pc_03 02 2006
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 2, 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
Mizan Rahman
Troy Laha
Robert Stebbins
Jerry Meyer
Lucas Hargraves
Fred Allen, Jr.
Chauncey Taylor
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: Darrin Williams
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the January 19, 2006 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MARCH 2, 2006
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. Z-7725 Black Community Developers Group Home –
Special Use Permit
4017 West 12th Street
B. Z-7953 Akins Duplex – Conditional Use Permit
3004 State Street
C. Z-7983 Verizon Wireless – Tower Use Permit
14301 Cantrell Road
D. S-1454-A Whispering Hills Phase II Revised Preliminary Plat,
located on South of Alexander Road, East of
Whispering Drive.
E. Z-7773 Whispering Hills Short-form PD-R Revocation, located
South of Alexander Road, East of Whispering Drive.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. Z-7989 Rezoning from MF-6 to R-2
End of Blackburn Drive (Villages of Wellington)
2. Z-7993 Scrubbs Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit
2815 Vancouver Drive
3. Z-7994 Quality Living Center – Transitional Living Facility –
Special Use Permit
3925 Asher Avenue
4. G-23-359 McGee Road – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Interstate 30 at Otter Creek South Road
5. G-23-360 Alley Right-of-Way Abandonment
Block 78, Original City of Little Rock
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
6. Z-4478-I Verizon Wireless – Tower Use Permit
13625 Saddle Hill
7. Z-5403-C Fellowship Bible Church/Pulaski Academy –
Conditional Use Permit
SW corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Roads
8. Z-6974-A City of Faith Correctional Facility –
Conditional Use Permit
1401 South Garfield Street
9. Z-7570-A James Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
6805 Woodson Road
10. Z-7990 SOHO Modern Gallery – Conditional Use Permit
2200 Cantrell Road
11. Z-7991 MEMS Ambulance Substation –
Conditional Use Permit
#3 Pine Mountain Road
12. Z-7992 Caradine Adult Day Care – Conditional Use Permit
1101 Cumberland
13. G-25-193 West 41st Street Name Change to
Raymond Savage Drive
Located between John Barrow Road and Malloy Street
14. Z-5411-A Roberts Duplex – Conditional Use Permit
3505 Hill Road
15. Z-7573-B Hicks Beauty Products and Salon –
Conditional Use Permit
6805 West 12th Street, Suite H
16. A-307 Reese Annexation
SW corner Pride Valley at Kanis Road
17. First Tee Plan Review
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-7725
NAME: Black Community Developers Group Home –
Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 4017/4019 West 12th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Black Community Developers, Inc.
PROPOSAL: A special use permit is requested to allow use of the
existing duplex on this R-4 zoned lot as group home
for up to 12 women; 6 per unit.
A. Public Works Comments:
No Comments.
B. Public Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Forest Hills, Hope, Pine to
Woodrow and Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
C. Staff Analysis:
4017 West 12th Street is located on the south side of West 12th Street,
between Elm and Cedar Streets. The property contains a one-story rock
and frame duplex structure. There is a paved alley along the rear (south)
property line. A one-story frame storage/carport structure is located in the
rear yard along the paved alley.
The general area contains a mixture of zoning and uses. Residential
structures are located across the alley to the south. There is a residential
structure and a church located immediately east. A commercial zoned
property is located immediately west, with residences further west across
Elm Street. There is a mixture of commercial and office uses across West
12th Street to the north.
The applicant, Black Community Developers, Inc., proposes to utilize the
existing duplex structure as a group home. The residential facility will
house participants in a substance abuse program. Each of the duplex
units has three (3) bedrooms. Up to six (6) adult women will reside in
each unit. The applicant notes that the participants are recovering from
substance abuse and have completed the first intensive 30-day phase of
treatment. There will be a senior client who will serve as a liaison
between the staff of the treatment program and the residents. The
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
2
applicant notes that there will be no classes or counseling services
provided on site. A copy of the center’s client handbook has been
provided and is attached for Commission Review.
The applicant also notes that the participants in the program will work
off-site. None of the participants will have automobiles. The program will
provide transportation until the resident is capable of securing a bus pass
or make other arrangements for transportation to work. The site is located
on CATA Bus Route #3 (Baptist Medical Center Route), which runs from
Downtown Little Rock to the I-430/Shackleford Road intersection.
Only minor repairs will be made to the existing residential structure. The
applicant notes that the facility will meet the requirements of the State of
Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Alcohol, Drug and
Substance Abuse Services.
There is an entry light for each duplex, and existing street lights along
West 12th Street. The applicant is proposing no additional lighting. There
is also a standard chain link fence around the perimeter of the property.
There is no additional fencing proposed. As noted previously, none of the
clients will have their own vehicles. Therefore, no additional parking is
proposed. A small area of parking exists off the alley (existing carport
structure), which should be sufficient for a facility van or other similar
vehicles.
Section 36-54(e)(4) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides the following
provisions for Group Home Facilities, as adopted by the Board of
Directors on September 6, 2005:
(4) family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee or
probationer housing facility, rooming, lodging and boarding facility:
(a) Separation, spacing and procedural requirements for family
care facilities, group care facilities, group homes, parolee or probationer
housing facilities and rooming, lodging and boarding facilities will be
determined by the planning commission so as not to adversely impact the
surrounding properties and neighborhood. Unless the commission
determines that a different area is more appropriate, a neighborhood shall
be defined as an area incorporating all properties lying within one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of the site for which the permit is
requested.
(b) There shall be a presumption that a special use permit for a
group home of 5, 6, 7, or 8 handicapped persons will be granted if all
ordinance requirements are met, except that individuals whose tenancy
would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
3
or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the
property of others shall not be allowed in such a home.
(c) Issues that the planning commission will consider during its
review of a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee or
probationer housing facility, or rooming, lodging and boarding facility
include, but are not limited to:
1. Spacing of existing similar facilities.
2. Existing zoning and land use patterns.
3. The maximum number of individuals proposed to be served, the
number of employees proposed and the type of services being
proposed.
4. The need and provision for readily accessible public or quasi-
public transportation.
5. Access to needed support services such as social services
agencies, employment agencies and medical service providers.
6. Availability of adequate on-site parking.
(d) The fire marshal must approve the use of any structure
proposed as a family care facility, group care facility, group home, parolee
or probation housing facility or rooming, lodging and board facility.
(e) Family care facilities, group care facilities, group homes and
parole or probation housing facilities shall be operated within any and all
applicable licensing and procedural requirements established by the State
of Arkansas.
According to a an area survey, there is one (1) other similar use and three
(3) other types of residential facilities within 1,500 feet of the property.
Will’s House, a residential facility for recovery drug abusers is located at
1200 S. Valentine Street. The Missionaries of Charity House (a
residential facility for up to 11 homeless women) is located at 1002 S. Oak
Street. The Florence Crittenton Home (for up to 9 adolescents) is located
at 3600 West 11th Street. Elm Street Community facility (for low income
and handicapped persons) is located at West 17th and Elm Streets.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this
application. Staff believes this proposed group home facility will operate
in conformance with the provisions of Section 36-54 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The site is located on West 12th Street, which is classified as
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
4
a minor arterial by the City’s Master Street Plan. As noted previously, the
site is located on a major CATA bus route. The applicant submitted a
copy of the Bill of Assurance, which was recorded in 1869 and is not
legible. The Bill of Assurance likely included no use issues. Additionally,
the proposed group home facility will conform with Sections 8-406(a)
(minimum area per dwelling unit) and 8-406(b) (minimum area per
bedroom) of the City’s Buildings and Building Regulations Ordinance.
The dwelling units will total 900 square feet and 912 square feet. The
bedrooms range in size from 132 square feet to 240 square feet. Staff
believes the proposed group home will have no adverse impact on the
general area.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004)
Don Wilson was present, representing the applicant. Staff presented the
item and requested additional information, including: a copy of the bill of
assurance; if there is to be an on-site manager; if other activities are to
occur on the site such as classes or counseling sessions; a copy of the
residents’ rules; a parking plan; fencing; site lighting; a transportation plan;
and whether occupants will work off site. Staff requested more
information on the nature of the occupants. Staff informed the Committee
that the item needed to be deferred to the December 16, 2004 since the
task force which is currently studying the issue of transitional housing has
not yet completed its work.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by October 6, 2004.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
After the Subdivision Committee meeting the applicant provided staff with
the additional information as requested.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow a group
home at 4017/4019 West 12th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the ordinance requirements as found in Section
36-54(e)(4) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2. The group home is to have a maximum of 12 residents, six (6) per
dwelling unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004)
Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be deferred to the
December 16, 2004 Agenda, in order for the Transitional Housing Task Force to
complete its work.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
5
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to
that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The application was deferred.
STAFF REPORT:
The work of the Transitional Housing Task Force, including proposing Ordinance
changes, is not complete. This item needs to be deferred to the February 3,
2005 agenda to allow that process to continue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 16, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the February 3, 2005 Agenda.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 3,
2005 meeting by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Task Force has completed its work and proposed ordinance changes have
been forwarded to the Planning Commission. This application will be amended
to a Special Use Permit to comply with the ordinance changes. Staff
recommends that the item be deferred to the March 17, 2005 Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 3, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the March 17, 2005 Agenda.
There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 17,
2005 meeting by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
6
STAFF UPDATE:
The Task Force which had been studying the issue of transitional housing
facilities in the City of Little Rock forwarded its recommendations in the form of
suggested Ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission. The
Commission reviewed the issue at its February 3, 2005 meeting. The
Commission was divided in its opinion of the proposed amendments. The Board
of Directors has not yet reviewed or acted on the suggested changes.
It is the opinion of Staff and the City Attorney’s office that the application should
be deferred again. Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the next
regularly scheduled Commission hearing, which is on April 28, 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 17, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
recommended that the item be deferred to the April 28, 2005 Agenda. There
was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 28, 2005
meeting by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the June 9, 2005 agenda to allow
further review of the issue of Transitional Housing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 28, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
recommended that the item be deferred to the June 9, 2005 Agenda. There was
no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 9, 2005
meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning Commission has continued to study the issue of Transitional
Housing and related issue. The matter was most recently discussed at the
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
7
Commission’s May 19, 2005 informal meeting. Unresolved issues remain. Staff
believes it is appropriate to defer this application to the July 21 Commission
meeting as the ordinance review process continues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 9, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
recommended that the item be deferred to the July 21, 2005 Agenda. There was
no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 21, 2005
meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Proposed ordinance amendments related to group homes and other transitional
living facilities are a separate item on the July 21, 2005 Agenda. As the
proposed amendments will directly affect this proposal, staff believes it is
appropriate to defer this item to the September 1, 2005 Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 21, 2005)
The applicants were not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented the item and recommended that the item be deferred to the
September 1, 2005 agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to September 1, 2005 with a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
On July 21, 2005, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the
Ordinance Amendments. The amendments were scheduled for the Board of
Directors’ September 6, 2005 Agenda. If the amendments are adopted, this
application will be amended to a special use permit. The item needs to be
deferred to the Commission’s October 13, 2005 agenda to allow time for the
Board to act on the proposed amendments.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 1, 2005)
The applicants were not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented the item and recommended that the item be deferred to the
October 13, 2005 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to October 13, 2005 with a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff is in the process of reviewing this Special Use Permit as per the new
ordinance requirements passed by the Board of Directors for Group Home
facilities on September 6, 2005. The applicant has not yet mailed the required
notices to surrounding property owners. Therefore, staff recommends this
application be deferred for one (1) additional cycle to allow time for the staff
review and the applicant to obtain an abstract list and notify surrounding property
owners. Staff recommends the item be deferred to the December 1, 2005
Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 13, 2005)
Staff recommended this item be deferred to the December 1, 2005 Agenda to
allow the applicant additional time to send the required notices to surrounding
property owners and to allow staff time to review the application based on the
new ordinance standards for Group Home type uses.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred. The vote was
11 ayes and 0 nays.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 1, 2005)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to complete the required
notification of surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application
be deferred to the January 19, 2006 Agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 19,
2006 Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7725
9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to complete the required
notification of surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application
be deferred to the March 2, 2006 Agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 2, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional
comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-7953
NAME: Akins Duplex – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3004 State Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Travoris Akins
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a duplex residence on this vacant,
R-3 zoned lot.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The lot is located on the west side of S. State Street; south of
West 30th Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a neighborhood that is principally single family
in use. Although there likely are a few duplexes scattered around, none
were immediately evident to staff when site inspections were made.
Single family dwellings are adjacent to the north, south, east and west.
An area of R-4, two-family residential, zoning is located just to the east
and north. While staff believes a duplex use could be compatible with the
overall neighborhood, staff cannot support this specific proposal. The
design of the proposed structure, specifically the lack of front orientation
to the street, is not compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the MLK,
Meadowbrook, MLK Neighborhood Enrichment Center and South End
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Each unit of the duplex requires one on-site parking space. The applicant
proposes to construct a 36-foot wide parking pad in front of the duplex to
provide four parking spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments on this duplex residence.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7953
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. State Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential
street. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be
required. Provide survey showing centerline of State Street.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these
streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
3. 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.
4. Driveway width does not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lots must share a
single driveway access centered on the property line. The width of
driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No Comment received.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: A CATA bus route is located one block to the east and two blocks
to the north.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 3, 2005)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on the proposed building. Staff stated the driveway
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7953
3
width needed to be reduced to no more than 36 feet. In response to a question
from staff, the applicant stated he was not proposing to install any fencing. The
applicant was instructed to provide a copy of the Subdivision’s bill of assurance.
Public Works and Utility Comments were presented and discussed.
The Committee urged the applicant to consider the design of the end of the
building, which faced the street; to be more compatible with the other homes in
the area.
After instructing the applicant to respond to staff issues by November 9, 2005,
the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a duplex
residence on this vacant, R-3 zoned lot. The proposed 64’ X 24’, one-story
structure is divided into two, 768 square foot (32’ X 24’) units. Each unit is to
contain two bedrooms, living room, kitchen and a single bath. The applicant
proposes to construct a 36 foot wide driveway off of State Street to provide
parking for 4 vehicles.
While staff is not necessarily opposed to the concept of allowing a duplex
residence on this lot, staff cannot support this particular proposal. It is staff’s
opinion that the proposed ranch style structure is not compatible with the
character of existing residences in the neighborhood. The structure is proposed
to sit on the lot so that the front entrance to each unit faces the side of the lot,
rather than the front. The units are designed to sit one behind the other on the
lot. Staff believes a structure that was designed to be more compatible with the
existing residences in the neighborhood would be more appropriate. It is more
typical in the area to have front porches and entrances facing the street. The
applicant has stated he will place shrubbery along the side of the structure facing
the street to help entrance the appearance of the site.
Staff also does not believe the proposed 36-foot wide driveway is compatible
with the neighborhood. Most lots in the area, if they have a driveway at all, have
only single wide driveways. A four-car wide parking pad gives the appearance
that the entire front yard is paved. Unfortunately, the alley behind the lot is
inaccessible.
The applicant has stated he was unable to obtain a copy of the bill of assurance
for Ebendale Addition. It is likely that the bill of assurance does not address use
issues, due to the age of the subdivision.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7953
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 1, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of
opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Several commissioners commented that they supported the concept of a duplex
at this location but they could not support the specific design being proposed by
the applicant. It was suggested that the applicant work with staff to find a
construction style that would be a better fit for the neighborhood. The applicant
agreed.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 19, 2006 meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had failed to submit a revised plan. Staff
recommended deferring the item to the March 2, 2006 meeting. There was no
further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 2, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
Staff has made several attempts to contact the applicant. There has been no
response. Staff recommends withdrawal of the item, without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission there had been no further contact from the applicant. Staff
recommended withdrawal of the item, without prejudice.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice.
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-7983
NAME: Verizon Wireless – Tower Use Permit
LOCATION: 14301 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: J. G. Construction Company of Little Rock/
Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL: A tower use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a wireless communication facility with
support structure (tower) on this C-3 zoned property.
STAFF REPORT:
On December 28, 2005, the applicant requested deferral of this item. Staff
recommends deferral to the March 2, 2006 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the March 2,
2006 meeting. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 2, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
On February 8, 2006, the applicant requested deferral of this item. The applicant
is continuing to work on site location so as to minimize the effect on neighboring
properties. Staff recommends deferral to the April 13, 2006 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item. There
was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 13, 2006
meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-1454-A
NAME: Whispering Hills Phase II Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South of Alexander Road, East of Whispering Drive
DEVELOPER:
P.E. Investments, LLC
2212 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 5.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 450 L.F.
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,271 at their February 1,
2005, public hearing. The ordinance allowed the creation of fifteen lots of single-family
residential housing with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. The average lot size
proposed was 8,900 square feet with a density of 3.14 units per acre. The applicant
indicated the development would be constructed in two phases with Lots 1 – 3 and Lots
8 – 15 developed in the first phase. Lots 4 – 7 would be developed in the second
phase.
A variance to allow a reduced front building line of 15-feet was approved for Lots 1 – 15
and a reduced rear yard setback of 15-feet was also approved. A six foot wood fence
was required along the western perimeter of the site and all construction traffic was to
take access from Alexander Road and not utilize the existing City street, Whispering
Hills.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
2
The following list the conditions applied to the development to receive final Board of
Directors approval:
• That the final engineering plans be reviewed with the neighborhood prior to a
grading permit being issued.
• That the developer install a 60-inch pipe northwesterly along the
northeasterly property line from the broken levee for the pond on adjacent
property to Alexander Road.
• That the developer install a concrete junction box on both ends of the pipe.
• That the developer construct a “V” ditch along the west property line from
Whispering Hills Drive to Alexander Road. The purpose of the ditch is to
divert the run-off from Whispering Hills Phase 1 off of Whispering Hills
Phase 2.
• That the developer place all detention in underground pipes.
• That the connection with Whispering Drive not be opened until completion of
the last home in the Whispering Hills Phase II Subdivision.
• That all homes be constructed with a minimum roof pitch of 10/12.
• That the minimum heated and cooled square footage of the homes in the
subdivision be set at 1550 square feet.
• That all homes have a concrete driveway extending the length of the front
yard from the street to the garage structure.
• That all homes be constructed with an attached garage containing a minimum
of 399 square feet.
• That the homes be constructed with brick fronts and brick wrapping around
each side approximately two (2) feet.
• That all lots be sodded in the front yard, side yard and a minimum of fifteen
feet from the structure in the rear yard.
• That a six foot fence be installed on the western boundary of the proposed
subdivision, adjacent to the Lots 10 – 15 of the Whispering Hills Subdivision.
The fence is to be constructed in “good neighbor” fashion; with the face side
directed outward.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting the revocation of the current PD-R zoning (Item
E – File No. Z-7773) and a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat.
The applicant has indicated the development of 5.09 acres with ten (10) single-
family residential lots. The average lot size proposed is 19,500 square feet with
the minimum lot size proposed as 13,850 square feet. All the indicated lots are
proposed with a 25-foot front yard building line and a 25-foot rear yard setback.
The proposal includes the extension of Whispering Drive 450 linear feet
terminating in a cul-de-sac. Tract 1 contains 8,070 square feet and Tract 2 has
been indicated with 6,000 square feet. Each Tract has been indicated as storm
water detention.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site located south of Alexander Road. Current
access to the site is from Whispering Drive which is a narrow substandard street.
There is a pond located to the east of the site on an adjoining parcel. To the
west of the site is a single-family neighborhood, Whispering Hills Subdivision
Phase I. To the south of the site is vacant R-2, Single-family zoned property.
North of the site has developed with single-family homes located on large lots
accessed by Alexander Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed development and the proposed minimum
square footages of the new homes. Staff has indicated this is not a question
typically requested of the applicant since the request is a preliminary plat. Staff
has noted the indicated lot sizes exceed minimum ordinance requirements. All
abutting property owners, the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the
Alexander Road Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Alexander Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The area
reserved for storm water detention is fairly small, odd shaped area.
Provide additional details of construction.
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. A standard street width of 26 feet measured back of curb to back of curb is
required.
5. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street
including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main existing on site. The Developer of the project must
establish sewer service for each lot. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at
688-1414 for additional information.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
4
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will
be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Install 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: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 26, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the request was previously
approved as a PD-R to allow the construction of 15-single-family homes. Staff
stated as a separate item on the agenda the developer was requesting a
revocation of the PD-R zoning and the restoration of the previously held R-2,
Single-family zoning classification. Staff stated there were additional items
necessary to complete the plat review process. Staff requested the applicant
provide the average lot width for the indicated cul-de-sac lots. Staff noted the lot
width was measured from the building line except in cases where lots abutted a
cul-de-sac in which case the average lot width was used. Staff also requested
the developer remove the indicated side and rear yard setbacks. Staff stated in
these areas the zoning ordinance setbacks would apply unless a reduced
setback was being requested.
Staff questioned if any of the conditions of the previous approval would apply to
the proposed development. The applicant indicated he did not feel the
developer was willing to commit to any additional requirements other than those
required by the ordinance.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Alexander Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Staff stated dedication
of right-of-way would be required. Staff also stated the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the proposed development.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the January 26, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated side and rear yard easements and a 25-foot front
building line adjacent to Whispering Hills and a 35-foot building line adjacent to
Alexander Road. The revised site plan indicates dedication of right-of-way along
Alexander Road and Whispering Drive per Master Street Plan requirement.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of 5.09 acres into 10 single-family lots
resulting in a density of 1.96 units per acre. The average lot size proposed is
19,500 square feet and the minimum lot size proposed is 13,850 square feet;
both more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The site plan also indicates the construction of Alexander Road and
Whispering Drive complete with curb, gutter and sidewalk per current Master
Street Plan standard.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates two locations for detention. Tract 1 has
been indicated with 8,070 square feet and Tract 2 has been indicated with 6,000
square feet. The plat indicates the current drainage calculations and a note
stating the post development flows will not exceed the predevelopment flows.
The applicant has stated prior to a grading permit being issued detailed drainage
plans will be provided to staff.
The applicant has indicated the previous conditions of the PD-R zoning do not
apply to this proposed development. The applicant has indicated compliance
with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance will be adhered to for the development of
the proposed lots.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is proposing the extension of
Whispering Hills to serve nine (9) of the proposed lots and one (1) of the
indicated lots will take access from Alexander Road. The proposed lots sizes
are more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
6
with the proposed request. No variances from the Subdivision Ordinance are
being requested.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property owners as
required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be
deferred to the March 2, 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 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The owner’s representative was present representing the request. There were
registered objectors present. The proposed preliminary plat (Item D – File No. S-1454-
A) and the proposed revocation request (Item E – File No. Z-7773) were discussed
simultaneously.
Staff presented the revocation request with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated
per Section 36-454(d) the owner may for cause request the repeal of the ordinance
establishing the development. Staff stated the owner had indicated the development
would not be constructed on the site as proposed due to economic constraints of the
previously approve site plan.
Staff presented the preliminary plat request also with a recommendation of approval.
Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat fully complied with the minimum requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance for properties zoned R-2, Single-family.
Mr. Homer Ellis stated he lived adjacent to the site at 13507 Alexander Road. He
stated he was encourage the developer was proposing the construction of ten (10)
single-family homes and not the original fourteen (14) homes. He stated the current
development was more in keeping with the existing development pattern in the area.
He stated his concern was drainage and water run-off from the site. He stated he
would prefer a ditch with culvert rather than open drainage. He stated the ditch would
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454-A
7
overflow and create a lake on the adjoining property. He stated with the placement of
coverage drainage this would channel the water and was less likely to create washing
and flooding.
Mr. Harold Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
the original proposal allow for the placement of a six foot fence along his property line
and the applicant’s development. He questioned if the developer was willing to commit
to the placement of a fence in this area as a part of the current plat approval. He also
question if Whispering Drive was damaged who would be responsible for repair.
The owner’s representative stated there was not a ditch located along the western
boundary of the site. He stated the ditch would be placed along the eastern perimeter
following the existing drainage pattern in the area. He stated the developer would not
utilize Whispering Drive for construction traffic of the infrastructure of the proposed
subdivision. He stated all construction traffic would access the site from Alexander
Road. He stated once the lots were sold the builders would utilize Whispering Drive for
the new home construction. He stated he could not commit to the placement of a fence
along the western perimeter of the site. He stated the developer was proposing the
development of the site following the City’s Subdivision Ordinance which did not require
the placement of fencing between single-family subdivisions.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the road
and who would be responsible if the road was damaged during construction. The
Commission also questioned staff as to the proposed drainage and the capability of the
proposed drainage system to carry the water. Staff stated the road would be video
taped as to the current condition and if the road was damaged by construction traffic
the developer would be responsible for repair. Staff stated if the damage could not be
linked to the developer then the City would be responsible for repairs.
Staff stated the design of the drainage would be reviewed in detail prior to construction.
Staff stated the ditch on the end of the cul-de-sac would require piping if located within
the front building setback. Staff stated there were two areas identified as detention on
the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated these detention areas would be flat bottoms
with gently sloping sides. Staff stated typically the homeowners were responsible for
up-keep of the detention areas. Staff stated in some cases the City would take over
detention areas for maintenance.
There was no further discussion of the items. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the revocation request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha).
The Chair entertained a separate motion for approval of the preliminary plat request as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals
(Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha).
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7773
NAME: Whispering Hills Short-form PD-R Revocation
LOCATION: South of Alexander Road, East of Whispering Hills Drive
DEVELOPER:
P.E. Investments, LLC
2212 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 5.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 15 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L. F.
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PROPOSED USE: Single-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,271 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 1,
2005, established Whispering Hills Short-form PD-R. The rezoning was from R-2 to
PD-R to allow the development of a residential subdivision. There were several
variances requested with the development of the site therefore the planned
development process was utilized. The developer intended to develop the subdivision
with 15 single-family homes.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant submitted a request dated January 9, 2006, requesting the current
PD-R zoning be revoked and the previous R-2, Single-family District zoning
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7773
2
classification be restored. The applicant has indicated the proposed residential
development will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section
36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing
the development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site located south of Alexander Road. Access
to the site is from Whispering Drive a substandard street surfaced as a
“chip-seal” roadway and open ditches for drainage. There is a pond located to
the east of the site on an adjoining parcel. To the west of the site is a
single-family neighborhood, Whispering Hills Subdivision Phase I. To the south
of the site is vacant R-2, Single-family zoned property. North of the site has
developed with single-family homes located on large lots accessed by Alexander
Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed development. All property owners located
within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within
300-feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Alexander
Road Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current PD-R
zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to R-2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property owners as
required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be
deferred to the March 2, 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 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The owner’s representative was present representing the request. There were
registered objectors present. The proposed preliminary plat (Item D – File No. S-1454-
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7773
3
A) and the proposed revocation request (Item E – File No. Z-7773) were discussed
simultaneously.
Staff presented the revocation request with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated
per Section 36-454(d) the owner may for cause request the repeal of the ordinance
establishing the development. Staff stated the owner had indicated the development
would not be constructed on the site as proposed due to economic constraints of the
previously approve site plan.
Staff presented the preliminary plat request also with a recommendation of approval.
Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat fully complied with the minimum requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance for properties zoned R-2, Single-family.
Mr. Homer Ellis stated he lived adjacent to the site at 13507 Alexander Road. He
stated he was encourage the developer was proposing the construction of ten (10)
single-family homes and not the original fourteen (14) homes. He stated the current
development was more in keeping with the existing development pattern in the area.
He stated his concern was drainage and water run-off from the site. He stated he
would prefer a ditch with culvert rather than open drainage. He stated the ditch would
overflow and create a lake on the adjoining property. He stated with the placement of
coverage drainage this would channel the water and was less likely to create washing
and flooding.
Mr. Harold Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
the original proposal allow for the placement of a six foot fence along his property line
and the applicant’s development. He questioned if the developer was willing to commit
to the placement of a fence in this area as a part of the current plat approval. He also
question if Whispering Drive was damaged who would be responsible for repair.
The owner’s representative stated there was not a ditch located along the western
boundary of the site. He stated the ditch would be placed along the eastern perimeter
following the existing drainage pattern in the area. He stated the developer would not
utilize Whispering Drive for construction traffic of the infrastructure of the proposed
subdivision. He stated all construction traffic would access the site from Alexander
Road. He stated once the lots were sold the builders would utilize Whispering Drive for
the new home construction. He stated he could not commit to the placement of a fence
along the western perimeter of the site. He stated the developer was proposing the
development of the site following the City’s Subdivision Ordinance which did not require
the placement of fencing between single-family subdivisions.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the road
and who would be responsible if the road was damaged during construction. The
Commission also questioned staff as to the proposed drainage and the capability of the
proposed drainage system to carry the water. Staff stated the road would be video
taped as to the current condition and if the road was damaged by construction traffic
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7773
4
the developer would be responsible for repair. Staff stated if the damage could not be
linked to the developer then the City would be responsible for repairs.
Staff stated the design of the drainage would be reviewed in detail prior to construction.
Staff stated the ditch on the end of the cul-de-sac would require piping if located within
the front building setback. Staff stated there were two areas identified as detention on
the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated these detention areas would be flat bottoms
with gently sloping sides. Staff stated typically the homeowners were responsible for
up-keep of the detention areas. Staff stated in some cases the City would take over
detention areas for maintenance.
There was no further discussion of the items. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the revocation request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha).
The Chair entertained a separate motion for approval of the preliminary plat request as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals
(Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha).
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-7989
Owner: Winrock Development Company
Applicant: White-Daters and Associates
Location: South end of Blackburn Drive
(The Villages of Wellington Subdivision)
Area: 10.91 Acres
Request: Rezone from MF-6 to R-2
Purpose: Future Single Family Residential Development
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Single family residences; zoned R-3
South – Multifamily development; zoned MF-18
East – Undeveloped property and single family residences; zoned R-2
West – Undeveloped property; zoned R-2 and MF-6
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on or near a CATA bus route.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the St. Charles Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning from MF-6, Multifamily 6-units per acre to R-2,
Single Family for a single-family subdivision.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7989
2
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
All the streets and proposed streets in the amendment area are shown as a
Local on the Master Street Plan. A Local street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan:
The Bicycle portion of the Master Street Plan does not show any Bike
Routes in or adjacent to the amendment area.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal lists an
objective relevant to this case. The objective is to ‘Ensure that future
developments of existing undeveloped land meet neo-traditional design
standards, including the placement of neighborhood passive green space
and community services within developing neighborhoods’. The
development of this property after zoning should be reviewed with this
objective in mind.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Winrock Development Company, owner of the 10.91 Acre property
located at the end of Blackburn Drive, is requesting to rezone the property
from “MF-6” Multifamily District to “R-2” Single Family District. The
rezoning is proposed for future single family residential development.
The property is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded. The property
has varying degrees of slope. The Villages of Wellington single family
development is located north and east of the property. A multifamily
development is located immediately to the south along Wellington Hills
Road. There is undeveloped R-2 and MF-6 zoned property to the west.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Low Density
Residential. The requested zoning change to R-2 does not require a
change to the Land Use Plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning. Staff views the downzoning
of this property to R-2 for future phase(s) of the Villages of Wellington
single family subdivision as a very minor issue. Staff feels that the
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7989
3
requested rezoning to R-2 is appropriate, and should have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The Planning
Commission previously approved (2004 and 2006) a preliminary plat for
single-family residential lots for this 10.91 acre property.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional
comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-7993
NAME: Scrubbs Day Care Family Home –
Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 2815 Vancouver Drive
OWNER: Verna Scrubbs
APPLICANT: Verna Scrubbs
PROPOSAL: A special use permit is requested to allow a Day
Care Family Home to be operated in the single
family residence located on the R-2 zoned property
at 2815 Vancouver Drive.
A. Public Notification:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
B. Staff Analysis:
2815 Vancouver Drive is located on the northeast corner of Vancouver
Drive and West 29th Street. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and
contain single family residences.
The applicant’s home is a one-story brick structure, and is typical of those
in the general area. The rear/side yard is fenced and provides a safe play
area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 7:30 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted that she will
have an employee(s) as required by the State Department of Human
Services, depending on the ages of the children.
There is a two-car wide concrete driveway from West 29th Street, with
parking for four (4) vehicles. Staff feels that this will allow sufficient space
for drop-off and pick-up of children. On inspection of the site, staff
observed no vehicles parked on unpaved areas. Staff also observed no
vehicles on the site, which were not operational.
The applicant is currently providing care for five (5) children at this
location, and has been doing so for a few months. The applicant is in the
process of being licensed by the State for up to ten (10) children.
The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No
signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7993
2
applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood,
which was recorded in 1962 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of
Assurance contains the following language:
“1. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE. No lot shall be used
except for residential purposes. No building shall be
erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot
other than one detached single family dwelling not to exceed
2 ½ stories in height and a private garage for not more than
two cars.”
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance
establishes the site and location criteria for day care family homes as
follows:
Day care family home:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the
care giver and which is the full time residence of the care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State
of Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees
residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from
households other than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day
care centers are not allowed by right.
f. After the effective date of this subsection, no Special Use Permit will
be approved for a day care family proposed to be located within 300
feet of a licensed day care center or an operating day care family
home for which a Special Use Permit has previously been approved.
For the purposes of this subsection, the distance between properties
shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening
structures or objects, from property line to property line.
g. All day care family homes located in the City of Little Rock are required
to obtain a City of Little Rock business license and to pay an annual
business tax as specified in Chapter 17. of the Code.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7993
3
h. A copy of the day care family home’s current State of Arkansas license
must be submitted to the City Collector’s Office each year at the time
of payment of the annual business tax.
i. All vehicles must be parked on an on-site paved surface.
j. All vehicles located on the site must be operational.
k. All pick-up and drop-off of children shall be on the property’s driveway
and not on the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
l. Special Use Permits for day care family homes shall be reviewed by
staff every three (3) years for compliance with the development criteria
and Planning Commission approval.
m. The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed
day care family home.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot
be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issue associated with this
application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this
location will have no adverse impact on the general area. Based on
information provided by the State, there are no permitted/licensed day
care family homes or day care centers within 300 feet of the site.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
Verna Scrubbs was present, representing the application. Staff presented
the proposed special use permit request. Staff noted that inspection of
the site revealed no violation of the ordinance requirements for day care
family homes. Staff noted that the applicant is currently caring for up to
five (5) children at this location. Staff also explained that this property is
not located within 300 feet of another day care family home or day care
center.
There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forwarded
the application to the full Commission for final action.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care
family home at 2815 Vancouver Drive, subject to the following conditions:
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7993
4
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section
36-54(e)(3).
2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones.
3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to
day-light hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to complete the required
notification of surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application
be deferred to the April 13, 2006 Agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 13, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-7994
NAME: Quality Living Center – Transitional Living Facility –
Special Use Permit
LOCATION: 3925 Asher Avenue
OWNER: Bill Rush
APPLICANT: Dino Davis
PROPOSAL: A special use permit is requested to allow a
Transitional Living Facility to be operated within the
existing building at 3925 Asher Avenue.
STAFF NOTE:
The applicant contacted staff on February 9, 2006 and requested this application
be deferred to the April 13, 2006 Agenda. Staff supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested (on February 9,
2006) the application be deferred to the April 13, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported
the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 13, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: G-23-359
Name: McGee Road – Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location: South side of Interstate 30, at Otter Creek
South Road
Adjacent Owners: 430 Investments LLC, TLC Properties, Inc.,
Shur-Value Stamps, Inc.
Applicant: Colliers Dickson Flake Partners, Inc.
Request: To abandon the undeveloped 25-foot wide
McGee Road right-of-way (25 feet by 451 feet)
located south of I-30 and intersecting Otter
Creek South Road.
Purpose: To incorporate the area of abandonment into
the adjacent property to the west for future
development.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
As noted in paragraph G. of this report, all of the public utility companies
consent to the right-of-way abandonment. None of the utilities request the
area of abandonment be retained as a utility easement. The Public
Works Comment is as follows:
1. If utilities are present, an easement should be maintained within the
abandoned right-of-way.
B. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues, as the right-of-way is not
classified as a Collector Street or higher.
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The area of right-of-way is currently undeveloped and wooded.
D. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the area of right-of-way will be incorporated into the
adjacent property to the west for future development.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-359
2
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect
There are industrial and office uses to the east, south and west (across
I-30). There is also undeveloped industrial zoned property in the area.
Abandoning this right-of-way will have no adverse impact on the general
area.
F. Neighborhood Position
The SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Association was notified of
the abandonment request. As of this writing, staff knows of no objectors
to the proposed abandonment.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Wastewater: No objection. No easements requested.
Entergy: No objection. No easements requested.
CenterPoint Energy: No objection. No easements requested.
Southwestern Bell: No objection. No easements requested.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. No easements requested.
H. Reversionary Rights
McGee Road was dedicated with the Three “G” Subdivision, Plat Book 5,
Page 8. Therefore, all reversionary rights will extend to the owners of Lots
1 and 2, Three “G” Subdivision to the west.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning this street right-of-way will have no adverse impacts on the
public welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire Department has no
objection to the abandonment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicant was not present. Staff briefly described the requested right-of-way
abandonment. Staff noted that all of the utility companies agreed to the
abandonment, with no utility easements requested.
There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-359
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the exclusive abandonment of the 25 foot by
451 foot McGee Road right-of-way located adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Three “G”
Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional
comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: G-23-360
Name: Alley Right-of-Way Abandonment – Block 78,
Original City of Little Rock
Location: Block bounded by West Markham, West 2nd,
Main and Louisiana Streets
Adjacent Owners: The Capitol Hotel Joint Venture, LRDP on
Arkansas Limited Partnership, 100 Main
Building LLC
Applicant: McClelland Consulting Engineer, Inc.
Request: To abandon the north/south 20-foot wide alley
right-of-way (20 feet by 300 feet) located within
Block 78, Original City of Little Rock.
Purpose: To incorporate the area of abandonment into
the adjacent property to the east (1/2 block) for
development of a parking lot for the Capitol
Hotel.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way
As noted in paragraph G. of this report, all of the public utility companies
consent to the right-of-way abandonment. The utilities request the entire
area of abandonment be retained as a utility easement. The Public
Works Comment is as follows:
1. Currently, stormwater utilities are located within the alley near West 2nd
Street. A utility easement should be maintained within the abandoned
right-of-way.
B. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues, as the right-of-way is not
classified as a Collector Street or higher.
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain
The alley right-of-way is currently paved and serves as a through access
between West Markham and West 2nd Streets.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-360
2
D. Development Potential
Once abandoned, the right-of-way area will be incorporated into the east
half of the block for future development of a parking lot for the Capitol
Hotel, after removal of the old Continental Trailways building.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect
The west half of Block 78, Original City of Little Rock is occupied by the
Capitol Hotel and an associated parking lot. The east half of the block
contains the building previously occupied by Continental Trailways. The
surrounding blocks contain a mixture of uses within the UU (Urban Use)
zoning district.
F. Neighborhood Position
The Downtown, River Market and East of Broadway Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the abandonment request. As of this writing,
staff knows of no objectors to the abandonment request.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Wastewater: No objection. Retain area of right-of-way as a utility
easement.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment. Retain area of right-of-way as a
utility easement.
CenterPoint Energy: No objection to abandonment. Retain entire area
of right-of-way as a utility easement, with no structures being built over
it. Maintain access to existing gas mains located in the alley right-of-
way.
Southwestern Bell: No objection to abandonment. Retain area of right-
of-way as a utility easement.
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water has no objection to the
closure of this street right-of-way. We do, however, have an 8-inch
water main in this alley, along with meters and a private fire service for
the Capital Hotel. Therefore, we would require that the Capital Hotel
sign an agreement for the 8-inch main to become a private line, which
they would maintain along with the meter setting and fire service
connection. Also, the Little Rock Fire Department must approve the
accessibility they need to this area. Otherwise, the meters and fire
service connection must be relocated to another acceptable location
and the water main in the alley will need to be abandoned.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-360
3
H. Reversionary Rights
This alley right-of-way was dedicated with the Original City of Little Rock
subdivision. Therefore, all reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent
property owners to the east and west within Block 78, Original City of Little
Rock (same common ownership).
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Abandoning this alley right-of-way will have no adverse impact on the
public welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire Department has no
objection to the abandonment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
Brian Tinnel and Kent Taylor were present, representing the application. Staff
briefly described the proposed right-of-way abandonment. Staff noted that the
area of abandonment would need to be retained as a utility and drainage
easement, based on comments from the public utility companies and the Public
Works Department.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full
Commission for resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of the 20 foot wide north/south
alley right-of-way located within Block 78, Original City of Little Rock, subject to
the entire area of abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage
easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional
comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4478-I
NAME: Verizon Wireless – Tower Use Permit
LOCATION: 13625 Saddle Hill
OWNER/APPLICANT: Central Arkansas Water/Bracewell-Giuliani
PROPOSAL: A tower use permit is requested to allow this existing
WCF with support structure (cell tower) to be
increased in height from 125 feet to 139 feet to
accommodate co-location of another carrier (Verizon).
The property is zoned R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The WCF is located on a Central Arkansas Water tank site off of Saddle
Hill Drive.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is single family in use and zoning.
The WCF is located within a Central Arkansas Water tract that contains a
large water tank and other antennae and towers. Increasing the height of
this existing tower from 125 feet to 139 feet to accommodate co-location
of a wireless service provider will not affect the WCF’s compatibility with
the neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillsborough and Chenal
Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
An existing driveway off of Saddle Hill provides access to the WCF site.
There is sufficient room on the site to accommodate any needed parking
for a technician who might need to service the WCF.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
On June 20, 2000, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,288
granting a waiver of the WCF landscaping and screening requirements for
this existing WCF site.
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-I
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer service not required for this project.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection. Central Arkansas Water supports the construction
of the fence and driveway to provide separate access to the cell tower
structures.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there were no
outstanding issues. Staff informed the Committee that variances were needed to
allow increasing the tower height to 139 feet since the tower had setbacks from
abutting residential properties of 129.53 feet on the north and 129.08 feet on the
south. Staff also informed the Committee that the Board of Directors had
previously granted a waiver of the landscaping and screening requirements for
this WCF site. There was no further discussion.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On February 3, 1999, staff approved the construction of a Wireless
Communication Facility with support structure on this R-2 zoned property. The
site is occupied by a large water tank and other communication equipment. The
tower was approved at a height of 125 feet. It complied with the then-ordinance
requirements. Subsequently, additional wireless carriers have located on the
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-I
3
tower. On June 20, 2000, the Board of Directors granted a waiver of the new
landscape and screening requirements for the WCF since it is located within a
Waterworks Utility site.
Verizon Wireless is now proposing to co-locate on the tower. To accommodate
Verizon’s antennae, the height of the tower will be increased from 125 feet to
139 feet (including antennae). A tower use permit is required because the tower
has existing setbacks of 129.53 feet and 129.08 feet from abutting residentially
zoned properties on the north and south respectively. The lease area at the
base of the tower which holds the other carriers’ equipment will be expanded
slightly to accommodate Verizon’s equipment. The overall portion of the site
which holds the water tank and other equipment is currently enclosed by a chain-
link security fence. Some new security fencing will be added within the site to
segregate the WCF lease area from the water tank.
Staff is supportive of the requested T.U.P. Allowing the increased tower height
to accommodate Verizon will lessen the probability that an additional tower will
be needed in the area. The Ordinance requires towers to be set back from
abutting residential properties a distance equal to or exceeding the height of the
tower. The requested variances are for 9.5 feet and 9.9 feet. Staff believes
these minor variances will not affect adjacent properties.
The Board of Directors’ landscape and screening waiver was granted until such
time as there is a “major change in circumstance.” A “major change in
circumstance” means:
that the area within 200-feet of the boundaries of the tower site
lease has developed to the point that there is a virtually
unobstructed view of the tower from any adjoining residence
located in an area zoned R-1, R-2 or R-3, and
(1) (a) The City has received a complaint from the owner of
such a residence located within 200-feet of the tower site
that the site has no landscaping or screening in place;
and
(b) The City has requested that the parties resolve the
issue by agreeing to certain screening or landscaping
requirements consistent with LRO 18,173, which can be
granted administratively by the Director of Planning and
Zoning, but no agreement has been reached.
Staff does not believe the current application is, in and of itself, a major change
in circumstance and recommends that the previous waiver continue. There is no
bill of assurance issue.
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-I
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Tower Use Permit and of continuation of the
previously approved landscape and screening waiver.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
NAME: Fellowship Bible Church/Pulaski Academy –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: SW corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Fellowship Bible Church/
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull and Burrow
PROPOSAL: A revision to the Fellowship Bible Church conditional
use permit is requested to allow a private school.
Pulaski Academy, located adjacent to the west, is
buying the church property. The property is zoned
R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the SW corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Roads.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This property has been occupied by a mega-church for several years.
There are activities on the campus seven days a week with the heaviest
usage being on Sundays. Pulaski Academy proposes to use and occupy
the existing buildings and parking lots. The two large institutional uses
located at Napa Valley and Hinson have had an impact on the overall
neighborhood; primarily along the lines of traffic impact. In staff’s opinion,
the proposal may actually reduce the overall impact of the two uses.
Included with this proposal is a traffic circulation and parking plan, which
should help to reduce congestion on the abutting streets during the
weekdays. Once Fellowship completely vacates the site, the Sunday
impact will be virtually eliminated.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Pleasant Valley,
Rainwood Cove, Marlow Manor, Hunters Cove, Glen Eagles and Hunters
Green Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. As of this
writing, staff has received no comments.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site is developed with driveways and parking. There are two (2)
access points on Hinson Road and two (2) on Napa Valley. The site
contains 323 parking spaces. A new driveway will be constructed at the
lower (south) end of the site, connecting the site to the Pulaski Academy
campus to the west. The total number of classrooms proposed for this
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
2
(Fellowship) site is 38. Thirty-one (31) will be for ages 3 year old – 4th
grade. Seven (7) classrooms will be for enrichment activities shared by all
students in these buildings. Staffing on this site will be 59. The school
currently has an enrollment of 1,300. Over the next 30 years, enrollment
is projected not to exceed 1,950. Total available parking for the school
will be 949 spaces. A traffic study has been prepared by Peters and
Associates, which provides several recommendations, and conclusions
that will be incorporated into the C.U.P., if approved.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there was little
additional information that was needed. Staff asked if there would be any time
that the property would be used by both Fellowship Church and Pulaski
Academy. Staff asked the applicant to provide typical days and hours of usage
and to provide a signage plan. The applicant was asked to provide the
anticipated number of classrooms by grade, number of teachers and employees.
Staff made note of the traffic study, which had been supplied by the applicant
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
3
and asked the applicant to provide a circulation plan for movement of
pedestrians across Napa Valley.
There were no other issues. The applicant was advised to reply to staff issues
by February 15, 2006. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Pulaski Academy has contracted to purchase seventeen (17) acres of the
Fellowship Bible Church property located at Napa Valley and Hinson Roads.
Approximately 6.4 acres of the property is located east of Napa Valley Road.
This property is zoned O-2 and contains one building and 391 parking spaces.
Approximately 10.6 acres are located west of Napa Valley. This property is
zoned R-2 with a C.U.P. for the existing church and contains several buildings
and 323 parking spaces. A revised conditional use permit has been requested to
allow use of the R-2 zoned property for a private school.
Pulaski Academy intends to use and occupy the existing buildings and parking
lots located on the newly acquired property. Other than new signage on
buildings and directional signs for ingress and egress into and through the
campus, the renovations of existing buildings will be internal. No significant
infrastructure improvements will be required other than those required to allow
for a new driveway connecting the Pulaski Academy and Fellowship Bible
Church campuses. The acquisition of land from Fellowship Bible Church will
more than double the school’s acreage however, the school states it has no
intention of doubling its enrollment of 1,300. The purpose of the acquisition is to
enhance the quality of the school’s programs. Consistent with this objective,
long term projections indicate that over the next 30 years, enrollment will not
exceed 1950.
Pulaski Academy will purchase Fellowship Bible Church’s properties and
Fellowship Bible Church will lease the properties from Pulaski Academy until
March 30, 2008. During the time that Fellowship Bible Church leases the
property, there may be some common use of the facilities. Pulaski Academy
may use some gymnasium space during the school day, with students shuttled
by bus to and from what is currently the Fellowship Bible Church student
ministries building located east of Napa Valley. Pulaski Academy may also use
some space in the Fellowship Bible Church Worship Center for selected fine arts
performances and other activities. These performances will be scheduled so
that they would not conflict with Fellowship Bible Church activities. There may
be office space in the Fellowship Bible Church student ministries building used
by Pulaski Academy for 6 employees. Both Fellowship Bible Church and Pulaski
Academy have shared parking lots on a regular basis for years.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
4
Once Fellowship Bible Church vacates the site, the lower grades will be
relocated from the existing Pulaski Academy campus to classrooms on the
Fellowship Bible Church site. Over the next two years, all of the buildings and
grounds on the current Pulaski Academy property will be evaluated during a
Master Planning process. This process will then guide the school in making
decisions to determine which buildings may be removed and which may be
renovated.
Although the property east of Napa Valley is not included in this application since
it is zoned O-2, staff had questions regarding pedestrian movement across Napa
Valley to access the new facilities. The applicant has responded that some
upper level students currently park east of Napa Valley and walk to the Pulaski
Academy campus. During arrival and dismissal, the corner of Napa Valley and
Hinson is monitored by off duty police officers. That pedestrian movement may
continue during the lease period. After the lease period, it is anticipated that
those students will park on the west side of Napa Valley. When the Fellowship
Bible Church Student Ministries building is used for physical education classes,
students will be shuttled to and from that building. If pedestrian movement
becomes necessary, the school will develop security procedures, as needed.
Historically, with both Pulaski Academy and Fellowship Bible Church, traffic has
been a major concern to persons in the neighborhood and those persons driving
past on Hinson and Napa Valley Roads. To address those concerns, Pulaski
Academy commissioned a traffic study by Peters and Associates Engineers.
The “executive summary”, recommendations and conclusions of the report are
as follow:
INTRODUCTION
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. has conducted a traffic
and parking study for the Pulaski Academy School campus
in Little Rock, Arkansas. This study has been conducted to
assess the existing and proposed parking and access to all
areas of the entire school campus facility in conjunction with
purchase of the Fellowship Bible Church (FBC) property
adjacent to the school, and provide recommendations for
improvements or mitigative measures needed to assure
convenient, safe and efficient access for students
transported by private vehicle, teachers and staff, as well as
visitors to the campus. As a part of this study, this
consultant has worked with the school administration though
several work session on access and circulation.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
5
The existing school campus consists of pre-school thru 12th
grade is located on the south side of the Hinson Road, just
west of the existing FBC campus. The layout of the existing
Pulaski Academy campus and the FBC campus, as well as
the number of existing parking spaces for each is depicted
on Figure 1, "Existing Parking and Building Uses."
The work of this study has involved the following:
• Conducting field inventory to include existing parking
spaces on the existing Pulaski Academy campus as
well as FBC.
• Conducting traffic counts at existing entry and exit
points to the Pulaski Academy campus intersecting
Hinson Road and at the intersection of Hinson Road
and Napa Valley Drive.
• Observing traffic operations during the morning and
afternoon arrival and dismissal hours.
• Noting existing traffic control measures at the study
intersections.
• Develop a conceptual campus building-use, access
and circulation plan (including the proposed pick-up
and drop-off locations).
• Determine projected traffic volumes to include the
Pulaski Academy campus, plus the acquisition of FBC
property, entering and exiting the school campus for
the entering and exiting points during the AM and
school PM peak hours (projected for Fall, 2008).
• Identify the effects of traffic operations resulting from
existing traffic in combination with redistributed and
maximum enrollment of 1,950 students generated
traffic associated with Pulaski Academy.
• Evaluate projected traffic volumes and traffic
operations at the school access points intersections
and at the intersection of Hinson Road and Napa
Valley Drive.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
6
• Existing traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 2,
"Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and School PM Peak
Hours," and are shown in more detail in the Appendix
of this report.
In the following sections of this report there are presented
traffic data, study methods, findings and recommendations
of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic
engineering study is technical in nature. Analysis techniques
employed are those most commonly used in the traffic
engineering profession for traffic impact analysis. Certain
data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis
are referenced in the report. Complete calculations and data
are included in the Appendix of the report.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations of this study are as follows:
• It is recommended that access, circulation, pick-up
and drop-off locations be configured as shown on
Figure 3, "Proposed Building Use, Access and
Circulation Plan." This includes double-lane on-site
queuing from Hinson Road to the south end of the
existing middle school and upper school pick-up /
drop-off location.
• It is recommended to construct a connecting drive
from the existing Pulaski Academy campus to the
existing FBC campus (as shown on Figure 3) to
accommodate internal circulation and access to Napa
Valley Drive.
• It is recommended to utilize the addition of Drive C
(accessing Napa Valley Drive) as a full-directional
access drive (with City-planned improvements in
place).
• It is recommended to continue the use of police
officers at the access points proposed to serve
Pulaski Academy accessing Hinson Road and
accessing Napa Valley Drive after the school
acquisition of the FBC property.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
7
• It is recommended to continue to use on-site traffic
coordinators (school employees) that work at several
key locations throughout the campus, including pick-
up and drop-off locations and at vehicle conflict points
within the site, during the AM and PM peak school
traffic times.
In conclusion, with the acquisition of the FBC property, there
will be several benefits in the immediate vicinity of Pulaski
Academy including the following:
• Better site access and internal circulation.
• More available parking.
• Less Pulaski Academy destined vehicles queued on
the surrounding streets with much more internal
vehicle storage queuing availability.
• Acceptable traffic operations at each ingress and
egress drive intersecting adjacent streets.
A complete copy of the study has been provided for the commissioners and will
be included in the zoning case file as a part of the application.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff believes the proposal will result in a long-
term solution to the traffic impact created by these two existing institutional uses.
Ultimately, the use of the property by Fellowship Bible Church will cease, virtually
eliminating traffic concerns on Sundays. Acquisition of the site by Pulaski
Academy creates a situation where the two sites can be tied together to better
facilitate traffic movement on and off of the site onto Hinson and Napa Valley
Roads. The parking, access and circulation plan created by Peters and
Associates shows greatly expanded stacking space and circulation through the
connected campuses. Designated drop-off and pick-up areas will be shared by
the two campuses. The proposed plan should result in improved traffic flow on
the abutting streets during peak times when school is in session.
The bill of assurance for this tract does not address use issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional use permit to allow the
Fellowship Bible Church property at the southwest corner of Napa Valley and
Hinson Roads to be used by Pulaski Academy as a private school subject to
compliance with the recommendations outlined in the traffic and parking study
prepared by Peters and Associates Engineers.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5403-C
8
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow dual use of the campus as
described in the staff analysis through March 2008 at which time use of the site
by any entity other than Pulaski Academy is to cease.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present and no letters of
opposition had been received. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, including all comments and conditions as noted in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusing (Yates).
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
NAME: City Faith Correctional Facility –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1401 South Garfield Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Faith/Terry Williams
PROPOSAL: City of Faith is requesting renewal of its conditional
use permit to operate a correctional facility on this
O-3 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of Garfield Street, two blocks south of
West 12th Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The facility has operated at this location since it was constructed in 1996.
By all accounts the facility has been a “good neighbor” and is compatible
with the neighborhood. The property is located in an area of mixed zoning
and uses. The facility has a community relations board which meets on a
monthly basis with neighborhood representatives to address any issues.
Staff believes extending the C.U.P. will not affect the facility’s continued
compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 500 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the University Park, Point
O’Woods, Broadmoor, Oak Forest and Fair Park Neighborhood
Associations were notified of this request. Additionally, public hearings
were held on February 7 and 21, 2006 at the University Park Adult Leisure
Center. Notice of these public hearings was advertised in the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette and sent to owners of properties located within 500
feet of the site.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The property has access from Garfield Street and via an access drive to
University Avenue. There is paved parking for 30 vehicles on site. The
existing parking is sufficient for the use.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments, all improvements existing.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments, all improvements existing.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that
successful tests of the existing backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) at
this facility be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by
the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must
be sent to CAW’s Cross Connection Section annually and is overdue
at this time.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: CATA bus routes are located just east of this site, along
University Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted there was little
additional information needed. Staff asked the applicant to confirm that no
aspect of the use had changed since the prior C.U.P. approval. The applicant
responded that there was no change. In response to a question from staff, the
applicant stated the Bureau of Prisons contract was for 5 years. There was no
additional discussion.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City of Faith Community Correctional Center is located on the O-3 zoned
property at 1401 S. Garfield Street. At the time the facility opened in 1996, such
uses were permitted “by-right” in the O-3 district. In response to public concern,
the Board of Directors, on March 4, 1997, passed Ordinance No. 17,409 defining
correctional facilities and making correctional facilities a conditional use in any
zoning district. That same ordinance also established the following separation,
spacing and procedural requirements for correctional facilities:
Separation, spacing, and procedural requirements for
correctional facilities shall be determined by the planning
commission so as not to adversely impact the neighborhood.
Correctional facilities are subject to the following additional
requirements:
a. Before a conditional use permit for a correctional facility
can be granted, the applicant shall clearly establish the
following:
1. All property owners or persons operating a
business within five hundred (500) feet of the
property line of a proposed correctional facility have
received notice by certified mail of the exact
location of the property and its intended use;
2. This required notice was sent to each person
before any contract for operation of the facility was
granted, that this notice properly sets forth the
exact procedure and time frame for the person
notified to register objections with the appropriate
governmental agency, and that proof of such notice
is provided as required for conditional use permits;
3. The facility is not located within five hundred (500)
feet of the property line of any school, any facility
that operates programs for youth, or another
correctional facility;
4. The applicant has conducted two (2) public
hearings after having first advertised the meetings
and location prominently not less than five (5) nor
more than seven (7) days prior to each meeting;
that such advertisement was prominently displayed
and not a mere legal advertisement, in a
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
4
newspaper with seven (7) days a week county-wide
circulation;
5. Procedures are in place should the permit be
granted that the chief of police shall be notified
within one (1) hour that a resident of the facility has
escaped or failed to return when required;
6. Adequate security measures are in place to prevent
any resident of the correctional facility from violating
subsection (5) more than once in a thirty-day
period.
b. These requirements for correctional facilities are in addition
to any other provisions required for a conditional use permit
under this code. These requirements are mandatory and not
directory. In the event of a conflict with the other provisions
of the code, these requirements shall control. Substantial
compliance is not sufficient. Failure to comply with these
requirements shall be a basis to deny the permit. Within one
hundred twenty (120) days of granting the permit, the permit
may be rescinded upon presentation to the planning
commission of clear and convincing evidence that the
applicant failed to comply with subsections (1) through (4)
above. Failure to comply with subsections (5) and (6) two (2)
times within a ninety-day period, or the commission of a
violent felony by a resident of the correctional facility, shall
be a basis for determining that security is inadequate and
such determination shall be a cause for immediate
revocation of the permit. The planning commission shall
establish procedures for presentation of such evidence and
for placement of the matter on its agenda for public hearing.
c. The terms “group care facility”, “rooming or boarding”,
“community, welfare or health care”, “establishment for a
religious, charitable or philanthropic organization”,
“governmental or private recreational uses”, and “rooming,
lodging or boarding facilities”, shall not include a
correctional facility as a permitted use.
d. Any correctional facility in operation on the effective date
of this section shall be required to come into compliance
with this section and obtain a conditional use permit within
four (4) years of the effective date of this section.
In conformance with Subsection “d” above, City of Faith applied for and was
issued a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission on February 8,
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
5
2001. Objectors appealed that action to the Board of Directors and, on May 6,
2001, the Board upheld the Commission’s approval. The C.U.P. was approved
to coincide with the length of the Bureau of Prisons contract which expires on
September 30, 2006. The contract is up for renewal. The bid date was January
11, 2006. The award date will be June 2, 2006 with the new contact to begin on
October 1, 2006. City of Faith is requesting approval of a C.U.P. to allow
continued operation of the correctional facility. The applicant has stated that
nothing in the current proposal differs from that approved in 2001 other than the
facility no longer houses direct court commitments, due to a change in Justice
Department policy.
The following information was provided by City of Faith describing the facility and
its operations.
The City of Faith – Little Rock Community Correctional Center is located at
1401 South Garfield Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204. The center has a
designed capacity for 97 residents, 77 male residents and 20 female residents.
The center provides services to adult offenders who are 18 year of age or older.
The average length of stay is six months. The security level for all residents is
classified as minimum-community.
The center is located in a residential/business community and has easy access
to public transportation and also permits eligible residents to drive personal
vehicles under stringent guidelines.
The center is a two-story brick structure that has ten thousand (10,000) square
feet. The center was built in 1996 and has two handicap parking spaces and
forty parking spaces for staff and residents. The first floor of the center has a
lobby, control station, administrative offices, kitchen, dining area, staff restroom,
U.A./medical supply closet, director’s office, laundry room, handicapped
restroom, handicapped room (capacity for two residents), and four bedrooms for
female residents that have alarmed doors at both ends of the hallway.
The second floor of the center houses male residents. There are 13 rooms on
the second floor that house between three to seven residents. There is a
storage room, laundry room and restrooms on the second floor. There is a day
room on the second floor that has ample room to sit and has access to a
television. All resident rooms have access to natural light. All common areas
are personally decorated with plants, pictures and other memorabilia that add to
the attractiveness and professionalism of the overall environment.
The center is professionally landscaped and has several patios (covered and
uncovered), barbecue area, three stationary picnic tables, several chairs and
built-in sitting areas. The center has an outdoor (half-court) basketball area, and
green-space for weight lifting.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
6
The center has a team of professionals that are divided into the following
positions:
1 Executive Director
2 Deputy Executive Directors
1 Program Manager
1 Senior Case Manager
2 Case Managers
1 Chief of Security
6 Resident Security Staff
1 Home Confinement Coordinator
The mission and management philosophy of the City of Faith Community
Correctional Center is to provide a versatile community-based alternative to
conventional incarceration for those offenders referred to the center by
contractual agreements.
Since every offender in residential treatment ultimately returns to the community,
the center incorporates a carefully monitored, progressive reintegration into
society. The City of Faith emphasizes a risk reduction goal utilizing programs
designed to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding, self-sufficient, contributing
members of the community; thereby, changing an offenders attitude and
consequently the probability of future criminal behavior. Thereby, behavioral
changes achieved during a relatively short period of residential treatment may
become enduring characteristics that enable the offender to reintegrate safely
and productively into the community.
The City of Faith offers a series of sentencing options more intrusive than
probation, but less punitive than incarceration. Oversight, monitoring, substance
abuse testing and counseling are provided. Thereby, maximizing compliance
with treatment and court orders.
The staff of the City of Faith makes a concerted effort to confront unacceptable,
inappropriate behavior, and the failure to meet program requirements.
The Community Correctional Center in tandem with alternative to incarceration,
offers a sensible long-term solution to changing needs of the justice community.
The applicant has reiterated the commitment made to the Board of Directors that
the facility will not take felons convicted of violent crimes, sexual assault or
crimes against children.
City of Faith has completed all required notification and newspaper
advertisements as outlined in the Ordinance. Public meetings were held at the
University Park Adult Leisure Center on February 7 and 21, 2006.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6974-A
7
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. Staff believes it is
appropriate to approve the C.U.P., again tying the approval to the length of the
Bureau of Prisons contract. There is no bill of assurance issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. The C.U.P. is approved for a five-year period to coincide with the Bureau of
Prisons contract beginning October 1, 2006.
2. If City of Faith’s federal contract lapses or is cancelled, the C.U.P. is voided.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present and no letters of
opposition had been received. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. Staff noted that a facility that included a childcare
operation had located near the site since the correctional facility had first been
approved. It was noted that the childcare was less than 500 feet from the
correctional facility. Staff recommended approval of a variance from the 500 feet
separation requirement since the childcare facility had located in the area
subsequent to the opening of the correctional facility. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, including all staff
comments and conditions. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7570-A
NAME: James Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 6805 Woodson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Carolyn James
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the
owners/occupant of this single-family residence to
operate a day care center with a maximum enrollment
of 18 children. The property is zoned R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the southeast corner of Woodson and Newstead;
two blocks south of West 65th Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. All
surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single-family
residences. An area of commercially and industrially zoned properties
extends along 65th Street, located two blocks north of this site. Staff
believes changing the nature of the use from a day care family home to a
day care center is not appropriate for this site. The increased level of
activity associated with the proposed day care center could have a
negative impact on nearby residential properties.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Wakefield and
SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of
this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A day care center for 18 children with one employee requires 3 on-site
parking spaces. The site has a single-wide paved driveway and 3-parking
spaces. The applicant is proposing to pave a small additional area
adjacent to the driveway so that vehicles can turn around and exit the site
without backing onto Woodson Road.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
minimal ordinance requirements.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7570-A
2
Screening of vehicular use areas and landscaping will be required with
any new vehicular use areas.
The property to the south and to the east is zoned residential; therefore, a
six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along
both the southern and eastern perimeters of the site.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Adequate parking must be provided per Little Rock code.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. If this conditional use permit is approved and
this becomes exclusively a daycare facility, the customer should
contact Central Arkansas Water to request that the water account be
changed to commercial status.
Fire Department: Fire sprinklers may be required. Contact Little Rock
Fire Marshall’s office at 918-3752.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Routes are located
farther to the west on Geyer Springs and farther to the east on
Lancaster.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted there was little
additional information needed. Staff asked the applicant to provide a signage
plan and to redesign the parking areas so that vehicles enter and exit the site in
forward motion (no backing into the street). Staff stated the playground area
should be screened on the east and south side where adjacent to residential
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7570-A
3
property. It was also noted that the vehicular use area will have to be
landscaped. Utility and Fire Department comments were noted. The applicant
was directed to contact the individual agencies, if there were questions.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 15, 2006. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property at 6805 Woodson Road is occupied by a one-story,
brick and frame, single-family residence. There is a one-car concrete driveway
from Woodson Road with parking for 3 vehicles, including a single-car carport.
On July 29, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a Special Use Permit to
allow the owner/occupant to operate a day care family home. The S.U.P. allows
the applicant to keep up to 10 children. Approved days and hours of operation
are Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. A portion of the front yard
has been fenced to provide a play area. The S.U.P. allows the applicant to have
one employee, if required by the State Department of Human Services.
The applicant is now proposing to increase the enrollment of her day care
operation from 10 children to 18 children. Days and hours are proposed to
remain the same. One employee is proposed, if required by the State. The
applicant proposes to expand the paved parking area slightly so that vehicles
can turn around and exit the site without backing onto Woodson Road. The
playground area will continue to be in a portion of the front yard. The applicant
proposes to place a 6-foot tall, wood privacy fence along the south and east
perimeters of the playground/parking area. A 2-foot by 2-foot wall sign is
proposed to be placed on the front wall of the home.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed day care center. Staff is generally
supportive of day care family homes that comply with the standards established
by the code. Under a day care family home, the principal use and nature of the
property remains single family. In staff’s opinion, increasing the level of activity
by expanding the enrollment changes the nature of the use. A day care center
would be better located outside of the heart of a residential neighborhood. It
would have less impact if it were located at the fringe of the neighborhood, on a
collector or arterial street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7570-A
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Two letters of
opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
The applicant, Ms. James, addressed the Commission. She stated she had
agreed to put in the screening fence and would expand the paved parking area
as required. Ms. James stated the Fire Marshall had approved an enrollment of
16 children. She read from a letter in which she discussed improvements she
had made to the house and property to make them safe and useable for
childcare. Ms. James presented photos of the site and a copy of what she
described as a petition signed by neighborhood residents in support of the day
care.
In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Ms. James stated there
would be one employee besides herself, the house was approximately 1,400
square feet in size and the property was not in a platted subdivision.
Commissioner Laha stated he did not believe the paved parking area was
sufficient.
Commissioner Adcock questioned why the Fire Department comment indicated
the possibility of having to install sprinklers. Staff responded that the standards
were different for a day care center.
Pat Gee, Vice-President of SWLRUP, spoke in opposition. She stated the
association had voted to oppose the application. Ms. Gee voiced concerns
about traffic, substandard streets and the appropriateness of allowing the
business in the neighborhood.
Karen Burnett, of 14 Newstead Drive, spoke in opposition. She also voiced
concerns about the condition of the street, traffic and the inappropriateness of
allowing the business at this site.
Ms. James responded by stating she also agreed that traffic was a problem but
she was careful to keep the children safe.
A motion was made to approve the application, subject to staff comments and
conditions. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-7990
NAME: SOHO Modern Gallery – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 2200 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Capital Properties, Inc./Rebecca Hayley
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a retail
furniture store and interior design studio to locate in
one bay of this existing, I-3 zoned warehouse
complex.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the north side of Cantrell Road; just east of its
intersection with Coolwood.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
Although the property is zoned I-3, the complex is not a heavy industrial
site. Uses are principally light industrial, wholesaling and the retail uses
which are permitted in the industrial zones. The proposed retail furniture
store and interior design studio will be compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Hillcrest
Neighborhood Association were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
A large, shared parking lot extends along the front of this multi-tenant
building. Access to the site is off of Cantrell Road. There is sufficient
parking on the site to accommodate the use.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7990
2
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted there was no
additional information needed. There was no additional discussion. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A conditional use permit is requested to allow a retail furniture sales business
and interior design studio to locate in one bay of the I-3 zoned warehouse
complex at 2200 Cantrell Road. The applicant, SOHO Modern Gallery, sells
modern furniture and provides interior design service. The percentage of
business is broken down into 60% retail and 40% interior design. The applicant
will warehouse modern furniture for her design clients. There will also be a
showroom. The building and parking are all existing. The only change will be
the interior remodeling necessary to accommodate SOHO.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. Although the site is zoned I-3, it is
not a heavy industrial complex. The uses in the complex are light industrial,
warehousing and the allowable retail in industrial. This use is not listed as a
specifically permitted retail use in I-3, thus the need for the C.U.P. The proposed
use will be compatible with uses in the complex which include other home
improvement and service uses. There is no bill of assurance issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P., as filed.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7990
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval, as filed. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7991
NAME: MEMS Ambulance Substation –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: #3 Pine Mountain Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Christopher Maris/MEMS
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a
MEMS ambulance substation to be located in the
existing residence located on this R-2 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of Pine Mountain Road; just off of
Pinnacle Valley Road at Cantrell Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses. The PCD
zoned properties to the east contain a landscape service company;
mini-warehouses and commercial uses. A PD-O zoned veterinary clinic is
located slightly west of the site. Cantrell Road and the new alignment of
Pinnacle Valley Road are located to the south. A variety of commercial
uses extend west of the intersection. Single-family homes are located
along Pine Mountain Road. Under the applicant’s proposal, this property
would continue to maintain its residential appearance. Other than for
parking an ambulance, there would be no external evidence of the use
change.
All owners of properties within 200 feet of the site, all residents within
300 feet who could be identified and the Secluded Hills, Westchester,
Westbury and River Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of
this proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains a singlewide concrete driveway and a two-car wide,
paved parking pad. The parking pad will serve as parking for the two
employees who are on duty. The ambulance will be parked in the
driveway. MEMS proposes to widen the driveway from its existing width
of 12 feet to 17 feet to better accommodate the ambulance. The
proposed parking is sufficient for the use and maintains the residential
appearance of the site.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7991
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
minimal ordinance requirements.
Screening of vehicular use areas and landscaping will be required with
any new vehicular use areas.
Any adjoining property that is zoned residential will also require a six (6)
foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: If this conditional use permit is approved and this becomes a
MEMS facility, the customer should contact Central Arkansas Water to
request that the water account be changed to commercial status.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted there was little
additional information needed. Staff asked the applicant to provide a copy of the
bill of assurance. The applicant was also asked if this was a permanent use or
only temporary until a different site was located. Staff presented the conditions,
which had been offered by the applicant. Utility, Public Works and Landscape
Comments were noted.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7991
3
The applicant discussed the need to have a substation to serve this part of the
City. He stated the nearest substation was at Rodney Parham and Treasure
Hills. He stated an ambulance occasionally parked at Chenal and Bowman.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 15, 2006. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services (MEMS) proposes to utilize the
existing R-2 zoned, single-family residence at #3 Pine Mountain Road as an
ambulance substation. Other than for a slight widening of the driveway, no
changes will be made to the property. Two employees will be located at the
house on a rotating 24 hours on – 48 hours off basis. No changes will be made
to the residence. Employees receive calls on hand-held radios or cell phones.
An ambulance will be parked in the residence’s driveway. The on-duty
employees will park on the existing parking pad adjacent to the house.
Staff is supportive of the proposed use. MEMS has submitted the following list
of conditions which will be attached to their use of the property:
• We will house a crew on a rotating 24 hours on, 48 hours off basis (same as
the fire department)
• We agree not to turn on the siren until we approach the intersection at
Cantrell, or until we pass the neighbors in the cases where we are turning
towards Maumelle Park.
• As far as improvements we would like to widen the driveway by 5’ to allow for
the ambulance to enter the drive more easily.
• There is an existing concrete pad beside the house that will be adequate
parking for the two employee’s cars that are on duty.
• We have no plans for signage other than a sign (approx. 6” X 12”) at the front
door that explains if an ambulance is not in quarters and you need help to call
911.
• We expect no public traffic.
The City’s adopted land use plan shows this area to be Transition, which is
appropriate for office uses. In this case, the proposal is to maintain the
residential character of the property while allowing the substation use. It is likely,
in fact, that this use may serve as a holding use for the property. There is a
potential that long-term the larger area around this site may redevelop as some
thing other than the existing, detached single family. The applicant has stated
this may not be a permanent use; that the substation may relocate in the future,
perhaps in conjunction with a new fire station. No commitment on any type of
time frame can be made at this point.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7991
4
The bill of assurance for Pine Mountain Subdivision was created in 1958 and
appears to still be valid. Section 1 of the bill of assurance contains the following
statement:
No lot other than Lot “P” shall be used except for residential purposes.
The subject property is Lot “O”.
In light of the specifics of this proposal, staff supports a waiver of the screening
requirements. The driveway is located on the south side of the lot where there is
no abutting residential property. There is no outside activity other than for
parking of the ambulance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the conditions proposed by MEMS.
Staff recommends approval of a variance from the screening and buffer
requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the
Commission that, on March 2, 2006, the applicant had requested withdrawal of
the item.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws to accept the late withdrawal request.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The item
was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7992
NAME: Caradine Adult Day Care Center –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1101 Cumberland
OWNER/APPLICANT: Wallace Caradine
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow an adult
day care center and associated office to operate in
the existing building located on the R-4A zoned
property.
STAFF UPDATE:
On February 15, 2006, the applicant requested deferral of the item. The
applicant is preparing responses to the issues raised at Subdivision Committee.
Staff recommends deferring the item to the April 13, 2006 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the
April 13, 2006 Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: G-25-193
Name: West 41st Street – Street Name Change
Location: West 41st Street; from John Barrow Road
to Malloy Street
Petitioner: Mrs. Hattie Moore
Request: Change the name of this two-block section of
West 41st Street to Raymond Savage Drive.
Abutting Uses and Ownerships:
Eight (8) lots abut this two-block portion of West 41st Street. Three (3) of the lots
are vacant. Single-family residences are located on four (4) of the lots.
Rosedale Church of God in Christ is located on the last of the lots. Rosedale
Church and three (3) of the four (4) residents have signed the petition supporting
the proposed name change.
Neighborhood Effect:
None of the abutting residences or the church take an address from West 41st
Street. All take addresses from the intersecting streets. Changing the street
name will have no effect on those properties.
Neighborhood Position:
The church (applicant) and three (3) of the four (4) residents affected by the
proposal have signed the petition. The other parties will be notified of the
proposal. Staff notified the John Barrow Neighborhood Association. As of this
writing, no comment has been received by staff.
Effect on Public Services:
West 41st Street, west of John Barrow Road, extends for only two (2) blocks.
There is no more 41st Street extending beyond Malloy Street. No properties in
this two (2) block length of 41st Street take 41st Street addresses, minimizing the
potential effect on public services.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The membership of Rosedale Church of God in Christ, located at 4100 Ludwig
Street, is requesting that the name of that portion of West 41st Street, located
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-193
2
between John Barrow Road and Malloy Street, be changed to Raymond Savage
Drive. The proposed name change is to honor Raymond Savage, founder and
pastor of the church. Rosedale Church of God in Christ was founded in 1948.
Eight (8) lots abut this two (2) block section of West 41st Street. Three (3) of the
lots are vacant. Single-family residences are located on four (4) of the
residences. The church is located on the last lot. The petition supporting the
name change was signed by the church and three (3) of the four (4) residents.
None of the abutting properties take a 41st Street address. All take addresses
from the intersecting streets. 41st Street extends only two (2) blocks west of
John Barrow Road, making Barrow a logical location for the break in street
name.
Three (3) street name signs will need to be changed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the street name change.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5411-A
NAME: Roberts Duplex – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3505 Hill Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bobby and Kathryn Roberts/Carolyn Lindsey
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
conversion of the existing residence on this R-3/R-5
zoned lot back into a duplex.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Hill Road; one lot west of
Valentine Street and one block north of Kavanaugh Blvd.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a residential neighborhood that is characterized
by a variety of residential uses; including single family, duplexes and
multifamily. Multifamily uses are located to the west and south. Single
family residences are located to the north and east. This structure has, in
the past, been a duplex residence, but most recently has been occupied
as single family. The proposed duplex use is not out of character for this
neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet, all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association
were notified of this issue.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Each unit of the duplex requires 1 ½ parking space. The proposed plan
indicates a single driveway for each unit. The driveways are only wide
enough for one vehicle but it may be possible to stack two cars in each.
There is also room on the street in front of the duplex to park one vehicle.
Staff supports the parking variance.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5411-A
2
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer service for this property unknown. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No Comments received.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: A CATA bus route is located to the south of this site, along
Kavanaugh Boulevard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 9, 2006)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there was little
additional information needed. Staff requested a copy of the bill of assurance.
Staff noted the variances to allow reduced front and side yard setbacks and to
allow the parking as proposed.
Utility Comments were noted.
The applicants were advised to respond to staff issues by February 15, 2006.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The property at 3505 Hill Road is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame
residential structure. The structure was built as a duplex but most recently has
been used as a single family residence. The front half of the property is zoned
R-3 single family and the rear half of the property is zoned R-5 Urban Residence.
This is due to an error in the legal description of the rezoning ordinance which
was intended to rezone the property to the east from R-5 to R-3 as a part of the
Hillcrest rezoning. Since a portion of this lot is now zoned R-3, a C.U.P. is
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5411-A
3
required to rehabilitate the structure for use as a duplex. The applicants occupy
the single family residence adjacent to the east.
Two variances are requested. The site plan shows two, single-wide driveways;
one for each unit. The Code requires 1 ½ parking spaces per unit. The
driveways should accommodate two vehicles, stacked one behind the other.
There is also space for one car to park on the street in front of the duplex. The
applicants propose to enclose an existing porch in the east side of the duplex
and to construct a covered porch on the front of the structure. The porch on the
side will have a setback of 3 feet; the Code requires 5 feet. The porch on the
front will have a setback of 17 feet; the Code requires 25 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. and of the variances. The proposed
duplex is compatible with uses and zoning in the area. The parking variance is
minor and should have minimal impact on the neighborhood. The porch
enclosure on the side will maintain the existing side yard setback of the house.
The front porch addition will line up with the residence adjacent to the east.
Neither variance should impact neighboring properties.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The applicant has
submitted a statement that there is no valid bill of assurance for this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. as filed.
Staff recommends approval of the parking and setback variances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval, as filed. Staff also recommended
approval of the parking and setback variances. There was no additional
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7573-B
NAME: Hicks Beauty Products and Salon –
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 6805 West 12th Street, Suite H
OWNER/APPLICANT: Danny Thomas Properties/Aundria Hicks
PROPOSAL: A revision to a previously approved conditional use
permit is requested to allow for an expansion of this
beauty salon and associated retail sales of beauty
products. The property is zoned I-2.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant failed to respond to issues raised at the February 9, 2006
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends deferring the item to the
April 13, 2006 Commission agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff
presented a recommendation of deferral. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 13, 2006
Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: 307
NAME: Reese Annexation
REQUEST: Accept 9.94 acres plus or minus to the City
LOCATION: Southwest of the Kanis – Pride Valley Road intersection
SOURCE: Randal Frazier, Agent for Glen Reese
GENERAL INFORMATION:
• The County Judge scheduled a hearing on the proposed annexation
February 23, 2006.
• The area requested for consideration has a stick built house and mobile
home on it, with a few outbuildings on wooded land.
• There is one owner, the Glen Reese Estate.
• The annexation request is to obtain Sewer and other City Services.
• The area in question is a rectangular tract, approximately 380 feet by
1038 feet.
• No islands would be created by this annexation.
• Currently the property is zoned Planned Residential Development.
• The property owner has indicated an intention to develop 50 homes on
the tract.
AGENCY COMMENTS:
Public Safety:
Fire: The Fire Department noted that Station 20 is within one and a half
miles, a ladder truck (Station 21) is less than 2 and half miles from the
area and the flows at hydrants in the area are adequate.
The closest fire station is a driving distance of one and a quarter to one
and a third miles from the site requesting annexation. Growth in the far
western area does raise a concern. The Department has identified the
need for additional fire stations in the western area.
Police: The Little Rock Police Department indicates this annexation would
have only a minor impact on the department. While one annexation by
itself has minimal to no impact, “collectively over time they may require
additional public safety resources.”
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO. 307
2
The annexation area is adjacent to Patrol District 71. Currently cars must
drive along the annexation boundary to provide service to existing areas
within the City Limits on the east side of Kanis Road.
Infrastructure and Community Facilities:
Central Arkansas Transit: No Comment Received.
The closest CATA route is Route 5 – West Markham. Its closest point to
the annexation area is over a mile away at Chenal Parkway and
Markham.
Parks and Recreation: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department has
not indicated they have any concerns or issues with the annexation.
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan shows this site to be
within 8-blocks of an existing City park or open space – the Rock Creek
greenbelt.
Public Works: The Little Rock Public Works Department indicates there are no
street, drainage or solid waste issues with this annexation. A preliminary
plat for this site has been reviewed by the Public Works Staff and
accepted.
This section of Kanis Road was annexed into the City in 1987. Therefore
maintenance of Kanis would not be an added burden on the Public Works
Department. Pride Valley Road for length of 1038 feet would be an added
maintenance responsibility for the City. The developer will have to
improve both Kanis Road and Pride Valley to Master Street Plan
standards at the time the proposed subdivision is developed.
Public Works notes that solid waste services will be handled at the street-
side, not in alleys or private easements.
Utilities:
Central Arkansas Water: Central Little Rock Water indicates a 20-inch line is
adjacent to Kanis Road. An improvement district installed this line, thus a
connection fee to reimburse the district may be required. At the time of
development additional water facilities will be required. These additions
will have to be made at the expense of the developer.
There is a 16-inch water main that is along Pride Valley west of Kanis
Road within the City limits. A 12-inch water main is along Kanis Road
from Pride Valley north to Chenal Parkway. There are hydrants along
Kanis Road both north and south of Pride Valley Road. The construction
of the proposed subdivision will require the extension of water mains and
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO. 307
3
addition of fire hydrants at the cost of the developer/owner.
Entergy: No Comment Received.
There are available electric lines adjacent to the site on two sides.
Reliant-Energy: No Comment Received.
Wastewater Utility: The Little Rock Wastewater Utility indicated no objection to
the annexation. However, sewer main extensions would be necessary to
service the site.
There is sewer service west of Kanis Road along Pride Valley and to the
north along Rock Creek. At the time the proposed subdivision is
constructed extension of mains will be required at the cost of the
developer/owner.
Schools:
Little Rock: No Comment Received.
The site requesting annexation is not within the Little Rock School District.
Pulaski County Special: No Comment Received.
The site is adjacent to Baker Elementary School. It is within the
attendance zone for Joe T Robinson High School and Middle School.
ANALYSIS:
The site in question is adjacent to the city limits for a distance of 440 feet along
Kanis Road. The City is exercising subdivision and zoning regulations for this
area. The site recently was approved for a 50 lot single-family subdivision
through the Planned Residential Zoning process. Prior to this reclassification the
property was zoned R-2 Single Family. The City has indicated the appropriate
use – single family. The only issue is the density. The recently approved PRD
can only be developed with sewer. If the City truly wants the property developed
at this density, annexation is the appropriate action to allow sewer service.
The annexation area is generally a rectangle in shape. It borders the city limits
along Kanis Road from Pride Valley Road to Baker Elementary School.
Currently there are two residential units on this 9.94-acre tract. One is a mobile
home the other is a stick built home. The applicant has submitted and been
approved by the Planning Commission to construct a 50-lot single-family
subdivision. One of the conditions of approval placed on the site by the Planning
Commission was annexation.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO. 307
4
Since this is a site that will redevelop from a large tract with a residence to a
subdivision of homes, all the infrastructure for the site will be constructed by the
applicant to city standards. The applicant will improve the adjacent roads, both
Kanis Road (an Arterial) and Pride Valley Road (a Collector). The developer will
construct all internal roads to city standard, as well as the other infrastructure --
water, sewer and drainage.
The site is currently wooded except for residential development (a mobile home
and stick built house) along Kanis Road. The high point of the site is near the
southwest corner with an elevation near 512 feet. The low areas are along Pride
Valley, around 477 to 480 feet. The total site elevation change is around 25 feet.
Rock Creek is to the north across Pride Valley Road over 700 feet away.
The city limits has been in place at this location since 1987. Development has
been occurring to the west along Pride Valley Road as large lot single-family. To
the east, the frontage of Kanis remains mostly rural, but behind that, single-
family subdivisions were completed in the 1990s. Development of single-family
homes has been occurring to the southwest in the Capital Lakes Subdivision and
to the north in the Villages of Wellington as well as to the northwest in Chenal
Valley.
Currently both police and fire provide service to the properties along the east
side of Kanis Road. The closest fire station is located on Oak Meadow just west
of Markham. There are fire hydrants along Kanis Road and additional hydrants
will be required with the construction of the new subdivision. The Fire
Department does note concern about the continuing demand of new
development on the Department without the addition of new stations previously
identified by the Department. The Police currently patrol Kanis Road, which is
within the City. At the time of development the new subdivision will increase the
amount of street to be patrolled by 1362 feet.
Water lines are across Kanis Road from the site, which will be extended by the
developer as part of the new subdivision. Sewer service is currently along Rock
Creek to the north. The developer will be required to extend the wastewater
lines to this site as part of the subdivision of the land. Electric and Cable
services are available along both Kanis and Pride Valley Roads. As part of the
subdivision of the site, additional right-of-way and facilities will be constructed for
each utility.
Both north and south of this site, the City Limits is further west. The Capitol
Lakes development mentioned earlier is a large single-family subdivision with
several hundred-apartment units and a garden-home section. This development
is southwest of the annexation request area. To the north northwest across
Rock Creek is a partially developed shopping center with a large office complex
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO. 307
5
further to the northwest along Chenal Parkway. Within a mile to the west, large-
lot, 3 and 5 acre, single-family subdivisions have been developed over the last
decade.
As noted the City’s actions through subdivision and zoning indicated more
development of the site is appropriate. The land is near portions of the City that
account for the majority of the new development in Little Rock and have done so
for several decades. The result of annexation will be the densification of this site
from two to 50 homes. This transformation will include construction of new
infrastructure by the developer. Some of this new infrastructure, the widening of
both Kanis and Pride Valley will help benefit the general area. Public services
are in the general area; some will have to be extended to the site. This is a
normal part of the development process in Little Rock. The area requesting
annexation is within the natural growth area of Little Rock. Densification and
development of this land along an arterial roadway, which is within the City Limits
both to the east and west of this site, is a natural and logical occurrence.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. The consent agenda was
approved by a vote of 10 for, 0 against and one absent (Darrin Williams).
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 17
Title: First Tee Park Plan Review – Life Champs Ball Fields
Presented by: Little Rock Parks and Recreation
Location: North of First Tee Way and West of Kramer Street
Zoning: PR (Park and Recreation District)
STAFF REPORT:
Little Rock Parks and Recreation (LRPR) is working with Life Champs program
to construct new football fields as an initial development and later expand as
space allows for other field games. The 2001 Master Parks Plan outlined a
deficiency of playing fields and development of these fields will help answer this
demand.
Life Champs program is a separate organization from LRPR. Life Champs
targets their program towards children between the ages of five and twelve.
Football is the venue from which life skills are taught to the participants. To
borrow a phrase from Life Champs that embodies their philosophy, “building
champions for life through excellence in athletic instruction and competition while
teaching character.”
Location of the football fields is north of The First Tee grounds. The fields are 30
yards by 80 yards and four are planned in this phase. Access will be taken by
driving by the recently approved Animal Village off of Kramer Street. Initial
phase will be access, parking and football fields. Later phases will entail
basketball, baseball and volleyball programs and supporting infrastructure, i.e.
parking, lighting, irrigation, etc.
The available land for development is fill material brought in from the drainage
project executed in the 1980’s. It is relatively flat and treeless, which allows for
easy and cost efficient construction. The surrounding land uses and features are
the future Animal Village, The First Tee, Rock Creek floodplain and several
residences on a cul-de-sac. There is over one hundred feet of buffer between
the residences and future build out of this program.
The football program starts in August and ends in November. There is also a
three day sports camp program that occurs in the July. Program times and
durations will be modified as demands and programs change.
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.)
2
A particular attribute about the Life Champs’ location is The First Tee and Animal
Village is next to it. It is believed that these organizations can find shared goals
and support each other’s programs.
According to Section 36-322 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Development
Criteria for PR zoned property), the Planning Commission is required to review
development plans for projects in the PR zoning district as follows:
“The city departments of planning and development, parks and
recreation, and public works shall present any plans for the
development of a property within the PR park and recreation district
to the planning commission at a public meeting and shall
demonstrate that the proposed development, or redevelopment,
plans are consistent with the goals expressed in the Little Rock
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This presentation is for
information purposes only, and no formal action is required unless
a majority of the members of the planning commission vote to
approve a motion that states:
a. That the city staff is in error; and
b. The proposed plan is totally inconsistent with goals and vision of
the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and
c. That the city board of directors should review the presented
plan to determine if it is consistent with the Little Rock Parks
and Recreation Master Plan; and
d. If such an affirmative vote is taken, provides to the city board of
directors a written list of the reasons that a majority of the
members of the planning commission believe that the proposal
is inconsistent with the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.”
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed ball field’s development is consistent with
the goals expressed in the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006)
Staff informed the Commission that the Parks Department requested the Plan
Review be deferred to the March 30, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 30,
2006 Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.