 58 on-site parking spaces.
The site plan indicates the placement of a nine-foot landscape strip along the northern
perimeter, the minimum required by typical ordinance standard, a nine-foot eight-inch
landscape strip along the southern property line and an eleven-foot one-inch landscape
strip along the western perimeter adjacent to Shackleford Road. The indicated
landscaping appears to comply with the typical minimum ordinance requirements per
the Landscape and Zoning Ordinance.
The site plan indicates the placement of a dumpster along the front side of the building.
A note has been included indicting the dumpster will be screened per typical minimum
ordinance standards. Signage has also been indicated on the site plan. The sign is
proposed to comply with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in
height and sixty-four square feet in area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7593-C
7
As previously stated staff is not supportive of the request. The parking indicated on the
site plan is not adequate to meet the typically minimum requirements of a hotel
development. The parking is indicated at 65 percent of the typical minimum ordinance
standard. Staff feels the development should more fully comply with the typical
minimum ordinance standards.
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted
additional information which they had not had time to review. Staff requested a deferral
of the item to the December 21, 2006 public hearing to allow staff additional time to
review the information.
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.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-8116
NAME: Arbors Development Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of 15th and Cumberland Streets
DEVELOPER:
Arbors Development, LLC
1620 Tarrytown Road
Little Rock, AR 72227
ARCHITECT:
Randy S. Ripley AIA
1620 Tarrytown Road
Little Rock, AR 72227
AREA: 0.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family
ALLOWED USES: Two family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – 3 residential lots
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The proposal is to allow the subdivision of an existing 83-foot by 140-foot lot into
three single-family residential lots. New homes will be constructed on the newly
created lots facing 15th Street. The homes will have garages located in the rear
of the homes. Access to the garages will be provided via an 18-foot access
easement extending from the existing alley along the rear of the lots across Lots
2 and 3 to reach Lot 1. Full front porches are being proposed to face 15th Street.
Setbacks are to be five foot side yard setback, 18-foot rear yard setback and a
front yard setback of 7-feet.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently vacant. The area is predominately residential with a
scattering of single-family and multi-family units. The site has historically been
used as single-family lots. Two blocks west of the site is Main Street with a
number of office and commercial businesses. A number of the homes in the
area were damaged or destroyed by a tornado a few years ago. The site is
located just outside the MacArthur Park Historic District. The site is located
within the Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design Overlay Zoning District.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The McArthur Park Property Owners Association, the East of Broadway
Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the
site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site
were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received several
informational phone calls from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
East 15th and Cumberland Streets. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way
is also required at the intersection of East 15th Street and the alley.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. The alley must be asphalt paved with at least 18 feet of pavement for the
length of the frontage.
4. Driveway in the rear of the lots must be placed in a shared access easement.
At least 18 feet of driving surface should be provided to maintain 2-way traffic.
5. Collection services will only be provided along East 15th Street or the alley.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
3
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meters.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route #6 – the Granite
Mountain Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning of the site to a Planned Residential
Development to allow the placement of three single-family homes.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cumberland Street and East 15th Street are both shown as
Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III is shown one block north of this location and two blocks
south. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No
additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may
be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The housing goal
focuses on redeveloping this area of the City. It states a need to develop vacant
and abandoned lots. It also states a need for the promotion of home ownership.
This application, which is redeveloping vacant lots, and will be for sale to
individuals, fulfills these goals.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Randy Ripley was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff requested the developer indicate any
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
4
proposed fencing on the site plan including fencing proposed to separate patio
areas. Staff also questioned if the patios would be constructed at grade.
Mr. Ripley stated the patios would be at grade. Staff questioned the percentage
of open space proposed, both common and private.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
of right-of-way would be required at the intersection of East 15th Street and
Cumberland and East 15th Street and the alley. Staff also stated the minimum
paved width of the alley was 18-feet. Mr. Ripley stated the alley was recently
resurfaced and the width appeared to meet the minimum requirements. Staff
stated garage collection would be provided along East 15th Street or the alley.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated fencing will be placed by the future homeowners to screen the
patio areas. According to the applicant green fences or wood fences will be used
at the discretion of the homeowner. The maximum height proposed is six feet.
A total building area of 3,873 square feet is proposed on the site plan for the
three lots. In addition the site plan indicates a total of 2,017 of landscaped area
within the proposed yard area. Each building is proposed with a lower level of
heated and cooled space of 1,140 square feet and a finished attic space of
455 square feet. Each unit will have a rear loaded two car garage served from
an 18-foot access easement. The maximum building height proposed is 28-feet.
The construction materials are proposed as cement fiberboard with battens
16-inch on center and cement fiberboard lap-siding. The site is located in the
Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design Overlay Zoning District. Per
Section 36-370 the design criteria of the zoning district must be followed with no
variation. The criteria states a roof pitch of less than 4:12 shall be prohibited,
construction materials of the exterior shall be wood, brick or material that
resembles wood, the structure shall be oriented consistent with that of other
structures on the block face, primary entrances consistent with that of other
structures on the developed block face and parking is not permitted in the front
setback. The proposed development will adhere to the development criteria with
no variation.
The proposal is to allow the subdivision of an existing 83-foot by 140-foot lot into
three single-family residential lots. New homes will be constructed on the newly
created lots facing 15th Street. Setbacks are five foot side yard setback, 18-foot
rear yard setback and a front yard setback of 7-feet. The lots have been
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
5
indicated with a lot width of 46.8 feet and a lot depth of 83-feet. The total lot area
is 4,024.8 square feet. The site is zoned R-4, Two-family District which allows
single-family and two family development. The typical minimum ordinance
requirements per the R-4, Two-family Zoning District are a minimum lot area of
7,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 70-feet and a minimum lot depth of
100-feet. In addition, setbacks are typically a 25-foot front and rear yard setback
and a side yard setback of 10 percent of the lot width not to exceed five feet.
The maximum building height allowed per the R-4 district is 35-feet.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Although the indicated lot sizes and
setbacks are less than the typical minimum ordinance standards, staff does not
feel the proposed development will have any adverse impact on the area. The
general area contains a number of lots which are somewhat similar in size and
configuration to the applicant’s proposal. The applicant is proposing the
redevelopment of this site with single-family homes constructed in similar
character with regard to construction materials and design to the surrounding
area. Staff feels the proposed redevelopment of the area will enhance the area,
adding value to properties with the addition of the new single-family homes. To
staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request
subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of the agenda staff report.
Mr. Randy Ripley addressed the Commission stating his intent was to develop an in-fill
single-family housing development. He stated the units were proposed as three
single-family units each contained on a single lot. He stated the homes would be
constructed in the arts and crafts style with a similar architectural style as other homes
in the area.
Mr. Jason Weber addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
home was located south of the proposed development. He stated he was concerned
with the placement of utility poles along the proposed driveway. He stated his concerns
were with being flaked by an alley on two sides and the limited setback being proposed
along the southern perimeter. He stated the proposed drive would be located along his
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
6
property line and he feared persons backing out would not be allowed sufficient
maneuvering space. He stated he was also concerned with the number of units and the
orientation of the units to the other homes on the block. He stated his home would be
looking at the rear of one of the new homes. He stated most of the homes faced the
named streets and not the number streets as was being proposed with the current
development. He stated the exception was homes along major thoroughfares. He
stated if approved with the current orientation this would alter the block face which was
currently redeveloping. He stated he felt by reducing the number of units and facing the
units to Cumberland the proposed development would be a better fit to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Ripley stated although the site was one lot the Bagley Map indicated the site with
three addresses. He stated when he was researching an area to develop he found the
site had historically been used as three residential units. He stated this was one of the
appealing factors for his consideration in purchasing the site. He stated the
development was less intense than would be allowed by the placement of a story and a
half residential unit with a larger setback than typically required.
The Commission questioned if the units could be moved to the north. Staff stated they
would need to review reducing the front yard setback since currently the units were set
and seven and one-half feet. The Commission questioned utilities. Mr. Ripley stated
utilities would be underground. There was a general discussion concerning the
proposed driveway and the maneuvering room. The Commission indicated they did not
feel the indicated eighteen feet was adequate. Mr. Ripley stated wheel stops could be
placed within this area to keep cars from backing into Mr. Weber’s yard. The
Commission indicated a deferral maybe in order to allow Mr. Ripley to work with staff to
resolve concerns. Mr. Ripley stated he was amenable to a deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff increasing the rear yard setback and
relocating the proposed drive. The revised plan indicates the placement of a one foot
six inch (1’ 6”) landscape strip along the southern property line. A wheel stop has also
been indicated to lessen the risk of homeowners backing into the adjoining neighbors
fence. The site plan indicates a 22-feet setback from the rear property line as opposed
to the original 18-feet. The structure has been reduced from 58-feet in length to 54-feet
to gain the additional setback area. The living area of the first floor has been reduced
from 1,140 square feet to 1,022 square feet. The second floor has been increased from
455 square feet to 621 square feet. The total square footage of the home has been
increased from 1,595 square feet to 1,643 square feet.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8116
7
Staff continues to support the request. The site has historically been used as single-
family and in the past three homes have occupied the site. Staff feels the development
of the site with three single-family homes should have minimal impact on the adjoining
properties. As previously indicated staff recommends approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the above agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item noting the changes to the proposed site plan. Staff stated they were
supportive of the proposed request.
Mr. Ripley provided the Commission with photographs of homes in the area oriented in
a similar fashion as the development he was proposing. He also provided the
Commission with a copy of the Bagley Map indicating three addresses for the lots in
question. He stated the site had historically been used for three single family homes
which were destroyed by a previous tornado. The Commission questioned his definition
of a wheel stop. Mr. Ripley stated a curb six to eight inches high and eight to ten inches
deep. Commissioner Taylor stated he felt the project was a good in-fill project.
A motion was made to approve the request as presented. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-4663-C
NAME: The Shoppes at Montclair Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 12226 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Kanis Otter Creek Property Partners, LLP
8060 Count Massie Road
North Little Rock, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Office Building and 136 Room Assisted Living Facility
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Office, Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 20, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to
the September 14, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION: (August 3, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated July
20, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the September 14, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4663-C
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has contacted staff to request additional item to resolve the outstanding issues
associated with the request. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the item to the
October 26, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had contacted staff to request
additional item to resolve the remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff
stated the applicant was requesting a deferral of the item to the October 26, 2006, public
hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4663-C
3
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated November 20, 2006, requesting a deferral of this
item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated
November 20, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: LU06-18-06
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location: North of Pride Valley and west of Kanis Road
Request: Suburban Office to Low Density Residential
Source: Joe White, White-Daters
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Suburban Office
to Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential (LDR) accommodates a broad
range of housing types with a density of between six and ten dwelling units per acre.
The proposed use is for 10.1 units per acre.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area
of review to include part of the Public Institutional area just south of the application.
That area is currently being developed for residential use, and LDR would be more
appropriate for that area than Public Institutional.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently outside the city limits and is zoned O-2 Office to the north of
Pride Valley Road and Planned Development-Residential to the south of Pride Valley
Road. The O-2 Office portion is currently wooded and undeveloped, and the PDR
portion is currently being developed into 50 single-family residential lots. The total area
is 22 acres ± in size. To the north and to the east of the area is also zoned O-2 Office.
These O-2 areas are wooded and undeveloped except for a Rainbow Cleaning Systems
Office on the east side of Kanis Road. To the south and to the west of the area is
zoned R-2 Residential for single-family houses and Baker Elementary. These
residential areas are sparsely developed. To the southeast is a Planned Development-
Residential that has not been developed yet. To the northwest of the area are several
Planned Commercial Developments for what used to be Chenal Gardens, the Kroger
shopping center, and the National Home Center on Chenal Parkway. To the southeast
on the west side of Kanis Road is a Planned Office Development for the Chenal Pet
Palace.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The application area is currently planned for Suburban Office and Public Institutional.
The Suburban Office is mirrored along the northeast side of Kanis Road. West and
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-06
2
southwest of the area is Low Density Residential. Further west beyond that is Single
Family. South of Pride Valley Road on the west side of Kanis is planned for Public
Institutional. North and northwest of the area is planned for park/open space to
accommodate the floodplain. To the southeast are Single Family and Low Density
Residential.
The April 6, 2004 Ordinance 19067 changed the southeast corner of the intersection of
Pride Valley Road and Kanis from Single Family to Suburban Office in an effort to
expand existing Suburban Office to recognize existing O-2 zoning.
The March 2, 1999 Ordinance 17951 changed multiple areas along Kanis Road from
Low Density Residential to Single Family and from Transition to Low Density
Residential, Single Family, and Suburban Office. These changes were made after a
Study Committee was formed to develop alternative land use options for the area.
Kanis Road was studied from Chenal to Shackleford, and fifteen changes were made by
this one ordinance.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pride Valley is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and Kanis Road is
shown as a Minor Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through
an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection
from Local Streets to Arterials.
BICYCLE PLAN:
Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the
development.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is within eight blocks of a park or an open
space. The closest open space is the Rock Creek Parkway, which runs along the
division on Chenal Parkway.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-06
3
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
Most of the available housing in the vicinity is single family detached, and there is now a
demand for other types of housing in this area. There is a new development at Kanis
and White Roads, and it is a mix of townhouses and single-family structures. Two other
new residential areas have been approved in this area. At 1000 and 1100 Kirby Road a
Planned Residential Development was approved for Haven Addition to be built. This
PDR will allow 24 single-family homes as part of a zero lot line subdivision. The other
new development is on the north side of Kanis Road just west of Kirby Road. This
Planned Development-Residential will contain attached single-family units and
townhouse condominium units. Neither of these has begun development yet. These
new developments show that there is a real demand for different types of housing
structures. The development area at Kanis and Pride Valley Road would have a mix of
patio homes and condos on it, which are both in demand for this area since most of the
housing options are either stand alone single family units or apartment units.
Suburban Office is planned on the east side of Kanis Road adjacent to this area. There
are sixteen acres set aside there for Suburban Office and zoned for office, and only one
office has been developed there. To the southeast of this area, further down Kanis
Road, there has been almost seventeen acres of Suburban Office planned on the west
side of Kanis Road. The only site developed here has been the Chenal Pet Palace, and
the rest remains undeveloped. The area at the intersection of Kanis and Cooper Orbit
Road is zoned for multi family and commercial uses.
The area being considered for a land use amendment is an area of Kanis Road that has
been vacant and undeveloped for more than twenty years. The northern portion of this
area was originally planned for Suburban Office as a special request for the Girl Scout
headquarters, but that site was never developed. There has not been much office
development on either side of Kanis Road in recent times. Suburban Office is planned
for the east side of Kanis Road for almost half a mile, but this area is also largely
undeveloped. On the east side of Kanis Road there is approximately 16 acres of
Suburban Office and it is zoned O-2. West of Kanis at the intersection of Cooper Orbit
Road there is another 17 acres of Suburban Office according to the Future Land Use
Plan, but that acreage is not zoned for office. There are currently 43 acres of Suburban
Office in the Plan. This amendment would only cause 9.5 acres to be changed from
Suburban Office to Low Density Residential.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-18-06
4
There are currently approximately 30 acres of Low Density Residential planned for this
area of Kanis Road. Just west of the amendment area is planned for 22 acres of Low
Density Residential, and to the south of Baker Lane on the west side of Kanis Road has
8 acres planned for Low Density Residential. This amendment would add a total of
9.5 acres to the Low Density Residential for this area.
The study area is very close in proximity to single family residences on Pride Valley
Road. These houses are outside the city limits and are in good repair. Special
consideration needs to be given to these adjacent properties to minimize any negative
impacts and attempt to produce new compatible developments.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood association: Parkway Place POA.
Staff has received no comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to December 7, 2006. By a
vote of 10 for, 0 against (Adcock Absent) the consent agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the areas of office and residential in the area,
as well as recent developments and proposals. Staff believes this change provides
homing options within the area and that the change is appropriate. Donna James
presented the related Planned Development Residential, see item D.1 Z-5758-B for a
full minutes. During the presentations by area residents they indicated that Low
Density Residential was appropriate only the design and density were issues. By a
vote of 10 for, 0 against the item was approved.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: D.1 FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
NAME: The Ridge at Pride Valley Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Pride Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Elder Montagne LLC
4902 South Thompson
Springdale, AR 72764
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 12.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
ALLOWED USES: Office and Institutional uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Townhouse development 128 units
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the
entire site with the development of Phase 1.
2. A deferral of the required street improvements to Pride Valley Road for five (5) years
or until the development of Phase 3.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site contains 12.63 acres and is located on the northwest corner of Kanis
Road and Pride Valley Road. Ordinance No. 16,732 adopted by the Little Rock
Board of Directors on August 16, 1994 rezoned the site from R-2 to O-2. The
applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from O-2 to PD-R to allow the
development of condominium style housing under a horizontal property regime.
The project consists of 142 units resulting in a density of 11.24 units per acre.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
2
Units are proposed as two story units with living areas downstairs with a half bath
and two bedrooms upstairs each with a full bath. Each of the units will contain a
single car garage with an additional parking space on the driveway. Guest
parking will be provided with 130 spaces scattered around the site.
Two types of buildings are proposed for construction. Type A buildings will be
front loaded while Type D buildings will be rear loaded. The plan indicates
15 Type A buildings and 5 Type D buildings. The Type D buildings are proposed
to front Kanis Road.
The project is proposed as a gated development with the main entrance along
Kanis Road. An emergency access is proposed off Pride Valley Road. Fencing
is proposed around the perimeter of the development. A clubhouse is proposed
with several amenities including a pool and internet access.
The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. The developer is
requesting a variance for advanced grading which will allow the dirt work to take
place on the entire site during phase one of construction. The developer is also
requesting a deferral of the street improvements to Pride Valley Road for five
years or until development of Phase III.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site located outside the City limits but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing annexation to
the City of Little Rock to receive sewer service for the proposed development.
The site is wooded. Kanis Road is located along the northern boundary and
Pride Valley Road is located along the southern boundary. Kanis and Pride
Valley Roads are both unimproved roadways with open ditches for drainage.
There is a single-family subdivision located across Pride Valley Road, which has
recently been cleared, and infrastructure improvements are currently under
construction.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all
residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified and the
Parkway Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
3
2. Pride Valley is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A
dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Pride Valley and Kanis Road.
4. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Kanis Road and
Pride Valley Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
With the current proposed plan, staff cannot support a deferral of
improvements to Pride Valley because the south half is currently being
improved.
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. A variance must be obtained to advance grade the
entire property with Phase 1.
6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186
(e).
7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
8. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
9. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
10. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 1 foot above the base flood elevation
is required to be shown on plat and grading plans.
11. The entrance driveway must be constructed to at least 20 feet in width for
emergency vehicles.
12. Turn around must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to
the width, the gated entrance does not appear to provide a sufficient
turn-around for a single unit truck SU-30 turning radius. Provide and
adequate turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
13. Provide a letter certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State
of Arkansas stating that the driveway on Kanis Road provides the required
sight distance for drivers’ entering/exiting the facility. Analysis must be done
in accordance with the 2004 Edition of the AASHTO Green Book. Avoid
planting trees or shrubs in line of sight that may cause sight obstruction.
The location of the driveway on Kanis should align with of the proposed
development on the east side of Kanis Road. The proposed driveway on
Pride Valley Road should align with the driveway into the new subdivision
on the south side of Pride Valley Road.
14. Due to the angled intersection of Pride Valley Road and Kanis Road, realign
Pride Valley Road to the north and construct improvements with flared
radiuses and channelized with island. Contract Bill Henry in Traffic
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
4
Engineering at 379-1816 for further explanation.
15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
16. 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.
17. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide the means of the proposed
wastewater collection and treatment with approval from the appropriate State or
County agency.
Entergy: Easements required within the development to serve the proposed
structures.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. 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. The facilities
on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities
shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction
specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to
practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement
is required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information. Gates must maintain a minimum gate
opening of 20-feet. Install Knox Pad Lock on crash gate.
County Planning:
1. Submit annexation request to Pulaski County Court prior to October 26, 2006.
2. Floodplain development permits are required from Pulaski County Planning if
the property is not annexed prior to construction.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
5
3. The proposed design is dependant upon centralized sewer. Pulaski County
reserves review and approval if sewer is not extended to the site.
4. Provide drainage plans for review and approval prior to construction.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property. The applicant has
applied for a long form PD-R to rezone the site from O-2 to Planned Residential
Development to allow the development of the 12.63 acre site with
128 condominium houses.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda. (LU06-18-06)
Master Street Plan: Pride Valley is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan and Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. A Minor Arterial
provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is
to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. The primary function
of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. A twenty-five foot (25) wide land use buffer is required to separate this
proposed development from the residential property on the southern and
western perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of the buffer area is to
remain undisturbed.
2. Interior landscape islands are to be evenly distributed on the site.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern and western perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around requirement.
4. It is recommended to locate fencing such that trees are not disturbed when
erecting fencing.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
6
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide the total
building height in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. Staff also
requested that Mr. White dimension all property lines on the proposed site plan.
Staff questioned if there would be any common or public open spaces within the
development, including playground areas.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a deferral of street
improvements to Pride Valley Road could not be supported since a portion of the
Phase I development abutted Pride Valley Road. Staff also stated a grading
permit would be required prior to development of the site. Staff requested the
proposed gate entrance be redesigned to allow proper stacking for cars
attempting to enter the development.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a 25-foot buffer would be
required to separate the development from the adjoining single-family property
located to the south and west. Staff also stated screening would be required in
these two areas as well.
Pulaski County Planning comments were addressed. Staff stated if the site was
not annexed into the City of Little Rock, floodplain development permits and
drainage plans would require review and approval prior to construction.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies, suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional
information and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the total building height in the general notes section of the site
plan, indicated the dimension of all property lines and indicated the common or
public open space within the development. The site plan indicates the buildings
will be set at 30-feet along the north and south property lines and a 25-foot
setback along the western property line. The buildings will be separated with a
minimum setback of 20-feet. The site plan indicates the total building coverage
of 31.5 percent, parking lot coverage of 34.5 percent and landscaped area of
34 percent.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
7
The proposal indicates each of the units will contain a single car garage and a
surface parking space in front of each unit. An additional 130 parking spaces
has been included to serve as guest parking. The ordinance would typically
require the placement of 213 parking spaces to serve a development of this type.
The indicated parking is more than adequate to serve the proposed use.
Two sign locations have been indicated on the proposed site plan. One located
at the Kanis/Pride Valley Road intersection and the second within the median of
the gated entrance. The ordinance would typically allow a maximum sign height
of six feet and a maximum sign area of 32 square feet.
The applicant has indicated right of way dedication and street improvements to
Kanis Road per collector standard (30-feet). Kanis Road is designated as an
arterial roadway per the Master Street Plan which would typically require a right
of way dedication of 45-feet from centerline. Staff recommends the right of way
dedication be consistent with the minimum requirements of the Master Street
Plan. The right of way for Pride Valley Road has been indicated per collector
standard or 30-feet from centerline. The request includes a deferral of the
required street improvements to Pride Valley Road for five years or until Phase 3
of the development. Staff is not supportive of the deferral of the improvements to
Pride Valley Road. Staff feels the improvements should be completed to the
roadway at the time of development of the first phase.
The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. The request includes
a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the
site. The request would allow clearing of Phase II and III with the development of
Phase I. According to the applicant, the advanced grading is necessary to
balance the site and eliminate hauling to and from the site at the time of
development of the subsequent phases. The applicant has not provided staff
with any justification as to the need for the advanced grading. Staff is not
supportive of the request for advanced grading but staff would recommend if the
request is approved, a 100-feet buffer remain around the perimeters of the area
proposed for future development.
The site plan indicates the placement of a clubhouse and pool and an open
space area around the clubhouse/pool facility. The applicant has indicated no
playground equipment is proposed with the development. According to the
applicant, the targeted homeowners are young professionals and empty nesters
and the playground equipment is not typically a necessity of these age groups. A
pedestrian walk path has been included along the Kanis Road frontage
connecting through the parking areas.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six foot decorative fence along the
street sides of the development and a six foot opaque fence along the western
perimeter.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
8
The development is proposed as a condominium style housing development with
owner occupied units sold through a horizontal property regime. Two types of
buildings are proposed for construction. Type A buildings will have front loaded
garages while Type D buildings will have rear loaded garages. The plan
indicates 15 Type A buildings and 5 Type D buildings. The Type B buildings are
proposed to front Kanis Road. Buildings 1,2 and 11 – 13 will front facing Kanis
Road. The units are proposed as two story units with living areas downstairs
with a half bath and two bedrooms upstairs each with a full bath. The maximum
building height proposed is 35-feet.
The project is proposed as a gated development with the main entrance along
Kanis Road. An emergency access is proposed off Pride Valley Road. The gate
entrance has been located approximately 80-feet from the right of way. The call
box has been located approximately 20-feet from the right of way. A turn-around
has been included to allow those not entering the site to exit without backing into
the right of way for Kanis Road.
The site is located outside the City limits of the City of Little Rock but within the
City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Presently the site does not have
access to the City Wastewater collection and treatment system. Staff
recommends the applicant seek annexation to receive City sewer service to
serve the development as proposed. Staff does not feel the development can
occur without City sewer service.
Staff is supportive of the request but there are concerns associated with the
request. Staff feels the required right of way and street improvements should be
completed to Kanis Road per the Master Street Plan. Staff also feels the
required improvements to Pride Valley Road should be completed with the Phase
I development of the project. Staff does not feel the proposed development of an
owner occupied residential development developed at a density of 11.24 units
per acre will significantly impact the adjoining properties if the applicant can
address staff’s concerns related to the proposed development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
October 11, 2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
9
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial based on the
proposed street construction request.
Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
developers were willing to dedicate right of way for the full standard of an arterial but
was requesting to construct the street to a collector street standard. He stated there
were a number of utility poles located along the roadway which would require relocation.
He stated with the required improvements and the relocation of the utility poles the
development would not be economically feasible. He stated the development would not
appear dense since 34 percent of the site would be landscaped. He stated the homes
would be offered at a price a number of persons could afford homeownership. He
stated the homes would range from 1300 square feet to 1350 square feet and range in
price near $150,000.00. He stated the product offered was one not currently available in
West Little Rock. He stated the development would offer amenities to the residents
including a clubhouse with exercise equipment, high speed internet access service and
a gathering place. He stated the occupants would become members of the
neighborhood and have a stake in the neighborhood with the purchase of their homes.
He stated although the development was proposed as a gated community the
development was to be inclusive of the neighborhood and not exclusive. He stated the
target was young females and the elderly. He stated the gates offered them a sense of
security. Mr. Giles stated the advanced grading was necessary to balance the site. He
stated without the allowance of advanced grading a large amount of fill would be
removed from the site to later be hauled in as other portions of the development were
constructed.
Ms. Carrie Elder addressed the Commission as the developer. She stated this would
be the sixth project she and her partner had developed. She stated the demand for
such a project was great and the developments had been well received by the area
neighborhoods in which they had been constructed. She stated the homes sold near
the $150,000.00 price range. She stated most purchasers were young professionals.
She stated the development would be maintained through a property owners
association with common ownership of the landscaped areas. She stated this appeared
to increase the value of the homes and allow the homes to increase in value. She
stated her firm had done a feasibility study to determine the best location for a
development of this type and the demographics for this location appeared to meet the
needs. She stated they were not resisting the street improvements just to resist the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
10
improvements but it was financially impossible to make the number work with the
required improvements.
Mr. Cliff McKinney addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his home was located in the Parkway Place Neighborhood and he was a member of the
governing board. He stated the association was not opposed to a low density
development but they did have concerns with the density as proposed. He stated his
concern was also the appearance the development would have on Kanis Road. He
stated he felt if the developers had met with the neighborhood compromises could be
reached to allow a quality development that would enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Gerald Turner addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the density
proposed was a concern. He stated Kanis Road was being piecemealed and the
development would cause a terrific traffic increase. He stated he felt if the developers
had met with the neighborhood a development could be designed that was fitting for the
area.
Mr. Tim Kenny addressed the Commission with concerns. H stated he would have liked
to meet with the developers to review their plans prior to the hearing. He stated he felt if
the development required annexation to received all City services then this should be
completed prior to approving the development. He stated with previous approvals the
buffer along Kanis Road would be removed and his home would now be looking at an
apartment development. He stated he did not want to look at a fence with large
apartment buildings.
Ms. Elder stated the development was sensitive to Kanis Road. She stated all buildings
along Kanis would front Kanis Road with a rear loaded garage. She stated there would
be a 30-foot landscape buffer between the road and buildings which would be heavily
landscaped to soften the buildings. She stated all parking would be interior so the
parking areas would not be visible from Kanis Road. She stated the fencing would be
an ornate fence, designed to bring beauty to the area. She stated the units did not look
like apartments and all would have courtyards in the front and rear of each home.
There was a general discussion concerning the development and the proposed use of
the site. The discussion also centered around the cost of improvements for relocating
the utility poles to complete full street improvements to an arterial standard. Mr. Joe
White stated the improvements would run around $800,000.00 to both Kanis Road and
Pride Valley Road. The Commission questioned to what extent the improvements to
Kanis Road would be completed. Mr. White stated the improvements would be to
collector standard but the entire right of way would be in place to add a lane in the
future if warranted. Commissioner Yates questioned the location of the sidewalk.
Mr. White stated the sidewalk would be placed where it would not be disturbed if and
when the road was widened.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-B
11
The Commission questioned where the annexation request was in the process.
Mr. White stated the annexation had been started but he was not sure where in the
process the annexation was. The Commission questioned if Parkway Place
Neighborhood Association was notified of the proposed development. Staff stated they
were notified and the President had received a copy of the proposed layout.
The applicant requested the Commission provide two votes on their request; one vote
on the reduced standard for street construction to Kanis Road and the second on the
PD-R including all staff comments and recommendations. A motion was made to
approve the request to allow the construction of Kanis Road with a reduced standard.
The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to
approve the PD-R request including all staff conditions and comments as noted in the
agenda staff report. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 7 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
10650 Maumelle Blvd.
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 9.45 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1,600 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – 44 Patio Homes
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site
with the construction of the public utilities.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone
42.58+ acres from R-2, Single-family to MF-12, Multi-family. The rezoning request was
associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File
No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi-family was located in two tracts lying on
either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue),
south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The application was
the third version of proposed multi-family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
2
The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of
the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the
proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring
Valley Manor Subdivision, which is adjacent to the south. The applicant at the Planning
Commission Public Hearing later withdrew the application.
The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of
the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street (Capitol
Hills Boulevard) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed multi-family property was in two
tracts, a 27+-acre tract lying south of the arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) and a
7+-acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi-family property was moved well north
of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported
this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density
had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was
basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter
relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street (Rushmore Avenue)
and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). There was some opposition to this
proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve
this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis
Renewal Center with their concern of locating the 7+ acres of Multi-family property
adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant
withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors’ agenda and filed a third
version of the proposed rezoning request.
The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the
proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue) from R-2 to MF-12.
The proposed Multi-family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment
of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street (Capitol Hills
Boulevard). The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper
Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which
was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was
moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of
Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the
arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a
“reserved” tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat.
The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2
to MF-12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any
development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on
the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres
within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not
developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of
sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer
improvement district, expansion or the existing sewer improvement district or some
other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
3
zoned MF-12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty
(20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned
Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regarded
area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50)
percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The
rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12 and Tract C,
14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12.
Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes
Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres).
The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse
development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on
11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of
5.3 units per acre.)
On July 11, 2002, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the
west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development – Residential to allow the
development of a 528-unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement
of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed for a
property zoned MF-12 and located to the east of the PD-R site. The request to rezone
the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both
Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20,
2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the western MF-12 property to
PD-R and Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the eastern MF-12 site to R-2.
The applicant proposed the PD-R development to be constructed in three phases with
156 units being constructed in Phases One and Two and 216 units in the third and final
phase. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been constructed to allow
access to the site as a part of the Phase I portion of the PRD.
Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003,
approved a revision to allow the creation of a three-lot plat following the previously
proposed phasing lines. The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street
frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take
access through a cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were
numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan
did not changed from the original submission.
The applicant revised the building placement slightly to allow for landscape strips
between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access parking
agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the typical
minimum parking demand for multi-family development.
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,963 on October 21, 2003,
revising the PD-R to allow the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The
applicant indicated a private contractor would service the compactors once a week.
The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should allow the driver
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
4
easy access and minimal disturbance to the residents in the early morning hours when
the compactors were serviced.
The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously
proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request included a
restoration plan for the buffer areas. The restoration plan included plantings in the area
previously designated as the land use buffer area be replanted at double the plantings
required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the south and the west
on Lot 1 of the development. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch
caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation
easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a
tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be maintained in the future.
On January 29, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request by the
applicant to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of the
site until Lot 3 was developed. The site was originally approved as a single tract
development and was later revised to allow three lots to develop following previously
approved phasing lines. The applicant stated since the PD-R for Capitol Hills
Apartments was revised to allow the creation of the three lots a deferral of street
improvements was customary until the lot abutting the roadway was developed (Lot 3).
The applicant withdrew the request from consideration and the roadways were
constructed.
Ordinance No. 19,277 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15,
2005 revised the previously approved PCD for the apartment portion of the overall
development plan. The proposed revision allowed for the construction of covered
parking and a clubhouse with a pool within the Phase II portion of the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and
Rushmore Avenue is proposed for rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to
allow the development of 9.45 acres with 44 patio home lots. The development
is proposed as a gated community with a single entrance from Rushmore
Avenue. The development will be constructed in a single phase. The request
includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced
grading of the entire site with the construction of the public utilities. The request
also includes the abandonment of a portion of Cooper Orbit Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has a number of trees located along the eastern portion of the site. The
western portion of the site was previously cleared and used for storage of dirt for
the construction of Rushmore Avenue. Cooper Orbit Road is the eastern
boundary of the proposed site and Rushmore Avenue is the western boundary.
To the north of the site is a tract which is being used as a regional detention
storage area for the Capitol Hills Development. The area to the south of the site
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
5
is wooded. To the west of the site is an apartment development previously
approved in three phases with only the first phase currently constructed.
Northwest of the site are two single-family subdivisions with new homes being
constructed in these areas. The Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located
further south. Rushmore Avenue has been constructed to Master Street Plan
standard abutting the properties western boundary.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association along with all
residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property
owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. The minimum horizontal radius of a residential street is 150 feet per the
Master Street Plan.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. The entrance lane to the subdivision must be at least 20 feet in width. Turn
around must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to
the width, the gated entrance does not appear to provide a sufficient
turn-around for a single unit truck SU-30 turning radius. Provide and
adequate turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. Public Works supports a variance for grading of
the lots prior to plat approval.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on preliminary plat.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
6
10. Access should be provided for the adjacent property to the east for future
street access to Rushmore Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Fire hydrants will be private. Annual charges will apply.
Easements will be required for any water mains that are outside public rights of
way. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact
Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the
developer. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information. Gates must maintain a minimum gate
opening of 20-feet.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a long form PD-R to allow the placement of 44 patio homes on a
9.45 acre tract to be constructed as a gated community.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Capitol Hill Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and Rushmore Avenue is shown as a Collector. These
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
7
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban
area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a
connection from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development indicating there were a number of outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the proposed site plan
include the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green space
both public and private. Staff also noted the street names were incorrect and
should be revised to reflect the correct street names. Staff also stated previous
agreements had allowed a collector street through the site. Staff stated the
proposed site layout did not allow for the east-west collector connection to
Rushmore Avenue.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to development. Staff also stated the entrance to the subdivision
should be a minimum of 20-feet in width and have a depth sufficient to allow
ample stacking for cars attempting to enter the subdivision.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green
space both public and private. The revised plan indicates the corrected street
name of Rushmore Avenue. The revised plan indicates the placement of a
collector street along the northeastern perimeter of the site to allow an east-west
collector and provide access to the adjoining property.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
8
The development is proposed as a gated community with the call box being
placed at approximately 20-feet and the gate placed at approximately 43-feet
from the right-of-way. Staff is not supportive of this placement. Typically to allow
sufficient stacking and turn-around for cars not entering the subdivision the gate
should be placed at 60-feet and the call box should allow for a minimum stacking
of two cars waiting the enter the development. Staff is concerned with the
reduced stacking area. With the current configuration, cars will stack onto
Rushmore Avenue, a collector street classification, as they are waiting to enter
the development.
The development indicates an average lot size of 5,500 square feet with a
building footprint of approximately 2,800 square feet. The front and rear yard
setbacks are indicated at 15-feet and the side yard setbacks are indicated at
5-feet. The proposed site plan indicates the placement of a maximum buildable
area for each of the proposed lots. A six foot fence is proposed around the
perimeter of the site. The site plan does not indicate the placement of public
open space. The applicant has indicated all open space will be contained on the
homeowner lot.
The site plan indicates the placement of a subdivision identification sign within
the median area of the proposed drive entrance. The site plan does not indicate
the size of the sign. Staff recommends the signage be limited to signage
typically allowed in single-family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
thirty-two square feet in area.
The request includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading of the site. The applicant has not provided staff any
information concerning the need for the request and why the advanced grading is
necessary. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for advanced
grading.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a collector street along the
northeastern portion of the property. The location of the connection of the
proposed collector street to Capitol Hills Boulevard is questionable. Staff feels
the proposed intersection will be located too close to the existing connection of
Rushmore Avenue and an existing bridge located on Cooper Orbit Road. The
applicant has not provided staff with any documentation which would lead staff to
believe the location of the indicated roadway will serve the future needs for a
collector street.
Although, there is not a collector street indicated on the Master Street Plan
extending from this site to the east, staff feel the placement of a collector street in
the area is critical to ensure traffic flows in the area based on the development
pattern in the area and potential future development. Per the Master Street Plan
Section 2: Road Classifications – Street Functional Classifications – Collector –
(Paragraph 2) - “The spacing of Collectors may be decreased and/or the right of
way and paving surface increased due to density of residential development and
the locations of commercial areas or other large traffic generators. At the time of
the subdivision, the exact location and additional need for Collectors will be
determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advice by City Staff.”
Also Section 31-201(b) states “the street layout should be appropriate for the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
9
type of development proposed and properly integrated with the street system in
the area adjoining the subdivision. The layout shall also conform to the existing
and proposed land uses and the most advantageous development pattern of the
surrounding area”. Staff feels this additional collector street is necessary to
serve future developable lands located to the east of the site.
The applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit
Road to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff has
concerns with the abandonment of the right of way with the current request. The
applicant has not provided staff with the required information from the utility
companies indicating their need for easement. Staff feel all the required
documentation should be provided prior to the Commission acting on the
request.
Staff has concerns with the application as proposed. There are a number of
issues which staff feels should be addressed to allow the development to move
forward. The location of the collector street could potentially affect the lot layout
and the development of the property. Staff feels the location of this street should
be addressed prior to the Commission acting on the application request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the was not enough information
provided to allow them to make a complete review of the proposed development
including outstanding issues associated with the location of a proposed collector street
extending to the east. Staff stated the request also included a variance from the Land
Alteration Ordinance. Staff stated they did not have enough information to support the
request. Staff stated there were a number of issues related to the design of the
proposed subdivision. Staff stated the indicated gates did not allow sufficient stacking
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
10
on the site and there was a potential for cars stacking into the right of way. Staff stated
the request included an abandonment of the “old” Cooper Orbit right of way. Staff
stated they were not in the position of making a recommendation since the applicant
had not provide staff with comments for all the utility companies. Staff stated of the
comments provided a number of the utilities had indicated their desire to maintain the
area as an easement. Staff stated with the current lot layout a number of the homes
would be constructed over utilities.
Staff stated the developers had provided a location of an east-west collector street on
the site plan. Staff stated no data had been provided to ensure the street could be
constructed in the proposed location.
Mr. Andy Francis addressed the Commission on behalf of the developer. He stated the
developer was no longer requesting a gated entrance. He stated this should eliminate
staff’s concerns related to the gate design and stacking of automobiles into the right of
way. He stated the developers engineering firm had indicated a location of a collector
street along the northeastern portion of the property. He stated according to his
engineering firm the location of the collector street would accommodate staff’s request
for a collector street running east-west through the area. He stated his owner was
willing to dedicate the right of way for the street but was not willing to construct the
street. He stated staff was also requesting a second collector street located to the
south of Tract C. He stated his client did not feel this street was required due to spacing
requirements for collector streets.
Commissioner Yates stated he felt he was in support of the concept of the development
but he was confused as to the request. He stated he felt the proposed application was
lacking detail and information to allow staff and the Commission to act on the request.
He stated since the meeting was a public hearing and not a work session he did not feel
this was the place to work out the details.
There was a general discussion concerning the location of the proposed collector street
which was previously proposed through Tract C. Mr. Francis stated his client was not
willing to bisect the tract with a collector street when an acceptable alternative location
had been identified. He stated the volume of traffic in the area did not warrant the
placement of two collector streets in the area. He stated the previous commitments had
required the property adjacent to Tract C legal and physical access to a roadway prior
to the abandonment of Cooper Orbit Road. He stated the previous owner had no other
access. Mr. Francis stated now Rocket Properties owned the land and they did have
access to the east without the placement of a connection or collector street in the area
to serve the property. He stated he felt the connection should be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard and not Rushmore Avenue since Rushmore Avenue was a collector street
and Capitol Hills Boulevard was an arterial roadway. He stated the developer would
give the right of way through Tract D to allow the connection to be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard. The Commission questioned the ownership of Tract D. Mr. Francis stated
the Property Owners Association owned the tract. The Commission questioned how the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
11
developer could provide the right of way if he did not own the property. The
Commission then questioned who would build the road. Mr. Francis stated his client
was not willing to construct the section of road through Tract D. He stated the
developer was willing to provide the right of way.
Mr. Baker Kurrus addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
property was located along the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and he was not
agreeable to the abandonment unless access to the property could be resolved. He
stated currently he had access along the western frontage of this property and his
desire was to maintain this access. He stated there were a number of utilities which
would have to be relocated prior to the construction of the street. He questioned at
whose expense this would be undertaken. He also stated he was not willing to
construct street improvements to property he did not own and was not able to develop.
He stated he was not sure the location of the street would work since Tract D, the
location of the proposed connection, held the detention pond. He stated presently the
detention pond was leaking and any construction could cause instability for the
structure.
Mr. Kurrus provided the Commission with a history of the site and agreements which
had been made. He stated an agreement from the Public Works Department in 1999
stated the road would be constructed to 31 feet of pavement and would provide legal
and physical access to his property in two locations.
Mr. Ron Tyne addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the collector street
system was designed to allow automobiles to move through the area. He state within
his current development collector streets had been designed to make the western
connection. He stated in preliminary meetings with staff a collector street was
requested to allow flow and connectivity through out the area. He stated staff’s request
for the 2nd Collector street could be addressed if he had additional time to meet with
staff and provide a preliminary lot layout plan. He stated he understood staff’s concerns
since no future planning had been completed in the area to determine the need for
additional streets.
Mr. Tyne stated the location proposed for the connection near Tract C was
questionable. He stated it would be difficult to construct street improvements on
property his company did not own. The Commission stated it would also be difficult for
the City to fund the street improvements under the current budget constraints.
Mr. Robert Arnold addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his concerns were primarily safety concerns. He stated with the grade of Rushmore
Avenue residents were unable to enter their subdivision during bad weather. He stated
he did not feel Cooper Orbit Road should be abandoned until such time the grade of
Rushmore Avenue was corrected.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-M
12
Mr. Francis stated due to the questions and the concerns his client was willing to accept
a deferral to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request.
The Commission questioned the deferral date. Staff stated the date would be
January 18, 2007. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-1100-I
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat and the Abandonment of
Cooper Orbit Road
LOCATION: Located on Cooper Orbit Road, South of Capitol Hills Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
P.O. Box 13256
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 85.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 199 FT. NEW STREET: 14,900
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced front building line 15-feet for Lots 6 – 14 Block 14.
(Section 31-256)
2. A variance to allow a reduced front building line adjacent to a collector street.
[Section 31-256(1)]
3. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 6 – 14 Block 14. [Section 31-232(a)]
4. A variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block 9.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the
development of 190.624 acres with 318 single-family lots. Subsequently, two final plats
have been filed for the previously approved plat area. A tract totaling 39.84 acres which
included 103 single-family lots and a PD-R for Governors Manor was final platted which
contained 9.42 acres and 45 zero lot line single-family lots. Rushmore Avenue and
Capitol Hills Boulevard have also been constructed.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
2
In October of 2003, during development of the apartment site located immediately north
of the proposed plat area the required land use buffer area was destroyed. The area
damaged was located along the western and southern perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1) of
the apartment development. The Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of
Directors approved a restoration plan for the destroyed buffer area. The restoration
plan included plantings in the area previously designated as the land use buffer area be
replanted at double the plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included
the area to the south and the west on Lot 1 of the apartment development located to the
north of this site. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch caliper and
additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation easement
and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 of the apartment development
be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be
maintained in the future.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting an amendment to the previously approved
preliminary plat for the portion located south of the intersection of Capitol Hills
Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue. The project contains 85.5 acres and the
request includes the area to be subdivided into 200 single-family residential lots.
An average lot size of 80-feet by 130-feet or 10,400 square feet is proposed.
The request includes several variance request; A variance to allow a 15-foot front
building line for Lots 6 – 14, Block 14 and Lots 29 - 32, Block 9; A variance to
allow a 25-foot building line adjacent to a collector street for Lots 1 and 2, Block
9, Lots 1, 8, 9 and 10, Block 11, Lots 1, 5, 6, Block 12, Lots 1, 5 and 6 Block 13,
Lots 30 – 32 Block 9; A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 6 – 14,
Block 14; A variance request to allow double frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block
9.
Portions of Cooper Orbit Road runs through the proposed plat area. The
applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit Road
to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is
currently zoned R-2, Single-family. The Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is
located south of the site and an apartment development is located to the north of
the plat area. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been
constructed to the north of the area. There are new single-family homes
currently under construction to the north of the proposed site in the Governor’s
Manor Subdivision.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from
area residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association along with
all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all abutting
property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Provide documentation showing the proposed streets provide adequate
Intersection Sight Distance (for all intersections). Calculations must be done
in accordance with the 2004 AASHTO Green Book.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. For properties adjoining intersections, Section 32-8 of the Little Rock Traffic
Ordinance prohibits construction of any sign or fence, planting shrubbery or
other obstruction to the view higher than 30 inches within that triangular
area between the property line and a diagonal line joining points on the
property line fifty (50) feet from point of their intersection. For exceptions
and/or more information about the ordinance, contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1817.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. A variance must be obtained for grading of lots
prior to plat approval or advance grading of a future phase.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Staff does not support variance request to exceed the street and
intersection grade limits required by the Master Street Plan as proposed on
this plan. Proposed intersection grades must have a vertical alignment of
3% or less per 2004 AASHTO Green Book. Intersection grades can be in
excess of 3%, up to 6% if justification is provided. The Master Street Plan
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
4
allows street grades to be a maximum 15% for residential streets and 16%
for minor residential streets.
10. The name "Dover" for a street name is already in use. Another name
should be chosen. Contact David Hathcock at 371-4808 for additional
information.
11. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct full street improvements to Rushmore Avenue
(Cooper Orbit Road) including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development to
meet the Master Street Plan standards.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Easements will be required for any water mains that are
outside public rights of way. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or
relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the
expense of the developer. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff stated the street names were incorrect on the
plat and requested the applicant rename Cooper Orbit Road to Rushmore
Avenue. Staff also stated the plat did not indicate the required building line
adjacent to a collector street. Staff noted there were a number of variances
being requested for the proposed development. Staff stated the variances had
not been requested with the initial application request and requested the
applicant update the variance request form. Staff questioned if a subdivision
identification sign would be placed within the development. Staff stated if the
development was proposing a subdivision sign, the applicant should provide the
location of the sign along with a note concerning the total height, total length and
total sign area.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they were not supportive
of the variance request for the increased street grades at intersections. Staff
also stated a grading permit would be required prior to the development of the
proposed subdivision. Staff noted the street construction for Rushmore Avenue
should conform to the Master Street Plan requirements for a collector street.
Staff noted there were concerns with the proposed plat from an adjoining
property owner. Staff stated previous agreements had indicated the placement
of a collector street from the east connecting to Rushmore Avenue. Staff stated
this location had not been “pinned down” but was located within the eastern
portion of the plat area or with the proposed Planned Residential Development
area for Tract C, which was a separate item on this agenda (Z-6120-M). Staff
requested the applicant meet with the adjoining property owner to determine the
best location for access to the future phases of the Woodlands Edge Subdivision
to allow connectivity in the area.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing some of the
issues raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has renamed Cooper Orbit Road to Rushmore Avenue, indicated a
30-foot building line adjacent to Rushmore Avenue, and indicated the requested
variances. The revised plat does not include the placement of a subdivision
identification sign and the applicant has indicated signage is not being requested.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
6
A number of the previously indicated variances have been removed from the
request. The plat does indicate a variance to allow a reduced lot depth for eight
of the proposed lots. Lots 6 – 8 and 10 – 14, Block 14 have been indicated with
a depth less than the typically required 100-foot depth. The lots have also been
indicated with a reduced front building line, 15-feet along Lot 10, Block 14 and
Lots 29 - 32, Block 9. The request is to allow the development of these lots
utilizing the Hillside Development Standards per Section 31-367. This criteria
requires the developer to provide the average slope of the development to
calculate the minimum lot size. The ordinance also requires no lot be less than
ten thousand square feet. The proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area
requirement. The request also includes a variance to allow a reduced building
line adjacent to a collector street, Lincoln Street. Typically the building line
adjacent to a collector street is 30-feet. The proposed plat indicates the
placement of a 25-foot building line. The plat includes a variance to allow double
frontage lots for Lots 30 – 32 Block 9. These lots include the placement of a
10-foot restrictive access easement along the rear lot line to limit the number of
curb cuts.
Lincoln Street and Rushmore Avenue have been indicated constructed to
Collector Street standard per Master Street Plan. The remaining streets are
indicated as residential (50-feet of right-of-way) or minor residential streets
(45-feet of right-of-way) which will be constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
The plan indicates Phoenix Street extending to the eastern boundary of the plat
area. The street is indicated as a residential street with a 50-foot right-of-way
and 26-feet of paving. Based on the currently undeveloped property located to
the east of this proposed development, staff feels this street should be
constructed to a collector standard with a 60-foot right-of-way and 36-feet of
pavement.
Per the Master Street Plan Section 2: Road Classifications – Street Functional
Classifications – Collector – (Paragraph 2) - “The spacing of Collectors may be
decreased and/or the right of way and paving surface increased due to density of
residential development and the locations of commercial areas or other large
traffic generators. At the time of the subdivision, the exact location and additional
need for Collectors will be determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission
upon advice by City Staff.” Also Section 31-201(b) states “the street layout
should be appropriate for the type of development proposed and properly
integrated with the street system in the area adjoining the subdivision. The
layout shall also conform to the existing and proposed land uses and the most
advantageous development pattern of the surrounding area”. Staff feels this
additional collector street is necessary to serve future developable lands located
to the east of the site.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
7
The proposed preliminary plat indicates the placement of trails and tracts
dedicated as open space within the development. The proposed open space
tracts and trails will be maintained by the Property Owners Association through
the Bill of Assurance.
As stated in the Background Section of this report, in October of 2003, during
development of the apartment site located immediately north of the proposed plat
area the required land use buffer area was destroyed. The buffer that was
removed was located along the western and southern perimeters of the
apartment development. The Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of
Directors approved a restoration plan for the destroyed buffer area which
included plantings of the previously designated land use buffer with double the
plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the
south and the west of the apartment development. The plan included planting of
all trees of three inch caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south (land
located within the current proposed plat area) was to be retained in a
conservation easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2
of the apartment development be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3
also of the apartment development to ensure the buffer would be maintained in
the future. The plat as proposed does not appear to comply with this previous
agreement or approval. The plat indicates the placement of a 30-foot buffer
within the apartment development but does not include the additional 30-feet as
agreed coming from this plat area. If viewing the proposed plat layout the
affected lots are Lots 20 – 28 Block 9. Staff feels the proposed lots should be
redesigned to reduce the lot depth by the previously agreed to 30-feet.
Portions of Cooper Orbit Road runs through the proposed plat area. The
applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit Road
to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff has concerns
with the abandonment of the right of way with the current request. The new
street has not been constructed. Staff feels the abandonment should not take
place until the new access is constructed after which the abandonment may be
requested.
Staff is supportive of the proposed subdivision but has concerns with the number
of outstanding issues associated with the request. The request includes the
development of 85.54 acres with 200 single-family lots resulting in a density of
2.3 units per acre. Staff feels the developer should address staff’s concerns
regarding street design and construction, address the previously agreed to
reduction in the plat area along the northwestern perimeter of the property and
providing access to property located to the east in the form of a collector street to
serve future development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100-I
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were a number of objectors present. The applicant
requested a deferral of the item to the January 19, 2007, public hearing to allow this
item to be discussed with the previous item Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long-form
PD-R (Z-6120-M) and Right of Way abandonment for Cooper Orbit Road, located on
the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper Orbit Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to defer the item. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes 0 noes and 0 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: S-1543
NAME: Mondari Estates Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the South side of Denny Road, 0.75 miles East of
Ferndale Cut-off
DEVELOPER:
Corliss Williamson Revocable Trust
23021 Denny Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 1,800 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots with private streets. (Section 31-231)
2. A variance to allow an increased length of a minor residential street.
3. A waiver of the required street improvements to Denny Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property is located on the south side of Denny Road approximately
0.75 miles East of the intersection with Ferndale Cut-off. The property is located
outside the City limits but is within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction.
The development isproposed as a gated community containing 11 single-family
residential lots on 54 acres; the smallest lot will be 3.01 acres. The homes will
be served by septic systems since there is not public sewer service available to
the area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1543
2
The request includes a variance for the development of lots with private street
access and a variance for the length of a minor residential street. The gated
entrance will be from Denny Road and will have a Knox-Box for emergency
personnel. The cul-de-sac at the end of the street will be of adequate size for an
emergency vehicle or trash truck to turn around.
The request also includes a waiver of the street improvements along Denny
Road. Currently, there are not any street improvements that have been
completed on Kanis or Denny Roads west of the intersection of these two
streets. The developer is agreeable to the dedication of the required right-of-way
per the Master Street Plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area is very rural in character. There is a single-family home and a large
pond located along the northwestern portion of the site. Denny Road has not
been constructed to Master Street Plan standard and presently has open ditches
for drainage. Portions of the site are cleared and portions are heavily wooded.
There is a creek/drainage ditch located near the northern portion of the site. To
the east and west of the site are single-family homes located on large tracts of
property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area property owners.
All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an
active neighborhood association located near the proposed plat area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Existing pond must be moved out of the future right-of-way.
2. The proposed plan shows a bridge structure to cross the floodplain and lots
in the floodplain to be developed. Contact Pulaski County Road and Bridge
for floodplain requirements.
3. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
4. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Denny Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
5. Turn around must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to
the width, the gated entrance does not appear to provide a sufficient turn-
around for a single unit truck SU-30 turning radius. Provide and adequate
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1543
3
turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
6. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section
31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets. A minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and
minimum street width of 24 feet from back of curb to back of curb.
7. Provide detail for proposed creek crossing.
8. Provide hydraulic calculations for the proposed bridge structure.
9. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
10. The minimum finished floor elevation is required to be shown on plat and
grading plans for lots located in the floodplain.
11. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
12. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide the means of the proposed
wastewater collection and treatment with approval from the appropriate State or
County agency.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Easements will be required for any water mains that are
outside public rights of way. Fire hydrants outside public rights of way will be
private and an annual charge will apply. This development will have minor impact
on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information. Gates must maintain a 20-foot minimum
gate access.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1543
4
County Planning:
1. The proposed cul-de-sac length is longer than 900-feet. Revise or provide turn-
around at 900-foot intervals.
2. Streets must be constructed per the City of Little Rock standards. Pulaski
County will not inspect these private streets during construction and will not
provide any maintenance for the private streets in the future.
3. Coordinate garbage pick-up with Pulaski County Sanitation Department.
Generally, Pulaski County Sanitation does not pick up on private streets.
Contact Sherman Smith at 340-6800 for additional details.
4. Submit a letter of coverage from the appropriate volunteer fire department.
5. Provide the means of water supply and of sewage disposal in the general notes
section of the proposed preliminary plat.
6. Floodplain development permits will be required prior to construction.
7. Submit drainage plans prior to construction.
8. Submit a Bill of Assurance for the proposed subdivision.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a number of
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant
provide a 35-foot building line adjacent to Denny Road per the minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff also requested the applicant
provide the source of title of the landowner in the general notes section of the
proposed plat.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they were not supportive
of a waiver of the required street improvements to Denny Road. Staff stated if
the development was proposed in phases, they would support a deferral of the
improvements until a later phase. Staff also stated the indicated gate did not
allow for stacking as required by ordinance. Staff stated the indicated street did
not meet minimum ordinance standards of a minimum right-of-way width of
45-feet and a minimum paving of 24-feet.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1543
5
Pulaski County Planning comments were addressed. Staff stated the maximum
length of a cul-de-sac was 900-feet. Staff requested the plat be revised to allow
for turn-arounds at 900-foot intervals. Staff stated the indicated development
would require a detailed flood analysis to determine if the placement of the
proposed bridge structure within the floodplain would adversely impact the flows
of the area. There was a general discussion as to if the plat could continue
without the approved study. Staff stated they would review what was submitted
and determine if there was enough data available to continue without a detailed
flood study and analysis.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has provided a 35-foot building line adjacent to Denny Road, indicated sufficient
stacking for the proposed gated entrance and indicated the proposed street as a
50-foot access and utility easement. The proposal includes a variance to allow
the development of lots with a private street. A new private street will be
1,800 linear feet in length. There is a variance request to allow an increased
length of the private street constructed to minor residential street standard. The
street will be constructed to a residential street standard per the City’s Master
Street Plan including 26-feet of pavement, curb and gutter. The request includes
a variance to allow alternative pedestrian trails in-lieu of sidewalks within the
proposed development. The Planning Commission may approve a request for
the development of private streets and the increased length of the proposed
minor residential street. The private streets are to be constructed to public street
standard. The applicant’s proposal meets the requirement with regard to street
construction design. Staff does not feel the increased length of the street will
adversely impact the area since the street will serve a minimum number of lots
(11 lots).
The proposed plat does not address the County’s concerns with regard to the
detailed flood study. The applicant has indicated since the site is located within
the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction the development will comply with
the City’s rules governing development. The proposed plat indicates a note
stating the development will fully comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance
requirements for development within floodplain and floodway areas.
The request includes a waiver of the required street improvements to Denny
Road. Staff is not supportive of the waiver request. If the development is
proposed in phases, staff is supportive of a deferral of the required street
improvements until a later phase or for a specific time period.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1543
6
Staff is supportive of the request. The proposal is to allow the creation of
11 single-family lots on this 54 acre tract. Ten of the proposed lots contain
3.01 acres and the remaining 23.8 acres is located in a single lot. Staff is also
supportive of the requested variance to allow the development of lots with private
streets and the variance to allow an increased length of a minor residential street.
Staff is not supportive of the waiver request of the required street improvements
to Denny Road. Staff feels the street construction should take place with the
initial development or with a subsequent phase of development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was no longer requesting a waiver of the
required street improvements to Denny Road and was now requesting a five year
deferral or until the development of Phase II of the proposed subdivision, which ever
occurred first. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request as proposed.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject
to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F
excluding the comments provided by Pulaski County concerning the proposed street
construction.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-8117
NAME: CBM Appraisals Inc, Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 15924 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
CBM Appraisal, Inc.
P.O. Box 56560
Little Rock, AR 72215
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Appraisal Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the site from R-2 to PD-O to allow an
existing residential structure to be converted to an office use. The applicant is
proposing the use of the site for an appraisal company which currently has three
employees. According to the applicant, there are no plans for any additional
employees in the foreseeable future. According to the applicant, the type of
business would not require the placement of a dumpster on the site or
necessitate the placement of any type signage. Due to the nature of the
business, the applicant has stated customers typically do not come to the
business for services. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm
Monday through Friday. The applicant has indicated there are no plans for
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
2
modification of the structure. The structure was recently remodeled and would
not require any additions or alterations for this specific office use. Asphalt will be
added to the exterior yard area for additional parking on the site. The existing
carport structure will be used as one space and two additional spaces will be
added to the front yard area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family structure with a single drive from Cantrell Road.
The property to the west was recently rezoned to PD-O for use as an insurance
agency. North of the site is a creek with a single-family subdivision located
further to the north. Across Cantrell Road is Bella Rosa Commerce Center an
office development wrapping mini-warehouse units. Southeast of the site is a
POD zoned area containing number of office uses including a bank and
mortgage company. A large portion of the site including the structure is located
within the regulated floodway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester Neighborhood Association, the Westbury Property Owners
Association, the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, all owners of
property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. Show
centerline of Cantrell Road on survey.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to construction.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
3
6. The majority of the property is located in the floodway of Taylor Loop Creek.
No additions to the structure are allowed in the floodway. No fencing or
screening is allowed to be located in the floodway.
7. Since the structure is in the floodway, the existing structure can only be
improved up to 50% of the market value of the structure. Provide certified
appraisal of the structure and estimate of the cost of the improvements
prepared by a licensed contractor, professional engineer, or architect.
8. Per Section 36-341(h)(2), floodways shall be kept free of structural
involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment,
vehicle parking and other impediments to the free flow of floodwater.
9. Provide "No rise certification" prepared by a professional engineer to show
that the base flood elevation at this location did not rise due to the addition of
gravel in floodway.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if sewer service is
needed for this development. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414
for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-2 to Planned Office Development to allow the
site to be used as an appraisal office.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
4
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve
through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within
urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell since it is a Principal Arterial.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown just north of this site. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance is required.
2. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires a minimum of forty feet (40)
of landscape area along Highway 10. The proposed parking is located within
this area. The parking lot should be relocated to the rear of the property.
3. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip nine feet in
width along the eastern and western perimeters of the site.
4. A thirteen foot (13) wide land use buffer is required to separate this proposed
development from the residential property on the northern perimeter of the
site. Seventy percent (70%) of these buffers are to remain undisturbed.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006)
Mr. Ed Penick, Jr. was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff stated the cover letter indicated there
would not be any signage as a part of the development. Staff questioned if this
included building signage. Staff also requested the applicant provide a site plan
drawn to scale including the proposed parking.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
a regulatory floodway. Staff stated only improvements up to 50 percent of the
market value of the structure were allowable. Staff requested a certified
appraisal of the site. Staff stated a no rise certification prepared by a
professional engineer including the base flood elevation and the addition of the
paving and graveled parking areas was required.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated parking was not allowed
within the first 40-feet of Highway 10 per the Design Overlay District. Staff also
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
5
stated a minimum landscape strip would be required along the eastern and
western perimeters of the associated with any new paved areas.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has provided a site plan drawn to scale as requested by staff. The applicant has
not addressed building signage. Staff would recommend if the rezoning request
is approved, building signage be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the
façade area as typically allowed in office zones.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of three on-site parking spaces.
Two of the spaces have been indicated within the front yard area and one within
the existing carport structure. The proposed parking does not allow for the
automobile parked within the carport area to exit the site if the two exterior
spaces have automobiles parked in them. In addition, the two proposed parking
spaces are located within the front yard area leaving a 7.7-foot landscape strip
along Cantrell Road, which is typically reserved for a 40-foot landscape strip
within the area defined by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Since the structure is in the floodway, the existing structure can only be improved
up to 50% of the market value of the structure. A certified appraisal of the
structure and estimate of the cost of the improvements prepared by a licensed
contractor, professional engineer, or architect is required to determine value.
The applicant has not provided staff with the requested appraisal report. Staff
also has concerns with the conversion of this structure into a use higher than
single-family and adding value to the site with the higher zoning classification.
Staff has supported two previous applications in this area to allow the conversion
of single-family structures into office uses. The site located immediately west of
this site and a site located to the east. Staff support for the structure located
immediately west of this site was due to only a small portion of the structure
being located within the floodway and staff support for the structure located to the
east of this site was based on an inaccurate survey indicating the site was not
located within the floodway. Staff found once all approvals were received and
the remodeling permit was issued, the survey was not accurate.
Due to the fact the site is located within the floodway, staff cannot support the
request for rezoning. Staff feels the City should not rezone this site and add
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8117
6
value to the structure by providing the site with a zoning classification of a value
which is higher than single-family.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 23,
2006, requesting a deferral of this item to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with
regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has not had any contact with the applicant since the previous public hearing. Staff
continues to recommend denial of the request as indicated in the analysis section of the
above agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated November 29, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 18,
2007, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
NAME: Colonel Glenn Center Addition – Clearing & Wall Construction
Variance Request
LOCATION: West of Talley Road; North & South of Remington Road
APPLICANT: Boen Enterprises
ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick
AREA: approximately 12 acres
CURRENT ZONING: O3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where construction is not
imminent;
2. Construct a retaining wall that exceeds the cut and fill limits of Sec. 29-190.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to clear, and
grade on lots 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18 without construction being imminent. Following
grading, the applicant proposes to construct retaining walls on these lots. The
proposed wall shows to be about 19 ft tall which exceeds the terrace and wall height
limits of 15 ft per Sec 29-190.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
These O-3 zoned lots located along Remington Drive are approximately 12 acres and
covered in trees. The lots are adjacent to Remington College and Value Place Hotel
located to the west. Undeveloped, tree covered lots zoned O3 are located to the east
of the lots to be graded. On the north, the property is bordered by C3 zoned
properties that are already cleared by this same applicant. Also located to the north is
Landers Toyota. The property located to the south of the lots is zoned R2 and
separated by a 35 ft open space buffer and a private street.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (August 24, 2006)
Public Works comments were given to Pat McGetrick representing the applicant. Staff
questioned why additional clearing and grading is being requested when the majority
of the existing cleared lots of the subdivision are yet to be developed and no new
building permit applications have been submitted. These lots were cleared
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
2
approximately 5 years ago and at that time the owner told staff construction on those
lots was imminent. Staff was given a letter from Mr. McGetrick from the Arkansas
Baptist State Convention which stated the convention intends to begin construction on
lots 10 and 11 no later than June 1, 2007. Staff questioned why the clearing, grading,
and wall construction could not begin when the Arkansas Baptist State Convention
applies for a building permit. Mr. McGetrick stated he would give this information to
the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item was previously on the May 25, 2006 Planning Commission agenda but was
withdrawn by the applicant. Now, the applicant has sent staff a letter dated August 31,
2006 asking for the request to be deferred for three (3) weeks in order to obtain
commitment of purchase of the lots to be developed. Staff is in support of the deferral
request.
E. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request to defer the item
to the September 28, 2006 agenda. Staff stated they were supportive of the
withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff did not receive further proof of imminent construction for review as requested.
Due to lack of information and proof of notice, staff recommends deferral of the
request to October 26, 2006 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the October 26,
2006 Agenda in order for the applicant to submit additional information.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0006-A
3
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the October 26, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the review
process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with the
required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation of
deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: LA-0013
NAME: I-430 & Col. Glenn – Hockersmith Timber Harvest
LOCATION: Southwest corner of I-430 & 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 I-430 and Colonel
Glenn south of the Rave Theater with construction not being imminent.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
These 54 acre O2 zoned property is located at the end of Bowman Plaza Road.
Interstate 430 is located to the east of the property and the site plan shows a 50 ft
undisturbed buffer located between the property and I-430. On the north, the property
is bordered by an O2 zoned property that is already cleared. Also, to the north, are an
undeveloped lot and a future phase of the Southern Automotive Dealership which is
currently under construction. Located to the south is tree covered property zoned R2.
The property located to the west is J. A. Fair High School. A 50 ft undisturbed buffer is
shown to be located between the property and the school.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (August 24, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff stated no information has been provided except the
application and a site plan. A forestry management plan had yet to be submitted for
staff review. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0013
2
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This application was previously withdrawn from the August 1, 2006 Planning
Commission agenda due to a forestry management plan had not been submitted as
required by code. Staff did receive a forestry management plan for review on August
31, 2006. Due to the lack of information in that plan, staff did not have sufficient time
or information for review prior to preparation of staff recommendation and comments.
Staff recommends deferral of the request to the September 28, 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating they had received the requested forestry
management plan but it appeared the plan was lacking critical information to complete the
review process. Staff stated due to the lack of information in the plan and staff had not had
sufficient time to complete the review, a recommendation of deferral of the request to the
September 28, 2006, public hearing was presented.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the October 26,
2006 Agenda in order for the applicant to submit additional information.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the October 26, 2006 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0013
3
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the review
process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with the
required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation of
deferral of the item to the December 21, 2006, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: LA-0014
NAME: Boen Timber Harvest – NW I-430 & Col. Glenn
LOCATION: Northwest corner of I-430 & Colonel Glenn Road
APPLICANT: Loenard Boen
APPLICANT AGENT: Pat McGetrick
AREA: Approximately 82 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Conduct land alteration, activities, harvest timber,
with construction not being imminent as required by the Land Alteration Regulations, Sec.
29-186(b).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to harvest
timber on approximately 82 acres located at the northwest corner of I-430 and Colonel
Glenn with construction not being imminent.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This 82 acre, C2 zoned property is located Northwest of Colonel Glenn Road and
Interstate 430. Interstate 430 is located to the east of the property and the site plan
shows a 50 ft undisturbed buffer located between the property and I-430. On the
north, the property is bordered by an open space which is the floodplain of Brodie
Creek. Also located to the north are single family homes on R2 zoned properties and
some undeveloped property zoned MF12. The properties across Bowman Road
located to the west zoned R2 are a horse farm and a manufactured home park. The
property to the south is the Baptist Health System education center zoned C2 and
some other cleared, undeveloped properties zoned C2.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (August 24, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff stated no information has been provided except the
application and a site plan. A forestry management plan had yet to be submitted for
staff review. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0014
2
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This same application but by another applicant was previously withdrawn from the
August 3, 2006 Planning Commission agenda due to a forestry management plan had
not been submitted as required by code. Staff did receive a forestry management plan
for review on September 1, 2006. Due to the lack of information in that plan, staff did
not have sufficient time or information for review prior to preparation of staff
recommendation and comments. Staff recommends deferral of the request to the
September 28, 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating they had received the requested forestry
management plan but it appeared the plan was lacking critical information to complete the
review process. Staff stated due to the lack of information in the plan and staff had not had
sufficient time to complete the review, a recommendation of deferral of the request to the
September 28, 2006, public hearing was presented.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 11, 2006, requesting this item be deferred
to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11, 2006,
requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the review
process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0014
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff with the
required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation of
deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: L FILE NO.: LA-0015
NAME: Whisenhunt Investments Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road
APPLICANT: Whisenhunt Investments
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Development Consultants, Inc.
AREA: 4.06 acres
CURRENT ZONING: C3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration
Regulations to advance clear and grade with construction not being imminent.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to
advance clear and grade the property with construction not being imminent. The
approximately 4.06 acre property is located on the northwest corner of Chenal
Parkway and western leg of Kanis Road. The applicant desires to clear and fill
the property with excess dirt from the Fellowship Church site and other
undeveloped parcels north of the future extension of Wellington Hills Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This approximately 4.06 acre tree covered C3 zoned property is tract land
located on the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western leg of Kanis
Road. Developed C3 zoned property is located on the west. The Entergy power
substation is located on the northwest. On the north, the property is bordered by
a transmission right-of-way and beyond that right-of-way is tree covered
undeveloped property zoned C3. The property is bordered to the west by Chenal
Parkway and beyond Chenal is tree covered, undeveloped property zoned C3.
Kanis Road is located south of the property and beyond Kanis is tree covered
undeveloped property. Just south of the tree covered undeveloped property is
additional property that will be filled by dirt from the Fellowship Church site off
Kirk Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any phone calls or letters asking
questions or requesting additional information.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
2
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
2. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires
approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic
Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more
information.
3. Tracking of mud and dirt onto City streets is not permissable on city streets.
A tracking pad must be installed at least 250 ft from the Kanis-Chenal
intersection.
4. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater.
5. Per Little Rock Code Sec. 29-190(14), a perimeter buffer strip shall be
temporarily maintained around disturbed areas for erosion control purposes
and shall be kept undisturbed except for reasonable access for maintenance.
The width of the strip shall be 6% of the lot width and depth. The minimum
width shall be twenty-five (25) feet and the maximum shall be forty (40) feet.
6. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of harvest activities.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (October 5, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff stated the comments as written above. The
applicant’s representatives, Doug Robertson of Whisenhunt Investments, stated
the clearing and grading will comply with Little Rock code, staff
recommendations, and comments.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
F. ANALYSIS:
The request is to clear the trees and fill the 4.06 acre property located on the
northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western leg of Kanis Road with the
dirt from the Fellowship Church site and the undeveloped parcels north of the
future expansion of Wellington Hills Road. No construction is proposed to
proceed after the filling and grading activities are completed.
The Land Alteration Regulations (Sec. 29-186(b)) specifically state no land
alteration shall be permitted until all necessary city approvals of all plans and
permits, except building permit, have been issued and construction is imminent.
Imminent construction as defined by code means the installation of a foundation
or erection of a structure without unreasonable delay following land alteration
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
3
activities. With this application, the applicant desires to clear and fill the site but
has no plans for construction to proceed after the grading is completed. Per
code, a grading permit cannot be issued by staff for the clearing and filling
without construction being imminent. The code does provide the Planning
Commission with the authority to grant a variance for issuance of a grading
permit to clear and grade a multi-lot or multi-phase development where
construction is not imminent on all phases of the development.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Even though the applicant has agreed to comply with the Public Works
comments, staff does not support the clearing of additional trees without
imminent construction. The additional clearing and filling does not follow the
purpose of the Land Alteration Regulations (Sec. 29-168). The code states the
purposes are to prevent the excessive grading, clearing, and filling activities and
preserve the natural vegetation which enhances the quality of life of the
community. Prior to adoption of the Land Alteration Regulations, the applicant
cleared and graded about 11 acres south of Chenal Parkway near the Krogers
store that has yet to be developed. Recently, staff supported filling
approximately 21 acres south of Chenal Parkway and about 47 acres north or
Chenal Parkway as part of the Fellowship Church application because they were
nearly treeless. In that same application, staff did not support clearing and filling
of the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the western
leg of Kanis Road because of the existing trees. The applicant’s site plan is
incorrect showing the area adjacent to Kanis Road to be cleared and filled.
Being the subject property has trees, staff believes it should not be cleared and
filled until construction is imminent. The excess dirt can be taken to the previous
approved fill areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating applicant had submitted a request
dated October 24, 2006, requesting this item be deferred to the December 7, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the
Commission’s By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0015
4
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the required information to complete the
review process. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided staff
with the required information to complete the review process. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: M FILE NO.: S-1540
NAME: 8622 Chicot Road Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 8622 Chicot Road
DEVELOPER:
Manuel Beza Beltran
8622 Chicot Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
Troy D. Laha
6602 Baseline Road, Suite E
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 1.01 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. An 18-month deferral of the required hard surface parking area located to the
south of the restaurant building.
2. A variance to allow a reduced number of required parking spaces for the existing
detail shop.
3. A waiver of the requirement from Chapter 13 of the City of Little Rock code of
ordinances for waterproofing a building located within the floodplain.
A. PROPOSAL:
The site contains an existing 1,200 square foot restaurant and a 2,622 square
foot automobile detail shop along with 15 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing an expansion of the restaurant by adding a 26-foot by 46-foot
enclosed dining area and a 12-foot by 46-foot patio area. The request includes
additional parking for a total of 24 parking spaces located on the site to serve the
two businesses. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required paving for
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1540
2
18-months. The request includes a variance to allow a reduced number of
parking spaces required for the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located near the intersection of Baseline and Chicot Roads; a
commercial node. At this intersection there are a number of activities including
office and retail activities. The site being considered for Subdivision Site Plan
Review is located just north of the Baseline/Chicot Roads intersection and
contains two buildings; one a restaurant, the second a detail shop. There is a
railroad main line located to the west of the site. The Cloverdale Subdivision, a
single-family subdivision, is located across Chicot Road to the east. Chicot Road
has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard abutting the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Chicot Neighborhood Association, the West Baseline
Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, 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. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The north and
south driveways should be closed and access taken from the center
driveway. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
3. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646)
for the improvements located in the right-of-way.
4. Existing parking should be modified to remove parking spaces from
driveway entrance and modify parking space orientation to take access
from center driveway.
5. The existing structure lies within the 100 year floodplain. Improvements or
additions to this structure if over 50% of the value of the existing structure
will require the entire structure to be modified to meet Chapter 13 of the
City of Little Rock code.
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.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1540
3
7. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
8. The minimum finished floor elevation of the proposed addition (if less than
50 percent of the value of the existing structure) is required to be elevated
to 1 foot above the base flood elevation.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the site.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. In conjunction with this project, the request for additional parking, and the
elimination of some of the curb cuts, it is recommended the design of this
area encompass the City’s minimum landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements. The requirement is to average thirteen foot (13) of
landscape area and in no case be less than half. In doing so, it would
tremendously improve the aesthetics of an area that is one of the busiest
intersections in Southwest Little Rock.
3. An automatic irrigation system will be required for any new landscaped
areas.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) feet of building
landscaping between the parking areas and the building.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1540
4
5. Some of the proposed paved surfaces appear to extend to the property
line. The site should have a minimum of six foot nine inches (6’-9”) of
green space around its perimeter. A variance from this minimum
requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
6. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in
width and 150 square feet in area.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 24, 2006)
Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide details
of any existing or proposed signage and the location of the dumpster along with a
note concerning the required screening. Staff also stated they were not
supportive of a five year deferral of the hard surface parking request but would
support a 12 to 18 month deferral. Mr. Laha stated he would talk with the owner
but felt the owner would revise his request as suggested by staff. Mr. Laha
stated the owner was also requesting a reduced number of required parking for
the detail shop. Staff questioned the number being offered. Mr. Laha stated he
felt five spaces were sufficient to serve the detail shop. Staff stated they would
review this request.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant reduced
the number of driveways existing on the site. Staff requested the drives be
reduced to one driveway. Staff also stated a few of the indicated parking spaces
were located within the public right-of-way which would require a franchise
agreement. Mr. Laha stated the parking in the right-of-way could be eliminated if
the reduced parking was supported. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-way
would be required along Chicot Road. Mr. Laha stated with the dedication as
required the front of the detail building would be the new property line. Staff
stated they could support a reduced right-of-way dedication in this area.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site would require
additional landscaping with the redevelopment of the site. Staff stated they
would recommend the landscaping be transferred from other portions of the site
to the street side. Staff also stated a portion of the indicated new parking was
located within the required land use buffer area.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1540
5
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the August 24, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the location of the existing signage, the location of the dumpster
and eliminated two of the existing drives. The revised site plan indicates a
dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from the centerline of Chicot Road as required
per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has also indicated landscaping within
the front yard area.
The site plan indicates the placement of 24 parking spaces to serve the two (2)
businesses. Based on the ordinance, the typical minimum parking required for a
restaurant and detail shop would be 16 parking spaces for the restaurant and 15
parking spaces for the detail shop. The applicant is requesting approval of a
variance to allow a reduced number of parking spaces for the site. According to
the applicant, the detail shop does not generate a parking demand near the
typical number required and the 24 parking spaces as indicated is sufficient to
meet the needs of the business. Staff is supportive of this request.
The revised site plan indicates a single drive from Chicot Road near the center of
the site. Landscaping has been indicated along the northern portion of the drive.
There are two signs located within the new right-of-way. The two sign locations
will need a franchise from the City to remain in their current location. The
dedication of right-of-way will be within five (5) feet of the front of the detail shop.
There is paving is this area where the owner cleans and parks cars waiting to be
serviced. The applicant is requesting a franchise of the signage and parking
located within the right-of-way. Staff is supportive of this request.
The request includes a waiver of Chapter 13 of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances related to the waterproofing of the building. The existing structure
lies within the 100 year floodplain. Per the typical ordinance requirement any
improvements or additions to structures, if over 50% of the value of the existing
structure, requires the entire structure be modified to meet Chapter 13 of the
Little Rock code. The applicant has indicated the cost of the addition will exceed
the fifty percent requirement but has indicated the expense of waterproofing is
beyond the owner’s ability to pay and the owner will be unable to expand his
current business. The Planning Commission does not have the ability to hear or
approve this request. The ordinance grants the ability to hear appeals of this
request to the Board of Adjustment.
Since the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant the waiver
request, staff recommends the item be deferred to allow the applicant to seek
approval from the Board of Adjustment concerning the requested waiver of the
requirements of Chapter 13.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the item be deferred to allow the applicant to seek approval
from the Board of Adjustment concerning the requested waiver of the
requirements of Chapter 13.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: M (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1540
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 14, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a waiver of the
requirements of Chapter 13 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Staff stated
according to the ordinance the Body appointed to hear appeal requests should review
the request and not the Planning Commission. Staff presented a recommendation the
item be deferred to allow the applicant time to seek approval from the appropriate
appeals board which was the Board of Adjustment concerning the requested waiver of
the requirements of Chapter 13.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
Since the 2004 revised flood study stops downstream of this property and was not
conducted on this property, the City cannot place any floodplain conditions on the
existing and proposed structures and therefore no variance is required since the
location of the existing building and the proposed addition are not in the 100 year
floodplain. It is recommended to construct the new addition to the base flood elevation
or to floodproof the new addition to the base flood elevation. The base flood elevation
should be taken from the end of the flood study. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the request. 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 excluding comments
referencing the flood plain conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the above agenda staff report excluding comments referencing the flood plain
conditions.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: N FILE NO.: LU06-08-04
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Central City Planning District
Location: Either side of Daisy Bates east of Bishop Street
Request: Single Family and Mixed Use to Office and Neighborhood Commercial
Source: Ron Woods
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the January 28, 2007 agenda.
Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 28, 2006)
At the request of the applicant this item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral.
By a vote of 9 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 9, 2006)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral at the request of the applicant
to December 7, 2006. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against (Rahman, Allen absent) the consent
agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant requested this item be differed to January 18, 2007. The item was placed
on consent agenda for deferral. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda was
approved.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1232-B
NAME: Bright Point Subdivision Being a Replat of Lot 6R Doyne Subdivision
LOCATION: Located South of Tall Timber Boulevard, East of Tall Pine Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Bright Point, LLC
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 1.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 287.5 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for
proposed Lot 1.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a replat of Lot 6R Doyne Subdivision into six (6)
single-family lots. The lots are proposed with an average lot size of 10,090
square feet and a minimum lot size of 8,398 square feet. A new public street
extending 287.5 feet from Tall Timber Boulevard will serve the lots.
There is a variance request associated with the proposed preliminary plat. The
variance is to allow the creation of a Lot 1 with a reduced lot depth of 98.07 feet.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a grass covered tract. There are homes located along Tall
Timber Cove to the East and to the South of the site along Tall Pine Cove. To
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1232-B
2
the North are homes located along Tall Timber Boulevard. There is a park
located to the north of the site accessed from Tall Timber Boulevard.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All abutting property owners and the Pecan Lake Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Tall Timber shall be constructed to a minor residential standard.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
3. Maximum street grade allowed is 16 percent.
4. Minimum width of cul-de-sac is 80 feet from back of curb to back of curb.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
6. Plans 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).
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. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
9. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Tall Timber Boulevard and Tall Timber Drive.
10. Street Improvement Plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1232-B
3
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have
minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed subdivision indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Public Works comments were addressed.
Staff stated Tall Timber Drive should be constructed to a minor residential street
standard. Staff also stated a maximum street grade of 16 percent would be
allowed. Staff noted a 20-foot radial dedication of right of way was required at
the intersection of Tall Timber Boulevard and Tall Timber Drive.
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 November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised preliminary plat indicates the construction of Tall Timber Drive as a minor
residential street standard with a 45-foot right of way and no sidewalk. The
developer has indicated they can not provide a 20-foot radial dedication at the
intersection of Tall Timber Boulevard and Tall Timber Drive since the lots at the
intersection are not under the developer’s ownership. A 60-foot access has been
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1232-B
4
provided extending from Tall Timber Boulevard which will allow addition paving
for maneuvering.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is proposing a replat of Lot 6R
Doyne Subdivision into six (6) single-family lots with one variance request. The
lots are indicated with an average lot size of 10,090 square feet and a minimum
lot size of 8,398 square feet. The variance request is to allow proposed Lot 1 to
be developed with a reduced lot depth of 98.07 feet. The ordinance typically
requires a minimum lot depth of 100-feet. Based on the previously platted lot
and the location of the previously platted access easement, the 100-foot lot depth
cannot be achieved. Staff supports this variance request. The lot depth is
1.93 feet shy of the typical minimum requirement. Staff does not feel this will
adversely impact the development of the lot or the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a reduced lot depth
for proposed Lot 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the 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 variance request to allow a reduced lot depth for proposed Lot 1.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1407-A
NAME: Oxford Point Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located South of 57th Street between Hopson Street and Larch Place
DEVELOPER:
Allied Bank – Lex Golden
1002 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 4.714 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 540 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 13 – 65th Street East
CENSUS TRACT: 21.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow double frontage lots for
Lots 9 and 10.
BACKGROUND:
On December 4, 2003, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary
plat for this site. Per Section 31-94(e) a preliminary plat approved by the Little Rock
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
herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of the ordinance 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 the subdivision ordinance.
The approved preliminary plat has expired and the owners are now proposing to
reestablish the previously approved plat.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1407-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The development consists of 4.714 acres, located on West 57th Street, two
blocks east of Geyer Springs Road. The property is currently zoned R-2, Single-
family and the applicant proposes to subdivide this tract into a 19 lot single-family
subdivision. The proposed development will add 540 linear feet of new street
and end in a cul-de-sac taking no access to West 59th Street. The development
will be constructed in one phase.
The applicant has indicated a platted building line of 25-feet along the street
property line as required by the City of Little Rock Subdivision Ordinance Section
31-256. The applicant has also indicated a 25-foot platted building line along
with a 10-foot restricted access easement for the two lots adjacent to West 57th
Street. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
[Section 31-232(d)] to allow two (2) of the nineteen lots to develop as double
frontage lots (Lots 9 and 10). The applicant has indicated a ten foot restricted
access easement to ensure no vehicle access will be allowed on West 59th
Street, to limit the number of curb cuts on West 57th Street.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The northern portion of the site is vacant and the southern portion has two
homes located along West 59th Street. There is a large church located northwest
of the site and single-family homes located along West 57th Street to the
northeast. There is a newly developed single-family subdivision located on the
north side of West 57th Street at Freeland. South of the site is a C-3 zoned
parcel containing a mobile home-park. The areas to the east and west are
developed with single-family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents
concerning the proposed development. The Geyer Springs Neighborhood
Association, the Wakefield Neighborhood Association, Southwest United for
Progress and all abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1407-A
3
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. The proposed detention pond must empty into a drainage easement or an
existing or proposed ditch.
4. With site development, provide the design of the streets conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to 57th Street and
59th Street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
5. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
6. 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).
7. Oxford Run Court appears to be constructed beyond the Master Street Plan
standard for a minor residential street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing
water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1407-A
4
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were additional items
needed to be shown on the proposed preliminary plat.
Staff requested the applicant provide a phasing plan, if applicable. Staff also
requested the applicant provide a 10-foot restrictive access easement along
West 57th Street for Lots 1 and 19 and Lots 9 and 10 along West 59th Street.
Staff also noted Lots 9 and 10 would result in a variance; the creation of double
frontage lots. Mr. McGetrick stated he would verify right-of-way for West 59th
Street. He stated he did not think right-of-way for West 59th Street was in place
for the entire length.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Oxford Run Court should
have a minimum street width of 24-feet.
Comments from Central Arkansas Water, the Fire Department and Wastewater
were noted. Mr. McGetrick stated their comments would be addressed as well.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated a minimum street width of 24-feet. The applicant has
also indicated a 10-foot restrictive access easement along West 57th Street and
West 59th Street. The restrictive access easement along West 57th Street will
limit the driveway to Oxford Run Court. The applicant has indicated right-of-way
for West 59th Street is in place along Lots 9 and 10. A variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of double frontage lots [Section 31-
232(d)] is being requested. The applicant has indicated a restrictive access
easement along the rear of the proposed lots. Staff is supportive of the
requested variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots as proposed.
The applicant is proposing an average lot size of sixty-feet (60) by one hundred
forty-three (143) feet or 8,580 square feet. The proposed lot size is more than
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1407-A
5
adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (a
minimum of sixty (60) feet by one hundred (100) feet and a minimum of
7000 square feet). Staff is supportive of the proposed lot size and configuration.
The applicant has indicated detention on the proposed plat (contained within Lot
9) and has identified the detention basin area. The applicant has not however
indicated the detention basin and outfall line as an easement. Staff recommends
the applicant more clearly show and label the detention basin and appropriate
easements. Staff feels the size of Lot 9 will more than adequately handle the
detention basin along with all required easements and allow sufficient room for
future construction.
The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in one stage or
phase. All street work and infrastructure will be placed prior to final platting.
Staff is supportive of the proposed phasing plan of the development.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 9 and 10.
Staff recommends the applicant clearly label the detention area and appropriate
easements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was 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 presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 9 and 10. Staff also presented a
recommendation the applicant clearly label the detention area and appropriate
easements.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1424-B
NAME: Sienna Lake Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located South of David O Dodd Road and North of Crystal Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Cooper Land Development
903 North 47th Street
Rogers, AR 72756
ENGINEER:
Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc.
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 54.433 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 93 FT. NEW STREET: 7,246 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 – Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A waiver of the required construction of west Lake Lane to Collector Street
Standard.
2. A variance for the placement of traffic calming devices along West Lake Lane and
Cheshire Drive.
3. A variance to allow reduced spacing for reverse curves near the intersection of West
Lake Lane and Sienna Lake Drive.
BACKGROUND:
On April 22, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for
the first phase of a multiple phase single-family development for Cooper Development.
The proposed preliminary plat included 40.48 acres to be developed with 78 single-
family lots. The developers indicated at total build-out, the development would contain
363 acres and 605 single-family lots and the Commission would review each of the
future phases as development became imminent. The development plan included a
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1424-B
2
fifteen-year build-out. The applicant has indicated areas will be set aside as common
areas and designated as green space. The applicant has indicated a series of trails will
be constructed through out the neighborhood to provide connectivity to future proposed
recreational areas.
The approval included the first phase to be constructed with an average lot size of
82-feet by 130-feet or 10,660 square feet. A future phase of the development would
include estates lots and lake lots averaging 90-feet by 130-feet and 100-feet by
130-feet. The applicant indicated a portion of the future phases to potentially include
the development of patio homes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval of Phase II of the proposed subdivision.
The area is included in two blocks, Blocks 2 and 3 with a total of 93 lots. The
total area of Block 2 is 11.917 acres containing 24 lots. The lots are proposed
with an average lot size of 90-feet by 130-feet or 11,700 square feet with a
minimum lot size of 85-feet by 112-feet or 9,520 square feet. A total of
2,806 linear feet of new street is proposed with the development of Block 2. Four
areas have been identified as common open space for a total of 1.010 acres or
8.475 percent of the total property area.
Block 3 is proposed with a total land area of 42.516 acres and 69 lots. The lots
are proposed with an average lot size of 100-feet by 150-feet or 15,000 square
feet with a minimum lot size of 100-feet by 125-feet or 12,500 square feet. A
total of 4,440 linear feet of new street is proposed with the development of Block
3. The area of common open space proposed for Block 3 is 13.585 percent or
5.776 acres.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The first phase of construction has recently been completed with the installation
of water, sewer and streets. The area proposed for preliminary platting is
predominantly an undeveloped forestland of hardwoods. Signs of past logging
may be observed. However, most tree growth is between 20 and 75 years old.
An existing 16-acre lake is constructed on the northern end of the property. The
property contains a series of ridges with either steep or rolling side slopes.
Drainage flows occur towards the south and east of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All abutting property owners and the Crystal Valley Property Owners
Association, the Otter Creek Homeowners Association and Southwest Little Rock
United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1424-B
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Remove proposed cul de sac at end of Cheshire Drive. Due to Cheshire
Drive (proposed collector street) to continue beyond the subdivision to
Lawson Road, the end of the street should have barricades and not a cul de
sac.
2. West Lake Lane and Cheshire Drive should be designed to collector
standard (36 feet in width with a 5 foot sidewalk) due to the number of lots
and future connection to adjacent properties.
3. A spacing of 100 feet is required between the reverse curves on West Lake
Lane.
4. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the site
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
5. At present, water ponds in gutter on the newly constructed Sienna Lake
Drive. Contact Dow Currier, Public Works inspector, at 371-4835 for
additional information.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
11. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections. Contact Nat Banihatti in Traffic Engineering at
379-1816 for additional information. Traffic calming devices should be
installed on Cheshire Drive.
12. 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).
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1424-B
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have
minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff stated a 30-foot building line was
required adjacent to collector streets. Staff requested the applicant verify the
building line adjacent to Cheshire Drive.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated cul de sac at
the end of Cheshire Drive should be removed and the future street barricaded
and signed as required by the ordinance to indicate the street would extend in
the future. Staff also stated West Lake Lane and Cheshire Drive should be
designed to collector standards with a five foot sidewalk on each side of the
street. The Committee indicated sidewalks should be placed at the back of the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1424-B
5
right of way and not adjacent to the curb. Staff stated traffic calming devises
were required on long straight streets to discourage speeding. Staff stated traffic
circles or round-abouts were suggested at regular intervals and at main
intersections.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised plat indicates a 30-foot building line adjacent to collector streets and
included tracts along the street sides of the proposed lots removing all double
frontage lots.
The request is to allow West Lake Lane to be constructed to a residential street
standard. According to the applicant, the Master Plan was reviewed by staff prior
to submission of the original approved preliminary plat. With the review, the
location of collector and arterial streets were identified and the basic subdivision
was designed around the required street locations. According to the applicant,
Sienna Lake Subdivision is being developed in phases per the Master Plan and
at this time they have not changed the characteristics of the Master Plan and do
not plan to in the future. The developer is requesting staff reconsider the request
since the Master Plan was previously developed and approved at the Planning
Commission level.
The developer is also requesting a variance in the spacing for reversed curves
near the intersection of West Lake Lane and Sienna Lake Drive. According to
the developer, if West Lake Lane remains as a residential street, the requirement
is a 50-foot spacing. Since the reverse curves are at the intersection, vehicles
are stopping, and therefore the design speed is reduced substantially at this
location.
The developer is also requesting a variance from the requirement of the
placement of traffic calming devices on the long straight streets. The developers
have indicated Cheshire Drive will have vertical curves that will be designated at
or near the maximum grade of twelve percent. These grades will cause both
east and westbound vehicles to slow naturally therefore the round-abouts or
traffic circles are not necessary.
The Phase II portion of the proposed subdivision includes two blocks, Blocks 2
and 3 with a total of 93 lots. The total area of Block 2 is 11.917 acres containing
24 lots. The lots are proposed with an average lot size of 90-feet by 130-feet or
11,700 square feet with a minimum lot size of 85-feet by 112-feet or
9,520 square feet. A total of 2,806 linear feet of new street is proposed with the
development of Block 2. Four areas have been identified as common open
space for a total of 1.010 acres or 8.475 percent of the total property area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1424-B
6
Block 3 is proposed with a total land area of 42.516 acres and 69 lots. The lots
are proposed with an average lot size of 100-feet by 150-feet or 15,000 square
feet with a minimum lot size of 100-feet by 125-feet or 12,500 square feet. A
total of 4,440 linear feet of new street is proposed with the development of Block
3. The area of common open space proposed for Block 3 is 13.585 percent or
5.776 acres.
Staff is supportive of the proposed subdivision but has concerns with the
proposed requested waiver of the required street construction for West Lake
Lane. Staff feels the street should be constructed to Master Street Plan standard
including the proper curvature of the street near the intersection of West Lake
Lane and Sienna Lake Drive. In addition, staff feels traffic calming devices
should be installed on the long straight streets to reduce traffic speeds on these
roadways as the area develops and the volume of traffic increases.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stated the applicant had met with them and
addressed their concerns related to the proposed street design of West Lake Lane.
Staff stated the developer was proposing the construction of the street with a 50-foot
right of way and 31-feet of pavement. Staff stated the variance request to allow
reduced spacing for reverse curves had been removed. Staff stated a traffic calming
median would be installed along Cheshire Drive between the intersections of Avondale
Lane and Keswick Place. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request
as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1550
NAME: Herron-Horton Subdivision Site Plan Review and PCD Revocation
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of East 13th and Spring Streets
DEVELOPER:
Herron Horton Architects
300 South Spring Street, Suite 720
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.79 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USE: Tropical Plant Galleries and C/M Restoration
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD and UU
PROPOSED USES: Tropical Plant Galleries and C/M Restoration
and Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 – Central City
CENSUS TRACT: 8
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow a reduced rear yard
setback.
BACKGROUND:
The site was originally considered by the Executive Committee of the Mansion Area
Advisory Committee (CZD) and deferred to the City, since the Committee was afraid of
the long-term implications of the Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. The site was
considered by the Little Rock Planning Commission for rezoning from “HR” High Density
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1550
2
Residential to “GB” and the request was denied at the July 26, 1983 Planning
Commission Public Hearing.
The applicant later submitted a request for a PCD for the site. The request was
approved by the Commission at the September 13, 1983 Public Hearing and by the
Board of Directors on December 6, 1983 (Ordinance No. 14,555). This ordinance was
modified on May 21, 1996 by an ordinance reaffirming previously approved single use
planned unit developments (Ordinance No. 17,190).
The approved request allows for the site to develop as Tropical Plant Galleries. The
site was to be utilized by the applicant for storage of live plant materials. The applicant
proposed the placement of the distribution center for servicing the accounts in Arkansas
and the surrounding states. The development plan included the rebuilding of a portion
of a fire-damaged, frame and brick building for office space, the installation of a large
metal door on the Spring Street side, which would enable trucks to pull completely
inside the building for loading and unloading and the provision for 14 parking spaces
shielded by a 14-foot brick wall.
Ordinance No. 18,899 adopted by the Little Rock board of Directors on July 15, 2003,
revised the previously approved PCD to allow multiple tenants to occupy the space at
315 West 12th Street. On the site was a 10,066 square foot building occupied by
Tropical Plant Galleries. The applicant proposed to allow C/M Restoration to operate
from the location as well. C/M restores older homes in the Quapaw and Hillcrest
neighborhoods and the facility was to be used as a workshop for restoration projects
associated with their business. All operations and storage of materials were proposed
to take place indoors. Also approved was the placement of trailers in the rear of the
building located on a gravel surface. The applicant did not propose the placement of a
hard surface parking area due to the limited moving of the trailers and the applicant did
not desire to damage the root system of the several significant trees located on the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Lot 6, Block 195, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas is
currently a vacant lot located within a previously approved Planned Commercial
Development. The developers propose a revocation of Lot 6 from the PCD
allowing the property to be rezoned to the UU – the Urban Use District zoning
classification. Lot 6 is bounded by Spring Street on the west, a vacant lot on the
adjacent north, an alley on the east and West 13th Street on the south.
The applicants propose the construction of a single-family U-shaped residence
with a courtyard oriented to the north and a detached garage/storage building to
the east of the principal structure. The garage/storage building is connected to
the principal structure with a covered, unenclosed walkway. The principal
structure is located 5-feet from the east and south property lines, located 3-feet
from the north property line and 45-feet from the east property line. The
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1550
3
garage/storage structure is located 5-feet from the south property line, 21-feet
from the north property line and located on the property line at the east.
A six foot privacy fence is located between the garage and principal structure, on
the east property line and partially on the north property line. A six foot privacy
wall at the north property line approximately 42-feet in length at the courtyard
area is also proposed. The landscaped areas will be at the courtyard and
between the principal structure and the garage/storage building as indicated on
the site plan.
The cover letter indicates a request to allow the option of a standing seam metal
material for the roof and partial siding. The applicants have indicated they feel
the materials are appropriate construction materials for the area due to the
adjacent commercial properties. The adjacent commercial properties are clad in
corrugated metal siding with a metal or flat build-up roof.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The PCD zoned area is currently being used by the Tropical Plant Galleries
located in a large warehouse building. The uses in the area include a mix of
residential and non-residential uses. There are large warehousing activities to
the west and a building to the east being restored by EMOBA. The area being
considered for this proposal is a vacant lot with vacant area located to the north
of the site.
To the south across West 13th Street there are single-family homes and
vacant/depleted buildings.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Downtown
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy. The sidewalk adjacent to this property
is damaged and should be repaired.
2. Since the property is adjacent to an alley, the alley should be repaved from
the street to the north property line with at least 18 feet of asphalt.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1550
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meter(s).
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed
development indicating there were no technical issues remaining outstanding
associated with the request. Staff stated the request included a partial
revocation of the PCD zoning and a site plan review for the development of a
single-family residence and a garage on the site. Staff stated the UU Zoning
District did not have provisions for accessory structures which was the reason for
the site plan review. There was no further discussion of the item. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request
remaining from the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
request includes a revocation of the existing PCD zoning for Lot 6, Block 195
Original City of Little Rock, rezoning the site to UU, Urban Use District and a site
plan review for the placement of a residential structure and an accessory
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1550
5
structure on the site. Staff is supportive of the revocation request. The lot was
originally zoned PCD as part of a larger ownership of property. The site is vacant
and has been for a number of years. In staff’s opinion, the revocation of the PCD
for this one lot and the rezoning of the site to UU should have minimal impact on
the adjoining properties since the majority of the area is currently zoned UU.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a single-family residence in a
U-shape with a central courtyard oriented to the north and a detached
garage/storage building to the east of the principal structure. The garage/storage
building is connected to the principal structure with a covered, unenclosed
walkway. The principal structure is located 5-feet from the east and south
property lines, located 3-feet from the north property line and 45-feet from the
east property line. The garage/storage structure is located 5-feet from the south
property line, 21-feet from the north property line and located on the property line
at the east. The UU District typically does not require a front yard building
setback except in specific areas along Capitol Avenue and along Chester Street,
a 25-foot rear yard setback when adjacent to single-family and a four foot side
yard setback when adjacent to residential. The request includes a variance to
allow a reduced rear yard setback. The garage/storage building is located within
the required rear yard setback with a zero setback. Staff is supportive of the
variance request. The structure is located adjacent to a 20-foot platted alley and
staff does not feel the placement of the garage/storage building within this
required setback will adversely impact the adjoining properties.
A six foot privacy fence is located between the garage and principal structure, on
the east property line and partially on the north property line. A six-foot privacy
wall at the north property line approximately 42-feet in length at the courtyard
area is also proposed. The landscaped areas will be at the courtyard and
between the principal structure and the garage/storage building as indicated on
the site plan. Staff is supportive of the fencing as proposed.
The request includes the use of façade materials inconsistent with typical
ordinance standards. The applicant is requesting the option to place corrugated
or ribbed materials on the façade of the structure. Staff is not supportive of the
request. The ordinance for building materials is very specific which states the
façade material may be any standard material, except corrugated or ribbed
materials. Staff feels this minimum ordinance standards should be met.
Although staff is supportive of the revocation request and the construction of a
new single-family home on the site including a garage/storage building, staff is
not supportive of the allowance of construction materials inconsistent with the
typical ordinance standard. Staff feels the building materials should comply with
the ordinance and the applicant should not be allowed the use of corrugated or
ribbed material on the façade of the structure.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1550
6
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had provided them with the proposed
construction materials and a letter committing to the proposed architectural details of
the structures. Staff stated based on the letter of commitment and the proposed
construction materials they felt the developers were meeting the intent of the ordinance.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with
the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff
report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to
allow a reduced rear yard setback.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1551
NAME: Chahta Yakni Falama Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on HWY 365 between Sweet Home and Higgins Switch
DEVELOPER:
Save the St. Tammany Chahta Tribe
P.O. Box 16613
Little Rock, AR 72231
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 8.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: The area is located within the Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction where the City does not exercise zoning.
PLANNING DISTRICT: 27 – Fish Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 40.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five year deferral of the required
improvements to Highway 365.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The St. Tammany Parish Native American Tribe is here due to Hurricane Katrina.
The tribe has purchased a piece of property in Pulaski County to build a
residential community until the tribe is able to rebuild back home in Louisiana.
The property contains eight (8) acres and is located on Highway 365 between
Sweet Home and Higgins Switch. The applicants are requesting a Subdivision
Site Plan Review for Tract 2. The proposal is to develop Tract 2 to contain
12,555 square feet of living space contained in five (5) structures, prayer area,
park and parking. The intended use for the land is to place a Nook (Tribal
Government) and single-family dwellings for the tribal members as a place of
retreat/evacuation during the hurricane season in Louisiana. A section of the
property has been designated for a park area for the children. There will also be
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1551
2
an area to be used as a gathering place for prayer. The property will be owned
as tribal land, houses will not be sold nor can the land be subdivided into
individual lots. A single drive is proposed to serve the future home site extending
from Highway 365. The drive has been indicated as Chahta Yakni Falama Lane
for the purposes of mail delivery. There are no plans for the development of
Tract 1.
A request for a five year deferral of the required improvements to Highway 365 is
also being sought.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a tree covered site. The area contains a number of uses including
residential and non-residential uses. To the north and east of the site are
cemeteries located on both sides of Highway 365. To the west is a rock quarry.
South of the site is a single-family home. Further south are commercial
businesses including an automobile detail shop.
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 were notified of
the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located
within the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Arkansas Highway 365 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Arkansas
Highway 365 including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Staff
supports a 5 year deferral of construction of street improvements. A deferral
must be approved by the City of Little Rock Board of Directors.
3. The width of the proposed driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1551
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide written approval from the
wastewater utility proposing to serve the development.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Approval of the City of Little
Rock is required prior to water service availability. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding size and location of water meter(s). Additional fire hydrant(s)
may be required. Contact the fire department having jurisdiction to obtain
information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s).
This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and
fire protection.
Fire Department: The site is located outside the City Limits of Little Rock. Place
fire hydrants per code. Provide a letter of approval from the area volunteer fire
department indicating their knowledge of the proposed development and their
ability to serve the development.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff stated the site plan indicated the
placement of lot lines. Staff requested the site plan be redrawn to remove the
indicated lots and only show the proposed building footprints for each of the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1551
4
residential units. Staff also stated the indicated drive was a private driveway and
not a private or public street. Staff requested this be noted on the site plan. Staff
requested the applicant provide the source of wastewater disposal along with a
letter indicating their ability to serve the development.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right of way
along Arkansas Highway 365 would be required per the Master Street Plan.
Staff stated construction of the street to Master Street Plan standards or a
deferral would be required. Staff noted the deferral request would require action
by the Little Rock Board of Directors. Staff stated the driveway width should not
exceed 36-feet in width.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised
plan indicates building footprints and no longer indicates the placement of lot
lines, indicated the drive as a private driveway and not a pubic or private street
and provided the source of wastewater disposal in the general notes section of
the site plan. The request also includes a five year deferral of the required street
improvements to Highway 365. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
The site plan indicates the placement of a single drive extending from Highway
365 into the proposed development. The applicant has indicated the placement
of five single-family homes on the site. Three of the homes will be constructed in
the near future and two of the homes added as funds become available. The
property will be maintained under a single ownership with no plans for future sale
of the individual homes. The St. Tammany Parish Native American Tribe of the
Old Florida Territory will maintain ownership of the property. The development
will provide housing for tribal members which consist of the
handicapped/elderly/children to retreat/pull back during the hurricane season in
Louisiana. The site plan indicates the placement of a park and detention storage
area adjacent to Highway 365.
The development will receive water service from Central Arkansas Water and
wastewater collection will be provided by Sweet Home/Higgins Switch Sewer
Facility - treatment provided by Wrightsville.
The park area is proposed as an area reserved for nature only. The park will be
used for Pow-Wow’s which are held two times a year. There are no plans for any
buildings, playground equipment, or other amenities to be constructed in this
area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1551
5
Tract 1 is located to the northwest of Tract 2. There are no plans for the
development of Tract 2.
Staff is supportive of the request for a site plan review to allow the placement of
multiple buildings on a single parcel of property. The site is located within the
City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction where the City exercises only
Subdivision control. The proposal is to allow five single-family homes to be
constructed on the site with setbacks more than adequate to meet the typical
setbacks for residential property if the site were zoned. The total land area is
eight acres held in two tracts. The area proposed for development contains five
acres, a large portion of which (approximately 3.5 acres) is an abandoned rock
quarry and is covered in water, leaving approximately 1.5 acres of developable
property. With the placement of five units on this 1.5 acres results in a density of
3.33 units per acre, consistent with typical densities of single-family development.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. The proposed site plan appears to fully comply with the typical
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance related to the site plan
review criteria.
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 five-year deferral of the required
Master Street Plan improvements to Highway 365.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. Chief Warhorse addressed
the Commission on the merits of the request. She stated the tribe was proposing to
construct homes on the site to serve as a retreat and a place to pull back during
hurricane season. She stated the tribe had purchased the property earlier this year to
allow them to not be refugees if and when another storm hit.
Ms. Margie Goodman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated she had land located to the west of the tribe land and for a number of years had
be allowed access to their property through the tribes property. She stated in the
summer she and her husband had met with the Chief and the Chief had denied them
access. She stated according to the former owner there was an access easement
across the property to serve their landlocked parcel. She stated all she and her
husband were requesting was access to their property.
Mr. Scott McGill addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated his property was
located to the west of the site and he shared a common boundary through the rock
quarry. He stated his concern was children would trespass onto his property which
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1551
6
would lend him some liability should someone get hurt. He stated he had not objection
to the use of the property as a residential use.
Chief Warhorse addressed the Commission stating the members would not fall from the
bluffs into the water. She also stated there was no access easement to the property to
the west. She stated not only were the Goodmans crossing her property but were
crossing a property located to the south as well. She stated if there was an access
easement she would honor the easement but to date one had not been provided.
Mr. Derrick Goodman addressed the Commission. He stated his property was the only
residential property he and his wife bought. He stated he was ready to begin
construction of their home but could not without access to the site. He stated there was
a large amount of dirt located on the site which would need removal prior to
construction. He stated there was also a large piece of equipment located on the site
which also needed removing.
There was a general discussion of the proposed request. The Commission questioned
when building would begin. The Chief stated construction would begin on a few of the
homes immediately.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs West Planning District
Location: Southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads
Request: Commercial and Multi Family to Single Family
Source: Mizan Rahman, ETC Engineers, Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from
Commercial and Multi Family to Single Family. Single Family provides for single family
homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The request is to allow
development of single-family lots as part of the Village on the Green Subdivision.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is rural and is currently zoned MF-12 and is C-2. The property is
approximately 5.5 acres in size. This area is surrounded to the south, west and east by
R-2 Single Family zoning and is mostly undeveloped except for some new houses to
the west. Also, there are several houses along the north side of Bunch Road. To the
east of this area is a church and a few houses. To the southwest of the amendment
area is OS Open Space and MF-6 Multifamily district zoning for the Lake View Country
Club and golf course. To the north is zoned C-2 and undeveloped, and further north of
this area is a PID Planned Industrial Development for Graves Insulation. This building
appears vacant and is for sale. South and southeast of this area (south of the old
railroad bed) is located within the Little Rock extraterritorial boundary, but there is no
zoning practiced in this area. This area is also rural and consists of scattered single-
family housing.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Ordinance 18,724 was passed on July 16, 2002. This ordinance amended an area west
of Heinke Road, north of the county line and south of the railroad bed from Single
Family to Low Density Residential for a special population residential development.
Ordinance 18,665 was passed on April 2, 2002. This ordinance amended many
different areas in this planning district. These amendments were brought about by a
staff review of the area. These amendments were made to update the plan to reflect
current and future needs of the area. A change was made on the west side of Chicot
Road north of Nolen Drive from Office, Multi Family, and Single Family to Mixed Use.
The Single Family and Commercial at the west side of Chicot between Burnelle Drive
and Rebecca Drive was changed to Mixed Use. The Multi Family on the west side of
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
2
Chicot Road between Morris Drive and Rebecca Drive was changed to Commercial,
Office and Suburban Office. The Single Family on Mabelvale Cutoff Road at Shiloh
Drive east of the Heinke Road intersection was changed to Mixed Use. The Single
Family on Heinke Road north of Johnson Road at the proposed route of the South Loop
was amended to Neighborhood Commercial.
Ordinance 18,626 was passed on January 2, 2002. This ordinance changed many
different areas in the planning district. The Multi Family on Topaz Court was amended
to Low Density Residential to recognize existing duplexes. The Multi Family and Single
Family in an area on the east side of Chicot near the 12600 block was amended to
Single Family and Public Institutional to recognize the existing church and residences.
The ‘Area for Future Study’ north of Green Road on Chicot Road was amended to
Mixed Use. The ‘Area for Future Study’ on the northeast and northwest corners of
Green Road and Geyer Springs Road was amended to Single Family. The Commercial
and Single Family at Willow Springs and Hilaro Springs Roads was amended to Public
Institutional to recognize the existing church and parsonage.
The amendment area is currently planned for Commercial and Multi Family. The
Commercial area extends north to the corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads. Most of the
surrounding area is either planned for Single Family or Park Open Space for the Lake
View Country Club and golf course. The Park Open Space also extends northeast
across Chicot Road and follows the floodplain. Directly east of the application area is
an area of Public Institutional for an existing church.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chicot Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. The primary function of a
Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or
activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chicot Road since it is a Principal
Arterial. Bunch Road is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The
primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
According to the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section, a Class I bike route is proposed
southeast of this location. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
Additional paving and right of way may be required.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
3
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is not within eight city blocks of a park or
open space. There is a need for recreation space in this area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West-I-30 South
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal states:
Encourage new single-family growth and maintain and enhance the quality of existing
housing.
ANALYSIS:
The application area has been undeveloped for many years. Located just north of the
city limits, it is surrounded by mostly residential uses. Demand for new single-family
residences is shown in the new houses on Coulter Lake Road, Castle Valley Drive,
Whispering Oak Drive and Whispering Oak Trail. Forty-six building permits have been
issued in 2006 for Census Tract 41.05, and twenty-one of these were for houses on
Castle Valley Drive, Whispering Oak Drive and Whispering Oak Trail, which is just west
of the application area.
While this change would remove some Multi Family and Commercial from the Future
Land Use Plan, there would still be other opportunities for these uses in the area. More
than half of the planned Commercial area at the corner of Bunch Road and Chicot Road
will remain Commercial in use. Some Commercial at this location could be beneficial,
since there is no real opportunity for commercial services within a mile. The closest
commercial center to the application area is located north at the intersection of Chicot
and Mabelvale Pike. One commercial building permit was issued this year in the
application area’s census tract.
The Multi Family will be completely changed at this location, but there are almost fifty
acres of Low Density Residential planned within a mile north of the application area.
There is also approximately six acres of M-6 Multi Family zoning at the corner of Castle
Valley Road and Coulter Lake Road. This will allow for other types of housing in the
area. There does not appear to be a demand for multi family housing in this area since
there has only been one permit issued within the last five years for multi family within
this census tract.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-15-03
4
A change from Multi Family to Single Family on the Future Land Use plan would also be
less demanding on the existing infrastructure. Chicot Road needs improvements in this
area, and a new development may spur some much needed road improvements.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Deer Meadow
Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, and Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The item was placed on consent agenda to allow more to resolve outstanding issues.
By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
NAME: Village on the Green Subdivision Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest Corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads
DEVELOPER:
Woodland Homes, LLC
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 36.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 121 FT. NEW STREET: 4,100 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2 - Single-family, C-2 – Shopping Center District and
MF-12 – Multifamily 12 units per acre
ALLOWED USES: Single-family, Commercial and Multi-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 12,
13, 35, 36, 52 – 58, and 95 - 103.
2. A waiver of the Master Street Plan required street improvements to Bunch Road.
BACKGROUND:
On January 20, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat
for this site known as the Pines Subdivision (S-643-C). The site contained 36.31 acres
and the applicant proposed to subdivide the area into 83 single-family lots, a park area
and two tracts. Tract A was zoned C-2 – Shopping Center District and the second tract
would be utilized as detention. Portions of the site were zoned R-2, Single-family and
MF-12, Multi-family District, which would require rezoning prior to development. The
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
2
proposed plat indicated Lots 69 – 78 were zoned MF-12, Multi-family District. The
applicant indicated the subdivision with a single entry, which would add 4,100 linear feet
of new street within the proposed subdivision. Street improvements were proposed
along Chicot Road and Castle Valley Road. The applicant requested a waiver of the
required street improvements to Bunch Road. The applicant did not propose access to
Bunch Road but did provide an emergency access to the site from Bunch Road. The
applicant stated the property had only a small frontage on Bunch Road. A “sliver” of
property between the applicant’s ownership and Bunch Road for the majority of the site
was owned by the property owners to the north of Bunch Road.
A 25-foot front building line, 10-foot side yard setbacks and a 20-foot rear yard set back
was approved for all lots within the subdivision. Variances to allow a reduced rear
building set back and to allow the development of a portion of the indicated lots as
double frontage lots were also approved.
A playground area along with on-site detention were indicated on the approved
preliminary plat. The applicants proposed plat indicated an average lot size as
7,700 square feet and a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet. The site plan indicated
a maximum buildable area of 3,250 square feet and a minimum buildable area of
2,150 square feet.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, C-2 and MF-12 to
PD-R to allow the development of 27.9 acres as a single-family subdivision. The
development is proposed with 121 single-family lots and a detention
storage/playground area. The development will be constructed in three phases
with 43 lots in the first phase, 34 lots in the second phase and 44 lots in the final
phase. The average lot size proposed is 7,000 square feet and the minimum lot
size proposed is 5,000 square feet.
The plat indicates Lots 12 and 13, 35 and 36, 52 – 58 and 95 – 103 as double
frontage lots per the Subdivision Ordinance. A ten (10) foot restrictive access
easement has been placed along the rear lot line of these proposed lots to limit
curb cuts and access to the adjoining streets.
The development is proposed with a single access extending from Castle Valley
Road with an emergency access indicated along Bunch Road. The streets are
proposed as minor residential streets. The total linear feet of new street
proposed is 4,534 linear feet.
The applicant has indicated no portion of the site is located within
floodplain/floodway. The applicant has indicated the source of water as Central
Arkansas Water and the means of wastewater disposal will be by Little Rock
Wastewater Utility.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site currently zoned R-2, C-2 and MF-12. The streets in the
area are not constructed to Master Street Plan standard with narrow roadways
and open ditches for drainage. There is a mixture of uses in the area. There are
single-family homes located across Bunch Road to the north and the City limits is
located to the south across Caste Valley Road. To the southwest of the site is a
golf course with new homes developing in the Whispering Pines Subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Legion Hut
Neighborhood Association, the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections. Contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineer at
379-1816 for additional information. Traffic calming devices should be
installed on Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to Castle
Valley Road to a collector standard including a 5-foot sidewalk prior to final
platting. Construct one-half street improvements to Chicot Road to principal
arterial standard including a 5-foot sidewalk prior to final platting.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. "Whispering Pine
Drive" street name is repetitive. Provide street name for cul-de-sac at the
NW corner of property. "Whispering Pine Circle" could be used. Provide
new name prior to final platting.
5. Construct Whispering Pine Court and Whispering Pine Lane to residential
street standards including a 5-foot sidewalk on one side. Construct
Whispering Pine Drive to a residential collector standard 31 feet in width
from back of curb to back of curb including a 5 foot sidewalk.
6. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
4
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
8. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
9. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
11. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of all
streets.
12. Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
13. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the site
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing
water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
5
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial, Single Family, and Multi Family
for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to allow the
development of 121 single-family lots on a 27.9-acre tract.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Single Family is a separate item on
this agenda (LU06-15-03).
Master Street Plan: Chicot Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Bunch Road is shown as a Local Street. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
Chicot Road since it is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Local Street
is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: According to the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section, a Class I bike
route is proposed southeast of this location. A Class I bikeway is built separate
from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Chicot West-I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal states: Encourage new single-
family growth and maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide
a detailed bill of assurance for the proposed subdivision detailing the proposed
construction materials, minimum square footage of the homes and estimated
sales price of the homes. Staff also requested the applicant provide details of
any proposed subdivision identification signage including height, area and
location. Staff stated the previous development allowed for a density of 2.2 units
per acre and the current application request was to allow a density of 3.3 units
per acre.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
6
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated traffic calming devices
were required for long straight streets. Staff stated devices should be installed
along Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane. Staff also stated street
improvements to Bunch, Chicot and Castle Valley Roads would be required per
the Master Street plan. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to
development and the City’s storm water detention ordinance would apply to the
proposed development.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing few of the
comments raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has not provided staff with a detailed Bill of Assurance for the
proposed subdivision indicating the minimum square footage of the homes or the
construction materials. The applicant has also not provided staff with details of
the proposed subdivision identification signage or the location of the proposed
sign. Street improvements have been noted along Castle Valley Road and
Chicot Road. No street improvements have been indicated along Bunch Road.
The revised site plan does not include the placement of traffic calming devices
along Whispering Pine Drive and Whispering Pine Lane as requested by staff.
Staff feels the traffic calming devices should be included along the roadways.
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, C-2 and MF-12 to
PD-R to allow the development of 27.9 acres as a single-family subdivision
containing 121 lots and a detention storage/playground area. The development
will be constructed in three phases with 43 lots in the first phase, 34 lots in the
second phase and 44 lots in the final phase. The average lot size proposed is
7,000 square feet and the minimum lot size proposed is 5,000 square feet. The
maximum buildable area has been indicated on the proposed site plan.
The plat indicates Lots 12 and 13, 35 and 36, 52 – 58 and 95 – 103 as double
frontage lots per the Subdivision Ordinance. A ten (10) foot restrictive access
easement has been placed along the rear lot line of these proposed lots to limit
curb cuts and access to the adjoining streets.
The development is proposed with a single access extending from Castle Valley
Road with an emergency access indicated along Bunch Road. The streets are
proposed as minor residential streets. The total linear feet of new street
proposed is 4,534 linear feet. The revised site plan indicates Whispering Pine
Drive constructed to Collector Street standard for the first 420 feet as requested
by staff. The site plan does not indicate the required improvements to Bunch
Road. Staff feels one-half street improvements to Bunch Road should be
completed by the developer as required by the Master Street Plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3951-F
7
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request to allow the creation of
121 single-family lots from this 27.9 acre tract. The development was previously
approved for 83 single-family homes meeting most of the typical minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to minimum lot size,
minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths. The previous proposal allowed an
overall density of 2.2 units per acre. The current proposal allows an average lot
size of 7,000 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. If the
development were developed as a single-family subdivision there would be a
number of variances associated with the request with regard to minimum lot size,
minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths. Staff feels the development as
proposed does not provide adequate livable space for the proposed residents of
the subdivision. Although, the site plan indicates the placement of a small
playground/detention storage area, with the small lot area, staff does not feel the
open space area provided will be adequate to meet the demand for recreational
needs of the subdivision. Staff feels the development as proposed will result in
buildings and roadways and will not allow adequate outdoor livable space for the
future residents of the subdivision.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferred to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues
associated with the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
NAME: Pleasant Ridge Town Center Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell and Pleasant Ridge Roads
DEVELOPER:
Pleasant Ridge Development LLC
11601 Pleasant Ridge Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 27.0+ acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Shopping Center
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center - Allow the western-most intersection along
Cantrell Road to become a full service intersection.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 1994, through Ordinance No. 16,808, the City Board of Directors
approved a PCD that would allow the development of a mixed use “Neighborhood
Commercial” shopping center and an accompanying office development. The site was
a 12.83 acre-tract and of the area, 11.48 acres was proposed to be developed as the
shopping center. The proposed structure was 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking
spaces were indicated. A 1.35-acre tract was to have 10,000 square feet of office
building space with an additional 50 parking spaces. The uses proposed for the
shopping center were all by-right C-2 and C-3 zoning district, except that there were to
be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car washes
within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office building were all uses by
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
2
right in the O-2 and O-3 zoning district. The applicant proposed the development of
this 0.27-acre tract as a convenience store with gas pumps.
On January 9, 1997, the Commission reviewed a request for a change in the right-of-
way dedication and street improvement requirement to Fairview Road. The developer
requested all right-of-way dedication and street improvements be taken from the
property located to the east of Fairview Road. The Board of Directors adopted
Ordinance No. 17,331 on December 3, 1996, which allowed a five-year deferral of street
improvements (or until development of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD) to Fairview
Road.
The Little Rock Planning Commission granted a three-year time extension for the
proposed submission of the final development plan at their December 22, 1997, Public
Hearing. The applicant submitted a Final Development Plan for the Pleasant Ridge
Square Long-form PCD, which was approved on February 1, 2002.
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,233 on November 9,
2004, establishing a revision to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center PCD. The
development is proposed as a 300,000 square foot retail center with restaurant space
developed as a “Life-style Center”. The approval allowed the creation of three lots.
Ordinance No. 19,281 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15,
2005, revised the previously approved PCD to allow Coulson Oil to add an additional
driveway to the site and adjust the southern property line. The site plan indicated the
drive would be added to the southwestern corner of the property to adjoin to the
proposed driveway for Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The applicant indicated with the
adjustment, the existing Coulson PCD would function more appropriately with the
approved Pleasant Ridge Town Center site plan. Coulson Oil also proposed the sale of
a portion of their lot to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center along the southern perimeter.
The sale of the property resulted in a rear yard buffer and landscape strip that was less
than the typical minimum required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The
applicant stated with the approval of the Pleasant Ridge Town Center PCD, the reduced
rear yard buffer appeared more reasonable since PCD zonings abutted one another.
The Board of Directors adopted an ordinance on November 21, 2006, revising the
previously approved PCD for the shopping center to allow the creation of two additional
lots for the Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The previous approval allowed for the
creation of three lots which have been final platted. The developer proposed the
placement of the two additional lots along Cantrell Road within the area identified as
future restaurant sites. According to the applicant the restaurant out-parcels were
needed to allow the transfer of property to prospective tenants. The approval brought
the total available lots on the site to five. There were no other modifications proposed to
the previous approval.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
3
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned
Commercial Development to allow the western-most drive located along Cantrell
Road to become a full service intersection. There were no other modifications
proposed to the previous approval.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently under construction for the shopping center with the internal
“shell buildings” nearing completion. A large portion of the paving and
landscaping has been installed. The restaurant out-parcels have been cleared
and grading has taken place but no building construction has begun. Presently
the western-most drive located on Cantrell Road is a right-in, right-out only
intersection. The main entrance drive allows for left turns from the shopping
center along Cantrell Road.
There is a single-family home located across Woodland Heights Road on R-2,
Single-family zoned property. There are office uses located on O-3, General
Office District zoned property to the east and north of the site. There is a church
located to the northeast and a City of Little Rock fire station to the northwest.
The Walton Heights Subdivision is also located to the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents
located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Walton
Heights-Candlewood Property Owners Association, the Pleasant Forest
Neighborhood Association, the Piedmont Property Owners Association and the
Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Public Works opposes the requested additional access for Pleasant Ridge
due to traffic safety concerns and capacity issues on this section of Cantrell
Road due to increasing traffic volumes in this corridor. From recent traffic
counts, the corridor was measured at 44,041 vehicle per day. Pleasant Ridge
is not yet open and the traffic has increased 16 percent since 2005. Public
Works is concerned that if an unprotected westbound left turn movement is
allowed, ultimately a protected left turn phase will have to be added due to
insufficient gaps in traffic to safely make the left turn. This would further
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
4
increase congestion for eastbound motorists and increase the stacking traffic
to the west past Sam Peck Road due to the insufficient roadway capacity.
2. No safety issues were identified for the proposed southbound through
movement into Pleasant Ridge from Southridge Drive assuming the entrance
is channelized to reduce the number of conflicts that would be created by the
applicant's plan to increase access at this entrance.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were no outstanding
technical 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.
F. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request
remaining from the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant is requesting a revision to the previously approved Planned
Commercial Development to allow the western-most drive located on Cantrell
Road to become a full service drive. The original approval allowed the drive to
be a right-in, right-out driveway. The drive is located across from Southridge
Road, which serves the Walton Heights Subdivision. According to the applicant
their desire is to allow the residents of Walton Heights to access the center
without having to turn onto Cantrell Road to then turn into the shopping center.
Staff is opposed to the requested access for the Pleasant Ridge Development
due to traffic safety concerns and capacity issues on this section of Cantrell
Road. Staff’s concerns are based in part to the increasing traffic volumes along
this corridor.
The developer has requested a change in access from the plan previously
approved by the Planning Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors.
The request is to modify the entrance at Southridge Road to allow for
southbound traffic from Walton Heights to enter the site and to allow for a
permissive westbound left turn into the entrance from Cantrell Road as well.
In response to the Developer’s application, City staff conducted new traffic
counts to assess the opposing traffic flows to the proposed left turn movement.
The 24-hour vehicle count in the corridor was measured at 44,041 vehicles per
day. The traffic split was 48% eastbound and 52% westbound. The peak hour
eastbound flows were measured at 1,715 vehicles per hour. Based on current
Arkansas Highway Department policies for implementing protected left turn
phasing, when the product of the left turn volume versus the opposing traffic
volumes exceed 100,000 for a peak hour period, then the warrants are met
based on not having sufficient gaps in traffic to safely complete the maneuver.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
5
Based on the current peak hour opposing volume, a demand of 60 vehicles for
the left turn would warrant the protected movement. This implies a one vehicle
per minute arrival rate. Staff is concerned that if an unprotected westbound left
turn movement is allowed, ultimately a protected left turn phase will have to be
added due to insufficient gaps in traffic to safely make the left turn. If the phase
is added it will reduce the amount of time available for the eastbound through
traffic, further increasing congestion for eastbound motorists and increasing the
stacking traffic to the west past Sam Peck Road. Presently traffic backs up just
short of Sam Peck Road due to insufficient roadway capacity. AHTD’s traffic
volumes map for 2005 indicates the 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at
38,200 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes in this corridor have grown by
16 percent since 2005. The Pleasant Ridge Center has not fully opened, which
will only add to the current traffic volume on Cantrell Road. The added growth in
traffic (since this application was first filed) is due in part to the increased growth
in housing units to the west.
No safety issues were identified for the proposed southbound through movement
into the Pleasant Ridge Site, assuming the entrance is channelized to reduce the
number of conflicts that would be created by the applicant’s plan to increase
access at this entrance.
There are three points of access for the Pleasant Ridge Development, two of
which have protected left turn traffic signal phasing. The applicant’s previous
application indicated the access was sufficient. Based on the aforementioned
information, the need for additional access is questionable due to traffic safety
issues and due to other more safe opportunities for left turns into the
development.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Phil
Kaplan addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He stated originally the
shopping center was designed and the entrance drive relocated to satisfy staff. He
stated the current configuration was unsafe. He stated the motorist expected a full
service intersection as all other intersections in town were and did not expect to not be
able to turn once they had committed to entering the center from the drive. He stated
staff’s concerns with traffic stacking on Cantrell Road was not a legitimate concern
since traffic already stacked on Cantrell Road from Sam Peck Road to Rodney Parham
Road. He stated presently motorist were making unsafe turns, running over the median
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
6
or entering against traffic to enter the drive. He stated during the peak times of use
there was not stacking on Cantrell Road. He stated the drive would be used later in the
day when the morning rush was over. He stated presently there were three left turns
allowed on Cantrell Road in this area and traffic would not stack any more than was
already occurring. He stated to allow the drive to be a full service drive would not
require the addition of any time on the present signal.
Mr. Jack Hitt addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated presently
Walton Heights residents were forced to make two turns to enter the site. He stated
since the drive was not a full service drive cars would block the intersection not allowing
Walton Heights residents access to the roadway. He stated signage would help but to
allow the drive to become a full service drive would solve a number of the issues.
Mr. John Magee addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated no
other intersection was configured as the intersection at South Ridge and the shopping
center. He stated presently motorist were making an illegal turn and creating safety
concerns.
Mr. Ernie Peters addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated he felt
the intersection should become a full service intersection. He stated he felt this would
create a safe turning movement and reduce traffic conflicts. He stated at some point a
protected left turn would be required but he did not feel this would reduce the flow of
traffic on Cantrell Road.
Mr. Mark Shuffield addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was concerned
with traffic and safety in the area.
Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering, addressed the Commission providing additional
information for staff. He stated staff did feel the allowance of the full service intersection
would further congest traffic on Cantrell Road. He stated presently the volume on
Cantrell had increased from the original approval without the shopping center being fully
open and operational. He stated he did not see the need for the additional intersection.
He stated the modeling indicated the traffic would fail if the intersection was allowed full
movement.
The Commission questioned if an accident count had been secured. Staff stated no.
Mr. Henry stated the median had not been constructed according to the approved plan.
He stated the median was to be a landscaped planter and signage and striping had not
been installed. He stated he felt once the signage was installed this would direct
motorist to an alternative location prior to entering the intersection. The Commission
questioned the distance between the drive and Pleasant Ridge Road. Staff stated
approximately 300-feet. The Commission noted this was close to have a second full
service drive. The Commission questioned at what point additional improvements
would be completed to Cantrell Road. Staff stated a letter to AHTD would be sent
requesting additional improvements and widening when staff felt warrants were met.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-F
7
The Commission questioned when this would occur. Mr. Henry stated he was not sure
of the date for the request.
The Commission questioned Mr. Kaplan if his client was willing to try the signs to see if
the flowability increased. He stated he was not willing to utilize the signs. He stated he
felt the current configuration cause confusion and the motorist should be allowed to
utilize the intersection as all other intersections in town were used.
A motion was made to approve the request including all staff comments and conditions.
The motion failed by a vote of 0 noes 9 ayes, and 2 absent.
The Deputy City Attorney stated she felt the motion was incorrectly stated allowing a
negative vote on a negative recommendation.
A motion was made to expunge the vote. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion
carried by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
NAME: Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of I-430 and Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Shackleford Crossing, LLC
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 94.87 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Commercial and Office Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Office Uses – Revise the approved signage plan, allow
dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road and add food sales as an allowable use.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,237 on November 23,
2004, approving a Conceptual PCD known as Shackleford Crossing Long-form PCD,
which was located at the southwest corner of South Shackleford Road and Interstate
430. The conceptual plan included the north 62 acres being developed with C-2
permitted uses, the south 20 acres being O-2 permitted uses and the middle 15 acres
being a transition area where O-2 and C-2 permitted uses would be allowed. The plan
also showed four out parcels along the Shackleford Road frontage, with three main
entry drives from Shackleford Road. The total project would consist of 1,000,000
square feet of gross building area. The applicant noted that the commercial building
area would not exceed 750,000 square feet, with office uses occupying a minimum of
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
2
25% or 250,000 square feet of the total gross floor area of the project. There would be
a maximum of 25,000 square feet of restaurant use within the out parcels and
35,000 square feet of restaurant use within the interior commercial development, with a
total gross floor area for restaurant use not exceeding 50,000 square feet. The
applicant noted that a hotel/convention use would possibly occupy up to 10 acres of the
overall development.
The development of the overall property would be done in phases with the Conceptual
PCD plan, each phase of the development, beginning with the Phase I, would require
review and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. As a part of
the Conceptual PCD proposal, the applicant submitted a three-page list of development
criteria to be placed on the property. The development criteria included conditions
related to right of way improvements, grading/excavation, landscaping/buffers, public
transportation, signage, outdoor speakers, site lighting, dumpsters, building
design/orientation, as well as other issues. Another condition included in the
development criteria was compliance with a written agreement between the developer
and Camp Aldersgate. (Both reproduced below.)
The site would allow the development of 400,000 square feet of commercial building
area with the existing I-430 entry/exit ramps and overpass conditions. Prior to
additional building area being constructed, the City’s Traffic Engineer and the
applicant’s traffic engineer would review the traffic volume in the area and if the study
indicated failure of the existing entry/exit ramps or overpass, the applicant would install
necessary improvements as agreed between the applicant and the City, prior to any
additional building area being constructed. All boundary street improvements would be
installed on Shackleford Road with the Phase I portion of the development.
The applicant noted that because of the site’s topography, site work for the entire
97 acres would be done with Phase I of the development. An overall
grading/excavation plan would be provided with the Phase I site plan review.
North/south and east/west cross sections would be provided, addressing retaining wall
construction details and areas within the site where trees would be preserved. A
grading permit for the site would not be issued until a building permit for Phase I
construction was issued.
The following list the previously approved criteria/conditions, which were imposed by the
developer and approved by the Board of Directors in the approval process:
Conditions on 97.446 Acres at the Southwest Corner of I-430 and S. Shackleford
Road - October 14, 2004
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
3
OFFSITE/IMPROVEMENT COSTS:
The building areas of the site will be allowed up to a total of 400,000 square feet of
commercial and office building area with the existing overpass and bridge conditions.
Prior to any additional building areas being added, the applicant’s traffic engineer will
review the volume of traffic with the City Engineer to determine the LOS grading.
Should the volume demonstrate failure of the related exits, entrances and bridge traffic
volumes then the applicant shall install necessary improvements as agreed between
applicant and the city to said intersection before additional commercial space or office
space could be built on the subject site.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES:
A traffic study must be submitted by the developer and approved by the City’s
Traffic Engineer, with development complying with recommendations of the study
as approved by the Traffic Engineer.
All improvements to Shackleford Road full width required by the Boundary Street
Improvements ordinance shall be constructed with Phase I development. In
addition to those required by the ordinance, the improvements made during
Phase I along Shackleford Road shall also include streetlights, turning lanes at
intersections and entry points and traffic signals at locations as determined by
Little Rock’s Traffic Engineering Department. In addition, a traffic signal shall be
installed on the I-430 north bound off-ramp at the time of the Phase I
improvements.
Phase I Shackleford Road improvements shall include the Comcast frontage.
Provide written agreement with Comcast for dedication of right-of-way and
construction of improvements.
The Highway Department I-430 right-of-way shall remain undisturbed until the
applicant has received approval of any alteration plan with the Highway
Department. The clearing of undergrowth and trees will be restricted to a caliper
of less than six (6”) inches complying with the current practices of the Highway
Department.
GRADING AND EXCAVATION ISSUES:
Provide overall grading plan for the entire property with Phase I site plan review.
Grading plan must note areas within the site where trees will be preserved,
address retaining wall construction details and identify variances from the Land
Alterations Ordinance. Along with the Phase I site plan review, the applicant
shall seek approval of a “phased grading plan” and provide justification for and
seek approval for clearing, excavation and filling areas both inside and outside
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
4
the Phase I development area in order to minimize hauling off excess materials
or importing borrow materials.
North/south and east/west sections and elevations must be provided with grading
plan.
A grading permit will be issued in conjunction with the first building permit that
allows clearing and grading in conformance with the phased grading plan
approved by the Commission. Modifications to the phased grading plan will be
dealt with according to Sections 29-189 (e) & (f) of the Land Alterations
ordinance.
LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER ISSUES:
During Phase I site work, the required land use and street buffers must be
preserved.
Construction fencing must be in place to protect all required buffers prior to the
initiation of any site work.
All portions of the property shall be landscaped in compliance with the City’s
Landscape Ordinance.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ISSUES:
Prior to submittal of Phase I site plan review to the Planning Commission, the
developer shall meet with Central Arkansas Transit Authority representatives to
discuss opportunities for providing bus facilities (pull-outs, internal circulation,
etc.).
The site development plan for the entire property must be designed to provide
adequate internal pedestrian circulation.
SIGNAGE ISSUES:
All wall and directional signage must comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission during site plan review.
The commercial portion of the development will be limited to two (2) ground-
mounted signs, one (1) at an entry drive from Shackleford Road and one along
the I-430 Freeway area. Each sign shall have a maximum height of 36 feet and
a maximum area of 320 square feet.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
5
The office portion of the development will be limited to one (1) ground-mounted
sign at the entry drive from Shackleford Road. The sign shall have a maximum
height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet.
Out parcels within the commercial portion of the property shall be restricted to
one (1) monument-type ground-mounted sign per out parcel. Each sign shall
have a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100 square feet.
Any retail or retail commercial sign lighting along Shackleford Road or within
200’ feet thereof must be turned off ½ hour after store closing and not be turned
on prior to ½ hour before store opening.
OTHER SITE DESIGN ISSUES:
Total project shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of area.
Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property shall not exceed a
total of 750,000 square feet of gross floor area, with a maximum of
25,000 square feet of restaurant uses on out parcels and 35,000 square feet
of restaurant uses on the balance of project with a total maximum restaurant
use for the entire property not to exceed 50,000 square feet.
Buildings constructed containing permitted O-2 uses shall be at least 25%, or
250,000, of the total gross floor area of the project.
Hotel and Convention use available on this site. Project to be in keeping with
design of others on Chenal or Shackleford Road. Size not to exceed
10 acres.
All site lighting must be low-level, directed away from adjacent property,
shielded downward and into the site.
Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for 1/2 hour before and after the advertiser's hours of
being open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and
system is limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from
South Shackleford Road or at a distance of two hundred feet or more from
the source of such sound.
Any dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from Shackleford
Road and screened as per the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Servicing of dumpsters or trash receptacles must be during day light hours
only.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
6
The design of buildings on the site must be approved by the Planning
Commission during the site plan review process.
All service/loading dock doors shall be oriented away from Shackleford and
provide proper screening.
Maximum building height on the property will not exceed 45’ unless approved
by the Planning Commission consistent with the height regulations as
allowed within the O-2 zoning district for the office portion of the
development.
Compliance with the written agreement between the developer and Camp
Aldersgate.
CONDITIONS - CAMP ALDERSGATE – November 8, 2004
1. Water Quality Assurance.
Developer agrees to comply with all current local, state, and federal law
regarding water run off and detention. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, Camp Aldersgate or the Developer will obtain from ADEQ or other
appropriate agency and share with one another the watershed affecting Camp
Aldersgate. Developer will ensure that the water quality and quantity from the
Property will not adversely affect either the quality or quantity of Camp
Aldersgate’s existing watershed.
2. Shackleford Road Improvements.
This letter agreement is conditioned upon the signatories’ written agreement to
the final specifications of road widening plan for Shackleford Road as approved
by the City of Little Rock. Nonetheless, Developer agrees to widen Shackleford
Road to two through lanes in each direction plus a turn lane as approved by the
City of Little Rock in front of Shackleford Crossings without cost or expense to
Camp Aldersgate. It is understood that Camp Aldersgate will not be required to
dedicate land for the widening of Shackleford Road or for any additional rights-of-
way that may be needed in conjunction with its widening.
3. Lighting and Signage.
Freestanding (lighted or unlighted) pole signs will be permitted only within 50 feet
of the property’s (1) west and northwest boundaries that abut the property
comprising I-430 or its rights-of-way and (2) 500 northern most feet of the east
boundary that abuts Shackleford Road as measured from the intersection of
Shackleford Road and I-430’s right-of-way.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
7
The Property’s parking lot lights shall not exceed 30 feet in height or be directed
towards adjoining properties or roadways. The Property’s parking lot lights shall
be full cutoff, metal halide fixtures that utilize 400 watt or less horizontal bulbs
with flat lenses to control glare and over spill of lighting. No downward lighting
fixtures shall be permitted on the Property except those specifically designed to
light parking areas, service drives, sidewalks, and areas necessary for the
protection of persons or property, and none shall exceed the height or foot
candle specifications of the Property’s parking lot lights.
Signage for the remaining portions of the Property shall comply with Section
36-346(f) and 347 of the Little Rock Code as currently enacted. Any monument
signs erected within 100 feet of Shackleford Road shall be oriented perpendicular
to Shackleford Road. Vertical illumination of any monument signs shall not
exceed 0.1-foot candle measured on a vertical plane.
Any eastern facing signs visible from Camp Aldersgate’s property, except those
freestanding pole signs permitted above, shall remain unlighted except for
½ hour before and after the advertiser’s hours of being open to the general
public.
4. Use Restrictions.
Developer agrees to place certain restrictions on the Property limiting certain
uses which are currently permitted or conditional uses under the City’s current
C-2 zoning classification, which use restrictions are attached as Attachment “A”.
This requirement shall also apply if Developer elects to self develop any of the
Property.
5. Use of Outdoor Speakers.
Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the
Property except for ½ hour before and after the advertiser’s hours of being open
to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to
those that do not omit sound that is plainly audible from South Shackleford Road
or at a distance of two hundred feet or more from the source of such sound.
6. Legal Matters and Continuing Cooperation.
Developer agrees to provide a declaration of restrictive covenants consistent with
the terms of this letter and in a form acceptable to Camp Aldersgate that will be
part of the land for future uses and will file said declaration as part of the public
record. Approval of said form shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Developer covenants that in connection with Camp Aldersgate’s pledge of future
cooperation with Shackleford Crossings, that Developer and its consultants will
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
8
periodically provide Camp Aldersgate’s Executive Director with reports
concerning the status of development at the site to the extent that such
development touches or impacts Camp Aldersgate. For instance, Developer will
provide Camp Aldersgate with copies of any water quality testing and monitoring
performed by the engineering firm engaged to provide these services in a
reasonably timely manner. Developer shall provide reasonable prior notice of the
commencement of excavation be given to the Executive’s Director in order that
any necessary on-site preparations be made at Camp Aldersgate.
The provisions of this letter shall be incorporated into (1) the final plan of
development and the zoning ordinance amendments approved by the City of
Little Rock and (2) any site plans or building plans to be approved by the City of
Little Rock for any parcel within the Property.
The enumerated restrictions above shall automatically terminate in the event
either Camp Aldersgate is no longer owned by the Women’s Division of the
United Methodist Church or other 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation or its property
is no longer used for purely charitable purposes.
ATTACHMENT “A”
Excluded Uses from Property’s C-2 Zoning:
a. Bar, lounge, or tavern (except as part of restaurant or hotel use).
b. Cabinet and woodwork shop.
c. College dormitory.
d. College fraternity or sorority.
e. 24 hour Community welfare or health center.
f. Feed store.
g. Group care facility.
h. Lodge or fraternal organization.
i. Mortuary or funeral home.
j. Pawnshop.
k. Private club with dining or bar service.
l. Recycling facility, automated.
m. Taxidermist.
n. Ambulance service post.
o. Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation shall be limited to
Block A provided that building shall be no closer than 200 feet of Shackleford
Road right-of-way. Auto repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road
right-of-way. Auto repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road.
Enhanced landscaping shall be provided with the parking area fronting the
bay door, which shall include trees at 30 feet on center in the area fronting the
bay.
p. Bus station and terminal.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
9
q. Crematorium.
r. Upholstery shop, furniture.
s. Upholstery shop, auto.
t. Appliance repair, excepting as part of a larger use.
Ordinance No. 19,399 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 20,
2005, established revisions to the previously approved PCD. The approval defined the
site plan for Phase I, the Commercial portion of the project and one of the office lots.
With the request, a preliminary plat for the subdivision of the site with sixteen lots and
out-parcels was also approved. The approved site plan included an area previously
excluded containing the Comcast office tract on Shackleford Road and incorporated this
area into the overall project plan.
All the conditions that were a part of the previously approved Conceptual P.C.D. were
incorporated into the submittal with one revision. The one change requested from the
prior conditions was the second bullet point under “Other Site Design Issues” and was
to increase in the allowable restaurant square footage and place a minimum parking
ratio requirement for restaurants on the site as imposed by the developer as indicated
below:
Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property shall not exceed a total of
750,000 square feet of gross floor area, with a maximum of 25,000 40,000 square
feet of restaurant uses on out parcels and 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses on
the balance of project with a total maximum restaurant use for the entire property
not to exceed 50,000 65,000 square feet. Additionally, all restaurants shall have a
parking ratio of not less than 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet calculated
independently of retail parking ratios.
The applicant provided as an Attachment a rendered site plan of the intersection of the
“Main Street” portion of the retail development. The applicant stated the rendering was
intended to show the character of the retail development. The developer indicated the
actual building design had not been completed, but the intent was for the buildings to
look as if they had been built over time and by multiple designers to give the look, feel,
and sense of place that is reminiscent of a village, marketplace, or Main Street
atmosphere. According to the applicant the final design would include extensive
hardscape and landscape design that provided for excellent pedestrian circulation
throughout the shopping center.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved
Planned Commercial Development to clarify the signage plan, allow dock doors
to be oriented to Shackleford Road and add food store as an allowable use for
the site. The following indicates an exerpt from an ordinance being proposed
with the changes being underscored and bolded:
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
10
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for
Shackleford Crossing Revised Long-Form PCD (Z-_______) is conditioned upon
obtaining a final approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section
36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances. The change in zoning classification is further
subject to the conditions stated as follows:
1. Uses Allowed. Uses allowed are C-2 permitted uses plus food
store and retail uses not listed (enclosed), and O-2 uses.
2. Offsite Improvement Costs. The building areas of the site will be
allowed up to a total of 400,000 square feet of commercial and
office building area with the existing overpass and bridge
conditions. Prior to any additional building areas being added, the
applicant’s traffic engineer will review the volume of traffic with the
City Engineer to determine the LOS grading. Should the volume
demonstrate failure of the related exits, entrances and bridge traffic
volumes then the applicant shall install necessary improvements as
agreed between applicant and the city to the intersection before
additional commercial space or office space could be built on the
subject site.
3. Right-Of-Way Issues.
a. A traffic study has been submitted by the developer and
approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer, with development
complying with recommendations of the study as approved
by the Traffic Engineer.
b. All improvements to Shackleford Road full width required by
the Boundary Street Improvements ordinance shall be
constructed in Phase I of the development. In addition to
those required by the ordinance, the improvements made
during Phase I along Shackleford Road shall also include
streetlights, turning lanes at intersections and entry points
and traffic signals at locations as determined by the Little
Rock Traffic Engineering Department. In addition, a traffic
signal shall be installed on the I-430 north bound off-ramp at
the time of the Phase I improvements.
c. Phase I Shackleford Road improvements shall include the
Comcast frontage. Provide written agreement with Comcast
for dedication of right-of-way and construction of
improvements.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
11
d. The Highway Department I-430 right-of-way shall remain
undisturbed until the applicant has received approval of any
alteration plan with the Highway Department. The clearing
of undergrowth and trees will be restricted to a caliper of less
than six (6”) inches complying with the current practices of
the Highway Department.
4. Grading and Excavation Issues.
a. Provide overall grading plan for the entire property with
Phase I site plan review. Grading plan must note areas
within the site where trees will be preserved, address
retaining wall construction details and identify variances from
the Land Alteration Ordinance. Along with the Phase I site
plan review, the applicant shall seek approval of a “phased
grading plan” and provide justification for and seek approval
for clearing, excavation and filling areas both inside and
outside the Phase I development area in order to minimize
hauling off excess materials or importing borrow materials.
b. North/south and east/west sections and elevations must be
provided with grading plan.
c. A grading permit will be issued in conjunction with the first
building permit that allows clearing and grading in
conformance with the phased grading plan approved by the
Commission. Modifications to the phased grading plan will
be dealt with according to Sections 29-189 (e) and (f) of the
Land Alteration ordinance.
5. Landscaping and Buffer Issues.
a. During Phase I site work, the required land use and street
buffers shall be preserved.
b. Construction fencing shall be in place to protect all required
buffers prior to the initiation of any site work.
c. All portions of the property shall be landscaped in
compliance with the City’s Landscape Ordinance.
6. Public Transportation Issues.
a. Prior to submittal of Phase I site plan review to the Planning
Commission, the developer shall meet with Central Arkansas
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
12
Transit Authority representatives to discuss opportunities for
providing bus facilities (pull-outs, internal circulation, etc.)
b. The site development plan for the entire property shall be
designed to provide adequate internal pedestrian circulation.
7. Signage Issues.
a. All directional signage shall comply with the Zoning
Ordinance.
b. Wall signage is allowed on the interior of the shopping
center at the front and rear wall of each tenant, facing
interior streets and parking, and on I-430 and
Shackleford Road frontage. However, tenants greater
than 100,000 square feet are allowed a maximum of
three (3) exterior walls for signage, and tenants less
than 100,000 square feet are allowed a maximum of two
(2) exterior walls for signage
c. The total area for exterior wall mounted signs may not
exceed 10% of the wall surface area of the front wall of
the tenant’s demised premises.
d. Tenants less than 15,000 square feet may have one wall
sign per exterior wall. Tenants greater than 15,000
square feet may have more than one sign per exterior
wall but must comply with “c” above.
e. In addition to a through d above, tenants may have one
blade sign perpendicular to the main façade with a
maximum size of six (6) square feet, restaurants may
have an exterior Menu Board within 5 feet of the
entrance not to exceed eight (8) square feet, and
Tenants may incorporate logos or names on glass
areas and/or awnings.
f. The commercial portion of the development will be limited to
two (2) ground-mounted pylon signs, one (1) at an entry
drive from Shackleford Road and one along the I-430
Freeway area. Each sign shall have a maximum height of
36 feet and a maximum area of 400 square feet. An
additional monument sign (hardscape wall) may be
constructed at the Shackleford Road/I-430 Intersection. Wall
may be natural stone or brick masonry, 5-foot maximum
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
13
height, with a 30 inch by 50-foot area for metal letters to
spell project name. The area around the wall shall be
planted to create a landscape feature at this corner of the
site.
g. The office portion of the development shall be limited to one
(1) ground-mounted sign at the entry drive from Shackleford
Road for the Office Park name. The sign shall have a
maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 64
square feet. Signage for each lot within the office use
areas shall be as permitted in Section 36-553 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
h. Out parcels within the commercial portion of the property
shall be restricted to one (1) monument-type ground-
mounted sign per out parcel. Each sign shall have a
maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100
square feet.
i. Out parcels within the commercial portion of the
property must comply with a, b, d, and e above, except
that out parcel tenants are allowed to place sign on two
or three (2 or 3) of their exterior walls.
i. Any retail or retail commercial sign lighting along
Shackleford Road or within 200 feet thereof must be turned
off ½ hour after store closing and not be turned on prior to a
½ hour before store opening.
8. Other Site Design Issues.
a. Total project shall not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of area.
b. Commercial/Retail buildings constructed on the property
shall not exceed a total of 750,000 square feet of gross floor
area, with a maximum of 40,000 square feet of restaurant
uses on outparcels and 35,000 square feet of restaurant
uses on the balance of project with a total maximum
restaurant use for the entire property not to exceed 65,000
square feet. Additionally, all restaurants shall have a parking
ratio of not less than 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet
calculated independently of retail parking ratios.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
14
c. Buildings constructed containing permitted O-2 uses shall be
at least 25%, or 250,000 square feet of the total gross floor
area of the project.
d. Hotel and Convention use available on this site; project to be
in keeping with design of others on Chenal or Shackleford
Road; area not to exceed 10 acres.
e. All site lighting shall be a low-level, directed away from
adjacent property, shielded downward and into the site.
f. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall
be prohibited on the property except for ½ hour before and
after the advertiser’s hours of being open to the general
public. The operation of any such speaker and system is
limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible
from South Shackleford Road or at a distance of two
hundred feet or more from the source of such sound.
g. Any dumpster or trash receptacles shall be oriented away
form Shackleford Road and screened as per the Zoning
Ordinance requirements. Trash enclosures shall be
screened from public view on three sides with a six to eight
foot high (depending on the height of container) screen of
masonry, precast, or other building compatible materials.
Trash enclosures shall be located to allow a 50 foot clear
path for trucks. When located in a highly visible area,
screening walls shall be softened with landscaping or
earthen berms.
h. Servicing of dumpsters or trash receptacles shall be during
day light hours only.
i. All buildings (Main Street, Anchors, and Jr. Anchors) are
required to be “4 sided” architecture, meaning that the back
of the building will be as well designed as the front and
sides. Exteriors shall be of materials such as native or cast
stone, brick, colored split-face block, “Dryvit”, or similar
materials that are permanent in nature (no metal buildings).
Most roofs will be flat, but any sloped roofs will be
architectural/standing seam metal panels. Truck service and
compactor areas will be screened by walls and landscaping.
All exterior (roof or ground mounted) mechanical equipment
will be screened with architectural or landscape screening
treatments. Plans for final exterior design must be submitted
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
15
to Planning staff and approved prior to applying for any
building permits.
j. All service/loading dock doors shall be screened. In
addition, all service/loading dock doors within 300 feet
of Shackleford Road shall be oriented away from
Shackleford Road.
k. Maximum building height on the property shall not exceed 45
feet unless approved by the Planning Commission
consistent with the height regulations as allowed within the
O-2 zoning district for the office portion of the development.
l. Compliance with the written agreement between the
developer and Camp Aldersgate.
m. Drive-through facilities of restaurants shall be screened as
follows: speaker will be mounted so that it is baffled on all
sides in a manner which will direct the sound produced to
the vehicle served. Each speaker location shall be designed
to provide for a solid wall at least six feet in height and
twenty feet in length along the opposite lane line. This wall
shall be constructed of masonry or wood with a textured
finish to diminish sound deflection.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed site is currently being graded for future development of the site.
Building permits have been issued for two of the buildings located near the
northern portion of the site. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west
of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp
Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property
immediately south is also vacant and wooded. The general area contains a mix
of residential, office and commercial uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Sandpiper Neighborhood Association, the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, along with all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and
all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the site were
notified of the public hearing.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
16
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff questioned if the proposed buildings would be
allowed more than two sign locations. Staff also questioned if the service docks
would be screened from view from South Shackleford Road. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no remaining outstanding technical issues in need of addressing
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request
includes three items for clarity of the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development. The request is to add food sales as an allowable use for the site,
redefine the signage plan and provide a provision for dock doors oriented to
South Shackleford Road.
The previous approval allowed for C-2 uses as allowable uses for the site. The
applicant is requesting the addition of food sales as an allowable use. Staff is
supportive of this request. There is an ordinance amendment package the
Commission will review in the near future to adds food sales as an allowable use
under the C-2 Zoning District.
The previous approval allowed for the placement of two shopping center
identification signs located along Interstate 430 and along Shackleford Road.
The original approval allowed the signs to be 36-feet in height and 320 square
feet in area. The current request allows the signs to remain 36-feet in height and
increase the sign area to 400 square feet. Staff is supportive of this request.
The proposal is to allow the placement of dock doors located in excess of
300-feet from Shackleford Road to be oriented to Shackleford Road. Presently
the approval does not allow dock doors to front or be oriented to Shackleford
Road. The applicant is proposing all service/loading dock doors be screened. In
addition, all service/loading dock doors within 300 feet of Shackleford Road will
be oriented away from Shackleford Road. The applicant has provided a line of
sight for the area proposed with dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road.
Based on the line of sight provided, the location of the proposed dock doors will
not be visible from Shackleford Road and will be fully screened from the interior
parking lot area. Staff recommends the applicant provide written agreement with
this request from Camp Aldersgate since this item was placed in the original
memorandum of agreement between the developers and Camp Aldersgate.
The developer is proposing a revision to the previously approved signage plan.
The revision would allow signage on the building along the service drives and
within the parking lot area. The applicant has indicated the total sign area would
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-D
17
be an aggregate split between the number of signs being requested. The total
sign area allowed would calculated by using the front façade and be allowed at
ten percent of the front façade area. All directional signage will comply with the
typical standard of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the Planning Commission can act
on the proposed request at this meeting provided the applicant provide staff with
a written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of loading
dock doors oriented to Shackleford Road prior to the meeting. Staff does not feel
the addition of food sales as an allowable use will adversely impact the
development nor does staff feel the proposed signage plan will adversely impact
the development or the area. Although the placement of the signage does not
meet the typical minimum ordinance standard staff does not feel the allowance of
additional signage will impact the development. The center is being developed
as a shopping center which would typically allow the placement of signage along
the interior walls of the development. The request includes the allowance of
signage within the parking lot area to identify the businesses and direct
customers to the desired store location. In addition, staff does not feel the
allowance of larger shopping center identification signs will impact the
development or the area. The site contains approximately 100 acres with limited
signage proposed to serve the development. To staff’s knowledge there are no
remaining issues associated with the request other than the applicant providing a
written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of the
loading dock doors.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with staff
comments as noted in Paragraphs E above.
Staff recommends the applicant provide a written agreement from Camp
Aldersgate concerning the placement of the loading dock doors oriented to
Shackleford Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not provided a
written agreement from Camp Aldersgate concerning the placement of the loading dock
doors oriented to Shackleford Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
NAME: Spring Tree Village Revised Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located South of Yarberry Lane and East of Doe Run on Spring Tree
Drive
DEVELOPER:
Mike Smith
51 Westfield Court
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 29.34 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 100 FT. NEW STREET: 4,500 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2 and OS
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Open Space
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 15,437 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 16,
1988, established the Springtree Village Long-form PD-R. The approval included the
development of 61 zero-lot line homes in two phases. The site included 1.5 acres of
open space the developer would maintain until the City requested the area be dedicated
as public open space.
Ordinance No. 16,490 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 21,
1993, revised the previously approved PD-R to allow Lots 1 and 4 of the Springtree
Village Subdivision to install a metal patio cover over an existing concrete patio, fence
the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
2
rear open space and utility easement and construct a metal storage building three feet
off the rear and south property lines.
Ordinance No. 19,524 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 2, 2006,
revised the previously approved Planned Residential Development to allow
18 previously platted lots to develop with 11 detached single-family homes. A request
to revise the previously platted building lines was also approved which established zero
lot line lots as a part of the original approval. The replat would include a 25-foot front
platted building line with setbacks as established by the Zoning Ordinance or 25-foot
rear yard and side yard setbacks of 10 percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight
feet.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned
Residential Development to allow the expansion of the previously approved
zoning area. The current request includes the creation of 100 single-family lots
contained on 29.34 acres located to the south and east of the previously
approved area. The site plan indicates the homes will be constructed in four
phases with 12 lots in the first phase, 31 lots in the second phase, 23 lots in the
third phase and 34 lots in the final phase. Existing City streets, which were
previously stubbed-out, will be constructed to allow additional accesses to the
subdivision.
The lots are indicated with an average lot size of 70-feet by 115-feet and a
minimum lot size of 70-feet by 104-feet. Setbacks are proposed with a 25-foot
front building line, a 25-foot rear yard setback and side yard setbacks of
10 percent of the lot width not to exceed eight feet. A maximum builidable area
of 3,000 square feet is proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area is vacant with a scattering of trees. There are several homes, which
have been constructed in the subdivision located to the north. In the general
area there are a number of new single-family homes and new single-family
subdivisions currently being developed.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, the Deer Meadow Neighborhood
Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received several informational
phone calls from an area resident.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections. Contact Nat Banihatti, Traffic Engineer at
379-1816 for additional information. Provide traffic calming devices on
Springtree Drive and Springtree Circle.
2. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the site
distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
3. With site development, provide the design of the streets conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the streets
including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
9. Sidewalks should be installed along Springtree Drive and Springtree Circle.
10. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
4
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 water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have
minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revision of a previously approved Planned Residential
Development to allow the creation of 100 lots on this 29.34-acre tract for future
single-family development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Springtree Drive is shown as a Local Street on the Master
Street Plan and Yarberry Lane is shown as a Collector. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The
primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local
Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is proposed for south of this area according to
the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section. A Class I bikeway is built separate from
or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were a few outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide a detailed bill
of assurance for the proposed subdivision. Staff also requested the applicant
provide the minimum square footage of the homes proposed for construction and
the proposed building materials. Staff stated the request was a rezoning from
R-2 and OS to PD-R expanding the previously approved Planned Development
zoning area.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated traffic claming devices
were required along straight streets. Staff stated traffic circles or round-abouts
were suggested at regular intervals. Staff requested the developer verify the
sight distances at intersections. Staff also stated the storm water detention
ordinance applied to the development of the property. Staff stated sidewalks
should be installed along Springtree Drive and Springtree Circle. The Committee
indicated the sidewalks should be placed at the back of the right of way and not
at the back of the curb.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated minimum square footage of the homes, the proposed
building materials, provided a certification of the sight distances at intersections
and indicated traffic calming devises along the straight streets. The minimum
square footage of the homes proposed is 1,000 square feet of heated and cooled
space. The proposed building materials are brick, wood and/or siding.
The request includes a revision to the previously approved Planned Residential
Development to allow an expansion of the total land area of the previously
approved zoning area. The current request includes the creation of 100 single-
family lots contained on 29.34 acres located to the south and east of the
previously approved PDR site. The site plan indicates the homes will be
constructed in four phases with 12 lots in the first phase, 31 lots in the second
phase, 23 lots in the third phase and 34 lots in the final phase. Existing City
streets, which were previously stubbed-out, will be constructed to allow additional
accesses to the subdivision.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-D
6
The lots are indicated with an average lot size of 70-feet by 115-feet
(8,050 square feet) and a minimum lot size of 70-feet by 104-feet (7,280 square
feet). Setbacks are proposed with a 25-foot front building line, a 25-foot rear
yard setback and side yard setbacks of 10 percent of the lot width not to exceed
eight feet. A maximum builidable area of 3,000 square feet is being proposed.
The site plan indicates fences will not be constructed by the home-builder but
have been indicated to allow the future homeowners to place a fence if they
desire. The fences will be placed along the side and rear yards of the new
homes as typically allowed in single-family developments.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the
development of single-family homes through a planned residential development
district consistent with single-family development per the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff feels the lots as proposed allow for adequate outdoor living area. The site
is currently zoned R-2 and OS and identified as Single-family on the City’s Future
Land Use Plan. The request includes the development of homes at a 3.4 unit per
acre density, which is consistent with the density allowed per the Single-family
Land Use Designation and is typical of new single-family subdivisions developing
in the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated
with the request. Staff feels the development of new homes in the area will not
significantly impact the adjoining property owners.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to notify
property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the December 21, 2006, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
NAME: Harvest Foods Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Highway 10 Development
11219 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 5.994 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Selected C-3 uses and Second building on the site
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Selected C-3 uses – To increase the total building area of the
allowed second building on the site.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site contains a single story 47,675 square foot commercial building and 157 parking
spaces. The site is an existing developed site, which met the intent of the Highway 10
Design Overlay District some years ago when developed.
Ordinance No. 15,718 dated August 1, 1989, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to
PCD to allow Safeway to open a grocery store on the site. The site operated as a
grocery store until Affiliated Foods “down-sized” their operation closing several stores in
the central Arkansas area. The site has been vacant since that time.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
2
Certain criteria were placed on the development as conditions of approval. Those
included: truck deliveries were to be coordinated from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm seven (7)
days per week, all trash compacting was to be done inside the store, the dumpster
pick-ups were to be made between 7:30 am and 9:30 am Monday through Saturday and
the dumpster was to be located in a fenced area, there was to be nothing stored outside
of the building and the parking area clean-up was to be conducted during regular
business hours.
On December 12, 2000, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.
18,398 revising the previously approved PCD to add additional uses. The applicant
proposed to add selected C-3, General Commercial uses to be allowed as alternative
uses for the site. The approved uses included Bank or savings and loan office, Book
and stationary store, Church, Cigar/tobacco and candy store, Clinic, Clothing store,
Custom sewing and millinery, Drugstore or pharmacy, Duplication shop, Eating place
without drive-in service, Florist shop, food store, Furniture store, Handicraft/ceramic
sculpture or similar artwork, Hardware or sporting goods, Health studio or spa, Hobby
shop, Jewelry store, Lawn and garden center – enclosed, Office (general and
professional), Office/showroom with warehouse (with retail sales), Office equipment
sales and service, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper store, Pet shop. The approval
allowed the listed uses or any combination of the uses should one tenant not occupy
the entire space.
Ordinance No. 19,546 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 6, 2006,
allowed a revision to the previously approved PCD to add a drive-through restaurant as
an allowable use for the site. The site plan indicated the construction of a 2,262 square
foot facility containing indoor dining only. The site would remain as one parcel and the
restaurant would be located on a leased parcel with a portion of the existing parking
assigned to the new use. The existing building contained 43,560 square feet of gross
floor area with an area indicated for expansion for a total of 47,585 square feet of gross
floor area. The site contained a total of 184 parking spaces.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved PCD to allow
an increase in the total building area of the drive-thru restaurant. The building is
proposed with 2,475 square feet, approximately 10 percent larger than the original
approval. The exterior of the building will be antique stucco with a masonry base
to match the masonry on the exiting old Harvest Food Building on the site.
Signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed per the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District. A small outdoor dining area has been indicated containing three
to four tables. All other previous conditions continue to apply to the current
request.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-story commercial building and surface parking area.
Ingress and egress to the site are provided in two key locations; Highway 10 near
the west property line and to Taylor Loop Road via a stub-out extending east to
the roadway. Adjacent to the site on a separate lot there is a bank facility. Uses
adjacent to the site along Taylor Loop include a veterinary office, single-family
residences, general and professional office uses and a beauty shop.
Uses along Highway 10 include a mixture of office and commercial uses. South
of the site is the Westchester Subdivision and west of the site vacant R-2 zoned
property which is shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, the
Charleston Heights/Rahling Road Neighborhood Association and the Westbury
Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200-feet of the site as well
as all residents, who could be identified, within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact the
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. 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
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
4
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s).
This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and
fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revision to a previously approved PCD to increase the allowable
square footage of the previously approved restaurant lease-parcel.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Taylor Loop Road is shown as a Minor Arterial. 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. 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 for entrances
and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown along Taylor Loop Road. A Class I
bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of
way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Traffic and
Transportation goal has these objectives relevant to this case: Reconstruct
Taylor Loop Road from Hinson Road north to Cantrell Road as a 4-lane minor
arterial.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
5
Landscape:
1. All previous comments apply.
2. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
3. Any on site vegetation that is shown on the plan submitted must be in place
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building.
4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request was to allow
additional square footage for the drive-through restaurant. Staff stated based on
parking for a restaurant and the use of the building for C-3 uses, not including a
restaurant, the provided parking was not sufficient. Staff stated any future uses
of the existing building would have to comply with the provided parking. Staff
questioned if the dumpster service hours would be limited to daylight hours.
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
technical issues raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee
meeting. The site plan indicates the future uses of the buildings will comply with
the parking provided.
The proposal is to allow a revision to the previously approved Planned
Commercial Development to allow an increase in the total building area of the
drive-through restaurant. The building is proposed with 2,475 square feet,
approximately 10 percent larger than the original approval. The exterior of the
building will be antique stucco with a masonry base to match the masonry on the
exiting old Harvest Food Building on the site. A small outdoor dining area
including three to four tables has been indicated on the site plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
6
The hours of operation are proposed from 6:00 am to midnight on weekends and
11 pm on weeknights. The site plan indicates the dumpster will be placed along
the southern perimeter of the site, adjacent to the existing dumpster located on
the site and a note has been included concerning the required dumpster
screening. The hours of service will be limited to the current hours of service of
the existing dumpsters located on the site.
The proposal includes building signage a maximum of ten percent of the façade
area of the building along the northern façade adjacent to Cantrell Road. The
existing ground mounted signs will be reconstructed, one located on Cantrell
Road and the second located on Taylor Loop Road, consistent with signage as
allowed per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District or a maximum of ten feet in
height and one hundred square feet in area.
The site plan indicates the construction of a 2,475 square foot facility containing a
indoor dining along with a small area of outdoor. The site will remain as one
parcel and the restaurant will be located on a leased parcel with a portion of the
existing parking assigned to the new use through a cross access and parking
agreement. The existing building contains 43,560 square feet of gross floor area
with an area indicated for expansion for a total of 47,585 square feet of gross floor
area. The total square footage on the site at ultimate build out would be
49,847 square feet. The typical minimum parking required would be 182 parking
spaces. The site contains a total of 175 parking spaces which is 7 parking spaces
less than the typical minimum parking required for a mixed use development.
Staff is supportive of the reduced number of parking spaces. The site is approved
for a limited list of allowable uses, many of which do not generate a large parking
demand. Staff would however recommend the proposed uses of the site match
the available parking on the site as the site redevelops with new uses.
The site plan indicates the placement of a menu order board to serve the
drive-through restaurant. The site plan indicates the order board will be screened
per typical minimum ordinance standards. The speakers will be mounted with
sufficient baffling on all sides in a manner which will direct the south produced to
the vehicle served. Each speaker location will be designed to provide for a solid
wall at least six feet in height and twenty feet in length along the opposite lane
line. The wall will be constructed of masonry or wood with a textured finish to
diminish sound deflection.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is requesting an amendment to
the currently approved Planned Commercial Development to allow a larger
building footprint than was previously approved. The original site plan allowed the
construction of a 2,250 square foot building and the proposed site plan
2,475 square foot building or a 10 percent increase in the footprint. Staff does not
feel the increase will significantly impact the site or the immediate area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5139-E
7
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. The total site area contains 5.9 acres with 2.1 acres or 35 percent in
landscaped and undeveloped area and 3.8 acres or 65 percent with building and
parking coverage. Staff does not feel the proposed development of a restaurant
facility on this site, if designed as proposed, will negatively impact the adjoining
properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7723-B
NAME: Treadway’s Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 1115 Jefferson Street
DEVELOPER:
Calvary Bread of Life Ministries International
Kingsley Eruemulor
P.O. Box 21202
Little Rock, AR 72221-1202
ENGINEER:
Blaylock-Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Church and C-3 uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Reduced the previously approved setbacks and eliminate the
requirement of parking to serve the church lot.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to respond to comments raised at the November 16, 2006,
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the
January 18, 2006, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to respond
to comments raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7723-B
2
presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the December 21, 2006, public
hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7879-A
NAME: Boyd Homes Inc. Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 617 Cumberland and 614 Rock Streets
DEVELOPER:
Tina Boyd
617 Cumberland Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.51 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: Single-family Residential – Placement of a pool within the
Courtyard area.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated November 15, 2006, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had
submitted a request dated November 15, 2006, requesting the item be withdrawn from
consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7879-A
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-7917-A
NAME: Verizon Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 12018 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Verizon Wireless
c/o FRS Group
Architects/Planning/Interiors
2501 Parkview Drive, Suite 101
Fort Worth, TX 76102
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial District uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses and a sign without public
street frontage to be located along the western façade of the building.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,429 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 1,
2005, established Verizon Short-form PCD. The property was divided into two
individual retail spaces, to be leased independently, and according to the applicant the
current sign allowances provided limited visibility for tenants leasing the west side of the
property. The applicant requested a rezoning of the site to PCD to allow signage along
the western façade of the building, which did not have public street frontage.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917-A
2
The original application indicated a total sign area which would not exceed 240 square
feet and the “V” being the largest letter with a maximum height of 57 inches. This
application request was later amended and the Board of Directors approved the
applicant’s amended request to allow signage along the western façade with a
maximum area of fifty square feet.
A. APPLICANT”S PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request is to allow the placement of a sign along the western façade of the
building totaling 150 square feet in sign area. The applicant has indicated the
current code regarding the Chenal/Financial Center Design Overlay was enacted
in order to protect and enhance the aesthetic and visual character of the lands
surrounding Chenal Parkway and Financial Center Parkway, while creating a
well-designed urban corridor. The applicant has indicated the elements are best
supported with the proposed variance, especially when viewing the blank wall to
the west and its visual location in regard to the overlay area. The applicant has
indicated due to a ten to twelve foot retaining wall to the west of the site, the wall
is viewable for a substantial distance along eastbound Chenal Parkway and is a
focal point for the area. The applicant has indicated as a blank wall, the site is
obtrusive and out of place. The applicant has also indicated the proposed
signage would better align the space with other properties in the Overlay,
producing a consistent visual flow for the area, especially when compared with
previous tenants. The applicant has indicated the signage would also eliminate
the appearance of vacant or industrial property. The applicant has indicated in
their opinion the additional signage would offer better support to the overlay plan
than the current configuration, and is considered to be as important as front
signage, if not more so for the business.
The applicant has indicated the drop to the west of the site also reduces visibility
of both the monument sign and front signage for the site from the west. The
applicant has indicated trees and shrubs also magnify the problem. The
applicant has indicated the western wall provides a logical choice for signage,
especially to support traffic on eastbound Chenal Parkway and north and
southbound Westhaven Drive. The applicant has indicated with the blank wall
the site appears to be vacant, or non-retail oriented.
The applicant has indicated although more level, visibility of the west half of the
building from the east approach and front view is also moderately limited, due to
the adjacent landscaping and location of the neighboring improvements. The
applicant has indicated this adds to customer frustration while driving and may
lead to traffic concerns, which can be reduced or eliminated with the use of both
a front and side building sign.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917-A
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site was recently renovated into two spaces. Verizon is located within the
western bay. There are a number of commercial and office uses located in the
area. There is a bank located to the east of the site on the corner of Bowman
Road and Chenal Parkway and a big box retail development located across
Chenal Parkway to the south. To the west and northwest of the site are
restaurant uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Parkway Place Property Owners Association, the Gibralter Height/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners
located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified
located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed
development indicating the request to allow an increased sign area along the
western façade of the building. Staff stated there were no technical issues
associated with the request remaining. 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 outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from
the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant’s
request includes a revision to the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development to allow a large sign along the western façade of the building. This
area of the building does not have public street frontage. The previous approval
allowed for a sign 50 square feet in area along the west façade. The current
request would allow a sign 150 square feet in area along this façade.
Staff is not supportive of the request as proposed. Presently the sign on the front
façade of the building is 138 square feet in area. This sign area is similar to the
sign area as typically allowed per building signage in a commercial zone or ten
percent of the façade area. The signage as proposed along the western façade,
the area without public street frontage, is larger in sign area than the sign located
on the front façade of the building.
Staff is supportive of allowing a sign larger than the 50 square feet along the
western façade. Staff feels a sign 75 square feet in area would be an acceptable
compromise. According to the applicant the present 50 square foot sign is
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917-A
4
difficult to see for motorist traveling westbound on Chenal Parkway. Staff feels
part of the difficulty of seeing the sign is the placement of a white sign on a white
wall. The applicant has indicated the building will be renovated to include a false
entrance along the western façade of the building and the building will be painted
to enhance the appearance. Staff feels in changing the color of the wall and the
increase in sign area to 75 square feet the signage will be visible for motorist
traveling along the abutting roadways and in staff’s opinion will meet the needs of
the applicant for “letting customers know” the location of the business.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of denial. Mr. Ric Moore addressed the Commission as the applicant.
He stated Verizon had tried to make the existing sign work but the sign area was to
small to be seen from the adjoining roadways. He stated he felt a sign 150 square feet
in area would serve the needs of the business and allow customers to see the sign as
they were traveling along Chenal Parkway. He stated he felt the smallest sign that
would still offer visibility to customers would be 100 square feet.
The Commission questioned if a sign along the western façade was allowed. Staff
stated the sign was allowed through the planned development process. Staff stated
typically signs were only allowed adjacent to street frontages. Staff stated they felt once
the building was painted and the architectural details added to the side of the building
creating a visual focal point the existing sign would serve their needs.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,
6 noes and 3 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-7948-A
NAME: Gillam Photograph Revised Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 1 Portrait Place
DEVELOPER:
Corey Gillum – Gillum Photography
315 N. Bowman Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 1.97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-O
ALLOWED USES: Photography Studio
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Photography Studio – Placement of a dumpster on the site.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,449 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 5,
2005, established Gillum Photography Short-form PD-O. The proposal included a two
lot plat of a 3.462 acre tract. Lot 1 was approved containing 1.197 acres and Lot 2
containing 2.265 acres. A 100-foot building setback adjacent to Highway 10 and a
25-foot building setback adjacent to Morgan Cemetery Road were also approved. The
approval included phasing of the proposed street improvements to Cantrell and Morgan
Cemetery Roads with the final platting of the respective lots.
The approval allow for the construction of a two story building on Lot 1 with a total
square footage of 3,376 square feet. The site was approved for the use of Gillum
Photography. Nine parking spaces were approved to serve the proposed building.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7948-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Lot 1 has been final platted and the photography studio along with the associated
parking have been constructed. The access drive extending from Cantrell Road
has also been installed. The applicant is proposing a revision to the previously
approved Planned Office Development to allow the placement of a dumpster on
the site. According to the applicant during the original approval process the
dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site plan. The dumpster is located at
the end of the existing service drive with an alternative location indicated on the
site plan to relocate the dumpster when the property to the east develops and the
drive becomes utilized by the adjoining property.
The applicant has provided a letter from the solid waste collection provider
indicating the pickup will be in the early morning hours. According to the
collection provider due to customer density calculations there is only one route
that services the area. According to the provider as the customer base grows
and/or zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule to allow for
later pick-ups. Two trash receptacles have been placed on the site to minimize
the number of pick-ups per month required. According to the applicant the trash
will be picked-up only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining
property owners.
There are no other modifications proposed for the previously approved site plan.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a photography studio along with the associated parking. The
area to the east is a vacant tree covered site with a drainage ditch running
through the middle of the site from north to south. The Joe T. Robinson
Elementary School is located to the east of the site, across Morgan Cemetery
Road and the Joe T. Robinson Middle and High School campus is located to the
southeast across Highway 10. The land adjacent to the site to the west contains
a non-conforming auto garage and single-family residence.
Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located
directly south of the site and are currently vacant. The owners previously
proposed this property for commercial zoning but later withdrew their request.
Chalamont is located south of the site, adjacent to Joe T. Robinson High School.
Chalamont extends from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway by way of
Chalamont/Northfield. There are several single-family subdivisions currently
under construction accessed from Chalamont and Northfield.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Duquesne Place Property
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7948-A
3
Owners Association and the Collation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were
notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received one
informational phone call from an area resident.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed
development indicating there were no remaining technical issues associated with
the request. Staff stated the request included the placement of a dumpster on
the site which was not a part of the original approved site plan. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no remaining issues to address raised at the November 16, 2006,
Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to allow the placement of a
dumpster on the site with limited service. According to the applicant during the
original approval process the dumpster was mistakenly omitted from the site
plan. The dumpster is currently located at the end of the existing service drive
with an alternative location indicated on the site plan to relocate the dumpster
when the property to the east develops and the drive becomes utilized by the
adjoining property. Two trash receptacles have been placed on the site (the
location is screened per the typical minimum ordinance requirements) to
minimize the number of pick-ups per month required. A letter from the solid
waste collection provider indicates the pickup will be in the early morning hours
and according to the collection provider due to customer density calculations
there is only one route that services the area. The letter states as the customer
base grows and/or zoning areas change it may be possible to alter the schedule
to allow for later pick-ups. According to the applicant the trash will be picked-up
only once a month to lessen the impact on the adjoining property owners. The
applicant has also contacted other waste collection providers, none of which
have indicated a willingness to commit to a scheduled pick-up during daylight
hours.
Staff has concerns with the inability of the waste provider to commit to servicing
the dumpster during daylight hours. The site is located adjacent to a single-
family residence and there are single-family homes located to the north of the
site as well. Staff feels the residences should be protected from the intrusion of
the dumpster dumping during the early morning hours. Although the applicant
has indicated a willingness to limit the hours of service, the waste collection
providers have not indicated it is within their means to provide the service during
the daylight hours. Staff recommends the dumpster service be limited to once
monthly during the non-daylight hours. Staff also recommends the applicant
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7948-A
4
continue to work with the waste provider to schedule collection during daylight
hours and as schedules become available the waste collection be limited to
daylight hours.
There are no other modifications proposed to the previously approved Planned
Office Development. To Staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding
issues associated with the request.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the applicant continue to work with the waste provider to
schedule waste collection during daylight hours and as schedules become
available the waste collection be limited to daylight hours and the service be
limited to once a month while being serviced during non-daylight hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Corey Gillam
addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he was not sure why
the original site plan did not include a dumpster location. He stated his business
generated a great deal of trash and a dumpster was required. He stated he could not
receive garbage collection from Pulaski County since he was a business. He stated he
had contacted a number of waste providers to seek pick-up during daylight hours and
none had committed to servicing the dumpster during daylight hours.
Mr. Bill Lessenberry addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his home was located adjacent to the site and he had been awaken a number of times
to the sound of dumping dumpsters. He stated there were other options for disposal of
trash other than a dumpster. He stated recycling was an option. He stated during the
public hearing process the Commission questioned if a dumpster would be used.
Mr. Lessenberry stated the owners representative specifically stated no dumpster would
be placed on the site.
Mr. Pat Gillum addressed the Commission. He stated he felt there was an oversight by
the engineer by not placing the dumpster on the site plan. He stated there were two
design professional working on the site plan and during the process one of the design
professional left off the dumpster. He stated the intent was always to have a dumpster
due to the volume of packing material the business receives.
There was a general discussion concerning the previous request and the allowance of a
dumpster. Staff stated they were not sure. Mr. Lessenberry provided a digital copy of
the planning commission meeting with Mr. Pat McGetrick addressing the Commission
stating there would not be a dumpster located on the site. Commissioner Rector stated
one was not shown on the site plan and one would not be allowed without revising the
site plan to allow a dumpster.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7948-A
5
Commissioner Williams stated the video was interesting but the current request was to
allow the dumpster. There was a general discussion of the dumpster, the hours of
service and the options for trash removal. Mr. Gillam stated the site was located on
Highway 10 which was well traveled by both cars and 18-wheelers. He stated the road
was not a quiet road. He stated the nearest home was 300 feet away and the next was
over 500-feet away from the dumpster site. He stated this was equal to two football
fields.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,
2 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
NAME: Bishop Street Short-form POD and Central Station Commercial Retail Center
Short-form PCD
LOCATION: located on the Southwest corner of 14th and Bishop Streets and the
Northwest corner of Daisy Gatson Bates and Martin L. King Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Ron Woods, AIA
2200 South Main Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.97 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-3 and C-3 and R-4
ALLOWED USES: General and Professional Office, General Commercial and
Two-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD and PD-O
PROPOSED USE: C-3 uses and Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated November 17, 2006, requesting a deferral of
this item to the January 18, 2007, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8101-A
2
November 17, 2006, requesting a deferral of this item to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LU06-14-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs East Planning District
Location: 4001 Baseline Road
Request: Low Density Residential to Suburban Office
Source: Beatrice Davis Brooks
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs East Planning District from Low
Density Residential 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. A Planned Zoning District is required. The location is currently
used as a residence, and the applicant wishes to use the building for an office.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area
of review east to Baseline Elementary. With these changes, the entirety of the Low
Density Residential along Baseline 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 currently zoned R-2 Residential and is seven and a half acres ± in size.
Included in the amendment area are a veterinary hospital, a daycare, a locksmith, and
several single-family houses. Everything to the south of this area is also zoned R-2
Residential for single-family houses and Baseline Elementary to the east. Northeast of
the amendment area is also zoned R-2 Residential, but the uses are commercial in
nature: a produce store, a garage and a learning center. There are also almost fifteen
acres of undeveloped O-3 General Office District. Most of that area is undeveloped and
wooded except for a small gift shop.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
May 16, 2006, Ordinance 19,532 made several amendments to the Land Use Plan in
this region. Just west of this application area was changed from Commercial to Mixed
Office Commercial as part of the amendment. This area was amended in an attempt to
make the Land Use Plan more accurately reflect the likely short and mid-term future
developments for this area.
This area is currently planned Low Density Residential. South of this Low Density
Residential is planned for Single Family. To the east of the amendment area is planned
for Public Institutional for Baseline Elementary School. North of the amendment area is
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-14-02
2
planned Office. To the west of the amendment area is Commercial, and to the
northeast is planned Commercial. At the intersection of Scott Hamilton and Baseline on
the northeast corner is more Mixed Office Commercial. Commercial is also at this
intersection on the southeast corner.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. The primary function of a
Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or
activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Baseline Road since it is a
Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
According to the Master Street Plan Bicycle Section, there are no bike routes in this
immediate area.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this location is within eight blocks of a park or open
space. This location is just west of Baseline Elementary School, which has a
playground facility.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This area is part of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan. The neighborhood’s
Economic Development Goal encourages new businesses in this area. While the
Neighborhood Action Plan does not mention the conversion of residential structures to
non-residential uses, it does state a need to “create a competitive and adaptable
economic environment that encourages investment and diversity of employment
opportunities.”
ANALYSIS:
The site is within a developed portion of Little Rock. The development pattern of this
area was formed before this portion of Baseline was annexed into the City of Little
Rock. Currently there is a single-family home on a large lot at this location. The house
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-14-02
3
faces Baseline Road. Prompted by the initial Land Use Amendment at 4401 Baseline
Road, the Planning Staff expanded the area to include the remaining portions of Low
Density Residential east and west of the location on the south side of Baseline Road.
This part of Baseline has many single-family houses and single-family houses that have
been converted to office type uses. The amendment area is already a mix of single
family and office uses: a veterinary hospital, a daycare, a locksmith and a proposed
office. This leaves five single-family houses and four businesses. Both the single-
family residences and the non-residential uses appear to be in good condition and
occupied.
Just west of this area is a long strip of Commercial, which was changed from Low
Density Residential by ordinance in 1998. To the east of the amendment area is a
small block of Public Institutional for the Baseline Elementary School. This amendment
would leave a strip of Low Density Residential to the south of the Suburban Office to
serve as a buffer between this use and the Single Family along Bruno Road and West
Drive. The area south of this application is a single-family subdivision, which has been
fully developed for some time now. The houses appear to be in good condition and
occupied.
Baseline Road is a Principal Arterial according to the Master Street Plan. Principal
Arterials are designed to serve through traffic in the area. In developing this area, it will
be important to consider the number of entrances and exits along the arterial. This area
would be better served by combined access with the adjacent property to reduce the
number of curb cuts.
Based on a review of structures in the surrounding area, it appears there is a demand
for more office space. A single owner owns all of the existing area planned for Office
north of the amendment area. That area has remained undeveloped for many years
and it is part of a large tract of land accessed from the north on Cooperative Way.
Suburban Office is a good choice for the amendment area because it is designed
specifically to be sensitive to existing residential in the area. It would provide site-
specific office uses while protecting the residential uses in the area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress. Staff has
received one comment from an area resident. The resident was supportive of the
change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU06-14-02
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 10 for, 0 against the
consent agenda was approved.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16.1 FILE NO.: Z-8129
NAME: B’s Mortgage Financial Services Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 4001 Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:
Beatrice Davis Brooks
4001 Baseline Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
SURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.64 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Office Use - B’s Mortgage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the conversion of this existing single-family structure
to an office use for B’s Mortgage. The business has been operating for four and
one-half years in two locations including West Little Rock and Pine Bluff. B’s
Mortgage is a mortgage broker that focuses on home loans. There are five
employees of the business including employees in the Pine Bluff office. The
business is not a high volume traffic generator since most of the clients are met
with outside the office. The applicant has indicated it is advantageous to make
the move from the current location to Baseline Road for several reasons:
ownership of the property and the volume of traffic that travels the area, which is
good for business, advertising and future growth.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8129
2
The request includes a single sign located within the front lawn area and a sign
located on the front façade of the structure.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a residential unit, which appears to be occupied. Other uses in
the area included commercial and residential uses. There are single-family
homes located to the east and south of the site. There is a large vacant O-3
zoned tract of located across Baseline Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site, the Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were
notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8129
3
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Office Development to allow
the conversion of an existing single-family structure into an office use for B’s
Mortgage Services.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a
separate item on this agenda (LU06-14-02).
Master Street Plan: Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve
through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within
urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on Baseline Road since it is a Principal Arterial.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan. The
neighborhood’s Economic Development Goal encourages new businesses in this
area. It states, “Create a competitive and adaptable economic environment that
encourages investment and diversity of employment opportunities.”
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Additional landscaping may be required in conjunction with any new onsite
parking.
3. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a minimum nine foot wide (9’) land use
buffer next to the residentially zoned properties to the east and west. Seventy
percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain undisturbed.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine foot wide (9’) landscape
perimeter between the site and the residentially zoned properties to the east
and west. A variance from this minimum requirement must be obtained from
the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling
this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies
this year-around requirement.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8129
4
6. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a minimum sixteen foot wide (16’) land
use buffer along the southern perimeter of the site. Seventy percent (70%) of
this buffer is to remain undisturbed.
7. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an average of sixteen foot wide (16)
street buffer and in no case less than half.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if someone would
live in the structure in addition to operating the business. Staff also questioned if
any additional paving would be added to the site. Staff requested the applicant
provide the total number of employees of the Little Rock office and the days and
hours of operation. Staff stated no access to the business would be allowed from
Bruno Road.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated additional landscaping
may be required with any additional on-site paving. Staff stated screening would
be required along the perimeters of the site where adjacent to residentially zoned
or used property.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation, the number of
employees and noted no additional paving is anticipated. The revised site plan
indicates the placement of a 4-foot by 4-foot sign located in the front yard area
and a 4-foot by 4-foot building sign will be placed on the front of the building.
The site will serve as an office for B’s Mortgage and Financial Services and a
single-family residence. The business employees four persons and operates
from 9 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. There will not be a dumpster located
on the site.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the allowance of this existing
structure as an office and residential use should have limited impact on the
adjoining properties. The site plan indicates the placement of signage within the
front yard area and on the front of the building. There are no other exterior
modifications proposed to the site or the structure. The applicant has indicated
the structure will continue to appear residential in character and if the business is
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8129
5
relocated the structure will revert to a residential use. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-8130
NAME: Inner City Future Net Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located South of 16th Street between Battery and Wolfe Streets
DEVELOPER:
Howard Gardner
1604 Wolfe Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.56 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3 and R-4
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Two Family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Administrative Offices Intercity Future Net
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Inner City Future Net, a faith-based non-profit school and community-center
organization has recently acquired a vacant residential house and lot situated on
the south side of West 16th Street, between South Battery and Wolfe Streets.
The project site lies due west and southwest of the existing Inner City Future Net
existing Flower Garden. The site also lies within the Central High National
Historic District and fronts the popular Centennial Park.
The owners intend to renovate the vacant house for use as the primary venue for
its administrative offices, including a reception area, meeting room, executive
office, ADA accessible restroom facilities and kitchen. The owner’s existing
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130
2
facility at 1604 Wolfe Street will be converted as the organization’s educational
facility. The project also involves linking the two (2) houses with a covered ramp
way; and the construction of a two (2) car garage at the rear of the house on
1811 West 16th Street. The garage will be accessible from the existing
north/south alley directly to the west of the house on 1811 West 16th Street via a
remote controlled operated gate. The existing opaque wood fence along the
alley will be replaced, as needed, with a new opaque wooden fence adjacent to
the gate.
The renovation of the vacant house, including the removal of the existing metal
siding to expose the original wood lap siding, new replacement windows, a new
roof finish, and a new rebuilt brick chimney, the new garage addition and the
covered ramp way will all be planned and designed consistent with the historical
character of the overall neighborhood.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two structures, an existing residential structure and a structure
currently being used by the applicant as an office/tutoring use. Centennial Park
is located to the north of the site. The remainder of the area is predominately
residential. There are single-family homes located to the east, west and south of
the site. There is a funeral home located to the northwest of the site. There are
a number of multi-family dwelling units located in the general area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and the Central High
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Curb and sidewalk is damaged near
the intersection of 16th and Wolfe Street.
2. Since the property is adjacent to an alley, the alley should be repaved from
the street to the southern property line with at least 18 feet of asphalt.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130
3
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will
be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This installation
may require a water main extension depending on the hydrant location. Contact
Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development to allow the conversion of the existing
single-family home into the administrative offices for the Inner City Future Net
Organization.
The uses proposed with the Planned Development are of a public – quasi-public
nature. As with all Public Institutional uses a Land Use Plan is not required.
When Staff conducts the next land use review of the area, if the development is
in place a 'clean-up' amendment to Public Institutional may be included for the
Commission's consideration at that time.
Master Street Plan: Wolfe Street, Battery Street, and 16th Street are all shown as
Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130
4
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The landscape ordinance and the zoning buffer ordinance require a minimum
of six foot nine inch wide (6’-9”) buffer/landscape area along the south next to
the residentially zoned property. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to
remain undisturbed. A variance from this minimum requirement will require
approval from the City Beautiful Commission.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff questioned if there was any signage being
proposed with the development. Staff also requested additional details of the
proposed use of the site including the number of employees, the days and hours
of operation and the number of children served.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the alley should be
repaved from the street to the southern property line with at least 18-feet of
asphalt. Staff also stated any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk must be
replaced prior to occupancy.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff questioned if pedestrian access
to the garden would be encouraged. Staff stated along the southern perimeter a
minimum landscape strip would be required. Staff stated a variance from the
City Beautiful Commission would be required for approval of the indicated
reduced buffer area.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the number of employees, the days and hours of
operation and the number of children served. The revised cover letter also states
no signage is proposed for the site. There center provides an after school
program for 24 children ranging in age from six to thirteen years of age. The
center operates from 3:00 – 6:00 pm during the school session and from
11:00 am to 5:00 pm during the summer months. There are three employees of
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130
5
the center. The revised site plan indicates the typical minimum landscape and
buffer ordinance requirements will be met.
The request is to rezone the site from R-3 and R-4 to allow two existing
structures to serve as classroom space and the administrative offices for Inner
City Future Net, a faith-based non-profit after school program. The site will serve
as a school, community center and administrative office. Presently all these
activities are taking place in a converted structure located at 1604 Wolfe Street.
The desire is to renovate the second structure for the administrative offices,
including a reception area, meeting room, executive office, ADA accessible
restroom facilities and kitchen and allow the structure located on Wolfe Street to
be used as the educational facility. The two structures will be linked with a
covered ramp way; and the construction of a two (2) car garage at the rear of the
house on 1811 West 16th Street is being proposed. The garage will be
accessible from the existing north/south alley directly to the west of the house on
1811 West 16th Street via a remote controlled operated gate. The renovations
will all be planned and designed consistent with the historical character of the
overall neighborhood. The existing opaque wood fence along the alley will be
replaced, as needed, with a new opaque wooden fence adjacent to the gate to
ensure proper screening of the adjoining sites.
Staff is supportive of the request. The center has been operating in the area for
a number of years with limited impact on the adjoining properties. Staff does not
feel converting an additional structure into the administrative offices for Inner City
Future Net will adversely impact the area. The exterior of the structure will
remain residential in character and the addition of a two-car garage is not out of
character with residential development. The site plan indicates the placement of
gardens on the site to both enhance the neighborhood but to also serve as a
teaching tool for the youth participating in activities at the center. Staff feels the
use should be limited to the current ownership and not be allowed as a
transferable use. The current ownership strives to protect the neighborhood and
staff feels careful review should be taken to ensure any potential future owners
also operate their facility is a similar manner. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the rezoning of this
site from R-3 and R-4 to PD-O for the Inner City Future Net organization should
have minimal impact on the adjoining properties and the area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8130
6
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.
Staff recommends the approval be limited to the current ownership of Inner City
Future Net.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a
recommendation the approval be limited to the current ownership of Inner City Future
Net.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-8131
NAME: Meux Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 25501 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Ed Meux
Plumbing Heating and Air-conditioning, Inc.
25501 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
SURVEYOR:
Delton Brown Land Surveyor
2421 County Line Road
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 3.37 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential and Non-conforming Commercial Business
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Single-family and an Expansion of the Non-conforming Business
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Ed Meux Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning, Inc. has been in this location at
25501 Kanis Road for 26 years. In addition to the business the owner lives on
the property and has done so since 1962. There are six employees and the
typical hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday.
The operation of the business has historically taken place from a shop building
located along the southwestern portion of the site. The building is a concrete
building and is 24-feet by 32-feet. Recently the applicant constructed a new
30-foot by 60-foot metal building for the business. The applicant has indicated
the business will utilize both the buildings for storage of inventory.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8131
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family residence and a non-conforming
commercial heating and air conditioning business. The area is predominately
rural with single-family homes located on acreage. A number of Planned
Development Zoning classifications are indicated around the area. These
zonings were approved to recognize existing businesses when the City extended
the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction in the area.
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. There is not an active
neighborhood association located within the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis 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 site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Kanis Road
including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Staff supports a
5 year deferral for installation of improvements. Approval must be secured
from the Little Rock Board of Directors of the deferral request.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Water service is not available to this property from the
Central Arkansas Water system at this time.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required. Contact the area volunteer
fire department and provide a letter from the fire department indicating their
knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the development.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8131
3
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Burlingame Valley Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development to allow an
existing business to expand into a newly constructed 30 foot by 60 foot shop
building.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may
require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to
serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers
within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize
negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Kanis Road since it is a Principal
Arterial.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown beginning east of this location at the
intersection of Kanis and Burlingame Roads. A Class III bikeway is a signed
route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is
required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The indicated scrap pile should be removed or properly screened.
3. Landscaping may be required in conjunction with any new on site parking.
4. The zoning buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance require a minimum
nine foot wide (9) land use buffer along the eastern property line next to the
residentially zoned property. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain
undisturbed. A variance from this minimum requirement must be obtained
from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. 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
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8131
4
eastern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be
given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was not present representing the request. Staff stated there were
no outstanding technical issues associated with the request and presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the site was located in the
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction and had recently constructed a new building
for his commercial business. Staff stated the construction was in violation of the
current zoning and the site was currently under enforcement. 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 remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the
November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to
recognize an existing commercial business located within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction and allow an expansion of the business. The
owner has lived on the site for 40 plus years and the company has been
operating from this site for 26 years. The original shop was constructed on the
site when the owner began operating his business from the site. The building
was a 24 by 32 foot building with a total of 768 square feet. In early 2006, the
owner constructed a new metal building on the site with a total of 1,800 square
feet. The new and old buildings are intended to serve as storage for inventory.
There are six employees of the business, the owner, his son and four other
persons. The typical hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday
through Friday. The primary customers are small commercial businesses and
residential customers. According to the applicant employees typically report to
the site daily for dispatch and seldom return to the site between calls. Trucks are
stored on the site during the evening hours and on weekends.
The site contains a sign located along Kanis Road. The sign identifies the
business by name and phone number. The sign is less than typical signage
allowed in commercial zones.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for the proposed use of the property.
The site has historically been used as the owner’s home and his commercial
business. Staff does not feel the proposed addition of the metal building will
negatively impact the area. The area is rural in character and large metal
buildings somewhat similar in size are scattered throughout the area.
A second area of consideration is the allowance of the expansion of the
business. The applicant has indicated with the new construction no new
employees have been hired nor are any new employees anticipated. The
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8131
5
building will be used for storage of materials and inventory which have historically
been stored in other areas on the site.
Staff feels the placement of a second building on the site to be used as an office
and storage will not negatively impact the area. Staff does recommend the
approval be limited to the current ownership. Staff feels since the business has
been operating from this site for a number of years with little to no impact on the
adjoining properties the additional building and the allowance to continue to
operate the business should also have minimal impact. To staff’s knowledge
there are no remaining 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 the approval be limited to the current ownership of the
business.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Muex
addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he lived on the site
and operated his business from the site. He stated his business serviced the metro
area meeting heating, plumbing and air conditioning needs.
Ms. TL Jumper addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her
two concerns were signage and the parking of service vans. She stated the applicant
had placed a lighted sign along Kanis Road. She stated the area was very rural and the
placement of the sign was out of character for the area. She also stated she felt the
service vans should be screened from Kanis Road. She stated she desired the site to
appear residential with a large shop building in the rear yard and not a commercial
establishment.
The Commission questioned Mr. Muex if the sign was an issue. He stated he felt the
sign was necessary to identify his business. The Commission questioned the screening
of his vans. He stated he could park the vans behind the building but for security he
wanted to keep the vans in the front. He stated there was a motion light on the front of
the shop which alerted him when someone drove in.
Commissioner Yates asked Mr. Muex where he parked the trucks prior to the new
construction. He stated vans were parked in the same location as they were before.
Mr. Muex stated the sign was located 60-feet from the road and was not intrusive. The
Commission questioned if the time on the light could be limited. Mr. Muex stated he did
not see the need to limit the time the sign was on.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8131
6
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
1 noes and 3 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-8132
NAME: Cycle Breakers, Inc. Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 800 Apperson Street
DEVELOPER:
Kenneth Haskin
401 West Markham Street, Suite 410
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm
201 Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 4.1 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Cycle Breakers
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five (5) year deferral of the required hard
surface parking.
A. APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The project is located at 800 Apperson Street bordered by Calhoun and 9th
Streets. The site contains 4.0 acres of land and a 37,400 square foot building;
formerly Carver Elementary School. Part of the property contains a paved
asphalt area that has been, and will continue to be, used for parking. There is a
large field containing grass that will also be used for additional parking. The
applicant is requesting a five (5) year deferral of the required hard surface
parking in light of the acquisitions that the Little Rock Airport Commission is
making in the area. The only structural change to the building planned at this
time is to enclose a breezeway on the southwest side of the building to
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
2
accommodate a residential living area. There is presently a fence along the
perimeter of the property that will be repaired where broken and extended to
enclose other areas that are presently open.
Development Rationale of the Project
General Information – Cycle Breakers, Inc. is a non-profit organization that
started in 2001 and began operating under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue
Code in 2003. The “CYCLE” in “Cycle Breakers” stands for Changing Your
Circumstances by Life Emending. The Mission of the Cycle Breakers Program is
to aggressively intervene in the lives of individuals in the time to stop the cycle of
crime. The program is designed to fully utilize the period while an individual is
under the Court’s jurisdiction and supervision to effect a lasting and permanent
change in the lifestyles, behaviors and decision-making abilities of program
participants.
Cycle Breakers, Inc. grew out of the Cycle Breakers program that was originally
funded by the Pulaski County Quorum Court in 2001; and therefore, it works
closely with the Fifth Division Circuit Court of Pulaski County. The Cycle
Breakers Program seeks to carry out this mission by recruiting Community
Mentors and cultivating Mentors from within the program who will have a positive
influence upon the program participants. The program will sponsor daily
meetings that focus on addictions. The primarily focus is upon drug and alcohol
addictions; however, others struggling with addictive behaviors also benefit from
the program. The program offers a holistic approach to addiction that relies
heavily upon the 12-step Program but is based on teachings that change the
behavior of the inner, spiritual man. Counseling sessions are also offered for
probationers with anger management and domestic abuse issues on a daily
basis as needed.
Once a month approximately 80 probationers attend informational and
educational sessions that are designed to provide them with the tools to change.
Cycle Breakers partners with the community and governmental organizations to
provide sessions that deal with education, finance, job skills, family issues,
mental and physical health. Probationers are connected with resources to help
them. This program was so successful that it was extended to every probationer.
As a result, every quarter a meeting is held where all of the probationers have
access to these sessions.
Presently, these quarterly meetings are held at the Barton Coliseum. These
meetings focus on four broad areas: 1. Finance and Jobs; 2. Education; 3. Abuse
and Additions; and 4. Mental and Physical Health. During 2006, the focus has
been on metal and physical height. The organization partnered with UAMS, the
Health Department, Stamp out Smoking, the Witness Project, the Arkansas
Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Pulaski County Extension Service, and many
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
3
other organizations and provided screening for Brest Cancer, Prostate Cancer,
Diabetes, Cholesterol, Vision, Stroke, Body Mass Index, Blood Pressure,
AIDS/STD, and dental care. Lives were saved. Cancers were detected early
and treatment is being given. Persons at risk for diabetes, strokes, and
hypertension were identified and referred to treatment. Free vision screenings
were offered to persons who could not afford care. The savings to County and
the State in terms of health care costs and quality of life are immeasurable.
The building will house prevention and intervention programs that are offered to
the approximately 1,000 probationers that are assigned to the Court.
Project Components
Hours of Operation – Daily Operations – The day to day operations of the
building will be from Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 8:30 pm. During these
times, Group Sessions and Individual sessions will be offered to probationers.
These sessions will deal with: 1. Finance and Jobs; 2. Education; 3. Abuse and
Addictions; and 4. Mental and Physical Health. There will also be classes
offered. The planned classes include GED classes, automotive trades, computer
classes, and other trades. The office will be staffed by a full time office manager,
a full time security officer part-time teachers, and counselors. The applicant will
serve as the facility manager and will be ultimately responsible for all activities
that take place on the premises of the facility. There is a staff of five other deputy
probation officers that will assist the applicant in managing the facility.
Monthly Operations – Once a month during eight of the months of the year, there
will be a meeting with approximately 100 probationers. These probationers are
mostly non-violent first offenders. Four times during the year, these meetings are
held on Saturday from 8:00 am to 2:30 pm. Four times during the year, meetings
area held on a weeknight from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. These are the informational
and educational sessions that are designed to provide probationers with the tools
to change the items discussed previously.
Quarterly Operations – On one Saturday during each quarter of the year, a
meeting will be held where 600 probationers will attend the meeting. The
quarterly meetings are operated from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. This year, the
meetings were held during March, June, August and November. Because of the
size of the meeting and the parking space that is available, the meetings will be
divided into two smaller groups. The first meeting will be held from 7:00 am to
11:00 am and the second meeting from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. This will assist with
traffic flow in the area. The applicant anticipates that each session will have
approximately 250 to 300 participants.
Chemical Free Living Facility – The Chemical Free Living Facility will be open to
probationers that have a drug or alcohol problem. Residents will be strictly
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
4
supervised and monitored directly by members of the Fifth Division staff. The
facility will be staffed by a resident manager who will be on the premises from
8:00 pm to 8:00 am. The facility will be limited to ten (10) probationers that will
live on the premises. The premises will be secured. Residents will be required
to work during the day or be involved in the sessions or classes that are offered
during the day. Residents will have a 10:00 pm curfew from Sunday to Thursday
and 12:00 am curfew on Friday and Saturday.
Parking – Deferral Request – The property is located one block from the property
the Little Rock Airport Commission has recently condemned. Contacts with the
Little Rock Airport Commission have indicated future plans include the
acquisition of this property. The plan, however, is to not take the property for
approximately ten (10) years. An estimate for surfacing the grass parking area
was secured. The estimated cost is $175,000.00 to install the asphalt parking lot
which would accommodate approximately 400 cars. The applicant has indicated
this would not be prudent at this time. First, the property will be condemned and
it is unlikely the applicant’s would be able to recoup the investment. Secondly, a
paved parking lot would be unattractive and would not conducive to the
neighborhood. The request includes a 5 year deferral for the required parking.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the former Carver Elementary School most recently used as an
Alternative School by the Little Rock School District. The site is located within an
area the Little Rock Airport Commission has shown on the Master Plan for
acquisition. There are a number of uses in the area including the Little Rock
Airport, residential structures, industrial and churches. Along East 6th Street
there are a number of commercial businesses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and the East Little
Rock Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy. From initial inspection, the
sidewalk on 9th Street is damaged and should repaired. Additional
improvements may be required after additional inspections.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
5
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Ramps
should be installed at the intersections.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Office Development to allow the
site to be used for meeting space, classroom space, office space and residential
living to accommodate probationers.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Apperson Street and East 9th Street are shown as Local
Streets on the Master Street Plan. Local Streets with non-residential uses along
them are constructed with a wider cross section. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
6
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping may be required with any on site parking.
3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff questioned the proposed surface
material of the grass parking lot. Staff also questioned the total number of
parking spaces that could be provided within the grass field area. Staff
questioned ownership of the property. The applicant stated Cycle Breakers Inc.
would purchase the land and then dedicate the building and land to Pulaski
County. Staff questioned the total number of probationers accessing the site on
any given day. The applicant stated the desire was to expand the available
educational services. He stated if this was successful there would be
approximately 70 to 80 persons daily accessing the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated sidewalks would be
required per the Master Street Plan along abutting roadways. Staff also stated
any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk would require repair prior to occupancy.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated landscaping may be
required with any additional on-site paving. Staff also stated the City Beautiful
Commission recommended preserving as many on-site trees as feasible.
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 to staff addressing most of the
concerns raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated approximately 311 cars can be parked in the open
field area. A total of eight rows of parking are available with an estimated area of
eight feet in width and eighteen feet in length. The row adjacent to the northern
most end of the property will park approximately 32 cars, a second row will park
approximately 31 cars and six rows will park approximately 62 cars. Twenty-four
feet will be placed between each row of parking for drives. A smaller area of land
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
7
located nearer the building will provide two additional rows of parking and will
park approximately 44 cars. The applicant has retained Ronnie Geddings, a
former Deputy Probation Officer to coordinate the parking. He presently
coordinates parking at the Arkansas State Fairgrounds and parking on the golf
course at Razorback football games. The request includes a five year deferral of
the required hard surface material. According to the applicant in addition to the
cost of construction, the neighborhood does not desire the area to paved. The
site is used by area residents for pee wee football games. The paving of the
grass field will take away a valuable amenity the neighborhood currently utilizes
for open space and outdoor recreation.
On the site there are 21 marked parking spaces and one handicap space. There
is additional space on the basketball court which is paved and can be used as
parking for an additional 15 parking spaces. The site contains a total of 36 hard
surface parking spaces.
Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the building for the applicant’s intended
use but staff has concerns with the parking as proposed. On any given day the
provided parking does not appear to be adequate to meet the parking demands
of the patrons accessing the site. In addition on the day of the quarterly
meetings there will be a great deal of traffic accessing the site which staff feels
will spill into the neighborhood creating a hardship on the residents of the area.
The site is located within the only pocket of residential homes left in the area.
Although the area has been identified on the Airport’s Master Plan for future
acquisition staff feels the neighborhood should be protected in the interim.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Kenneth Haskin addressed the
Commission on the merits of the request. He stated Cycle Breakers had been looking
for a location for a couple of years and when the school became available they felt this
was a perfect location for their use. He stated the group would protect the
neighborhood. He stated the project was established to aid the needs of the
probationers served. He stated he felt this was an opportunity to serve the community.
Mr. Mark Leverett addressed the Commission to discuss the parking concerns. He
stated he was not a parking expert but felt the plan Cycle Breakers had in place would
allow sufficient parking and would protect the neighborhood. He stated there were two
areas designated as parking. He stated a total of 300 cars could park on the open field
and another 30 to 40 cars on the parking lot and on the basketball court. He stated the
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
8
meetings would be broken into two sessions to not flood the neighborhood with cars
and people. He stated a specific route would be designated minimize the impact on the
neighborhood. He stated Cycle Breakers would hire a parking expert to coordinate
traffic to and from the site to also minimize the impact on the neighborhood. He stated
the safety of the residents was Cycle Breakers first concern.
Mr. Ronnie Jackson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his home and church were located in the neighborhood. He stated there were a number
of youth and elderly in the neighborhood. He stated during the summer he would take
the youth of his bible class to the basketball courts to play ball. He stated he agreed the
programs was a good program. He stated he did not feel the program should be
located in a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Margie Goodman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated her mother lived across from the site and she was very concerned for her safety
if the use was approved. She stated there were a number of children in the
neighborhood and she was also concerned for their safety. She stated she agreed with
the program, just not the location of the program.
Mr. Elijah Shepard, Sr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He
stated his home was located across from the field the applicant’s were proposing for
parking. He stated he was not in favor of allowing the field to become fenced and a
parking lot. He stated he was also concerned with the allowance of residents on the
site. He stated he was concerned the residents would spill into the neighborhood and
create an unsafe environment.
Ms. Kay Davis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her
mother was 76 and had lived in the neighborhood a number of years. She stated her
home was located directly across the street from the site and her mother had stated if
the use was approved she would not be able to sleep at night. She stated the site was
two blocks for an elementary school and a few blocks from the community center. She
stated with the airports current acquisition the neighborhood had suffered enough. She
stated her primary concern was the safety of the neighborhood and protection of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Onzell Wright addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his mother lived in the area and his church was located in the area. He stated his
concern was for his mother and for the church. He stated he felt the residents should
have the opportunity to enjoy their homes and sit on their front porches without fear.
She stated he felt Cycle Breakers was a good program but he did not feel the location
was appropriate for their use. He stated the fabric of the neighborhood has declined
based on the acquisitions of the airport. He stated he felt this use would cause
additional decline in the area.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8132
9
Mr. Haskins stated the site would house a chemical free living environment with a
maximum of ten residents. He stated the residents did not just roam the neighborhood
they work or are involved in programs offered through Cycle Breakers. He stated crime
exist in all neighborhoods. He stated the persons in the program were first time
offenders and had an incentive to completing the program and many could have their
record expunged if they were successful in the program.
He stated he did not see any link to the use and the decline in property values. He
stated presently the chemical free living facility was located on Wolfe Street and the
area had not seen a decline in property values as a result of the facility. He stated
presently there were two residents but as many as eight person had lived in the facility.
The Commission questioned the number of probationers accessing the site.
Mr. Haskins stated in the beginning 20 to 30 per week. He stated as the center grew as
many as 70 to 80 per day. He stated the center would offer counseling, anger
management, financial management and educational opportunities to complete their
GED. He stated there was a critical need for the service. He stated education was the
key to breaking the patterns of the offenders.
The Commission questioned the funding. Mr. Haskins stated funding was provided by
the probationers through court fees. The Commission questioned if the County would
be involved in the operation of the facility. Mr. Haskin stated the probation officers were
members of the 5th Circuit Court. The Commission questioned if the person staying
overnight with the residents would be a probation officer. Mr. Haskins stated he was not
sure since they had not hired anyone. He stated the person would be specially trained
for this type situation.
Commissioner Yates questioned the difference in a parolee and probationer.
Mr. Haskins stated a probationer had not been to prison was the primary difference.
Commissioner Yates questioned the number of probation officers who would be at the
site daily. Mr. Haskins stated three to five at any given time. Commissioner Yates
questioned the number of probationers per instructor. He stated fifteen to twenty
probationers per instructor.
The Commission discussed their concerns of placing the proposed use in the fragile
neighborhood. The Commissioners stated they felt the service was a good service but
questioned placing the use within the heart of a single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Williams stated he felt the program was an outstanding program.
Commissioner Meyer questioned the balance of an empty building verses an occupied
building. Commissioner Rahman stated he questioned placing the use in a fragile
neighborhood without knowing what the traffic and parking would do to the area. He
stated he felt the use would continue to erode the neighborhood.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of
3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 absent.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: LU06-10-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Boyle Park Planning District
Location: 29th St. between Ludwig and Malloy
Request: Single Family to Low Density Residential
Source: Jacqueline Vick
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The application has been modified since the original filing date. A Land Use Plan
Amendment is no longer necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The related zoning application was amended to no longer require a Land Use Plan
amendment. The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. By a vote of
10 for 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO.: 20.1 FILE NO.: Z-8133
NAME: Vick Short-form PD-R, Alley Abandonment and Right-of-way Abandonment
for Ludwig Street
LOCATION: Located North of West 29th Street between Ludwig and Malloy Streets
DEVELOPER:
Jacqueline Vick
801 South Rodney Parham, Apt. 22F
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Arrow Surveying
550 Edgewood Drive, Suite 592B
Maumelle, AR 72113
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
Roberts and Williams
1501 North University Avenue, Suite 430
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 1.90 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Duplex Housing
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five (5) year deferral of the required street
construction of Malloy Street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a single ownership development plan for two
structures of duplex housing for a total of four units. The goal is to create and
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
2
ensure a clean and visually appealing residential environment that will include
adequate landscaping and walkways to enhance the development and the
community as a whole. Each structure is proposed as a single story building
containing two units of living areas.
The request also includes the abandonment of a previously platted street right of
ways located along the eastern perimeter and an alley located within the
proposed development area. The applicant has provided letters from the utility
companies only one of which indicates the desire to maintain this area as an
easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered with a significant slope falling from south to north. There
are single-family homes located to the south of the site and vacant property to
the north and west of the site. To the east of the site is a commercial business
fronting on John Barrow Road. The streets in the area are substandard with
minimum paving and open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed land use would classify 29th Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to
collector standard per the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street
improvements to 29th Street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned
development.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
4. Unless specifically requested, grading of the site will only be allowed for
each phase. No advanced grading of future phases without imminent
construction will be permitted.
5. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section
29-186 (e).
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
3
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
8. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
9. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
10. If utilities are present, the abandoned streets should be maintained as
easements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. No objection to
the abandonment but the right of way must be retained as easement. There are
existing sewer mains in the right of way of Ludwig and Malloy Streets. Contact
the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Central Arkansas Water has
no existing or planned facilities located within the rights-of-way to be abandoned
and has no objection to closure and abandonment of easement rights for the
alley and Ludwig and Malloy Streets, north of West 29th Street. A water main
extension will be required in order to provide adequate service to this property.
Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and
contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the
hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
4
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning to Planned Residential Development to allow the
development of 16 units contained in eight buildings of duplex housing.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda (LU06-10-03).
Master Street Plan: West 29th Street, Ludwig Street, and Malloy Street are all
shown as a Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization goal has these objectives relevant to this case:
“Encourage the development of additional affordable housing in the John Barrow
Neighborhood Area.”
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were a number of
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant
provide building elevations for the proposed units. Staff stated they felt the
building orientation should be more neighborhood oriented as opposed to the
current design layout. Staff questioned if the dumpster hours of service would be
limited to the daylight hours.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated if advanced grading of the
site was desired a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance would be
required. Staff also stated with the site development one-half street
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
5
improvements to West 29th Street would be required. Staff stated if disturbed
area was one or more acres permits would be required. Staff also stated the
City’s storm water detention ordinance would apply to any development on the
site.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised
plan indicates a replat of the twelve previously platted lots into two lots, the
abandonment of Ludwig Street and an alley located within the proposed
development area and the construction of two duplex buildings on the site. By
reducing the proposed development area the applicant is no longer required to
submit a detailed grading plan for the entire development area, only the portion
proposed for immediate development.
The site will contain two lots, Lot 1 containing 0.78 acres and Lot 2 containing
1.074 acres. Lot 1 is proposed for development and Lot 2 has been indicated for
future development. The buildings have been oriented to West 29th Street. The
buildings are proposed with a building footprint of 3,025 square feet with a
25-foot front yard setback and a 25-foot rear yard setback.
The site plan indicates the placement of four parking spaces and four guest
parking spaces which are stacked per unit. The parking is indicated along West
29th Street with cars backing into the right-of-way. Although, West 29th Street is
not a busy street staff has concerns with the proposed parking backing into the
right-of-way creating traffic concerns and conflicts. Staff feels the proposed site
plan should be redesigned to allow the residents to not back into the public right
of way and access the roadway head-on.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six-foot opaque privacy fence along
the eastern and western perimeters of the site. Each of the units is proposed
with a rear yard patio area. The patio areas will be separated with a six foot
opaque screening fence to allow each of the tenants privacy in their patio area.
The site plan also indicates large areas of landscaping around each building and
in the rear yard area.
The units are proposed to be residential in scale and character. The units will be
constructed with wood siding, wood trim, face brick on the front and insulated
glazed aluminum windows. The proposed roof pitch is 5/12 with fiberglass
composition shingles on #15 roofing felt.
December 7, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8133
6
The request includes the abandonment of Malloy Street and a previously platted
alley. The street and alley have not been constructed. The applicant has
provided letters from the various utility companies. The wastewater utility has
indicated a desire to maintain the abandoned right of way for Malloy Street as a
utility easement.
The applicant is seeking a five year deferral of the required street construction to
Malloy Street. Staff is supportive of a deferral of the required street
improvements for a period of five years or until adjacent development occurs.
Staff is supportive of the placement of duplex units on the site but staff is not
supportive of the site plan as proposed. Staff is not supportive of the parking as
proposed by allowing cars to back into West 29th Street. Staff feels the parking
should be redesigned to eliminate backing into the right-of-way to minimize any
potential impacts on traffic flows in the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
December 7, 2006, requesting a deferral of this item to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s
By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver for the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.